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.

 CoreCommander wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

I keep hearing this quoted. First, I'd like to know when and where it was said, so I can see the quote in context.

The "scandalous" document in question is an yearly report for 2014. I'll find it in a minute. P.S. Ah, yes here it is http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Games-Workshop-Group-14-combined-FINAL-cover-version.pdf. Got it wrong the first time.
And the paragraph that lit the whole interned on fire itself:
"Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures. They tend to be male, middle-class, discerning teenagers and adults. We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche."

Thanks for that. I think I understand their reasoning here. A niche market is, by definition, small and specialized. Market research in such a small arena is of limited value, especially if your competitors (like both of them) don't share sales information, or if their sales are so insignificant compared to your own that you wouldn't care. If they do something that is successful, is it because it was a better choice or because it was a better choice for their specific audience? You can't really draw trends from such a small data set. I mean, you can make assumptions, but the market is small enough that they don't need to pay other people to make assumptions for you.

I also understand why it could be seen as frustrating for fans, because it seems like "we don't care what our fans think", especially with how uncommunicative GW can be about the decisions it makes. They won't even announce new products that it has been preparing for months/years more than a week in advance. It makes the players feel isolated from the direction of the game, like followers instead of companions. But, alas, that's how GW wants to play things. I kind of get that too, as if there's one unifying behavior that applies to all GW fans, it's that they think that they know how better to run the company than GW does, and man, I'll bet that gets old real quick.

Apple fox wrote:

The game has little thought to balance, there is bare minimum for missions or thought to naritive.

There are 22 missions out there, spread into 3 books. The new Dreadhold book has some more.

Apple fox wrote:

Now thanks to AoS killing fantasy dead here, we starting up kings of war it seems.

I wish you many happy moments with your new system. Enjoy your new purchases from Mantic. They'll reap the bounty of all the disheartened, countless fans that supported Fantasy and didn't let it die out.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I believe his point is that two balanced armies in the hands of two unbalanced players still creates an unbalanced game,...

Well, of course it does. Any competitive game (by which I mean 'game that involves 2 or more players with the object of one of those players winning, that isn't resolved entirely by blind chance') is a test of skill between the two players. If one of those players is a better player then the other, then that player will be a better player then the other.

That's not something that the game system needs to (or should) balance.


I played a lot of Chess against my elder brother as a kid. I lost fairly consistently, because he was a better player than me. I didn't blame my lack of winning on the game... I put it down to my own lack of skill, and worked on becoming a better player.

 CoreCommander wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

The game has little thought to balance, there is bare minimum for missions or thought to naritive.

There are 22 missions out there, spread into 3 books. The new Dreadhold book has some more.

Apple fox wrote:

Now thanks to AoS killing fantasy dead here, we starting up kings of war it seems.

I wish you many happy moments with your new system. Enjoy your new purchases from Mantic. They'll reap the bounty of all the disheartened, countless fans that supported Fantasy and didn't let it die out.

Those books are 150$ each, that's way to high D: I won't pay that until I see the quality in the resources I would be buying. (couldent find the dread hold book on there website)

Now don't get me wrong, I want AoS to succeed here. I even think that what they have can work, but I think GW now that it has step out of its boundary needs to be the one that really sets it all rolling. They need to be putting out as much quality content for players to really get into it.
The lack of points and the changes really need support from the company in a new way, reach out to the players and throw them more.
The books at that price above may as well not exist, not many new players are going to put that kinda money down.
When you are competing in price for a brand new PS4 or Xbox1 game with your books there is something really wrong with the business strategy.

 insaniak wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
I believe his point is that two balanced armies in the hands of two unbalanced players still creates an unbalanced game,...

Well, of course it does. Any competitive game (by which I mean 'game that involves 2 or more players with the object of one of those players winning, that isn't resolved entirely by blind chance') is a test of skill between the two players. If one of those players is a better player then the other, then that player will be a better player then the other.

That was one half of the thought. The other half of the thought was "... and the players will blame the game, not themselves". As in, players can't recognize their own skill (maybe a bit of the Dunning-Kruger effect), so they can't see when their skill failed them. The game is easiest to blame (or luck, for bad dice rolls).

That's not something that the game system needs to (or should) balance.

You don't balance the game for player skill, but you need to minimize its effect. I know, I know. Heretic! But I'm serious. I mentioned before that LEGO, when they made their board game series, actually said that randomness helps unequal players have a fun time together. You mix the imbalanced stuff in with the balanced stuff, and you end up with a game where a wider variety of player skills can interact.

I mean, haven't you ever wondered why all the miniature games use dice instead of deterministic factors? Why don't you try it. Figure out the average successes for you various rolls and use that exclusively. If you have the highest chance of rolling a 7, then just assume you did. Play a game or two of this, where you can absolutely predict the outcome of every action. Heck, use identical armies. That is a completely balanced game. I have no idea if it would be any fun, but something tells me that the number of players you can have fun playing against will be considerably fewer.

I played a lot of Chess against my elder brother as a kid. I lost fairly consistently, because he was a better player than me. I didn't blame my lack of winning on the game... I put it down to my own lack of skill, and worked on becoming a better player.

That's because Chess has identical sides, no dice rolling, and a long history of being thought of as a game of skill. If you want a similar experience with wargames, do what I suggested above. Equal sides, deterministic actions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CoreCommander wrote:

I wish you many happy moments with your new system. Enjoy your new purchases from Mantic. They'll reap the bounty of all the disheartened, countless fans that supported Fantasy and didn't let it die out.

Bitter, entitled money spends just the same, but I can't help but wonder if the bump in players will be long term. I suspect that sticking it to GW with "almost Warhammer" may not prove to be lasting.

Apple fox wrote:


...They need to be putting out as much quality content for players to really get into it...

...When you are competing in price for a brand new PS4 or Xbox1 game with your books there is something really wrong with the business strategy.

First, everyone has their own standard for quality. Second, the game came out on 1.07.2015. In three days AoS will turn 2 months. For that period GW has released:

1. A starter with completely new miniatures and a 100 page book.
2. 3 full colour books containing background lore & missions.
3. 5 Stormcast kits (most mirroring the starter)
4. 3 Bloodbound kits (2 mirroring the starter)
5. About 10 new terrain kits.
6. A big stormcast eternal figure (next week)

Given that provided quaility is subjective, does this seem like a small amount of content for 2 months? I myself presumed that GW has released next to nothing than I sat down to check it all and was like "duuude"... I also want to mention that they've been repackaging alot of stuff.

Video games do not (atleast for me) retain their value over the years as a good printed book for example. They grow old, new computer hardware and software doesn't support them, I grow bored with replaying them etc. This is my opinion. There are video games players that have extensive libraries and collect them on their own. I'd be surprised if a person collected both games and miniatures - this is very expensive. If miniatures compete with video games for your leasure time you should think what type of experience you want as these are very different.

Games don't use dice to make things fair, they use dice to add an element of randomness which is something that happens in real life.

Your plan could be amazingly well executed, however your MG nest could have a misfire, or your preliminary bombardment fired over the enemy lines instead of on it. Or maybe your reinforcements got delayed and the list is endless.

This is what dice is for in a miniature war game, to factor in the things that can and do often go wrong in warfare. It is also an abstract way of having real life issues on the board. "Dang that sniper missed" could be him missing, or him mistaking a rock for a helmet, or him deciding he won't fire because he could give himself away and the list is endless.

This is what makes games fun, and it's your job as commander to try and reduce the issues that can go wrong when executing plans.

Dice does not negate skill, it just adds another skill, how to best use your dice. Well it should do this anyway.

It also factors in the times when men have stood firm or completed tasks against incredible odds. Dice allows a chance for these moments which stories are made of to happen on the board. In 40k terms everyone has that lone guardsmen who should have died but managed to hold or kill an enemy far greater than he.

It's not because it helps unequal players. This may be the case in board games but as the eldest of 5 siblings and off the top of my head, 40+ cousins I can tell you even board games are a cake walk if you are better than everyone else. Except snakes and ladders which is entirely dice done. But people quickly get sick of that game.

In short, dice is not something put in there for the incompetent, it is put in there as an abstract form of covering situations in warfare, such as exceptional situations or mundane issues that can effects the outcome of battles.

 CoreCommander wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


...They need to be putting out as much quality content for players to really get into it...

...When you are competing in price for a brand new PS4 or Xbox1 game with your books there is something really wrong with the business strategy.

First, everyone has their own standard for quality. Second, the game came out on 1.07.2015. In three days AoS will turn 2 months. For that period GW has released:

1. A starter with completely new miniatures and a 100 page book.
2. 3 full colour books containing background lore & missions.
3. 5 Stormcast kits (most mirroring the starter)
4. 3 Bloodbound kits (2 mirroring the starter)
5. About 10 new terrain kits.
6. A big stormcast eternal figure (next week)

Given that provided quaility is subjective, does this seem like a small amount of content for 2 months? I myself presumed that GW has released next to nothing than I sat down to check it all and was like "duuude"... I also want to mention that they've been repackaging alot of stuff.

Video games do not (atleast for me) retain their value over the years as a good printed book for example. They grow old, new computer hardware and software doesn't support them, I grow bored with replaying them etc. This is my opinion. There are video games players that have extensive libraries and collect them on their own. I'd be surprised if a person collected both games and miniatures - this is very expensive. If miniatures compete with video games for your leasure time you should think what type of experience you want as these are very different.

I still don't think they have done very well, for the price I expect a lot more in those books. And if it's going to follow a similar way the price will get out of control. I just don't think it's a good way to sell a game, they need a bit of everything at difernt price points.
(It's not always about how much they relese, but what they release but that's opinion)

Like always this comes at the way GW interacts with its market, we are still seeing no info on the future, no idea what they are working on.
Buying into the game is expensive if we need the books for missions and such, and a lot of players are still wondering what will happen to there army's.
It's leaving people in the dark, again and leaving them in the dark is why so many players here got grumpy. Players want to know if they will even ever get a update. I have seen lots of players pack up and leave waiting, it is rather depressing.

As for games, I don't bring it up as what compeates for my money. But at the price of the books, at current price AoS books are 40$ more than most new games. Often these games are seen as quite pricey over the rest of the world.
For that book I can buy 2 books from d&d and buy dinner for 2.
I value books highly, it's why I buy them. but I still look at there price to compare.

What I a really trying to say is. The first book should have been a lot more background, Allowing every player to see what the future holds for the themes and army's they have. But meh, GW is GW.

 Sqorgar wrote:

You don't balance the game for player skill, but you need to minimize its effect. I know, I know. Heretic! But I'm serious.

Then you are talking Rubbish. And have an extremely short term and narrow minded vision.

what is the reward then for getting better?

When you minimise player skill, you end up with situations where a total noob plays in an equal or superior level to a ten year veteran of the game. Skill and experience need to play a role. You give no value to the veterans time and experience. All that happens is you disenfranchise the long term players and make them feel irrelevant, and discredit, marginalise and invalidate their experience,time spent in the hobby and overall value.

In other words, you crap on people that have worked hard, and put time and effort into the game and they will walk a way. The community then dies.

If you don't want to balance for player skill, I have a wonderful game for you. It's called snakes and ladders.

Deadnight wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

You don't balance the game for player skill, but you need to minimize its effect. I know, I know. Heretic! But I'm serious.

Then you are talking Rubbish. And have an extremely short term and narrow minded vision.

I know, I know. Heretic...

what is the reward then for getting better?

You get to play a fun game with friends in a relaxed and enjoyable environment while you play with little plastic soldiers, pretending you are doing something deep and important?

When you minimise player skill, you end up with situations where a total noob plays in an equal or superior level to a ten year veteran of the game. Skill and experience need to play a role. You give no value to the veterans time and experience. All that happens is you disenfranchise the long term players and make them feel irrelevant, and discredit, marginalise and invalidate their experience,time spent in the hobby and overall value.

So you don't tell them, and let their own egos feed the idea that they are winning based on skill.

In other words, you crap on people that have worked hard, and put time and effort into the game and they will walk a way. The community then dies.

Dude, how much skill do you think these games have? These games are exercises in logistics, not in strategy or tactics. Success in these games is due more to one's ability to minmax than one's ability to reason, plan, and react. And that's fine. But let's not pretend we are talking about levels of competence that the average person is incapable of reaching.

If you don't want to balance for player skill, I have a wonderful game for you. It's called snakes and ladders.

Snakes and Ladders is a 16th century Indian game which is popular around the world and has survived for centuries. That's a pretty long lived success given how unimportant player skill is.

What, player skill makes the game imbalanced? WTF?

That's the stupidest thing I've heard all week. Bar none.

GAMES ARE SUPPOSED TO REWARD PLAYER SKILL. If you want an even 50-50% chance, why play the game at all? Why not just toss a coin to see who won, and then try to come up with a reason why you won afterwards (because narrative gaming)?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Dude, how much skill do you think these games have? These games are exercises in logistics, not in strategy or tactics. Success in these games is due more to one's ability to minmax than one's ability to reason, plan, and react. And that's fine. But let's not pretend we are talking about levels of competence that the average person is incapable of reaching.
.

By any chance, have you played any tabletop miniature game extensively other than GW ones?

 heartserenade wrote:
What, player skill makes the game imbalanced? WTF?

That's the stupidest thing I've heard all week. Bar none.

GAMES ARE SUPPOSED TO REWARD PLAYER SKILL. If you want an even 50-50% chance, why play the game at all? Why not just toss a coin to see who won, and then try to come up with a reason why you won afterwards (because narrative gaming)?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Dude, how much skill do you think these games have? These games are exercises in logistics, not in strategy or tactics. Success in these games is due more to one's ability to minmax than one's ability to reason, plan, and react. And that's fine. But let's not pretend we are talking about levels of competence that the average person is incapable of reaching.
.

By any chance, have you played any tabletop miniature game extensively other than GW ones?

I honestly doubt he has. He said he was new to table top games on his first post. He did say he dabled in warmachine a decade ago when he first arrived:

Thank you. I am relatively new to miniature gaming. I played Warmachine briefly when it first started, over a decade ago, but AoS brought me back

Which probably explains why he thinks AOS is some amazing game that has revolutionized the gaming world or something.

 heartserenade wrote:
What, player skill makes the game imbalanced? WTF?

That's the stupidest thing I've heard all week. Bar none.

A string walks into a bar with a few friends and orders a beer. The bartender says, "I'm sorry, but we don't serve strings here."

The string goes back to his table. He ties himself in a loop and messes up the top of his hair. He walks back up to the bar and orders a beer.

The bartender squints at him and says, "Hey, aren't you a string?"

The string says, "Nope, I'm a frayed knot."

Now it is the second stupidest thing, bar included.

GAMES ARE SUPPOSED TO REWARD PLAYER SKILL.

They do reward it. They just don't rely on it.

By any chance, have you played any tabletop miniature game extensively other than GW ones?

I have spoken forbidden, heretical words and now must defend my credibility.

It is true that my experience with tabletop miniature games is limited to Warmachine and Age of Sigmar (well, and Star Wars + DnD Miniature Battles, if those count - some HeroClix as well), but my experience with games as a whole is enormous. Board games, CCGs, and especially video games, of which I own thousands. In fact, you'll find my name credited in a couple of them. Miniature games represent an exciting new frontier for me, though more for the hobby aspect. There are numerous board games like Monsterpocalypse, Car Wars, Dust Tactics, BattleLore 2E, and Imperial Assault that are competitive miniature games in all but name and table space.

My experience is extensive, but my borderline autistic obsession with gaming is irrelevant. I may have posted a heretical idea, but think about it for a while. Roll it around on your tongue and see if you don't like the taste. It may be that you've always thought of your games in one particular manner and never thought to question it. It could be that you aren't wrong, or perhaps you aren't right, or maybe it is somewhere in between. I'm not saying you have to agree with me (or even expect it), but I ask that you at least consider it before dismissing it, or me, outright.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Now it is the second stupidest thing, bar included.

Still the stupidest thing, sorry.

My experience is extensive, but my borderline autistic obsession with gaming is irrelevant. I may have posted a heretical idea, but think about it for a while. Roll it around on your tongue and see if you don't like the taste. It may be that you've always thought of your games in one particular manner and never thought to question it. It could be that you aren't wrong, or perhaps you aren't right, or maybe it is somewhere in between. I'm not saying you have to agree with me (or even expect it), but I ask that you at least consider it before dismissing it, or me, outright.

I consider things before dismissing them. Even stupid things. I've considered it, and found the idea stupid.

As games remove player skill they tend to get more frustraiting experience for better players, there is a massive skill in mitigating the effects of dice in these games. And good games will incorporate this into there design.

We see it a lot in computer gaming, a game designed around the easy mode as you play harder dificultys gets more frustraiting rather than that much more difficult.
Often useing cheep tactics like more HP to offer a sense of difficulty, rather than more interesting and thoughtful gameplay.
(Comstoks wife in bioshock infinite being a massive sponge of bullets, but doesn't really add that much)

There isn't much about age of sigmar I think is that new or special, it's just GW being GW and doing it backwards.

If I play a 1500pt game of 40k with Dark Angels, by taking specific units I get to take 500pts of *free* tanks.
But it's a balanced game because it's 1500 points a side, yes?

Points introduce a constraint for people to push against. That's why serious tournament players play the same list over and over with minimal tweaks, to see what the 'optimal' build is. Apart from a small subsection of players who insisted on taking units judged to be inefficient purely because they like them, that's what happens. In *any* system with points or similar.

AoS cuts all that out. The judgement of what is balanced is down to the players.
Pick-up games are just as fraught with points as they are without. The difference is that in AoS you don't have some arbitrary system to claim whether it's fair or not.
Whether you think that's good or bad is a matter of opinion, it's not an objective indictment of the system.

If your answer to this is "ah, but we don't allow formations in our local group" or "yes, but comp system X allows BoC to take an extra 10%" or similar, then you don't have an argument. If you're already modding existing comp systems, there's nothing to prevent you doing the same with AoS as you've already crossed the threshold of "RAW doesn't provide a fun game for us".

@RoperPG - Yup. In a perfect world where you want to set up a fair fight between two armies in a given situation, each army would be charged for its effectiveness in that specific game, rather than in a vacuum.

At the end of the day, does a player want clever listbuilding to be rewarded by greater efficiency, or does a player want to start every game with a fair fight? Quite often, especially as you get to the lists with the highest win ratios, those two things can be mutually exclusive.

RoperPG wrote:
If you're already modding existing comp systems, there's nothing to prevent you doing the same with AoS as you've already crossed the threshold of "RAW doesn't provide a fun game for us".

The main difference between AoS and "conventionnal tabletop miniature games" is the choice.

Since there is no balance system in the core rules, like you said, everything must be handled by the players themselves.

The main advantage of a point system is that it's a convention that already exists. So you don't need to create one from scraps to suit you and your opponent. That's more time spent directly to play rather than arguing (and finding compromises) with your fellow players before that.

You can always talk with your opponents to agree on some "house rules" with any game, even those with very strict rules. The choice come from yours.

Just that, in AoS, you have to do it. No choice, you must agree with your opponent about something that will be interesting to play. The "play whatever model you want" rule isn't working on the long term.

It's a good thing there are passionate players out there who work on different "convention systems" so that players don't have to lose too many time to find a common ground to agree.

And if you're saying is not such a big deal...there is a reason why so many conflicts keep happening around the world and they all generally have the same roots; people don't agree at the base because of different points of view. No reason a game like AoS should make exception - unless you're ready to lose players, those who don't agree with you.

 Sarouan wrote:
The "play whatever model you want" rule isn't working on the long term. ... - unless you're ready to lose players, those who don't agree with you.

First, you've made an empirical statement with no evidence. If anything, it's not working for some in the short term.
Second, why should anyone care about people who disagree with the sort of game they want to play not wanting to play? If anything, that's exactly what I want. But that's just me being English - having to tell someone you would rather bathe in bleach than suffer 2 hours in their company having 'fun' is frightfully awkward.

Over time, your second point will completely prove your first point wrong.

Apple fox wrote:
As games remove player skill they tend to get more frustraiting experience for better players, there is a massive skill in mitigating the effects of dice in these games. And good games will incorporate this into there design.

It can mitigate skill without removing player choice. As in, you can still have a dozen different ways to do something, but that none of them are guaranteed to succeed. Some will have a better chance of succeeding, but the operative word there is 'chance'.

I was playing Warmachine and my opponent loaded up his warcaster with attack buffs, teleported next to mine, and had seven or eight attacks which should've had a very high chance of ending the game. But he didn't kill my warcaster because of a sequence of terrible rolls that either missed outright (even critical misses) or did only one or two damage each time - all because he was rolling a bunch of 1s and 2s.

In a truly skill based game, the game would not necessarily be balanced, but it would have deterministic actions. If I do this, that will always happen. Because of this, you can plan a dozen moves in advance because you can absolutely predict what will happen. In a game with a lot of dice rolling, you can make plans, but because there is a chance they can fail, you can not plan too far ahead. For instance, how much damage you do to an enemy will determine whether you need to attack him with two units or three. You must keep the third unit on standby in case it is needed and can not dedicate it towards other tasks, as you would if you knew the outcome ahead of time.

Don't get me wrong, there is skill in playing the odds and planning contingencies. You can always lose, and in large buckets of dice like AoS, the variation of success can be quite broad - from missing completely, to getting a few hits, some hits, a lot of hits, to rolling all 6s and completely decimating the enemy. And this, ultimately, gimps player skill a bit because, while you can have a broad plan of attack, you can not guarantee its degree of success. The game becomes more reactive, which gives less strategic minded players a chance to succeed, either through lucky dice rolls or through focusing only on the immediate game versus planning for the long term.

As I suggested before, go ahead and try a deterministic game. Instead of using dice, use static values for success. Or use a set of non-random cards representing roll values (such that when you use a critical success card, you do not have it for future attacks). Try and you'll see that bad players gimp themselves early on in the game and can never recover. You'll also find that bad players will not enjoy the game as much and will probably stop playing it well before they get good enough.

We see it a lot in computer gaming, a game designed around the easy mode as you play harder dificultys gets more frustraiting rather than that much more difficult.
Often useing cheep tactics like more HP to offer a sense of difficulty, rather than more interesting and thoughtful gameplay.
(Comstoks wife in bioshock infinite being a massive sponge of bullets, but doesn't really add that much)

That's actually a question of resources. You build a game around the most common experience, with few resources left over for balancing other difficulties (hell, most video games aren't even balanced in normal). It is quick and easy to add modifiers to stats like HP or increase enemy spawns, but it is much, much more time consuming to add new unique challenges and experiences (like Goldeneye did). If anything, these cheaply made hard modes expect player skill to overcome the imbalances produced by unchecked stat buffs.

It has nothing to do with player skill. Few video games do - a game which only a few, highly dedicated players can enjoy and succeed at won't sell well. Check out how popular Fire Emblem was before Awakening removed permadeath and added grinding.

There isn't much about age of sigmar I think is that new or special, it's just GW being GW and doing it backwards.

It's not that AoS's choices are unique, but more that they are daring. Twerking is a club is one thing. Twerking at your exgirlfriend's wedding is something different. The context matters, and AoS has made choices that are, in the current climate of expectations for this tiny, inbred hobby, somewhat shocking.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Don't get me wrong, there is skill in playing the odds and planning contingencies. You can always lose, and in large buckets of dice like AoS, the variation of success can be quite broad - from missing completely, to getting a few hits, some hits, a lot of hits, to rolling all 6s and completely decimating the enemy. And this, ultimately, gimps player skill a bit because, while you can have a broad plan of attack, you can not guarantee its degree of success.

Just to complicate matters, this random element is something the designers take into account so that a player who is skilful enough to take the possibility (indeed, probability) of failure into account is rewarded - padding redundancy into your tactics as opposed to staking everything in a potentially suicidal move. The latter can win you a game, the former will win you more than one.

Not saying you a re wrong by any means. It might be better to think of this random factor (and, indeed, the notions of balance that have been raised in this thread) as a sliding scale that a designer selects before he starts writing - it is all part of what you are aiming for.

All that said, the possibility of failure despite perfect planning is one of the elements that keeps people coming back to these games, however heart-rending it can be!

MongooseMatt wrote:

Just to complicate matters, this random element is something the designers take into account so that a player who is skilful enough to take the possibility (indeed, probability) of failure into account is rewarded - padding redundancy into your tactics as opposed to staking everything in a potentially suicidal move. The latter can win you a game, the former will win you more than one.

Yes, but it won't reward you as much as being successful. Randomness overwhelmingly favors less skilled players, as well as giving them interesting choices to make that don't require encyclopedic knowledge of every unit. If I do this, I have a decent chance of doing damage, but if I do this other thing, I will absolutely do damage, but less of it.

So skilled players get to feel like that are making important choices, unskilled players feel like they are making important choices, and the randomness prevents either of them from getting too far ahead or too far behind in the grand strategy. It's like the blue shell (or rubber banding AI) in Mario Kart 64. Players who feel they are skilled hate it because they think it punishes their superior playing, but it keeps mediocre players in the game, and creates tension filled games of action instead of one player being so far ahead that he just stares off into space while his opponent takes ten minutes to finally cross the finish line.

I think skilled players will forgive moments of bad luck if the game then presents them with interesting ways to make it up. In my Warmachine example, that sucked for my opponent because I then instantly won the game. But if it had been his Stormclad jack, he would've been upset at the bad rolls, but immediately moved on to planning how he was going to make up for the loss with his remaining units. So using randomness to mitigate player skill works because it usually gives them new situations in which to use that skill, as opposed to a completely deterministic game in which they've won two turns in (staring at the scenery while their opponent slowly makes his way to the finish line).

Not saying you a re wrong by any means. It might be better to think of this random factor (and, indeed, the notions of balance that have been raised in this thread) as a sliding scale that a designer selects before he starts writing - it is all part of what you are aiming for.

I think you give too much credit to game designers. I've known a few and if we're being honest, if a game has dice in it, it's because they are copying another game that has dice in it. I did work for one designer who knew his gak, and that was an amazing experience, but at least as far as video game designers go, he was a rarity.

All that said, the possibility of failure despite perfect planning is one of the elements that keeps people coming back to these games, however heart-rending it can be!

It's also the thing which keeps bad players coming back - having an unlikely plan succeed or having their opponent's sure thing fail. It gives them hope of success in an environment where the odds are stacked against them, keeping them engaged in the game and invested in its outcome throughout.

Randomness doesn't overwhelmingly reward less skillful players. Snakes and Ladders is totally random. If randomness overwhelming rewarded less skillful players, my cat would constantly win against me when we play. In fact the win/loss ratio is about 50/50.

If randomness favoured less skillfull play, (A) it would not be random and (B) clever players would be better at playing more unskillfully than less skillful players.

RoperPG wrote:
If I play a 1500pt game of 40k with Dark Angels, by taking specific units I get to take 500pts of *free* tanks.
But it's a balanced game because it's 1500 points a side, yes?

Again, get outside of GW and you'll see points are used very effectively.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Randomness doesn't overwhelmingly reward less skillful players.

Not reward, favors. As in a skilled player has everything to lose and nothing to gain from it, while an unskilled player has everything to gain and nothing to lose. It doesn't mean that playing badly will somehow make you a winner.

If randomness favoured less skillfull play, (A) it would not be random and (B) clever players would be better at playing more unskillfully than less skillful players.

Again, randomness favors less skillful PLAYERS, not play. In that it keeps them in the game and engaged longer. It mitigates, but does not completely remove, player skill, allowing a much broad range of opponents that can play together and have fun.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Randomness doesn't overwhelmingly reward less skillful players.

Not reward, favors. As in a skilled player has everything to lose and nothing to gain from it, while an unskilled player has everything to gain and nothing to lose. It doesn't mean that playing badly will somehow make you a winner.

If randomness favoured less skillfull play, (A) it would not be random and (B) clever players would be better at playing more unskillfully than less skillful players.

Again, randomness favors less skillful PLAYERS, not play. In that it keeps them in the game and engaged longer. It mitigates, but does not completely remove, player skill, allowing a much broad range of opponents that can play together and have fun.

So, you're advocating that games should,
a) Not reward people that play for a long time.
b) No way to actually get better at the game.
C) No skill and thus no challenge.

That sounds like a kids board game. There are already plenty of those. The reason I dumped 40k as soon as I tried other games, was because they rewarded well thought out strategies and thinking. The game you describe would be like chutes and ladders and would get old very quick.

RoperPG wrote:

First, you've made an empirical statement with no evidence. If anything, it's not working for some in the short term.

It doesn't work because what I think is a fairly balanced/interesting army to play is not necessarily the same than your view on the subject.

Evidence come from real life, everywhere in all fields, not just games. People just don't agree on the same things all the time. Hell, even this forum shows plenty of people who don't have the same views, even if they like the game. Why AoS would suddenly be different? Because Point System was the Root of All Evils? Please.

Second, why should anyone care about people who disagree with the sort of game they want to play not wanting to play?

Because they're players, like you. That's the kind of defense I see a lot for AoS - usually saying that those who don't agree are just "competitive bastards" who only dream to cheat and crush any fun...and I don't think it's a good move for the future of the game.

After all, you never play alone. If you exclude some players just because "you don't agree with them", then these players are lost. You may say "good riddance", but you risk to throw away fellows who actually would be interested on the long term but just don't have the same view as yours on some aspects of the game.

By the way, I never thought clever the move to say "hey, it's good we don't have to play with those players. Just let's play between us alone". It usually ends with a very restrictive gaming circle becoming smaller and smaller with time until it dies, because of lack of players.

If anything, that's exactly what I want. But that's just me being English - having to tell someone you would rather bathe in bleach than suffer 2 hours in their company having 'fun' is frightfully awkward.
.

You know, someone who doesn't agree with you isn't necessarily a horrible fellow who eats cats for breakfast and just want to stomp on your models so that he wins.

But if you like to think like that, feel free.

You really don't need to shut down what the other player wants to field, just know your own limit.

I've said before, if you are setting up a game and during deployment you never think to yourself "this is going to be easy" then you are fine in regards balance. And that holds true still when you realise your opponent may not be as skilled as you after a game or two. It balances itself fine in that regard.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You really don't need to shut down what the other player wants to field, just know your own limit.

I've said before, if you are setting up a game and during deployment you never think to yourself "this is going to be easy" then you are fine in regards balance. And that holds true still when you realise your opponent may not be as skilled as you after a game or two. It balances itself fine in that regard.

And if I see what my opponent is putting down and don't think 'this is going to be easy', but then as soon as we begin the first turn it becomes blatantly clear isn't nearly as skilled at the game as I and one of us ends up not having a fun game because either I have to go easy on him, which gets boring, or he gets crushed accidentally by me?

Or what if I don't think 'this will be easy' but he does and he likes it that way? Let me guess, the answer to that is to not play him. 'Cos that is such a wonderful attitude for a community to have.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You really don't need to shut down what the other player wants to field, just know your own limit.

I've said before, if you are setting up a game and during deployment you never think to yourself "this is going to be easy" then you are fine in regards balance. And that holds true still when you realise your opponent may not be as skilled as you after a game or two. It balances itself fine in that regard.

And if I see what my opponent is putting down and don't think 'this is going to be easy', but then as soon as we begin the first turn it becomes blatantly clear isn't nearly as skilled at the game as I and one of us ends up not having a fun game because either I have to go easy on him, which gets boring, or he gets crushed accidentally by me?

Or what if I don't think 'this will be easy' but he does and he likes it that way? Let me guess, the answer to that is to not play him. 'Cos that is such a wonderful attitude for a community to have.

Scenario #1 - "Oops, guess we didn't get that right. Wanna go again?" Adjust troops, play Game #2.

Scenario #2 - If two people don't have a meeting of the minds of fairness, and neither is willing to budge, you're absolutely right. They should go play other people. No different than meeting the guy who insists on playing a really powerful list uncomped, in any game, that you just don't feel like playing. Why should anyone play a game they don't think will be fun?

I think that there is nothing wrong with the attitude of playing only the people and games that would entertain you. I take no offence if someone doesn't want to play me for any reason. And you don't have to be a jerk about it, just say, "Thanks, but, I didn't bring the right kind of army to play yours, so I'll pass." I've done it myself.