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.

pm713 wrote:How are they in your favour? Two people have agreed. The most common vote is to keep it as is. In fact almost everyone disagrees with you.

39% has voted for "as is or less."

Roughly 60% has voted for "more expensive." 48% has voted for 275 or higher.

I mean, it's not 325, but it's hardly reasonable to expect everybody to draw the line at precisely the point that I have. If we disregard the outliers (less than 220 and more than 400), the results are slightly more in my favor.

I am pleased to note that, while my opinion is currently not supported by public opinion, it's pretty close to the median answers.

I'm sorry? How can you claim that more things are in favour of 325 as a points value than 220?

If we look at 220 and 325 as our upper and lower ranges (because otherwise, it is a LANDSLIDE in favour of 220), we see how the values between them are completely equal on both ends. 3/4/3. We can't use these results to say "More people are in favour of X" because they counter one another.

So, that leads us to the actual results of 220 vs 325. Oh. 7 compared to 2. That should tip this in favour of 220 surely?

Your maths on the results are a little biased. You show that two results are capable of forming a significant minority compared to EVERY OTHER CATEGORY. Those adjacent two would beat nearly every other adjacent pair.
And if we look at the mode, 220 is EASILY the best result.

Still - I forget, this is full of trolls and WAAC TFGs who don't want their Riptides nerfed. I'm sure when the notTroll results come in it'll be more correct.

Need a new poll to dispense with the troll votes. They skew the poll results.

 Traditio wrote:


I am pleased to note that, while my opinion is currently not supported by public opinion, it's pretty close to the median answers.

Can I ask now that you have obtained the results you wanted, what you actually want to do or make of these results?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I'm sorry? How can you claim that more things are in favour of 325 as a points value than 220?

By "in my favor," I simply meant "in favor of a points increase."

If we look at 220 and 325 as our upper and lower ranges (because otherwise, it is a LANDSLIDE in favour of 220),

Taking all responses into account, the "median" result is 275.

That said, in answer to GA:

25 people or less have responded. We don't have enough data.

Assuming you re balance everything then the points cost would be unknown as we dont know how you re balanced all the points as well as what its scaled on.

im gona stick my vote int 400+ as there is no option for a no confidence vote.

 Traditio wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I'm sorry? How can you claim that more things are in favour of 325 as a points value than 220?

By "in my favor," I simply meant "in favor of a points increase."

If we look at 220 and 325 as our upper and lower ranges (because otherwise, it is a LANDSLIDE in favour of 220),

Taking all responses into account, the "median" result is 275.

That said, in answer to GA:

25 people or less have responded. We don't have enough data.

And with 29 votes (at this time)
The mean is 310. Due to the first and last results being undefined, they cannot be used. As such the next results (220 and 400) can be used to get an idea of the mean.
The mode is still 220
The Median is 250.

The majority of the vote says 250 or less.

In your last poll you were happy with a majority or less to base a point value on, so surely having a majority being 250 or less is enough support to go with that option.

 Blacksails wrote:
The majority of the vote says 250 or less.

In your last poll you were happy with a majority or less to base a point value on, so surely having a majority being 250 or less is enough support to go with that option.

Yes, but the results are tainted by trolls, so we cannot count all of the <220 or 220 votes.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
The majority of the vote says 250 or less.

In your last poll you were happy with a majority or less to base a point value on, so surely having a majority being 250 or less is enough support to go with that option.

Yes, but the results are tainted by trolls, so we cannot count all of the <220 or 220 votes.

Clearly, but I'm obviously misconstruing what Traditio intended. I'm sure he'll be along to enlighten us further with some clever number manipulation.

But of course, it must be reminded that the singular best way to ever balance something is to run a random poll to any and all people with zero justification or explanations why. Its why everyone does it and it always makes sense. Totally.

I got two things to say:

(1) Let's go back to what Blacksails said on Page 1:

 Blacksails wrote:
...I'm far more in the camp of bringing down their stats/abilities to match their point cost.

I'd much rather tone things down than keep the ridiculousness and try and cost it correctly. In the long run its easier to keep things within a more reasonable spread than try and escalate points to match crazier abilities.

This. I reckon Riptides need to be toned down rather than appropriately costed for what it currently is. Take the following example:

If I have a weapon with Range 36", Strength 10, AP 1, Assault 18, which can be equipped to a Knight. Now as ridiculous as this weapon is, there's probably an appropriate points cost; but nobody is going to want this weapon in the game - they'd rather see it toned waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down. I feel the same about the Riptide (obviously it's not as ridiculous as my aforementioned weapon, but it highlights my point) - it should be toned done rather than appropriately costed for what it is.

(2) You're second assumption (that everything else in the game is balanced) is a very tall order and a very unreasonable assumption.

Mainly because you'd have to make so many changes to the game as a whole as well as every unit and set of rules to balance it. And the thing is that none of us know what that looks like, so making this assumption is not only unreasonable, but not an appropriate basis to be making any changes to anything.

 Blacksails wrote:
...I'm obviously misconstruing what Traditio intended. I'm sure he'll be along to enlighten us further with some clever number manipulation.

You give Traditio too much credit. He will neither enlighten us nor be clever with the numbers manipulation.

Yeah, so on a serious note, there was a time when the big bad battle tanks of the game were Russes and Preds, with only Land Raiders and Monoliths being massive AV14 vehicles made of feth you-ium. Those vehicles also didn't have particularly awe inspiring weaponry and were mostly priced accordingly.

The power creep in the game is real and has only accelerated, from my perspective anyways. If I was in control of the game, I'd be looking to bring the nerf hammer down hard on all the so-called 7.5Ed codices and then re-tool the weakest ones up a little. I'd probably also do away with a number of game additions, like Lords of War, but that's neither here nor there.

In specifics to the Riptide, two editions ago had someone proposed an MC with that profile/abilities, it would have been laughed out of the forum. While there's theoretically a point cost that matches its abilities, it only accelerates the power creep as then you have to match basic weaponry to the increase in damage resilience. As it stands, basic infantry already leave much to be desired in the face of the ever growing number of MCs, SHVs, and GCs. The ultimate solution is widespread and would involve lots of nerfing and re-writing of core rules. With regards to this one unit, taking some basic steps like removing the FnP option, toning down the invul, and scraping a wound off or dropping the armour down a notch would bring in to reasonable durability while maintaining its mobility and firepower. At that point, Tau players would be genuinely concerned about fast, flanking, or deep striking units that can threaten their mobile firebase.

The bonus side effect is that other elite and heavy support choices might look more appealing in comparison.

 Happyjew wrote:
I'm guessing the vote for 220 was by either an Eldar player or Tau player. Clearly they are trolling this poll. Therefore, we must discount that vote. That means 100% of voters (at this time) think the Riptide needs a point increase.

Did I do this right?

Yup, classic Traditio response there.

Tho what's amusing is that fully half of the voters voted 220. OR LESS. That's a lot of "trolling".

With the players voting to reduce points being significantly higher than those wanting 400+ points, one must conclude the the Riptide is currently overcosted and should be repriced at something like 175 pts. Maybe 180 pts. That would be fair.

Personally? I'd say probably closer to 300pts than the ~220 or so that they currently are. These things pack the firepower of something like a kitted Russ tank, but with easily twice the resiliency or more, and dramatically more mobility, and with more capabilities to boot. Ideally, I'd be ok with leaving the Riptide at the current price but dropping a wound and not allowing FNP to be taken (what is something like a Riptide doing with FNP anyway? stimulant injectors for the pilot aren't repairing the leg actuator obliterated by a Lascannon).

I'd go for lowering armour over removing a wound.

 Blacksails wrote:
The majority of the vote says 250 or less.

In your last poll you were happy with a majority or less to base a point value on, so surely having a majority being 250 or less is enough support to go with that option.

At this point, I'm beginning to think that at least certain members on dakka fora just can't math very well.

At this point, here are the results:

Less than 220 points: 5
220 points: 11
250 points: 4
275 points: 4
300 points: 4
325 points: 2
350 points: 2
375 points: 0
400 points: 0
More than 400 points: 3

Total number of votes: 35

This means that 16 people have voted for 220 points or less and 19 people have voted for 250 points or more.

Of the people who voted for 250 points or more, 15 people voted for 275 points or more.

Of the people who voted for 275 points or more, 11 people voted for 300 points or more.

Of the people who voted for 300 points or more, 7 people voted for 325 points or more.

Of the people who voted for 325 points or more, 5 people voted for 350 points or more.

Of the people who voted for 325 points or more, 3 people voted for 400 points or more.

The only sense in which "220 points" is the "majority" is that the largest number of people voted for that particular option in particular.

If I were a business man conducting a survey to determine what people are willing to pay for my jewelry, and I only had 15 in stock, I wouldn't set the price at 220 dollars per piece.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Personally? I'd say probably closer to 300pts than the ~220 or so that they currently are. These things pack the firepower of something like a kitted Russ tank, but with easily twice the resiliency or more, and dramatically more mobility, and with more capabilities to boot. Ideally, I'd be ok with leaving the Riptide at the current price but dropping a wound and not allowing FNP to be taken (what is something like a Riptide doing with FNP anyway? stimulant injectors for the pilot aren't repairing the leg actuator obliterated by a Lascannon).

FNP + 1 wound = 80 points?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IllumiNini wrote:
I got two things to say:

(1) Let's go back to what Blacksails said on Page 1:

 Blacksails wrote:
...I'm far more in the camp of bringing down their stats/abilities to match their point cost.

I'd much rather tone things down than keep the ridiculousness and try and cost it correctly. In the long run its easier to keep things within a more reasonable spread than try and escalate points to match crazier abilities.

This. I reckon Riptides need to be toned down rather than appropriately costed for what it currently is. Take the following example:

If I have a weapon with Range 36", Strength 10, AP 1, Assault 18, which can be equipped to a Knight. Now as ridiculous as this weapon is, there's probably an appropriate points cost; but nobody is going to want this weapon in the game - they'd rather see it toned waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down. I feel the same about the Riptide (obviously it's not as ridiculous as my aforementioned weapon, but it highlights my point) - it should be toned done rather than appropriately costed for what it is.

Even if all of that is true, that doesn't make the question "Given the fact that the riptide in its current form exists, what is the thing actually worth in terms of points value" any less legitimate.

(2) You're second assumption (that everything else in the game is balanced) is a very tall order and a very unreasonable assumption.

Mainly because you'd have to make so many changes to the game as a whole as well as every unit and set of rules to balance it. And the thing is that none of us know what that looks like, so making this assumption is not only unreasonable, but not an appropriate basis to be making any changes to anything.

I said that to circumvent the "But we need this OP bullgak to counter other OP bullgak" argument. For practical balancing purposes, you don't actually have to know the costs, etc. for everything else. You just need the comparable models.

With the 395 point wraithknight, we already basically have that.

What is a riptide, in its current form, worth relative to a 395 point wraithknight?

I'll wager a mathematical guess based on the current proportions, assuming, of course, that the riptide is already balanced relative to a wraithknight (a reasonable assumption, I assume).

Currently, the ratio is 220:295. Assuming a 395 point wraithknight, we can reason as follows:

As 220 is to 295, so too is x to 395. This means that x/395 = 220/295. This gives us an x which is roughly equal to 295.

You give Traditio too much credit. He will neither enlighten us nor be clever with the numbers manipulation.

I imagine that at least some of you in this thread have probably reported me, at least once, for being impolite or for trolling. Shame on you if you have.

 Traditio wrote:

You give Traditio too much credit. He will neither enlighten us nor be clever with the numbers manipulation.

I imagine that at least some of you in this thread have probably reported me, at least once, for being impolite or for trolling. Shame on you if you have.

Not one of them, but still really, really confused to what the whole point of this exercise is

 Traditio wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
The majority of the vote says 250 or less.

In your last poll you were happy with a majority or less to base a point value on, so surely having a majority being 250 or less is enough support to go with that option.

At this point, I'm beginning to think that at least certain members on dakka fora just can't math very well.

At this point, here are the results:

Less than 220 points: 5
220 points: 11
250 points: 4
275 points: 4
300 points: 4
325 points: 2
350 points: 2
375 points: 0
400 points: 0
More than 400 points: 3

Total number of votes: 35

This means that 16 people have voted for 220 points or less and 19 people have voted for 250 points or more.

Of the people who voted for 250 points or more, 15 people voted for 275 points or more.

Of the people who voted for 275 points or more, 11 people voted for 300 points or more.

Of the people who voted for 300 points or more, 7 people voted for 325 points or more.

Of the people who voted for 325 points or more, 5 people voted for 350 points or more.

Of the people who voted for 325 points or more, 3 people voted for 400 points or more.

The only sense in which "220 points" is the "majority" is that the largest number of people voted for that particular option in particular.

If I were a business man conducting a survey to determine what people are willing to pay for my jewelry, and I only had 15 in stock, I wouldn't set the price at 220 dollars per piece.

At this point, I'm beginning to think that at least certain members on dakka fora just can't read very well.

The quoted post said a majority of voters said 250 or less.
Out of (now) 36 votes, 21 votes are for 250 points , 220 points or less than 220 points. No one has said that 220 was the majority. I claimed the mode (you know, the number that shows up the most often) was (and is) 220.

General Annoyance wrote:Not one of them, but still really, really confused to what the whole point of this exercise is

For me personally, it's completely useless for all practical purposes. I only know one Tau player, and I have no intention of ever playing against him 1 v 1. He has both a storm surge and a riptide and refuses to play 1 v 1 games without them. I also only know one eldar player, and he's a power gamer who would never even dream, even at my request, of nerfing himself.

I do sometimes play on vassal, but I'm not one to start proposing house rules just willy nilly.

So I'll likely never actually see the benefits of any house rules like these.

I'll simply continue on in my merry habit of simply refusing games against tau and eldar players.

However, here on dakka fora, things like these are hotly debated, and we currently have a thread, in the proposed rules forum, on how to balance the riptide.

This thread is, in large measure, a complement to that thread.

Before any suggestions are made to balance the thing, we should at least know how much it's actually worth now.

Not to mention that I just like having data like this at my disposal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:At this point, I'm beginning to think that at least certain members on dakka fora just can't read very well.

The quoted post said a majority of voters said 250 or less.

In this case, you are correct.

I misread what he said.

Well your data shows that a strong minority don't think the Riptide needs a nerf. So that means that it doesn't need a nerf

 CrownAxe wrote:
Well your data shows that a strong minority don't think the Riptide needs a nerf. So that means that it doesn't need a nerf

Quote me as saying something like this.

Hint: I haven't.

Furthermore: if your only intent in posting in this thread is to troll me, don't you have other things to do?

So essentially you're making a poll to prove a point to two people who you believe to be WAAC TFG's?

Who cares mate, you're not playing them and never will by your own admission

And if it's the numbers that satisfy you, I doubt you're ever going to collect reliable data here when most people's experience of the Riptide vary wildly. Call some of the voters trolls all you like/need to, but some of those anomalies are likely to not be anomalies at all

 General Annoyance wrote:
So essentially you're making a poll to prove a point to two people who you believe to be WAAC TFG's?

Who cares mate, you're not playing them and never will by your own admission

And if it's the numbers that satisfy you, I doubt you're ever going to collect reliable data here when most people's experience of the Riptide vary wildly. Call some of the voters trolls all you like/need to, but some of those anomalies are likely to not be anomalies at all

As I said, it's not useful to me for any gaming purposes (but again, it's nice to have the data at my disposal for argumentative purposes).

But who knows? Maybe people who are more open to house rules will find the poll useful.

There's even the (extremely remote) off chance that a GW CEO might stumble on it some day. Who knows?

Edit:

Furthermore, I am sure that there are Tau players on dakka who are reading this thread who play in casual settings, but still want to use their riptides without seeming like complete donkey caves. They can use the poll to calculate points cost totals for their armies.

 Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Well your data shows that a strong minority don't think the Riptide needs a nerf. So that means that it doesn't need a nerf

Quote me as saying something like this.

Hint: I haven't.

Furthermore: if your only intent in posting in this thread is to troll me, don't you have other things to do?

Does this count?

 Traditio wrote:
YES!

As time goes on, the poll progressively moves in my favor.

41 percent to 59 percent.

41 is definitely a strong minority.

Happyjew wrote:Does this count?

No. Not when properly understood, given the rhetorical context.

 Traditio wrote:
So, the vote is 100 votes in, and it basically looks like the last one did. This leads me to believe that there wasn't really much of a skew because of the confusion because of title vs. poll question.

Most people are fine with superheavies in principle (though not necessarily without restriction), whereas a strong minority (over 1 in 3) want to see them banned outright.

 Traditio wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
I got two things to say:

(1) Let's go back to what Blacksails said on Page 1:

 Blacksails wrote:
...I'm far more in the camp of bringing down their stats/abilities to match their point cost.

I'd much rather tone things down than keep the ridiculousness and try and cost it correctly. In the long run its easier to keep things within a more reasonable spread than try and escalate points to match crazier abilities.

This. I reckon Riptides need to be toned down rather than appropriately costed for what it currently is. Take the following example:

If I have a weapon with Range 36", Strength 10, AP 1, Assault 18, which can be equipped to a Knight. Now as ridiculous as this weapon is, there's probably an appropriate points cost; but nobody is going to want this weapon in the game - they'd rather see it toned waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down. I feel the same about the Riptide (obviously it's not as ridiculous as my aforementioned weapon, but it highlights my point) - it should be toned done rather than appropriately costed for what it is.

Even if all of that is true, that doesn't make the question "Given the fact that the riptide in its current form exists, what is the thing actually worth in terms of points value" any less legitimate.

I'm not saying that it's illegitimate, but instead saying that trying to appropriately cost the Riptide as it currently stands is - to my mind - the inferior option. Why should you appropriately cost something when you can truly balance it?

 Traditio wrote:

(2) You're second assumption (that everything else in the game is balanced) is a very tall order and a very unreasonable assumption.

Mainly because you'd have to make so many changes to the game as a whole as well as every unit and set of rules to balance it. And the thing is that none of us know what that looks like, so making this assumption is not only unreasonable, but not an appropriate basis to be making any changes to anything.

I said that to circumvent the "But we need this OP bullgak to counter other OP bullgak" argument. For practical balancing purposes, you don't actually have to know the costs, etc. for everything else. You just need the comparable models.

With the 395 point wraithknight, we already basically have that.

If we're looking at appropriately costing something, comparing it to a single unit or a small sub-set of units is still inappropriate as a whole. You need to be able to look at the effectiveness of the unit compare with the game as a whole as well as comparing it to 'similar' units. So you're still missing a lot of data. Having a 396-Point Wraithknight isn't going to cut it.

 Traditio wrote:

You give Traditio too much credit. He will neither enlighten us nor be clever with the numbers manipulation.

I imagine that at least some of you in this thread have probably reported me, at least once, for being impolite or for trolling. Shame on you if you have.

Not that I'm claiming one way or the other in terms of reporting you (because whether or not I have really doesn't matter), why are you trying to shame people for this? It has generally been my experience that if people report others for any reason (whether it be this forum or anything else), they genuinely believe that something is not right and something should be done (regardless of whether or not something is actually done about it); and there is no shame in that.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
So, the vote is 100 votes in, and it basically looks like the last one did. This leads me to believe that there wasn't really much of a skew because of the confusion because of title vs. poll question.

Most people are fine with superheavies in principle (though not necessarily without restriction), whereas a strong minority (over 1 in 3) want to see them banned outright.

What about it? Use words.

 Traditio wrote:

As I said, it's not useful to me for any gaming purposes (but again, it's nice to have the data at my disposal for argumentative purposes)

You don't think this data won't be skewed a little by individual experience then? I think such data is highly subjective given not only the nature of the game you're asking them about but the experiences people have had with their communities and friends. I for one went to a very large club up to 6th ed, then sat and painted in solitude with no club in the country I moved to while 7th ed came around and butchered a lot of 40k groups; I'm pretty certain my experiences will not match many others, nor will theirs match the next 40k gamer. Of course you'll have a majority, but a majority does not always equal the truth, especially in a game full of chances.

There's even the (extremely remote) off chance that a GW CEO might stumble on it some day. Who knows?

Just don't hold your breath on that one, friend

G.A

IllumiNini wrote:I'm not saying that it's illegitimate, but instead saying that trying to appropriately cost the Riptide as it currently stands is - to my mind - the inferior option. Why should you appropriately cost something when you can truly balance it?

1. At this point, you are engaging in a thread derail. The thread's not about balancing the riptide. There's another thread devoted to that. This thread is about what the current riptide is actually worth.

2. They're not mutually exclusive. You can do both. In fact, if you know what the riptide is currently actually worth, want to end up with a 220 point model and you know the value of the various special rules and such, that actually makes it easier to actually balance.

If the riptide is currently worth 300 points, and you want to make it 220 points, then you need to strip 80 points worth of stuff from it.

If we're looking at appropriately costing something, comparing it to a single unit or a small sub-set of units is still inappropriate as a whole. You need to be able to look at the effectiveness of the unit compare with the game as a whole as well as comparing it to 'similar' units. So you're still missing a lot of data. Having a 396-Point Wraithknight isn't going to cut it.

I disagree. Balance is relative. Points costs are a numerical standard of comparison. If x costs 10 points and y costs 100 points, then assuming perfect balance, we should be able to say that y is 10 times more useful than x.

In the case of the wraithknight and the riptide, we are already in a privileged position:

1. The wraithknight and riptide have similar tactical roles and are otherwise similar units (with the exception that one has "gargantuan" in the statline and the other one doesn't).
2. We already know that the wraithknight and riptide are well balanced in comparison to each oher.
3. We already know the current costs of a wraithknight and a riptide.
4. We already know what a wraithknight should actually cost.

This gives us enough information to reason by mathematical proportions. If we can compare a riptide to a wraithknight, and if the ratio which obtains between 220 and 295 is fair, then it follows that the ratio which obtains between 295 and 395 is fair.

Not that I'm claiming one way or the other in terms of reporting you (because whether or not I have really doesn't matter), why are you trying to shame people for this? It has generally been my experience that if people report others for any reason (whether it be this forum or anything else), they genuinely believe that something is not right and something should be done (regardless of whether or not something is actually done about it); and there is no shame in that.

You're doing the exact same thing. You don't like it when people are impolite to you, troll you, spam and derail your threads? Then maybe you shouldn't be doing the exact same thing to other people. Just pointing that out.