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.

Hi John HwangDD.
I simply was trying to point out that some games use OBJECTIVE ASSESMENT of game play to identify the relationships within the game and use these to apply a CONSISTANT method of allocating PV and controling configurations.
(AoA is a commonly know game that uses this method.)

IF a developer spends enough time to develop a PV allocation method that works well enough for them to be confident enough to make it freely available to the gamers, this can be OBJECTIVLEY annalised to give a finite result.
(Its easy to objectivley asses calculations to a conclusion. , however how do you validate variable (ever changing ) opinions to an absolute conclusion?)

WHFB and 40k have PV allocation and compositions base PURLEY on subjective opinion.
(This is information directly derived from discussion with Gav Thope and Jervis Johnson about how they allocate PV in WHFB and 40k.)

I am not able to 'prove' any game has better or worse levels of blance than any other.I do not play any game exclusivley, or extensivley enough to assume I am knowledgable enough to do this.

Simply that statistical annalasis of subjective opinion is a non starter.As it is not impartial, as opinion is ALWAYS going to prevent objective assesment.

I am NOT GW bashing, just pointing out that WH and 40k ARE NOT developed with competative play in mind.(Ask any of the GW dev team and they will agree with this.)

TTFN
Lanrak

Lanrak wrote:
I am NOT GW bashing
TTFN
Lanrak

Ha, funny. It's like Nixon saying "I am not a crook."

Lanrak wrote:
Simply that statistical annalasis of subjective opinion is a non starter.As it is not impartial, as opinion is ALWAYS going to prevent objective assesment.

That's not really true. Its just much more difficult to quantify opinion. There are ways to do so using traditional statistical methodology; looking into the practice of political polling would be a good place to start. Alternatively, you could read up on modal logic and use that reasoning system to develop a model for preference.

In order to present a proof of balance within either game, you're likely going to need a huge load of playtesting, using players of similar skill and experience, playing out millions of games from a sampling of thousands of lists, with multiple table styles and, as both games are more organic, allowing, in practice, an infinite number of board positions for any given model on the table. you need to do things such as assigning a qualitative value to a player's skill level (not rank), which would be nigh-impossible to do, as you are attempting to quantify the intangible, as well as accounting for the odd turn in luck inherant to the outcome of many games. Trying to break down the value of the codexes based soley on their ranking in a tournament, or a series of tournaments, takes only a view of what, in the day and age of the internet, tend to be list builds that run remarkably similar to eachother.

While the meta can dictate the "most effective" list builds at the time, the meta is constantly and rapidly shifting, even in the days leading up to the official releasee of a new codex. Case in point, the PBS from the IG codex. People not only had lists up for what could have been an amazing unit, but the meta had already chewed it up, spit it out, and knocked this unit into the dirt before the codex officially hit shelves. Even in a static environment, you're going to see an unstable metagame as it responds to the changes in players and the evolution of how the games are played. Lash Spam? Old news, Mech ate it. Biker Nobz? Old news, died within months of it's inception in favor of a higher body count style list. The meta will change, even in the face of a stagnant selection. The successful players go "Rock", and by the time the mainstream goes "Rock", the successful players have moved on to "Paper".

This game is much more cerebral then chess, and infinitely more organic. Do I think that GW will ever achieve true codex balance? no, not really, as the player will always change to fix the issues that the meta is presenting at any given time.