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.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think thats it at all. GW is out of touch with their customers is all. We don't want a beer and pretzels game where losing can be part of the fun. We want a cutthroat futuristic battle simulator. We want brood-wars on the tabletop. We want to win. Thats all.

I want a fair fight, honestly fought, where I don't lose or win because of a difficult to interpret rule or that the Codex author rolled a 6 when he started writing my faction's latest book, but because I made better or worse decisions than my opponent and with maybe a hint of luck.

If that's what you meant by the above, then fair enough, but I think you'll find far more people want an entertaining and fair game than want to win all the time.

My thoughts exactly. I'm a fluffy player but I need a fair fight to have fun.
And I do think it's incompetence or apathy that make GW's rules and dexes so awful. You get wraiths which were pretty strong and buff them even further, but then you get Penitent Engines were were borderline useless and the newest dex made them almost unplayable.

Someone above said it, the people who design the game are out of touch and don't really understand how the game is played.

I dont ever notice really, mostly because I dont play competitive. and I've said it before, when they balance for competitive the game drops faster then it has been.

 Brennonjw wrote:
I dont ever notice really, mostly because I dont play competitive. and I've said it before, when they balance for competitive the game drops faster then it has been.

Drops faster? Why do you think this?
Games with good balance are growing by large margins.
I didn't play competitively and I sure as heck noticed.

 Blacksails wrote:

Boniface wrote:


I just don't see how someone who writes the rules couldn't see the obviously powerful stuff. It takes a lot of people who've been playing a while about 5 minutes to spot and compare the units in their entirety. Someone who's been doing this for years must be able to spot the same trends.
Maybe I'm wrong.

These are the same people that nerfed the Chaplain and buffed the Librarian because in their 'test' games, they found the Chaplain to be overpowered, and that none of them ever took a Librarian because they felt it was too weak.

They are quite literally that incompetent. They play the game in their own little bubble and never ever even consider that some players may look to optimize their lists in the slightest.

People keep referencing this. What's the source for it?

Also think about longevity. If they made a balanced game they wouldn't be able to sell new codices and rules anywhere near as frequently.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Brennonjw wrote:
I dont ever notice really, mostly because I dont play competitive. and I've said it before, when they balance for competitive the game drops faster then it has been.

Drops faster? Why do you think this?
Games with good balance are growing by large margins.
I didn't play competitively and I sure as heck noticed.

It seems to me that the way people want the game to go is purely focused on competitive play and only competitive play. IMO, when game dev. switches over to competitive rather than for fun, you end up getting 1 or 2 viable lists per army. The complaints about balance, while I agree on some points, ignore fluff. I think that balance should relate to fluff rather then what makes every army perfectly fair. And being that every army has their strong points in the fluff, every army would technically still have a decent chance at winning on the table top. Plus, when full competitive development becomes a thing, wouldn't it just switch more to every army gets 2 or 3 massive models with good stats to win? not saying every company does this, mind you, I just think people whining about competitive play misses the point of what it is, a game for fun.

 Brennonjw wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Brennonjw wrote:
I dont ever notice really, mostly because I dont play competitive. and I've said it before, when they balance for competitive the game drops faster then it has been.

Drops faster? Why do you think this?
Games with good balance are growing by large margins.
I didn't play competitively and I sure as heck noticed.

It seems to me that the way people want the game to go is purely focused on competitive play and only competitive play. IMO, when game dev. switches over to competitive rather than for fun, you end up getting 1 or 2 viable lists per army. The complaints about balance, while I agree on some points, ignore fluff. I think that balance should relate to fluff rather then what makes every army perfectly fair. And being that every army has their strong points in the fluff, every army would technically still have a decent chance at winning on the table top. Plus, when full competitive development becomes a thing, wouldn't it just switch more to every army gets 2 or 3 massive models with good stats to win? not saying every company does this, mind you, I just think people whining about competitive play misses the point of what it is, a game for fun.

What you describe as competitive is what we have now. (If I understood you correctly.) A balanced ruleset would open many more viable builds up and make taking super units a tactical choice, not an 'I win button.'

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:People keep referencing this. What's the source for it?

It was from a WD I believe, in reference to the upcoming marine codex. I'll see if I can find the specifics.

Brennonjw wrote:
It seems to me that the way people want the game to go is purely focused on competitive play and only competitive play. IMO, when game dev. switches over to competitive rather than for fun, you end up getting 1 or 2 viable lists per army. The complaints about balance, while I agree on some points, ignore fluff. I think that balance should relate to fluff rather then what makes every army perfectly fair. And being that every army has their strong points in the fluff, every army would technically still have a decent chance at winning on the table top. Plus, when full competitive development becomes a thing, wouldn't it just switch more to every army gets 2 or 3 massive models with good stats to win? not saying every company does this, mind you, I just think people whining about competitive play misses the point of what it is, a game for fun.

What people want is a good game, not something that inherently casual or competitive. By nature of being a properly designed and written wargame, it will cater to competitive and casual scenes alike. A poorly done game, will serve neither well, as we're currently seeing with 40k.

Not to mention, a better designed wargame would also fit the fluff better. Currently, there are numerous examples where fluff is directly contradicted or fails to live up to even the lowest of expecations crunch wise. A properly done game would not revolve around 1 or 2 lists, or a handful or strong units; it would be balanced so that every option works given the right combinations and playstyle.

No one is asking for a competitive game. They just want a good one. We have plenty of good rulesets that do this already, so its not far fetched or even particularly difficult.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Not completely.

Oldstyle Whip Coils were much better than the new version.

Only against small units as it only worked on base-to-base models. It's clear Swiftstrike is becoming the new standard rule for whip like weapons and we'll likely see it as a USR as some point (and likely eventually being given to the Agonizer and Neural Whips).

Moving on beyond that, I think the problem is that when GW playtests something they know what they intend by the rules and feel that the rules are written well enough to avoid any real confusion. Obviously not the case and while they do seem to be getting better in general the slip ups still do occur.

Boniface wrote:
Also think about longevity. If they made a balanced game they wouldn't be able to sell new codices and rules anywhere near as frequently.

Nonsense. Making units balanced doesn't mean they can't make new versions of them with different options, or whole new units altogether. It doesn't mean they can't revisit and redesign kits, or introduce new factions or sub factions.

Literally every other widely played game out there is better balanced, and they're all doing fine. Yes, one could argue they're working with smaller product ranges and shorter time scales, but they're not working with the resources and number of players either.

Games Workshop have everything needed to make the best game on the market, except the best game on the market. The responsibility for that, and, more importantly, the singular apparent disinterest in working towards that, is solely in their hands.

People would be a lot more forgiving of their shortcomings if GW were seen to be trying: beta testing, regular FAQs, communicating and working with the community to fix issues as they arise, these things would all go a long way to predispose me, and I'm sure many others, to be more positive to GW and the game.

These things are, in the grand scheme of things, essentially free for a global PLC to implement, and will tell them how to make a better product, ultimately making them more successful.

I cannot think of a single decent reason beyond apathy, or incompetence, that stops GW dong this.

Well said Az.

Given GW's size, customer base, and experience, there's no reason why the rules and codices shouldn't be the best on the market.

If the likes of Hawk and Spartan games can produce better written and better balanced games, it stands to reason the largest company should be able to produce a product of equal or superior quality.

GW's target market is not people who notice these things. They're aiming for the demographic that looks at the models, says "WOAH THAT'S AWESOME!", and runs out and buys a dozen, they don't care much what happens afterwards.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
GW's target market is not people who notice these things. They're aiming for the demographic that looks at the models, says "WOAH THAT'S AWESOME!", and runs out and buys a dozen, they don't care much what happens afterwards.

IOW, GW is run by a bunch of incompetent morons.

 Peregrine wrote:
IOW, GW is run by a bunch of incompetent morons.

Or possibly by people with a different opinion to yours on the sort of product that they want to sell...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Boniface wrote:


I just don't see how someone who writes the rules couldn't see the obviously powerful stuff. It takes a lot of people who've been playing a while about 5 minutes to spot and compare the units in their entirety. Someone who's been doing this for years must be able to spot the same trends.
Maybe I'm wrong.

These are the same people that nerfed the Chaplain and buffed the Librarian because in their 'test' games, they found the Chaplain to be overpowered, and that none of them ever took a Librarian because they felt it was too weak.

They are quite literally that incompetent. They play the game in their own little bubble and never ever even consider that some players may look to optimize their lists in the slightest.

People keep referencing this. What's the source for it?

I am pretty sure it was when the last Marine codex came?

 Ashiraya wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

People keep referencing this. What's the source for it?

I am pretty sure it was when the last Marine codex came?

It was a comment from one of the devs in (I think) the designers' notes for 7th ed, to the effect that they felt that Psykers needed a buff because none of the guys in the studio used Librarians, as they preferred to use Chaplains and Captains.

 insaniak wrote:
Or possibly by people with a different opinion to yours on the sort of product that they want to sell...

Defining your target market as "people who have low standards but lots of money to mindlessly throw at us" and using it as an excuse for why your product sucks isn't a different opinion, it's a badly run company.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Or possibly by people with a different opinion to yours on the sort of product that they want to sell...

Defining your target market as "people who have low standards but lots of money to mindlessly throw at us" and using it as an excuse for why your product sucks isn't a different opinion, it's a badly run company.

Let's take a look at their financials and see how this corporate attitude is working out for them.....oh.....yeah........

 Peregrine wrote:
Defining your target market as "people who have low standards but lots of money to mindlessly throw at us" and using it as an excuse for why your product sucks isn't a different opinion, it's a badly run company.

Well, no, it would be both of those things.


The point is, maybe dial down the hyperbole a little? You can disagree with how GW are choosing to run their business without being quite so insulting about it.

I think what the designers are doing and what the executives are doing are separate issues.

The designers are attempting to make a game they think is fun (and to be fair to them it is fun, for them, in their specific meta), the execs are the ones mucking up things involving choices like Finecast, pricing and the stores.

I can't fault the devs for trying to make a fun game, I can't even fault them for not being more connected to the community to fix issues sooner as that too is another exec based issue.

Basically I blame the suits in charge for making more of a mess of everything than I do the devs who are trying the best they can with their limited connection to the game played by everyone else outside of GW's headquarters.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Defining your target market as "people who have low standards but lots of money to mindlessly throw at us" and using it as an excuse for why your product sucks isn't a different opinion, it's a badly run company.

Well, no, it would be both of those things.


The point is, maybe dial down the hyperbole a little? You can disagree with how GW are choosing to run their business without being quite so insulting about it.

He could but I suspect he won't.

There's a point in there though, GW seem to be obsessed with going after their perception of what their customer base, rather than what it actually is. Which would be consistent with a company that does so little market research.

They're still selling to the 14 year old boys, without realising that those 14 your old boys are now men in their thirties and forties with boys of that age of their own, that's a very different dynamic.

It all comes back to the belief that "they'll buy what we make, we don't make what they'll buy."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I think what the designers are doing and what the executives are doing are separate issues.

The designers are attempting to make a game they think is fun (and to be fair to them it is fun, for them, in their specific meta), the execs are the ones mucking up things involving choices like Finecast, pricing and the stores.

I can't fault the devs for trying to make a fun game, I can't even fault them for not being more connected to the community to fix issues sooner as that too is another exec based issue.

Basically I blame the suits in charge for making more of a mess of everything than I do the devs who are trying the best they can with their limited connection to the game played by everyone else outside of GW's headquarters.

I understand your thinking, but I think you'd need to be an awful lot more familIar with the dynamics at play to extricate what are decisions forced by corporate and what are just poor decisions.

After being with this game for 20 years, I'm still trying to figure out what the hell the developers are trying to do. They add more and more complexity, but constantly forget the small, hideously important facets. Or they fix something, but break something else that was working frigging fine.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I think what the designers are doing and what the executives are doing are separate issues.

The designers are attempting to make a game they think is fun (and to be fair to them it is fun, for them, in their specific meta), the execs are the ones mucking up things involving choices like Finecast, pricing and the stores.

I can't fault the devs for trying to make a fun game, I can't even fault them for not being more connected to the community to fix issues sooner as that too is another exec based issue.

Basically I blame the suits in charge for making more of a mess of everything than I do the devs who are trying the best they can with their limited connection to the game played by everyone else outside of GW's headquarters.

I understand your thinking, but I think you'd need to be an awful lot more familIar with the dynamics at play to extricate what are decisions forced by corporate and what are just poor decisions.

I get what you're saying but as things go I still assume most of the problems we see are more driven by the decisions of the suits than the devs. But that's just my personal take on the whole mess.

How then, do you account for loss of creative staff and a general dip in the game?

Rick, Alessio etc have all gone on to do respectable work, not always flawless, but generally decent, yet we still have Jervis "roll a d6 for everything" Johnson in a senior position and the game has more d6 tables for game effects than at any time since 2nd.

I struggle to believe that's just coincidence.

 Azreal13 wrote:
How then, do you account for loss of creative staff and a general dip in the game?

Rick, Alessio etc have all gone on to do respectable work, not always flawless, but generally decent, yet we still have Jervis "roll a d6 for everything" Johnson in a senior position and the game has more d6 tables for game effects than at any time since 2nd.

I struggle to believe that's just coincidence.

You do realize problems caused by the suits can still push good devs out, right? Like if they feel their ideas aren't being given proper merit or they're being stifled.

I see no contradiction in my stance of "the suits are the source of most of GW's current problems" and your points.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
GW's target market is not people who notice these things. They're aiming for the demographic that looks at the models, says "WOAH THAT'S AWESOME!", and runs out and buys a dozen, they don't care much what happens afterwards.

IOW, GW is run by a bunch of incompetent morons.

Heinlein's Law. People are generally competent. You're not their target market, they don't care if they can sell the game to you, they're trying to sell it to someone else, which is why you think they're morons.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
How then, do you account for loss of creative staff and a general dip in the game?

Rick, Alessio etc have all gone on to do respectable work, not always flawless, but generally decent, yet we still have Jervis "roll a d6 for everything" Johnson in a senior position and the game has more d6 tables for game effects than at any time since 2nd.

I struggle to believe that's just coincidence.

You do realize problems caused by the suits can still push good devs out, right? Like if they feel their ideas aren't being given proper merit or they're being stifled.

I see no contradiction in my stance of "the suits are the source of most of GW's current problems" and your points.

Well, I guess it depends how wide you want to cast the net in terms of "responsibility."

Certainly, creatives who didn't agree with the corporate direction may have felt compelled to leave. But then, perhaps if we'd spent more money on models the suits would have made different decisions, and those people would have stayed? So does that make it our fault for not being better customers?

The fact is the current team are culpable for writing bad rules, and the executives are culpable for making bad decisions, bad rules will contribute to poor sales, and poor sales will pressure the executives into bad decisions, which in turn pressures the studio and results in poor product etc, etc.

Blaming one side or the other is not really the issue, they're both responsible.

GW knows exactly what they're doing. Look at the Imperial Knight: Big $ cost, wicked-good rules and now you can pretty much expect to see at least one at even a friendly game.

Or what about the Riptide, or Heldrake? Again, expensive models with great rules.

As far as some of the game breaking combo deathstars, I think thats just a lack of playtesting.

I personally think that they are afraid of making every unit 'good' and in essence elevate the ceiling and create an arms race. In reality it would open up even more combinations and strategies, and with just a little bit of responsible playtesting they wouldn't be creating more deathstars for each codex...

 Azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
How then, do you account for loss of creative staff and a general dip in the game?

Rick, Alessio etc have all gone on to do respectable work, not always flawless, but generally decent, yet we still have Jervis "roll a d6 for everything" Johnson in a senior position and the game has more d6 tables for game effects than at any time since 2nd.

I struggle to believe that's just coincidence.

You do realize problems caused by the suits can still push good devs out, right? Like if they feel their ideas aren't being given proper merit or they're being stifled.

I see no contradiction in my stance of "the suits are the source of most of GW's current problems" and your points.

Well, I guess it depends how wide you want to cast the net in terms of "responsibility."

Certainly, creatives who didn't agree with the corporate direction may have felt compelled to leave. But then, perhaps if we'd spent more money on models the suits would have made different decisions, and those people would have stayed? So does that make it our fault for not being better customers?

The fact is the current team are culpable for writing bad rules, and the executives are culpable for making bad decisions, bad rules will contribute to poor sales, and poor sales will pressure the executives into bad decisions, which in turn pressures the studio and results in poor product etc, etc.

Blaming one side or the other is not really the issue, they're both responsible.

Where did I say Devs were blameless? I've been saying I place most of the blame on the suits. That doesn't mean there aren't things the devs do that isn't a problem in and of itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@KthuluQball:

I haven't seen Knights quite that often and only this week finished building and painting one for use in an Apoc game.

Also Heldrakes aren't the beasts they once were now that the weapon is hull mounted, not turreted.

 KthuluQball wrote:
GW knows exactly what they're doing. Look at the Imperial Knight: Big $ cost, wicked-good rules and now you can pretty much expect to see at least one at even a friendly game.

Or what about the Riptide, or Heldrake? Again, expensive models with great rules.

As far as some of the game breaking combo deathstars, I think thats just a lack of playtesting.

I personally think that they are afraid of making every unit 'good' and in essence elevate the ceiling and create an arms race. In reality it would open up even more combinations and strategies, and with just a little bit of responsible playtesting they wouldn't be creating more deathstars for each codex...

What about all those kits that weren't awesome?

Nephilim? DJ Land Speeder? All the Daemon Chariots (one of which they actually re-wrote the edition for, rather than FAQ?) Bullgryns? The CSM Fiends (before the edition change made walkers good?) Assault Centurions? Stalkers? Hunters? People bang on about Riptides, but Sunsharks and Razorsharks have hardly set the game alight nor turned the meta on its head, have they?

I'm sorry, if there were more evidence to support new kit = best rules, I'd understand, but it isn't really even 50/50.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
How then, do you account for loss of creative staff and a general dip in the game?

Rick, Alessio etc have all gone on to do respectable work, not always flawless, but generally decent, yet we still have Jervis "roll a d6 for everything" Johnson in a senior position and the game has more d6 tables for game effects than at any time since 2nd.

I struggle to believe that's just coincidence.

You do realize problems caused by the suits can still push good devs out, right? Like if they feel their ideas aren't being given proper merit or they're being stifled.

I see no contradiction in my stance of "the suits are the source of most of GW's current problems" and your points.

Well, I guess it depends how wide you want to cast the net in terms of "responsibility."

Certainly, creatives who didn't agree with the corporate direction may have felt compelled to leave. But then, perhaps if we'd spent more money on models the suits would have made different decisions, and those people would have stayed? So does that make it our fault for not being better customers?

The fact is the current team are culpable for writing bad rules, and the executives are culpable for making bad decisions, bad rules will contribute to poor sales, and poor sales will pressure the executives into bad decisions, which in turn pressures the studio and results in poor product etc, etc.

Blaming one side or the other is not really the issue, they're both responsible.

Where did I say Devs were blameless? I've been saying I place most of the blame on the suits. That doesn't mean there aren't things the devs do that isn't a problem in and of itself.

I'm sick of the fighting. I want to see other people.