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.
2015/12/02 23:12:52
Subject: Re:Why ITC votes NEED to be private from now on.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Has the point that people who voted for whichever part of this vote, could also have used multiple accounts, been brought up?
As that's also possibly a thing, that may or may not be provable.
I mean, I created several accounts using the various computers I came across on the Tuesday of last week, to vote on these things...... or something. Viva La Tau revolucion!!!
See I can make unsubstantiated claims too.
They are not unsubstantiated. We were talking about it because people have been posting they voted 50 times against Tau. Thats what brought this discussion up.
By "people" we mean "one person on 4chan who claims to have made over 50 accounts to vote against Tau".
Aye, that darn tau supported did his multi account vote 6 to few times!
2015/12/02 23:13:48
Subject: Why ITC votes NEED to be private from now on.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Has the point that people who voted for whichever part of this vote, could also have used multiple accounts, been brought up?
As that's also possibly a thing, that may or may not be provable.
I mean, I created several accounts using the various computers I came across on the Tuesday of last week, to vote on these things...... or something. Viva La Tau revolucion!!!
See I can make unsubstantiated claims too.
They are not unsubstantiated. We were talking about it because people have been posting they voted 50 times against Tau. Thats what brought this discussion up.
By "people" we mean "one person on 4chan who claims to have made over 50 accounts to vote against Tau".
Aye, to quote the OP "Probably a hoax, but maybe not."
And my point was, why can't Tau players also have created 50 accounts each to sway the voting in their favour? If it's so plausible to believe that a Tau hater did it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/02 23:14:49
Brb learning to play.
2015/12/02 23:15:09
Subject: Why ITC votes NEED to be private from now on.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Has the point that people who voted for whichever part of this vote, could also have used multiple accounts, been brought up?
As that's also possibly a thing, that may or may not be provable.
I mean, I created several accounts using the various computers I came across on the Tuesday of last week, to vote on these things...... or something. Viva La Tau revolucion!!!
See I can make unsubstantiated claims too.
They are not unsubstantiated. We were talking about it because people have been posting they voted 50 times against Tau. Thats what brought this discussion up.
By "people" we mean "one person on 4chan who claims to have made over 50 accounts to vote against Tau".
Aye, to quote the OP "Probably a hoax, but maybe not."
And my point was, why can't Tau players also have created 50 accounts each to sway the voting in their favour?
They could have, probably did, but they don't wanna discuss that cause they didn't win anyway. And if they had won, and someone had accused others of that, they'd be ticked saying we were just trying to get a revote, like what's happening now. Weird huh
2015/12/02 23:45:33
Subject: Re:Why ITC votes NEED to be private from now on.
Psienesis wrote: I am a 40k player, but I'm right there with you. This is an incredible amount of butthurtedness coming off a post that appeared on 4Chan.
I bet the 4Chan poster (who is undoubtedly a Tau player making gak up to try and push for a revote) is LOLing away merrily.
I think the solution is very simple:
- If you don't like the ITC format and rulings, DON'T PAY and DON'T PLAY.
Simple as that.
As an IG/CSM player, watching these butthurt Tau players making all these QQ threads over how their army got nerfed so bad is kinda annoying.
Don't like your "nerfed" Tau, go play "count as" Guard. Your Crisis Suits can count as Armored Sentinels, and we'll allow the big ones to count as CSM Dreadnoughts, Defilers & Dinobots. Rock on!
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Has the point that people who voted for whichever part of this vote, could also have used multiple accounts, been brought up?
As that's also possibly a thing, that may or may not be provable.
I mean, I created several accounts using the various computers I came across on the Tuesday of last week, to vote on these things...... or something. Viva La Tau revolucion!!!
See I can make unsubstantiated claims too.
I brought it up. They stated tau players hath to much pride to do so
You are so delusional. First you lump a group of people together like they are all some kind of hive mind clones. Then you go on to spout hate and rhetoric about this group of people as bad as north Korea makes America out to be. There are plenty of people who play tau that have other armies, how do you label them? Part time scum? Every post you make is so full of anti tau propoganda I am legitimately concerned for your local " friend" who plays them. If you keep the hate speech out of your posts, you will find people will take you seriously instead of sounding like a Saturday morning cartoon villain.
warhammer 40k mmo. If I can drive an ork trukk into the back of a space marine dread and explode in a fireball of epic, I can die happy!
8k points
3k points
3k points
Admech 2.5k points
2015/12/03 00:18:59
Subject: Re:Why ITC votes NEED to be private from now on.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Has the point that people who voted for whichever part of this vote, could also have used multiple accounts, been brought up?
As that's also possibly a thing, that may or may not be provable.
I mean, I created several accounts using the various computers I came across on the Tuesday of last week, to vote on these things...... or something. Viva La Tau revolucion!!!
See I can make unsubstantiated claims too.
I brought it up. They stated tau players hath to much pride to do so
You are so delusional. First you lump a group of people together like they are all some kind of hive mind clones. Then you go on to spout hate and rhetoric about this group of people as bad as north Korea makes America out to be. There are plenty of people who play tau that have other armies, how do you label them? Part time scum? Every post you make is so full of anti tau propoganda I am legitimately concerned for your local " friend" who plays them. If you keep the hate speech out of your posts, you will find people will take you seriously instead of sounding like a Saturday morning cartoon villain.
Really could care less what you think of me. How will it ever affect my life? I simply can't stand the attitude most tau players have. And Ryan plays just fine, doesn't always agree with our rules interpretations of his codex, but makes due
2015/12/03 00:25:33
Subject: Why ITC votes NEED to be private from now on.
In the Nova Open? I'd have to look at the full results list and add it up manually, since I don't like how they list Tau as 48% win rate because they counted the 2nd place list that was 62% Tau as an Eldar list. That also makes it a lot harder to figure out exact numbers too, but as far as Tau goes the majority of Tau lists were above 50% individually, the best one being 6-2 in pure lists and 7-1 with 2nd place over all being 62% tau 37% Eldar. The worst pure tau list was 0-5 drop, being the only pure tau list under 50% , the only other list that had Tau and did worse than 50% win rate was allied with CSM and went 3-5, I don't know the breakdown of % tau to % chaos since the list itself wasn't published.
there is only 1 Tau player in the top 20 ITC rankings. Elder, for example, are ranked 2, 3, 9, and 15
I'm sure you missed my other post inquiring more on this, but there are 117 Tau players and 324 Eldar players, it makes sense there would be more Eldar than Tau in the top 20 as such.
Searched what armies the top 20 people played and I got the following:
Spoiler:
1.) Demons, Eldar, Orks
2.) Agents of Imperium, Tyranids
3.) Dark Angels, Space Marines, Space Wolves
4.) Space Wolves
5.) CSM, Demons, Eldar
6.) Eldar
7.) Imp Guard
8.) Orks
9.) Agents if Imperium, Eldar
10.) Eldar, Gk, Tyranids.
11.) Eldar
12.) Necrons
13.) Dark Angels
14.) Agents of Imperium, Tau
15.) CSM, Necrons, Tau
16.) CSM 17.) Dark Eldar
18.) Eldar. Space Marines
19.) Eldar, Space Marines
20.) Eldar
Now, you'll notice Eldar appears a lot, but, there are some interesting things I noticed, for example the first place player who has Eldar listed has only played one event as Eldar, with the rest being an even split between Orks and Deamons. The same thing with the 9th place player who has played one event with Eldar and significantly more with AoI. So there is a trend of a lot of good players trying out Eldar at least once, but It's a rather diverse list, and Tau appears twice, and remember, the majority of this is pre-massive buffs from formations and new units alone.
Edit: Just for the sake of keeping things in 10s, the 10th place player played 7 games with GK, 4 games with Nids, and 1 game with Eldar also... I didn't look at the 11-20 people.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/03 01:22:52
I'm sure you missed my other post inquiring more on this, but there are 117 Tau players and 324 Eldar players
Surely the very fact that there are almost 3 times as many Eldar players as Tau players demonstrates the fatal flaw in a 'democratic' ruling system?
As others have pointed out, the fact that CFP has been denied but Scatbikes were allowed to remain clearly shows how this system is irrevocably broken, at least if its intention is to strive for objective balance. Armies that happen to enjoy a larger player base will retain their broken units and rules, whilst armies that aren't as lucky will have to hope the 'will of the people' blows in their favour.
As for those who believe this is a hoax, I agree it easily could be. But, the person who made the claim in the 4chan thread provided a few of the aliases they used when they allegedly voted multiple times, so surely it is simply a matter of the ITC people looking up the list of voters and matching the aliases to voters in said list? Then maybe we could finally put this to bed. From memory, they stated that most of the names sounded normal, but also included:
I'm sure you missed my other post inquiring more on this, but there are 117 Tau players and 324 Eldar players
Surely the very fact that there are almost 3 times as many Eldar players as Tau players demonstrates the fatal flaw in a 'democratic' ruling system?
As others have pointed out, the fact that CFP has been denied but Scatbikes were allowed to remain clearly shows how this system is irrevocably broken, at least if its intention is to strive for objective balance. Armies that happen to enjoy a larger player base will retain their broken units and rules, whilst armies that aren't as lucky will have to hope the 'will of the people' blows in their favour.
As for those who believe this is a hoax, I agree it easily could be. But, the person who made the claim in the 4chan thread provided 5-6 of the aliases they used when they allegedly voted multiple times, so surely it is simply a matter of the ITC people looking up the list of voters and matching the aliases to voters in said list? Then maybe we could finally put this to bed.
Yes and no. There are three times as many Eldar players, but how many of those Eldar players aren't actually Eldar players, but have played Eldar once? Quite a few it seems as the 1st, 9th, and 10th place over all players all played Eldar, but for only one event while playing other armies far more frequently. That would suggest a lot of people, especially stronger players due to their ability to play multiple armies, have tried but not stuck with Eldar, so their numbers are far more inflated as a whole.
As for your claim of player bias dictating army power level, well that's not exactly true, since people don't always vote only for their best interest. For example, Orks have only 77 players listed, but gained a massive buff in this vote, despite being less than a 4th of what Eldar players hold. More so, I'm a Tau player and had I had the opportunity, I would have voted to make CFP only share Markerlights and give the +1BS, nothing else. In fact, if you look at my post history, you can see that I've always supported that version of it. Not everyone votes for what's only good for them :/.
I'm sure you missed my other post inquiring more on this, but there are 117 Tau players and 324 Eldar players
Surely the very fact that there are almost 3 times as many Eldar players as Tau players demonstrates the fatal flaw in a 'democratic' ruling system?
As others have pointed out, the fact that CFP has been denied but Scatbikes were allowed to remain clearly shows how this system is irrevocably broken, at least if its intention is to strive for objective balance. Armies that happen to enjoy a larger player base will retain their broken units and rules, whilst armies that aren't as lucky will have to hope the 'will of the people' blows in their favour.
As for those who believe this is a hoax, I agree it easily could be. But, the person who made the claim in the 4chan thread provided 5-6 of the aliases they used when they allegedly voted multiple times, so surely it is simply a matter of the ITC people looking up the list of voters and matching the aliases to voters in said list? Then maybe we could finally put this to bed.
Yes and no. There are three times as many Eldar players, but how many of those Eldar players aren't actually Eldar players, but have played Eldar once? Quite a few it seems as the 1st, 9th, and 10th place over all players all played Eldar, but for only one event while playing other armies far more frequently. That would suggest a lot of people, especially stronger players due to their ability to play multiple armies, have tried but not stuck with Eldar, so their numbers are far more inflated as a whole.
As for your claim of player bias dictating army power level, well that's not exactly true, since people don't always vote only for their best interest. For example, Orks have only 77 players listed, but gained a massive buff in this vote, despite being less than a 4th of what Eldar players hold. More so, I'm a Tau player and had I had the opportunity, I would have voted to make CFP only share Markerlights and give the +1BS, nothing else. In fact, if you look at my post history, you can see that I've always supported that version of it. Not everyone votes for what's only good for them :/.
And it's admirable that you did so, voting against what was arguably in your own self-interest for the option you think is the fairest. But unfortunately we cannot use a system that relies on the decency of the community in this manner, because for every 1 player like you who can separate their personal interests from the game's best interests, there's probably 20 who don't.
The Ork example is somewhat of an outlier, however it can be explained by the fact that Orks are largely seen as one of the least competitive armies currently, so most people who voted for them to retain the kustom stompa probably thought "They'll still be weak even if they get this, so why not throw them a bone since GW screwed them." I think that if they were at the level of Space Marines/Eldar/Necrons, the vote would've gone in exactly the opposite direction, because as you point out Ork players don't have a large enough presence to swing the vote in their favour.
Basically, (and I include myself in this description) the wider 40k-playing community cannot be trusted to vote on game balance issues, any forum thread arguing over rules disputes that affect the relative power of armies demonstrates this time and again. The best we can do is use panels of experts who create and run tournament events, know the rules back to front, and have no personal stake in any tournament they organise, to decide each ruling on a case-by-case basis.
2015/12/03 02:33:21
Subject: Why ITC votes NEED to be private from now on.
Let's put it this way, you claim that most people are biased and the reason Scatt Bikes stay unnerfed is because Eldar have 3x the popularity of Tau when looking at all players who played the army at least once. However, you're missing one critical thing in this claim, the number of total players is 1655, which means the number of players not playing Eldar is over 4 times that of those playing Eldar, and that's way before we adjust for players who played Eldar once but can't really be considered as having Eldar as a secondary army, yet less a primary one. So if as you said people voted only in their self interest, and even if all the Eldar players voted and only half entire community voted, Eldar would still be nerfed and so would every other army at every vote.
The other problem you run into is that if there is far more people that vote in self interest, as opposed to what they believe is right, the vote of 485 against and 460 for when it comes to the CFP ruling doesn't make any sense as there are only 117 Tau players as recorded in their leader board, some of which clearly voted against, which simply wouldn't add up in any real way because it would suggest those people who vote only in self interest are a small fraction of those who vote for the greater good (get it, eh, eh?)... If you are also to believe that this person voted 50 times against CFP alone, not saying you do or don't, it even further strengthens the vast majority voting against self interest when looking at the raw numbers.
Your hypothesis can't work due to simple fundamentals.
Tinkrr wrote: I think you're making too many assumptions.
Let's put it this way, you claim that most people are biased and the reason Scatt Bikes stay unnerfed is because Eldar have 3x the popularity of Tau when looking at all players who played the army at least once. However, you're missing one critical thing in this claim, the number of total players is 1655, which means the number of players not playing Eldar is over 4 times that of those playing Eldar, and that's way before we adjust for players who played Eldar once but can't really be considered as having Eldar as a secondary army, yet less a primary one. So if as you said people voted only in their self interest, and even if all the Eldar players voted and only half entire community voted, Eldar would still be nerfed and so would every other army at every vote.
The other problem you run into is that if there is far more people that vote in self interest, as opposed to what they believe is right, the vote of 485 against and 460 for when it comes to the CFP ruling doesn't make any sense as there are only 117 Tau players as recorded in their leader board, some of which clearly voted against, which simply wouldn't add up in any real way because it would suggest those people who vote only in self interest are a small fraction of those who vote for the greater good (get it, eh, eh?)... If you are also to believe that this person voted 50 times against CFP alone, not saying you do or don't, it even further strengthens the vast majority voting against self interest when looking at the raw numbers.
Your hypothesis can't work due to simple fundamentals.
In the same way as someone who receives poor customer service is FAR more likely to complain vocally and loudly than someone who receives stellar customer service is to praise a company, people will only tend to vote for decisions that they believe will directly affect them. The overall number of players is irrelevant, because many of them wouldn't care. Eldar players would care though, in the same way as deathstar players would care, and it is my contention that the number of Eldar/deathstar players who do want to swing the vote their way outweigh the people who are only vaguely interested but vote anyway.
Your second point doesn't hold water because (as established earlier) the number of voters was not contained only to those registered as ITC players. Anyone could vote. This means that the close-run numbers can be explained by a large amount of players rushing to vote against the Tau (and getting all their friends to help them) whilst the Tau players rush to vote in their own interests and get as many of their friends as possible to vote in the same manner. But even here we see the flaw - people would vote (and influence their friends to do so) based on what they personally want to happen, not because they think it's in the best interests of the game.
But this is really only tangentially related to the main point; even if you think people generally wouldn't vote in their own self-interest (which I believe they would, people are essentially selfish after all), there's a whole range of reasons why a public voting system is a terrible idea to achieve game balance.
Off the top of my head, there's plenty of evidence to show that the general 40k-playing community does not have the requisite breadth and depth of rules understanding I would consider necessary to provide an influential opinion. Once again, I include myself in this description.
To use an example - imagine if Dakka produced its own FAQ, based entirely on the results of debates in the YMDC forum. People consistently misread or forget rules, misinterpret plain language, or bring their own personal biases and grievances into what should be an objective assessment of Rules As Written. To use the 'results' (when there are any, a lot of the time it just ends inconclusively) of these debates would not achieve game balance in the slightest.
I admire your faith in your fellow players though, I just don't hold the same view.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/03 03:58:04
2015/12/03 04:04:19
Subject: Why ITC votes NEED to be private from now on.
Really could care less what you think of me. How will it ever affect my life? I simply can't stand the attitude most tau players have. And Ryan plays just fine, doesn't always agree with our rules interpretations of his codex, but makes due
The attitude of most tau players?
Holy sweeping generalizations Batman!
To be quite honest, your attitude is the one that comes off exceptionally poor when I read through the comments. Just maybe your annectdotal experiences aren't a great sample size?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/03 05:27:09
2015/12/03 06:06:28
Subject: Why ITC votes NEED to be private from now on.
In the same way as someone who receives poor customer service is FAR more likely to complain vocally and loudly than someone who receives stellar customer service is to praise a company, people will only tend to vote for decisions that they believe will directly affect them. The overall number of players is irrelevant, because many of them wouldn't care. Eldar players would care though, in the same way as deathstar players would care, and it is my contention that the number of Eldar/deathstar players who do want to swing the vote their way outweigh the people who are only vaguely interested but vote anyway.
Your second point doesn't hold water because (as established earlier) the number of voters was not contained only to those registered as ITC players. Anyone could vote. This means that the close-run numbers can be explained by a large amount of players rushing to vote against the Tau (and getting all their friends to help them) whilst the Tau players rush to vote in their own interests and get as many of their friends as possible to vote in the same manner. But even here we see the flaw - people would vote (and influence their friends to do so) based on what they personally want to happen, not because they think it's in the best interests of the game.
But this is really only tangentially related to the main point; even if you think people generally wouldn't vote in their own self-interest (which I believe they would, people are essentially selfish after all), there's a whole range of reasons why a public voting system is a terrible idea to achieve game balance.
Off the top of my head, there's plenty of evidence to show that the general 40k-playing community does not have the requisite breadth and depth of rules understanding I would consider necessary to provide an influential opinion. Once again, I include myself in this description.
To use an example - imagine if Dakka produced its own FAQ, based entirely on the results of debates in the YMDC forum. People consistently misread or forget rules, misinterpret plain language, or bring their own personal biases and grievances into what should be an objective assessment of Rules As Written. To use the 'results' (when there are any, a lot of the time it just ends inconclusively) of these debates would not achieve game balance in the slightest.
I admire your faith in your fellow players though, I just don't hold the same view.
I don't hold faith in the majority of my fellow players' ability to determine what is broken. Fortunately, most of them don't post on DakkaDakka.
If we are saying that all the votes were purely out of self-interest, then we would have seen an overwhelming majority in favor of nerfing Tau for the initial question, as Tau make up a minority of the overall playerbase. However, that wasn't the case. The measure to nerf CFP passed by only eight votes. Clearly there were other factors at work deciding people's opinions on the measure.
You might say that the ITC is dominated by Eldar and deathstar players. But as Tinkrr's analysis bears out, while Eldar might be over-represented in the ITC, the majority of people at ITC events do not play Eldar as either a primary or secondary army. As to the question of deathstars, I have a concrete answer for you: ITC is a terrible environment for deathstars. The mission design, incorporating modified maelstrom-style objectives into the standard games, and the scoring those objectives at the end of the player turn means that MSU is very much alive and dominant. The nerfs to 2+ re-rollable and Invisibility have made deathstars vulnerable to actually being killed, and with the exception of Thunderdome most do not have the speed and board presence to claim all the objectives on the board.
I think what we saw with the ITC vote on Coordinated Firepower was a reaction in a way to the Eldar release. There was a huge uptick in the number of Eldar armies at tournaments in the wake of their new codex, mostly composed of what we now know as the Standard Eldar Tournament Cheese List: Ranged D, Wraithknights, and Scatbikers. Unfortunately, the ITC is hard on that too. The limit to one Wraithknight, 2+ re-rollable and Invisibility nerfs, and the defanging of ranged D meant that Eldar became armies of Scatbikers. While those are ludicroursly undercosted and incredibly mobile, they are surprisingly fragile in a tournament envrionment. As such, Eldar have yet to win a single major GT-level tournament under ITC rules since their new codex released.
But it wasn't the winning power of Eldar that upset people. What made the majority of players unhappy was the blatant overpowered brokenness of certain units in the Eldar codex. People saw lots of players jumping on the Eldar bandwagon to get what was though to be an easy win with an army that basically played itself. Very few people had fun playing against the new flavor-of-the-month Eldar cheese, and attitudes soured on the blatant power creep post-Necron armies had received. I remember those days on DakkaDakka, and it was not a fun time to be a space elf player in any of the eight concurrently active hate threads on the forums. Now with this new poll, people voted against Tau due to perceiving them to be overpowered like Eldar and not wanting Tau to become the new flavor-of-the-month.
What I'm trying to say is this: Tau players, don't be like Eldar. Sure, you can blame Eldar for all your problems like everyone else does, but that doesn't mean you should act like certain Eldar players (see my signature). Most Eldar players learned to self-limit or accept their nerfs gracefully. Accept that the majority of people don't play your army and would prefer to have fun while playing against you. Accept that what the ITC has done, for better or worse, has made the game more balanced for everyone else.
Dozer Blades wrote: I just talked to a good friend who is somewhat of an IT expert and he said this is basically something impossible to do... plus 4chan - really ?
Somewhat of an expert?? Ask him to get a new job if he thinks this is basically something impossible to do. I'll also let all email spammers to know that what they are doing really is impossible.
Oh please!
2015/12/03 17:54:38
Subject: Why ITC votes NEED to be private from now on.
Dozer Blades wrote: I should have added he meant the normal internet user. This is just another crackpot conspiracy theory.
hundreds of thousands of people use VPN on a daily basis....
Did you know 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
Despite that he's a dirty, filthy, cheesy Tau player, he's literally correct that at least 200,000 people across the entire earth use VPNs every day for various reasons, primarily remote IT work. Actually, the global number can likely be counted by millions.
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
7000
5000
1000
3000 
~3000 (Fully Painted)
8k points
3k points
2500 
2200 
