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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

 davou wrote:


Do you happen to work in miniature fantasy wargame design?

I feel like this is the among the most relevant questions to ask of the community on this forum lately, many of whom are convinced not only that they can fix the game, but that they understand how and why GW makes their decisions.

With that said, it really isn't IMPOSSIBLE to fix some of the balance mistakes in the game. Some of you act like it's too easy, but a lot of you also act like it's super hard.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

 davou wrote:


Do you happen to work in miniature fantasy wargame design?

I feel like this is the among the most relevant questions to ask of the community on this forum lately, many of whom are convinced not only that they can fix the game, but that they understand how and why GW makes their decisions.

With that said, it really isn't IMPOSSIBLE to fix some of the balance mistakes in the game. Some of you act like it's too easy, but a lot of you also act like it's super hard.

I feel like the people who think it's easy to balance something should go sign up to the Privateer Press CID forums and have a go at playtesting a game with a bunch of other people. Very rarely do people agree unanimously that things are balanced. It all depends on the players, lists and most of all the dice. The best game devs can do is find a middle ground.

While I don't think it's impossible to balance the game, it seems improbable that it will happen while GW is constantly coming out with new codexes and units. Every time a new book comes out the game is thrown into chaos.

Even if they did a freeze and didn't come out with anything new for a while, I imagine it would take a fair amount of trial and error FAQs and test changes to get the game to the theoretically possible place of perfect balance.

I'm hoping that is what will happen to some extent over the next year or so once everyone has a codex.

I think nothing will change so long as the competitive crowd keeps moving from one OP thing to the next, no matter what GW tries to fix.

There will always be overpowered combinations or combinations that become overpowered in certain situations you can force using a range of other models.

Its the nature of the game

Played "Scorched Earth" today, one of the newer missions.

roll off, the winner puts the first objective of six down - the player going second puts the next down, but also knows they are picking the deployment map and which side to deploy in - so can put three in what will be their area, or just outside it.

its simply stuff like that thats causing some of the problems

Ideal world - GW would have dropped the FAQ in the first week of March, and Adepticon would have had a rule in place saying "nothing released within 30 days of the event is in use at it".

Tau, Necron and DE FAQs then could drop as normal, and GW has a few months to work on the next big FAQ (and CA2018).

But, no - instead, they wait for an event at the end of the month, and have to deal with a bunch of 'net outrage over missed deadlines (which may or may not be affecting sales to competitive gamers at present).

 Dysartes wrote:

But, no - instead, they wait for an event at the end of the month, and have to deal with a bunch of 'net outrage over missed deadlines (which may or may not be affecting sales to competitive gamers at present).

I'm sure the impotent rage of a thousand TFGs are making them quake in their boots.

 Dysartes wrote:

But, no - instead, they wait for an event at the end of the month, and have to deal with a bunch of 'net outrage over missed deadlines (which may or may not be affecting sales to competitive gamers at present).

Or, get this, they did the "perfect thing" you suggest and listened to 'net outrage over things they didn't address for another 6 months.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
I think nothing will change so long as the competitive crowd keeps moving from one OP thing to the next, no matter what GW tries to fix.

So the solution is do nothing. Got it.

There's a big difference between the best list being 20-30% better and 3-5% better.

leopard wrote:
There will always be overpowered combinations or combinations that become overpowered in certain situations you can force using a range of other models.

Its the nature of the game

Played "Scorched Earth" today, one of the newer missions.

roll off, the winner puts the first objective of six down - the player going second puts the next down, but also knows they are picking the deployment map and which side to deploy in - so can put three in what will be their area, or just outside it.

its simply stuff like that thats causing some of the problems

I think you might be playing that wrong... the deployment type is determined randomly, the player going second just gets to be the one to roll for it.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

leopard wrote:
There will always be overpowered combinations or combinations that become overpowered in certain situations you can force using a range of other models.

Its the nature of the game

Played "Scorched Earth" today, one of the newer missions.

roll off, the winner puts the first objective of six down - the player going second puts the next down, but also knows they are picking the deployment map and which side to deploy in - so can put three in what will be their area, or just outside it.

its simply stuff like that thats causing some of the problems

I think you might be playing that wrong... the deployment type is determined randomly, the player going second just gets to be the one to roll for it.

Edit, read the comment wrong, point was irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
I think nothing will change so long as the competitive crowd keeps moving from one OP thing to the next, no matter what GW tries to fix.

I gotta ask, do you know what the word 'competitive' means? Because...like...by the very nature of competition you move from one OP thing to another. Every competition in the history of everything that was actually about winning has been people killing themselves or each other for even tiny advantages. Just look at the winter olympics. Half of most of those competitions is based on who got a better read on which equipment would give them the biggest advantage. You don't see luge people wearing tennis shoes and parkas because windsuits are 'op' do you?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

But, no - instead, they wait for an event at the end of the month, and have to deal with a bunch of 'net outrage over missed deadlines (which may or may not be affecting sales to competitive gamers at present).

Or, get this, they did the "perfect thing" you suggest and listened to 'net outrage over things they didn't address for another 6 months.

Regardless of what they do, there is going to be 'net outrage.

I merely suggest there would've been more goodwill towards them if this FAQ had come out pre-Adepticon:
A, So the rest of the announce FAQ schedule wasn't derailed;
B, To set expectations of what this sort of Big Balance FAQ covers (are points rules?);
C, So that things that were seen to be out of whack within certain subsets of house rules - such as ITC - could've been addressed.

After all, prior to Adepticon things like Flying Hive Tyrants weren't said to be setting the tournament scene on fire, so it would be reasonable for them to say, post-Adepticon, that this was something they were looking into, and would be addressed in CA2018 or the "Autumn" Balance FAQ.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

But, no - instead, they wait for an event at the end of the month, and have to deal with a bunch of 'net outrage over missed deadlines (which may or may not be affecting sales to competitive gamers at present).

Or, get this, they did the "perfect thing" you suggest and listened to 'net outrage over things they didn't address for another 6 months.

I merely suggest there would've been more goodwill towards them if this FAQ had come out pre-Adepticon:

It's adorable that you think that.

You don't think that releasing the FAQ within the window they previously announced to great fanfare, and addressing some issues that had been raised pre-Adepticon, wouldn't've earned GW some goodwill?

 Dysartes wrote:
You don't think that releasing the FAQ within the window they previously announced to great fanfare, and addressing some issues that had been raised pre-Adepticon, wouldn't've earned GW some goodwill?

No. The normie players like me will go "cool, thanks", a certain section will complain because things changed, another will complain that it didn't change enough and the last will complain that the changes were wrong and made things worse.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
You don't think that releasing the FAQ within the window they previously announced to great fanfare, and addressing some issues that had been raised pre-Adepticon, wouldn't've earned GW some goodwill?

No. The normie players like me will go "cool, thanks", a certain section will complain because things changed, another will complain that it didn't change enough and the last will complain that the changes were wrong and made things worse.

Oh! Someone who knows how people will react regardless That 'goodwill' will be nonvocal, and complainers going to complain because thats what their life like.

Dach wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
You don't think that releasing the FAQ within the window they previously announced to great fanfare, and addressing some issues that had been raised pre-Adepticon, wouldn't've earned GW some goodwill?

No. The normie players like me will go "cool, thanks", a certain section will complain because things changed, another will complain that it didn't change enough and the last will complain that the changes were wrong and made things worse.

Oh! Someone who knows how people will react regardless That 'goodwill' will be nonvocal, and complainers going to complain because thats what their life like.

Exactly. You don't email Sony and tell them that your TV is working great.

 Dysartes wrote:
Ideal world - GW would have dropped the FAQ in the first week of March, and Adepticon would have had a rule in place saying "nothing released within 30 days of the event is in use at it".

Tau, Necron and DE FAQs then could drop as normal, and GW has a few months to work on the next big FAQ (and CA2018).

But, no - instead, they wait for an event at the end of the month, and have to deal with a bunch of 'net outrage over missed deadlines (which may or may not be affecting sales to competitive gamers at present).

The next big FAQ is CA2018. There was nothing promised or planned between now and then.

They promised minor FAQ/errata 2 weeks after every codex. So I believe they're running late on both Tau and necrons. to fold it into the big "march" FAQ.

Lemondish wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Ideal world - GW would have dropped the FAQ in the first week of March, and Adepticon would have had a rule in place saying "nothing released within 30 days of the event is in use at it".

Tau, Necron and DE FAQs then could drop as normal, and GW has a few months to work on the next big FAQ (and CA2018).

But, no - instead, they wait for an event at the end of the month, and have to deal with a bunch of 'net outrage over missed deadlines (which may or may not be affecting sales to competitive gamers at present).

The next big FAQ is CA2018. There was nothing promised or planned between now and then.

September.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/12/15/the-future-of-faqs-and-chapter-approved-dec-15gw-homepage-post-2/

Thanks, Daedalus - I could've sworn I'd remembered it as being 2 big FAQs, plus CA, plus Codex FAQs shortly after release.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
There's a big difference between the best list being 20-30% better and 3-5% better.

There needs to be friggin' banner on dakka explaining this.

If the "OP" stuff is close enough to things considered decent, the average player won't be able to recognize the difference, they will only matter in top competitive environments.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

With that said, it really isn't IMPOSSIBLE to fix some of the balance mistakes in the game. Some of you act like it's too easy, but a lot of you also act like it's super hard.

Maybe, maybe not. Assuming that someone's armchair "fixes" will solve the game's problems while purely hypothetical doesn't hold a lot of water. Not worth the time and energy arguing over, more than anything else.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

But, no - instead, they wait for an event at the end of the month, and have to deal with a bunch of 'net outrage over missed deadlines (which may or may not be affecting sales to competitive gamers at present).

Or, get this, they did the "perfect thing" you suggest and listened to 'net outrage over things they didn't address for another 6 months.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
I think nothing will change so long as the competitive crowd keeps moving from one OP thing to the next, no matter what GW tries to fix.

So the solution is do nothing. Got it.

There's a big difference between the best list being 20-30% better and 3-5% better.

Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

With that said, it really isn't IMPOSSIBLE to fix some of the balance mistakes in the game. Some of you act like it's too easy, but a lot of you also act like it's super hard.

Maybe, maybe not. Assuming that someone's armchair "fixes" will solve the game's problems while purely hypothetical doesn't hold a lot of water. Not worth the time and energy arguing over, more than anything else.

Ever done a math problem sitting down?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

leopard wrote:
There will always be overpowered combinations or combinations that become overpowered in certain situations you can force using a range of other models.

Its the nature of the game

Played "Scorched Earth" today, one of the newer missions.

roll off, the winner puts the first objective of six down - the player going second puts the next down, but also knows they are picking the deployment map and which side to deploy in - so can put three in what will be their area, or just outside it.

its simply stuff like that thats causing some of the problems

I think you might be playing that wrong... the deployment type is determined randomly, the player going second just gets to be the one to roll for it.

Edit, read the comment wrong, point was irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
I think nothing will change so long as the competitive crowd keeps moving from one OP thing to the next, no matter what GW tries to fix.

I gotta ask, do you know what the word 'competitive' means? Because...like...by the very nature of competition you move from one OP thing to another. Every competition in the history of everything that was actually about winning has been people killing themselves or each other for even tiny advantages. Just look at the winter olympics. Half of most of those competitions is based on who got a better read on which equipment would give them the biggest advantage. You don't see luge people wearing tennis shoes and parkas because windsuits are 'op' do you?

Or like in stock car racing where every car is more or less the same and has to meet certain specifications. In in football everyone's ball has to have the correct pressure. At that point - the only way to gain an advantage is to cheat - and they do cheat.

Ever done a math problem sitting down?

Yes. This concludes a worthwhile discussion. Please, carry on.

 Xenomancers wrote:
and they do cheat.

Prove it

 davou wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
and they do cheat.

Prove it

Um, Deflategate got Tom Brady suspended. And literally every story about steroids involves an athlete cheating.

Since I’m guessing that you’re targeting the idea that competitive 40k players cheat though, anecdotally I have been to tournaments where players cheated.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

Ever done a math problem sitting down?

Yes. This concludes a worthwhile discussion. Please, carry on.

Some of it is VERY mathematical though. Extremely so.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

But, no - instead, they wait for an event at the end of the month, and have to deal with a bunch of 'net outrage over missed deadlines (which may or may not be affecting sales to competitive gamers at present).

Or, get this, they did the "perfect thing" you suggest and listened to 'net outrage over things they didn't address for another 6 months.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
I think nothing will change so long as the competitive crowd keeps moving from one OP thing to the next, no matter what GW tries to fix.

So the solution is do nothing. Got it.

There's a big difference between the best list being 20-30% better and 3-5% better.

Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

With that said, it really isn't IMPOSSIBLE to fix some of the balance mistakes in the game. Some of you act like it's too easy, but a lot of you also act like it's super hard.

Maybe, maybe not. Assuming that someone's armchair "fixes" will solve the game's problems while purely hypothetical doesn't hold a lot of water. Not worth the time and energy arguing over, more than anything else.

Ever done a math problem sitting down?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

leopard wrote:
There will always be overpowered combinations or combinations that become overpowered in certain situations you can force using a range of other models.

Its the nature of the game

Played "Scorched Earth" today, one of the newer missions.

roll off, the winner puts the first objective of six down - the player going second puts the next down, but also knows they are picking the deployment map and which side to deploy in - so can put three in what will be their area, or just outside it.

its simply stuff like that thats causing some of the problems

I think you might be playing that wrong... the deployment type is determined randomly, the player going second just gets to be the one to roll for it.

Edit, read the comment wrong, point was irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
I think nothing will change so long as the competitive crowd keeps moving from one OP thing to the next, no matter what GW tries to fix.

I gotta ask, do you know what the word 'competitive' means? Because...like...by the very nature of competition you move from one OP thing to another. Every competition in the history of everything that was actually about winning has been people killing themselves or each other for even tiny advantages. Just look at the winter olympics. Half of most of those competitions is based on who got a better read on which equipment would give them the biggest advantage. You don't see luge people wearing tennis shoes and parkas because windsuits are 'op' do you?

Or like in stock car racing where every car is more or less the same and has to meet certain specifications. In in football everyone's ball has to have the correct pressure. At that point - the only way to gain an advantage is to cheat - and they do cheat.

If you honestly think that having the same ball and cars are enough to actually 'balance' those competitions even BEFORE cheating then you're hopelessly naive.

Those teams, and the companies that make money off of them spend millions of dollars a year on things like player rehabilitation(ice baths/etc) supplementary equipment, information gathering, analytics, professional analyses, sports psychology. Even stock car racing; you put the emphasis on 'the same' when the emphasis is ACTUALLY on 'more or less'. Here's an excerpt about Nascar from 'how things work:

These rules are clearly spelled out in NASCAR guidelines, yet there are often disputes between teams and officials about their interpretation of these rules. Teams can become quite inventive in finding ways to bypass the limitations imposed by a rule, only to have NASCAR become more specific and stringent with its language to eliminate the advantage [source: Martin]. This is one reason why stock cars are so uniform in dimension. The bodies have similar shapes and aerodynamic properties because they must conform to certain templates, or patterns mandated by NASCAR to ensure a consistent car size and shape. NASCAR maintains an equally explicit list of interior features that cars must have for both safety and to promote a reasonably level playing field.

That sounds INCREDIBLY FAMILIAR doesn't it?(minus Nascar being quicker at closing rules gaps.)

Here's another one:

With NASCAR teams constantly pushing the boundaries of racing know-how, cars have progressively become faster and more powerful. In fact, they got so fast that NASCAR officials worried for the safety of drivers and fans.

This is how competition works. You spend time, energy, and usually quite a lot of money searching for any slight advantage you can. You don't even need to cheat to find something that can push you over the top. Why do you think jockey's are so small? What about boxers and wrestlers and the insane(but perfectly legal) lengths they go to to be able to fight in the lowest weight class possible?

Competition is the same everywhere. 6 Flying Hive Tyrants isn't just a 40k thing.

I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with missing a deadline, especially when breaking (for GW) new ground. However, purely from an expectation management point of view, they handled announcing the delay horribly.

If I’m go tell my boss that I’m going to miss a deadline, he isn’t going to blow up and rage at me. But he will ask me two questions: why, and when I’m projecting to finish. I’d better have some damned good answers to those questions waiting before I even go to his office or he will rage at me.

What GW has effectively done is knock on the door at the eleventh hour, announced ‘we didn’t realise the impact of x happening was going to be so big, so we’ll be late’ and spent the next two weeks dodging any questions for details or a perspective date. It’s understandable that this is going to upset people.

GW being late isn’t the issue; their lack of transparency is.

8.1