Switch Theme:

Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  [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 dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






Making rules for adding Crusade upgrades in 40k would probably be pretty easy.

@Auticus how do you know there was a balance issue in the 30-minute game? You don't play the game, it could have been the losing player making a mistake or bad dice, things that can happen in a perfectly balanced game. The best way to dial in balance after release is to look at competitive lists for factions, if the faction is overperforming you nerf the units that are taken in competitive lists, if the faction is underperforming you buff the units that are not taken in competitive lists. It doesn't have to be rocket science.

If GW did some math, listened to advice from skilled players and tested properly before release there wouldn't need to be a tonne of post-release movement on points and an annual update to points would be enough.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Bold to assume the company that thought Scatterbikes in 7th was a bright idea has the ability to do math.
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

auticus wrote:I didn't read anywhere where Americans were posting that they are better at playing competitively than anywhere else.

What the conversation was saying is that in most other places in the world, there is a time and place for everything, but in America the only time and place is hammer time all the time in public games, which makes fluffy casual narrative fun time very hard to come by here... and that our european counterparts often look at those complaints and ask wtf we are doing over here that that is the case because over there its not like that at all.

I have only seen the "Merica > Europe" coming up back than before they joined the ETC. Simple arguments like US scene is better and more competitive because they have found certain lists that no one in Europe ever took to a tournament and just removed the opponent from the table early on like Imperial Guard Leafblower
which was more or less smiled upon here and commented with a "lets see if the players behind are as good as they think the lists are" and it did not work out well
I have also seen a general difference an the Wargaming community between US and Europe were certain "gamy" elements and pre-game setups were more liked by the others (eg the original Kriegsspiel having a bigger fan-base in the US than in Europe)

like the simple solutions of different victory conditions for armies of different power levels or for attacker/defenders, eg: Army A needs to simply survive the game to win while army B needs to take the objective and if both fail to achieve it, it is a draw

artific3r wrote:
 auticus wrote:

I was on the team that wrote the azyr point system for age of sigmar before official points, and while it was not perfect, it did achieve a very sold and respectable flatter bell curve, to the point where its #1 complaint was "AHHH YOU KILLED LISTBUILDING!!!!"

I always love this example you bring up about your experiences in testing a ruleset with a flatter power curve. I believe the conclusion you reached was that players don't actually want balance -- they want to be able to execute "perfect play" in the listbuilding phase and win, or at least secure a tremendous advantage, before any dice ever get rolled.

People want options, there need to be a certain theme behind like if I take unit A, I need to take unit B as well to get the most out of it. Which does not mean that unit A+unit B is better than unit C+unit D
an All Corners List should be superior over a list that only takes one, while more than one list should be viable, but just having a random selection of units being equal to an all corners list, is what most people don't like
given, first edi AoS was build around that idea, take whatever you have and being equal strong to fine tuned themed list, so any good point system would represent that
that this was not the game people want, well GW made a grade effort to get that themed list building back in by giving certain abilities to units/heroes

for 40k the problem is more that the random release of some units works against the point of themed list building, as the unit that is released is not always the unit a certain theme is missing to finally work
vict0988 wrote:If GW did some math, listened to advice from skilled players and tested properly before release there wouldn't need to be a tonne of post-release movement on points and an annual update to points would be enough.
which needs time and money, and GW does not want to give any if it away as long as people play their game anyway
if 40k is the most played miniature game, no need to invest more than necessary until this changes (so as long as people play the game, no matter if they buy from GW or pirate their rules and use proxies, everything is fine because the important part is to have no option to play a different game for those that are willing to pay)

and just changing points for units not taken or taken too often is not balancing the game but just changing the tournament meta, this is an easy way to keep the meta alive and make people play different lists to that the game does not get boring for those that play it often
adding different stratagems or formations/themes is another one, as well as different scenarios, different FOC or victory conditions for a season, so that last years list need to adjust for next year

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 auticus wrote:
There is one very large flaw with basing game balance solely on tournament results.

Tournament metas are not a reflection of the game as a whole. They are a reflection of the most uber and optimized choices that represent roughly 5% of the entire game.
It's a shame more people don't see that. Unfortunately, the one big group that doesn't see it that way is GW, given that they're going full tilt with tournaments.

I keep saying that 9th is 'Tournament Edition'. There are still people who can't accept this, even with this news.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/29 10:24:11


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






Yes, what is GW thinking listening to people that have proven themselves against resisting opponents over and over again instead of people that haven't played for years, absolute insanity /sarcasm.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Yeah, 'cause that's the issue people have with this...

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

my problem with calling 9th the tournament edition is simply, the current version of the game is not well written or thought thru enough for that

that GW wants 40k to be the tournament game, because this is the best way to make money and force on people to buy their books and their models is a different thing

the casual gamer does not care, just uses Battlescribe and be done
the Tournament player in need of an official source to proof that everything he has written and is doing is by the official rules, needs the books (and maybe a WH+ Sub to get the WD with the rules) to proof that his BS list is right

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah, 'cause that's the issue people have with this...

What's your problem with the article? GW giving people free codexes for doing well in the ITC? I literally don't understand and I think your narrative of 9th being the competitive edition is silly. If GW knew anything about competitive 40k they'd know that Skorpekhs and SK needed less of a buff than Skorpekh Lords and Deathmarks. Any competitive Necron player could have told you this. A 5 minute look at top 4 Necron lists in 9th could have told you this. The last GT mission pack was a total joke, without updates for the mission secondaries and the next one is just going *shrug* guess balancing secondaries is too hard, let's just make them mission tertiaries. So GW taking competitive 40k super sewiously is nonsense as far as I am concerned.
   
Made in ie
Battleship Captain





 vict0988 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah, 'cause that's the issue people have with this...

What's your problem with the article? GW giving people free codexes for doing well in the ITC? I literally don't understand and I think your narrative of 9th being the competitive edition is silly. If GW knew anything about competitive 40k they'd know that Skorpekhs and SK needed less of a buff than Skorpekh Lords and Deathmarks. Any competitive Necron player could have told you this. A 5 minute look at top 4 Necron lists in 9th could have told you this. The last GT mission pack was a total joke, without updates for the mission secondaries and the next one is just going *shrug* guess balancing secondaries is too hard, let's just make them mission tertiaries. So GW taking competitive 40k super sewiously is nonsense as far as I am concerned.


- uses tournament players to playtest
- adopts fan made tournament rules for Matched play in 9th
- uses tournament data to balance the game
-adopts a tournament participation reward system with term "ITC" literally in it

But sure, GW aren't shooting for the tournament crowd.
Not that there's an issue with that. Good tournament balance means good casual balance. It's just unfortunate that GW is very bad at balancing their game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/29 13:15:28



 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 Sim-Life wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah, 'cause that's the issue people have with this...

What's your problem with the article? GW giving people free codexes for doing well in the ITC? I literally don't understand and I think your narrative of 9th being the competitive edition is silly. If GW knew anything about competitive 40k they'd know that Skorpekhs and SK needed less of a buff than Skorpekh Lords and Deathmarks. Any competitive Necron player could have told you this. A 5 minute look at top 4 Necron lists in 9th could have told you this. The last GT mission pack was a total joke, without updates for the mission secondaries and the next one is just going *shrug* guess balancing secondaries is too hard, let's just make them mission tertiaries. So GW taking competitive 40k super sewiously is nonsense as far as I am concerned.


- uses tournament players to playtest
- adopts fan made tournament rules for Matched play in 9th
- uses tournament data to balance the game
-adopts a tournament participation reward system with term "ITC" literally in it

But sure, GW aren't shooting for the tournament crowd.
Not that there's an issue with that. Good tournament balance means good casual balance. It's just unfortunate that GW is very bad at balancing their game.

I don't think I said that GW isn't acknowledging the tournament crowd or using them to help balance the game, that doesn't make 9th the competitive edition though, it's not like they're listening to half the things that they are being told by the competitive players. GW has had both a casual playtesting team and a competitive playtesting team since the start of 8th. Who cares what they call their tournament participation reward program? Whether you call Chapter Approved Missions Warzone Nachmund Missions (sounds more narrative) or Tournament Mission Pack (sounds more competitive) or just Chapter Approved 2022 Missions (kind of in the middle) doesn't actually change the content of the book, you're getting caught up in branding and promotional materials and conflating it with what actually matters.

They didn't exactly adopt the Champions missions or Nova missions, they changed and adapted the general format (I imagine the concept already existed in another game prior to Nova using it anyway) and added something the ITC never would have added... Faction secondaries which were added for... Wait for it... Narrative reasons! Faction secondaries make the missions a lot harder to balance and a lot less suited for balanced tournament play.
   
Made in ie
Battleship Captain





 vict0988 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah, 'cause that's the issue people have with this...

What's your problem with the article? GW giving people free codexes for doing well in the ITC? I literally don't understand and I think your narrative of 9th being the competitive edition is silly. If GW knew anything about competitive 40k they'd know that Skorpekhs and SK needed less of a buff than Skorpekh Lords and Deathmarks. Any competitive Necron player could have told you this. A 5 minute look at top 4 Necron lists in 9th could have told you this. The last GT mission pack was a total joke, without updates for the mission secondaries and the next one is just going *shrug* guess balancing secondaries is too hard, let's just make them mission tertiaries. So GW taking competitive 40k super sewiously is nonsense as far as I am concerned.


- uses tournament players to playtest
- adopts fan made tournament rules for Matched play in 9th
- uses tournament data to balance the game
-adopts a tournament participation reward system with term "ITC" literally in it

But sure, GW aren't shooting for the tournament crowd.
Not that there's an issue with that. Good tournament balance means good casual balance. It's just unfortunate that GW is very bad at balancing their game.

I don't think I said that GW isn't acknowledging the tournament crowd or using them to help balance the game, that doesn't make 9th the competitive edition though, it's not like they're listening to half the things that they are being told by the competitive players. GW has had both a casual playtesting team and a competitive playtesting team since the start of 8th. Who cares what they call their tournament participation reward program? Whether you call Chapter Approved Missions Warzone Nachmund Missions (sounds more narrative) or Tournament Mission Pack (sounds more competitive) or just Chapter Approved 2022 Missions (kind of in the middle) doesn't actually change the content of the book, you're getting caught up in branding and promotional materials and conflating it with what actually matters.

They didn't exactly adopt the Champions missions or Nova missions, they changed and adapted the general format (I imagine the concept already existed in another game prior to Nova using it anyway) and added something the ITC never would have added... Faction secondaries which were added for... Wait for it... Narrative reasons! Faction secondaries make the missions a lot harder to balance and a lot less suited for balanced tournament play.


You're very hung up on the idea that because the game isn't well balanced that it's evidence that GW aren't trying to appeal to the tournament crowd. It never occurred to you that its GW and they just aren't very good at writing rules?

As for everything else thats all basically conjecture on your part. I've never heard of GW having "casual" playtesters. Only players with tournament background.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/29 15:52:56



 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

 Sim-Life wrote:
You're very hung up on the idea that because the game isn't well balanced that ita evidence that GW aren't trying to appeal to the tournament crowd. It never occurred to you that its GW and they just aren't very good at writing rules?

GW said it is impossible to write better rules with that amount of models to support, and there cannot be less units but there need to be more every month because the people request them
so it it is the people who make it impossible for GW to keep up and write better rules

same with the missions, people want them and with so many requests it is impossible to balance them, there is literally nothing GW can do to make better rules in the first place


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







GW could absolutely reduce the number of models/units in the game.

They already deleted Renegades and Heretics (and a whole slew of other models/units like Elysians, Lords of Chaos on demonic steeds, etc).

They just choose not to.
   
Made in us
Poxed Plague Monk





I don't believe that they can't balance the game. Not at all. They choose not to because it would take time and effort.

Setek: "My people shackled the stars, and broke mortality when the species you sprang from had barely left the slime pools it spawned in. Our wars burned reality, and the dominion of our kings is without limit. The ground you tread on is not yours; it is ours. "

Ahriman: "The Necrontyr; the sleeping ones"

Setek: "That name is not ours. Why give a name to totality?" 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 vict0988 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah, 'cause that's the issue people have with this...

What's your problem with the article? GW giving people free codexes for doing well in the ITC? I literally don't understand and I think your narrative of 9th being the competitive edition is silly. If GW knew anything about competitive 40k they'd know that Skorpekhs and SK needed less of a buff than Skorpekh Lords and Deathmarks. Any competitive Necron player could have told you this. A 5 minute look at top 4 Necron lists in 9th could have told you this. The last GT mission pack was a total joke, without updates for the mission secondaries and the next one is just going *shrug* guess balancing secondaries is too hard, let's just make them mission tertiaries. So GW taking competitive 40k super sewiously is nonsense as far as I am concerned.


- uses tournament players to playtest
- adopts fan made tournament rules for Matched play in 9th
- uses tournament data to balance the game
-adopts a tournament participation reward system with term "ITC" literally in it

But sure, GW aren't shooting for the tournament crowd.
Not that there's an issue with that. Good tournament balance means good casual balance. It's just unfortunate that GW is very bad at balancing their game.

I don't think I said that GW isn't acknowledging the tournament crowd or using them to help balance the game,

They absolutely aren't acknowledging them. Recent Dark Eldar, 8th Iron Hands......that just doesn't happen without completely ignoring testers.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




 vict0988 wrote:
Making rules for adding Crusade upgrades in 40k would probably be pretty easy.

@Auticus how do you know there was a balance issue in the 30-minute game? You don't play the game, it could have been the losing player making a mistake or bad dice, things that can happen in a perfectly balanced game. The best way to dial in balance after release is to look at competitive lists for factions, if the faction is overperforming you nerf the units that are taken in competitive lists, if the faction is underperforming you buff the units that are not taken in competitive lists. It doesn't have to be rocket science.

If GW did some math, listened to advice from skilled players and tested properly before release there wouldn't need to be a tonne of post-release movement on points and an annual update to points would be enough.


I watched the game and the guy that got wiped never really had an opportunity to respond or do much other than take models off the table. That looked pretty imbalanced to me. If not imbalanced you could fall back to pointer #2 - the game is designed poorly if one person can have most of the fun while the other person just removes swathes of models from the table wholesale and does little else.

Based off of slides from their sales meetings in Dallas that I got to see from our old gw manager who took pictures at their conference (and has since left the company lol) indicating that the bad balance works in the favor of the stores continuing to sell models and baking that in as part of their sales delivery, they intentionally imbalance the game because their marketing indicates thats what makes them the most money, and I full on agree with that. Not that they cannot balance, but they know burn and churn is the most profitable model. Thats why I relate 40k and AOS to magic the gathering. Not only are both sets of games combo-heavy and revolve around weight of list/deck, but they also depend on new buys on a regular basis to continue the churn.

instead of people that haven't played for years, absolute insanity /sarcasm.


I was heavy into GW games from mid 90s all the way up until 2019 and have levied the same comments in 2019 as I did in 2015 as I did in 2012 as I did in 2009 as I do today. The fact I have not played in a few years doesn't mean I don't see the same patterns and recognize the same issues that have been sung about for a couple decades now. I can go down to any of the local stores this very afternoon and watch casual lists get annihilated by tuned lists showing that the point system doesn't do anything for balance, and games ending fast pretty much every weekend perpetually and inevitably going forward.

The thing is a lot of you LIKE that because thats how it is supposed to be to you, and has been a thought process vocalized for a very very very long time in one form or the other.

GW can put out as many narrative crusade rules as they like, but until they stop Bob from showing up to a Crusade game with an LVO / Adepticon list and pooping all over the table and strutting around over it telling people to git gud, the only narrative you are telling is that you need to gate keep your private groups very closely and that points don't mean balance, they mean structure to min/max in. The UK folks know this pretty well, they make lists cooperatively. Thats 100% a culture difference and thing that won't change over here, so if you're wanting narrative 40k you have to exert a lot of energy gatekeeping your games from players that don't know any other mode but full-tilt optimization.

I would LOVE to play 40k again, thats why I watch these boards and participate. I am a huge fan of chaos, thousand sons, etc... and would love to collect another force and play some narrative games. The problem is I don't enjoy competitive players showing up with their A+ list with no regards to anything else, as I do not wish to burn and churn the meta along with them as that is expensive and a ton of time painting armies constantly, plus storage gets out of control when you end up with 18 fully painted armies over the course of time that I had to get rid of last year when I moved. Until that culture can be tempered or GW figures a way to make points == balance so that I don't have to buy new force every year or so to have good games, I will continue to watch.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/29 17:09:38


 
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






That's an absolte like that they can't balance with all the models they have, it's a matter of they don't want to put the effort into it.

The way to balance it is you need to expand the rules, not cur them like they did in 8th. Rules that were removed need to be added back and expanded upon.

GW is reaching the point of, they can't have a simple fast game, AND have a large range of models that you can use all together in the same game. It's having your cake and eating it to. Something has to give.

We need more rules to better represent weapons, we need expanding special rules to set specific weapons apart from other in order to give them more strengths to make them more appealing/viable in the game.

Psyker powers are a great example of this, how many times is GW just going to reword and find another way to say "do d3 mortal wounds"
Until GW realizes that they need to expand the rules with more varying degrees of USR, like one I suggested to start giving a lot more weapons in the game rending(x) with x being an AP modifier on a hit roll of 6. The issues we see now are just going to be exacerbated.

Gw can't keep "simple fast games" and have a model line of dozens and dozens of units per army.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

Remember the time when a Power Weapon was just that, no matter if an Axe, Sword, Spear etc.

for the one reason that it does not matter if those 3 Attacks from a hero has some special rules or not

so everything we have, all the problems that PR say its because the players want it, is simply because GW wanted to improve the game, without knowing what they are actually doing

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






People at your locals sound like gits, as a veteran it's partly your job to help police it IMO. It's common etiquette to tune lists, because most people acknowledge the game isn't supposed to be over before it's begun. Ultra-lethality is neither casual nor competitive, game pace preference is personal taste unrelated to how competitive or narrative you like your game.
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

 vict0988 wrote:
It's common etiquette to tune lists

not all around the world, on some parts is "min-max and git-gut" no quality of live improvements or making gaming for newcomers easier, get the most badass list out there and rofl-stomp your opponent
and cry for changes in FB/Forums if a better player beats you with a weaker list

as said above, Europe plays miniature games/wargames a little bit different than the US

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/29 17:29:40


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






Was about to say here in the states there is no such "tune your list" to not be op. It's tell your oponent who got stomped how to make their list better and more rofl stomp

Like for example, I run knights and solar aux in HH, and I'm looked at as the weird one for A) running an allied detachment to begin with and B) not taking mechanicum allied detachment to run 10 secatari in a assault drill to pop outta the ground and then deliver 10 haywire shots on se some vehicle.

It's very much a, you bring big D lists if you go to pick up games. The issue is that GW is not doing a good job balancing the game around this comeptsrive play style

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I don't believe that they can't balance the game. Not at all. They choose not to because it would take time and effort.


No.

Gw (or qny other company) could apply any amount of time and effort they want, but no, it won't balance it. it A balanced game is like a unicorn. It doesn't exist.

Ttgs are limited systems that can't carry much weight. Gw are worse than most at it and while it's true there could be improvements it'll never improve to the level that critics demand as 'good enough'. Good enough is an ever moving goalpozt. Its still a pretty general truth that no wargame has ever been balanced, irrespective of its writers.

Even those games generally regarded as 'better balanced' like warmachine or x-wing are littered with traps, crutches and go-to builds. And while those games had features to improve balance (like infinitys limited scale, limited rosters/skus or wmh's multiple win conditions and multi-list formats, sideboards etc) none solved the issues, all introduced their own complications, costs and controversies and all were played by gaming populations that were smaller than gws by an order of magnitude if not more.

 Backspacehacker wrote:


The issue is that GW is not doing a good job balancing the game around this comeptsrive play style


Alternatively the players are doing a terrible job of playing the game in the vision or approach of its writers.

And fwiw I do think gw do a terrible job of balancing the game. I just also think we the players often are self destructive and could do a hell of a lot more to help ourselves than what we do.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/29 17:55:28


greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




 vict0988 wrote:
People at your locals sound like gits, as a veteran it's partly your job to help police it IMO. It's common etiquette to tune lists, because most people acknowledge the game isn't supposed to be over before it's begun. Ultra-lethality is neither casual nor competitive, game pace preference is personal taste unrelated to how competitive or narrative you like your game.


Until you've ever been a part of the gang "turf wars" that can be gamer politics, the whole police it up is a definite no-no unless you are willing to take on a whole lot of nastiness. Now I ran campaign events for 20 odd years and often made people submit lists ahead of time, and what that ended up doing was creating a lot of hostility and drama to the point that if i could go back in time I never would have run public campaign events for my stores.

Here in the states its most certainly NOT common etiquette to compare lists to not try to end the game before it begins. Its expected you are bringing your as hard as possible list and thats what you will face. If you want something else you have to put on your senate robes and start politicing to try to get people to not include their over tuned elements. (for some its simply a matter of they don't want to, for others its an expensive hobby and they only own one list - their hard as balls list - and they can't tune down and are not willing to buy weaker models to play in campaigns - they just want to use one list to play in everything)

There are smaller private groups that try to police their games. I know here in my new city there is a group that tries this but even that group has a few members that you are warned about who make a stink so you have to navigate that social minefield.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

EviscerationPlague wrote:

I don't think I said that GW isn't acknowledging the tournament crowd or using them to help balance the game,

They absolutely aren't acknowledging them. Recent Dark Eldar, 8th Iron Hands......that just doesn't happen without completely ignoring testers.


How do you know they ignored them vs simply rejecting whatever recommendations were made for some reason*?

* i.e. $$

After all they sold a lot of $40 IH books, & no doubt plenty of dreadnoughts in that brief window.
Would whatever the playtest recommendations were have been as profitable? I'm betting not.....

And later, after the quick buck has been made, they can dial it back with no great harm done.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.


   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

Deadnight wrote:
A balanced game is like a unicorn. It doesn't exist.

well yes, but actually no
we are not talking about perfect balance aka chess level of balance, but simply of a "faction A with its best list has an equal chance to win as faction B with its best list"

while for GW let you believe that, faction B takes the worst possible list and faction A with its best list still has no chance to win, even if player B try hard to lose, is the best balance that is possible

if GW is not able to balance their game because of: too many units, too many factions, too many options, too many scenarios, there is no one out there preventing them from reducing them until they can write a better game

"balance is a unicorn because GW told you so, so you buy the expensive books and accept that GW does not even try"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadnight wrote:
Alternatively the players are doing a terrible job of playing the game in the vision or approach of its writers.

than maybe GW should start writing rules for the game they want to have, and just random rules and wonder why people are not playing as intended

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/29 18:00:14


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




 auticus wrote:


There are smaller private groups that try to police their games. I know here in my new city there is a group that tries this but even that group has a few members that you are warned about who make a stink so you have to navigate that social minefield.


I'm part of a small-ish group (<50 regulars) that does a fantastic job of keeping away the feelsbad moments you get from competitive players stomping casual players. The guys who started it made it a rule to discuss the kind of the game you want to have with your opponent beforehand, which usually boils down to, competitive or not. On top of that there is a culture in our group Discord of being pretty open about the kinds of players we are, so everyone eventually gets a good sense of the level of play of everyone else, and can adjust their lists accordingly for each game.

Definitely not the norm, and requires some initiative from the players (my last group was the stereotypical, crush-your-opponent-into-the-dirt meta), but I gotta admit when it works, it works. It has taught me that a little bit of effort put into community-building can really go a long way in reducing the friction between casual/competitive.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




We had that very discord.

We also had one of our stores that was the pinnacle of competitive gaming have a number of members that stirred that pot. To them, you didn't have multiple ways of playing. You had one way.

The "correct way". The "by the rules way" and you didn't deviate from the rules with houserules or asking your opponent to tone down.

That caused a lot a lot a lot of drama. If you can keep people out of the group that refuse to conform to those rules, I think you're good to go.

In our community - that was not possible. I think I stood up at the beginning of every event saying "this is a for fun narrative not competitive event, please keep the competitive lists out of these games" and just by saying that there was a lot of all caps and nasty words going back and forth. Then they would just play with their nasty lists anyway and say "you said this was a for fun event, this is how I have fun".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/29 18:36:09


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 kodos wrote:

well yes, but actually no
we are not talking about perfect balance aka chess level of balance, but simply of a "faction A with its best list has an equal chance to win as faction B with its best list"

while for GW let you believe that, faction B takes the worst possible list and faction A with its best list still has no chance to win, even if player B try hard to lose, is the best balance that is possible

if GW is not able to balance their game because of: too many units, too many factions, too many options, too many scenarios, there is no one out there preventing them from reducing them until they can write a better game


'It's got too much stuff; there should be less stuff' doesn't really work in the real world. It's Kinda hard when you're a business and the model for pretty much every ttg is 'new wave/new stuff'. And when said consumers of hobby want new stuff.

Yeah, and you kind of echo my point
Like I said -its not perfect balance, just 'good enough' that people claim to ask for. And yet when asked, everyone will have a different opinion of what that is. And thr company in question will always conveniently fall.short of what 'good enough' is. The best list of faction a not equaling that of faction b use very, sadly, not exclusive to gw games (I can think of several casters in wmh that hard-nope entire factions and this is a game commonly regarded as well balanced in comparison to gw). From my pov one list matching another is not 'good enough'. Far from it.

every approach has a cost and I'm pretty certain noone in the gaming community, including gw wants to pay it. 'No one out there stopping them'? Too many units/factions for example? Fine. Consider the likely blowback from the fanbase for removing them and removing their armies. Mate, that's business suicide and woeful PR. Hardly a solution in my mind. Or please, go ahead and defend the decision to unit that all his tanks are gone (for example), or to sisters, guard, blood angels chaos and ork players that their armies are squatted so there's 'less' to balance. You'll be run out of town.

Besides, even if you reduce the game to a hyperbolic dozen specific unit/weapon loadouts and you'll still have 3 that are terrible and half of the rest below the bell curve. Its got nothing to do with competence at designing. Ttgs are very limited systems; they can't hold much weight and whatever structures you add to help support the load have their own costs and complications.

 kodos wrote:

than maybe GW should start writing rules for the game they want to have, and just random rules and wonder why people are not playing as intended


I think it's more 'attitude' than 'rules' that governs this


 kodos wrote:


"balance is a unicorn because GW told you so, so you buy the expensive books and accept that GW does not even try"


Because 'gw told me so'? No need to be snide.

Eh, no.

Balance is a unicorn because this is a hobby I enjoy many aspects of- I've played and followed and explored for qbout 20 years across the spectrum of different companies, different approaches, different scales etc. Because I know games writers and games playtesters and because game design, and its pitfalls is something that I find intellectually very interesting. And I've never seen a balanced game, let alone a game that was 'good enough' without issues or a game that could not be abused, let alone any game tied to a business venture or company/individual looking to make any kind of financial.success out of it (or just not lose money).

I don't buy all the expensive books and I accept gw do not even try. I also accept if they did try, it still wouldnt be enough, 'Good enough' is an ever moving goalposts nothing theyd do will satiste the haters out there. And for too many people, hating gw is the hobby.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2022/01/29 23:20:38


 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




 auticus wrote:
We had that very discord.

We also had one of our stores that was the pinnacle of competitive gaming have a number of members that stirred that pot. To them, you didn't have multiple ways of playing. You had one way.

The "correct way". The "by the rules way" and you didn't deviate from the rules with houserules or asking your opponent to tone down.

That caused a lot a lot a lot of drama. If you can keep people out of the group that refuse to conform to those rules, I think you're good to go.

In our community - that was not possible. I think I stood up at the beginning of every event saying "this is a for fun narrative not competitive event, please keep the competitive lists out of these games" and just by saying that there was a lot of all caps and nasty words going back and forth. Then they would just play with their nasty lists anyway and say "you said this was a for fun event, this is how I have fun".


Bummer. Yeah I suppose it really comes down to the individuals who make up your specific group. It's a culture thing.

I'm guessing it was easier for my current group to establish this culture because the bulk of the players are casual and only a few are competitive. So a competitive player isn't going to go out and smash up a starter box list as they will be instantly seen as TFG.

Probably also helps that the competitive players here happen to be the ones that are a little older, with less egos, less to prove.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/29 18:44:02


 
   
Made in us
Poxed Plague Monk





For balance, I don't care if they reach the level of player skill always being the deciding factor, I just want to not go into a game, have some level of skill matter, and not know exactly how a game will go just by looking at the two armies. I've entirely given up on modern 40k, and have decided to play WHFB 6th instead. When I play Infinity, I feel like my skill level makes a difference, and the outcome isn't entirely decided by the lists.

Perfect balance is impossible, but that doesn't mean to give up entirely on the idea of balance in general. A couple of models being a few points under priced means nothing in the face of entire categories of models being unusable against even weak armies.

Setek: "My people shackled the stars, and broke mortality when the species you sprang from had barely left the slime pools it spawned in. Our wars burned reality, and the dominion of our kings is without limit. The ground you tread on is not yours; it is ours. "

Ahriman: "The Necrontyr; the sleeping ones"

Setek: "That name is not ours. Why give a name to totality?" 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: