Poll |
 |
|
 |
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/18 09:33:23
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Bounding Dark Angels Assault Marine
|
If it is a casual game, the balance of the system doesn't always matter. The players can overcome any issues by interpreting rules how they want, adding house rules and changing scenarios to fit the game they want to play. This is the GW stance/excuse, but casual games aren't always casual enough to implement such measures, e.g. a pick up game in a store between people who don't know each other is different to me having a few beers and playing Part 7 of "The Batte for Nurgle's Cookbook."
It would be nice to have a balanced, well written, system to begin with though...
|
"That is not the way. The warriors from the sky are above the squabblings of the clans. We choose only the bravest of the plains people. We take no sides."
Deathwing by Bryan Ansell and William King
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/18 15:14:28
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Huge Hierodule
|
In a balanced system, I should be able to pick whatever units look cool (within reason) and play them without any real handicap.
In a casual game, i will probably choose units that i want to play, either due to playstyle or looks.
I'd say those go together fairly well.
|
Q: What do you call a Dinosaur Handpuppet?
A: A Maniraptor |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/18 15:54:26
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience
On an Express Elevator to Hell!!
|
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:In a balanced system, I should be able to pick whatever units look cool (within reason) and play them without any real handicap.
In a casual game, i will probably choose units that i want to play, either due to playstyle or looks.
I'd say those go together fairly well.
At the risk of causing many rolling eyes emoticons.. http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/18 17:30:59
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets
|
Peregrine wrote: Ugavine wrote:Most historical wargames recreating actual battles are not going to be balanced, because no battle in history has been balanced.
Then those historical games are poorly designed. Even in a battle where historically one side lost you can set the game's victory conditions so that each player has an equal chance of winning. For example, a "last stand" battle might be one-sided in that the defender has no realistic chance of surviving, but the victory condition for the defender is based on surviving longer than the historical outcome.
Then I guess you never played any of Avalon Hill's Civil War games, huh? Or the Battleground computer games? Some battles were nearly impossible to win. The Pickett's Charge scenarios were usually that way for the Confederates. Bit fhay was the point of those games, to see if a player could overcome some of the mistakes or accidents the occurred in the actual battle. When I played through First Manassas, I actually managed to succeed with Johnston's strategy and nearly destroyed the Union army that day.
Gaming can't be balanced, or else it will be boring. For one, no one is playing their identical twin. No two pwople work exactly the same way. Two, if the sides were evemly balanced for winning, there would be no point in ever offering a variety, like in Warhammer or Flames of War. If all falls to the players to overcome disadvantages, not the game designers entirely. Its just easier to blame them when your tactics and/or army sucks.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/18 19:13:34
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/18 19:26:20
Subject: Re:Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
The two are NOT mutually exclusive.
Let me bring up another game. WarMachine and Hordes - the rules and factions in that game are well balanced... and many play it casually without need to attend tournaments to have fun.
The big problem is the sponsors of the 'HHHobby' are too lazy to BOTHER balancing the game properly.
|
CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/18 19:41:12
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
The New Miss Macross!
|
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Balance is neither here nor there. If every codex were balanced, Orks would shoot well, and Tau would be effective in close combat. Every codex has its specialities. You have a weird view of balance. I suspect that most of us consider balance to be parity in efficacy of the unit in the game for the points spent, not identical abilities as you present. I want an 8pt figure to behave like an 8pt figure of its specialty... better than a 6pt one in the same specialty and worse than a 10pt one. Balanced army lists enhance all types of games. You can always easily imbalance a game for a scenario game between friends but you can't rebalance one with points costs out of whack from army to army (or within the same army) easily. I have no problem playing an outnumbered force in a game in which the scenario rules account for that... but I don't see it as a positive in a supposedly "equal" game where one army pays more points for the exact same model (like 35pt rhinos versus 50pt ones in 40k when codex books don't get updated) or models with similar abilities but wildly varying costs.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/18 19:44:00
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/18 19:47:46
Subject: Re:Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
I think the water is being muddied by discussing 2 different game design methods.
Some games are historical representations (or based on historical warfare.)And just use ACCURATE as possible data to determine unit actions/reactions in the game.
And some of these are written with narrative co-operative play in mind.
The players develop their own senarios, based on historical battles, and often swap sides to see who does best in charge all factions in the re-enactment.
These games DO NOT use PV and army lists, as the force compositions and battles are mutually agreed by the players.
So the level of balance IS in the hands of the players.
OTHER games are written for 'pick up and play' games .Where players can just meet up and play a game .
Balance is only really important in this sort of game.Where the players do not have time to discuss and agree all the details of the game before hand.
In this sort of game the level of competitiveness is not the driver of balance, but the quality of the resulting game play.
If a game is sold as being suitable as 'pick up and play',then the force organisation and PV values should be focused on enhancing the quality of the game play.
SO all possible force selections are viable vs all other force selections.
@SlofFlcon1138.
Why do you think game balance equals both players using identical units?
Game ballance means that;-
a)Force organisation/army composition eliminates synergistic imbalances.
b)And all PV accurately define the in game abilities of the unit/model.
Easy to say VERY hard to do well...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/19 16:22:06
Subject: Re:Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Lanrak wrote:I think the water is being muddied by discussing 2 different game design methods.
Some games are historical representations (or based on historical warfare.)And just use ACCURATE as possible data to determine unit actions/reactions in the game.
And some of these are written with narrative co-operative play in mind.
The players develop their own senarios, based on historical battles, and often swap sides to see who does best in charge all factions in the re-enactment.
These games DO NOT use PV and army lists, as the force compositions and battles are mutually agreed by the players.
So the level of balance IS in the hands of the players.
OTHER games are written for 'pick up and play' games .Where players can just meet up and play a game .
Balance is only really important in this sort of game.Where the players do not have time to discuss and agree all the details of the game before hand.
In this sort of game the level of competitiveness is not the driver of balance, but the quality of the resulting game play.
If a game is sold as being suitable as 'pick up and play',then the force organisation and PV values should be focused on enhancing the quality of the game play.
SO all possible force selections are viable vs all other force selections.
@SlofFlcon1138.
Why do you think game balance equals both players using identical units?
Game ballance means that;-
a)Force organisation/army composition eliminates synergistic imbalances.
b)And all PV accurately define the in game abilities of the unit/model.
Easy to say VERY hard to do well...
Yea I was going to type up something similar as I've played those games mentioned but I got ninja'd. That's cool, saves me the time to type
|
Adam's Motto: Paint, Create, Play, but above all, have fun. -and for something silly below-
"We are the Ultramodrines, And We Shall Fear No Trolls. bear this USR with pride".
Also, how does one apply to be a member of the Ultramodrines? Are harsh trials involved, ones that would test my faith as a wargamer and resolve as a geek?
You must recite every rule of Dakka Dakka. BACKWARDS.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/20 16:41:15
Subject: Re:Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
I think the confusion comes from 2 sources.
GW devs writing the rules for co-operative narrative play where the players are left in charge of game play and balance issues.
And GW plc selling the game and codex books as suitable for 'pick up and play' games to appeal to a wider customer base.
(While forcing the rules to be written to sell the latest releases, rather than the whole game system.)
And some people seem to think that game balance means all units HAVE to be identical, or that it reduces game play in some way.
I think this is simply down to extrapilation on from a very poor source, namely the current WHFB/ 40k rule set.
It IS hard to improve game balance in 40k as it has rules written in an exclusive subjective way.
Therefore reducing complication in the rule set to improve balance, means the easiest route involves removing options .
Where as rules written for balanced competetive play, are written in an inclusive objective way.
Which allows more game complexity with a more intuitive rule set.
Well defined intuitive rules enhance ALL game play types.(Apart from TFG rules lawyers!)
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/20 17:38:18
Subject: Re:Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Winged Kroot Vulture
|
For me balance is what makes a game, and its sessions of play, good.
Playing against insta-wins is never fun and kind of ruins playing the game for me.
I like to know both myself and my opponent played the best we could and if we played again it very well could go differently without grossly imbalanced rules being a factor.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/20 17:40:42
I'm back! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/20 19:57:41
Subject: Re:Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Battlefield Tourist
MN (Currently in WY)
|
Lanrak wrote:IOTHER games are written for 'pick up and play' games .[/quote
I get the impression that "beer and Pretzel" games are not designed for Pick-up and play. I think you are suppose to play with your buddies where the nitty-gritty is suppose to be secondary to relaxing and sociallizing.
However, current gaming culture (at least for most of us on forums) is "Hook Up" culture. You go play some random at the store or club, and when it is over you move on.
Perhaps GW hasn't moved with the "meta of Hook Up" yet. When Rick wrote Warhammer 40K, it was a bit more persoanl and underground to be a fantasy/sci-fi wargamer than it is today.
|
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/20 22:23:39
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Ian Pickstock
Nottingham
|
troa wrote:SoloFalcon, balance does not mean every army is the same. It means that different codices, while being unique, can stand up to other codices and not get steamrolled simply because one codex is better than another. You're taking balance too far and assuming it means no specialties.
problem is that outside of specific comparisons, such as dark Angel tactical marines vs vanilla tacticals or chaos marines, it's very difficult to balance points. Pricing special effects, anything cumulative or anything that can be used as one of a combination of abilities.
I think that's what makes me sceptical of a 'balanced' ruleset. In 40k at the moment the game designers aren't afraid to put something in that they think is cool, even if it's affect may be unbalanced. I think that's a good thing.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/20 22:24:32
Naaa na na na-na-na-naaa.
Na-na-na-naaaaa.
Hey Jude. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/20 22:35:47
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Aspirant Tech-Adept
|
GW doesnt balance their games because they dont have the design talent capable of doing it AND they do not want to spend the money and time in development since people buy their crappy rules anyway (including me sadly).
Unbalanced rules are just one of the downsides we have to live with to play GW games.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/20 22:42:17
Subject: Re:Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Grovelin' Grot Rigger
Alexandria, VA
|
Strategy is the game. There are going to be armies that are better against one army but get obliterated against another one. but it challenges you to change up your tactics to defeat an enemy that OPs you. besides that every army being equally powerful sounds a little like communism to me. Lets look at the real world. Is Ethiopia's army as strong as Germany's? Is Iraq as strong as Israel? No, But with a little strategy they could still win a war against one another. Vietnam did a pretty damn good job defending against the U.S. on guerrilla tactics alone. All armies being equal sound very mundane and kind of brings me back to 3rd grade recess when everything had to be fair. bring on a stronger army. I might not win the first time but at least I learned something. It's a game I can just play again tomorrow I didn't actually die.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/20 22:59:30
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/20 23:26:55
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Dispassionate Imperial Judge
|
Balance obviously makes game play better. But it requires more work. And it requires more work the more units and armies and options you put in the game.
So, realistically, I'd prefer a game with lots and lots of options, possibilites and modelling ideas, where I could play one of a million army/theme combinations, but has 'OK' balance, to one where the balance was perfect, but I only had a few army options.
This is where the argument always ends up - I play GW because it's a massive, broad universe and I can model lots of crazy themes armies. I understand that something like Warmachine is more balanced, which is great, but it only has a few forces, and that's a bigger disadvantage in my eyes.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/20 23:49:04
Subject: Re:Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Zealous Sin-Eater
Chico, CA
|
LOL Balanced game = communism. Love it, keep the insights coming.
This isn't a thread about GW, but for some reason it the focus of the thread now. I think that says something. Like the subject of balance and casual play, can't be talked about without the company that failed worse at it. Why not talk about companies or games that did a good job at it.
|
Peter: As we all know, Christmas is that mystical time of year when the ghost of Jesus rises from the grave to feast on the flesh of the living! So we all sing Christmas Carols to lull him back to sleep.
Bob: Outrageous, How dare he say such blasphemy. I've got to do something.
Man #1: Bob, there's nothing you can do.
Bob: Well, I guess I'll just have to develop a sense of humor. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/21 01:59:45
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Trustworthy Shas'vre
|
A wargame that is 100% balanced might be impossible (outside of Chess)
A Wargame that is 95% balanced is definitely possible.
GW makes a game that is 80% balanced.
Sure, it's a hard problem. So what? It's the full time job of these people to write rules, and they've been doing it for 30 years in some cases. They should be pretty good at it by now.
It's not like it is difficult to tell where the imbalance is, when it rears its ugly head. Every player can identify a number of unbalanced units/armies, and tweaking individual units in an existing army is pretty easy to do. Increase Helldrake by 30pts, done! That takes two sentences in a White Dwarf.
Balance is hard. But it's not that hard, especially it it your job to do it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/21 02:15:49
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
That's a very optimistic estimate.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/21 03:32:21
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests
Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.
|
That and 'balancing' the game isn't their job.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/21 04:48:04
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Trustworthy Shas'vre
|
@Peregrine. The game isn't that badly unbalanced. Out of all the possible army builds there are only a handful that are truly overpowered, and in most codices there are only a handful of units that are truly noncompetitive. It is possible for a good army from a bad codex to beat a bad army from a good codex. But given there is no standardised metric for assessing game balance, I can declare it to be whatever percentage I want  .
Seriously though, any unbalanced codex could be fixed with a few minor rules tweaks. Take any codex you want, make 10 changes to stats/points costs/rules, and you could eliminate 90% of the issues that people experience with that codex.
@HBMC. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I would have thought that the job a a rules designer was to make rules that are playable and enjoyable.
Otherwise it's like me being a programmer, and saying my job is just to write code - making sure the code works isn't my job, right?
Not talking about any specific company here, but if it is your job to write rules for a game, then you shouldn't be taking the easy way out because your job is 'hard'.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/21 05:12:42
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Trasvi wrote:@Peregrine. The game isn't that badly unbalanced. Out of all the possible army builds there are only a handful that are truly overpowered, and in most codices there are only a handful of units that are truly noncompetitive.
But that's a really bad standard to judge a game by, since just looking at the percentage of lists with balance problems doesn't address the degree of balance problems. Instead, we should judge how balanced a game is by how far along in the progression from initial design to finished product it is. So:
Chess is 100% balanced. It has been refined into as balanced a game as you can possibly have, with a diverse range of strategies available and matches decided entirely by superior gameplay. I doubt that even the best players could make any changes that would improve the game (or want to).
MTG is 95% balanced. WOTC has learned from 20 years of experience and figured out most of the theory of balance (don't forget that most cards are made for limited or casual play, not competitive constructed), has extensive and professional playtesting to ensure that each new set is well balanced, and has a formal process for using bans to fix any game-breaking problems that slip through (which are very rare, and only discovered after vast amounts of competitive play). The result is that MTG is about as well balanced as a game that complex can be, and it would be difficult (if not impossible) for any player to do better.
40k is 0% balanced. GW has done little more than make a rough guess at how things should be, and massive balance issues are immediately obvious to even casual players as soon as they see new rules. Meanwhile GW refuses to fix even the most obvious problems for years at a time, and the few changes they do bother to make are done through random FAQs with no consistency in the decision to FAQ or ignore an issue. If 40k has any balance at all it seems to be through sheer blind luck.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/21 05:13:30
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/21 06:43:58
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests
Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.
|
Peregrine wrote:Chess is 100% balanced. It has been refined into as balanced a game as you can possibly have, with a diverse range of strategies available and matches decided entirely by superior gameplay. I doubt that even the best players could make any changes that would improve the game (or want to). 99% balanced. White always goes first. And Queens are OP. Trasvi wrote:@HBMC. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I would have thought that the job a a rules designer was to make rules that are playable and enjoyable. "Playable" and "enjoyable" aren't synonymous with "balanced" though. Trasvi wrote:Otherwise it's like me being a programmer, and saying my job is just to write code - making sure the code works isn't my job, right? Not talking about any specific company here, but if it is your job to write rules for a game, then you shouldn't be taking the easy way out because your job is 'hard'. But not everyone has that attitude. Some people are just writing new rules and fluff to shoe-horn in whatever oval base release or big flyer the higher-ups have demanded.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/21 06:46:09
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/21 09:25:08
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Umber Guard
|
So far these are the most uplifting poll results I've seen on Dakka
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/21 10:38:20
Subject: Re:Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Three Color Minimum
|
"Playable" and "enjoyable" aren't synonymous with "balanced" though.
This is true although I'd argue "enticing" to be a more accurate description of what they are aiming for.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/21 10:39:08
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/21 10:54:05
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
H.B.M.C. wrote: Peregrine wrote:Chess is 100% balanced. It has been refined into as balanced a game as you can possibly have, with a diverse range of strategies available and matches decided entirely by superior gameplay. I doubt that even the best players could make any changes that would improve the game (or want to).
99% balanced. White always goes first.
Isn't it randomized who gets white? It'd still be perfectly balanced due to a 50:50 chance.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/21 11:51:48
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Helpful Sophotect
|
Sigvatr wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote: Peregrine wrote:Chess is 100% balanced. It has been refined into as balanced a game as you can possibly have, with a diverse range of strategies available and matches decided entirely by superior gameplay. I doubt that even the best players could make any changes that would improve the game (or want to).
99% balanced. White always goes first.
Isn't it randomized who gets white? It'd still be perfectly balanced due to a 50:50 chance.
That's a pet peeve of mine: a random advantage is not balance. Ideally, the game should be balanced when it actually starts, and it starts when the players start making decisions. Randomly picking who get the advantage does not cancel out the advantage.
Of course, sometime it's just the best way to get to the point were the game start, so it's ok, but it does prevent chess from being 100% balanced.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/21 12:04:21
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Balance is neither here nor there. If every codex were balanced, Orks would shoot well, and Tau would be effective in close combat. Every codex has its specialities. When I played 2500 points of terminators and Land Raiders, my buddy didn't cry that his orks were going to have a hard time with that. He dealt with it and we had fun. Ground down to a draw.
.
Not really. you're confusing "balanced game design" with "identical armies". balance doesnt mean everything should have the same stats/rules/weapons - we dont necessarily want chess. But we want different styles of play, different lists, different builds to be equally effective.
40k is not a good example of this, as in every edition, what works differs. but i remember in third, the only effective builds were "rhino rush" armies, and "shoot the rhino rush armies". fourth ed. devolved into assault cannon spam, skimmer spam and marines camping in their deployment zone. fifth was tankhammer. sixth is air. the point is in each edition, there was something that worked, but very little room for other approaches. speak to those who play cc armies for example. they've been shafted. and thats what i mean by balance. a good rules set will allow a variety of play styles, whether its armoured, infantry, ranged, cc or whathave you-it doesnt mean things need to be indentical, just every army is "effective", rather than "some" armies having "effective builds".
BryllCream wrote:
problem is that outside of specific comparisons, such as dark Angel tactical marines vs vanilla tacticals or chaos marines, it's very difficult to balance points. Pricing special effects, anything cumulative or anything that can be used as one of a combination of abilities.
I think that's what makes me sceptical of a 'balanced' ruleset. In 40k at the moment the game designers aren't afraid to put something in that they think is cool, even if it's affect may be unbalanced. I think that's a good thing.
thats why you playtest. something "cool" is all well and good, until it unfairly dominates. Fifth ed Grey knights with that warp quake thing, and their crazy grenades, for example. "cool", for sure. but the game suffered hugely as a result. The old Chaos Space Marine codex (yes, that one, with those bloody iron warriors and slaneshi marines) is another example. "cool" stuff, but it essentially destroyed fourth ed. Honestly, dont look at 40k. Its not that GW that write rules. They dont want to. For a whole variety of reasons. But other companies do. Look at other companies like PP and CB. they can pull off "cool" stuff that isnt necessarily unbalanced. And their games are thriving.
artofwaaagh wrote:Strategy is the game. There are going to be armies that are better against one army but get obliterated against another one. but it challenges you to change up your tactics to defeat an enemy that OPs you. besides that every army being equally powerful sounds a little like communism to me. Lets look at the real world. Is Ethiopia's army as strong as Germany's? Is Iraq as strong as Israel? No, But with a little strategy they could still win a war against one another. Vietnam did a pretty damn good job defending against the U.S. on guerrilla tactics alone. All armies being equal sound very mundane and kind of brings me back to 3rd grade recess when everything had to be fair. bring on a stronger army. I might not win the first time but at least I learned something. It's a game I can just play again tomorrow I didn't actually die.
you're missing the point. Factions being more powerful than one another in terms of background is one thing, but quite another to have it in-game. Take Infinity. In the fluff, the infinity-verse is dominated by two of the main factions - Panoceana and Yu-jing. they control virtually everything. the nomads have 3 space ships in comparison. Haqqislam has one planet. Ariadna have one backwards, severely underdeveloped planet, and in terms of population, are more akin to a large city, rather than a nation, let along a planet. But in-game, all the factions are equal. Pan-O have their TAGs, yu-jing have excellent heavy infantry, ariadna make up for their backwardsness with bucketloads of infiltrating troops and are the best wielders of camoflage in the game.
Here is the thing though. I applaud your attitude. very page5. very "bring it on". and i agree. But its one thing to lose against something youve never faced before, and to learn something from it. that is true of every game from warmachine, hordes, flames of war, infinity, dystopian wars and you name it. Its one thing to know where you went wrong, where the other guy did right, and what you can do against him next time. the thing is, with a balanced game, your faction has options available to it to do just that. in an unbalanced game, you dont. you mention vietnam. Vietnam is a bad example. strategy can take you places, sure. but you need to tools and the skills to pull it off. the vietnamese had these. and over a long, drawn out guerrilla war, they hurt the americans enough to make them (and the folks back home) lose all stomach for the war. which is neither here nor there. but how would you feel about going up against an army, with which you have absolutely no way of winning, or even breaking even? it destroys the fun. im all for a competitive, "can do" attitude, and giving it your all, but a balanced game at least lets you push yourself to do this. an unbalanced one doesnt give you the options.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/21 20:12:02
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Battlefield Tourist
MN (Currently in WY)
|
Exactly.
Sometimes I think people just want GW to do all the hard work (and therefore most rewarding work) for them.
|
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/21 23:43:56
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Easy E wrote:
Exactly.
Sometimes I think people just want GW to do all the hard work (and therefore most rewarding work) for them. 
I think what HBMC meant was that it's the designer's job to make rules that sell the new models and thus make GW more money rather then make a balanced game.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/22 02:22:39
Subject: Are balance and casual gaming mutually exclusive?
|
 |
Ian Pickstock
Nottingham
|
Then why are horde armies so expensive while the powerful armies are far cheaper? Certain units (Vendetta) are clearly over-powered to sell models but in general i don't think 40k is.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/22 02:23:08
Naaa na na na-na-na-naaa.
Na-na-na-naaaaa.
Hey Jude. |
|
 |
 |
|