| Author |
Message |
 |
|
|
|
|
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
2017/09/27 08:32:44
Subject: Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson?
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
 NH Gunsmith wrote: Scott-S6 wrote: frozenwastes wrote:
Chamberlain thinks the competitive scene works, but if only a subset of army list options see play is it really working?
Is there any tournament game where very unit/model/card is equally playable?
None that I have seen, nobody is 100% perfect with balance on everything. It is impossible to account for everything that multiple thousands/millions of people will do with the system and rules put out by a company as big as GW, or even Privateer Press.
While this is the case, GW is an example of something far further from the mark than something like, say, Infinity or Malifaux. While those 'dud' options still exist, they are few and far between (most factions have only 3-4 choices that are bad, and even then they can usually be used to success in the right scenario or with good support). The Warhammers are to this day an example of a new release rolling around, and there are options that are super competitive to the point where they're overpowered, or they're hot garbage. This isn't to say there is a middle ground, but the results are far more skewed in the GW games than in most of their other competitors, where overpowered or horribly weak units are the outliers.
On your other example, Privateer Press, their initial release of Warmachine/Hordes Mk3 was unbalanced as all get out, and quite frankly unplayable because of it. However, they took on a new form of community integrated playtesting (which a fair few companies do nowadays, and in far bigger forms than GW), and the game is rapidly gaining back an uninspired playerbase because of it. While yes, there is a big return back to 40k with 8th edition, it isn't from the people who want tight, balanced rulesets, it's largely people who want something they can play in their garage of a Sunday afternoon for a laugh (where balance isn't as much of an issue). Having seen a few 8th ed tournaments as an outsider (I looked at 8th ed when it launched, saw how AoSed it was and decided it wasn't for me) it appears to be the same kinds of builds as in 6th and 7th in a general sense. Minimal troops to sit on objectives, and then spam whatever strong units the army has to have the strongest firepower possible, which doesn't seem like fun for any party.
I will say though that this is from the perspective of someone who has almost entirely gotten out of Warhammer, and GW as a whole. What I play now is in my sig if anyone is interested, but I will echo the views above regarding the 'smoke and mirrors' line. Anyone who is actively buying and participating in 'The GW Hobby' will say that nu- GW is the most bestest thing ever and they've changed so much, and everyone who's disillusioned and jaded will say that the other party have the wool over their eyes. No one is going to find middle ground easily, and it'll always be a source of conflict so from my point of view there's little point trying to argue business practices that we quite frankly don't know. If GW succeed I'll be happy, because it means there is more potential for people to see other games and expand, although GW themselves actively try and discourage this.
|
|
|
|
2017/09/28 10:00:21
Subject: Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson?
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Rygnan wrote: NH Gunsmith wrote: Scott-S6 wrote: frozenwastes wrote:
Chamberlain thinks the competitive scene works, but if only a subset of army list options see play is it really working?
Is there any tournament game where very unit/model/card is equally playable?
None that I have seen, nobody is 100% perfect with balance on everything. It is impossible to account for everything that multiple thousands/millions of people will do with the system and rules put out by a company as big as GW, or even Privateer Press.
While this is the case, GW is an example of something far further from the mark than something like, say, Infinity or Malifaux. While those 'dud' options still exist, they are few and far between (most factions have only 3-4 choices that are bad, and even then they can usually be used to success in the right scenario or with good support). The Warhammers are to this day an example of a new release rolling around, and there are options that are super competitive to the point where they're overpowered, or they're hot garbage. This isn't to say there is a middle ground, but the results are far more skewed in the GW games than in most of their other competitors, where overpowered or horribly weak units are the outliers.
I don't know anything about the Malifaux or Infinity tournament meta, but we could do this comparison in both percentage terms and in number of viable units. For each faction key word or grand alliance, how many different armies are there that are tournament viable? Now how many tournament armies are viable for Pan O? Neverborn? Do the warhammer players have as much variety in their experience avaialble when crafting their lists as the Infinity and Malifaux tournament goers? Not because GW's percentage success rate is at all good, but because their range is so large?
It's like Magic the Gathering. Infinity and Malifaux are like the Standard format where you have a card pool of 1500-2000 choices but only 200 or so are actually tournament viable (if that) while GW is like the Modern format where you have a card pool of 11000+ choices but only 200 or so are truly tournament viable. Terrible percentage for one, same actual amount of variety at the top level?
So first off, you claim to no nothing about Malifaux or Infinity metas yet you make a statement you would only be able to make if you were somewhat informed. I'll go into this percentage talk with you for the sake of conversation, but I can tell you now it's nowhere near as close as you make it out to be.
To start, we take a look at Malifaux. Across each of the 7 factions, there are 8 masters you can choose to lead a crew (this is less option to lead than in GW games overall, but the way the game works means that is far less of an issue) Due to the way missions are selected (flipped for out of a deck of cards before lists are built, even in tournaments), you have a far smaller chance of models being useless in an average game. In the Outcasts, the faction I play, there are 12 henchmen, 19 enforcers and 17 minions to choose from, and certain masters are allowed to take other things out of faction. Of these choices, only 2 minions and 3 enforcers are somewhat 'bad', and even then they can work incredibly well if they're in lists that support them or scheme pools that suit their playstyles. Out of faction hires, there are a few more dud choices(5-6 at most over almost half the game), but it is usually due to something natively in faction occupying the same role (read: not an issue of balance in the game, rather something built for one faction having the same niche as something built for another faction). A few masters in the game have traditionally been seen as bad choices, but in the hands of skilled players, and due to buffs they've received in a recent attempt to 'close the gap', they're now at the same level as what is considered playable in a tournament meta.
On to Infinity, where there are even more options, and even less bad choices. Taking a look at PanOceania and Steel Phalanx, again my two factions, we see a heap of options that are competitively viable. First in PanO, we have the 17 Light Infantry options. More granular than Malifaux, and somewhat closer to 40k, almost all of these have different weapon options, the exceptions being doctors and engineers. The bad choices here are few, our doctors aren't as good at their job as other factions (but we shoot better almost as a rule) and the rest are somewhat understandable, like cheap line troops when there are cheaper line troops, and special weapons on any line troop when you have better, tougher guys that can take the same weapons. Both issues become more or less nonexistent with the use of sectorials (basically a sub army) that restricts use of some units but changes how others are played. It is here that certain models can be taken in units, meaning special weapons on cheaper bodies are not only viable, they're encouraged. The other larger issue, comparing line troops, is also gone in sectorial, as you usually don't have the option of other choices, and the 'weaker' ones in the vanilla faction are much more enticing due to expanded options. Of the other PanO unit types, it's much the same, although we have a single example of a unit that is just not good (across an entire faction, one option is bad all of the time). Everything else has it's own use, be it anti-camo, anti-horde, or as a specialist (although roles are much more nuanced than those 3).
Talking Steel Phalanx, there are a lot less options (being a sectorial as opposed to a full faction that is naturally the case) but there is still only 1 unusable unit. The rest are all useful in their own ways, with most filling different variations of a role (for example there are multiple CC units or snipers but each does it in a different way so that they are justified), and the bad option is only bad because she doesn't have a use someone else has. If that weren't the case, and options were lower (as you seem to be implying they are) she would be a good, useful and somewhat competitive choice, but for her points there are better options in every role.
Now we look at Games Workshop, where competitive builds are usually a cookie cutter selection of the best units one can fit in, most of the time with the intention of ignoring scenario and blowing the opponent off the table as quickly as possible (or the opposite, countering this by having the tankiest build possible and bunkering down on objectives). This style of competitive play is entirely stagnant (although it's usually a subset of players who are dedicated powergamers rather than the average gamer) and the only way the meta changes is if some new big gun comes out to blow away what previously existed in a rock/paper/scissors scenario. The game itself isn't intended for competitive play, but they continually claim it is (and that it's extensively playtested, although how a group of 30-40 people at most can make sure every situation is covered is beyond me) which is half of the problem. When you force a square peg (competitive gameplay) into a round hole (GW rulesets, which usually do work for narrative gameplay) you get things that start to break very quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
