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.
Instead, however, people that haven't adapted (for whatever reason, I get that some people simply can't) to the new edition and new books are allowed to dictate policy so long as they scream loud enough. It's easier to nerf guardsmen by 25% (by upping their cost) than it is to discover the unique and interesting ways that the tourney players (who no doubt had to kick some Astra Militarum ass to win LVO) have figured out to cope with the problem.
Is that really the case, though? It seems perhaps to be accurate, but how do we know exactly what feedback and in what context GW bases their decisions on? If they directly observe large tournaments like LVO and such, does whining really have anything to do with it, or is it based on what actually plays out on the tabletop?
No, you're right. It could be that they're taking it from the tournaments.
My reasons for doubting this are twofold, though:
1) The game was playtested before release by top tournament players, or so I am told by a contact of mine who works on the London GT (I went to graduate school in the UK). This includes the codexes, which were playtested in batches (i.e. the players would be given 3 or 4 at a time to test, and then it would cycle). So either the tournament players played really differently during the playtest, or they didn't give enough feedback, or GW is listening to people other than the top tournament players. I have no reason to suspect it is the 3rd, other than my natural inclination to believe the Top Tournament Players would do a fine job as playtesters. That could also be wrong.
2) Direct observation is actually a bad way to gather data. There's all sorts of numeric manipulation that has to be done to data before its really useable, and just sort of walking around and "eyeballing" how many IG are there is a fairly awful way to do it. I would hope GW knows this.
I believe, when the Indices first came out, there were reports that the play testers played very differently to us. Specifically, that their meta evolved past hordes fairly quickly, while ours has not.
This could be because some nerf or change GW made in the meantime broke our natural progression or it could be because they were in a bubble. Who knows.
Audustum wrote: I believe, when the Indices first came out, there were reports that the play testers played very differently to us. Specifically, that their meta evolved past hordes fairly quickly, while ours has not.
This could be because some nerf or change GW made in the meantime broke our natural progression or it could be because they were in a bubble. Who knows.
Or it could be that they're better players and more willing to adapt to the changing of the meta, while "we" (i.e. everyone that can't beat hordes on this forum) are stuck unable to adapt for some reason.
GW has a ton of data. It's not just "one big tournament," as people would suggest. There is a ton of data being reported to the ITC which shows how factions are actually performing. This is not easy for us to get our hands on. It could be that a faction is not doing so well at large events but still does fairly well at RTTs (like Tyranids) so they probably won't see buffs. Meanwhile there are factions that are overperforming top to bottom, regardless of locale, and those factions will see adjustments.
It's pretty simple statistical analysis that leads to these conclusions.
The analysis would be a lot easier if GW published a list building application, and worked with the ITC to do actual, serious digital-age reporting and analytics based on what units are used, and correlated that to wins. There is no easy way for them to, for instance, answer the question of, "How many RTT winning, or GT placing Imperium lists leveraged Guardsmen as the primary troop choice in December and January, in the United States?" But this question absolutely SHOULD be answerable.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Or maybe they had something internally that didn't make the final cut that affected balance. I read a very plausible theory (tough Ican't remember it exactly) that happened to necrons anf the way they interact with reserves.
Gw might have had more then just balance in mind, after all they had and probably still have a very narrative , beer and pretzels approach to their game. And I will defend zealously that those kind of games are decidedly more fun/blanced in 8th then they were in 7th.
I don't wanna go too deep down the soup-list hole here, because that is a whole different discussion entirely and much more tied to fundamental game design rather the specific IG issues.
Marmatag wrote: GW has a ton of data. It's not just "one big tournament," as people would suggest. There is a ton of data being reported to the ITC which shows how factions are actually performing. This is not easy for us to get our hands on. It could be that a faction is not doing so well at large events but still does fairly well at RTTs (like Tyranids) so they probably won't see buffs. Meanwhile there are factions that are overperforming top to bottom, regardless of locale, and those factions will see adjustments.
It's pretty simple statistical analysis that leads to these conclusions.
The analysis would be a lot easier if GW published a list building application, and worked with the ITC to do actual, serious digital-age reporting and analytics based on what units are used, and correlated that to wins. There is no easy way for them to, for instance, answer the question of, "How many RTT winning, or GT placing Imperium lists leveraged Guardsmen as the primary troop choice in December and January, in the United States?" But this question absolutely SHOULD be answerable.
Do you think GW cooperates with the ITC enough to see this data?
Or do you think they just trust whatever ITC/other people tell(s) them the data says? Because I've seen some pretty funny stuff here on dakkadakka that could easily be titled "Adventures in Mathematics", including some right here in this thread. Math is dangerous and can essentially prove any narrative.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/06 18:44:30
I would be very surprised if they employed any statistical analysis whatsoever beyond fairly broad categories that would be visible by looking at, say, army lists through whatever list-building or tourney apps that are out there.
The guy accidently erased round 2 of the tournament and everyhting had to be reentered manually. Caused about an hour delay. Reece mentioned it on his podcast.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: I would be very surprised if they employed any statistical analysis whatsoever beyond fairly broad categories that would be visible by looking at, say, army lists through whatever list-building or tourney apps that are out there.
This is my supposition as well, which is why I can so easily say they "crowdsource" balancing. I hold the belief that they just sorta look around at the community, nod their heads and doodle in their notebooks, and then read facebook comments to write their FAQs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Earth127 wrote: The guy accidently erased round 2 of the tournament and everyhting had to be reentered manually. Caused about an hour delay. Reece mentioned it on his podcast.
No no, not parings. I mean win/loss rates, numbers of showings, placings, etc.
Literally everything that is used for balance. I thought that data didn't exist, either through malfeasance or mishap, and that's why we as normal players can't see it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/06 18:47:40
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: I would be very surprised if they employed any statistical analysis whatsoever beyond fairly broad categories that would be visible by looking at, say, army lists through whatever list-building or tourney apps that are out there.
Aye, this stuff is not something GW has ever engaged in before, and, at least in the past, has openly talked about how most of their costing is by feel, and there's no evidence they're doing so now given the results of their CA output.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Hopefully they differentiate between fairly mature and straightforward comments that suggest unit x is unbalanced because of whatever factors and the screeching of unhappy nerdlings.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: Hopefully they differentiate between fairly mature and straightforward comments that suggest unit x is unbalanced because of whatever factors and the screeching of unhappy nerdlings.
The problem is that it's not that easy.
Look at martel - he raises some good points, but also doesn't really try very hard to improve his play experience. I'm sure he's a mature and competent fellow, but IIRC he's not adapted to the progress of the game since 5th. He's fully capable of writing an essay on why the current Imperial Guard Infantry Squad is undercosted, and has some good points here and there, while missing the point entirely that it may be Blood Angels that are overcosted, or that certain anti-horde tools don't exist / aren't available / whathaveyou. I literally saw a thread about a player who couldn't beat his horde army buddy, when his army included 15 devastators with 10 lascannons and 5 multimeltas here on this very forum. I'm sure he could write a very good post on why hordes are too good.
Or look at me - I'm probably guilty of the same things: failure to adapt, getting tunnel vision on an issue rather than looking at the wider picture, etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/06 18:52:17
Audustum wrote: I believe, when the Indices first came out, there were reports that the play testers played very differently to us. Specifically, that their meta evolved past hordes fairly quickly, while ours has not.
This could be because some nerf or change GW made in the meantime broke our natural progression or it could be because they were in a bubble. Who knows.
Or it could be that they're better players and more willing to adapt to the changing of the meta, while "we" (i.e. everyone that can't beat hordes on this forum) are stuck unable to adapt for some reason.
Or it could be GW didn\t make that drastic changes based on their comments. Didn't ITC guys comment that their role in playtesting was lot less than forum users assumed?
Marmatag wrote: GW has a ton of data. It's not just "one big tournament," as people would suggest. There is a ton of data being reported to the ITC which shows how factions are actually performing. This is not easy for us to get our hands on. It could be that a faction is not doing so well at large events but still does fairly well at RTTs (like Tyranids) so they probably won't see buffs. Meanwhile there are factions that are overperforming top to bottom, regardless of locale, and those factions will see adjustments.
It's pretty simple statistical analysis that leads to these conclusions.
The analysis would be a lot easier if GW published a list building application, and worked with the ITC to do actual, serious digital-age reporting and analytics based on what units are used, and correlated that to wins. There is no easy way for them to, for instance, answer the question of, "How many RTT winning, or GT placing Imperium lists leveraged Guardsmen as the primary troop choice in December and January, in the United States?" But this question absolutely SHOULD be answerable.
Do you think GW cooperates with the ITC enough to see this data?
Or do you think they just trust whatever ITC/other people tell(s) them the data says? Because I've seen some pretty funny stuff here on dakkadakka that could easily be titled "Adventures in Mathematics", including some right here in this thread. Math is dangerous and can essentially prove any narrative.
Math is dangerous to people who don't understand how it works. Statistics always begin with assumptions. Results are easily proven, it's assumptions - stated openly, or veiled - that are faulty. For instance, in the "Game Length" thread, one faulty assumption used in the statistical analysis was that games scoring over 30 were a concede. When in reality, scores of 0 indicate a concede. Or, the assumption that points scored are linear across turns, when scoring actually drops sharply after turn 3, and even moreso after turn 4.
To your question, I do think that the ITC shares its data with GW. What GW does with that data? I'll never know.
What i'm suggesting here is this:
1. GW should publish their own app for list building and tournament pairing. 2. They have immediate custody of all lists used, and the results of those lists, relative to the size of the events, and opponents played.
Instantly they would have incredible knowledge of how people are playing the game, and be able to do far more quantitative analysis. (For instance, Tyranids lose to Guard at a 90% rate when the Guard player fields X of unit Y, but if they field 10% less of that unit, the Tyranid loss rate drops to 55%.) This would allow them to create really informed decisions, and run predictive analytics based on unit sizes and outcomes. For instance, they could easily run a scenario where they change the value of Guardsmen from 4ppm to 5ppm, and see that it drops Guard win percentages against Blood Angels from 95% to 70%.
If GW would hire me to undertake this effort i could build a staff and get it done in about a year. But, they haven't embraced the digital age, have they?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/06 18:53:47
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Audustum wrote: I believe, when the Indices first came out, there were reports that the play testers played very differently to us. Specifically, that their meta evolved past hordes fairly quickly, while ours has not.
This could be because some nerf or change GW made in the meantime broke our natural progression or it could be because they were in a bubble. Who knows.
Or it could be that they're better players and more willing to adapt to the changing of the meta, while "we" (i.e. everyone that can't beat hordes on this forum) are stuck unable to adapt for some reason.
Or it could be GW didn\t make that drastic changes based on their comments. Didn't ITC guys comment that their role in playtesting was lot less than forum users assumed?
It could be. I heard the opposite from my London GT contact - that GW made changes based on codexes that weren't out yet (like Grinding Advance on the Russ, which when the codex first came out felt like a "WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT" moment, before Eldar and Tyranids got essentially a variation on the same thing). GW balanced all the codexes, but releasing them one at a time has made the meta shift unstable and it's upsetting people, or so the theory goes. His point was that "Guard will seem balanced when the rest of the codexes come out."
Warhammer community has stated an official army building tool is in the works but was pushed back to prioritize the painting app and IMHO the release of every codex.
And yeah unit you've been guilty of wanting to prove your point. I remember all your my 3 superheavies posts. Tough I probably can't speak too loudly without sounding like a hypocrite.
I feel pretty certain the new CEO has begun the embracing of the digital age but that would still ony be 2 years right?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/06 19:00:44
Audustum wrote: I believe, when the Indices first came out, there were reports that the play testers played very differently to us. Specifically, that their meta evolved past hordes fairly quickly, while ours has not.
This could be because some nerf or change GW made in the meantime broke our natural progression or it could be because they were in a bubble. Who knows.
Or it could be that they're better players and more willing to adapt to the changing of the meta, while "we" (i.e. everyone that can't beat hordes on this forum) are stuck unable to adapt for some reason.
Or it could be GW didn\t make that drastic changes based on their comments. Didn't ITC guys comment that their role in playtesting was lot less than forum users assumed?
It could be. I heard the opposite from my London GT contact - that GW made changes based on codexes that weren't out yet (like Grinding Advance on the Russ, which when the codex first came out felt like a "WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT" moment, before Eldar and Tyranids got essentially a variation on the same thing). GW balanced all the codexes, but releasing them one at a time has made the meta shift unstable and it's upsetting people, or so the theory goes. His point was that "Guard will seem balanced when the rest of the codexes come out."
If all the codexes were balanced, especially against eachother, they wouldn't need to release them one at a time - they could get away with releasing all of them at once.
I mean, they're supposed to be balanced and tested, right?
In any case, GW doesn't have perfect balance; and will need continuing adjustment.
Audustum wrote: I believe, when the Indices first came out, there were reports that the play testers played very differently to us. Specifically, that their meta evolved past hordes fairly quickly, while ours has not.
This could be because some nerf or change GW made in the meantime broke our natural progression or it could be because they were in a bubble. Who knows.
Or it could be that they're better players and more willing to adapt to the changing of the meta, while "we" (i.e. everyone that can't beat hordes on this forum) are stuck unable to adapt for some reason.
Or it could be GW didn\t make that drastic changes based on their comments. Didn't ITC guys comment that their role in playtesting was lot less than forum users assumed?
It could be. I heard the opposite from my London GT contact - that GW made changes based on codexes that weren't out yet (like Grinding Advance on the Russ, which when the codex first came out felt like a "WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT" moment, before Eldar and Tyranids got essentially a variation on the same thing). GW balanced all the codexes, but releasing them one at a time has made the meta shift unstable and it's upsetting people, or so the theory goes. His point was that "Guard will seem balanced when the rest of the codexes come out."
If all the codexes were balanced, especially against eachother, they wouldn't need to release them one at a time - they could get away with releasing all of them at once.
I mean, they're supposed to be balanced and tested, right?
In any case, GW doesn't have perfect balance; and will need continuing adjustment.
Balance wise maybe but they wouldn't sell well if they oversaturated the market in one swoop. Also the editing/ artworking/ printing etc needs to happen.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/06 19:02:34
Well, to extrapolate from the way I told it was done (and remember, all of this is "I heard from a dude who heard from a dude" so it's about as trustworthy as a snake in the Tree of Knowledge), the way I see it is that since the playtesting was done in cycles of three or four, it's possible that each batch of 3 or 4 codexes is balanced against the others in its batch, but the human memory of the playtesters failed to easily remember the batch they tested before, meaning that whole batch of 3 or 4 could be significantly over or under powered compared to any other given batch.
Earth127 wrote: Warhammer community has stated an official army building tool is in the works but was pushed back to prioritize the painting app and IMHO the release of every codex.
I feel pretty certain the new CEO has begun the embracing of the digital age but that would still ony be 2 years right?
It could be that they're waiting to complete all of the codexes and rules before they build the app. To me that's silly but i can understand it. Waterfall is alive and well in the hearts and minds of people who wrote code 20 years ago.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
I'm not beating a dead horse. This horse still has plenty of life left in him...
There'd be a lot less crying and the math would be way easier if they would just switch to a d10 based system. (Yes, this again) I read the 8th Ed. rules and it would actually be quite easy without disrupting the core mechanics at all. Seriously, you could go play right now with d10's. Add 2 to WS, BS and Sv. Change the "To Wound" mechanic from 2+,3+,4+,5+,6+... to 2+,4+,6+,8+,10+. For "To-Hit" count "0" as "0" and not "10". Push the Invulnerable save all the way up on the scale (5+ would become 9+) but allow both regular save and Invulnerable save (which is just a throwback to previous editions) to compensate for the reduced % chance of Inv. Save working.
Bam. Done. As-is, the game plays out the same. There's just a minor variation of % chance of hitting with more powerful units, which is a good thing. Going forward, future Indexes and Codexes would be easier to tweak for balance. A minor +1 here and there wouldn't have such a devastating impact when amplified across your entire Battalion, but still make a substantial difference. Finally you can make more Unit variations which are actually different from each other.
Me in 1990 "So what's the deal with all the d6's? I thought you Brits were on the metric system."
Rick Priestley in 1990: "Well, I agree, but the decision was made not to disenfranchise new gamers who might not have access to polyhedral dice. Everyone has a Yahtzee game in their closet."
Me: "But you have to have the miniatures to play!. Dice are cheap, miniatures aren't. (Even back in 1990, we cried about GW's prices) You have to buy the miniatures in a game store, and it seems the only game stores on the planet that don't sell polyhedral dice are Games Workshops..."
Rick Priestley: "Believe me, it wasn't my decision..."
Me: "Sigh. Ok, next question..."
Ironically, of course, WH40kRT had something like 3 pages all about Dice and what to do if you didn't have any, as well as in-game uses from almost every polyhedral dice in the set as well as d100 and even d1000 charts. Obviously I'm not suggesting WH40k get all complex and need d12's, d8's, and d20's, but d10's really are the way to go. I'm not holding my breath though. I know a lot of you don't want to give up the d6 system (was an article about it on BoLS)
The Emperor loves me,
This I know,
For the Codex
Tells me so....
Increasing the cost on the model by 1 point seems correct for having a better ld and a better save.
Not when you factor in Neophyte Hybrids:
6/4/4/3/3/1/1/7(8)/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Or the initial points cost of Conscripts:
6/5/5/3/3/1/1/4/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Going up above LD6 seems to be valued at 1ppm(not factoring in a Sergeant model) while it requires you to go from a 5+ to a 4+ in Armor or BS, with WS only coming into play if you have a CCWOR if you are S4+ as Infantry, to cost a point.
You want Guardsmen at 5ppm, you're giving me something in exchange. End of goddamned story. Either I'm getting a 4+ armor save, LD7/8, or a Vox-Caster is included in the unit's point cost.
Increasing the cost on the model by 1 point seems correct for having a better ld and a better save.
Not when you factor in Neophyte Hybrids:
6/4/4/3/3/1/1/7(8)/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Or the initial points cost of Conscripts:
6/5/5/3/3/1/1/4/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Going up above LD6 seems to be valued at 1ppm(not factoring in a Sergeant model) while it requires you to go from a 5+ to a 4+ in Armor or BS, with WS only coming into play if you have a CCWOR if you are S4+ as Infantry, to cost a point.
You want Guardsmen at 5ppm, you're giving me something in exchange. End of goddamned story. Either I'm getting a 4+ armor save, LD7/8, or a Vox-Caster is included in the unit's point cost.
You get fuckton of sinergies and Cult doesn't. END OF STORY
Maxim C. Gatling wrote: I'm not beating a dead horse. This horse still has plenty of life left in him...
There'd be a lot less crying and the math would be way easier if they would just switch to a d10 based system. (Yes, this again) I read the 8th Ed. rules and it would actually be quite easy without disrupting the core mechanics at all. Seriously, you could go play right now with d10's. Add 2 to WS, BS and Sv. Change the "To Wound" mechanic from 2+,3+,4+,5+,6+... to 2+,4+,6+,8+,10+. For "To-Hit" count "0" as "0" and not "10". Push the Invulnerable save all the way up on the scale (5+ would become 9+) but allow both regular save and Invulnerable save (which is just a throwback to previous editions) to compensate for the reduced % chance of Inv. Save working.
Bam. Done. As-is, the game plays out the same. There's just a minor variation of % chance of hitting with more powerful units, which is a good thing. Going forward, future Indexes and Codexes would be easier to tweak for balance. A minor +1 here and there wouldn't have such a devastating impact when amplified across your entire Battalion, but still make a substantial difference. Finally you can make more Unit variations which are actually different from each other.
Me in 1990 "So what's the deal with all the d6's? I thought you Brits were on the metric system."
Rick Priestley in 1990: "Well, I agree, but the decision was made not to disenfranchise new gamers who might not have access to polyhedral dice. Everyone has a Yahtzee game in their closet."
Me: "But you have to have the miniatures to play!. Dice are cheap, miniatures aren't. (Even back in 1990, we cried about GW's prices) You have to buy the miniatures in a game store, and it seems the only game stores on the planet that don't sell polyhedral dice are Games Workshops..."
Rick Priestley: "Believe me, it wasn't my decision..."
Me: "Sigh. Ok, next question..."
Ironically, of course, WH40kRT had something like 3 pages all about Dice and what to do if you didn't have any, as well as in-game uses from almost every polyhedral dice in the set as well as d100 and even d1000 charts. Obviously I'm not suggesting WH40k get all complex and need d12's, d8's, and d20's, but d10's really are the way to go. I'm not holding my breath though. I know a lot of you don't want to give up the d6 system (was an article about it on BoLS)
It's a nice thought but then you need to rework all the aura abilities and the costs of those models along with the edge cases that work, because they have layered saves. And then deal with the inevitable griping of how GW is making a cash grab to force you to buy the D10s.
I wouldn't mind such a thing, but I just don't see it happening very easily.
Increasing the cost on the model by 1 point seems correct for having a better ld and a better save.
Not when you factor in Neophyte Hybrids:
6/4/4/3/3/1/1/7(8)/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Or the initial points cost of Conscripts:
6/5/5/3/3/1/1/4/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Going up above LD6 seems to be valued at 1ppm(not factoring in a Sergeant model) while it requires you to go from a 5+ to a 4+ in Armor or BS, with WS only coming into play if you have a CCWOR if you are S4+ as Infantry, to cost a point.
You want Guardsmen at 5ppm, you're giving me something in exchange. End of goddamned story. Either I'm getting a 4+ armor save, LD7/8, or a Vox-Caster is included in the unit's point cost.
You get fuckton of sinergies and Cult doesn't. END OF STORY
Guard has a Codex and Cult doesn't. RE-OPEN STORY.