Hollow wrote:
However, for the people who don't have much interest in tournamanet and WAAC playstyles (which is the vast, vast, VAST majority of GW customers. The rules are fun, thematic and provide cool games.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

EDIT:
To use a real-world, albeit anecdotal, example:

Recently, one of the Baneblades of my 1st Company (Iron Duke in this case) was charged by 40 tactical marines. "Clever" (obvious) use of the Defensive Gunners stratagem largely crippled the Tactical Marines on the way in, killing a fair few. When I mentioned this on DakkaDakka, everyone acted with shock and horror. "Why charge a Baneblade with 40 tacts? That won't do anything!" they cried.

Well, actually, since Baneblades (unlike walkers) can't step over infantry, it effectively pinned me in my deployment zone with my butt against the table so the Baneblade could not fall back. This meant the tactical marines were protected from the worst of my firepower, while also keeping one of my assets from moving, if not shooting.

I thought it was a neat and clever trick; and while it didn't win him the game, it was certainly something I did not see coming as well, since I too have an unhealthy addiction to Mathhammer.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

EDIT:
To use a real-world, albeit anecdotal, example:

Recently, one of the Baneblades of my 1st Company (Iron Duke in this case) was charged by 40 tactical marines. "Clever" (obvious) use of the Defensive Gunners stratagem largely crippled the Tactical Marines on the way in, killing a fair few. When I mentioned this on DakkaDakka, everyone acted with shock and horror. "Why charge a Baneblade with 40 tacts? That won't do anything!" they cried.

Well, actually, since Baneblades (unlike walkers) can't step over infantry, it effectively pinned me in my deployment zone with my butt against the table so the Baneblade could not fall back. This meant the tactical marines were protected from the worst of my firepower, while also keeping one of my assets from moving, if not shooting.

I thought it was a neat and clever trick; and while it didn't win him the game, it was certainly something I did not see coming as well, since I too have an unhealthy addiction to Mathhammer.

I think that is true that Dakka sometimes admits only a limited range of playstyles and that many people are stuck in a very efficient but very narrow mind-set, and that your example is spot-on.
I agree that math is only a part of the game.
Nonetheless, as always, Math is a tool to understand reality and even if it does not solve everything, it solves a lot of things and being weak at it is bad in a game of numbers.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Not Actually Peregrine wrote:
However, for the people who don't have much interest in tournamanet and WAAC playstyles (which is the vast, vast, VAST majority of GW customers. The rules are fun, thematic and provide cool games.

Nice generalization there to suggest that A) players who play in tournaments are WAAC (which in and of itself is a laughable insult) and that B) those players are either not important enough to make product for or more likely you've made an un-provable generalization about the player base. I am passionate about GW games and products and I am well within my rights to ask for a better product than they sometimes produce.

Wayniac wrote:
No but math and formulae should be a solid foundation of game design. There should never be random balancing or stat assignment; it should follow a pattern and have an actual formula for determining it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Yes; like I said, not an attempt to defend GW. Math is certainly not useless.

But I do not think a "mathematically perfect" game will actually be very balanced - especially given non-mathematical force multipliers like extra movement, the Fly keyword, Objective Secured, and whatnot.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Yes; like I said, not an attempt to defend GW. Math is certainly not useless.

But I do not think a "mathematically perfect" game will actually be very balanced - especially given non-mathematical force multipliers like extra movement, the Fly keyword, Objective Secured, and whatnot.

Because of these factors, not always get the point wrong is natural. Fly as an example should dictate the cost of your options in light of the better ability to deliver, say, an anti-tank weapon in the right spot. That is what a good designer should be able to assess, or at last to re-asses after the first 1-2 blunders.
The issue I have is that it's years these people just add rules with bad proofreading and with a lot of faction bias. Plus changes in point and rules that sound completely arbitrary, plus absolute non-intuitive rules - w had editions in which it was better to snipe with artillery than with snipers.

Perfect balance is utopic in such a complex system, even "mirrored" games, as other said, like chess do not have a 100%.
But even if the design team is made of nice fellow that is pleasant to listen to, as the OP said, the impression I have is that their job is sloppy, biased, and unprofessional, and there is not even an attempt to do a good job, because many factions/parts of the game are just left to rot.
I have seen gaming groups splinter and go to hell because of this, pretty sure this is an economic damage for the company.

the_scotsman wrote:
It only takes someone a single second of looking at that to realize there is NO situation where a S3 gun is going to be superior to a S9 gun with melta and more damage. Forget math. I'd like for just a little bit of common sense to be applied.

 Peregrine wrote:
The point of math isn't to get final numbers, it's to get you a starting point for iterative playtesting. You do the math on what your unit is capable of, compare it to similar units, and scale its point cost appropriately. Then you play a bunch of games with it. If it seems too effective you increase the points a bit. If it doesn't seem to be justifying the investment you drop the points a bit. Then you play more games and see how the changes worked. And you repeat the cycle until you don't have a strong case for a point change in either direction. It may not be 100% provably mathematically balanced, but you can be confident that it's balanced well enough for real-world purposes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
The same old mouthy minority crying and complaining... they really don't seem to understand that when they say things like "GW just isn't playing the same game as the rest of us" or "GW are so terribly incompetent" or "GW can't design a game to save their lives" that it isn't that GW aren't on the same page as the community, it's that the 'moaning minority' aren't on the same page as everyone else. The few dozen internet complainers are so out of touch with the company they think they know inside-out and the community they think the represent that they fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design. Likening rules for a TT wargame, which aren't to your preference, to ordering a meal at a restaurant which is served covered in glass just goes to show how utterly out of touch these crazies are.

And I suppose it's just the "moaning minority" complaining about nothing when they say that McDonalds doesn't make good food, because obviously millions of people are eating those burgers. The fact that some people have low standards doesn't make a product good.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
The same old mouthy minority crying and complaining... they really don't seem to understand that when they say things like "GW just isn't playing the same game as the rest of us" or "GW are so terribly incompetent" or "GW can't design a game to save their lives" that it isn't that GW aren't on the same page as the community, it's that the 'moaning minority' aren't on the same page as everyone else. The few dozen internet complainers are so out of touch with the company they think they know inside-out and the community they think the represent that they fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design. Likening rules for a TT wargame, which aren't to your preference, to ordering a meal at a restaurant which is served covered in glass just goes to show how utterly out of touch these crazies are.

And I suppose it's just the "moaning minority" complaining about nothing when they say that McDonalds doesn't make good food, because obviously millions of people are eating those burgers. The fact that some people have low standards doesn't make a product good.

But the people who hate McDonalds don't generally hang out in the parking lot eating a Big Mac, yelling at people who do like eating there.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
But the people who hate McDonalds don't generally hang out in the parking lot eating a Big Mac, yelling at people who do like eating there.

 Peregrine wrote:
The point of math isn't to get final numbers, it's to get you a starting point for iterative playtesting. You do the math on what your unit is capable of, compare it to similar units, and scale its point cost appropriately. Then you play a bunch of games with it. If it seems too effective you increase the points a bit. If it doesn't seem to be justifying the investment you drop the points a bit. Then you play more games and see how the changes worked. And you repeat the cycle until you don't have a strong case for a point change in either direction. It may not be 100% provably mathematically balanced, but you can be confident that it's balanced well enough for real-world purposes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
It only takes someone a single second of looking at that to realize there is NO situation where a S3 gun is going to be superior to a S9 gun with melta and more damage. Forget math. I'd like for just a little bit of common sense to be applied.

Unfortunately you haven't applied common sense yourself. Obvously a gun with STR 9 and melta is going to be superior to STR 3 with no melta, in terms of the to-wound roll and wounds inflicted, but you just handwaved away the 6" range advantage. You may not personally value that range, but there are clearly cases where having a STR 3 shot is better than having no shot at all because you are out of range. Your statement that there is "NO situation" is clearly false.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
But the people who hate McDonalds don't generally hang out in the parking lot eating a Big Mac, yelling at people who do like eating there.

Probably because they understand that McDonalds, as a business concept, is inherently garbage and barely worthy of the term "food", while GW could potentially improve if they bothered to care. Most of us who criticize GW do so because we love some part of the hobby and want it to be better.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
However, for the people who don't have much interest in tournamanet and WAAC playstyles (which is the vast, vast, VAST majority of GW customers. The rules are fun, thematic and provide cool games.

Nice generalization there to suggest that A) players who play in tournaments are WAAC (which in and of itself is a laughable insult) and that B) those players are either not important enough to make product for or more likely you've made an un-provable generalization about the player base. I am passionate about GW games and products and I am well within my rights to ask for a better product than they sometimes produce.

 Silentz wrote:
Part of the problem (addressing the OP, not all the dark eldar chitchat) is that people view Games Workshop as this all-conquering global business with hundreds of staff who should have the time and resources to get this stuff right, goddamit. Why are the Aeldari design team not talking to the Drukhari design team?

In reality there is only one team of <10 people doing all the rules. Yes, that means they should have a better grasp of them, but there's a lot of interlocking pieces and predicting these interactions is easy in hindsight but hard with foresight.

I think the challenge we have partly comes from their tradition of not playtesting for competitive/matched environments... it sounds to me from the conversations on Twitch with the Pete Foley and Robin Cruddace like their current playtesting is a little too "directed"

They were saying everyone thinks playtesting is fun but it's a job - you need to play a bunch of games every weekend and it's not always the armies you like. Sometimes you get allocated Blood Angels and need to play games with them and complete the lengthy feedback forms.

My fear is that they also need to develop playtesters who are able to be a bit moree freeform.

Anyway, I am no expert in game design but I liken it to incredibly smart software developers handing their software over to the public who immediately find glaring issues in it and cry "how can you not have realised I was going to do that weird thing that crashes the app??? It's literally the first thing I did!!!"

Anyway, rambling but these things are hard, they are trying, and it's just a game. Cool your freakin' jets.

Isengard wrote:
I've been to the Open Day every year for a few years now. Since the change of CEO and the new approach I find I'm discussing the game with people who genuinely seem to love it, seem to have passion and want to make the player base happy. They are happy to admit that they get it wrong and are apologetic about it. You can feel the bubbling enthusiasm from them as they talk. Dan Harden, Phil Kelly, Mark Bedford, etc - all of them are brimming with ideas and really seem happy to engage with the players. I come away with the impression of a company that is really trying now, that is looking for the best way forward, that accepts it has made mistakes and is looking for a better approach.

I read Dakka and I find a real disconnect. The feelings you see expressed are incredibly negative at times. People really lay into some of the GW guys - "he's the *&£* who &"^$%£ my dex!" or ascribing incredibly negative motivations to them, etc.

I am not by any means a full on fan. They have made some dire decisions over the years and indulged in some dubious practices (to say the least). However, I've always found the staff to be thoughtful, decent and very keen to engage with the players. None of them come across as monsters intent of screwing your dex, they may have not got it right but they did not set out with the intention of doing so. For example, talk to them about balance and they'll freely admit that it's incredibly hard to reach a balance in the game but they aspire to do so and want all factions to have a fair crack. Robin Cruddace said one of the major reasons for Chapter Approved was to give those who's dex hasn't appeared yet a chance to get something to tide them over.

I'm just amazed at times by the difference between the internet perception and the actual experience of the real people who I have met several times and spoken to at length. I know they have to sell the games but they don't need to expose themselves to the public in that manner, it isn't a necessity. They are not behind glass or locked away, they are in a hall with just a table between you and them.

 sennacherib wrote:

Isengard wrote:
I've been to the Open Day every year for a few years now. Since the change of CEO and the new approach I find I'm discussing the game with people who genuinely seem to love it, seem to have passion and want to make the player base happy. They are happy to admit that they get it wrong and are apologetic about it. You can feel the bubbling enthusiasm from them as they talk. Dan Harden, Phil Kelly, Mark Bedford, etc - all of them are brimming with ideas and really seem happy to engage with the players. I come away with the impression of a company that is really trying now, that is looking for the best way forward, that accepts it has made mistakes and is looking for a better approach.

I read Dakka and I find a real disconnect. The feelings you see expressed are incredibly negative at times. People really lay into some of the GW guys - "he's the *&£* who &"^$%£ my dex!" or ascribing incredibly negative motivations to them, etc.

I am not by any means a full on fan. They have made some dire decisions over the years and indulged in some dubious practices (to say the least). However, I've always found the staff to be thoughtful, decent and very keen to engage with the players. None of them come across as monsters intent of screwing your dex, they may have not got it right but they did not set out with the intention of doing so. For example, talk to them about balance and they'll freely admit that it's incredibly hard to reach a balance in the game but they aspire to do so and want all factions to have a fair crack. Robin Cruddace said one of the major reasons for Chapter Approved was to give those who's dex hasn't appeared yet a chance to get something to tide them over.

I'm just amazed at times by the difference between the internet perception and the actual experience of the real people who I have met several times and spoken to at length. I know they have to sell the games but they don't need to expose themselves to the public in that manner, it isn't a necessity. They are not behind glass or locked away, they are in a hall with just a table between you and them.

I have found that if you use the Ignore function on repeat negative posters dakka becomes a lot less negative after only ignoring about 10 people. !

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
But the people who hate McDonalds don't generally hang out in the parking lot eating a Big Mac, yelling at people who do like eating there.

Probably because they understand that McDonalds, as a business concept, is inherently garbage and barely worthy of the term "food", while GW could potentially improve if they bothered to care. Most of us who criticize GW do so because we love some part of the hobby and want it to be better.

GW is the McDonalds of gaming. It's never going to be what you want it to be.