Poll |
 |
|
 |
Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/06 19:14:17
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Furious Fire Dragon
A forest
|
General Annoyance wrote:
TheLumberJack wrote:I don't think they do. The only people that would benefit from unbalanced gameplay are WAAC players. But a balanced game in my mind leads to more fun, as players can play more how they want to and less "what can I take that wont severly handicap me"
Balance is important, but you could have the perfectly balanced game and it could still suck, either because it's boring or mechanically all over the place. Evidently 40k is still a fun game despite being horrifically unbalanced, as people still play it regularly, "competitively" and "casually"
I think fun however has to do with more than just balance however, its not a linear scale. People play 40k and have fun because of rules sure, but also because or lore, or because of models, etc. Does balance bring fun? Sure, but if that was the only factor then people would have jumped ship a long time ago
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/06 19:16:10
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Snord
Midwest USA
|
General Annoyance wrote:BunkhouseBuster wrote:An unbalanced-in-points game can be made fair. It will take the effort of the players to figure it out, but is entirely doable. I am of the mindset that every Narrative Game needs a GM to design or manage the game as well in case things get too one-sided.
A GM is always a great idea, however I don't think a game where you get crushed necessarily has to be a bad experience. Campaign games would be a good example of this, where your opponent outnumbers you by incredible odds, yet you can still play and enjoy the game as you try to cause as much loss within their forces before yours is wiped out.
It's a tricky one to explain, but I don't think balance is the be all and end all of enjoyable TT gaming, although that should be no excuse to have a poorly balanced game.
You and I are on the same page here, in that the purpose of the game can add significance to the experience, especially in the case of Narrative Play.
Which is why I am trying to convince people that Balance is not always going to be Fair, and that a scenario based game can modify an unbalanced army matchup to still be a fair (and fun!) game.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/06 19:21:11
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
TheLumberJack wrote:I think fun however has to do with more than just balance however, its not a linear scale. People play 40k and have fun because of rules sure, but also because or lore, or because of models, etc. Does balance bring fun? Sure, but if that was the only factor then people would have jumped ship a long time ago
I think balance brings fun in an environment where no pre-game context or prep has been set up (i.e. a pickup game), as there it is perhaps the most important element to having an enjoyable experience. Equally, I think a lot of people don't understand that a game does not have to be in your favour to be enjoyable; similar to what Bunkhouse said, it's about having a good scenario or at least some good players to make the experience enjoyable.
BunkhouseBuster wrote:You and I are on the same page here, in that the purpose of the game can add significance to the experience, especially in the case of Narrative Play.
Which is why I am trying to convince people that Balance is not always going to be Fair, and that a scenario based game can modify an unbalanced army matchup to still be a fair (and fun!) game.
I'm not following your second line; what's the difference between balance and fair play? Surely those two things are inherently identical to each other?
|
G.A - Should've called myself Ghost Ark
Makeup Whiskers? This is War Paint! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/06 19:26:00
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
They are not often imbalanced. Or shouldn't be. They SHOULD be asymmetrically balanced.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/06 19:31:42
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Snord
Midwest USA
|
General Annoyance wrote: BunkhouseBuster wrote:You and I are on the same page here, in that the purpose of the game can add significance to the experience, especially in the case of Narrative Play.
Which is why I am trying to convince people that Balance is not always going to be Fair, and that a scenario based game can modify an unbalanced army matchup to still be a fair (and fun!) game.
I'm not following your second line; what's the difference between balance and fair play? Surely those two things are inherently identical to each other?
Similar, but not the exact same. By my definitions and interpretations, I am referring to "Balance" in the sense of the published Points values that are used to determine model, unit, upgrade, and army size and strength, which is what has been argued over in several threads recently. For example, an army may be "Balanced" and fit the rules of the game (points, composition, etc.), but it may not be "Fair" to play against someone who is not prepared for that particular list.
And to use your example, yet, you can have a fun game where your army is outnumbered and is holding the line as long as possible. Such a game would not be "Balanced", but it may be "Fair" if the smaller army has been given a slight bonus or something, or not depending on what all else is going on in that particular Narrative. It can still be a fun experience too without having "Balance" or being "Fair".
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/06 19:33:25
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Lance845 wrote: They are not often imbalanced. Or shouldn't be. They SHOULD be asymmetrically balanced. What does that actually mean, though? Is a scenario where my Blood Ravens are outnumbered 10 to 1 by a legion of Nihilakh Dynasty Necrons "asymmetrically balanced"? Does it sound like fun when I have the chance to make a heroic last stand to burn as many filthy xenos as I can before I lose? Hell yeah it does. BunkhouseBuster wrote:Similar, but not the exact same. By my definitions and interpretations, I am referring to "Balance" in the sense of the published Points values that are used to determine model, unit, upgrade, and army size and strength, which is what has been argued over in several threads recently. For example, an army may be "Balanced" and fit the rules of the game (points, composition, etc.), but it may not be "Fair" to play against someone who is not prepared for that particular list. In the case of that example though, is the downfall in fair play down to the game being unbalanced due to relative unit strength to point ratios, or because a player hasn't prepared their list properly? And to use your example, yet, you can have a fun game where your army is outnumbered and is holding the line as long as possible. Such a game would not be "Balanced", but it may be "Fair" if the smaller army has been given a slight bonus or something, or not depending on what all else is going on in that particular Narrative. It can still be a fun experience too without having "Balance" or being "Fair". Sorry if I'm being thick, but I still don't see the difference between Balance and Fair. Perhaps giving that small army a bonus or deployment advantage is a fair way to set up the scenario, but the game still isn't "fair" by any means
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/06/06 19:39:40
G.A - Should've called myself Ghost Ark
Makeup Whiskers? This is War Paint! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/06 19:45:57
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
I want balance as long as the armies remain noticeably different in playstyle.
When I say I want balance I want players (within reason no taking 100 pyrovores then complaining you cannot kill a Knight) to be able to play with the models they like with the expectation that even if they don't win the game will be close.
I like when there are multiple options for each roll in an army, and that all are at least remotely similar in effectiveness if used correctly.
At the worst, choice of faction should not be a deciding factor in winning and losing if player skill is close.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/06 19:48:58
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain
Vigo. Spain.
|
The problem with balance is that wargames are maked by humans.
And as humans, they have limits.
I'm not calling GW rule writers good ones, because they are mediocre at best, but if you want a good balance you need to strip options and flavour.
And thats something that every good rule-writer knows. Kings of War? Balanced. Warhammer Fans? Call it bland.
Infinity? Pretty balanced. Again, balanced achieve at the cost of variety.
The problem is that people don't understand that the scale and variety of warhammer 40k can't be balanced by the humans you have working in the Wargames industry.
See for example 8th edition: Bland! My army is bland, boring! No legion thraits, no chaos marks, no Chapter Tactics, everyone does the same, boring, boring!
People... didn't you know... thats HOW you achieve balance in a game so big?
Perfect balance isn't possible, but theres degrees of balance. You see, some people in this thread, calling for balance, are the sames that call GW "the old GW" because they have erased rules like the looted wagon, a concept that goes agains't all kind of balance in a competitive game.
A faction having access to vehicles of all other factions, even them being worse? Absurd.
And to me thats the problem. People don't know what they want, and don't realise the limits of the medium they are playing.
They want all the flavour, they want their army to be all special snowflakes full of rules and customization, at the same time they want hundreds of units and options, and at the same time they ask for balance at a degree that is impossible without sacrificing the others two.
People should have more realistic espectations.
And I'll say it again: I'm not in any shape or form using this to defend the poor rule writing of GW. But I can bash bot GW AND the players of Warhammer40k at the same time.
Why is Starcraft so balanced? 3 factions. 30 units per faction. Enjoy.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/06 19:51:03
Crimson Devil wrote:
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote:Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/06 19:54:47
Subject: Re:Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
I said yes, but realistically? No.
What I want is an engrossing product which gives me a need/purpose for all of the units available to my army, and preferably a fantastic range of well thought out scenarios (or even "historical" scenarios) with which to use them. There is nothing more nauseating to me than the balanced "let's move across the table and try to gather points..." approach to a wargame.
The only thing I've heard of even remotely close to this in a 40K aspect is some of the scenarios mentioned in a few of the older Forge World books. The generic "fight to the death" nature of most wargames is fine, but really feels like the kiddie pool after a few games. Most importantly because this is where meta/mathhammer/super net lists seem to originate. That's some yawn-inducing garbage right there.
While I have no interest in playing 2000 points vs. a 2000 point Knight list in a standard game of "punch me, then I punch you" 40K....I'd gladly play a scenario designed around such an encounter. Start the knights on the short edge of the table and have them attempt to break through a heavily fortified line being held by support weapons and infantry, etc. Sure, even if one side is out-gunned/out-numbered. Give the game some kind of actual story-telling purpose and I'm fine. Play a game where the scenario dictates you run nothing but Space Marine scouts against an Imperial Guard artillery position etc. Sure, go nuts.
EDIT: I agree very much with Galas that GW's writers have gone over-board with unit special snowflake rules. People think they want them, but really it doesn't add anything to the game. The game lost nothing when an Eldar lascannon was just like an Imperial lascannon or an Ork lascannon. The statline should separate units, not hundreds of special rules. That's a serious downfall of the game to me - and one of the things I see that frustrates most players when you have cheesy chapter tactics or some nonsense "feth you" rule for all of your models, etc.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/06 19:56:42
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/06 20:00:45
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Every army should be balanced such that you would not be surprised to see any given army in a tournament. Every army should also be viable as the core of such a list, with the exception of armies designed to act as supplementary forces (inquisition or assassins most obviously).
Each army should also be balanced such that no unit lacks a role within the army, or whose role is obviously fulfilled better by another unit within the army.
If you can manage both those, you've gotten things as balanced as you can reasonably expect them to be. Unless you want to heavily reduce the complexity of the game and number of units/armies that exist. Balance is extremely important up to a certain point, but minor imbalances (some units only feeling extremely specific roles or being useful in extremely specific scenarios, some armies still being viable but having a bit of an uphill battle and needing more external support) aren't as big a deal. Just get things close enough.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/06 20:08:25
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/06 20:04:08
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Snord
Midwest USA
|
General Annoyance wrote: BunkhouseBuster wrote:Similar, but not the exact same. By my definitions and interpretations, I am referring to "Balance" in the sense of the published Points values that are used to determine model, unit, upgrade, and army size and strength, which is what has been argued over in several threads recently. For example, an army may be "Balanced" and fit the rules of the game (points, composition, etc.), but it may not be "Fair" to play against someone who is not prepared for that particular list.
In the case of that example though, is the downfall in fair play down to the game being unbalanced due to relative unit strength to point ratios, or because a player hasn't prepared their list properly?
And to use your example, yet, you can have a fun game where your army is outnumbered and is holding the line as long as possible. Such a game would not be "Balanced", but it may be "Fair" if the smaller army has been given a slight bonus or something, or not depending on what all else is going on in that particular Narrative. It can still be a fun experience too without having "Balance" or being "Fair".
Sorry if I'm being thick, but I still don't see the difference between Balance and Fair. Perhaps giving that small army a bonus or deployment advantage is a fair way to set up the scenario, but the game still isn't "fair" by any means
I am using the point-to-strength ratios as my reference to Balance, with consideration given to army construction requirements. The rules and points as published are the Balance, with any Narrative scenario advantages, fan-made rules, and on-the-fly game changes by a GM as an attempt to make it a Fair game.
In your example of a Last Stand for your army against a larger one, it would not be Balanced according to the rules as written, but it could still be a Fair game based on scenario bonuses or advantages (like getting first turn to the defenders, a boost to shooting for a turn, whatever).
Balance is for tournaments, Fair is for everyone else, maybe? Does that help? I think I am being think myself on these (it's been a slow, boring day at work).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/06 20:07:57
Subject: Re:Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
Everyone benefits from a balanced game. The same way everyone benefits from clearly written rules.
Its a no brainer.
|
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/06 20:13:05
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
General Annoyance wrote: Lance845 wrote: They are not often imbalanced. Or shouldn't be. They SHOULD be asymmetrically balanced.
What does that actually mean, though?
Is a scenario where my Blood Ravens are outnumbered 10 to 1 by a legion of Nihilakh Dynasty Necrons "asymmetrically balanced"?
Does it sound like fun when I have the chance to make a heroic last stand to burn as many filthy xenos as I can before I lose? Hell yeah it does.
BunkhouseBuster wrote:Similar, but not the exact same. By my definitions and interpretations, I am referring to "Balance" in the sense of the published Points values that are used to determine model, unit, upgrade, and army size and strength, which is what has been argued over in several threads recently. For example, an army may be "Balanced" and fit the rules of the game (points, composition, etc.), but it may not be "Fair" to play against someone who is not prepared for that particular list.
In the case of that example though, is the downfall in fair play down to the game being unbalanced due to relative unit strength to point ratios, or because a player hasn't prepared their list properly?
And to use your example, yet, you can have a fun game where your army is outnumbered and is holding the line as long as possible. Such a game would not be "Balanced", but it may be "Fair" if the smaller army has been given a slight bonus or something, or not depending on what all else is going on in that particular Narrative. It can still be a fun experience too without having "Balance" or being "Fair".
Sorry if I'm being thick, but I still don't see the difference between Balance and Fair. Perhaps giving that small army a bonus or deployment advantage is a fair way to set up the scenario, but the game still isn't "fair" by any means
Symmetrical balance is chess. Both players have the same pieces in the same set up with the same moves. Everything is equal. Asymmetrical balance is actually represented (historically very poorly) in Warhammer 40k. Each army has different units with different abilities and as a result the game has much more flexibility. A good video game example could be Golden Eye or Halo 1-3 where in multiplayer every player is basically the same. They can all make the same moves and have the same abilities. It's what they do with it that matters. Where as in Team Fortress 2 each class is very different with very different capabilities but are balanced against each other in various ways.
The standard mission types in 40k are all symmetrically balanced. A narrative mission with asymmetrical balance makes use of different deployment zones, different point limits, the inclusion or exclusion of fortifications, different objectives and the like to build a (preferably) balanced mission that gives each side a fair chance to win while not giving them the same tools.
A good board game example is Descent. Or any other board game where 1 player controls the monsters vs the player party. A well balanced version of this (I think Descent 2nd ed is) has each side having different goals with different tools but any decision by any player can swing the match one way or the other.
Narrative games can be balanced. Any game can be balanced. Asymmetrical balance is a lot harder but harder is not impossible. It's also almost always more interesting.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/06 20:15:29
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I will say the poll is silly. No one wants the best balance possible, because that's literally everyone playing the same army without variation (such as chess). This is always the best balance possible because there will always be at least minor issues balance between different armies or lists.
Similarly, no one thinks balance isn't important. If balance didn't matter at all we wouldn't need points or power levels to play (and anyone who did AoS pick up games before those were around can tell you you need some sort of balancing factor if you want to have fun).
Everyone just disagrees about the weighting of balance and more flavorful and interesting mechanics. Because it is a trade off, and anyone arguing for hypothetical perfect balance that doesn't sacrifice the majority of what makes the game fun isn't being realistic.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/07 08:32:59
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
BunkhouseBuster wrote:I am using the point-to-strength ratios as my reference to Balance, with consideration given to army construction requirements. The rules and points as published are the Balance, with any Narrative scenario advantages, fan-made rules, and on-the-fly game changes by a GM as an attempt to make it a Fair game.
In your example of a Last Stand for your army against a larger one, it would not be Balanced according to the rules as written, but it could still be a Fair game based on scenario bonuses or advantages (like getting first turn to the defenders, a boost to shooting for a turn, whatever).
So Fair in this context means giving each player some kind of benefit to prevent the side with the larger army from just steamrolling?
I think I get you now!
There must be a better word to describe that though; fair implies that the match is giving each player an equal chance of winning, which doesn't have to be the case in narrative play.
Balance is for tournaments, Fair is for everyone else, maybe? Does that help? I think I am being think myself on these (it's been a slow, boring day at work).
I do think that tournament games need balance and fair play, but yes, I get your point now. Cheers
Lance845 wrote:The standard mission types in 40k are all symmetrically balanced. A narrative mission with asymmetrical balance makes use of different deployment zones, different point limits, the inclusion or exclusion of fortifications, different objectives and the like to build a (preferably) balanced mission that gives each side a fair chance to win while not giving them the same tools.
A good board game example is Descent. Or any other board game where 1 player controls the monsters vs the player party. A well balanced version of this (I think Descent 2nd ed is) has each side having different goals with different tools but any decision by any player can swing the match one way or the other.
Narrative games can be balanced. Any game can be balanced. Asymmetrical balance is a lot harder but harder is not impossible. It's also almost always more interesting.
I think any regular game of 40k is meant to be asymmetrically balanced, since the whole nature of the game is that different armies play differently. However, a narrative game does not have to be balanced to be a good experience, symmetrically or asymmetrically.
|
G.A - Should've called myself Ghost Ark
Makeup Whiskers? This is War Paint! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/07 13:43:05
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Snord
Midwest USA
|
General Annoyance wrote:There must be a better word to describe that though; fair implies that the match is giving each player an equal chance of winning, which doesn't have to be the case in narrative play.
Indeed. I am finding my vocabulary lacking in trying to come up with terms and discourse that fit with Casual, Narrative, and non-Competitive gaming situations. Time to break out the dictionary again...
General Annoyance wrote:I do think that tournament games need balance and fair play, but yes, I get your point now. Cheers
Huzzah! The written word succeeds again!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/08 01:43:45
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Storm Trooper with Maglight
In Warp Transit to next battlefield location, Destination Unknown
|
I voted yes. I am ok if a list has the synergy to wipe another list off the table if a person knows how to get the most out of their list. With that being said, every army should have a counter for every other army in the game. At that point it come down to what did you being as opposed to what I brought. And unit versus unit matchups, playing to your army's Strengths while attack your opponent's weaknesses is the key to a great game.
|
Cowards will be shot! Survivors will be shot again!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/08 01:59:23
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
I play almost entirely "narrative" games both in 40k and my other favorite games bolt action and x wing. My answer is absolutely yes, I want balance to be as close as possible precisely because I want to inject imbalance into scenarios in an engaging fashion, not just because. The imbalance isn't there because I don't want balance, it's there to tell the story of the battle.
So it allows me to set up a scenario where a defender is absolutely going to "lose", but he can still pull off a strategic win if he can hold onto at least 2 of the 4 objectives until turn 5, for example. Both the attacker and the defender should have roughly equal chances of achieving their objectives, it's just that for the defender it's not destroying the other army.
I hope that makes sense. Frankly I don't understand why everyone keeps saying narrative = imbalance/casual in the sense that both players shouldn't have a good chance at "winning". They absolutely should, it's just that narrative games often change what constitutes winning. I put several times the effort into narrative games than one off competitive matches because they're trickier to get right, and I appreciate a system where the designers do the same to make it as easy as possible for me to do what I'm trying to do.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/08 02:17:27
Subject: Re:Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
On another note, balance shouldn't come at the cost of player agency. Arguably, a game like Chutes&Ladders is balanced. You could argue it's also technically not a game because you're not making any choice in-game.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/08 09:03:43
Subject: Re:Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
MagicJuggler wrote:On another note, balance shouldn't come at the cost of player agency. Arguably, a game like Chutes&Ladders is balanced. You could argue it's also technically not a game because you're not making any choice in-game.
Correct. Chutes & Ladders is actually not a game lol, It's more a training tool to introduce children to basic game systems.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/08 09:33:35
Subject: Re:Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Nasty Nob
|
I voted for the 'somewhat' option because I appreciate a reasonably balanced game, in which I have a chance to win no mater what my opponent puts on the table, but in the past I have seen the ceaseless thirst for balance have a deleterious effect on variety and asymmetry in a game system because it is much easier to balance things that way. Also, and maybe I am strange, I rather enjoy using under powered weapons, characters or strategies in games. I enjoy the challenge of figuring out how to mitigate their disadvantages and capitalise on their strengths and the thrill I get when they actually exceed offsets the majority of the times when they don't haha!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/08 12:37:26
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/08 10:15:46
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator
|
A fully balanced game is not attainable.
I think the problem is NP hard but I havent proved it.
The game is too large to be balancable.
|
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a " " I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/08 12:19:29
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
So, for any of the people who voted "No", care to share your opinion? Or did you already and I just missed it?
|
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/08 13:21:54
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
I voted for the best balance possible, and understand this to mean that it's not possible to be totally balanced due to the amount of variables and army composition choices.
As close as they can get is fine by me. I think in seventh they didn't even try.
|
I've been playing a while, my first model was a lead marine and my first White Dwarf was bound with staples |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/08 13:27:13
Subject: Re:Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
New editions are like new presidents. People seem to give them too much benefit of the doubt.
I remember when 6th first came out and people said it would bring balance to 40k and that 5th "had gotten stale".
Then I remember people saying 7th would bring balance to 40k, as the initial wave of codexes were...very toned down in power compared to their 5e incarnations.
I seriously doubt there will be much difference this edition, as GW oscillates between "no options" vs "everything is awesome" faster than a politician's promises.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/08 13:28:22
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/08 13:32:16
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
Huron black heart wrote:I voted for the best balance possible, and understand this to mean that it's not possible to be totally balanced due to the amount of variables and army composition choices.
As close as they can get is fine by me. I think in seventh they didn't even try.
Yeah. That's why I didn't say "Perfect Balance". That's just not possible in a game as complex as 40k.
That being said, they can do a better job.
|
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/08 15:04:11
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Using Object Source Lighting
|
Good rules make a healthier competitive scene and make casual play more likely to run smoothly.
I don't expect perfect balance (it's GW... also, IDK if any game has achieved that), but I certainly would appreciate an environment where good balance is considered a reasonable aim. I really didn't expect some of the backlash I saw when I commented that there are potentially massive disparities between points and power, responded with a pair of arguments "players should balance their own games" and "points disparities should be exploited as a skill".
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/08 15:05:48
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
UK
|
Chess and checkers have perfect balance so yes it's possible just not in 40K with several different races.
But you sure as fekke can get better than 7th.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/08 15:25:32
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain
Vigo. Spain.
|
hobojebus wrote:Chess and checkers have perfect balance so yes it's possible just not in 40K with several different races.
But you sure as fekke can get better than 7th.
No, the whites one have an advantage for beginning first.
|
Crimson Devil wrote:
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote:Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/06/08 15:31:48
Subject: Do You Want A Balanced Game?
|
 |
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
UK
|
Galas wrote:hobojebus wrote:Chess and checkers have perfect balance so yes it's possible just not in 40K with several different races.
But you sure as fekke can get better than 7th.
No, the whites one have an advantage for beginning first.
Or the disadvantage of revealing their stratagy first.
|
|
 |
 |
|