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.

The real question is "what isn't Calvinball"
http://calvinandhobbes.wikia.com/wiki/Calvinball

So then why do you defend a bad game system.
Look at Goldeneye for N64. Fun game. But when playing with friends you hate the guy that plays Oddjob. But would the game be better if they just removed him as an option entirely?

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

No competition is fine, but games are at their core meant to be fun and enjoyable, not beat your opponent into the ground until they scream for mercy. Winning is fine, but if winning is your only reason for playing, it simply isn't enough in my opinion and strictly in my opinion.

I'm as competitive as the next guy and it is simply beyond annoying to watch people bring the "best" deck simply because it is. Personally, I use rogue decks/tactics in the games I play because those players who spend all their time only playing "competitive" have no idea what to expect and have no idea how to stop it.

Do you think this is the problem of a competitive game or a few players?
If it's the few players, they'll do what they can no matter what and a less restrictive rule set will do nothing to mitigate it. If the rules are naturally balanced, then it's more able to reign them in.
If you think it's the fault of a balanced and competitive system then it means you're never able to play baseball, basketball, football, or any other naturally competitive and balanced game. Most FPS games as well. Wow the list of balanced and competitive games that you could play with friends goes on and on. So maybe it's not the issue of a game, but a few jerks. The guy that shoulder checks you in a game of flag football will probably shouldercheck you in Calvin ball as well.

It's not the random jerks that shouldercheck you that I'm worried about. It's the guys that shouldercheck you and don't know they're doing it that's the problem. What seems fun and fluffy to one person could be a complete curbstomp to some one else's army. No one's right or wrong in that case, they just have very different opinions about what makes the game fun. If the game was more balanced, such different opinions wouldn't matter as much and would be negligible. But since the balance is so off, you can table someone on turn two without trying.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
The real question is "what isn't Calvinball"
http://calvinandhobbes.wikia.com/wiki/Calvinball

So then why do you defend a bad game system.
Look at Goldeneye for N64. Fun game. But when playing with friends you hate the guy that plays Oddjob. But would the game be better if they just removed him as an option entirely?

When did I say I didn't like the game system. I don't like the players mindset, the game system is fine.

Also, Goldeneye, Oddjob was nothing. Just post up inside of an air vent all day and kill them with paint balls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

No competition is fine, but games are at their core meant to be fun and enjoyable, not beat your opponent into the ground until they scream for mercy. Winning is fine, but if winning is your only reason for playing, it simply isn't enough in my opinion and strictly in my opinion.

I'm as competitive as the next guy and it is simply beyond annoying to watch people bring the "best" deck simply because it is. Personally, I use rogue decks/tactics in the games I play because those players who spend all their time only playing "competitive" have no idea what to expect and have no idea how to stop it.

Do you think this is the problem of a competitive game or a few players?
If it's the few players, they'll do what they can no matter what and a less restrictive rule set will do nothing to mitigate it. If the rules are naturally balanced, then it's more able to reign them in.
If you think it's the fault of a balanced and competitive system then it means you're never able to play baseball, basketball, football, or any other naturally competitive and balanced game. Most FPS games as well. Wow the list of balanced and competitive games that you could play with friends goes on and on. So maybe it's not the issue of a game, but a few jerks. The guy that shoulder checks you in a game of flag football will probably shouldercheck you in Calvin ball as well.

It's not the random jerks that shouldercheck you that I'm worried about. It's the guys that shouldercheck you and don't know they're doing it that's the problem. What seems fun and fluffy to one person could be a complete curbstomp to some one else's army. No one's right or wrong in that case, they just have very different opinions about what makes the game fun. If the game was more balanced, such different opinions wouldn't matter as much and would be negligible. But since the balance is so off, you can table someone on turn two without trying.

No game with as many different army choices as this one could ever be balanced or there would be no uniqueness to the army.

 Lobomalo wrote:


What is Calvinball? And it is more those players mindset individually not any perceived imbalance within the game.

Calvinball is from Calvin & Hobbes, where the game has no rules.

You also understand that a game with better balance wouldn't have issues with 'different mindsets' or 'perceived imbalances', right?

People would just make a list and play. There wouldn't be accusations of being overly competitive, or WAAC, or anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobomalo wrote:

No game with as many different army choices as this one could ever be balanced or there would be no uniqueness to the army.

Absolutely, patently false.

That's called making excuses. If there was anyone at GW who properly play tested, they could do a hell of a lot better.

Remember, no one is expecting everything to be perfect, but simply on a much more level playing field.

That is easily achievable with a little work.

 Lobomalo wrote:


When did I say I didn't like the game system. I don't like the players mindset, the game system is fine.

Is it? As I've stated, the game system lets those players with the mindset you don't like to have even more free reign and min/maxed options. Do you think that a game with a more balanced system would make it harder for them to min/max or not.

Like in the oddjob example. Lets say you couldn't camp or that it wasn't fun to camp in the air duct. Oddjob has a distinct advantage. Don't you think it'd be a better game for most people if they removed Oddjob do the height difference?

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
The real question is "what isn't Calvinball"
http://calvinandhobbes.wikia.com/wiki/Calvinball

So then why do you defend a bad game system.
Look at Goldeneye for N64. Fun game. But when playing with friends you hate the guy that plays Oddjob. But would the game be better if they just removed him as an option entirely?

When did I say I didn't like the game system. I don't like the players mindset, the game system is fine.

Also, Goldeneye, Oddjob was nothing. Just post up inside of an air vent all day and kill them with paint balls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

No competition is fine, but games are at their core meant to be fun and enjoyable, not beat your opponent into the ground until they scream for mercy. Winning is fine, but if winning is your only reason for playing, it simply isn't enough in my opinion and strictly in my opinion.

I'm as competitive as the next guy and it is simply beyond annoying to watch people bring the "best" deck simply because it is. Personally, I use rogue decks/tactics in the games I play because those players who spend all their time only playing "competitive" have no idea what to expect and have no idea how to stop it.

Do you think this is the problem of a competitive game or a few players?
If it's the few players, they'll do what they can no matter what and a less restrictive rule set will do nothing to mitigate it. If the rules are naturally balanced, then it's more able to reign them in.
If you think it's the fault of a balanced and competitive system then it means you're never able to play baseball, basketball, football, or any other naturally competitive and balanced game. Most FPS games as well. Wow the list of balanced and competitive games that you could play with friends goes on and on. So maybe it's not the issue of a game, but a few jerks. The guy that shoulder checks you in a game of flag football will probably shouldercheck you in Calvin ball as well.

It's not the random jerks that shouldercheck you that I'm worried about. It's the guys that shouldercheck you and don't know they're doing it that's the problem. What seems fun and fluffy to one person could be a complete curbstomp to some one else's army. No one's right or wrong in that case, they just have very different opinions about what makes the game fun. If the game was more balanced, such different opinions wouldn't matter as much and would be negligible. But since the balance is so off, you can table someone on turn two without trying.

No game with as many different army choices as this one could ever be balanced or there would be no uniqueness to the army.

Other game systems manage to do it. Just pairing the grossest imbalances would be a huge step in the right direction.
Example of obvious and unfun imbalance. Playing BA against a Tau riptide list. =/= fun.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:


What is Calvinball? And it is more those players mindset individually not any perceived imbalance within the game.

Calvinball is from Calvin & Hobbes, where the game has no rules.

You also understand that a game with better balance wouldn't have issues with 'different mindsets' or 'perceived imbalances', right?

People would just make a list and play. There wouldn't be accusations of being overly competitive, or WAAC, or anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobomalo wrote:

No game with as many different army choices as this one could ever be balanced or there would be no uniqueness to the army.

Absolutely, patently false.

That's called making excuses. If there was anyone at GW who properly play tested, they could do a hell of a lot better.

Remember, no one is expecting everything to be perfect, but simply on a much more level playing field.

That is easily achievable with a little work.

More balance does not = no issues in mindsets. Example, Magic the Gathering. Easily a game that is by far balanced, especially if you play the Elder Dragon Highlord variant. Standard has a slight imbalance initially as certain colors in sets get more of a boost than others. Extended format is balanced just fine as well.

Despite the balance, you still get that mindset.

Also, if you balanced every army, how are you accounting for inherent weakness and strengths which, let's be honest now, is really where a lot of the "balance" issues in this game come from. Tau for instance are extremely effective at long range and almost utter garbage in melee from what I have seen. Should we balance them by making their long range weaker or their melee stronger, either way it entirely changes the dynamic of the army.

If all Melee was balanced for instance, why would anyone bring melee guys into a fight against shooters who can stay in range and vice versa.

Wargames as a whole cannot be balanced as they are based on certain true concepts. For example, a shooting army should have the advantage over a melee one and should win a majority of the games. This is not fair for the melee army, but it is how it is. When you add in different factions you need to add something about them that makes them unique and then this in turn impacts the game as a whole as this uniqueness could be something that makes them excel in a certain area where others don't.

Imperial Guard and their tanks are a glaring example of this.

It is impossible to balance the strengths of the Imperial Guard to the level of another faction as this would completely destroy the uniqueness of the Imperial Guard.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Despite the balance, you still get that mindset.

If the game is balanced well enough then it doesn't matter if you get "that mindset" because the game will still be fun and there are no major balance issues for "those people" to exploit and crush people with. The problem here isn't balance, it's that you've decided that anyone who cares "too much" about building a winning/deck/army etc is a Bad Person and ruining the game.

Should we balance them by making their long range weaker or their melee stronger, either way it entirely changes the dynamic of the army.

Weaken their shooting obviously, but not to close the gap between Tau shooting and Tau melee. Having strengths and weaknesses is good, the issue with Tau is that they're so good at shooting that melee armies find it difficult to impossible to win against them. Tau can keep their identity as a shooting-heavy army, they just need a point increase on a small number of units/options that are too good for what they cost.

If all Melee was balanced for instance, why would anyone bring melee guys into a fight against shooters who can stay in range and vice versa.

Because you prefer an aggressive army that rushes to engage the enemy and slaughter them instead of a defensive/reactive army that stays back, responds to threats, and puts survival and positioning ahead of raw killing power. Having a balanced game doesn't at all remove the opportunity for players to prefer different strategies, it just means that you have free choice of what strategy you like best instead of being forced to choose from a very limited range of options that are capable of winning games.

For example, a shooting army should have the advantage over a melee one and should win a majority of the games.

Then here's an idea: don't have all-melee armies in your game. If you want to have an accurate representation of modern/future war, with a heavy focus on movement and shooting, then don't keep making melee units/armies that have no hope of winning. Remove all of that, and reduce melee to an occasional thing that some armies benefit from and can exploit at the right time but no army depends on as its primary strategy.

It is impossible to balance the strengths of the Imperial Guard to the level of another faction as this would completely destroy the uniqueness of the Imperial Guard.

Could you explain what exactly about IG makes them impossible to balance, or are you just going to declare that it is impossible?

No, its not impossible. You simply think so because that's all you know of 40k. There have been plenty of fandexes that are infinitely better internally balanced and externally balanced, and that's from a single player with minimal play testing.

It is possible, its that GW doesn't care. Plenty of other wargames manage this impossible task just fine.

As for the 'mindset' issue, again, I'm not saying that players will magically all hold hands and sing together, but it reduces the possibilities for abuse by the players who do enjoy min/maxing. You're never going to change how a person thinks or has fun in a wargame, so the onus is on the rules to ensure that the most abusive list possible is within an acceptable power level compared to less optimized builds.

Balance isn't hard. It isn't this mythical concept that exists only in fairy tales. There are plenty of wargames that manage to have better core rules and better balance within factions and among them. I find a lot of 40k players try and justify the utter lack of attention to balance by claiming there are too many units, or everything will end up the same. Both of these notions are patently false.

I think you have missed the point completely. I never said they were bad people. They are simply missing out.

The strength from a lore and a mechanic perspective is their advanced technology and their long range weaponry, limiting this is not about balance, that is a complete nerf.

Imperial Guard Artillery/Tanks I have seen demolish everything any player can throw at them if they are unable to push into melee or if they did not bring their own gunline to counter.

But this is the strength of the Imperial Guard as their melee is pathetic as well as their normal shooting and it should be from a lore perspective as they are just normal people.

Actually, to be honest, there is some hope for balance in this game.

Space Marines are incredibly balanced. They don't excel in any one area and they can adapt for any army situation and have a decent chance.

 Lobomalo wrote:
They are simply missing out.

Missing out on what?

I never understood why people hate unbound. I see tons of people "here" complaining but never seen anyone spend the money needed to abuse it or abuse it at all. When the games are do you want to play sure lets play oh your doing that no thanks. Then after about 9 denials he changes his list and all is good.

Its not a video game here guys, an opponent is not randomly generated you MUST play against or lose rank. So people should relax some you have alot of choices when it is the real world.

 Lobomalo wrote:
I think you have missed the point completely. I never said they were bad people. They are simply missing out.

Or maybe YOU are the one who is missing out. Seriously, this is a personal preference thing, people who play competitively and always go for the best options aren't just doing it because they haven't seen the wisdom of the One True Way to play the game.

The strength from a lore and a mechanic perspective is their advanced technology and their long range weaponry, limiting this is not about balance, that is a complete nerf.

I assume you're talking about Tau here? If that's the case then could you explain how making Riptides cost 250 points would in any way contradict the lore of their advanced technology and long-range weapons?

Also, yes, it's a nerf. That's what happens when something is overpowered. Balance includes both buffing and nerfing, especially when the game is as badly unbalanced as 40k is.

Imperial Guard Artillery/Tanks I have seen demolish everything any player can throw at them if they are unable to push into melee or if they did not bring their own gunline to counter.

Sounds like you're just dealing with bad players that don't bring sufficient anti-tank and think that "run a bunch of tactical marines straight up the middle through open terrain and declare a charge" is a viable strategy. In reality IG tanks and artillery can be effective, but they have major weaknesses that can be exploited. There is nothing about them that is inherently impossible to balance, especially in a point-based system like 40k.

Space Marines are incredibly balanced. They don't excel in any one area and they can adapt for any army situation and have a decent chance.

I don't think you understand what balance is. It's about each strategy archetype being a viable choice, and each unit/upgrade/etc in an army having a purpose in at least some of those strategies. It has nothing at all to do with having armies that are decent at everything and have no major strengths or weaknesses. An all-melee army can be perfectly balanced as long as it is good enough at melee (and getting into melee range) that it has a fair chance of winning against alternative strategies, but isn't so good that it just crushes them effortlessly.

Balancing the game so that all factions have an equal change of beating other factions makes no sense in a war game. You would need to make all armies equal in order to accomplish this which would be pointless really as you would have to change everything about every faction that makes them what they are.

Imagine Daemons being unable to summon more Daemons?

Tau being unable to use Riptides because no other faction can.

True balance, causes ridiculous events like this.

I agree, it is my opinion and I am entitled to it. But it is not an opinion that becoming obsessed with winning is bad for a person, that has been proven with studies on children and parents who want their kids to win win win and the damage this does to their psyche.

Competition is fine, winning for the sake of winning at the expense of everything else, is not

And increasing the cost of units only modifies the problem, it would be a band-aid, nothing else. It would not take away the overwhelming strength of the unit in any way. It would cripple the Tau player a little bit and give their opponent a fighting shot, but a handicap being needed isn't balance.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Balancing the game so that all factions have an equal change of beating other factions makes no sense in a war game. You would need to make all armies equal in order to accomplish this which would be pointless really as you would have to change everything about every faction that makes them what they are.

Imagine Daemons being unable to summon more Daemons?

Tau being unable to use Riptides because no other faction can.

True balance, causes ridiculous events like this.

I agree, it is my opinion and I am entitled to it. But it is not an opinion that becoming obsessed with winning is bad for a person, that has been proven with studies on children and parents who want their kids to win win win and the damage this does to their psyche.

Competition is fine, winning for the sake of winning at the expense of everything else, is not

And increasing the cost of units only modifies the problem, it would be a band-aid, nothing else. It would not take away the overwhelming strength of the unit in any way. It would cripple the Tau player a little bit and give their opponent a fighting shot, but a handicap being needed isn't balance.

I have trouble believing you could write that with a straight face, particularly as a reply to Peregrine's post which basically demolished the exact argument you're raising here...

Ok, folks, we've had the 'why balance is important' debate ad nauseum elsewhere. How about we drop it here so the thread can get back to discussing what people like about 7th edition.

 insaniak wrote:
Ok, folks, we've had the 'why balance is important' debate ad nauseum elsewhere. How about we drop it here so the thread can get back to discussing what people like about 7th edition.

Sorry, I'll step back, this debate between balance, competitive and all that goes back years for gaming and probably will never end.

*Edit*

Saw the mod warning.

Here is my positive post on 7th edition.

I did not buy it

 insaniak wrote:
Ok, folks, we've had the 'why balance is important' debate ad nauseum elsewhere. How about we drop it here so the thread can get back to discussing what people like about 7th edition.

{blank space}

/thread