Switch Theme:

Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?  [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 de
Dakka Veteran




Voss wrote:
See, here's the thing. Lots of people have previously and currently do play 40k competitively, AND have fun with it. Lecturing them on how they're doing it wrong and having wrongbadfun helps no one, and makes the people doing the lecturing seem like jerks.

'Why the hate?' circles back around quickly as to why actual people in this thread are insisting other people not have fun.


That is true to an extent. Though there are two differences

A) Language. While there are man opinions here from the „casual side“ criticizing the „competitive side“, the language is far, far more reasonable than those by the „competitive side“, which featured genocidal fantasies, curse words of the most horrid variant and more, which had to be removed for that very reason. A „both sides are the same argument“ is a false equivalence for that reason alone.

B) The „competitive side“ wants to change the game (ultimately at the expense of the casual side, many of whichlove the game as it is, which is why they play it to begin with). If the „competitive side“ can simply enjoy the game, as, you said, without constantly demanding it be changed into something it wasn’t meant to be, there‘d be no need for people who just like the game the way it is and play 40K precisely for the qualities that differentiate it from more competitive miniatures games like Warmachine, X-Wing, Infinity, Underworlds, whatever, to just repeat the fact that they chose 40K over other games precisely because it is the best game on the market for their preferences.

B is not a point against competitive players enjoying the game if they want to. It‘s a point against competitive players claiming the game is bad. It is not. It‘s just (unlike plenty alternatives on the market) not made with competitive gaming in mind.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/12 12:25:04


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






All of the changes competitive players want are also good for everyone else.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight




 Peregrine wrote:
Audustum wrote:
1. One night of GSL competitions generally lasts about 3 hours. They do player interviews, post stats, e.t.c.


Sure, but how many individual matches are you getting in that time? I bet the overall pace of play is much better and you're not slogging through 2-3 hours of tedious dice rolling for a single game.

2. GSL hosts it's videos for free and survives the same way other major internet sources do: advertisement dollars.


But who is going to advertise? GW (or whatever other company you might suggest) sure as hell isn't advertising, and why should they when anyone interested in watching a 40k e-sport thing is already a customer? Stores might do it, but how many of them are going to pay enough for the advertising slots that the e-sport company can afford to pay multiple players/video editors/etc $50-100k per year? I am extremely skeptical that miniatures gaming has enough money involved to come anywhere near the financial needs of that kind of project.


1. Yeah, I think that's just a different type of audience (see the baseball discussion). You do need to do lots of stuff to help with downtime though.

2. That'll depend on how many views it gets. Right now, I think GSL is being sponsored by Mountain Dew. Intel was doing it before that (and, of course, Blizzard stepped in).
   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight




Slipspace wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Spoiler:
Slipspace wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Those are great things, if you assume that the market is non-competitive players and ignore the fact that these people are targeting a competitive audience that cares more about math than fancy character names. The real issues with 40k content being profitable have nothing to do with competitive vs. non-competitive preferences:

1) A game takes way too long. When a single game takes 2-3 hours you're going to really struggle to find anyone willing to sit down and commit to watching it. There's no short-format option where you can have a 15-30 minute broadcast and still have people get something out of it. This alone rules out everyone but the most dedicated fans as a potential audience and guarantees a lack of funding.

2) There's too much free content already available. What exactly is a "professional" content creator going to do that isn't already out there for free? How are they going to convince people to hand over their wallets? How do you deal with the fact that GW treats their content as advertising for the game and eagerly gives it away for free in an attempt to convince people to buy the real product? How do you compete with the people who have conventional jobs, can afford to treat 40k as a hobby, and give away free content because they don't care enough to try to monetize it?


I mean, the GSL (Global StarCraft League) already answers your questions.

1. One night of GSL competitions generally lasts about 3 hours. They do player interviews, post stats, e.t.c.

2. GSL hosts it's videos for free and survives the same way other major internet sources do: advertisement dollars. In case you're curious, you can see it right here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dcb8c_pRas4

You've absolutely got to attract people, but there's no question 40k is trying to go this way. It's a lot similar to StarCraft: BroodWar's Western scene in the early 1990's/early 2000's. Probably will take the same amount of time to develop too.


I think the difference here is that an entire night of competition encompasses multiple games in that same time period. 40k's big problem is that in that same 3 hour period they've played a single game and that's it. I agree that player interviews, stat analysis and other supplemental activities can help enhance the experience for the viewer, but when the thing you're using to draw people in is 3 hours long without any of that other stuff you have problems.


I think that's just going to attract different audiences rather than prevent an audience at all. One baseball or one football game is quite long too, but you still get tons of viewers for that single game.


I'm British so I couldn't possibly explain what people find so attractive about watching baseball either

Assuming by football you mean American Football (though this applies to soccer and other sports too), I think the difference is the possibility of something exciting happening is still there. You could be watching a dull, defensive game with no scoring but there's always the chance of an exciting scoring play from nothing, or the commentators can analyse why the defence of each team is on top, or analyse what the teams need to do to break the status quo. Some of these things are possible in 40k too, but I don't think the commentators are quite at that level yet and I think the game lacks the depth needed to allow for interesting analysis at that level in-game. I'm also not sure what the 40k equivalent of a 90-yard touchdown pass is, or a well-worked team goal in soccer, or a home run. Does it have that exciting moment that will get people out of their seats (figuratively speaking)? So much of high level tournament play is about stacking the odds in your favour with re-rolls and other buffs I'm not sure there's actually much scope for these sort of moments to occur. You also don't have that team association that keeps so many sports teams in business and keeps viewing figures high even through terrible game.

To highlight the problems of streamed tournament 40k, I remember watching a game at the most recent LVO. It had Grey Knights, run by a player who was apparently pretty good with them. I was intrigued so thought I'd check out the stream to see how he was ablet o be successful with them. I joined midway through turn 1. I had no idea what was happening. Nor did the commentators. I couldn't even figure out which side was which initially. Much of the commentary was along the lines of "is that a Strike Squad?", "where's Draigo?" etc. The "action" consisted of a whole bunch of watching the top of someone's head as they leaned over the table and carefully measured everything, then rolling a bucket of dice into a dice tray while the commentators attempted to figure out what was shooting at what. The psychic phase was a rapid-fire series of dice rolls, none of which were explained. The damage on various models wasn't tracked and the whole thing was basically a confusing mess. I don't blame the commentators for this. I think they actually did a pretty good job of keeping a conversation going and trying to keep up with the action, but it proved impossible. Some of these problems could be solved with improved production values and better preparation but some are intrinsic to the game. I managed to stick with the stream for about 15 minutes, then another 10 or so with it on in the background, but I eventually had to switch it off as it seemed rather pointless to try to continue.


Oh absolutely, they'll need to work on production quite a bit. NOVA, for instance, had way too much downtime for its casters to fill. As for exciting moments, everybody is different. Only way to really find out is to throw it out there and see if it sticks.
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader




Sunny Side Up wrote:
Voss wrote:
See, here's the thing. Lots of people have previously and currently do play 40k competitively, AND have fun with it. Lecturing them on how they're doing it wrong and having wrongbadfun helps no one, and makes the people doing the lecturing seem like jerks.

'Why the hate?' circles back around quickly as to why actual people in this thread are insisting other people not have fun.


That is true to an extent. Though there are two differences

A) Language. While there are man opinions here from the „casual side“ criticizing the „competitive side“, the language is far, far more reasonable than those by the „competitive side“, which featured genocidal fantasies, curse words of the most horrid variant and more, which had to be removed for that very reason. A „both sides are the same argument“ is a false equivalence for that reason alone.

B) The „competitive side“ wants to change the game (ultimately at the expense of the casual side, many of whichlove the game as it is, which is why they play it to begin with). If the „competitive side“ can simply enjoy the game, as, you said, without constantly demanding it be changed into something it wasn’t meant to be, there‘d be no need for people who just like the game the way it is and play 40K precisely for the qualities that differentiate it from more competitive miniatures games like Warmachine, X-Wing, Infinity, Underworlds, whatever, to just repeat the fact that they chose 40K over other games precisely because it is the best game on the market for their preferences.

B is not a point against competitive players enjoying the game if they want to. It‘s a point against competitive players claiming the game is bad. It is not. It‘s just (unlike plenty alternatives on the market) not made with competitive gaming in mind.


I'm not making a 'both sides' argument. I don't care what theoretical people posted on Facebook. Some of the posters -here- in -this thread- are actively insulting for no reason. And even most of those who aren't, are taking the stance that playing competitively is 'doing it wrong.' This quickly turned into 12 pages of diatribe against other people who don't play like they do. Especially since this a thread in the tournament section on the basis that a few Facebook posts means competitive players in general are hateful.

The people making the claim that the game is bad here clearly aren't the competitive ones- it's the ones claiming that it can't or isn't meant to be played competitively, despite people happily doing that for years.

As for what the game is 'meant to be,' that's honestly nothing to me. It's been a point based game where one wins and one loses for over three decades now.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/12 12:53:13


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Scuttling Genestealer





philadelphia

Becoming an esport would be the death of the game. Reaching a large enough audience is opening it up for people to get offended by everything like with the cawdor hood.
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader




 Irkjoe wrote:
Becoming an esport would be the death of the game. Reaching a large enough audience is opening it up for people to get offended by everything like with the cawdor hood.



yes, a minor alteration to a single model certainly ruined everything. Having more people to game with certainly would be awful.

No, wait- that chain of logic isn't right. No, the model change made no difference whatsoever, and having more people in the game would be good.

I could see reasons to reject 'esports 40k,' but 'it might grow the fanbase/customerbase' is a terrible one.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/12 14:09:52


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in pl
Fresh-Faced New User




 Irkjoe wrote:
Becoming an esport would be the death of the game. Reaching a large enough audience is opening it up for people to get offended by everything like with the cawdor hood.

Exactly, people who think the Imperium is good guys didn't spend so much time making 40k theirs only to throw it away by inviting normies who might consider genocide a bad thing.
   
Made in us
Scuttling Genestealer





philadelphia

Voss wrote:
 Irkjoe wrote:
Becoming an esport would be the death of the game. Reaching a large enough audience is opening it up for people to get offended by everything like with the cawdor hood.



yes, a minor alteration to a single model certainly ruined everything. Having more people to game with certainly would be awful.

No, wait- that chain of logic isn't right. No, the model change made no difference whatsoever, and having more people in the game would be good.

I could see reasons to reject 'esports 40k,' but 'it might grow the fanbase/customerbase' is a terrible one.


The people complaining aren't necessarily players and it was only a hood this time. There's no reason to assume it stops with minor alterations. Nobody is going to be happy when PETA resurfaces with petitions and letters to GW demanding the space wolves wear synthetic pelts...
   
Made in ch
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Well PETA allready is annoyed and i feel like slaanesh or SoB would be prime targets for such groupes.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran




Voss wrote:


The people making the claim that the game is bad here clearly aren't the competitive ones- it's the ones claiming that it can't or isn't meant to be played competitively, despite people happily doing that for years.


Again, if people play it competitively happily .. more power to them.

It just seems most of the competitive types are not happy with the game as it is. It´s when people start a) demanding change to the detriment of other people enjoying the game as it is and b) blaming other people enjoying the game as it is for things in the game they don´t like, that it get´s complicated.

 Peregrine wrote:
All of the changes competitive players want are also good for everyone else.


No, they are not. Just as changes casual people might want don´t necessarily benefit everyone.

If we´re to mutually respect people enjoying the game without prejudice, lets first settle on changing nothing for a start. After that, there might be a way forward to find a process for agreeing to a consensus of changes among all the people that play this game.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/07/12 17:15:22


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Sunny Side Up wrote:
No, they are not. Just as changes casual people might want don´t necessarily benefit everyone.


Improving balance benefits everyone. Clear and functional rules benefit everyone. The only people who don't benefit from competitive play improvements are a tiny but loud minority of CAAC players who use poor rules as a means of virtue signalling, since if you embrace bad game design and poor balance it shows off how far you are from competitive play.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 Peregrine wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
No, they are not. Just as changes casual people might want don´t necessarily benefit everyone.


Improving balance benefits everyone. Clear and functional rules benefit everyone. The only people who don't benefit from competitive play improvements are a tiny but loud minority of CAAC players who use poor rules as a means of virtue signalling, since if you embrace bad game design and poor balance it shows off how far you are from competitive play.


I've had CAAC players get mad at me for using RAW rules before... like pre-April FAQ, when I would roll for CP spent during deployment on outflanking when my Warlord with CP farming was on the table. They'd come over from other tables, completely un-asked, and tell me how wrong I was.

Or when I point out how to 'wrap and trap' units... like you only move 1 model into combat to avoid killing much of the enemy, then wrap around it and trap them so you can't be shot. I've had several unpleasant discussions where people are angry at me for "bending the rules" when it's clear I should be trying to kill as many models as possible, because this is obviously not what the rules intended to be used for.

Casuals can be quite unpleasant to deal with :(
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader




Sunny Side Up wrote:
Voss wrote:


The people making the claim that the game is bad here clearly aren't the competitive ones- it's the ones claiming that it can't or isn't meant to be played competitively, despite people happily doing that for years.


Again, if people play it competitively happily .. more power to them.

I'm not saying 'if,' I'm stating a fact. People do in fact play happily...

It just seems most of the competitive types are not happy with the game as it is. It´s when people start a) demanding change to the detriment of other people enjoying the game as it is and b) blaming other people enjoying the game as it is for things in the game they don´t like, that it get´s complicated.

I'm seeing a lot of A& B in this thread, from people making an effort to claim the non-competitive tag. As for the former... I guess this is the disconnect. Your feeling on how 'it just seems' doesn't connect to my experience playing in any period or with other people who play. I'm not sure how 'competitive types' (or anyone else) benefit from your assumptions about what would make them happy (and it would be really difficult to, because despite the grouping people as a unified 'type,' that isn't really how people work). Best to let them sort out their own happiness, and focus on your own if there isn't much overlap.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/12 18:04:28


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Auspicious Aspiring Champion of Chaos





Casuals can be quite unpleasant to deal with :(


What you are describing is a gamist gamer using a gamey gamey game mechanic vs a simulationist gamer whose head explodes because that would never happen on a real battlefield butting heads. I don't think casual has anything to do with that scenario.

GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran






With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Steelcity

 oni wrote:
With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.


You have absolutely nothing to worry about. Esports barely functions for the MOST popular games (which are all shooters or RTS/MOBA games) and Fortnite last quarter clocked in at 300 million hours of viewing on Twitch. People who watch warhammer games on Twitch is atleast 300 times less than that, and I'd wager more so. If games with 300 MILLION hours cant have stable esports leagues then we dont even have to fathom 40k with its extremely tiny fan base (compared to actual video games)

Keeper of the DomBox
Warhammer Armies - Click to see galleries of fully painted armies
32,000, 19,000, Renegades - 10,000 , 7,500,  
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Perfected Haemonculi Living Sculpture






 Horst wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
No, they are not. Just as changes casual people might want don´t necessarily benefit everyone.


Improving balance benefits everyone. Clear and functional rules benefit everyone. The only people who don't benefit from competitive play improvements are a tiny but loud minority of CAAC players who use poor rules as a means of virtue signalling, since if you embrace bad game design and poor balance it shows off how far you are from competitive play.


I've had CAAC players get mad at me for using RAW rules before... like pre-April FAQ, when I would roll for CP spent during deployment on outflanking when my Warlord with CP farming was on the table. They'd come over from other tables, completely un-asked, and tell me how wrong I was.

Or when I point out how to 'wrap and trap' units... like you only move 1 model into combat to avoid killing much of the enemy, then wrap around it and trap them so you can't be shot. I've had several unpleasant discussions where people are angry at me for "bending the rules" when it's clear I should be trying to kill as many models as possible, because this is obviously not what the rules intended to be used for.

Casuals can be quite unpleasant to deal with :(


But that's all perspective. What you consider a high skill level move, others are considering gamesmanship and opposed to intent.

For example, assaulting with a flying unit off a higher level for a 0" charge was considered high level play by "competitive" types, but GW clearly didn't intend for that interaction, and their solution actually made the game worse for several months. Another example was folks assaulting with a transport in order to lose the vehicle in order to game the unit inside into an earlier assault then the rules normally allow. GW had to slap that down as well, because it wasn't intended, and mind you it was pretty clearly not intended.

So those "casuals" are more often proven right by these past rulings then not, which means they are going to feel more validated in their opinions in these scenarios. Wrap in trap is fairly obviously something not intended, there is a reason you are required to fight in combat. In other editions you had to base models if you could moving toward the closest enemy, and had to pile in as well as fight. This edition left that out for the sake of making multi assaulting easier, throwing combat armies a bone in a shooting edition, but how long until that bone gets removed because of "high level" play?

As an aside, how pathetic is game balance when your game provides two ways of killing the enemy, close Quarter and shooting, and one of those provokes you into skirting the rules as written to the point where you are AVOIDING killing the enemy when you finally make it into assault lol.

"Now fellas, remember, once we clear the gap and actually make it in with the enemy none of you are allowed to hit them. Instead grab them desperately so their friends don't shoot us to death. After a minute or so we will actually fight them." I don't really mind the tactic personally, I am usually happy to see assaulter in 8th, but I absolutely can see how someone would think this was destructive to their immersion and not like it.

   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Not Online!!! wrote:
Well PETA allready is annoyed and i feel like slaanesh or SoB would be prime targets for such groupes.


Which is why dnd died and rpgs have all been outlawed. Wait


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 oni wrote:
With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.


Do you think the imperium are the unironic good guys and should be inspirations for real politics?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/12 19:49:33


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Perfected Haemonculi Living Sculpture






 Kirasu wrote:
 oni wrote:
With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.


You have absolutely nothing to worry about. Esports barely functions for the MOST popular games (which are all shooters or RTS/MOBA games) and Fortnite last quarter clocked in at 300 million hours of viewing on Twitch. People who watch warhammer games on Twitch is atleast 300 times less than that, and I'd wager more so. If games with 300 MILLION hours cant have stable esports leagues then we dont even have to fathom 40k with its extremely tiny fan base (compared to actual video games)


I agree, it will never be an Esport because advertisers care about view time. There is a reason successful YouTubers keep their videos under 10 minutes, anything longer and folks lose interest and leave, and an advertiser doesn't want that. 40k content creators rely on patreon generally, which is basically donations like public access. In a 3+ hour game how on earth do you get multiple advertisers on board, they would never be guaranteed to be seen over another advert before the viewer leaves, so your looking at a single sponsor per game, yikes. Then there's the Elephant in the room of GW supporting it and being OK with outside advertising. They already want tables to be 100% GW product now. I couldn't imagine them being OK with an event stream with Kromlech adds for example. Hell, you couldn't even get army painter or exacto. Why would GW pay some stream when they already have streaming capability and full control over pushing their own product? If they did they would impose on it.

Watching 40k on stream is excruciatingly boring and that isn't even the biggest hurdle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
stratigo wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Well PETA allready is annoyed and i feel like slaanesh or SoB would be prime targets for such groupes.


Which is why dnd died and rpgs have all been outlawed. Wait


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 oni wrote:
With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.


Do you think the imperium are the unironic good guys and should be inspirations for real politics?


I think your missing their points pretty badly.

The game has no good guy. The closest you get to good guys are the Tyranids mostly because they are amoral. I think the fear is that real world politics start influencing the game and setting not the other way around.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/12 19:53:55


   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




Nurglitch wrote:
 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
I'm not sure if we know the rules are 'wobblier' and they seem to be modeled after Epic Armageddon rules which are fantastic.


and dont forgot the fun of swingy 'make loads more dakka cos reasons' fun of the command cards

which doesnt matter at all for an all-day all the mini's what you done own throw down with likeminded sorts but as something anybody would want to watch, naahhh

*also if anyone can explain the point of the Eldar scatter laser over any other weapon in Apoc that would help (shock horror GW naysayer reads GW rules )

If you say so.


The Eldar scatter laser is balanced against the Shuriken Cannon and Twin Shuriken Catapult on the Windriders, but poorly balanced against the rest of the Eldar weapon list on units that have access to that (because of the EML, which is just a purely better version of it).

Looking at Windriders I can see the pros and cons of all three weapons, but yeah, it definitely seems silly when you look at the instances where it exists alongside the EML.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Irkjoe wrote:
Voss wrote:
 Irkjoe wrote:
Becoming an esport would be the death of the game. Reaching a large enough audience is opening it up for people to get offended by everything like with the cawdor hood.



yes, a minor alteration to a single model certainly ruined everything. Having more people to game with certainly would be awful.

No, wait- that chain of logic isn't right. No, the model change made no difference whatsoever, and having more people in the game would be good.

I could see reasons to reject 'esports 40k,' but 'it might grow the fanbase/customerbase' is a terrible one.


The people complaining aren't necessarily players and it was only a hood this time. There's no reason to assume it stops with minor alterations. Nobody is going to be happy when PETA resurfaces with petitions and letters to GW demanding the space wolves wear synthetic pelts...


I hate to point this out, but Space Wolves' pelts are in fact made of plastic. They're fully synthetic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whst I'd do if I were a snowflake millenial sjw trying to change the setting of 40k is start some new fiction to advance the story.

I'd start by ret conning the imperiums past, "clone wars" style so rather than everyone believing they're playing villains, they can all see their factions as misunderstood heroes or at least caught in bad circumstances outside their control to soften their evil acts.

Then, I'd make sure to tie that new past into every development in the presenr, putting in tons of references to that past setting to change the hazy mist of a backstory it used to be into something that feels like last Tuesday.

I'd also make people more attached to the sleeker, more technologically advanced imperium, knowing my diehard fans most likely identify with super smart atheists than ignorant religious zealots. I'd steadily increase the number of fancy advanced units in the imperial factions and phase out the old fashioned stuff. Get it all to start looking more like the idealized fancy past I'd put into place.

Then it'd be real easy for people to accept fundamental changes to the setting. Heck, the fans who'd ordinarily be mad would probably endlessly speculate which of my new characters would appear to change the setting next!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/12 20:21:42


 
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle






 oni wrote:
With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.


Your profile says you're 36. I've got some bad news bud, you're a millennial too.



A GW fan walks into a bar, buys the same drink as yesterday but pays more.

""Unite" is a human word, ... join me or die."

If you break apart my posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran




 Peregrine wrote:

Improving balance benefits everyone. Clear and functional rules benefit everyone. The only people who don't benefit from competitive play improvements are a tiny but loud minority of CAAC players who use poor rules as a means of virtue signalling, since if you embrace bad game design and poor balance it shows off how far you are from competitive play.


Well, assuming you are right. What´s the problem?

If competitive balance is truly the great universal truth that will usher in the ultimate gaming-utopia for everyone, I am sure people will soon see it as the self-evident truth you claim it is, especially if non-competitive´s don´t feel pushed or patronised, but instead are given the time to come see this great and universal insight that you as the chosen one have discovered so far ahead of all those casual plebs out there.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Steelcity

 Red Corsair wrote:
 Kirasu wrote:
 oni wrote:
With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.


You have absolutely nothing to worry about. Esports barely functions for the MOST popular games (which are all shooters or RTS/MOBA games) and Fortnite last quarter clocked in at 300 million hours of viewing on Twitch. People who watch warhammer games on Twitch is atleast 300 times less than that, and I'd wager more so. If games with 300 MILLION hours cant have stable esports leagues then we dont even have to fathom 40k with its extremely tiny fan base (compared to actual video games)


I agree, it will never be an Esport because advertisers care about view time. There is a reason successful YouTubers keep their videos under 10 minutes, anything longer and folks lose interest and leave, and an advertiser doesn't want that. 40k content creators rely on patreon generally, which is basically donations like public access. In a 3+ hour game how on earth do you get multiple advertisers on board, they would never be guaranteed to be seen over another advert before the viewer leaves, so your looking at a single sponsor per game, yikes. Then there's the Elephant in the room of GW supporting it and being OK with outside advertising. They already want tables to be 100% GW product now. I couldn't imagine them being OK with an event stream with Kromlech adds for example. Hell, you couldn't even get army painter or exacto. Why would GW pay some stream when they already have streaming capability and full control over pushing their own product? If they did they would impose on it.

Watching 40k on stream is excruciatingly boring and that isn't even the biggest hurdle.


GW and other table top games want shows that *are* advertisements with charismatic actors, high production and a well entrenched viewer base. There is a reason why Geek & Sundry do board game Lets Play (They’re paid by the creators of the board game). I could totally see GW reach a deal with Geek & Sundry to have pretty actresses play 40k in 1 hour formats with all well painted GW studio models. Or they simply contract out the actual hosts of G&S (Like Becca Scott) to do the same thing on their own media channels (which they already do).

That, IMO, is the only option where 40k is actually watched in any meaningful manner. As you said, 40k is super boring to watch and even more so when its a streamer using bad lighting/sound/video and having no crew to provide commentary. Personality matters and most gamers aren’t exactly what I’d call photogenic for videos :p

Keeper of the DomBox
Warhammer Armies - Click to see galleries of fully painted armies
32,000, 19,000, Renegades - 10,000 , 7,500,  
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






I personally enjoy watching Tabletop Tactics games, but those aren't live streamed either, they're edited down to 2-3 hours, and are a lot of fun. I've seen live streamed 40k games, and it's just impossible to tell what's going on in them. The only way to watch a 40k battle report is if it's filmed with commentary from the players, and that's just not gonna happen in a competitive setting.

So yea, 40k will never be anything resembling a "sport", tournaments are just a hobby, and while you can absolutely make a living off of producing youtube content about your hobby, you cannot make a living just by participating.
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine




Between Alpha and Omega, and a little to the left

I honestly find super easy fallback and random charge rolls more "gamey" that tri-pointing or assaulting from a higher ledge with jump units, since at least the latter other two make positioning important.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/12 22:02:02


Want to help support my plastic addiction? I sell stories about humans fighting to survive in a space age frontier.
Lord Harrab wrote:"Gimme back my leg-bone! *wack* Ow, don't hit me with it!" commonly uttered by Guardsman when in close combat with Orks.

Bonespitta's Badmoons 1441 pts.  
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Red Corsair wrote:
 Kirasu wrote:
 oni wrote:
With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.


You have absolutely nothing to worry about. Esports barely functions for the MOST popular games (which are all shooters or RTS/MOBA games) and Fortnite last quarter clocked in at 300 million hours of viewing on Twitch. People who watch warhammer games on Twitch is atleast 300 times less than that, and I'd wager more so. If games with 300 MILLION hours cant have stable esports leagues then we dont even have to fathom 40k with its extremely tiny fan base (compared to actual video games)


I agree, it will never be an Esport because advertisers care about view time. There is a reason successful YouTubers keep their videos under 10 minutes, anything longer and folks lose interest and leave, and an advertiser doesn't want that. 40k content creators rely on patreon generally, which is basically donations like public access. In a 3+ hour game how on earth do you get multiple advertisers on board, they would never be guaranteed to be seen over another advert before the viewer leaves, so your looking at a single sponsor per game, yikes. Then there's the Elephant in the room of GW supporting it and being OK with outside advertising. They already want tables to be 100% GW product now. I couldn't imagine them being OK with an event stream with Kromlech adds for example. Hell, you couldn't even get army painter or exacto. Why would GW pay some stream when they already have streaming capability and full control over pushing their own product? If they did they would impose on it.

Watching 40k on stream is excruciatingly boring and that isn't even the biggest hurdle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
stratigo wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Well PETA allready is annoyed and i feel like slaanesh or SoB would be prime targets for such groupes.


Which is why dnd died and rpgs have all been outlawed. Wait


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 oni wrote:
With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.


Do you think the imperium are the unironic good guys and should be inspirations for real politics?


I think your missing their points pretty badly.

The game has no good guy. The closest you get to good guys are the Tyranids mostly because they are amoral. I think the fear is that real world politics start influencing the game and setting not the other way around.


Real world politics has always influenced the game though. Like, what do you think rogue trader 1st ed was a satire of?

There's a reason GW novels have to stress "No guys, really, the imperium is a giant mess and could do everything better with less mass murder."


There's a problem with some people though because for them, satire is dead. The imperium is to be taken as is the best you can do and all their baddies have wonderful real world standins you can hate.
   
Made in us
Scuttling Genestealer





philadelphia

stratigo wrote:
 Red Corsair wrote:
 Kirasu wrote:
 oni wrote:
With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.


You have absolutely nothing to worry about. Esports barely functions for the MOST popular games (which are all shooters or RTS/MOBA games) and Fortnite last quarter clocked in at 300 million hours of viewing on Twitch. People who watch warhammer games on Twitch is atleast 300 times less than that, and I'd wager more so. If games with 300 MILLION hours cant have stable esports leagues then we dont even have to fathom 40k with its extremely tiny fan base (compared to actual video games)


I agree, it will never be an Esport because advertisers care about view time. There is a reason successful YouTubers keep their videos under 10 minutes, anything longer and folks lose interest and leave, and an advertiser doesn't want that. 40k content creators rely on patreon generally, which is basically donations like public access. In a 3+ hour game how on earth do you get multiple advertisers on board, they would never be guaranteed to be seen over another advert before the viewer leaves, so your looking at a single sponsor per game, yikes. Then there's the Elephant in the room of GW supporting it and being OK with outside advertising. They already want tables to be 100% GW product now. I couldn't imagine them being OK with an event stream with Kromlech adds for example. Hell, you couldn't even get army painter or exacto. Why would GW pay some stream when they already have streaming capability and full control over pushing their own product? If they did they would impose on it.

Watching 40k on stream is excruciatingly boring and that isn't even the biggest hurdle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
stratigo wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Well PETA allready is annoyed and i feel like slaanesh or SoB would be prime targets for such groupes.


Which is why dnd died and rpgs have all been outlawed. Wait


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 oni wrote:
With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.


Do you think the imperium are the unironic good guys and should be inspirations for real politics?


I think your missing their points pretty badly.

The game has no good guy. The closest you get to good guys are the Tyranids mostly because they are amoral. I think the fear is that real world politics start influencing the game and setting not the other way around.


Real world politics has always influenced the game though. Like, what do you think rogue trader 1st ed was a satire of?

There's a reason GW novels have to stress "No guys, really, the imperium is a giant mess and could do everything better with less mass murder."


There's a problem with some people though because for them, satire is dead. The imperium is to be taken as is the best you can do and all their baddies have wonderful real world standins you can hate.


I think you're misunderstanding, I don't care about that. The point was that 40k becomes an esport, whole bunch of crazies are suddenly exposed to it, and they find stuff to freak out about. The advertisers paying for it suddenly become a target and in turn pressure gw to remove stuff like the cawdor hood. The next day you have ten spikeybits articles about gw being racist or whatever they come up with...

Obviously I'm being hyperbolic but the point still stands.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







Some of the Privateer Produced live battle reports are, I think, a good indication of what you have to be willing to do as a game commentator. :-/

And every time I hear about people complaining about game balance, I remember what I first heard about historical gaming tournaments. If the sides aren't (or can't, reasonably be) balanced, every game gets played twice with each player having a go with each side.

Naturally, the problem with that when you're dealing with player created lists is:
1. So now you're going to a tournament and handing over your models to someone else.
2. So now you're being handed some bizarre list at a tournament, some bizarre collection of models, and now you've got to play that.

I mean, it's bad enough now when you've got to deal with the other player explaining the completely obvious (to them) but completely invisible (to you) squad markingings or "The las cannon in this squad is a plasma cannon because plasma cannons are ugly" models. You can just shrug your shoulders and expect the other player to keep their models straight now. But when they're handing you their army...

You end up with a tournament that either has to be twice as long (chronologically) or contain half as many rounds. But if you want to argue about demonstrating who the better player is, how else do you achieve "all other factors being equal" without telling the players what models they're going to using.
   
Made in us
Auspicious Aspiring Champion of Chaos





You have set army lists for each race. That is exactly how the historical tournaments I went to in the late 80s and early 90s ran as well as Battletech.

GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: