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.

 thekingofkings wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

maybe my perspective here is skewed, but of the half dozen or so games I play that are not GW, I do not run into any of the problems that are infesting the boards about GW games. I dont see it as unfair to call a company incompetent at playtesting their own product when there are so many deliberate gaps. Much smaller companies have done a much better job at making their games balanced.

I would struggle to come up with a game that has half as many variables as 40k, particularly one made by a company as small as GW.

Malifaux, infinity, wrath of kings, mutant chronicles, flames of war, warmachine, hordes..etc....all smaller companies and all their games are just as complex as GW, now with 8th and AoS likely more complex than GW.

I think you are confusing complexity on the table, with complexity in regards to balance. These games might have as much (or more) depth of strategy compared to GW, but they number of options available are far fewer.

I'll only really speak to malifaux as it is the game I am most familiar with, units/models in malifaux are largely fixed with very few (if any) upgrades. Now each model has more abilities than units do in 40k but for the most part they are static abilities that don't change so are easier to balance for. In addition the game is balanced around not having set lists, and building to the mission. Many of which are not just about murdering the opponent and claiming objectives last turn. Quite a bit easier to balance for that than it is for TAC lists which is what people want in 40k, because units can have roles that function particularly well only in specific missions. Factions also have more synergistic subfactions so some models may generally be crap, but work particularly well with one master. 40k doesn't really have this specific synergy, keywords go into it a bit in some cases (Deathwing are better with Belial than without him), but there aren't really any generally bad units that become good with a specific HQ or build. That all said there are still balance issues, masters that never see play in competitive settings, models that never see play because other options are just better.

As to the question of playtesting, I'm sure they do. But I doubt they are able to test every unit in every set up, and so they don't catch everything. I'm hoping that the seemingly promised living ruleset will lead to a better balanced game down the road.

Are there some indicators that they do?
In former editions, the impression has been that they dont to extended play testing. In this edition, it has been said that they have listened to the player base. I mean real players not some GW guys at the hotline or in the advertising department who play every army out there but none of it very well.

This is such an unhealthy thread. Before you post in this thread, can you ask please yourself "How does this discussion add to my hobby?" Honestly.

The amount of armchair game balancing experts in this thread is embarrassing. Some suggestions are so bold they would change the entire game, with confidence that they would be able to single-handedly improve the quality of the game, without set back or oversight. Is it ever going to be possible to balance 10+ armies? Man, what about just three (insert starcraft analogy). And then, is it ever going to be possible to compare every unit to every other unit to check for marginal mathematical differences? Do you understand the permutations of that undertaking? Not to mention somehow accounting for non-quantifiable variables, synergistic aspects, community expectations, and flavour concerns.

The amount of hours of play testing required to account for a single day of the community playing the game is unimaginable. The community is in the tens or hundreds of thousands, and includes really passionate people pouring over every page. Ten minutes of that will eclipse a lifetime of play-testing from a full team of lets say, 50 people. The community is a valuable tool in making positive change for the game it plays, by making reasonable suggestions and recommendations to modify the game and correct errors. We should be used in that manner and we should take that role seriously.

I appreciate constructive criticism as much as the next man, but maybe reflect a bit on the practical nature of what you're talking about before you pretend to know anything about it. And more importantly, what sort of precedent do discussions like this set in our community. I'm specifically pointing at hateful and non-constructive comments such as intimating GW does not play test.
What's the point of that?
Are you planning to make the game better somehow by complaining?
Do you think GW will read this thread and takes business advice from you (even though you are not even providing advice)?
Does it make you feel better?
Do you really think new comers to this community want to read this?
Do you think you're fostering a community that is fun to be in?
Is it worth you venting your frustrations publicly when you likely have a negative impact on the community?

Well if we go by GW claim that all the model's range was tested, except for Forge World, and then we look at the results:

- GW model's range is usually balanced with a few stinkers here and there. I'd say that about 75% of the models are correctly designed and priced. 25% still need some work. This is on the game level, which means that on faction level you will have Orks and at the same time you will have Tyranids.

-FW model range is literally a mess. The amount of models that are not OP or UP is around 30%, which means that they were balanced purely by chance.

Yes, GW definitely playtests, or you would have Forgeworld.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

The way they have implemented modifiers in 8th is counter intuitive. You don’t just add or subtract like you used to. It actually changes the number you’ve rolled, rather than needing a lower or higher number.

That's what they always used to do. If you modify the target then -1 is good and +1 is bad.

Part of the issue is that GW's "complexity" tends to be in minutiae. Wargear options. Other games complexity is in actual interactions. I wish I could find the comparison someone made I think it was here that showed just how many different combinations existed in Warmahordes, and it dwarfed anything 40k could even dream of and these were real choices, not "Do I take X or Y weapon on this dude".

But even with that, the biggest issue I think is that GW's playtesters (which, we have established we know they have) seem to not be the sort of playtesters you want i.e. the powergaming/mathhammer types who will try to break the game. You'll never actually playtest anything if you take balanced/fluffy armies with a variety of options, because you'll never see the mindset that your typical powergamer/tournament player will have where everything gets number-crunched to the "most optimal" choice available, and then that gets spammed as much as possible. A typical GW playtester would likely never take more than 1 unit with Plasma weapons, maybe two at most, certainly not the "all plasma, all the time" mindset you find. They wouldn't mix Mortarion with Magnus and horrors just because it's the best choice, because Nurgle hates Tzeentch.

That's the problem. They playtest the game for very laid back, beer-and-pretzels (i hate that term) style gamplay where you likely have a variety in your collection. They don't playtest from a game-breaking competitive standpoint.

Wayniac wrote:
Part of the issue is that GW's "complexity" tends to be in minutiae. Wargear options. Other games complexity is in actual interactions. I wish I could find the comparison someone made I think it was here that showed just how many different combinations existed in Warmahordes, and it dwarfed anything 40k could even dream of and these were real choices, not "Do I take X or Y weapon on this dude".

But even with that, the biggest issue I think is that GW's playtesters (which, we have established we know they have) seem to not be the sort of playtesters you want i.e. the powergaming/mathhammer types who will try to break the game. You'll never actually playtest anything if you take balanced/fluffy armies with a variety of options, because you'll never see the mindset that your typical powergamer/tournament player will have where everything gets number-crunched to the "most optimal" choice available, and then that gets spammed as much as possible. A typical GW playtester would likely never take more than 1 unit with Plasma weapons, maybe two at most, certainly not the "all plasma, all the time" mindset you find. They wouldn't mix Mortarion with Magnus and horrors just because it's the best choice, because Nurgle hates Tzeentch.

That's the problem. They playtest the game for very laid back, beer-and-pretzels (i hate that term) style gamplay where you likely have a variety in your collection. They don't playtest from a game-breaking competitive standpoint.

Your experience is different from mine, i abandoned warmahordes because only 10% of the models were always usable, 40% were usable with a particular caster and 50% would never see the table. If you wanted to compete, you were forced toward the 2 or 3 casters your faction could sport in that environment. That game's balance was much much worse than what we have in 8th. Though to be fair all of this is from MK2, i have no idea how the game has evolved.

hollow one wrote:
This is such an unhealthy thread. Before you post in this thread, can you ask please yourself "How does this discussion add to my hobby?" Honestly.

Spoiler:

The amount of armchair game balancing experts in this thread is embarrassing. Some suggestions are so bold they would change the entire game, with confidence that they would be able to single-handedly improve the quality of the game, without set back or oversight. Is it ever going to be possible to balance 10+ armies? Man, what about just three (insert starcraft analogy). And then, is it ever going to be possible to compare every unit to every other unit to check for marginal mathematical differences? Do you understand the permutations of that undertaking? Not to mention somehow accounting for non-quantifiable variables, synergistic aspects, community expectations, and flavour concerns.

The amount of hours of play testing required to account for a single day of the community playing the game is unimaginable. The community is in the tens or hundreds of thousands, and includes really passionate people pouring over every page. Ten minutes of that will eclipse a lifetime of play-testing from a full team of lets say, 50 people. The community is a valuable tool in making positive change for the game it plays, by making reasonable suggestions and recommendations to modify the game and correct errors. We should be used in that manner and we should take that role seriously.

I appreciate constructive criticism as much as the next man, but maybe reflect a bit on the practical nature of what you're talking about before you pretend to know anything about it. And more importantly, what sort of precedent do discussions like this set in our community. I'm specifically pointing at hateful and non-constructive comments such as intimating GW does not play test.
What's the point of that?
Are you planning to make the game better somehow by complaining?
Do you think GW will read this thread and takes business advice from you (even though you are not even providing advice)?
Does it make you feel better?
Do you really think new comers to this community want to read this?
Do you think you're fostering a community that is fun to be in?
Is it worth you venting your frustrations publicly when you likely have a negative impact on the community?

You ask the question in the first sentence, then continue to add nothing of value after.

The only thing more embarassing than armchair balancing is armchairing the armchairing.

For what its worth, there's a lot of good discussion here, and lots of good ideas. Of course some ideas would have greater impact, but this is a forum where people can spitball and actually have a discussion...on a discussion board. I tend to side with the people who advocate more sweeping changes because I think the underlying frame of the game is broken and needs an overhaul. The basic turn structure could seriously benefit from some improvements (the ever discussed alternating activations instead of UGOIGO), or changing ranges and modifiers to make the battlefield feel larger and promote actual movement.

As for the specific question asked in the title, it boils down to either they don't playtest enough to matter, or they do it so poorly it doesn't matter. I was cautiously optimistic at launch, and held on to some hope when they put out a timely FAQ, but I think we're right back to the old GW of nothing but good ideas marred by terrible execution. Its easy to talk to talk and proclaim they're listening to players, but when its constantly poor changes and wildly different power levels and balancing, you start to tune them out when they tell you over and over that they're actually listening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Part of the issue is that GW's "complexity" tends to be in minutiae. Wargear options. Other games complexity is in actual interactions. I wish I could find the comparison someone made I think it was here that showed just how many different combinations existed in Warmahordes, and it dwarfed anything 40k could even dream of and these were real choices, not "Do I take X or Y weapon on this dude".

But even with that, the biggest issue I think is that GW's playtesters (which, we have established we know they have) seem to not be the sort of playtesters you want i.e. the powergaming/mathhammer types who will try to break the game. You'll never actually playtest anything if you take balanced/fluffy armies with a variety of options, because you'll never see the mindset that your typical powergamer/tournament player will have where everything gets number-crunched to the "most optimal" choice available, and then that gets spammed as much as possible. A typical GW playtester would likely never take more than 1 unit with Plasma weapons, maybe two at most, certainly not the "all plasma, all the time" mindset you find. They wouldn't mix Mortarion with Magnus and horrors just because it's the best choice, because Nurgle hates Tzeentch.

That's the problem. They playtest the game for very laid back, beer-and-pretzels (i hate that term) style gamplay where you likely have a variety in your collection. They don't playtest from a game-breaking competitive standpoint.

Spot on. The best playtesters I've worked with intentionally broke the game. It provided the best feedback and offered meaningful changes. We knew we hit the sweetspot when were were arguing over the cost of a 5pts upgrade on a 200pts model. At that point, that model is perfectly balanced for the casuals, and the min-maxers were still debating about the value of said 5pts upgrade, which is about as close you'll get.

Again, look at GW's army selections in battle reports. Even when they are using their own army as opposed to the Studio army, it's a "collection". Squads have different loadouts, you rarely see more than 2-3 of the same unit (the exception is usually actual troop choices), you see a variety of vehicles. You don't see things like 100+ conscripts and then nothing but tanks, or two max units of death company with mostly the same weapon options, or five Grand Master Dreadknights or six 5-man tactical squads all with a Lascannon and then TAC Razorbacks, or min/maxed Imperial Soup lists. That's not how GW plays the game. There's no way they would ever be able to balance those things because it probably does not even dawn on them that anyone would do it in the first place.

An indicator for playtesting is the number of changes made shortly after the release. The number of such changes is rather low so that this indicates that GW made a good job with model/rule balancing.
There are still some rules that are questionable to me, like cover, tank facing, and retreat from cc. Obviously, they didnt care too much about this.

I think its highly likely that they play test and even use external play testers - I think the real question is how much of the feedback do they choose to use? I think that may be the greater source of concern than anything else is I don't know that they're taking feedback well and applying it to improve.

I think GW playtests more than people believe, but not in the way they should. Wayniac's assessment is probably pretty close to the truth. They playtest with the semi-casual "let's just hang out on a Saturday and play some 40k" mentality rather than the tournament "how can I loophole/exploit my way into a win" mentality. My group is definitely more casual (even our tournaments rarely feature brutal spam lists), but if GW did test using the most broken min/max netlist they can find, it would benefit us casual just as much as it would tournament players.

Wayniac wrote:
Part of the issue is that GW's "complexity" tends to be in minutiae. Wargear options. Other games complexity is in actual interactions. I wish I could find the comparison someone made I think it was here that showed just how many different combinations existed in Warmahordes, and it dwarfed anything 40k could even dream of and these were real choices, not "Do I take X or Y weapon on this dude".

I was playtesting my game last week and my opponent said something similar. Most of the 40k complexity is knowing which unit combos with what, which bonuses and stratagems to reference, etc. but once you have a plan, a game of 40k is both players "taking turns to do a thirty-minute dick punch."

A game like chess itself is ironically complex in its simplicity as managing multiple move-restricted units and creating overlapping defenses/trades is so important. Shogi takes that formula and ups the complexity with revival of captured pieces too. And Arimaa was literally created post-Kasparov vs Deep Blue as a game that would be harder for a computer to bruteforce optimal play through, yet would be so simple his five-year-old kid could learn it.

Reducing the downtime between players getting to do stuff, and letting units all have multiple roles, both help in adding post-listbuilding depth.

Wayniac wrote:
Again, look at GW's army selections in battle reports. Even when they are using their own army as opposed to the Studio army, it's a "collection". Squads have different loadouts, you rarely see more than 2-3 of the same unit (the exception is usually actual troop choices), you see a variety of vehicles. You don't see things like 100+ conscripts and then nothing but tanks, or two max units of death company with mostly the same weapon options, or five Grand Master Dreadknights or six 5-man tactical squads all with a Lascannon and then TAC Razorbacks, or min/maxed Imperial Soup lists. That's not how GW plays the game. There's no way they would ever be able to balance those things because it probably does not even dawn on them that anyone would do it in the first place.

Those battle reports are not from playtesting though. GW makes battle reports to entertain, not to test. That is why they select a 'fluffy' army. It is no indication that they don't try to break the game when playtesting. If GW did not playtest properly, the game would not be nearly as balanced as it is now (it would probably look more like FW or WarmaHordes where only a small part of the units are 'balanced' and the rest are all either OP or trash.)

Personally, I think the problem is not with how GW playtests, but rather with the amount of people and time they have available for playtesting vs the complexity of the game. There is a huge lot of things that need to be tested to properly balance 40k, and a small team of playtesters is never going to be able to do everything before the release deadline hits (and marketing sure as hell isn't going to delay the release because testing isn't finished). Quite simply, GW simply does not have enough time and people to playtest everything. Obviously, this is where the community could help a great deal, and I really hope to see that GW is going to make more use of community feedback in the future.

We are also probably not looking at this with the same aim.
Who said that playtest is meant to balance models with each other? The first objective of playtesting is to make sure that models work in the intended role and that there aren't situations where you are left in doubt of how a rule should be applied.

Balancing is a secondary objective that requires an impressive amount of work, and i fully understand why they left the fine tuning to the players. They put in place an organization that allows them to easily intervene on balance and that's it.

 JimOnMars wrote:
GW playtesting orks: Line up 2000 points of orks. The non-ork player resigns, claiming orks are too strong. Then orks get nerfed.

Lol, I'm sure that is far more accurate than either us or GW would care to admit. Also it bears mentioning that GW is out to sell stuff too. If anyone thinks that isn't a significant factor in how units are both stat'd and priced on the shelves they're nuts.

hollow one wrote:
This is such an unhealthy thread. Before you post in this thread, can you ask please yourself "How does this discussion add to my hobby?" Honestly.

The amount of armchair game balancing experts in this thread is embarrassing. Some suggestions are so bold they would change the entire game, with confidence that they would be able to single-handedly improve the quality of the game, without set back or oversight. Is it ever going to be possible to balance 10+ armies? Man, what about just three (insert starcraft analogy). And then, is it ever going to be possible to compare every unit to every other unit to check for marginal mathematical differences? Do you understand the permutations of that undertaking? Not to mention somehow accounting for non-quantifiable variables, synergistic aspects, community expectations, and flavour concerns.

?

I'm guessing you're nee to dakka dakka? Think of this forums as the 40k purge. People come here to let off steam snd yell at ogher people all while preaching the fact that Orks are underpowered and unbalanced and have been for many editions now (seriously Gw, please just let us play orks like marines play marines). If you want real debate then go to faction specific forums.

Does GW playtest? Possibly yes, if you consider we are playtesting their game for them right now in a beta. The question is the current GW staff capable of making the game balanced after we prove to them that it is not. So far it looks pretty grim.

hollow one wrote:
This is such an unhealthy thread. Before you post in this thread, can you ask please yourself "How does this discussion add to my hobby?" Honestly.

The amount of armchair game balancing experts in this thread is embarrassing. Some suggestions are so bold they would change the entire game, with confidence that they would be able to single-handedly improve the quality of the game, without set back or oversight. Is it ever going to be possible to balance 10+ armies? Man, what about just three (insert starcraft analogy). And then, is it ever going to be possible to compare every unit to every other unit to check for marginal mathematical differences? Do you understand the permutations of that undertaking? Not to mention somehow accounting for non-quantifiable variables, synergistic aspects, community expectations, and flavour concerns.

The amount of hours of play testing required to account for a single day of the community playing the game is unimaginable. The community is in the tens or hundreds of thousands, and includes really passionate people pouring over every page. Ten minutes of that will eclipse a lifetime of play-testing from a full team of lets say, 50 people. The community is a valuable tool in making positive change for the game it plays, by making reasonable suggestions and recommendations to modify the game and correct errors. We should be used in that manner and we should take that role seriously.

I appreciate constructive criticism as much as the next man, but maybe reflect a bit on the practical nature of what you're talking about before you pretend to know anything about it. And more importantly, what sort of precedent do discussions like this set in our community. I'm specifically pointing at hateful and non-constructive comments such as intimating GW does not play test.
What's the point of that?
Are you planning to make the game better somehow by complaining?
Do you think GW will read this thread and takes business advice from you (even though you are not even providing advice)?
Does it make you feel better?
Do you really think new comers to this community want to read this?
Do you think you're fostering a community that is fun to be in?
Is it worth you venting your frustrations publicly when you likely have a negative impact on the community?

I am not going to sing praises about a company where I bought in for a thousand bucks and I am not happy. So if newcomers do see this, they need to know what they are getting.

As for armchair balance testers, I don't need to be an expert to see something is fethed. The community that I enjoy is the community I play with, I don't play with anyone here, I discuss and theorycraft. Right now there is not much to discuss except the attemptied balance pass GW keeps failing at.

 Blacksails wrote:
You ask the question in the first sentence, then continue to add nothing of value after.

The only thing more embarassing than armchair balancing is armchairing the armchairing.

I think my post was pretty clear, my suggestion was to have less pointless hate in these forums. If you think that is not valuable to you that's fine. Unfortunately for me it seems that most people agree with you.

Your idea of negative and hateful are reeeeally odd. Like how is it hateful to say GW doesn't seem to playtest. I could believe it if I were a uninformed bystander.

 Quickjager wrote:
Your idea of negative and hateful are reeeeally odd. Like how is it hateful to say GW doesn't seem to playtest. I could believe it if I were a uninformed bystander.

It's just pointless. It's not like people here are aiming to rally and make a play-test group to support GW, improve the game, do anything positive. We are just sitting here discussing if GW playtest, to ultimately decide if we should hate them more or less. Why? To "warn" the new comers that our game might be bad? To "not praise them" so they feel worse about being GW?

What would happen if we definitively KNEW GW doesn't play test... abandon ship? I'll go back to my first question: what does this discussion do for your hobby?

 Quickjager wrote:
Your idea of negative and hateful are reeeeally odd. Like how is it hateful to say GW doesn't seem to playtest. I could believe it if I were a uninformed bystander.

But you are an uninformed bystander. Unless you worked for GW or otherwise have inside knowledge of how GW playtesting works, you know as much about it as the rest of us or any random person on the streets. Nothing. Just because we played the game and collect the miniatures doesn't mean we suddenly have knowledge about how GW works. That would be like saying you know how a car works just because you can drive one.
And even if we did have that knowledge, I agree with hollow one that the discussion would still be pointless. A thread and a discussion like this only exist because some people want to vent their frustrations. That is the only use this whole discussion is ever going to have.

I kinda stopped playing and spending money on it, because I realized nothing is going to change for me. But I enjoy the lore so I hang around for the 40k background threads.

So everyone is still warning me that my pile of plastic looks good but that is about it.

 Quickjager wrote:
I kinda stopped playing and spending money on it, because I realized nothing is going to change for me. But I enjoy the lore so I hang around for the 40k background threads.

So everyone is still warning me that my pile of plastic looks good but that is about it.

So maybe the game is dead for you, but it's not for me. If you need threads like this to validate your lack of interest in the game, then I guess that is valuable to you. But I would hope you're not intentionally fostering hate in other's just so you can feel better about your expensive plastic.

edit: and I'll say it, I think SemperMortis is trying to foster hate, and it bothers me. We are both Ork players and the only tactical thread we have is 50% complaining, often sparked by arguments with Semper. Sometimes he comes up with approaches that are more reasonable, like debating the point cost of a weapon, but this thread is too much for me and I would prefer it if he was just shouting in an empty room.

Lol its not about validation. It's about seeing if the game is worth getting back into, quit lashing out people like the concept the world, a lot of it is good. This thread however isn't about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I understand the complaining, it's why I don't post much because it is all I would do, because the rest of the game has been discussed to death. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be vocal about the parts that REALLY suck and are REALLY frustrating.

Honestly, in all fairness, I'm sure geedubz does play testing. probably a lot of it.

But they still make a LOT of VERY questionable decisions.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Honestly, in all fairness, I'm sure geedubz does play testing. probably a lot of it.

But they still make a LOT of VERY questionable decisions.

I'm not sold either way myself. It boils down to; so they playtest? Do the developers listen to the testers? Does corporate decide instead in the basis of model sales?

I'm more leaning towards the last one. A great example is the aforementioned Dakkajet compared to the deff kopta. 2 deff koptas cost the same as a Dakkajet. They have fewer wounds, less toughness, no hit modifier, less BS and they are slower. Now here comes the sales aspect. GW just combined all Ork flyers into 1 box and jacked the price up significantly where as the Koptas are dirt cheap on EBay from a previous box set. So GW makes the flyers better then the kopta to drive up sales. But to counter my own point, if they went to the hassle of all this, why didn't they make the dakkajet better in general so I would feel inclined to actually buy one instead of relying on cheap Boyz hordes which again are cheap as hell on eBay and other places.

Any competent playtesting would not have resulted in the 6th ed psychic power rules. The bit where it was stated that the number of powers was proportional to the mastery level of the psyker, completely failing to actually specify the nature of that proportionality.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Any competent playtesting would not have resulted in the 6th ed psychic power rules. The bit where it was stated that the number of powers was proportional to the mastery level of the psyker, completely failing to actually specify the nature of that proportionality.

Honestly I'm somewhat inclined to think that might have just been an editorial issue, with some writer after the fact trying to add a flourish to the rules.
More often than not the playtesters would likely just get notes about how the rules are meant to work, rather than a fully written out and 'finalised' ruleset.