| 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. |
|
 |
2014/05/16 13:44:40
Subject: Balance needs to start with the players, not with the game
|
|
The Hive Mind
|
 ashcroft wrote:Disclaimer 2: Alternative title for this topic would have been "Competitive 40K would require a whole different ruleset."
No, it wouldn't.
[quote[If a casual/fluffy player enters a pvp zone and goes one on one against someone running an optimised/min-maxed uber build, then the casual is going to lose, almost always. Doesn't matter if they are more skilled as a player - the superior gear, stats, attack rotation of the min-maxer will usually be the deciding factor. In much the same way a fluff list is, more often than not, going to take a beating from an optimised tournament ready netlist.
This is true for a game that is PVE and PVP. 40K is only PVP.
The only way for GW to force balance onto 40K would be to drastically reduce the options available to the players - in terms of units that can be fielded, missions that can be played, the way and the quantity of terrain that is deployed. Everything. Is 40K as well balanced as a tournament game like Starcraft? Not in the slightest, but Starcraft has only 3 races. I daresay if GW squatted everyone except the Ultramarines, the Eldar and the Tyranids they could balance those 3 codexes better against each other.
Simply and unequivocally false. First of all, there's 2 (well, three but I'll get to the third later) areas of balance here. One, internal balance. By this I mean internal to a codex. You can have multiple Elite choices that are not identical and yet all worth fielding. Second, external balance. This means that a unit worth 100 points in codex A should be comparable in value to a unit worth 100 points in codex B.
If either one of these were true, it could be a workable game. Currently, neither is true. At all. And that is literally entirely GW's fault.
GW isn't twisting anyone's arm to force them to spam Riptides, or Wave Serpents or deathstar units. Just because the rules don't say you can do something does not mean you either have to or should do it. Some of the responsibility has to lie with the players to actually agree about what makes an enjoyable game for all concerned, rather than waiting for GW to dictate from on high a set of draconian restrictions to force the game to be what any particular player wants it to be.
No, the onus isn't on the players - rather it shouldn't be. In a hobby that encourages pickup games, I shouldn't be worried about walking into a new store and hoping that the available player doesn't have a list that will plant its foot in my buttocks.
The 3rd area where balance is lost is the rules themselves. They're poorly written. The interactions are poorly thought out.
A game system with poorly written rules, but well balanced (internally and externally) armies can work.
A well written game system with poor internal balance but decent external balance can work.
Heck, a well written system with good internal balance but poor external balance can even work - players would establish tiers of armies and things would work themselves out that way.
Fail 2 out of 3 of those and things start to fall apart. GW has failed at 3/3.
|
|
|
|
2014/05/16 19:03:54
Subject: Balance needs to start with the players, not with the game
|
|
The Hive Mind
|
It's almost like you took a single line out of context to respond to.
And you even agree with me - taken from your blog link:
Points only start to work as a balancer the more that things are controlled for. If you're talking about units within a single codex, and that have a limited number or limited combinations (you must take a certain unit to unlock others, etc.), then they start to work better. As it is, GW is going in the opposite direction, which is why points costs, even if they were accurate, are doing a progressively worse and worse job of acting as a balancer.
Currently, point costs don't work for comparison cross codex. They should.
|
|
|
|
2014/05/17 23:07:09
Subject: Re:Balance needs to start with the players, not with the game
|
|
The Hive Mind
|
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Unbound isn't being sold as a "make up any gak you want" ruleset but instead a ruleset for making armies that match the ones in the books or the lore bits in the codexes. To accomplish what can't be done normally inside the FOC.
When the WD talks bout running a Leman Russ, some demons, a Carnifex, etc (don't remember the entire idiotic example) I'm going to say you're wrong.
It's completely about make up whatever gak you want. Sure, you'll be able to copy the books, but the advertised goal is to use whatever you have,no mTter what codex it's from.
|
|
|
|
2014/05/22 16:49:39
Subject: Balance needs to start with the players, not with the game
|
|
The Hive Mind
|
Yeah, you can play Battle Forged and go with 9 of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
