Switch Theme:

The honest wargamer  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Clousseau




Its an interesting topic to be sure (players wanting imbalance etc or not). I have enjoyed the constructive portions of those past discussions on here and on facebook.

My opinion is colored by a lot of negative commentary on more balanced systems being "too boring" and how there is a surge to make AOS a "tsport" even though its balance is acknowledged by many to most I read or talk with as being gak. This is an interesting topic for me as well as a new game I am part of rolling out in the video game scape is having this same discussion on the balancing of faction with the same context.

You're dead on with people wanting their faction to be easy-mode though. Thats precisely why all of my local community constantly churns and burns ... sell army buy newest OP thing, repeat - and additionally why there are always on the regular posts about what is the top meta build to go out and buy.

Sites like this honest wargamer site are going to be a distillery to remove those posts and just go click on that site and truly "netlist" because the hassle of even having to ask on a forum or facebook post will be removed with a couple simple clicks.

The unknown is and always will be do the GW designers design that imbalance intentionally for marketing reasons to encourage churn and burn or are they just really that bad at balancing (for example... new stormcast coming out that are loads more powerful than the old... and yet costing the same points... seems laughably incompetent to me but I have a feeling was done intentionally)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 EnTyme wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Imagine if an esports game only saw, say, 10% of the available characters actually played at championships.


Relevant


In our focus group looking at the balance of a game I'm part of a team rolling out - the current crop of gamers actually seemed ok with this. The thing that they get into is that the character / faction they picked represents what they like visually and style wise... and as long as an OP character / faction exists that feeds that, they are ok with most of the game not being represented.

I've learned an awful lot about the new crop of gamers over the past few years with my comp pack for AOS and with the new video game projects I have been lucky enough to be a part of, because the environment and players have really changed a lot since say 2010 in both tabletop and video game players.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/11/30 15:15:11


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

Honestly I think GW doesn't balance based on some grand master scheme. I do think that there was general bias, esp in the past, to weight more favourably toward newer codex/battletomes, esp when some of those armies might have been having really bad sales because they'd not been touched in years by GW and updated models/rules. That said some of it was also because you could get to the end of an edition and there were stil quite a few armies without updates, so some of it was partly that some armies were behind.

I also htink that the net echoboxes a lot. Early days after a new codex there's often those vocal and loud that its either the BEST EVER or WORST EVER and that can often stick even if later its proven not to be the case.



I also wonder what generation and country have as influences. I tend to notice (and it might just be bias because Dakka has a bigger US population and overtly shows country) that the whole "sell and buy new hotness army" sort of comes from America more than, say, UK gamers. But without more data on that its really hard to give any concrete conclusions (and the US as a market can also be flawed to survey because state level variation can be quite significant).



That said I do think we can all agree that most people identify most with the army(ies) they are playing at present. They want that army to be strong; to be well supported with lore, models, attention from GW; to win tournaments etc... However that's a player level want and whilst GW can serve that need to some degree, its bad if they let it rule actual choices too far. Otherwise, like I said, you wind up with only a fraction of the game being played and the dwindling alternative factions only harms the game


Steady balance should be what GW is after and I think now that their management is paying more attention to gamers and the market and less to the shareholders profit as a driver; we might see them approaching more steady and even balance. We've already seen them take the first steps that way.



I think the Kirby era thinking got hooked on the whole "new hotness best ever" because it could faithfully generate a big spike in sales and thus a faster return on army investment. But it was short lived and steadily bled fans too. It wouldn't surprise me if those spikes were even getting steadily smaller too or if they were seeing steady spikes, but smaller proportions of customers (ergo some were spending more, but fewer were spending even if the total amount spent was broadly the same). Such polices might well have been behind continual price rises and such.

There are still areas GW can improve on; I think on big stumbling block is that their internal rules and testing team is too well rehearsed in playing their own games with each other. We see gaps in the rules, areas that are not clear or interactions not thought of. I think some of that comes from the fact that they are so used to playing each other and in playing wargames that many things we want rules on are, to them, just "common sense. Things they don't think about and just do so they easily end up either forgotten to be put in the rules; or even left out intentionally to meet the maximum word/page count.

A Blog in Miniature

3D Printing, hobbying and model fun! 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




I have largely stepped out of the GW-universe for right now. We wrapped up our AOS campaign a few weeks ago and afterward I got a review from all of our players.

The campaign was mostly successful but there was some frustration at some of the power builds running rampant, particularly with "stormcast teleporting all around the table and doling out so many mortal wounds" and the "spam summoning lizardmen and undead". Bearing in mind this was supposed to be a casual campaign and that the bad balance was wrecking that for a good chunk of the games that caused a cold war to erupt with lists turning into tournament lists to avoid being stomped. This led to lists becoming "sameish" and is what I consider "mono building" where you are only seeing a tiny portion of the overall game because the same power combinations are recognized and being used. Had this been a tournament the complaints would have been non existent since one expects that kind of thing at a tournament or playing highly competitive AOS.

To be clear my same balance issues exist in 40k as well. Were going to be doing Killteam in January - April so will get to see where the balance is with that game at a smaller scale. The 40k system right now is ... well... a wash right now.

It is my genuine hope that the next GHB offers some legit balancing that broadens the mono builds a bit. I know people have lashed out at that response from me and said tournaments were the most diverse ever and so the balance was fine, but I just don't agree at least from a local scope where we are trying to do non tournament level casual campaigns.

The "mono builds" (its easy to nitpick that word, there are factions like stormcast that actually have 2-3 very OP strong builds not just one as the word mono implies) are something that is acknowledged, at least in my neck of the woods, as business as usual, and I'd really like to see more variety and actual decisions be put into the game, both at the list building level since that is to me never going away in terms of how impactful it will be in the GW universe, and in the game (which right now we have a lot of what I consider false-choices, and the games I have been a part of the entire year have largely been sameish once you learn what the real choices should be and avoid the traps and false choices)

Steady balance should indeed be their goal. I'd like the design team to acknowledge how they go about that so that discussions are less speculation and more driven by the developers input.

My next AOS game is set to be the fall of 2019 after I spend a good chunk of time in the kings of war universe and ranked mass battles (what I honestly prefer and what got me into the fantasy tabletop gaming scene in the first place back in the 1990s), so the new GHB will be out then and I'll look with some cautious optimism at what they have done with the new GHB then and the game overall.

I will at least be painting the new slaanesh stuff as I want to use that in my new army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That said I do think we can all agree that most people identify most with the army(ies) they are playing at present. They want that army to be strong; to be well supported with lore, models, attention from GW; to win tournaments etc...


I agree. When I was powergaming WHFB from 99 - 2006, I was fine with the system... because my favorite faction was always OP (chaos and vampire counts).

I was full bore into the tournament scene, into making it a world championship event, etc... but because I was engaged with my chosen faction not being a wet noodle and being able to dominate people with the list.

Had my chosen faction(s) been weak or middling but not able to be OP and let me compete and win tournaments or place high in GTs as I was... i don't think I would have invested as heavily into the game and I probably wouldn't have lasted long.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/11/30 15:38:38


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 Overread wrote:
I personally feel that many people don't want unbalance, but what they like is the army they play to be strong and if playing strong is as easy as picking "X" army with "Y" list then its easier for them.

Ergo its not that people seek imbalance, but that most people naturally seek the most easy path.



Clearly if extreme imbalance is present then the path can be very easy to see and operate, but it will generally end up being a poor choice in the long run. All the "other" armies are too weak to provide fun or challenge so they dwindle in popularity and, at the extreme, you can end up with the same army VS the same army - which since both are "auto win" actually puts the game right back into a balanced situation.

So you actually end up with the same (or similar) result either way. However with a more balanced game you have far more visual variety which is important. If the visual and creative side were not important we'd be playing with tokens and counters and the model side would close down fast.

If we go for alternating power lists, such as we had for many years from GW, then it can work okish because the turn-over at least changes up the meta so that it shifts around a little too fast for most to just keep buying into the new power army. However that system, esp when it ran too slow, still left many armies underpowered and thus falling further and further behind.

On a practical level that is clearly not a good idea. It means disgruntled customers, it means inventory sitting on shelves collecting dust, it means lost income from investments and it means increase investment costs to relaunch a dead army. Meanwhile you can't just cut them away; armies that die off totally send shockwaves through the game and can unseat a game very fast from its playerbase if they feel that the developers will take away their toys.

Look at how famous squats are known even by people who never gamed with or against them or might not even have been gaming at the time squats were out.

You can recover, but a company has to invest like crazy to do it and that isn't healthy - big swings are not what you want because for all the profit of an upswing, you get an equally big downswing that can run the risk of knocking you right out (GW is a little stronger than most, but if they kept making the wrong choices then yes they could kill themselves)
I think you have a lot of good points here. I have said similar--the profits from an OP army selling very well are dwarfed by the profits lost from people who avoid playing at all due to imbalance. I also think Auticus has a point in that people either tolerate or actively desire imbalance, but I feel it is worth noting that players who do not tolerate imbalance are not playing Warhammer at all (for the most part) which essentially cuts off half the bell curve--a ton of potential players (and thus sales) GW is missing out on.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/30 19:28:21


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




I also think Auticus has a point in that people either tolerate or actively desire balance,


Did you mean *im*balance good sir?
   
Made in de
Battlefield Tourist






Nuremberg

That has certainly been a barrier for me in the past. If I was not concerned about imbalance in AoS I would already be playing. I intend to give it a go, but I am expecting to be disappointed by silly rules that should not be included.

I think the point about the Studio playing mostly against each other and having a "house style" is really true. They seem to think that balanced rules are only required when people are jerks who abuse the rules, and perhaps that is true, but they market the games as 2 player experiences with win and lose conditions. If they wanted this narrative focus they should push modes of play which involve umpires or referees, or a game master or whatever. It can be fun to do this - I have done this in the past for my gaming groups. But nowadays I need a "pick up" game that I can try with strangers, being a foreigner without a big base of friends here. Having a robust game to play to get to know people would really help me, and I have a fair bit of anxiety about disagreements or unfun stuff happening because of poorly written rules and the ambiguous crap with the bases.

   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






auticus wrote:
I also think Auticus has a point in that people either tolerate or actively desire balance,


Did you mean *im*balance good sir?
Haha yes I do, thanks for catching that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Da Boss wrote:
That has certainly been a barrier for me in the past. If I was not concerned about imbalance in AoS I would already be playing. I intend to give it a go, but I am expecting to be disappointed by silly rules that should not be included.

I think the point about the Studio playing mostly against each other and having a "house style" is really true. They seem to think that balanced rules are only required when people are jerks who abuse the rules, and perhaps that is true, but they market the games as 2 player experiences with win and lose conditions. If they wanted this narrative focus they should push modes of play which involve umpires or referees, or a game master or whatever. It can be fun to do this - I have done this in the past for my gaming groups. But nowadays I need a "pick up" game that I can try with strangers, being a foreigner without a big base of friends here. Having a robust game to play to get to know people would really help me, and I have a fair bit of anxiety about disagreements or unfun stuff happening because of poorly written rules and the ambiguous crap with the bases.
I do have to say Path to Glory is awesome, there are no points and little to no mechanism to prevent exploitation which means players do not have the metaphorical 'permission' to exploit the balance since there is no balance to exploit. Which semi-ironically leads to more people making reasonable forces ('more' still being far from 'all' but still). The Path to Glory leagues I run have one page of house/league rules plus one page of errata and they are more balanced & fun than matched play. To the point where we spend more time playing Path to Glory than anything else by a huge margin.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/11/30 19:33:49


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Not sure WoTC and M;TG's current state of OP is what anyone should be aspiring to, falling attendance, endless drama, accusations of cheating and collusion ignored or fobbed off if the accused is part of the 'in-crowd', all the shenanigans that occur when money is on the table, and thats with one of the tightest rulesets ever written, which GW's are not


Add to that the rampant cheating that already goes on in competitive warhammer!

Teehee-sports
   
 
Forum Index » Warhammer: Age of Sigmar
Go to: