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.
Arbitrator wrote: Who wants to guess a requirement of all ITC events will be 100% GW models only?
Mike Brandt has confirmed on reddit that this won't be the case.
In general I don't think this partnership is a good thing. Not because they are trying to get competitive people on board for game design, but because the ITC guys have repeatedly shown not know their gak properly either and because they have almost as many issues as GW themselves have.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/29 11:15:16
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Paranoia time! I do wonder with the increasing tournament partnerships whether we’ll see GW do some sort of move to establish something like the old magic DCI number and rankings. Do ITC collect player data or have some rankings or membership registration system?
Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised that when GW has enough fingers in tournament pies, they’ll start requiring GW tournament goers to have a Warhammer+ account in order to play…
Arbitrator wrote: Who wants to guess a requirement of all ITC events will be 100% GW models only?
And there is nothing wrong with that.
Okay I'll bite. Why?
"This is our product in our sponsored and/or licensed events, so we request you use our products" isn't an unfair stance, in a practical sense it means fewer weird LoS issues or unclear wysiwyg.
alextroy wrote: And I didn't realize that all tournament players were self-serving jerks who don't want the current broken things fixed
The thing is, what tournament and casual players think is broken is often two very different things. I could give one example from very popular multiplayer game, Quick Fix - quite weak, but very pleasant weapon helping your team in casual setting. Pro wannabes, however, constantly whined QF is ""broken"" because not only they played in very different meta of their choosing (6 players vs 12 casual uses), they refused to adapt and screeched QF uber (basically big bonus) is ""OP"" because you get it 1.2 seconds faster than you would from other weapons (for context, you got that bonus slightly slower, but it was vastly stronger, like massively upped damage or complete invincibility vs better healing QF provided). They just refused to adapt, or fall back for said 1.2 seconds to then sweep QF user with their own uber without effort. Apparently thinking is too hard and having tiny window giving the opponent advantage you needed to counter with actual tactics instead of rushing forward was too much.
End result? QF was repeatedly nerfed thanks to their crying making it garbage weapon in both casual and ""pro"" wannabe meta, the playstyle it provided (helping team instead of trying to tryhard yourself) disappeared, and the game became more boring, predictable and stale as Medic now has 2 playstyles instead of 3. How is that a good thing, again?
ERJAK wrote: You think comp player cared about subfaction soup?
Seeing it's the comp, WAAAC types who created idiotic, fluff smashing "3 SM captains, 32 IG mooks, and a Knight" army type ruining any fun you can have in the game (and before that 3 Riptides allied to wraith/aspectwing, or Ynnari doubleturn soup, or rainbow chapter rodeo, or insert any number of similar cherrypicked OP gak) and the change was introduced to fix mess they made, pretty much yeah?
We ehould form an anti-competitive ITC team, try to get as many people into high placements as possible to stack the balance and playtest teams with non-,competitive types, and then use our weight of numbers to dismantle competotive play from the inside out.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
chaos0xomega wrote: We ehould form an anti-competitive ITC team, try to get as many people into high placements as possible to stack the balance and playtest teams with non-,competitive types, and then use our weight of numbers to dismantle competotive play from the inside out.
Yes because we want the game to be even messier and less balanced. Brilliant thinking.
chaos0xomega wrote: We ehould form an anti-competitive ITC team, try to get as many people into high placements as possible to stack the balance and playtest teams with non-,competitive types, and then use our weight of numbers to dismantle competotive play from the inside out.
Yes because we want the game to be even messier and less balanced. Brilliant thinking.
I enjoy that you believe the current proposal/change will result in anything else.
zedmeister wrote: Paranoia time! I do wonder with the increasing tournament partnerships whether we’ll see GW do some sort of move to establish something like the old magic DCI number and rankings. Do ITC collect player data or have some rankings or membership registration system?
ITC already has this and keeps a "points total" each season for every player.
TalonZahn wrote: I look forward to the imminent ITC Packs "A la Infinity" completed with cardstock terrain, LE Minis, coins, patches, etc.
They wish they could do what Infinity does for tournies.
I think it's important to remember that the ITS didn't have what it has now until they went from an independent system to partnered with Corvus Belli.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/29 17:21:24
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
chaos0xomega wrote: We ehould form an anti-competitive ITC team, try to get as many people into high placements as possible to stack the balance and playtest teams with non-,competitive types, and then use our weight of numbers to dismantle competotive play from the inside out.
Yes because we want the game to be even messier and less balanced. Brilliant thinking.
In either way useless. Sales numbers is only statistic GW looks at when changing what to mess with balance next. Shifting imbalance. Balance is very, very, very bad for GW as it eats into profits. Imbalance meanwhile increases profits.
chaos0xomega wrote: We ehould form an anti-competitive ITC team, try to get as many people into high placements as possible to stack the balance and playtest teams with non-,competitive types, and then use our weight of numbers to dismantle competotive play from the inside out.
Yes because we want the game to be even messier and less balanced. Brilliant thinking.
In either way useless. Sales numbers is only statistic GW looks at when changing what to mess with balance next. Shifting imbalance. Balance is very, very, very bad for GW as it eats into profits. Imbalance meanwhile increases profits.
I'm not entirely sure, the only big difference is driving the direction of profits. If you make faction A distinctly better or even just units Y & Z, you'll expect a better return on those. If everything were made equal, they you'd expect a better spread of profits, since anyone can buy whatever they like, in fact they may even buy multiple armies for different play styles or options.
I understand the idea of intentional buff/nerf churn is to keep that top 5% of the playerbase chasing the dragon, but they're a tiny number of people.
... who likely spend a disproportionate amount of money on 40k compared to other customers.
If 1 person spends £1000 a month buying new armies, it only takes 50 "normal" people buying 1 below average box to balance that out, I'm not convinced they're enough of a target.
chaos0xomega wrote: We ehould form an anti-competitive ITC team, try to get as many people into high placements as possible to stack the balance and playtest teams with non-,competitive types, and then use our weight of numbers to dismantle competotive play from the inside out.
Yes because we want the game to be even messier and less balanced. Brilliant thinking.
I enjoy that you believe the current proposal/change will result in anything else.
I think it will be a net positive for the game. It makes sense to consider feedback from the competitive/tournament side of the 40K community when considering "balance." Current winners will have a much better appreciation for power on the tabletop than sequestered game designers or random angry people on an internet discussion board who have strong opinions but perhaps not a real game record to match. My impression is that they are not turning over the balance slate to the ITC winners but rather inviting their feedback. What's the harm?
It is much better than ignoring the ITC tourney-winning side of the community when making decisions about balance, which was the GW method before. With ITC having different missions it was possible to ignore their data, even if it was still relevant. I think that GW underwent a change in outlook on the organized competitive circuit mid-way through 8th Ed. I think it was an early 2019 White Dwarf that featured a battle report between two "top lists" instead of the usual fluff. 9th Edition clearly incorporates the tourney circuit in its design - bringing the missions together was a huge step. The Mournavel group of play-testers is also an innovation to get the "competitive" view on playtesting. This is balanced by a more narrative-focused group as well.
I don't see the risk to hard-core narrative players. If you are in control of your games then keep on keeping on what you do. I also fail to see how efforts at better balance can hurt the so-called Casual players who do not go to tournaments. Those efforts at balance will not be a complete success, but incorporating the feedback of top players will help. I play in tournaments every two months, but our local scene does not participate in ITC rankings. We use the GT mission packs, but prizes are a random draw. All are welcome to participate, but the lack of ITC points discourages sharks coming through to some extent. Still, we benefit from improved balance and are generally happy to see changes. Anyhoo.
I welcome this new approach. Sometimes the best game warden is a former poacher...
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I think it will be a net positive for the game. It makes sense to consider feedback from the competitive/tournament side of the 40K community when considering "balance." Current winners will have a much better appreciation for power on the tabletop than sequestered game designers or random angry people on an internet discussion board who have strong opinions but perhaps not a real game record to match. My impression is that they are not turning over the balance slate to the ITC winners but rather inviting their feedback. What's the harm?
Self-perpetuating biases? The game currently favors lethality and gotcha moments, and the winners will be the ones who can exploit those best, and recommend more of the same, regardless of the over all health of the game. That's the harm.
I welcome this new approach. Sometimes the best game warden is a former poacher...
And that's exactly the problem. A former poacher is fine (to go with your metaphor). Inviting active and current ones in, to open more gates and recommend more flaws is just... stupid.
And of course they get a leg up by being shown future rules coming down the pike, so they can prepare in advance for any changes while their opposition is left scrambling to adapt in the wake of any changes.
From a sociology perspective, its interesting to watch someone create an 'old boy's club' complete with secret handshakes and favors for favors, but don't be under any illusions that this will somehow be good for game.
Honestly, between this and this latest CAGT mission pack and points changes, I'm reconsidering my stance on points vs power level. I just don't want to chase down a new dragon every six months, and fight through the extra layers of... bovine residuum... created by yet another organization making a mess of things for their own interests (which historically can be generously described as 'bad'). Just want to have some games on a semi-regular basis.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/29 19:03:20
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I think it will be a net positive for the game. It makes sense to consider feedback from the competitive/tournament side of the 40K community when considering "balance." Current winners will have a much better appreciation for power on the tabletop than sequestered game designers or random angry people on an internet discussion board who have strong opinions but perhaps not a real game record to match. My impression is that they are not turning over the balance slate to the ITC winners but rather inviting their feedback. What's the harm?
Self-perpetuating biases? The game currently favors lethality and gotcha moments, and the winners will be the ones who can exploit those best, and recommend more of the same, regardless of the over all health of the game. That's the harm.
I welcome this new approach. Sometimes the best game warden is a former poacher...
And that's exactly the problem. A former poacher is fine (to go with your metaphor). Inviting active and current ones in, to open more gates and recommend more flaws is just... stupid.
And of course they get a leg up by being shown future rules coming down the pike, so they can prepare in advance for any changes while their opposition is left scrambling to adapt in the wake of any changes.
From a sociology perspective, its interesting to watch someone create an 'old boy's club' complete with secret handshakes and favors for favors, but don't be under any illusions that this will somehow be good for game.
Honestly, between this and this latest CAGT mission pack and points changes, I'm reconsidering my stance on points vs power level. I just don't want to chase down a new dragon every six months, and fight through the extra layers of... bovine residuum... created by yet another organization making a mess of things for their own interests (which historically can be generously described as 'bad'). Just want to have some games on a semi-regular basis.
Voss,
I don't see this a stupid at all. They are not handing over the writing duties and decision-making to ITC winners. They are obtaining their feedback. Who should they consult instead of these folks who clearly understand how the game functions at the competitive level? DakkaDakka General Discussion? They will get much more useful feedback from certified ITC winners than they will from random folks who complain about balance. The ITC winners have some credibility with recent real results to back them up. Random angry folks on the internet? Not so much.
Is it an inner circle? Sure. But at least you have to earn your way into the circle, and could presumably find yourself out of the circle. I note that the article also mentions Tournament Organizers also being consulted, so there is a counter-balancing mechanism.
I do not worry about these ITC winners gaining some sort of advantage within their circuit. They are already successful players. Still, it is something that the GW folks will have to consider. Trust is required in these sorts of dealings.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I think it will be a net positive for the game. It makes sense to consider feedback from the competitive/tournament side of the 40K community when considering "balance." Current winners will have a much better appreciation for power on the tabletop than sequestered game designers or random angry people on an internet discussion board who have strong opinions but perhaps not a real game record to match. My impression is that they are not turning over the balance slate to the ITC winners but rather inviting their feedback. What's the harm?
Self-perpetuating biases? The game currently favors lethality and gotcha moments, and the winners will be the ones who can exploit those best, and recommend more of the same, regardless of the over all health of the game. That's the harm.
I welcome this new approach. Sometimes the best game warden is a former poacher...
And that's exactly the problem. A former poacher is fine (to go with your metaphor). Inviting active and current ones in, to open more gates and recommend more flaws is just... stupid.
And of course they get a leg up by being shown future rules coming down the pike, so they can prepare in advance for any changes while their opposition is left scrambling to adapt in the wake of any changes.
From a sociology perspective, its interesting to watch someone create an 'old boy's club' complete with secret handshakes and favors for favors, but don't be under any illusions that this will somehow be good for game.
Honestly, between this and this latest CAGT mission pack and points changes, I'm reconsidering my stance on points vs power level. I just don't want to chase down a new dragon every six months, and fight through the extra layers of... bovine residuum... created by yet another organization making a mess of things for their own interests (which historically can be generously described as 'bad'). Just want to have some games on a semi-regular basis.
Voss,
I don't see this a stupid at all. They are not handing over the writing duties and decision-making to ITC winners. They are obtaining their feedback. Who should they consult instead of these folks who clearly understand how the game functions at the competitive level?
No one. GW needs to pony up for worthwhile wages and positions to do the work. QA is a job, full stop. It isn't a gift, a prize or an 'early access' bonus.
Crowdsourcing feedback is _incredibly_ problematic in a lot of different ways. Blatantly setting up advantages for the people giving the feedback sets an opportunity to game the system, with no corresponding advantage towards balancing the game.
Is it an inner circle? Sure. But at least you have to earn your way into the circle, and could presumably find yourself out of the circle.
I don't give two rotting figs about 'earned' in this sense- winning games isn't the same as making games, and it predisposes people toward a motive to win more, which influences their feedback. I care about the people in the 'circle' actually knowing what they're doing when it comes to balance feedback and not being in it for themselves. The system as described doesn't provide _any_ reassurances in that regard.
I note that the article also mentions Tournament Organizers also being consulted, so there is a counter-balancing mechanism.
Why would TOs being a counter-balancing mechanism in any way? How?
I do not worry about these ITC winners gaining some sort of advantage within their circuit. They are already successful players. Still, it is something that the GW folks will have to consider. Trust is required in these sorts of dealings.
And if you go through the tournament subforum, you'll find a lot of reasons not to trust ITC as an organization, nor players who place in their events.
Gaining an advantage is clearly something you should worry about, as are the knock on effects on the game.
Trust is required, but at the moment there's zero reason to extend it.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/29 19:49:02
... who likely spend a disproportionate amount of money on 40k compared to other customers.
Probably not. The real money makers are Dakka Casual Gamer Mafia like me and HBMC willing to drop $1000+ a month to grow a collection that gets assembled, painted, displayed, and most of the models don't ever see a table outside of the occasional Apocalypse style game with their close friends.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/29 19:46:26
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I think it will be a net positive for the game. It makes sense to consider feedback from the competitive/tournament side of the 40K community when considering "balance." Current winners will have a much better appreciation for power on the tabletop than sequestered game designers or random angry people on an internet discussion board who have strong opinions but perhaps not a real game record to match. My impression is that they are not turning over the balance slate to the ITC winners but rather inviting their feedback. What's the harm?
Self-perpetuating biases? The game currently favors lethality and gotcha moments, and the winners will be the ones who can exploit those best, and recommend more of the same, regardless of the over all health of the game. That's the harm.
I welcome this new approach. Sometimes the best game warden is a former poacher...
And that's exactly the problem. A former poacher is fine (to go with your metaphor). Inviting active and current ones in, to open more gates and recommend more flaws is just... stupid.
And of course they get a leg up by being shown future rules coming down the pike, so they can prepare in advance for any changes while their opposition is left scrambling to adapt in the wake of any changes.
From a sociology perspective, its interesting to watch someone create an 'old boy's club' complete with secret handshakes and favors for favors, but don't be under any illusions that this will somehow be good for game.
Honestly, between this and this latest CAGT mission pack and points changes, I'm reconsidering my stance on points vs power level. I just don't want to chase down a new dragon every six months, and fight through the extra layers of... bovine residuum... created by yet another organization making a mess of things for their own interests (which historically can be generously described as 'bad'). Just want to have some games on a semi-regular basis.
Voss,
I don't see this a stupid at all. They are not handing over the writing duties and decision-making to ITC winners. They are obtaining their feedback. Who should they consult instead of these folks who clearly understand how the game functions at the competitive level?
No one. GW needs to pony up for worthwhile wages and positions to do the work. Crowdsourcing feedback is _incredibly_ problematic in a lot of different ways. Blatantly setting up advantages for the people giving the feedback sets an opportunity to game the system, with no corresponding advantage towards balancing the game.
Is it an inner circle? Sure. But at least you have to earn your way into the circle, and could presumably find yourself out of the circle.
I don't give two rotting figs about 'earned' in this sense- winning games isn't the same as making games, and it predisposes people toward a motive to win more, which influences their feedback. I care about the people in the 'circle' actually knowing what they're doing when it comes to balance feedback and not being in it for themselves. The system as described doesn't provide _any_ reassurances in that regard.
I note that the article also mentions Tournament Organizers also being consulted, so there is a counter-balancing mechanism.
Why would TOs being a counter-balancing mechanism in any way? How?
I do not worry about these ITC winners gaining some sort of advantage within their circuit. They are already successful players. Still, it is something that the GW folks will have to consider. Trust is required in these sorts of dealings.
And if you go through the tournament subforum, you'll find a lot of reasons not to trust ITC as an organization, nor players who place in their events.
Gaining an advantage is clearly something you should worry about, as are the knock on effects on the game.
Trust is required, but at the moment there's zero reason to extend it.
To back this up, the ITC top placed player is the same one who abused the forfeit rules to score fewer points for easier pairings not too far back.
Likewise iirc the player in 2nd place attended a closed invite iron-man style event a year or so back with some dodgy placements and pairings that looked like it was designed purely to farm points.
These are the people who would be "advising the balanced team in a none biased manner" and people think they'll make the game healthier when they themselves are often scrutinised for odd behaviour?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/29 19:48:50
If we want GW to be concerned about balance then part of that analysis must include how games are won. It makes sense to incorporate the feedback of those who do win at a high level into that analysis. Their point of view does not have be unthinkingly and completely accepted, but it should be considered. Having TOs provide feedback on the game system provides a counter-balance because their aim is to have successful tournaments. They are not trying to push a given faction or play style. They will see trends and won't have a "dog in the fight" so to speak.
You can stamp your feet and demand that GW figure it out by themselves, but I don't think that will contribute to better balance. Consulting people who play at a high level, though, can contribute to better balance. I would be more worried about the warping effect of a single "hired gun" ITC winning consultant on the design team than having a group of qualified outsiders providing feedback.
In any case, GW are obtaining their feedback, not handing over control.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
chaos0xomega wrote: We ehould form an anti-competitive ITC team, try to get as many people into high placements as possible to stack the balance and playtest teams with non-,competitive types, and then use our weight of numbers to dismantle competotive play from the inside out.
Yes because we want the game to be even messier and less balanced. Brilliant thinking.
... who likely spend a disproportionate amount of money on 40k compared to other customers.
Probably not. The real money makers are Dakka Casual Gamer Mafia like me and HBMC willing to drop $1000+ a month to grow a collection that gets assembled, painted, displayed, and most of the models don't ever see a table outside of the occasional Apocalypse style game with their close friends.
You guys only drop $1k a month?
Amateurs.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
Hey now, some of us also have a crippling Transformers addiction to feed as well!
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
If we want GW to be concerned about balance then part of that analysis must include how games are won. It makes sense to incorporate the feedback of those who do win at a high level into that analysis. Their point of view does not have be unthinkingly and completely accepted, but it should be considered.
I don't agree. It has two outcomes: either GW accepts more degenerative and meta-warping builds as part of the normal game, or they unthinkingly try to limit them in overreactions (like the ork buggies and flyers).
GW needs to decide what kind of game it wants to make, and actually design the game around that. The 'we didn't think you'd use the rules we wrote this way' excuse that they've pulled since the Iron Hands supplement shows the level of disconnect between the game they're trying to design and what the 'high level winners' do with it. They can't keep the game pointed in anything resembling that direction while incorporating the feedback of people who want to break it. [except possibly writing 'No, you can't do that' over and over again in the months after a codex release] Every tournament season ending in a ban list sounds like soooo much fun.
Having TOs provide feedback on the game system provides a counter-balance because their aim is to have successful tournaments. They are not trying to push a given faction or play style. They will see trends and won't have a "dog in the fight" so to speak.
That, historically, has never been true. When the various TO 'comp systems' dominated the field, a lot of it was all about the TO's dogs in the fight- which factions they favored and which they tried to limit or kick to the curb.
You can stamp your feet and demand that GW figure it out by themselves, but I don't think that will contribute to better balance. Consulting people who play at a high level, though, can contribute to better balance.
At this point, you're going to have to illustrate how, rather than simply insisting (despite all the evidence to the contrary) that it will just magically turn out to be the case.
You said it yourself. You mentioned that GW did not expect competitive players to use Iron Hands in the way that they did two years ago with the new supplement. Now the designers can obtain and potentially incorporate such feedback from competitive players. Like I said, using poachers to advise them how to be better game wardens. Without a mechanism for such feedback it is observation along with trial and error. This could allow them to act with more precision when applying fixes. I sense that you are upset about the changes to buggies and flyers - that was done by GW. Additionally, if there are things that competitive players can exploit then they are going to do so regardless. At least with this feedback loop GWmight be able to avoid something like the early Admech craziness along with the Drukhari problem. I can't see it making anything worse.
Do you think that GW should not attempt to make balance fixes? Really? Ok.
Balance in 9th is not perfect, but I do think its better than 8th. I credit some of this to a greater awareness of what goes on in competitive 40K, along with the use of the Mournival playtesters. For all its faults, we also have more unified mission structure in the wider community, allowing greater comparisons to be made.
There is indeed risk of a "bad actor", but having more voices is better.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
Partnering with ITC does not mean they are abandoning anyone. Taking advantage of the competitive system is good for business. People are buying and selling products based on their performance at tournaments. I do not understand how that will impact the consumer who buys models and paint or play a game every once in a while with a friend while drinking a beer. They are simply saying they are going to make an attempt to keep a group of customers happy.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/29 23:33:55
