Switch Theme:

Self Confidence and Outcomes  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
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.




Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator





Eye of Terror

Out of respect for the current health crisis, I've been cutting back on playing 40k. Same with most of the people at my FLGS, it looks like they're about to suspend all games indefinitely.

It's left me with a little time for reflection. Something's been on my mind a while now, maybe there's time to discuss it.

What relationship exists (or does it) between self-confidence and winning games of 40k? You could also call this higher self-esteem, or maybe a more open mind willing to try new things. But do good players possess an outlook that contributes to success on the tabletop?

I'm a long time player who lost track of win-loss ratios a long time ago. I don't play tournaments but do play in a competitive meta. Not some 40k guru, but my lists win many more games than they lose.

For any given game, I go into it with the sense I have a good chance of winning. It's not something I take for granted, I more like I feel this is going to be fun and I'm well-prepared for whatever is going to come up. It takes time and resources to get armies together and knowing that everyone is getting something good out of it matters to me.

It's not always the same for my opponents, they sometimes make comments about their chances that sound a little self-defeating. Examples would be "I'm going to have a hard time with this list," "you have so many more models than me," "my [ X UNIT ] is going down right away," "how am I going to deal with your [ Y UNIT ]," etc. During games, some of the things that come up are "I gotta make this roll or it's all over," "I wish I still had that other unit," "the odds of this working are slim," "that last turn was harsh and I don't know if I can come back," etc. After a while, I can see this expressed physically, where their shoulders slouch, they keep their eyes lowered, there's lots of sighs and interrupted sentences, long pauses where they get stuck on what they're going to do, that kind of stuff. Just signs they are resigned to whatever is going to happen, they're not really in the drivers seat.

Obviously, 40k a game of dice, relative strength of factions / lists is significant, probability plays a big role, and there's usually a score that's kept and determines winners and losers. While there are times when there's no way to proceed, outside of being tabled, it's rare that there's only one possible outcome to any match. While the odds could be stacked against you, they're usually not, and that's what makes this kind of thinking so curious to me. My opponent might be just as prepared as I am, know all the rules for their army and be playing a competitive list.

But they don't always sound like they believe they are going to win, and people who think this way make me a little sad. Games can feel like an attempt to justify their anxieties. I might make jokes to make the situation more fun. But knowing an opponent regrets some part of the game, a decision they made, a choice about their list that didn't work out, or whatever sticks with me. The reason they lost is usually something baked into the mechanics they could not control, doesn't make sense they let it take them down.

This has been on my mind more as 8th edition advances. I realize experience is closely related to self confidence, but I wonder how close that relationship is. For the greater part of 8th, I've played a Black Legion gunline, and do still use it. But I'm also experimenting with a lot of other lists - Bloodletter Bombs, Nurgle Daemons, Chaos Knights, Daemon Primarchs, Thousand Sons Sorcerer Detachments, Grey Knights, Deathwatch, etc. For the last 6 months, I'm usually coming to the table with a list I've never played before, often with factions I've never used and rules that are only a few weeks old.

So unfamiliarity doesn't seem too tightly coupled with success. Yeah, it helps, but it's something you can get over with a basic sense of how the game works. There's factions I play very well against and others - Dark Eldar, Orks, Imperial Knights, NuMarines - that give me more of a challenge. It doesn't matter how familiar I am with the army I brought, I might make some mistakes but that's just part of the game. It doesn't affect how I feel about things.

So tell me your thoughts. How much does self-confidence impact outcomes in 40k? Could someone walk in with a highly optimized push-button netlist and seriously hurt their chances because they have a bad self-opinion? Or does it not matter?

   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




UK

Self confidence is immensely important.

It's not even just about winning or losing; I've had games where someone is clearly going to lose and both players have had a great time because of the attitude in which they approach the game.


If you lack self confidence then it can tarnish everything; even to the more extreme where if a person does win their lack of self confidence might manifest in them thinking that they only one because of an imbalance in dice rolls (ergo their opponent always rolled bad); or a fluke or even that the opponent threw the match on purpose.

Furthermore a person lacking self confidence might well lack motivation. This means they won't play at their best and it means that before and after the game they are unlikely to review and plan and improve their theory of the game. So they create their own downward cycle. They play poorly; they don't "invest" into learning to play better (they might even reject it); therefor they lose which reinforces their lack of self confidence which reinforces their poor play etc....




Self confidence is very important and shouldn't be underestimated. However it can also be a very subtle thing where a person displaying all the signs of lacking self confidence might not "realise" it themselves. Therefore they've no concept of how to face their demons and tackle them on their own. It's why teaching and supportive game groups are ever so important in any hobby. Any community requires an element of supporting, motivating, helping and generally inclusive behaviour toward its other members in order to thrive.

All aspects which can help improve a persons self confidence, motivation and energy. Which as a result can then be used to funnel that energy into them learning; improving their game; learning to review a game afterwards etc... People are far more likely to pick up and use tools and methods and learning if they've the confidence in themselves. If they have the belief that they can learn and improve.





Strip all that away and they will rarely if never improve and better their own position; and will most likely stagnate or even degrade. I mean why bother playing your best if you'll lose any way. Why bother learning how to better deploy or make attack target choices;

A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Master with Gauntlets of Macragge





Upstate, New York

You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.

I’ve seen people skip stuff because the odds of them doing anything were low. Like firing bolt pistols when you had the option. But while the odds are low, they add up. By basically admitting failure, they help cause it. Or measuring from one model and then sorta blobbing the rest of the squad behind them, rather than optimizing movement.

The “It’s not relevant” is true sometimes, but they are not getting the most out of their forces. Sure, it saves time, and sometimes that’s a big deal. But other times making sure you do things right can be the difference between victory and defeat.

And if you assume the worst, you might miss the chances to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Once you are in the “I’m doomed no mater what” state of mind, you might not see the lifeline offered by a blunder from your opponent, or an opening made by our fickle little 6-sided friends.

And from a play standpoint, the game becomes a lot less fun for the last few turns if you or your opponent is resigned and gloomy. Even if defeat is staring you straight in the eye, set some goals to count as little wins. Hold that -one- objective, keep that last marine from the devastated squad alive, kill the one squad that’s been pissing you off, not be tabled until after turn 3. Pyric secondary objectives.

Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 13K+ Slowly growing 3Kish
Nevelon's Workbench: Ultramarines, Saim-Hann and other assorted oddities
 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





@OP:

Play with happy people and not with sad pandas. The latter only drag you down.
Tracking a win/loss ratio? Like in a video game? Geez, that's a truly alien idea to me. I won the most of my tabletop games but a healthy gaming atmosphere is much more important than a win.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





Yep, your outcomes are affected by what you put into them, physically or emotionally.

Them Scientist chappies with the white coats and too much free time on their hands have done Proppa Science on it.

Though I think Mary Poppins said it best.
   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator





Eye of Terror

Nevelon wrote:You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.

I’ve seen people skip stuff because the odds of them doing anything were low. Like firing bolt pistols when you had the option. But while the odds are low, they add up. By basically admitting failure, they help cause it. Or measuring from one model and then sorta blobbing the rest of the squad behind them, rather than optimizing movement.

The “It’s not relevant” is true sometimes, but they are not getting the most out of their forces. Sure, it saves time, and sometimes that’s a big deal. But other times making sure you do things right can be the difference between victory and defeat.

Well, I'm not even talking about skipping the low percentage shots. I do that sometimes just to keep the game moving.

Where I see it is with the people who talk like they know the outcome before the game starts, and they're telling themselves they will probably lose. Or during a game, when they get behind and their body language tells you they're not going to win.

I've faced opponents with so little self-confidence that they needed to do breathing exercises just to keep their emotions in check. The problem isn't with the game, it seems to me they're building a vision of the outcome and it doesn't include them winning.

Strg Alt wrote:@OP:

Play with happy people and not with sad pandas. The latter only drag you down.
Tracking a win/loss ratio? Like in a video game? Geez, that's a truly alien idea to me. I won the most of my tabletop games but a healthy gaming atmosphere is much more important than a win.

Why would you not want to play against someone who's going to lose? Gives you a chance to try some stuff, boosts your own confidence because you know you have a better chance to win.

Knowing your record doesn't mean you're creating a bad environment. It means you know when you need to update your strategy / tactics.

   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

I love to play agaisnt every kind of opponent. I normally play weak lists and most of the time I get destroyed. But many times I can get a win agaisnt a much stronger foe because I can outplay it. I always play to win and to do the best I can, and for the most part my opponents do the same, I never ask for mercy nor should they give it to me (I'm not a new player).


But theres one specific kind of player. The ones that the moment they start losing just surrender (Not literally but animically), start complaining about everything, show not interest about the game. I cant wistand those kind of players because normally they are also sore winners.

Theres a special subsection to those kind of players that have a place reserved in wargaming hell for them: The ones that don't stop complaining even when they are winning handily agaisnt you.

I mean, yeah failing 3 charges in a row suck but we are 3-20 in your favour and I have 20% of my army agaisnt 80% of yours in turn 4. Just stop being a little b****

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




UK

 techsoldaten wrote:

I've faced opponents with so little self-confidence that they needed to do breathing exercises just to keep their emotions in check. The problem isn't with the game, it seems to me they're building a vision of the outcome and it doesn't include them winning.


A game is always the sum of its players, however many there are. And whilst competing does often mean doing your best and going against your opponent, its part of both players involvement in the game to include the other player and to make it as fun an experience as possible. That said if someone is having to do breathing exercises then chances are that they don't just need more games (both winning and losing) and support; but they might also need some professional help as well. At the point where its starting to impact their health/perception of their health to that extent then they need more than a friendly gamer can often have the skill and experience to offer.

I'd hope they can get some counselling. No one should be needing breathing exercises during a game.

A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in us
Elite Tyranid Warrior




You know, over the past year of 8th I have become that kind of player you are talking about.

More and more with 8th I just lose interest almost immediately with a lot of games because if I do not go first I often lose 50% or more of my army before I even get a turn... That just destroys my desire to continue another hour or two of playing with half a list against a full list. I COULD win through points but it still isn't fun to just win by hoping that the maelstrom deck is a benevolent god.

At its worst, at least in 7th I knew that I was losing to invisible death stars because it was bonkers OP and there was nothing you could do about it. In 8th I feel hopeless because I want to play a combined arms army or what used to be known as a TAC list but more and more the game is rewarding heavy skew list that reward you for committing to a turn one alpha. The best armies seem to be the ones that can remove as much of your opponents army before they even get a turn and that is just frustrating and leads me to not even want to continue playing the game.

I need to find a new group to play with, but with the pandemic going on that is even harder than normal.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut



NE Ohio, USA

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
You know, over the past year of 8th I have become that kind of player you are talking about.

More and more with 8th I just lose interest almost immediately with a lot of games because if I do not go first I often lose 50% or more of my army before I even get a turn... That just destroys my desire to continue another hour or two of playing with half a list against a full list. I COULD win through points but it still isn't fun to just win by hoping that the maelstrom deck is a benevolent god.


But let me guess; If you go first & wipe out 50%+ of the opponent you're all fine & good.

Seriously, why play if 50% of the time the 1st turn will sap your interest? You could save a whole bunch of time by just determining 1st player. Don't set anything up, just roll for 1st turn. You go first, set things up & play game. You go second? Don't play. Repeat dice rolls until you go first.
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





ccs wrote:
Arbiter_Shade wrote:
You know, over the past year of 8th I have become that kind of player you are talking about.

More and more with 8th I just lose interest almost immediately with a lot of games because if I do not go first I often lose 50% or more of my army before I even get a turn... That just destroys my desire to continue another hour or two of playing with half a list against a full list. I COULD win through points but it still isn't fun to just win by hoping that the maelstrom deck is a benevolent god.


But let me guess; If you go first & wipe out 50%+ of the opponent you're all fine & good.

Seriously, why play if 50% of the time the 1st turn will sap your interest? You could save a whole bunch of time by just determining 1st player. Don't set anything up, just roll for 1st turn. You go first, set things up & play game. You go second? Don't play. Repeat dice rolls until you go first.


Honestly, 8th is a lot too lethal for my liking overall.

We have even started to use KT terrain rules and shooting rules to tone it down massively and still the game is plenty lethal.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in us
Elite Tyranid Warrior




ccs wrote:
Arbiter_Shade wrote:
You know, over the past year of 8th I have become that kind of player you are talking about.

More and more with 8th I just lose interest almost immediately with a lot of games because if I do not go first I often lose 50% or more of my army before I even get a turn... That just destroys my desire to continue another hour or two of playing with half a list against a full list. I COULD win through points but it still isn't fun to just win by hoping that the maelstrom deck is a benevolent god.


But let me guess; If you go first & wipe out 50%+ of the opponent you're all fine & good.

Seriously, why play if 50% of the time the 1st turn will sap your interest? You could save a whole bunch of time by just determining 1st player. Don't set anything up, just roll for 1st turn. You go first, set things up & play game. You go second? Don't play. Repeat dice rolls until you go first.


What a bitter response, is it because I have something negative to say about your favorite game?

No as a matter of fact I do not enjoy wiping out my opponents army. One of my regular opponents plays Grey Knights and every time we played it was called by turn three usually. I do not play gun line armies so it is rare for me to take 50% of an enemies army turn one, it is at least turn two or three before I get any work done.

   
Made in gb
Legendary Dogfighter





england

I get a boost of self confidence from just playing a good game. And I'm not going to limit that to 40k as its not the be all and end all of games.

However I will echo what's been said.
Losing 50% of your army or killing 50% of your opposition is not fun. And does not boost self confidence.
It's bad game design or someone is being a twatwaffle.

For many it's not self confidence that drives them. It's that need to show they are better.
They are the bigger bellend and are genuinely proud of that fact.
I've met plenty in person and even more online.
They are sad lonely individuals who have nothing to show for themselves.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut



NE Ohio, USA

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
ccs wrote:
Arbiter_Shade wrote:
You know, over the past year of 8th I have become that kind of player you are talking about.

More and more with 8th I just lose interest almost immediately with a lot of games because if I do not go first I often lose 50% or more of my army before I even get a turn... That just destroys my desire to continue another hour or two of playing with half a list against a full list. I COULD win through points but it still isn't fun to just win by hoping that the maelstrom deck is a benevolent god.


But let me guess; If you go first & wipe out 50%+ of the opponent you're all fine & good.

Seriously, why play if 50% of the time the 1st turn will sap your interest? You could save a whole bunch of time by just determining 1st player. Don't set anything up, just roll for 1st turn. You go first, set things up & play game. You go second? Don't play. Repeat dice rolls until you go first.


What a bitter response, is it because I have something negative to say about your favorite game?

No as a matter of fact I do not enjoy wiping out my opponents army. One of my regular opponents plays Grey Knights and every time we played it was called by turn three usually. I do not play gun line armies so it is rare for me to take 50% of an enemies army turn one, it is at least turn two or three before I get any work done.



40k (especially 8th) is no where near my favorite game. So go right ahead & say whatever negative you like about it.

But seriously, why would you play a game where 50% of the time where your enjoyment can be predicted by a coin flip prior to doing anything? Both overall & on an individual game basis?
What happens to your mood should your opponent wipe out 1/2 your force on turn 2?

As for playing against your GK friend? If 3 turn average is too short, why don't you change mission details, victory conditions, &/or alter your list to better match theirs?
Why do you not simply turn down games against forces that can wipe 50% of your force turn 1?
   
Made in gb
Wicked Warp Spider





Sounds like dangerously wishy thinking to me, I'll go with the old MTG quote

"More games are decided by technical play than ALL other factors combined" (yes its a dice game, but with a bajillon or so re-rolls even that is not a big deal)

"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




UK

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

"More games are decided by technical play than ALL other factors combined" (yes its a dice game, but with a bajillon or so re-rolls even that is not a big deal)



Aye, but the argument is that those with a critically low level of self confidence are more likely to:

a) Not improve their technical game. Ergo they are less likely to invest time and resources into improving how they play the game.

b) Not taking full advantage of what they do know during the game. If you've already convinced yourself you're going to lose and you've no confidence in yourself you're more likely to just throw away units and options rather than puzzle out the best options. Sometimes people can take a bad situation and turn it into a potential to win; but if they don't see that potential (point a) or they don't bother to capitalise on it, then they will lose.



A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought






Confidence is huge for basically all of life.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in ca
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





London, Ontario

Yeah, self confidence and a never say die attitude is good for all aspects of life.

With gaming you’re more open to more possibilities. Sometimes the cumulative effort of several long shots pays off. Ever know unless you try and all that.
   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator





Eye of Terror

ccs wrote:

But seriously, why would you play a game where 50% of the time where your enjoyment can be predicted by a coin flip prior to doing anything? Both overall & on an individual game basis?
What happens to your mood should your opponent wipe out 1/2 your force on turn 2?

As for playing against your GK friend? If 3 turn average is too short, why don't you change mission details, victory conditions, &/or alter your list to better match theirs?
Why do you not simply turn down games against forces that can wipe 50% of your force turn 1?

Most people, in most games, do not lose 50% of their forces turn 1. Catastrophic events like that don't happen often. Losing a couple key units is much more of a regular occurrence.

The question is how people react to some early-game disaster. Been thinking about this most of 8th edition, streamlining the mechanics definitely opened up some new dimensions to playing the game.

One of my lists is built to reliably cause catastrophes to happen. It's a Black Legion gunline, Abaddon giving full rerolls to 25+ lascannons, deployed in a tight formation on my table edge. It wins because it can outshoot most armies from range. Most games start by destroying all my opponent's tanks / walkers / transports first turn, destroying any elite units second turn, then going after infantry once the good stuff is off the board. There's usually a turn or two where my opponent can't shoot back or assault because everything is out of range, and I have beatsticks in my lines to deal with anything that gets close. Plus there are things I can do with Black Legion Stratagems to make it impossible for opponents to grab objectives and there's ways I can tweak the list to really improve my odds.

On paper, this is a good list, but not a great one. In practice, I get extremely good results with it. The reason it works well is because I'm playing against the player, forcing them to react to a new situation where they are at a disadvantage. Opponents are handed an initial shock where their best units are immediately removed from the board and they have no way to shoot back for a couple turns.

The reaction is predictable, even against highly experienced, competitive players. Most people (90%+) will run their remaining forces up the board to either a) assault or b) take objectives. This doesn't usually work because now I have an overwhelming advantage in terms of firepower and can be highly selective with target priority.

Then there are the other kind of players. They're the ones who step back to take stock of the situation and find ways to compensate. They're the ones who act in way designed to produce the outcome they want instead of resigning themselves to a loss. Instead of sighs and moans about pretty models going back in the case, they laugh about the spectacle and get busy making it hard for me to seal the deal.

The best way to respond to losing your best units to a gunline is to move your entire army behind LOS blocking terrain and get into position to fight battles of opportunity later in the game. That breaks the gunline, now it needs to move and keeping the combination of auras / orders / psychic powers / cover intact is next to impossible. The effectiveness of shooting goes down as units clog strategic points on the board, opponents take advantage through high-leverage match-ups that favor their side in individual contests.

That's when I have to step back and think rationally about how to get the advantage back. I might have more bodies and guns, but they have board control. The game becomes a question of which set of advantages will prevail.

So I wonder why some players can deal with a first-turn catastrophe and some can't. It feels like a function of self-esteem, but how you look at the game seems to feed into one's personal perspective.

If you look at 8th edition as a game of bodies and percentages, where tactics don't really mean that much compared to the units in your list, it might not occur to you there's an optimal set of decisions you can make in any situation that will lead to a better outcome. You will just charge forward and try to assault / grab objectives because that's what's left to do. My experience is this is what most players do - more than 90%.

If you look at 8th edition as a more complex game where numerical advantages are only one factor in determining outcomes, you might look at a first-turn catastrophe differently. Losing a key unit just means some other unit didn't get hit, now how do you create the conditions where that unit can succeed? I don't run into as many of these kinds of players but really enjoy games with them. Not that I don't enjoy playing with others, it's more that I dislike the feeling of inevitability when someone doesn't play to counter my tactics.

   
Made in us
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator





Philadelphia

I also think beyond self confidence, you're referring to "stick with it ness." I've noticed that the persistence to hang in there when things get bad is not super strong in some people, and particularly in younger folks (though I've seen it in spades in older gamers too).

People have an idea about how the game is going to go, and if it doesn't go that way right off the bat, or something unexpected happens, they quit or give up. I played one older gentleman who lost his LandRaider (back in 4th, 5th?) in my first turn of shooting (lucky shot), and he ended the game. That was his only casualty in an 1850 point game.

When I have that kind of luck (the bad kind), then the game becomes, for me, to wheedle out at least a tie, or to make things interesting. So if I do get the tie, that's a huge win in my book. If I lose but kept it close, excellent. If I lose big, then the game is over faster, and we can start again.

I learn more from my losses than wins, so I'm not averse to having to be flexible on the fly, and adjust my approach as the game demands.

Daemonhunters 1000 points (painted)
Flesh Tearers 2000+ points (painted) - Balt GT '02 52nd; Balt GT '05 16th
Kabal of the Tortured Soul 2000+ points (painted) - Balt GT '08 85th; Mechanicon '09 12th
Greenwing 1000 points (painted) - Adepticon Team Tourny 2013

"There is rational thought here. It's just swimming through a sea of stupid and is often concealed from view by the waves of irrational conclusions." - Railguns 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




UK

I think learning from your mistakes is a skill unto itself.

That said it also relies upon several key ingredients within any area of interest

1) The ability to understand what is happening

2) The ability to reflect on what is happening and why

3) The ability to consider alternative options.


If you lack in those understandings you can't easily self-assess your own results because you've not a full grasp of the situation. When you deploy at random; when your targets are more at random/whatever looks cool to shoot. When your whole decision making process is more driven by "cool" than "ok so my anti-tank wants to shoot their tank" then the ability to absorb information and improve next time is restricted.

Chance games can also hinder this learning because you might use your anti-tank gun on tanks and keep getting bad results for several games/attacks in a row. Then you use it randomly on an infantry unit and kill loads of them. Suddenly the player has learned the wrong thing because of chance and its been reinforced. Remembering that humans are very accepting of the FIRST bit of information we take in relating to a subject. So even if that anti-infantry unit goes on to do rubbish against infantry thereafter; the person is still drawing their conclusions from the first experience.

Especially when their game theory grasp is poor and thus there's not ample evidence for them to change their behaviour and justify it.



Of course if you've a poor grasp of game mechanics at the mechanical level then you are more likely to lose; which will steadily undermine your self confidence. Which in turn feeds into a desire not to improve your situation because the results are a foregone conclusion etc... So it can be a very destructive selfperpetuating cycle.


Of course on top of that is a DESIRE to invest the time in improving. Some people want to rock up, throw some dice and play a game and then go away for the rest of the week and not think about the game. Uncomplicated, simple and just do it.
Others might invest their time into building or painting or lore reading; so that there's less and less time for the other areas.

Wargames don't help themselves either because whilst there are pages of threads; books; dozens of videos etc... all on painting and lore and building there's almost nothing on game theory and understanding. Or at least a drastically reduced amount.

No one shares their video on deployment theory; or how to make target priority selections; or how to read your opponents army etc... In fact its so poorly supported that some get the impression that there are no tactical elements in wargames barring the most overt such as movement based tactics - ergo things like flanking. So when the "rules" don't have specific mention of flanking they consider the game tactically inferior; even if the actual act of flanking would convey a bonus.

A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator





Eye of Terror

@Cruentus, @Overread - wish I could give a thumbs up to your posts. Great responses.

Yeah, "sticktoitiveness" is important, I just think it starts with self-confidence. You can't believe it's worth sticking this out if you don't believe in yourself.

 Overread wrote:
No one shares their video on deployment theory; or how to make target priority selections; or how to read your opponents army etc... In fact its so poorly supported that some get the impression that there are no tactical elements in wargames barring the most overt such as movement based tactics - ergo things like flanking. So when the "rules" don't have specific mention of flanking they consider the game tactically inferior; even if the actual act of flanking would convey a bonus.

Yeah, there is so much talk about how 8th edition lacks tactics. I wonder how much this dulls people's response to the situations where common-sense tactics could make a difference?

The value of the Wisdom of Crowds has limits. At some point, you have to take everything you've heard and decide how well it's served you.

It would be really nice to know what makes people take that step.

   
Made in us
[DCM]
Abel





Washington State

Self-confidence and positive self-esteem contribute greatly to how successful you are on the table, but... and this is a huge BUT:

Be very, very careful about linking your self worth, confidence, and self esteem to a game of little plastic toy soldiers on a make believe battlefield from a company that is very mercurial in its rules.

Kara Sloan shoots through Time and Design Space for a Negative Play Experience  
   
Made in us
Elite Tyranid Warrior




It seems that this thread just turned into a way to talk down to people who don't think that 8th edition is a very tactical game.

I've played since 3rd consistently and I've never felt more strongly than now that the game is heavily skewed towards list building more so than any kind of strategy or tactics. I will freely admit that I am a more tactical player rather than strategic but even I can see how little strategy matters in this game past bring enough big guns to smoke your opponent as fast as possible. 8th is such a lethal edition that the best strategy is just to table your opponent before they can do anything else and because of the way that LOS is handled and the amount of LOS ignoring weapons. The fact is GW terrain can hardly block LOS to an infantry model with how many holes there are, let alone a tank or a whole squad.

This obnoxious positivity, I am going to call it that since everyone feels fine trash talking any form of decent, feels like people are playing an entirely different game. I get it, I need giant pieces of LOS blocking terrain in order to even have a chance but that argument gets not merit because in order to get around that terrain I would also need to get into the LOS of all of those guns.

I am in Law Enforcement, no give up is a strong part of my work ethic but when it comes to a game I don't see much point in spending hours playing a game where the end is apparent after a turn. I know what I need to do in order to compete in my meta, it is buy an entirely new army in the form of new models or a new codex with new models. The game has always made it hard for melee focused armies but now shooting so far outpaces models ability to survive that in order to be a decent melee unit you have to be able to have rerolls to charge out of deep strike or even better be able to cross 30"+ inches in a single turn.

I get that constant negativity is annoying but so is this reality denying optimism that every problem can be over come in a game with shoddy rules. Does it take something as ridiculous as 7th invisible death stars to get people to see that sometimes it isn't the player it is the game that is the issue?
   
Made in ca
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





London, Ontario

Did that whaaanbulance have its lights on?

*troll face*

The game is poorly balanced, and the LOS issue the game has is meta dependant. Some people have it, in which case counter play to a gunline is possible... unless your local Guard player uses a lot of artillery. *troll face again, I always take some artillery for just such occasions*

I honestly haven’t played a game of 8th where the first player didn’t win. Some were close, some weren’t, but the first player won (or tied, a couple times) every game I played. My meta is a few close friends that have played together for years. We play to win, we love gloating over our vanquished enemies... until the next game. We played invisible WK with ScatterBikes, invisible Death Stars, Invisible Knights with the improved Invuls, Gladius with all the free goodies, Twin Daemon Princes. All the meta-topping builds.

In 8th, It all kept coming back to first turn. Tons of LOS blocking terrain, actively disadvantaging the first player... didn’t matter. The strategic acumen of winning first turn was the deciding factor for us. We would play, and counter play, traps and feints and good tactical decisions... but the first player always won.

My point is, that when 8th started feeling like we could just roll off for first turn, and call it there... we changed games. Yup, big investments sitting on shelves is disappointing. I sorely hope that the worm turns and brings a game to us that we can more thoroughly enjoy. It’s not there right now, but other games are.

Maybe it’s time to try something different?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/16 22:54:14


 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




UK

Can we perhaps not end up twisting this thread away from the topic of self confidence and the general subject area of confidence in gaming?


Getting lost down the old road of complaining about game balance is really neither here nor there in this discussion and honestly there are LOADS of better threads to hash it out in where we can debate the merits and faults of the rules system. Heck this thread isn't even about Warhammer itself save by the fact that Dakka has a predominantly 40K strong userbase. The comments relate to every wargame from GW, PP, or any other game out there even chess, monopoly and snakes and ladders!

A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator





Eye of Terror

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
It seems that this thread just turned into a way to talk down to people who don't think that 8th edition is a very tactical game.

I've played since 3rd consistently and I've never felt more strongly than now that the game is heavily skewed towards list building more so than any kind of strategy or tactics. I will freely admit that I am a more tactical player rather than strategic but even I can see how little strategy matters in this game past bring enough big guns to smoke your opponent as fast as possible. 8th is such a lethal edition that the best strategy is just to table your opponent before they can do anything else and because of the way that LOS is handled and the amount of LOS ignoring weapons. The fact is GW terrain can hardly block LOS to an infantry model with how many holes there are, let alone a tank or a whole squad.

This obnoxious positivity, I am going to call it that since everyone feels fine trash talking any form of decent, feels like people are playing an entirely different game. I get it, I need giant pieces of LOS blocking terrain in order to even have a chance but that argument gets not merit because in order to get around that terrain I would also need to get into the LOS of all of those guns.

I am in Law Enforcement, no give up is a strong part of my work ethic but when it comes to a game I don't see much point in spending hours playing a game where the end is apparent after a turn. I know what I need to do in order to compete in my meta, it is buy an entirely new army in the form of new models or a new codex with new models. The game has always made it hard for melee focused armies but now shooting so far outpaces models ability to survive that in order to be a decent melee unit you have to be able to have rerolls to charge out of deep strike or even better be able to cross 30"+ inches in a single turn.

I get that constant negativity is annoying but so is this reality denying optimism that every problem can be over come in a game with shoddy rules. Does it take something as ridiculous as 7th invisible death stars to get people to see that sometimes it isn't the player it is the game that is the issue?

Hey, no way I'm going to argue with someone in law enforcement.

That's a great perspective and I certainly agree, this edition makes it a lot easier to remove units from the board.

The thing is, 8th is several years old now, everyone has had time to get used to that dynamic. Feel free to blame the game if you want, that's not really what I'm trying to get across.

All I'm saying is, were you to take 2 players of equal skill level, equal experience, playing the same list against the same opponent, the one with the most positive attitude will more frequently experience better outcomes. This doesn't even mean they will win, but they will have better reactions to situations that develop in the game. Conversely, I see self-defeating behavior in people sometimes that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the game, could be their body language or what they say about their chances. They tend to have a harder time, be a little more rigid in their approach, lack a fluidity in how they think about how to deal with developments as they present themselves.

I don't really want to turn this into an argument about the relative importance of tactics, that's just the name I use for how someone reacts to a situation. If it seems like I'm on the wrong track, I appreciate you for taking the time to respond. I wanted a conversation and don't expect everyone to agree with me, this gives me more to think about and I hope I didn't actually sound like I was talking down at anyone.

   
Made in us
Elite Tyranid Warrior




 techsoldaten wrote:
Arbiter_Shade wrote:
It seems that this thread just turned into a way to talk down to people who don't think that 8th edition is a very tactical game.

I've played since 3rd consistently and I've never felt more strongly than now that the game is heavily skewed towards list building more so than any kind of strategy or tactics. I will freely admit that I am a more tactical player rather than strategic but even I can see how little strategy matters in this game past bring enough big guns to smoke your opponent as fast as possible. 8th is such a lethal edition that the best strategy is just to table your opponent before they can do anything else and because of the way that LOS is handled and the amount of LOS ignoring weapons. The fact is GW terrain can hardly block LOS to an infantry model with how many holes there are, let alone a tank or a whole squad.

This obnoxious positivity, I am going to call it that since everyone feels fine trash talking any form of decent, feels like people are playing an entirely different game. I get it, I need giant pieces of LOS blocking terrain in order to even have a chance but that argument gets not merit because in order to get around that terrain I would also need to get into the LOS of all of those guns.

I am in Law Enforcement, no give up is a strong part of my work ethic but when it comes to a game I don't see much point in spending hours playing a game where the end is apparent after a turn. I know what I need to do in order to compete in my meta, it is buy an entirely new army in the form of new models or a new codex with new models. The game has always made it hard for melee focused armies but now shooting so far outpaces models ability to survive that in order to be a decent melee unit you have to be able to have rerolls to charge out of deep strike or even better be able to cross 30"+ inches in a single turn.

I get that constant negativity is annoying but so is this reality denying optimism that every problem can be over come in a game with shoddy rules. Does it take something as ridiculous as 7th invisible death stars to get people to see that sometimes it isn't the player it is the game that is the issue?

Hey, no way I'm going to argue with someone in law enforcement.

That's a great perspective and I certainly agree, this edition makes it a lot easier to remove units from the board.

The thing is, 8th is several years old now, everyone has had time to get used to that dynamic. Feel free to blame the game if you want, that's not really what I'm trying to get across.

All I'm saying is, were you to take 2 players of equal skill level, equal experience, playing the same list against the same opponent, the one with the most positive attitude will more frequently experience better outcomes. This doesn't even mean they will win, but they will have better reactions to situations that develop in the game. Conversely, I see self-defeating behavior in people sometimes that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the game, could be their body language or what they say about their chances. They tend to have a harder time, be a little more rigid in their approach, lack a fluidity in how they think about how to deal with developments as they present themselves.

I don't really want to turn this into an argument about the relative importance of tactics, that's just the name I use for how someone reacts to a situation. If it seems like I'm on the wrong track, I appreciate you for taking the time to respond. I wanted a conversation and don't expect everyone to agree with me, this gives me more to think about and I hope I didn't actually sound like I was talking down at anyone.


You can argue with people in law enforcement, we are all just people in the end. I appreciate your mature stance in all of this because post here so often become accusatory and aggressive so quickly that it kills any real conversation.

If all things are equal than yes, attitude can have a huge difference in the outcome of a game. What I am arguing is that in the case of 40k that it is incredibly rare to have things equal unless both players are playing the same army and the same list. I play a lot of miniature games and I only really see this happen in 40k because the nature of this game.

My point in bringing up tactics and strategy is that often peoples attitudes are dictated by the quality of the game they are playing. 40k is a fun game that has great potential to be a lot of fun, if the players involved are of the same mindset. The problem is that everyone has different expectations of the game and the buffet style of serving that 40k offers means that no one is going to happy because it is designed to let everyone play their own way. People in this thread before me brought up how these players that feel defeated just need to get better and learn to work through it, nice ways of saying, "Get good." Sometimes it is not a matter of getting better at the game, if you are a great player looking to play a lore focused list you are going to run into trouble when you play against a tournament list. Hell, even if you play another lore friendly list the games imbalances can ruin that too due to how the current edition favors a lot of shooting. Tau and Guard fluffy list with combined arms are going to have a better time than a World Eaters melee based list or a Goff Ork list favoring a lot of Meganobz and Walkers.
   
Made in ca
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





London, Ontario

To clarify my point.

If both players are gritty, never give up players playing close-to-equally powerful lists then, in my experience, the game has been decided by the winner of first turn.

A gritty player might defeat a non-gritty player. I haven’t played against players that are prone to throwing in the towel. I know for certain that I will keep grinding, shifting tactics and priorities to achieve the win conditions of a game. And as I’ve said, some games are close and others blow-outs. But I haven’t seen a game between myself or my friends that didn’t go to the winner of the first turn. Or at best, a tie for the 2nd player.

20 or so games isn’t a statistically significant sample size, but has created a strong anecdotal connection for my group. For us, regardless of all other factors, even some *non-crucially-optimized* lists against net-list hyper-optimized lists, the weaker lists won when they went first.

Which is why we’ve been playing other games. We all feel somewhat cheated when the first roll of our game has predicted the outcome 2 hours before the game ends.

The case may be that without grit, you’re more likely to lose to someone that possesses that trait. In my opinion, that’s just a fact of existence, and isn’t surprising that it would show up in results of 40k. Due to the uncertainty of the dice, if you have a 1/5 chance to pull off a win, but you don’t take it... you’re not going to win.

(Unlike real life, win/lose/tie are the only outcomes in 40k. Losing big, or losing small is a non issue, besides ego. In real life, passing on the 1/5 might leave you in a better situation than risking a long shot. But that doesn’t apply to 40k.)
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

I have found that losing to first turn is the first sing of one of two things (If we discount some extreme and not really that great of lists like imperial guard artillery with no-los spam or old-iron hands):

-A bad player

-A bad table


I mean, we have an ork player that constantly complaints about how his army gets always obliterated turn 1 and you would laugh if you saw his deployments. He just puts everything on a straight line at the edge of his deployment zone and then gets blasted to bits.

I mean, I did hide 4 imperial knights turn 1 agaisnt a very heavy anti-tank lists in one of our tables so is not like we don't have enough LOS bloking terrain. If you can't wistand the firepower of the opponent list then don't put yourself in danger. Play to the turns 3-4, not the 1-2.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/17 04:15:05


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: