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.

Aexcaliber wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I could have been clearer on that point. It's possible for a game to be in a good place, if being a social game that people talk about and/or follow a social construct is a healthy state for said game.

You haven't shown that such a state is inherently unhealthy for 40k.

It's unhealthy for ANY game because that discussion/social contract/whatever you want to call it is 100% the result of a failure in game design. The only time it is required is when the rules alone are inadequate to provide an enjoyable game and you need to negotiate how to modify the rules, how much exploiting of balance mistakes is "too competitive", etc. Mentioning pre-game negotiation is inherently a concession that the game is not in a healthy state and the players are putting in effort to compensate for it and try to salvage the game they like.

I agree.

The game design is simple broken at current state. My incentive behind gaming was allways having a great competetion, learning, becoming better. The game does not promote anything like that. What you are learing is: "Damn, i play the wrong facting." "My composition was weeker than my oponents", or "Had simply bad luck from dices or losing the first turn today". This is what makes people mad, because winning or losing has nothing to do with players skill, because i can simply cheat the skill by playing power creep. I don't want to dominate the game, because i have the greatest skill. I realy do not have! But building an army around brokeness is how the game works. This is how people becoming toxic, because they do nothing wrong, but get smashed in their face simply by game design. You can follow the path the game works, or you get stomped to the ground.

Consequence is, you buy, buy and buy all the creep, and this in a fast manner, we never have seen before. Thousands of sources for rules, books, faqs following one after another. And the worst thing is... i HAVE to buy, because i must. It's not anything more than pure pay to win, microtransaction mechanism included.

That is not the meaning of a tabletop game. Gaming means, playing together, having a good time, learning and laugh.

Powergamers just ruin this game, like they ruin any computer game multiplayer today. And its okay for them, having a broken game, because this is what they benefit from. And also does the manufacturer.

The only time I've had this experience is against a Castellan or Ynnari. Otherwise your analysis is flat wrong in my opinion. And even then there are things I can learn when I lose to them.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.

 Melissia wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Citation needed.

K.

To my memory, polls consistently show around 60% of dakka posters who respond view themselves as primarily competitive players. A quick search shows a few polls to that effect, the most relevant and well-put-together of which is here:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/764141.page

Thus my assertion, "Dakka tends towards competitiveness".

I respond to your trap card with a quick-play spell that negates it. My assertion is supported by available data.

Cool story. We've all seen those polls.

Now please prove that those numbers are a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole. Considering that's a direct post of what my initial post asked for. You remember that part right, the part of my post that you had to consciously edit out to make your response?

If you can't do this, feel free to admit you're equally as guilty of making sweeping assertions as those you are so quick to condemn.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Citation needed.

K.

To my memory, polls consistently show around 60% of dakka posters who respond view themselves as primarily competitive players. A quick search shows a few polls to that effect, the most relevant and well-put-together of which is here:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/764141.page

Thus my assertion, "Dakka tends towards competitiveness".

I respond to your trap card with a quick-play spell that negates it. My assertion is supported by available data.

Cool story. We've all seen those polls.

Now please prove that those numbers are a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole. Considering that's a direct post of what my initial post asked for. You remember that part right, the part of my post that you had to consciously edit out to make your response?

If you can't do this, feel free to admit you're equally as guilty of making sweeping assertions as those you are so quick to condemn.

It's not possible to prove, but do you genuinely believe that Dakka DOESN'T have a higher ratio of competitive to casual than the general player base?

It seems pretty much inevitable, as casual players are by their nature less likely to engage with wider communities, be that Dakka or any other such community.

We don't have data either way, but it seems pretty logical that this relationship will exist.

 Stux wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Citation needed.

K.

To my memory, polls consistently show around 60% of dakka posters who respond view themselves as primarily competitive players. A quick search shows a few polls to that effect, the most relevant and well-put-together of which is here:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/764141.page

Thus my assertion, "Dakka tends towards competitiveness".

I respond to your trap card with a quick-play spell that negates it. My assertion is supported by available data.

Cool story. We've all seen those polls.

Now please prove that those numbers are a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole. Considering that's a direct post of what my initial post asked for. You remember that part right, the part of my post that you had to consciously edit out to make your response?

If you can't do this, feel free to admit you're equally as guilty of making sweeping assertions as those you are so quick to condemn.

It's not possible to prove, but do you genuinely believe that Dakka DOESN'T have a higher ratio of competitive to casual than the general player base?

It seems pretty much inevitable, as casual players are by their nature less likely to engage with wider communities, be that Dakka or any other such community.

We don't have data either way, but it seems pretty logical that this relationship will exist.

I also don't believe that the majority of players don't play with Points rather than PL, and being thats the whole statement Melissia went on a rant about being some baseless assertion, I'd like to point out the hypocrisy of using the assertion that Dakka's polls are more heavily weighted to being competitive, as your driving argument to refute the very proof you asked for.

Dakka's polls will undoubtedly be more competitive based that the community at large.

Of course we can't infer from that that more people use PL than points, that makes no logical sense.

However we have to be mindful that we really don't know anything about the scale of casual or power level based play. It might be that 90% of people use it and play very casually and never engage with wider communities. Or maybe there are hardly any of them we really don't know at all, and there's no way we really can know. By they're nature, the more casual they are the less likely they are to register on any form of data gathering.

GW themselves are probably the only people at positioned to have SOME data, based on sales and such, to make an inference. And they seem to think PL and Open Play are somewhat important, so I think we have to take that at face value in the absence of anything meaningful to the contrary.

Basically, the whole line of debate is pretty meaningless.

It also depends what you mean by competitive. I'm a casual player (in that I don't do tournaments and I don't necessarily play an optimised list), but I do use points and I still try to win the games I play, so I do care about balance.

If you try to ever win a game, you're competitive by definition. If you're not trying to win the game, what's the point of playing 40k instead of just drinking 30 beers and watching some cute anime girls hold hands?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you try to ever win a game, you're competitive by definition. If you're not trying to win the game, what's the point of playing 40k instead of just drinking 30 beers and watching some cute anime girls hold hands?

Genuinely not sure if this is irony or serious...

Anyway, the point is to have fun. Whatever that means. I know some people can't understand how people can have fun without a balanced competitive game, but many people do. We just don't know how many!

BaconCatBug wrote:If you try to ever win a game, you're competitive by definition. If you're not trying to win the game, what's the point of playing 40k instead of just drinking 30 beers and watching some cute anime girls hold hands?

Strong disagree. Ever heard of "having a good time"?*

*yes, I know that different people have different ideas on what a good time is - and my point is that some people have a good time by playing 40k for non-winning reasons.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

BaconCatBug wrote:If you try to ever win a game, you're competitive by definition. If you're not trying to win the game, what's the point of playing 40k instead of just drinking 30 beers and watching some cute anime girls hold hands?

Strong disagree. Ever heard of "having a good time"?*

*yes, I know that different people have different ideas on what a good time is - and my point is that some people have a good time by playing 40k for non-winning reasons.

BCB's statement was ridiculous but his point sort of remains. Who plays a game and TRIES TO LOSE? There's not caring if you lose, there's not trying to min/max so you win, but I have never met anyone who actually plays a game and plays it intending to lose. They at least TRY to win.

Wayniac wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

BaconCatBug wrote:If you try to ever win a game, you're competitive by definition. If you're not trying to win the game, what's the point of playing 40k instead of just drinking 30 beers and watching some cute anime girls hold hands?

Strong disagree. Ever heard of "having a good time"?*

*yes, I know that different people have different ideas on what a good time is - and my point is that some people have a good time by playing 40k for non-winning reasons.

BCB's statement was ridiculous but his point sort of remains. Who plays a game and TRIES TO LOSE? There's not caring if you lose, there's not trying to min/max so you win, but I have never met anyone who actually plays a game and plays it intending to lose. They at least TRY to win.

Not playing to win =/= trying to lose.

Playing for something other than winning isn't the same as trying to lose, or even intending on losing are completely different things. One can play the game and accepts that they may win or lose, and that fact might be completely irrelevant to them, in much the same way that a player who plays to win may accept that their list is a fluffy Eldar Windrider force, and that may be lost on them.

Again, not implying that players who play to win are all uncaring about the fluff and stuff, but just making a hypothetical point.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Citation needed.

K.

To my memory, polls consistently show around 60% of dakka posters who respond view themselves as primarily competitive players. A quick search shows a few polls to that effect, the most relevant and well-put-together of which is here:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/764141.page

Thus my assertion, "Dakka tends towards competitiveness".

I respond to your trap card with a quick-play spell that negates it. My assertion is supported by available data.

Cool story. We've all seen those polls.

Now please prove that those numbers are a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole. Considering that's a direct post of what my initial post asked for. You remember that part right, the part of my post that you had to consciously edit out to make your response?

If you can't do this, feel free to admit you're equally as guilty of making sweeping assertions as those you are so quick to condemn.

It's not possible to prove, but do you genuinely believe that Dakka DOESN'T have a higher ratio of competitive to casual than the general player base?

It seems pretty much inevitable, as casual players are by their nature less likely to engage with wider communities, be that Dakka or any other such community.

We don't have data either way, but it seems pretty logical that this relationship will exist.

I also don't believe that the majority of players don't play with Points rather than PL, and being thats the whole statement Melissia went on a rant about being some baseless assertion, I'd like to point out the hypocrisy of using the assertion that Dakka's polls are more heavily weighted to being competitive, as your driving argument to refute the very proof you asked for.

I don't see any reason why dakka would support more competitive play than the general community. IMO Dakka is probably a good sample of the general community because dakka has a lot of members. There is no reasons to suspect dakka has any different population than a general sample of 40k players picked at random across the globe. All you need to make an account on dakka is have a computer (or smart phone) and an interested in learning more about aspect of 40k be it painting/modeling/playing....these are things practically every 40k player has.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

BaconCatBug wrote:If you try to ever win a game, you're competitive by definition. If you're not trying to win the game, what's the point of playing 40k instead of just drinking 30 beers and watching some cute anime girls hold hands?

Strong disagree. Ever heard of "having a good time"?*

*yes, I know that different people have different ideas on what a good time is - and my point is that some people have a good time by playing 40k for non-winning reasons.

There is a pretty general rule in life. People enjoy winning more than losing. Furthermore, people really like close games...blow outs are not at all interesting.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Citation needed.

K.

To my memory, polls consistently show around 60% of dakka posters who respond view themselves as primarily competitive players. A quick search shows a few polls to that effect, the most relevant and well-put-together of which is here:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/764141.page

Thus my assertion, "Dakka tends towards competitiveness".

I respond to your trap card with a quick-play spell that negates it. My assertion is supported by available data.

Cool story. We've all seen those polls.

Now please prove that those numbers are a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole. Considering that's a direct post of what my initial post asked for. You remember that part right, the part of my post that you had to consciously edit out to make your response?

If you can't do this, feel free to admit you're equally as guilty of making sweeping assertions as those you are so quick to condemn.

It's not possible to prove, but do you genuinely believe that Dakka DOESN'T have a higher ratio of competitive to casual than the general player base?

It seems pretty much inevitable, as casual players are by their nature less likely to engage with wider communities, be that Dakka or any other such community.

We don't have data either way, but it seems pretty logical that this relationship will exist.

I also don't believe that the majority of players don't play with Points rather than PL, and being thats the whole statement Melissia went on a rant about being some baseless assertion, I'd like to point out the hypocrisy of using the assertion that Dakka's polls are more heavily weighted to being competitive, as your driving argument to refute the very proof you asked for.

I don't see any reason why dakka would support more competitive play than the general community. IMO Dakka is probably a good sample of the general community because dakka has a lot of members. There is no reasons to suspect dakka has any different population than a general sample of 40k players picked at random across the globe. All you need to make an account on dakka is have a computer (or smart phone) and an interested in learning more about aspect of 40k be it painting/modeling/playing....these are things practically every 40k player has.

That's EXACTLY my point, and Melissia claiming otherwise needs to support her broad assertion because as it stands, she's guilty of exactly what she just kicked a big fuss over.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Now please prove that those numbers are a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole.

Moving the goalposts isn't something I respect. I proved that the majority of dakka players when asked in a poll will say that they are primarily competitive, which was my assertion. You're asking me to cite a source for an argument I never made.

 Melissia wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Now please prove that those numbers are a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole.

Moving the goalposts isn't something I respect. I proved that the majority of dakka players when asked in a poll will say that they are primarily competitive, which was my assertion. You're asking me to cite a source for an argument I never made.

It's isn't moving the goalposts because it's the only way to give your assertion any meaning. For "Dakka tends towards competitiveness" to be true in any useful way it has to be considered with reference to the 40k community as a whole. For example, if 60% of people on dakka play competitively but 90% of people in the wider 40k community play competitively then dakka would be a less-competitive community. And it would be absurd to dismiss an argument based on opinions of dakka members as "dakka is exceptionally competitive", as the original comment that started this whole argument did.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Now please prove that those numbers are a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole.

Moving the goalposts isn't something I respect. I proved that the majority of dakka players when asked in a poll will say that they are primarily competitive, which was my assertion. You're asking me to cite a source for an argument I never made.

It's isn't moving the goalposts because it's the only way to give your assertion any meaning. For "Dakka tends towards competitiveness" to be true in any useful way it has to be considered with reference to the 40k community as a whole. For example, if 60% of people on dakka play competitively but 90% of people in the wider 40k community play competitively then dakka would be a less-competitive community.

Why? You're post is very hard to decipher. Stating that dakka tends towards competitiveness is fine. It qualifies the data it generates.I don't see why or how this needs to be tied to how or why the greater community plays, or collects. Dakka is dakka.

Maybe it's my reading comprehension here (ts my anniversary, Ive had a few lovely whiskeys and frankly have more important things on today), but it seems that reading this, that for your assertion to be true, that dakka is seemingly (or should be) reflective of the community. That's not necessarily true. It's perfectly logical to suggest that the competitive elements of a community will congregate under one banner, but which wouldn't necessarily represent the greater community.

Can you please clarify your point?

 Peregrine wrote:

And it would be absurd to dismiss an argument based on opinions of dakka members as "dakka is exceptionally competitive", as the original comment that started this whole argument did.

Not necessarily. While that argument may be true for the opinions of dakka members who are competitive, it may hold no relevance to a (hypothetical) greater community that isn't. It may be that dakka indeed doesn't necessarily reflect the 'real wargaming world'.

*yes, I know that different people have different ideas on what a good time is - and my point is that some people have a good time by playing 40k for non-winning reasons.

There is a pretty general rule in life. People enjoy winning more than losing. Furthermore, people really like close games...blow outs are not at all interesting.

Not true. People generally enjoy a good game, weather they lose or not. I'm not saying everybody, I'm saying GENERALLY. Then if you win, it's icing on the cake.
When asked, most people would say that the games they've enjoyed most are fun close games. NOT fun close games that they won.

Deadnight wrote:
Can you please clarify your point?

The point is that for "dakka trends towards competitiveness" to be true in any meaningful way it has to be the case that dakka is more competitive than average. The implication of the original argument that started this exchange was that because dakka is more competitive than "normal" 40k communities evidence from dakka polls is not representative of the overall community and shouldn't be used to justify statements like "the vast majority of players use points". This is a valid point to make if, say, 60% of dakka members play competitively while only 20% of 40k players as a whole do. In that case you could make the very good argument that dakka is a biased sample and what is true of dakka isn't necessarily true of the wider community. But it isn't valid if, say, 60% of dakka members play competitively while 90% of the wider community does. In that case it's absurd to say that "dakka trends towards competitiveness" because dakka is the much less competitive outlier. And in that case the opposite conclusion is probably true, that if most players in a 60/40 competitive/non-competitive group play with points only then it's almost certainly the case that the margin in favor of points is greater in the wider community.

Not necessarily. While that argument may be true for the opinions of dakka members who are competitive, it may hold no relevance to a (hypothetical) greater community that isn't. It may be that dakka indeed doesn't necessarily reflect the 'real wargaming world'.

Yes, and that's why people are asking for justification for the (implicit) claim about how dakka relates to the wider community and whether or not its poll results are representative.

Deadnight wrote:
Can you please clarify your point?

He doesn't really have one.

This is getting ridiculously off topic.

Bharring wrote:@Charistoph:
I think proper human interaction is a component of 'git gud' in this game. As I consider the more enjoyed-opponent to be the better 40ker over the higher-tourny-rated one.

Coming from my own hubris, it's amazing how we can delude ourselves into thinking we're amazing at everything, and can do anything better than anyone else, and know everything. And be real donkey caves about it.

Quite true. Some of the most enjoyable games are the ones where "gitting gud" would have actually ruined it. As an example, which army is generally considered the most fun to play with and against? The answer is usually "Orks" or "Orcs", depending on the Warhammer. Why? Because they take a serious game and turn it on its head. Even when they are competitive, they still provide some level of memorable moments, if not flat out comedy. And most of the players recognize that they are playing the wackiest army and tend to embrace that feeling. Honestly, I don't think I've met an Ork/Orc player who was overly stressed about the game and tend to be the most chill of the meta, either in store or online.

Peregrine wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I could have been clearer on that point. It's possible for a game to be in a good place, if being a social game that people talk about and/or follow a social construct is a healthy state for said game.

You haven't shown that such a state is inherently unhealthy for 40k.

It's unhealthy for ANY game because that discussion/social contract/whatever you want to call it is 100% the result of a failure in game design. The only time it is required is when the rules alone are inadequate to provide an enjoyable game and you need to negotiate how to modify the rules, how much exploiting of balance mistakes is "too competitive", etc. Mentioning pre-game negotiation is inherently a concession that the game is not in a healthy state and the players are putting in effort to compensate for it and try to salvage the game they like.

There is always the need for a discussion of a game before you play. Even in Chess, there is a discussion of who uses which color. Monopoly has hundreds of house rules that people have picked up in their life time because reading rules is hard, and there is always two people who want to use the race car. Uno requires a discussion as to who deals the cards. These are things that game rules never fully cover, yet has never been considered a failure in game design. The durability of these games would attest to their success more than their failure.

Warhammer endures not because of its game balance, that has never been the games' goal, but because Warhammer has always been about getting friends together to push models around and have a good time. In this, it succeeds. WMH provides a much better game balance, over all, yet the competitive aspects have led many people to ignore the non-tournament aspects of the game so that many of the metas have been hemorrhaging players and turning (or returning) to the fun of Warhammer.

Wayniac wrote:BCB's statement was ridiculous but his point sort of remains. Who plays a game and TRIES TO LOSE? There's not caring if you lose, there's not trying to min/max so you win, but I have never met anyone who actually plays a game and plays it intending to lose. They at least TRY to win.

Only in a game when you win more later by losing now. It usually involves gambling in most cases.

There seems to be a disconnect between list building competitively and playing the actual game competitively. I take casual lists all the time because I like variety and care more about playing an army that to me reflects my chapters background and feel than chasing the meta or constantly buying new things when editions change.

What I don't do is once the game start is deliberately play to lose. I think the break down in this discussion comes from some players see not taking the hardest nastiest most up to the meta list as playing to lose. I personally have no interest in playing such a hard hitting game on a regular basis.

Also practically every game in existence requires some communication between players. GW should write a tighter rule set but can we end this fiction that you could play a game as well balanced as say chess and not have to have a bit of words before the game.

I think people dismiss the human interaction a bit too much because they're used to online matchmaking from video games, where a computer does it all for you. But a GW store isn't a matchmaking algorithm.

 Melissia wrote:
I think people dismiss the human interaction a bit too much because they're used to online matchmaking from video games, where a computer does it all for you. But a GW store isn't a matchmaking algorithm.

Considering the modding that occurs in many games, there can still be discussions there. A lot really depends on the game.

Peregrine wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Now please prove that those numbers are a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole.

Moving the goalposts isn't something I respect. I proved that the majority of dakka players when asked in a poll will say that they are primarily competitive, which was my assertion. You're asking me to cite a source for an argument I never made.

It's isn't moving the goalposts because it's the only way to give your assertion any meaning. For "Dakka tends towards competitiveness" to be true in any useful way it has to be considered with reference to the 40k community as a whole. For example, if 60% of people on dakka play competitively but 90% of people in the wider 40k community play competitively then dakka would be a less-competitive community. And it would be absurd to dismiss an argument based on opinions of dakka members as "dakka is exceptionally competitive", as the original comment that started this whole argument did.

Dakka is not a good indicator of how the community as a whole plays. Out of the 40ish players in my local community, I am the only one who enjoys this site and I think my stated position on "competitive" play speaks for itself.
Probably 10 or so of the players play "competitive" & do go to tourneys.

 Melissia wrote:
I think people dismiss the human interaction a bit too much because they're used to online matchmaking from video games, where a computer does it all for you. But a GW store isn't a matchmaking algorithm.

There is no reason that 40k shouldn't be as straightforward as an online matchmaking system. The fact that it fails to work that way and requires pre-game negotiation is a failure by GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
There is always the need for a discussion of a game before you play. Even in Chess, there is a discussion of who uses which color. Monopoly has hundreds of house rules that people have picked up in their life time because reading rules is hard, and there is always two people who want to use the race car. Uno requires a discussion as to who deals the cards. These are things that game rules never fully cover, yet has never been considered a failure in game design. The durability of these games would attest to their success more than their failure.

That is not at all the same. Discussing how to execute the mechanics of the game (which player deals the cards, who plays first, etc) is not pre-game negotiation. The rules provide a structure for making those decisions and there's no real argument to have. You just pick someone or flip a coin or whatever and then start playing the game. What you have in 40k isn't just mechanics stuff like choosing which mission to play or what point level to play at, you're having extensive negotiations about how you should approach the game: what level of competitiveness is "too much", how many copies of a unit is "spamming", etc. None of that is found in the game rules.

The closest thing in your list of comparisons is the house rules in Monopoly, but even then it has more to do with players not understanding how the game works than negotiating over, say, if it's ok to engage in a bidding war over a property just to block a player from completing the set or if it's more "fun" if you let people build their hotels.

Warhammer endures not because of its game balance, that has never been the games' goal, but because Warhammer has always been about getting friends together to push models around and have a good time. In this, it succeeds. WMH provides a much better game balance, over all, yet the competitive aspects have led many people to ignore the non-tournament aspects of the game so that many of the metas have been hemorrhaging players and turning (or returning) to the fun of Warhammer.

Balance and social play are not mutually exclusive concepts, and the lack of balance that hurts 40k as a competitive game also hurts it in the "have fun pushing models around" context.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I think people dismiss the human interaction a bit too much because they're used to online matchmaking from video games, where a computer does it all for you. But a GW store isn't a matchmaking algorithm.

There is no reason that 40k shouldn't be as straightforward as an online matchmaking system. The fact that it fails to work that way and requires pre-game negotiation is a failure by GW.

If you want to use a game matchmaking analogy - when you go into matchmaking do you not set filters for the type of game you want to play? Map type, game type etc? How is a 2 minute chat with someone in a store before you play any different and why is so much to ask for?

 NurglesR0T wrote:
If you want to use a game matchmaking analogy - when you go into matchmaking do you not set filters for the type of game you want to play? Map type, game type etc? How is a 2 minute chat with someone in a store before you play any different and why is so much to ask for?

Because one is about selecting options within the rules of the game (map type, point level, etc) and the other is about your approach to the game and unwritten rules about what is acceptable. Because one is necessary in a game with options that can be selected, while the other is a result of game design failures and a game that is unbalanced or not fun without negotiating limits outside of the printed rules. And because 40k requires all of the same discussion about map types and such, but also requires additional negotiation about how the players should approach the game.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I think people dismiss the human interaction a bit too much because they're used to online matchmaking from video games, where a computer does it all for you. But a GW store isn't a matchmaking algorithm.

There is no reason that 40k shouldn't be as straightforward as an online matchmaking system. The fact that it fails to work that way and requires pre-game negotiation is a failure by GW.

If you want to use a game matchmaking analogy - when you go into matchmaking do you not set filters for the type of game you want to play? Map type, game type etc? How is a 2 minute chat with someone in a store before you play any different and why is so much to ask for?

There’s also the element of choosing between the 2 unoccupied people in the store vs a couple hundred online. If you’re going to compare filters to finding a 40k game, realize it’s more like searching for a MW2 lobby today than a game of DOTA 2. You can easily filter yourself out of any game at all.

 greyknight12 wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I think people dismiss the human interaction a bit too much because they're used to online matchmaking from video games, where a computer does it all for you. But a GW store isn't a matchmaking algorithm.

There is no reason that 40k shouldn't be as straightforward as an online matchmaking system. The fact that it fails to work that way and requires pre-game negotiation is a failure by GW.

If you want to use a game matchmaking analogy - when you go into matchmaking do you not set filters for the type of game you want to play? Map type, game type etc? How is a 2 minute chat with someone in a store before you play any different and why is so much to ask for?

There’s also the element of choosing between the 2 unoccupied people in the store vs a couple hundred online. If you’re going to compare filters to finding a 40k game, realize it’s more like searching for a MW2 lobby today than a game of DOTA 2. You can easily filter yourself out of any game at all.

Arguably it is better to end up with no game, than a game with clashing expectations which neither player enjoys or gets anything out of.