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.

 Zweischneid wrote:

You keep missing the point as well.

Are the gaps smaller? Perhaps. Doesn't matter.

Are there fewer choices that are at extreme ends of the power scale? Perhaps. Doesn't matter.

The point is that things are - purposefully - not balanced (to what degree that is a good thing or a bad thing is a discussion for a different time). (Degrees of) Imbalance (are) is a conscious choice in game design, and not a "mistake".

Balance is is not inherently superior to Imbalance. Both are equally but tools in a game-designers tool-box.

Size definitely matters. Fewer extreme choices do matter. What don't you get about this?

Imagine "balance" as a scale. The closer you are to the middle ("perfect balance" i.e. everything is equal, similar to Chess) the better, but nothing is realistically going to be exactly in the middle. 40k has a lot of things on either the left side (underpowered) or right side (overpowered), and few things in the middle. X-Wing or Warmachine has a lot more towards the middle, with very few outliers.

Whether or not things are purposely not balanced, the level of that imbalance is what ultimately matters. No game can be perfectly balanced, but the goal is try and get as close to the middle as possible and avoiding the outliers to either side. Games like X-Wing, Malifaux, and Warmachine succeed in that. 40k fails miserably.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:


Yea, Warmachine might be boring to you, but it's exactly as the video you linked is.

Exactly, it has precisely the problems the video identifies, among other things, for Starcraft during that game's "balanced phase". Stale, repetitive, devoid of strategy.

Wait, what? Warmachine is devoid of strategy? Um, no. Warmachine is all about strategy, to the point where a good list played by a poor player will lose to a bad list played by a superior player. That's how a game should work. There's no "I placed a Stormwalll, I win" or "I'm using Man-o-War Shocktroopers, guess I shouldn't bother to try" in Warmachine, while in 40k there's a lot of "Here's my 3x Riptides and O'Vesastar, I win by turn 3" or "I'm playing a fluffy 1K Sons list that can't win a game because they're so bad". Warmachine games end abruptly this is true but games encourage aggressive play and tactics like trying to set up an assassination or control objectives.

There's a lot more strategy and low-level unit tactics and synergy in Warmachine than 40k ever had, even before 6th edition.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
This is pretty entertaining to watch. None of you on either side of this argument has considered the possibility that this is by design, have you?

You're not paying attention, are you? I think the idea that it is intentional has been raised, and refuted.

For one thing, war isn't balanced.

This is a game, not a war simulation. Current doctrine in the US military is that unless our soldiers outnumber their opponents 3-to-1, they are to disengage. Do you believe a game in which one side got three times as many points as the other side would be fun?

Games that are one-sided can be entertaining. Playing a story in which a handful of desperate survivors attempt to hold-out against a much larger aggressor force can be fun. But, it's really not the sort of fun that most people want most of the time. Getting your ass handed to you repeatedly is, for most people, not fun. It makes them less likely to want to continue to play the game.

People want the game balanced because they want to use it to be hardcore competitive sorts

Again, you're not really keeping up with the discussion, are you. Hardcore competitive players are far less impacted by poor game balance than casual players. Hardcore competitive players will analyze what's good, will buy only what's good, and will field only what's good.

It's the casual players who are the ones who buy models that look cool, and then suffer because those models lose games because they're "bad".

No one ever considers the game as a whole, either. Would Tau be as broken if every time they set foot in terrain we rolled to see if it was a forest that would eat them, like it says to in the book? Would the Aegis Line be as ubiquitous as it is if it got put down before any terrain is on the table, like the book says to initially? Would the Wave Serpent be as good if people mysterious objective bonuses were worth having?

If you believe that balance can be achieved by simply upping the number of random events that impact the victory conditions, absent of player decisions, I could suggest that you play Chutes and Ladders or Candyland. I, however, prefer games where player decisions have a greater impact on the result than a few choice dice rolls. But, I do not mean to disparage Candyland fans.

Except that that is entirely false. The problem is that due to balance you don't often see the donzens of units that are not good. The list of horrible units is just as bad (or worse) than that of the OP units. You mention real war....here is the issue, in a real war you would expect units to actually be reasonably good at their role. This is not the case in 40k. No one is saying that 180 points of pyrovores shoudl cover the same bases as a Riptide. What we (or at least I am saying) is that they should be equally good at what they are supposed to do.

SO if a riptide is supposed to be durable good shooting, and Pyrovoes are supposed to be good at digging light infantry out of cover. I expect 180 points of pyrovores to be as good at digging light infantry out of cover as Riptides are at providing durable shooting. But they are not, pyrovores are bad at what they are meant to do. Which begs the question why in a real war would tyranids evolve them at all.

WayneTheGame wrote:


Imagine "balance" as a scale. The closer you are to the middle ("perfect balance" i.e. everything is equal, similar to Chess) the better, but nothing is realistically going to be exactly in the middle. 40k has a lot of things on either the left side (underpowered) or right side (overpowered), and few things in the middle. X-Wing or Warmachine has a lot more towards the middle, with very few outliers.

Whether or not things are purposely not balanced, the level of that imbalance is what ultimately matters. No game can be perfectly balanced, but the goal is try and get as close to the middle as possible and avoiding the outliers to either side. Games like X-Wing, Malifaux, and Warmachine succeed in that. 40k fails miserably.

Again, as demonstrated by the idea of "perfect imbalance", trying to get as close to the middle as possible is not the goal.

There are good reasons to consciously move away from this middle to provide different aspects in a game, that a perfectly balanced game like Chess (also a viable alternative to game design) cannot offer.

Again, games like MtG (and probably many wargames) purposefully (!) unbalance thing to bring in certain aspects to gaming - a metagame, list-(deck-whatever)-building, an evolving state of play, etc.. , at the expense of things a more balanced game could offer (which in turn cannot offer all the things an imbalanced game can offer.


Think instead of your scale as one where "absolute balance" is on the far left, and "absolute imbalance" is on the far right. Chess is probably very far left. Games like MTG, Warmachine or Malifaux scattered at various points along the line. 40K probably further right than most of these.

But where is "perfect imbalance".... ? That is a question every gamer needs to answer for himself. For some, it will be at the utter left-most "chess-end" of the scale (e.g. people who play Chess, I would think). Other like a bit more imbalance into the mix, and their perfect spot may be more where Warmachine or MTG sits. And others again like games more to the right side of the spectrum. The last kind of players, it would seem likely, might be attracted to 40K in its current form.

If every game should aspire to be "more balanced", the world would only need one game (Chess? Go?), namely the most balanced one. All less-balanced games would be inferior, so nobody would play them.

The fact that quite a few games exist - and enjoy success and fans - suggests that other factors are also important, and different factors will matter more or less to different people, thus creating demand for variety. Some will care a lot about balance. Others not at all. Luckily, we are enjoying a period in history, where games catering to all tastes exist, including games like 40K which doesn't care much about balance.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Again, as demonstrated by the idea of "perfect imbalance", trying to get as close to the middle as possible is not the goal.

There are good reasons to consciously move away from this middle to provide different aspects in a game, that a perfectly balanced game like Chess (also a viable alternative to game design) cannot offer.

Again, games like MtG (and probably many wargames) purposefully (!) unbalance thing to bring in certain aspects to gaming - a metagame, list-(deck-whatever)-building, an evolving state of play, etc.. , at the expense of things a more balanced game could offer (which in turn cannot offer all the things an imbalanced game can offer.


Think instead of your scale as one where "absolute balance" is on the far left, and "absolute imbalance" is on the far right. Chess is probably very far left. Games like MTG, Warmachine or Malifaux scattered at various points along the line. 40K probably further right than most of these.

But where is "perfect imbalance".... ? That is a question every gamer needs to answer for himself. For some, it will be at the utter left-most "chess-end" of the scale (e.g. people who play Chess, I would think). Other like a bit more imbalance into the mix, and their perfect spot may be more where Warmachine or MTG sits. And others again like games more to the right side of the spectrum. The last kind of players, it would seem likely, might be attracted to 40K in its current form.

If every game should aspire to be "more balanced", the world would only need one game (Chess? Go?), namely the most balanced one. All less-balanced games would be inferior, so nobody would play them.

The fact that quite a few games exist - and enjoy success and fans - suggests that other factors are also important, and different factors will matter more or less to different people. Some will care a lot about balance. Others not at all. Luckily, we are enjoying a period in history, where games catering to all tastes exist, including games like 40K which doesn't care much about balance.

What you are talking about is NOT perfect imbalance. 40k is nowhere near perfect imbalance; X-Wing and Warmachine are. That video doesn't say what you think it's saying.

This "perfect imbalance" you keep saying doesn't mean you have some units that are too good, and some units that are garbage and nobody with a brain would take them (aka how 40k works). It means you have a variety of units that each have their uses in a given context, whether individually or as part of a group with other similar units, where you aren't punished for picking the "wrong" unit just because that unit is weak.

 Zweischneid wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


Imagine "balance" as a scale. The closer you are to the middle ("perfect balance" i.e. everything is equal, similar to Chess) the better, but nothing is realistically going to be exactly in the middle. 40k has a lot of things on either the left side (underpowered) or right side (overpowered), and few things in the middle. X-Wing or Warmachine has a lot more towards the middle, with very few outliers.

Whether or not things are purposely not balanced, the level of that imbalance is what ultimately matters. No game can be perfectly balanced, but the goal is try and get as close to the middle as possible and avoiding the outliers to either side. Games like X-Wing, Malifaux, and Warmachine succeed in that. 40k fails miserably.

Again, as demonstrated by the idea of "perfect imbalance", trying to get as close to the middle as possible is not the goal.

There are good reasons to consciously move away from this middle to provide different aspects in a game, that a perfectly balanced game like Chess (also a viable alternative to game design) cannot offer.

Again, games like MtG (and probably many wargames) purposefully (!) unbalance thing to bring in certain aspects to gaming - a metagame, list-(deck-whatever)-building, an evolving state of play, etc.. , at the expense of things a more balanced game could offer (which in turn cannot offer all the things an imbalanced game can offer.


Think instead of your scale as one where "absolute balance" is on the far left, and "absolute imbalance" is on the far right. Chess is probably very far left. Games like MTG, Warmachine or Malifaux scattered at various points along the line. 40K probably further right than most of these.

But where is "perfect imbalance".... ? That is a question every gamer needs to answer for himself. For some, it will be at the utter left-most "chess-end" of the scale (e.g. people who play Chess, I would think). Other like a bit more imbalance into the mix, and their perfect spot may be more where Warmachine or MTG sits. And others again like games more to the right side of the spectrum. The last kind of players, it would seem likely, might be attracted to 40K in its current form.

If every game should aspire to be "more balanced", the world would only need one game (Chess? Go?), namely the most balanced one. All less-balanced games would be inferior, so nobody would play them.

The fact that quite a few games exist - and enjoy success and fans - suggests that other factors are also important, and different factors will matter more or less to different people. Some will care a lot about balance. Others not at all. Luckily, we are enjoying a period in history, where games catering to all tastes exist, including games like 40K which doesn't care much about balance.

Technically MtG also uses it because random cards in card packs and a few other reasons. Also, it's not really like that.

It's more like....

Balance---------------------------------------------Imbalance
I
Perfect Imbalance.

The notion is that everything ends up having a usage and viable at some point in a naturally flowing cycle due to subtle imbalances. If things actually start to slide too much to the right, then the rules will be updates or a new release will come out or something will be banned to bring it back to the left.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


Imagine "balance" as a scale. The closer you are to the middle ("perfect balance" i.e. everything is equal, similar to Chess) the better, but nothing is realistically going to be exactly in the middle. 40k has a lot of things on either the left side (underpowered) or right side (overpowered), and few things in the middle. X-Wing or Warmachine has a lot more towards the middle, with very few outliers.

Whether or not things are purposely not balanced, the level of that imbalance is what ultimately matters. No game can be perfectly balanced, but the goal is try and get as close to the middle as possible and avoiding the outliers to either side. Games like X-Wing, Malifaux, and Warmachine succeed in that. 40k fails miserably.

Again, as demonstrated by the idea of "perfect imbalance", trying to get as close to the middle as possible is not the goal.

There are good reasons to consciously move away from this middle to provide different aspects in a game, that a perfectly balanced game like Chess (also a viable alternative to game design) cannot offer.

Again, games like MtG (and probably many wargames) purposefully (!) unbalance thing to bring in certain aspects to gaming - a metagame, list-(deck-whatever)-building, an evolving state of play, etc.. , at the expense of things a more balanced game could offer (which in turn cannot offer all the things an imbalanced game can offer.


Think instead of your scale as one where "absolute balance" is on the far left, and "absolute imbalance" is on the far right. Chess is probably very far left. Games like MTG, Warmachine or Malifaux scattered at various points along the line. 40K probably further right than most of these.

But where is "perfect imbalance".... ? That is a question every gamer needs to answer for himself. For some, it will be at the utter left-most "chess-end" of the scale (e.g. people who play Chess, I would think). Other like a bit more imbalance into the mix, and their perfect spot may be more where Warmachine or MTG sits. And others again like games more to the right side of the spectrum. The last kind of players, it would seem likely, might be attracted to 40K in its current form.

If every game should aspire to be "more balanced", the world would only need one game (Chess? Go?), namely the most balanced one. All less-balanced games would be inferior, so nobody would play them.

The fact that quite a few games exist - and enjoy success and fans - suggests that other factors are also important, and different factors will matter more or less to different people. Some will care a lot about balance. Others not at all. Luckily, we are enjoying a period in history, where games catering to all tastes exist, including games like 40K which doesn't care much about balance.

What you are talking about is NOT perfect imbalance. 40k is nowhere near perfect imbalance; X-Wing and Warmachine are. That video doesn't say what you think it's saying.

This "perfect imbalance" you keep saying doesn't mean you have some units that are too good, and some units that are garbage and nobody with a brain would take them (aka how 40k works). It means you have a variety of units that each have their uses in a given context, whether individually or as part of a group with other similar units, where you aren't punished for picking the "wrong" unit just because that unit is weak.

And this. 40k is nowhere near perfect imbalance. You can put your fingers in your ears and scream you aren't listening but the heldrake, waveserpent, screamerstar, riptide, flamer of tzeentch, swarms of nurgle spawn, Flayers, those shadow assassins of DE, beaststars, pyrocasters, etc. Are not balanced with many being too good and doing everything great whilst others have no use besides you wanting to purposefully cripple yourself.

WayneTheGame wrote:


What you are talking about is NOT perfect imbalance. 40k is nowhere near perfect imbalance; X-Wing and Warmachine are. That video doesn't say what you think it's saying.

Isn't it? I think the video is saying that game-designers sometimes purposefully create imbalances over balances, and it gives examples, MtG, where game-designers did just that, and Chess, where they didn't.

Am I interpreting the video wrong so far?

If, as you say, quote, " No game can be perfectly balanced, but the goal is try and get as close to the middle as possible and avoiding the outliers to either side", why does MtG deviate on purpose from their "Jedi Curve" (e.g. numerical balance) as shown in the video?

 Zweischneid wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


What you are talking about is NOT perfect imbalance. 40k is nowhere near perfect imbalance; X-Wing and Warmachine are. That video doesn't say what you think it's saying.

Isn't it? I think the video is saying that game-designers sometimes purposefully create imbalances over balances, and it gives examples, MtG, where game-designers did just that, and Chess, where they didn't.

Am I interpreting the video wrong.

If, as you say, quote, " No game can be perfectly balanced, but the goal is try and get as close to the middle as possible and avoiding the outliers to either side", why does MtG deviate on purpose from their "Jedi Curve" (e.g. numerical balance) as shown in the video?

As per MtG, as mentioned, the reason is two fold. One, it's a mechanic to keep you grabbing for more cards probably. Second, it often leads to scenarios where the system can naturally fluctuate where strong cards can be countered by weak cards thus promoting the collection of additional cards, meaning buying more packs, meaning more money.

As for a game like league. it has several elements, one is to support money. Another is to promote a shifting game environment. You can tell that 40k does not have this because the meta is extremely static due to imbalance.

As it says, it's about SUBTLE imbalance, not blatant wow broken imbalance. Heck, he even goes out of his way to describe two examples. One being the difference between over powered and broken as well as an example speaking of Champion A being better than most but then Champion B, largely considered underpowered turns out to be good against him leading to it becoming popular making champion A be considered bad now. Even then, he goes on to say that if complaints persist for a long time then it is likely true that it is broken and mentions having to fix them.

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


What you are talking about is NOT perfect imbalance. 40k is nowhere near perfect imbalance; X-Wing and Warmachine are. That video doesn't say what you think it's saying.

Isn't it? I think the video is saying that game-designers sometimes purposefully create imbalances over balances, and it gives examples, MtG, where game-designers did just that, and Chess, where they didn't.

Am I interpreting the video wrong.

If, as you say, quote, " No game can be perfectly balanced, but the goal is try and get as close to the middle as possible and avoiding the outliers to either side", why does MtG deviate on purpose from their "Jedi Curve" (e.g. numerical balance) as shown in the video?

As per MtG, as mentioned, the reason is two fold. One, it's a mechanic to keep you grabbing for more cards probably. Second, it often leads to scenarios where the system can naturally fluctuate where strong cards can be countered by weak cards thus promoting the collection of additional cards, meaning buying more packs, meaning more money.

As for a game like league. it has several elements, one is to support money. Another is to promote a shifting game environment. You can tell that 40k does not have this because the meta is extremely static due to imbalance.

I am not talking about 40K. 40K isn't part of the video.

Do you agree, that the video shows that there are credible reasons for game-designers to chose imbalances over balance for certain games? Is that a correct interpretation of this video?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


What you are talking about is NOT perfect imbalance. 40k is nowhere near perfect imbalance; X-Wing and Warmachine are. That video doesn't say what you think it's saying.

Isn't it? I think the video is saying that game-designers sometimes purposefully create imbalances over balances, and it gives examples, MtG, where game-designers did just that, and Chess, where they didn't.

Am I interpreting the video wrong.

If, as you say, quote, " No game can be perfectly balanced, but the goal is try and get as close to the middle as possible and avoiding the outliers to either side", why does MtG deviate on purpose from their "Jedi Curve" (e.g. numerical balance) as shown in the video?

As per MtG, as mentioned, the reason is two fold. One, it's a mechanic to keep you grabbing for more cards probably. Second, it often leads to scenarios where the system can naturally fluctuate where strong cards can be countered by weak cards thus promoting the collection of additional cards, meaning buying more packs, meaning more money.

As for a game like league. it has several elements, one is to support money. Another is to promote a shifting game environment. You can tell that 40k does not have this because the meta is extremely static due to imbalance.

I am not talking about 40K. 40K isn't part of the video.

Do you agree, that the video shows that there are credible reasons for game-designers to chose imbalances over balance for certain games? Is that a correct interpretation of this video?

Apologies, I ended up updating my old post. You might want to re-read it now. It actually touches on how individuals will chose imbalances over balances to promote certain features including increased purchases, a flowing, naturally, self sustaining meta, and a few other details. That said, I also point out that it's not dramatic imbalances that he explains but instead subtle and nuanced imbalances and even admits that things can be so bad they need to be rebalanced.

 Zweischneid wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


What you are talking about is NOT perfect imbalance. 40k is nowhere near perfect imbalance; X-Wing and Warmachine are. That video doesn't say what you think it's saying.

Isn't it? I think the video is saying that game-designers sometimes purposefully create imbalances over balances, and it gives examples, MtG, where game-designers did just that, and Chess, where they didn't.

Am I interpreting the video wrong so far?

If, as you say, quote, " No game can be perfectly balanced, but the goal is try and get as close to the middle as possible and avoiding the outliers to either side", why does MtG deviate on purpose from their "Jedi Curve" (e.g. numerical balance) as shown in the video?

I haven't played MtG but from what little I know, they either have or used to have "trick" cards that looked good but really weren't, to trick new players and teach them the concept of "system mastery", the idea being as they got more experienced they would learn what to watch out for and improve their deck-building as a result. I can't say I ever agreed with that notion, but 40k doesn't have any sense of balance whatsoever and doesn't even care if things are unbalanced.

I can only speak to 40k and Warmachine as these are the only games I have played or looked at the rules in recent memory. Warmachine operates on the notion that your list-building skills is just one facet of the game and more than eclipsed by your tactics. There is no "killer list" in Warmachine; there are strong lists, of course, but the strong lists aren't as grossly imbalanced as with 40k where someone with a good list can demolish a better player with a worse list - I read elsewhere a story about an experienced, like 5+ year player fielding a balanced army getting smashed in three turns by an almost complete newbie fielding a "netlist"; that kind of situation should never happen in any game, as the list alone shouldn't be enough to single-handedly win a game.

As I said earlier in Warmachine you can field a list consisting of generally subpar choices, and if you can maximize how to use them you can defeat somebody using a more powerful list. That's the mark of a fairly balanced (note I said fairly as true balance is an impossibility, and if it were possible it'd be rather boring anyways) game that appeals to both competitive gamers in tournaments or a casual/friendly setting. There is no "I win" button in Warmachine, while 40k has a variety of "I Win" buttons and a few buttons that are broken and don't work at all.

That's how a game should be. The concept of "perfect imbalance" means that you can play what you want and change up your tactics appropriately, versus playing what you want/think is cool and getting steamrolled by someone who plays the better units.

 StarTrotter wrote:


Apologies, I ended up updating my old post. You might want to re-read it now. It actually touches on how individuals will chose imbalances over balances to promote certain features including increased purchases, a flowing, naturally, self sustaining meta, and a few other details. That said, I also point out that it's not dramatic imbalances that he explains but instead subtle and nuanced imbalances and even admits that things can be so bad they need to be rebalanced.

I don't deny that.

But he also notes that (almost) perfectly balanced games like chess have qualities that may be undesirable as well. The static state of play, the immense barrier to enter higher levels of play, etc...

Can we agree that "maximum balance" is not the sole and only goal of all games and all game-designs ever?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:


That's how a game should be. The concept of "perfect imbalance" means that you can play what you want and change up your tactics appropriately, versus playing what you want/think is cool and getting steamrolled by someone who plays the better units.

No, it is not. Look at the video again, for example the part about cyclical imbalance, "Champion A", "Champion B", etc..

Champion A is better. Objectively. Otherwise the system wouldn't work.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


Apologies, I ended up updating my old post. You might want to re-read it now. It actually touches on how individuals will chose imbalances over balances to promote certain features including increased purchases, a flowing, naturally, self sustaining meta, and a few other details. That said, I also point out that it's not dramatic imbalances that he explains but instead subtle and nuanced imbalances and even admits that things can be so bad they need to be rebalanced.

I don't deny that.

But he also notes that (almost) perfectly balanced games like chess have qualities that may be undesirable as well. The static state of play, the immense barrier to enter higher levels of play, etc...

Can we agree that "maximum balance" is not the sole and only goal of all games and all game-designs ever?

I've already agreed to that and to the static state of play and immense barrier to enter higher levels of play actually. That's not where our arguments are really coming from.

 StarTrotter wrote:


I've already agreed to that and to the static state of play and immense barrier to enter higher levels of play actually. That's not where our arguments are really coming from.

Well, I was accused of misunderstanding the video. Can we agree that we have a shared understanding of the video now? Of what it says and what it doesn't say (nothing about 40K, which I never claimed).

It's a matter of degree. If Champion A is so much better than B, that B might as well not play, you have trivialized the game; not created "imperfect balance".

I don't think you understand just how game-breaking some units are.

No, it is not. Look at the video again, for example the part about cyclical imbalance, "Champion A", "Champion B", etc..

Champion A is better. Objectively. Otherwise the system wouldn't work.

To be technical, it isn't entirely like that. It's more of Champion A is objectively better than the average in most cases whilst Champion B is objectively worse than the average in most cases however Champion B is strong against Champion A. this leads to the rise of Champion B to best Champion A then making Champion B the dominant force and Champion A rather unpopular. This flows into a continuing cycle.

 StarTrotter wrote:

No, it is not. Look at the video again, for example the part about cyclical imbalance, "Champion A", "Champion B", etc..

Champion A is better. Objectively. Otherwise the system wouldn't work.

To be technical, it isn't entirely like that. It's more of Champion A is objectively better than the average in most cases whilst Champion B is objectively worse than the average in most cases however Champion B is strong against Champion A. this leads to the rise of Champion B to best Champion A then making Champion B the dominant force and Champion A rather unpopular. This flows into a continuing cycle.

Except in 40K Champion B can't hold Champion A's jock strap. Compare any BA character to Smashf%^&^&*er.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


I've already agreed to that and to the static state of play and immense barrier to enter higher levels of play actually. That's not where our arguments are really coming from.

Well, I was accused of misunderstanding the video. Can we agree that we have a shared understanding of the video now? Of what it says and what it doesn't say (nothing about 40K, which I never claimed).

Overall, yes, I believe there are some nuances and different interpretations that are making conflict (although I suppose the joke of the two christians so alike but one minor sect difference and it makes heated arguments burst out everywhere rather accurate)

 StarTrotter wrote:

No, it is not. Look at the video again, for example the part about cyclical imbalance, "Champion A", "Champion B", etc..

Champion A is better. Objectively. Otherwise the system wouldn't work.

To be technical, it isn't entirely like that. It's more of Champion A is objectively better than the average in most cases whilst Champion B is objectively worse than the average in most cases however Champion B is strong against Champion A. this leads to the rise of Champion B to best Champion A then making Champion B the dominant force and Champion A rather unpopular. This flows into a continuing cycle.

Yes. But the cycle doesn't start if everything is balanced. Things need to be imbalanced first.

Martel732 wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

No, it is not. Look at the video again, for example the part about cyclical imbalance, "Champion A", "Champion B", etc..

Champion A is better. Objectively. Otherwise the system wouldn't work.

To be technical, it isn't entirely like that. It's more of Champion A is objectively better than the average in most cases whilst Champion B is objectively worse than the average in most cases however Champion B is strong against Champion A. this leads to the rise of Champion B to best Champion A then making Champion B the dominant force and Champion A rather unpopular. This flows into a continuing cycle.

Except in 40K Champion B can't hold Champion A's jock strap. Compare any BA character to Smashf%^&^&*er.

And I'm not disagreeing with you. Flip through my messages and you'll see I've been disagreeing with Zwei constantly. In fact, I've been one of his biggest oppositions. I was talking about the concept from the video itself not how it is in the game. Those two things are very different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

No, it is not. Look at the video again, for example the part about cyclical imbalance, "Champion A", "Champion B", etc..

Champion A is better. Objectively. Otherwise the system wouldn't work.

To be technical, it isn't entirely like that. It's more of Champion A is objectively better than the average in most cases whilst Champion B is objectively worse than the average in most cases however Champion B is strong against Champion A. this leads to the rise of Champion B to best Champion A then making Champion B the dominant force and Champion A rather unpopular. This flows into a continuing cycle.

Yes. But the cycle doesn't start if everything is balanced. Things need to be imbalanced first.

Yes and no. It's a rather odd system. Basically, it requires imbalances plotted out masterfully to let it loop around and twist and turn. In short, everything needs pros and cons already established for it to flow. In short, it's really complicated and not really simple to put. it needs imbalances to be set up but requires it by way of subtle imbalance rather than simply just standard or blatant imbalance.

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


I've already agreed to that and to the static state of play and immense barrier to enter higher levels of play actually. That's not where our arguments are really coming from.

Well, I was accused of misunderstanding the video. Can we agree that we have a shared understanding of the video now? Of what it says and what it doesn't say (nothing about 40K, which I never claimed).

Overall, yes, I believe there are some nuances and different interpretations that are making conflict (although I suppose the joke of the two christians so alike but one minor sect difference and it makes heated arguments burst out everywhere rather accurate)

Ok. Great.

Now.. I made a second argument.. unrelated to the actual contents of the video, though it also, as a second argument, goes against the "absoluteness" of balance-over-everything.

The argument was the one about subjective taste: E.g. Some people will prefer games with more balance (e.g. Chess) and some people will prefer games with a smattering of carefully crafted imbalance (e.g. MtG). Thus, there is a diversity of "subjective tastes". Some people like Chess better, others MtG better. Both can co-exist without Chess necessarily being "better" than MtG or vice versa for every human alive. Indeed, some people might enjoy both Chess and MtG for different settings or moods.

Is that wrong?

Martel732 wrote:
It's a matter of degree. If Champion A is so much better than B, that B might as well not play, you have trivialized the game; not created "imperfect balance".

I don't think you understand just how game-breaking some units are.

Not only that but I believe the video is talking about the context of a MOBA, e.g. League of Legends. In a game like that you get a bit more leeway between power levels, so Champion A can be better than Champion B, because Champion A and Champion B don't exist in a void; I haven't played LoL but I've dabbled in DOTA2 which is similar and done PVP in World of Warcraft so it's roughly the same idea, and you don't balance around 1v1 in that case (a common complaint in WoW is that "X class is OP" because X class can beat Y class in a 1v1 duel; PVP isn't balanced around 1v1 at all).

It's not black and white and comparing one to one, it's all the units compared to all the units. 40k has units that are just pretty much worthless, and have little or no reason to exist as there's no compelling reason to field it (Mutilators, Pyrovores, CSM) and units that are so good that you always want to field it if you can (Plague Marines, Wave Serpents). That's not the same as "Champion A can beat Champion B".

That's the underlying issue. Not that Unit A is better than Unit B, but that Unit B is *worthless* with no compelling reason to take it, and Unit A is *so good* that you want to field it every chance you get.

 StarTrotter wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

No, it is not. Look at the video again, for example the part about cyclical imbalance, "Champion A", "Champion B", etc..

Champion A is better. Objectively. Otherwise the system wouldn't work.

To be technical, it isn't entirely like that. It's more of Champion A is objectively better than the average in most cases whilst Champion B is objectively worse than the average in most cases however Champion B is strong against Champion A. this leads to the rise of Champion B to best Champion A then making Champion B the dominant force and Champion A rather unpopular. This flows into a continuing cycle.

Except in 40K Champion B can't hold Champion A's jock strap. Compare any BA character to Smashf%^&^&*er.

And I'm not disagreeing with you. Flip through my messages and you'll see I've been disagreeing with Zwei constantly. In fact, I've been one of his biggest oppositions. I was talking about the concept from the video itself not how it is in the game. Those two things are very different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

No, it is not. Look at the video again, for example the part about cyclical imbalance, "Champion A", "Champion B", etc..

Champion A is better. Objectively. Otherwise the system wouldn't work.

To be technical, it isn't entirely like that. It's more of Champion A is objectively better than the average in most cases whilst Champion B is objectively worse than the average in most cases however Champion B is strong against Champion A. this leads to the rise of Champion B to best Champion A then making Champion B the dominant force and Champion A rather unpopular. This flows into a continuing cycle.

Yes. But the cycle doesn't start if everything is balanced. Things need to be imbalanced first.

Yes and no. It's a rather odd system. Basically, it requires imbalances plotted out masterfully to let it loop around and twist and turn. In short, everything needs pros and cons already established for it to flow. In short, it's really complicated and not really simple to put. it needs imbalances to be set up but requires it by way of subtle imbalance rather than simply just standard or blatant imbalance.

Oops meant that for Zwei, really. Not you. You just had the quote I wanted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zwei, how do you justify completely useless units in 40K? Shouldn't perfect imbalance have at least one use for every unit?

Martel732 wrote:

Zwei, how do you justify completely useless units in 40K? Shouldn't perfect imbalance have at least one use for every unit?

I never said 40K was an example of perfect imbalance.

I said perfect imbalance was one example of game-design theory contradicting the idea of "balance=better".

40K, with all it's "narrative", isn't trying to create a MtG-style "perfect imbalance". But like MtG, it rejects balance as the "only" principle, or at least subordinates it to more important priorities, if for different reasons than MtG does.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Zwei, how do you justify completely useless units in 40K? Shouldn't perfect imbalance have at least one use for every unit?

I never said 40K was an example of perfect imbalance.

I said perfect imbalance was one example of game-design theory contradicting the idea of "balance=better".

40K, with all it's "narrative", isn't trying to create a MtG-style "perfect imbalance". But like MtG, it rejects balance, or at least subordinates it to more important priorities, if for different reasons than MtG does.

Well, I think they have rejected it a bit too much. And help but to think it's hard to move models that completely blow in the game.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


I've already agreed to that and to the static state of play and immense barrier to enter higher levels of play actually. That's not where our arguments are really coming from.

Well, I was accused of misunderstanding the video. Can we agree that we have a shared understanding of the video now? Of what it says and what it doesn't say (nothing about 40K, which I never claimed).

Overall, yes, I believe there are some nuances and different interpretations that are making conflict (although I suppose the joke of the two christians so alike but one minor sect difference and it makes heated arguments burst out everywhere rather accurate)

Ok. Great.

Now.. I made a second argument.. unrelated to the actual contents of the video, though it also, as a second argument, goes against the "absoluteness" of balance-over-everything.

The argument was the one about subjective taste: E.g. Some people will prefer games with more balance (e.g. Chess) and some people will prefer games with a smattering of carefully crafted imbalance (e.g. MtG). Thus, there is a diversity of "subjective tastes". Some people like Chess better, others MtG better. Both can co-exist without Chess necessarily being "better" than MtG or vice versa for every human alive.

Is that wrong?

Subjectivity always muddles the scenario. That said, both of their perks. A static system is charming because it truly puts to test your capabilities with the least possible imbalances set up (really the only flaw that keeps chess from being perfectly balanced is who gets turn one). Perfect imbalance surrenders some individual balance to promote a cycle where everything is worth fielding at some point, although not necessarily at all points but will organically flow even without too much input from yourself besides working out the kinks. I wouldn't quite say that being scaled too much toward imbalance. As mentioned before, I feel the scale is much more like:

Balance---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Imbalance
I....................................I ............................................................................................. I
Chess................Perfect Imbalance............................................................................40k

Or something like that. As noted, I'd still place perfect imbalance closer to balance. The thing is, it still has a more balanced middle zone with a bell shaped formation of units and then has internal ways to keep everything fluid and vibrant. Thing is, going too imbalanced or too balanced is a bad idea in terms of static environment. Both balance and imbalance can lead to a static world. Between these two, balance is most optimal because it does not give you the illusion of choice when it is actually excessively impaired. The most optimal combination for creating a fluid system is something that is relatively balanced with only minor increases and decreases and with counters established and planned out to keep everything with a proper use at some point, as stated before. This is an abstraction admittedly but it's analyzing how it focused on the subtitles rather than blatant mess ups and referencing the game's attempts to fix up massive disparities

It's almost like a form of balance that uses imbalance to make balance. Slippery slope and all and sounds counter intuitive but that's what ends up feeling like. Along with that, another problem is that 40k can't be updated and isn't as cheap as a game. That's the biggest reason why things need to be more rigid for 40k. Cause we can't go buying models all casual like. It needs to be a bit more static in the end.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Zwei, how do you justify completely useless units in 40K? Shouldn't perfect imbalance have at least one use for every unit?

I never said 40K was an example of perfect imbalance.

I said perfect imbalance was one example of game-design theory contradicting the idea of "balance=better".

So we agree that 40k is imbalanced then.

The idea of perfect imbalance though is just an extension of balance. What I mean is you can have "perfect imbalance" and things are balanced as a result.

For example, I would consider Warmachine to be an example of "perfect imbalance". There are units that are good, units that aren't as good, but the focus on the usage versus the unit statline balances that imbalance out to where every unit is a *viable* choice. If you pick the weaker Unit A but don't build correctly around it, or use it wrong, you can lose a game and this is perfectly acceptable. However, there is no situation where Unit A is *so* bad that you're basically a newb or a sucker if you decide to field it, and by fielding it alone you just reduced the chance of winning a game by some arbitrary amount.

Conversely, Unit B might be a really good all-around unit, and the one that everyone recommends you take, but it's never going to single-handedly win you the game because it's head and shoulders above everything else in the game. It's better, but the fact every unit has a place makes up for the fact that Unit B is better than Unit A, because you can use Unit A in tandem with other units to offset the fact it's worse than Unit B, and Unit A used in the right context or with the right supporting units can beat Unit B, despite the fact Unit B is better.

Unless I'm mistaken, that is perfect imbalance.

 Zweischneid wrote:

... "perfect imbalance"...

How about you stop quoting things you don't understand. Watch the video again. Note the part around 0:45 where he says "not great big haphazard ones". Note the part around 0:53 where says "just a little bit of imbalance".

Hell, he's wrong by the 1:30 mark. Chess is imbalanced. White has a half-move advantage on black, every single game.

Furthermore, in a game with 17 factions, designed imbalance inherently exists between those factions, as some are necessarily better at some things and worse than others. The great big imbalances within each codex don't serve to enhance player discovery, they actually reduce the amount of interest in the game by pruning the decision tree of branches to discover.

One of the concepts that he doesn't go into, but that anyone who has ever attempted to create a computer AI to play any game understands, is that of a decision tree. You can see this most obviously in chess, as it's a game that doesn't involve random events. Well, from the initial game state, you have 20 possible moves you can make. Then your opponent moves, one of 20 choices also. Then you make your next move, and the number of possible moves here is greater than 20. Already, in evaluating our second move, we need to consider 400 possible game states. Skipping some library stuff that chess AIs use to simplify the opening game, you can see how the number of decisions could quickly overwhelm a computer, especially around the midgame, where you may have 100 legal moves to choose from. Early chess AIs could take hours to come up with a move. Well, in order to reduce complexity, AI developers realized that you could prune certain move evaluations early, and that by recognizing a bad decision early enough, you could save a lot of cycles. (I could go further into this, and why harder settings necessarily require less pruning, but...)

The point is that, when you're looking for a unit to fit a particular role, say, assaulting an opponent's objective, a high level of imbalance means you prune the bad units out of the equation entirely, and they never get used. And, since picking the right unit isn't really part of the game you play against your opponent, this reduces, rather than increases the depth of the game. It's as if they didn't even create the bad units, for how infrequently they show up in the game. That's not good game design, even if you want some better units in the game.

Back to the video, and how it doesn't make sense for a game like 40k. So, he points out League Of Legends, and how Cyclical Design doesn't really apply to a tabletop wargame in the same way that it applies to a videogame. See, in a game like League of Legends, a cyclical imbalance makes sense, because the metagame can evolve quickly, at a very moderate cost to a player. But in a tabletop wargame, you're looking at a hobby as much as a game, and this is doubly true for the casual players who are most hurt by the imbalanced game.

Bob, the casual, players Space Wolves. Bob has a Space Wolf tattoo. Bob has spent several thousand dollars on his Space Wolves, and has invested hundreds of hours converting and painting them. The promise that the metagame will evolve if Bob switches to playing Eldar isn't realistic. It denies the cost, both monetary and in time, that switching an army involves in a tabletop wargame. Bob's not switching. The competitive player will switch to whatever's good, but not the casual player. So the "evolving metagame" created by cyclical design isn't really an appropriate construct for the sort of game that we're talking about. And this is where your argument has gone wrong from the beginning.

Miniature Wargames are not CCGs and they're not Video Games. They cost a lot more money than Video Games, (though perhaps not competitive M;TG), and a lot more time to develop your army than CCGs take to obtain a deck (although, perhaps not more time than it takes to max level your WOW guy). The barrier to switching factions is far higher than in either of these other paradigms. Therefore, a design strategy based on people switching factions all the time is far less than ideal. But, it's more than that, because it's not just imbalance between factions, it's also big huge swingy imbalance between units within a faction - something even your quoted video says shouldn't exist. Because when your comparing two units with the same purpose, and one is better than the other, that's not a cyclical design issue, that's just a mistake.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

... "perfect imbalance"...

Hell, he's wrong by the 1:30 mark. Chess is imbalanced. White has a half-move advantage on black, every single game.

True. Which is why almost every chess-club in the world will start teaching you the game with things like the French Defense, which responds to this tiny imbalance. Once you have that down, you go on defeating the French Defense in turn, etc., etc...

Even in the "almost-perfect-balance" that is Chess, it is the imbalance, however small, that is the gateway to learning the game, the "texture" you use to climb up and become better.

A truly 100% balanced game would be 100% pointless.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

... "perfect imbalance"...

Hell, he's wrong by the 1:30 mark. Chess is imbalanced. White has a half-move advantage on black, every single game.

True. Which is why almost every chess-club in the world will start teaching you the game with things like the French Defense, which responds to this tiny imbalance. Once you have that down, you go on defeating the French Defense in turn, etc., etc...

Even in the "almost-perfect-balance" that is Chess, it is the imbalance, however small, that is the gateway to learning the game, the "texture" you use to climb up and become better.

A truly 100% balanced game would be 100% pointless.

not quite, a truly balanced game would have some perk to it. It would be the greatest judge of skill where there is only the factor of error of the individual themselves. it basically all comes down to skill. At this point, the best two individuals of equal skill can get is a draw really and often times the one that goes first wins out as well.