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.
This is not saying what you think it's saying. This is a very strong argument for close balance with minor deviations such as making Sternguard appear a bit stronger and making a unit seem underpowered like Thousand Sons but are perfect for taking down something like Sternguard.
This is making it very hard to take you seriously. We're arguing that there is a bushel of apples and it tastes good and then you start talking about how you hate apples because of their hard green rind and how they're far too large to carry around and eat. This is the very first example you give and it goes against your case in so many ways that it makes it look like you're very confused as to what the topic actually is.
I'm expecting an Imperial Knights supplement dedicated to GW's loyalist apologetics. Codex: White Knights "In the grim dark future, everything is fine."
"The argument is that we have to do this or we will, bit by bit,
lose everything that we hold dear, everything that keeps the business going. Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky."
-Tom Kirby
Again, I am not saying 40K is "perfect", far from it. I am not saying things could be changed. I am not saying the prices for the rulebooks are justifiable.
But before anyone can even begin to have a most rudimentary game-design conversation about how to improve the game, the utterly idiotic fallacy must be dispelled that "balance" is some sort of silver bullet. It is not. It is one, rather double-edged tool in the tool-box of a game-designer It can be used, possible even to improve 40K, but it is always a tool that can only be used at a cost, and using it will always make the game less attractive, less fun, to some people, even if it makes the game more attractive to other (possibly more) people.
In what way does all units having viable capabilities and uses make the game less attractive or less fun?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/23 00:04:52
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
Zweischneid wrote: Again, I am not saying 40K is "perfect", far from it. I am not saying things could be changed. I am not saying the prices for the rulebooks are justifiable.
But before anyone can even begin to have a most rudimentary game-design conversation about how to improve the game, the utterly idiotic fallacy must be dispelled that "balance" is some sort of silver bullet. It is not. It is one, rather double-edged tool in the tool-box of a game-designer It can be used, possible even to improve 40K, but it is always a tool that can only be used at a cost, and using it will always make the game less attractive, less fun, to some people, even if it makes the game more attractive to other (possibly more) people.
Less attractive to who? The guy that builds a list with the most broken units and crushes all their new friends?
This is not saying what you think it's saying. This is a very strong argument for close balance with minor deviations such as making Sternguard appear a bit stronger and making a unit seem underpowered like Thousand Sons but are perfect for taking down something like Sternguard.
They actively cite deviations of 15% (in the case of MTG) as a rule of thumb other game designers use in the industry.
15% deviation of 40K armies in, say, a 2000 pt. game, could mean as much as 300 pts both ways - a 600 pt. split - that armies deviate from their "real balanced" value.
And that is before accounting for the sliding "value" of point-systems (for example for spamming multiples) as expressed by Quirkworthy http://quirkworthy.com/2011/10/15/design-theory-why-points-systems-will-always-be-broken/ And that is before accounting for game-designer mistakes, which also happen.
And that is before accounting for the fact, that 40K might be pushing a greater variation from the "balance" than the guys as MTG
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/23 00:08:26
Now you're just stating Nihilistic nonsense.
"They could do something, but it might make things worse. Better to leave it as it is despite logical and reasoned examples and arguments on why it would improve."
I don't think you understand balance, or the opinions of people asking for balance, to try and label it as a double edged sword. Going off your logic this could work for anything. You could adjust point costs with each codex update, but you don't know if it will make the game more attractive or less attractive and potentially scare away players.
You don't know if having new models in a release will make the game more attractive or less attractive and potentially scare away players.
You don't know if adding in Escalation and Stronghold Assault will make the game more attractive or less attractive and scare away new players.
The statement can be applied to anything, with the only difference that you're accepting what the company puts out with no fear of this double edged sword of inbalance.
I'm expecting an Imperial Knights supplement dedicated to GW's loyalist apologetics. Codex: White Knights "In the grim dark future, everything is fine."
"The argument is that we have to do this or we will, bit by bit,
lose everything that we hold dear, everything that keeps the business going. Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky."
-Tom Kirby
I see no actively sold game that doesn't try to push for some sort of game balance.
Even RPGs, pure narrative devices, have errata and FAQs issued for items, circumstances, and game play clarity. FFG handles their 40kRPGs better than GW handles the parent game. And those books are twice the content and the same price or cheaper, IIRC.
Again, you still haven't proven anything. Balance or no balance, there are flat out busted units and books that people paid money for that are not addressed. They are performing bad business compared to all their competition regardless of actual game or aesthetic. You have yet to address this in any form.
Zweischneid wrote: Again, I am not saying 40K is "perfect", far from it. I am not saying things could be changed. I am not saying the prices for the rulebooks are justifiable.
But before anyone can even begin to have a most rudimentary game-design conversation about how to improve the game, the utterly idiotic fallacy must be dispelled that "balance" is some sort of silver bullet. It is not. It is one, rather double-edged tool in the tool-box of a game-designer It can be used, possible even to improve 40K, but it is always a tool that can only be used at a cost, and using it will always make the game less attractive, less fun, to some people, even if it makes the game more attractive to other (possibly more) people.
I don't understand this logic, can you explain? In what way would a balanced game that allowed for every unit in a codex to be fielded with some sort of tactical strategy around it (versus just being underpowered or not worth taking at all) be worse for anyone as opposed to the current situation? If codexes and the rules were balanced, you could have even MORE of a narrative game because you could do fringe things and NOT be penalized for doing it. You could take a lot of currently subpar units if it fit your narrative and not essentially have losing the game be a foregone conclusion.
I'm trying really hard to understand this mentality, because it doesn't make sense to me. I can't think of a single tangible scenario where having a balanced game with balanced rules hurts anyone (beyond the WAAC people who like using unbalanced units, but you don't seem like that type so I doubt you're arguing from that POV), but I can think of a lot of situations where the current (i.e. unbalanced) game hurts people on one side or another, whether its casual players having a narrative game as part of a campaign or two competitors in a tournament competing for a cash prize.
This is not saying what you think it's saying. This is a very strong argument for close balance with minor deviations such as making Sternguard appear a bit stronger and making a unit seem underpowered like Thousand Sons but are perfect for taking down something like Sternguard.
They actively cite deviations of 15% (in the case of MTG) as a rule of thumb other game designers use in the industry.
15% deviation of 40K armies in, say, a 2000 pt. game, could mean as much as 300 pts both ways - a 600 pt. split - that armies deviate from their "real balanced" value.
And that is before accounting for the sliding "value" of point-systems as expressed by Quirkworthy http://quirkworthy.com/2011/10/15/design-theory-why-points-systems-will-always-be-broken/ And that is before accounting for game-designer mistakes, which also happen.
And that is before accounting for the fact, that 40K might be pushing a greater variation from the "balance" than the guys as MTG
Yet again, what variation? By making it so imbalanced, it makes there be less variation. Few people want to field Thousand Sons because they are bad and so you rarely see them. They become an illusion of choice. As per mistakes, yes all make mistakes. Problem is, they never fix them. We have unplayable models that even after months, maybe even a year still are absolutely unplayable. We have pyrocasters that actually got nerfed! from what they used to be.
Still waiting for that one specific example of a unit that would be ruined by whatever it is you think balance is Zwei....
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Savageconvoy wrote: Now you're just stating Nihilistic nonsense.
"They could do something, but it might make things worse. Better to leave it as it is despite logical and reasoned examples and arguments on why it would improve."
Not "despite logical and reasoned examples", but, as said, because the 40K-type-of-game is by far the scarcer commodity in the hobby.
If you have a thousand strains of red tomatoes and only one strain of green tomato, you need to think hard before breeding the green one to be red. People who enjoy the red may be in the majority, but they already have a wealth of options. Those that enjoy the green, even if it is in the eyes of the majority an inferior tomato, have far more to lose.
If he wanted to respond to me, why not respond to things I actually said?
How astute of you. I didn't want to respond to any of your "points", because you're clearly bought-in and not thinking objectively. Your points simply demonstrate this. My post was not a response to yours, I just added a little humour at the beginning of it.
If he doesn't deign to respond to my elaborated points, why should I suddenly be compelled to respond to the points he elaborated on?
You're not. I honestly don't care about anything you have to say about the state of the game because you're exhibiting the same lack of game design understanding that the GW staff exhibits. Your every post stems from the deluded belief that a balanced game is not desirable, in spite of all evidence to the contrary and all modern schools of game design actually aiming for basically balanced systems with some minimal imbalances to drive meta exploration. The idea that imbalance is good for casual play is so laughable as to not warrant a response.
Why is my - admittedly - somewhat snarky and perhaps ill-considered rebuttal immediately gone over with a fine comb, but not the idiotic FTFY by Redbeard that inspired it?
Savageconvoy wrote: Now you're just stating Nihilistic nonsense.
"They could do something, but it might make things worse. Better to leave it as it is despite logical and reasoned examples and arguments on why it would improve."
Not "despite logical and reasoned examples", but, as said, because the 40K-type-of-game is by far the scarcer commodity in the hobby.
If you have a thousand strains of red tomatoes and only one strain of green tomato, you need to think hard before breeding the green one to be red. People who enjoy the red may be in the majority, but they already have a wealth of options. Those that enjoy the green, even if it is in the eyes of the majority an inferior tomato, have far more to lose.
Because it's the bad commodity. It's the rotten apple that half of it is sweet and the other half makes you want to vomit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/23 00:12:57
What aspect of 40k would be ruined by balance? The fluff? Balance would mean you would be able to take your fluff lists and win. The competitive scene? More variety can only be better. Sales? People buy stuff that is of good quality.
As for I, I play Warmachine to beat each other to paste, 40k for the models/fluff and x-wing to win. I don't see much wrong in that.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
azreal13 wrote: Still waiting for that one specific example of a unit that would be ruined by whatever it is you think balance is Zwei....
The heldrake, riptide, screamerstar, and waveserpent of course! They wouldn't be as good....
Oh, right!
Just think how much less narrative they'd be if they were merely one viable choice amongst many, rather than obviously, brokenly much better than anything else even roughly comparable.
I haven't seen Zwei have this discussion in weeks! I'm really enjoying the nostalgia trip!
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
They actively cite deviations of 15% (in the case of MTG) as a rule of thumb other game designers use in the industry.
15% deviation of 40K armies in, say, a 2000 pt. game, could mean as much as 300 pts both ways - a 600 pt. split - that armies deviate from their "real balanced" value.
Again, you seem confused on how this works.
A 15% deviation in a game that uses around 60 cards with a limit of 4 cards of the same kind and randomly sorted is very different from 15%-30% of points in two armies that are completely controlled on the field. That balance system doesn't translate over to 40K. A better idea of balance would be a unit like a Riptide which stands out being 0-1 per 1000 points. That and MTG has further restrictions on tournaments and the different types of games, which helps provide balance outside of the design stage.
And again, my example of a subpar unit being exceptionally good at taking down an above average unit is exactly what they are saying. X is better then A, B, and C and A, B, C are better than D. However D has an advantage against X, which creates an overall balance to prevent the entire community trending towards X. There is a way you can use this logic to approach the current meta, but it sadly doesn't work. Dark Angels aren't good against Eldar and Tau let alone any of the other higher tier armies.
I'm expecting an Imperial Knights supplement dedicated to GW's loyalist apologetics. Codex: White Knights "In the grim dark future, everything is fine."
"The argument is that we have to do this or we will, bit by bit,
lose everything that we hold dear, everything that keeps the business going. Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky."
-Tom Kirby
Currently Unit A is worse at shooting and combat than Unit B, and to boot it costs more/is easier to kill/etc.. Even the most casual of players doesn't want to be disadvantages simply because they happen to like how Unit A looks, or the fluff of Unit A, or they built a force where Unit A fits in. But, by choosing Unit A they are actively hurting their chances of winning by picking an inferior unit, because they don't like how Unit B looks or don't like it's fluff.
A balanced system makes Unit A and Unit B much closer to each other, and presents a true tactical choice between them. Maybe Unit A is better at shooting but weaker at combat, while Unit B is better at combat (and can get into combat faster) but weaker at shooting. A shooty army picks Unit A, a combat army picks Unit B, and a savvy commander can pick either one to reinforce a potential weak list in their army. Either choice works, and a player isn't punished simply for picking a certain unit.
In what way would this actually HURT the game?? The fluff player gets to pick the better suited Unit A and *not* feel like "Man, Unit A isn't good, but it fits my army more than Unit B". The competitive player gets to think "Do I take Unit A for some more shooting, or do I stick with Unit B to give more combat power?" and weigh the choice. That's MORE choice, not less. We currently have less choice, where a handful of units are garbage, and a handful are really good - either you take the really good units or you risk losing the game just because you picked wrong.
What's worse isn't just the fact imbalance exists, it's that GW deliberately makes things imbalanced to "force" buying something new. So one edition Unit A is overpowered, and people buy it. Then GW thinks "Let's make Unit A weak, and Unit B strong, so people will buy Unit B; they've already bought Unit A and are unlikely to buy another one". Then later it's "Let's add Unit C and make it more powerful so people have to buy it". Their business model is, in effect, a scam. They change balance not because it needs changing, but to "force" (strongly encourage might be a better word) people to replace units that they've already bought on the assumption that the unit is no longer good, but another unit is.
That's even more deplorable than being just incompetent, because it's being *malicious* and willfully negligent. It's like if you go to a mechanic with a car problem, and he fixes one thing on your car but purposely messes something else up so that in a few months it will break and you'll have to come back to get it fixed, so he gets repeat business. At best, it's unethical. At worst, it's criminal.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/04/23 00:35:42
Nothing. in a perfect 40K world, units who are shooty/ bad at choppy would be just as viable a choice as units that are choppy/bad at shooty, just depending on playstyle of the player.
Unfortunately, most times they aren't. Or worse yet, instances where they are get changed by GW to positions where they aren't. THOSE are the situations that mess with my head.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/23 00:22:18
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
Zweischneid wrote: For me personally, because more balanced games have proven (in my subjective experience) more inhibitive of narrative gaming.
Narrative gaming is created through scenarios and backstory, not by having some units be so bad that they are not worth taking, and other units so ridiculously good that they are not worth not taking.
It doesn't help narrative gaming for every second army to be Tau/Eldar allies with multiple Riptides and Wraithknights.
Landraider-Deathstars faded with Vulkan-Melta-Droppods, which in turn faded to Razor/MSU-Spam, which faded to Missile-spam/Psyfledread, which faded to Heldrake, etc... It keeps the game from going stale.
And none of which have anything to do with narrative gaming.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zweischneid wrote: If you have a thousand strains of red tomatoes and only one strain of green tomato, you need to think hard before breeding the green one to be red. People who enjoy the red may be in the majority, but they already have a wealth of options. Those that enjoy the green, even if it is in the eyes of the majority an inferior tomato, have far more to lose.
Only until you remove the green, forcing them to try the red... and they discover that it tastes (to them) exactly the same...
Making 40K a more balanced game removes nothing from those who want a narrative game. You could still create backstories for your armies. You could still create campaigns and custom scenarios. You could still make 'click... fwoosh!' noises when you fire your flamers.
You could also build an army based solely on the models you like, or on the models you have added into your narrative backstory, without worrying that it will either be so ridiculously bad that it's not even worth putting models on the table, or so ridiculously good that you get labelled as some kind of WAAC troll for showing up with those particular models to a friendly game...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/23 01:06:02
insaniak wrote: You could also build an army based solely on the models you like, or on the models you have added into your narrative backstory, without worrying that it will either be so ridiculously bad that it's not even worth putting models on the table, or so ridiculously good that you get labelled as some kind of WAAC troll for showing up with those particular models to a friendly game...
1000x this. Balanced games let you truly build fluffy armies THAT ARE ALSO GOOD, instead of in most cases a fluffy army being complete garbage or running the risk of labeling you a WAACTFG. For example, a Khorne Berserker army is bad, so you're punished for wanting to play a straight World Eaters or even just a Khornate warband. On the other hand, Nurgle is good so you are actually at a major advantage for wanting a Death Guard or Nurgle-aligned army. Those two extremes should not exist; a Khornate army should be just as viable as a Nurgle army which is just as viable as Slaanesh which is just as viable as Tzeentch, but each plays in a different way.
I'd agree that this is what we want in 40k, perfect imbalance.
However the episode starts with this phrase (as close as I can quote it):
In perfect imbalance you do not want great, big haphazard [imbalances], but carefully crafted subtle ones.
The entire rest of the episode builds off that mentality. When myself, and many others, say we want a balanced 40k, this is more aptly of what we are requested. A perfect balance would be chess, but that's not what we want. We want what exists in the other games; perfect imbalance.
This video alone states how Privateer Press addresses balance concerns in Warmachine. It actually makes a massive amount of sense and makes me appreciate that game so much more. It's not necessarily boiler plate "rock - paper - scissors," but rather each unit is a tool to perform a tabletop function and they have mathematically distilled each unit to ensure there is that "Jedi Curve" and degrees off it.
And here's the most important part:
Nothing of what Games Workshop has done, to date, in 6E has given the slightest hint that they are striving towards a perfect imbalance system or that there is a mathematical formula to how point value are assigned to units unlike their competitors.
By this very own proof provided by an opposing viewpoint, they have shot themselves in the foot by actively showing that Games Workshop is practicing bad game design. The game is nothing but haphazard, large imbalances. Ones where you can see massive power gaps between units within codecis, let along comparison of codecis. To say that the game is expressing perfect imbalance is ignoring the levels of Deathstar 40k versus that of a fluffy XYZ army.
If Games Workshop applied the same game design theories as expressed in this video (the extra credits series of videos are enlightening on game design in general), a great majority of complaints about the game would vanish. Instead you would have complaints that appear within the other systems that "X" is overpowered... until you find the lizard to his spock, etc. and so on.
The lizard to the current spock is people trying to add D weapons to the game. Weapons that ignore all other rules that simply "point - click - removed". This nothing close to perfect imbalance. So thank you for giving us further proof that Games Workshop is not properly supporting their game and is employing bad game design.
As an aside, it also throws out the other post about "Game points don't work" theory as we can see them actively working well in something like Magic the Gathering or Warmachine. It's not perfect by any means, but by actively maintaining the game, you can correct any deficiencies or unplanned circumstances as both companies, and other game companies like them, do so often. Perfect is not a destination, but by trying to get there, you will likely find success along the way.
Edit: Missing punctuation.
Edit2: Missing point.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/23 01:38:21
I'd agree that this is what we want in 40k, perfect imbalance.
All I ever said.
I never claimed that 40K hit the nail perfectly (even if - to me, subjectively - 40K hits it better than all the alternatives I've tried). I only ever said that "balance" as such is not the only thing to consider, and in some cases imbalances are preferable.
Once we can get rid of this idiocy of "balanced = better", we can start a real discussion on game-design, including a discussion on what amounts of "imbalance" are right, and how much imbalance or how much balance is taking things too far into one direction or the other.
Also, the video illustrates some of the key problems Warmachine has as a result of too much balance. It is stale, repetitive and not engaging. Warmachine certainly needs a lot more imbalances, and more pronounced imbalances, to be engaging and fun, to be "perfectly imbalanced".
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/04/23 07:25:37
I'd agree that this is what we want in 40k, perfect imbalance.
All I ever said.
I never claimed that 40K hit the nail perfectly (even if - to me, subjectively - 40K hits it better than all the alternatives I've tried). I only ever said that "balance" as such is not the only thing to consider, and in some cases imbalances are preferable.
Once we can get rid of this idiocy of "balanced = better", we can start a real discussion on game-design, including a discussion on what amounts of "imbalance" are right, and how much imbalance or how much balance is taking things too far into one direction or the other.
Also, the video illustrates some of the key problems Warmachine has as a result of too much balance. It is stale, repetitive and not engaging. Warmachine certainly needs a lot more imbalances, and more pronounced imbalances, to be engaging and fun, to be "perfectly imbalanced".
Still subjective to say Warmachine needs to be more imbalanced. There's nothing wrong with chess per say and even Warmachine likely has some themes of perfect imbalance in it as is.
Anyways, I think when most of us say balanced, we often put perfect imbalance within that bracket. It's not the most logical thing, but it's kind of like how people use hate in such general terms. Most people here, I assume, would concur that perfect imbalance works perfectly fine for 40k. A complex game of rock paper scissors, that said, it's still an odd form of balance in its own way. It becomes a fluid world where things rise and fall naturally with its own dynamic where every unit has a functional purpose even if some of them are more specific and going to be less common than others usually.
I'd agree that this is what we want in 40k, perfect imbalance.
All I ever said.
I never claimed that 40K hit the nail perfectly (even if - to me, subjectively - 40K hits it better than all the alternatives I've tried). I only ever said that "balance" as such is not the only thing to consider, and in some cases imbalances are preferable.
Once we can get rid of this idiocy of "balanced = better", we can start a real discussion on game-design, including a discussion on what amounts of "imbalance" are right, and how much imbalance or how much balance is taking things too far into one direction or the other.
Also, the video illustrates some of the key problems Warmachine has as a result of too much balance. It is stale, repetitive and not engaging. Warmachine certainly needs a lot more imbalances, and more pronounced imbalances, to be engaging and fun, to be "perfectly imbalanced".
Balance is better. No amounts of imbalance are necessary or desirable.
I would just like to point out that Zweischneid is the guy who has seriously argued that poor balance is good because it forces you to talk about what you want the game to be before playing, and drives out all those awful WAAC/competitive/etc players that he dislikes. Keep this in mind when trying to discuss the subject with him.
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.
Still subjective to say Warmachine needs to be more imbalanced. There's nothing wrong with chess per say and even Warmachine likely has some themes of perfect imbalance in it as is.
Not anymore subjective than to say that 40K needs to be more balanced. Of course it is subjective. There is nothing wrong with 40k per se, not any more than there is with chess or Warmachine. It simply caters to a different taste in the amount of "imbalance" people want in their games.
As long as we have all the flavours, ranging from Chess to current 40K and even beyond that, everyone can pick the flavour they subjectively prefer.
I might not like Warmachine, I think it is far too balanced to be engaging, but for all I care, it can stay the way it is, for the people who enjoy it this way, as long as I have 40K in its current variant as an alternative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: I would just like to point out that Zweischneid is the guy who has seriously argued that poor balance is good because it forces you to talk about what you want the game to be before playing, and drives out all those awful WAAC/competitive/etc players that he dislikes. Keep this in mind when trying to discuss the subject with him.
No. I argued that talking to people is generally better than not talking to people. That is in itself a truism that needs no other reason to support it.
However, as an ancillary effect - as a free bonus if you want - talking to people may also solve some of the problems you feel exist with 40K. But even if it didn't, talking with people is still better than not talking with them.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/04/23 07:52:27
Zweischneid wrote: There is nothing wrong with 40k per se, not any more than there is with chess or Warmachine.
Oh, there are many things wrong with 40k. It's absolutely full of examples of objectively bad game design, the laughably poor balance is just a small part of the overall problem.
As long as we have all the flavours, ranging from Chess to current 40K and even beyond that, everyone can pick the flavour they subjectively prefer.
And, as we've told you many times before, this is a terrible analogy. 40k's problems aren't a case of different flavors, or catering to one group's preferences as the expense of another. It's the equivalent of a restaurant that serves moldy food with shards of broken glass in it, while a few obsessed masochists praise the interesting flavors and crunchy texture.
No. I argued that talking to people is generally better than not talking to people. That is in itself a truism that needs no other reason to support it.
I don't really feel like digging up the posts in question, but what you said was essentially "I'm so happy that the game has finally reached a state where pre-game negotiation is mandatory and all those TFGs are being excluded, I would hate to go back to the old days when it wasn't necessary". And that's just one example of many, your point of view is, to be polite, somewhat unconventional and you've mastered the art of not caring when people demonstrate why your claims are wrong.
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.
I don't really feel like digging up the posts in question, but what you said was essentially "I'm so happy that the game has finally reached a state where pre-game negotiation is mandatory and all those TFGs are being excluded, I would hate to go back to the old days when it wasn't necessary". And that's just one example of many, your point of view is, to be polite, somewhat unconventional and you've mastered the art of not caring when people demonstrate why your claims are wrong.
Yes.
In scale of
1. Pre-game communication is not necessary, and nobody does it.
2. Pre-game communication is necessary, and most people do it.
3. Pre-game communication is not necessary, yet most people do it anyways
In recent years, we have slowly moved from 1 toward 2, with 2 > 1. That is improvement. 3 would be ideal, but in a not-perfect-world, I take 2 over 1.
Again, people's tastes might differ, but I am sure there are non-40K games out there that cater to their taste. Diversity is the key to make everybody happy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/23 08:05:43
Still subjective to say Warmachine needs to be more imbalanced. There's nothing wrong with chess per say and even Warmachine likely has some themes of perfect imbalance in it as is.
Not anymore subjective than to say that 40K needs to be more balanced. Of course it is subjective. There is nothing wrong with 40k per se, not any more than there is with chess or Warmachine. It simply caters to a different taste in the amount of "imbalance" people want in their games.
As long as we have all the flavours, ranging from Chess to current 40K and even beyond that, everyone can pick the flavour they subjectively prefer.
I might not like Warmachine, I think it is far too balanced to be engaging, but for all I care, it can stay the way it is, for the people who enjoy it this way, as long as I have 40K in its current variant as an alternative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: I would just like to point out that Zweischneid is the guy who has seriously argued that poor balance is good because it forces you to talk about what you want the game to be before playing, and drives out all those awful WAAC/competitive/etc players that he dislikes. Keep this in mind when trying to discuss the subject with him.
No. I argued that talking to people is generally better than not talking to people. That is in itself a truism that needs no other reason to support it.
However, as an ancillary effect - as a free bonus if you want - talking to people may also solve some of the problems you feel exist with 40K. But even if it didn't, talking with people is still better than not talking with them.
We play random opponents with preset lists, chief. I'm not feeling you.
2375
/ 
1690
WIP (1875)
1300
760
WIP (350)
WIP (150) 
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
The Empire 
