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.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Mymearan wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
What a garbage excuse. So Guilty Gear can be balanced, but 40k can't be balanced because the developers only want to milk more money. That doesn't make sense on so many levels, not least of which being that Guilty Gear still managed to achieve that balance all the while selling every its patches at almost the price of the entire game.

No, Guilty Gear is orders of magnitude easier to balance because a playtest is 5 minutes long as opposed to 3 hours, and only requires two people and a machine no matter which combination of characters and variables you're testing. I can't even begin to imagine what large scale testing of 40k would entail (obviously GW are not even attempting it). There's also the fact that Guilty Gear is completely standardized, in that the game will be exactly the same for every player in every match. There's no player-set-up terrain to account for and no dozens of optional scenarios to balance against.

Ah so you have literally NO idea what you are talking about, but still decided to weigh in anyway?

fighters are notoriously hard to balance. every single FRAME of time on the screen is relevant. People are still finding new things, every single day, for each character, for a game that he been out for years and years. There is an insane amount of depth, it's hilarious that you genuinely think you can platter it 5 minutes.

Thank you, Fighters are a whole lot harder to balance than a game that could essentially be boiled down into a mathematical formulae "Stat costs". I've been playing them semi-competitively for a few years now, and even the smallest change (-2 frames to a neutral attack) can change the character's entire gameplay.
Changing Bolters from 24" to 26" will never, ever have the same weight of impact as that does, therefore there are less cascading balance considerations for each change made, and therefore Warhammer 40k as it currently stands is an easier game to balance by a gakking mile.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
I'm finding it veeeeery suspicious that mostly all the units in their £100 box sets this year all received drops in points... it's getting weird.

And what about all the point drops for units NOT in those boxes? Occam's razor, dude.

Eh, I'd say that some of the Ork Codex changes were obviously done with $$$ in mind, tractor beams being buffed to crap comes to mind. The problem is that there's a curse of ineptitude that occasionally touches things. Or perhaps it's the other way around? There's a few global changes in this CA that aren't applied to all Factions our of what, spite? Laziness? Capitalism? Why are Killsaws ( or Chainfists ) 11 points for some armies, 15 points for others and 20+ points for other armies?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Marines are bad. Full stop. Their allies are irrelevant. They are, however, a little less bad after ca.

I think you're down talking these changes. There's clearly an *attempt* at balance being done. Orks Boyz at 7 points are equivalent to Space Marines, Cultists at 5 are equivalent to Space Marines.

The problem is that there's a whole team of chefs sticking fingers into the pot while they're trying to cook a balanced Soufflé, and at least a few of them don't care about how it tastes.

If they were trying to balance why did they increase the effectiveness of an already competitive unit even more?

 Asherian Command wrote:
If they were trying to balance why did they increase the effectiveness of an already competitive unit even more?

Take a look at the Thousand Sons, Space Marines and Necron changes. There is clearly and attempt at balance there.
The others? More than a bit messy.

 lolman1c wrote:
I'm finding it veeeeery suspicious that mostly all the units in their £100 box sets this year all received drops in points... it's getting weird.

Nothing weird about it. GW wants to shift model kits. Keep in mind they don't need to make a perfectly balanced game. They're not selling the game, they're selling the miniatures. They can put on a good show, but all they need to produce is what 40K has always been; a game which is "good enough". I don't doubt there are plenty of enthusiasts working for GW, but the budget and manpower predominantly go toward making a profit.

GW will see a limited benefit (financially) to having a beautifully balanced, perfectly crafted game. In essence, that would essentially be wasted manpower, effort, etc. on their part. The game needs to be "good enough" that people buy it, enjoy it and continue to buy models. You'll have your fringe players who come back to the game, and the fringe players who depart.

40K has been in quite a big "horde" meta lately, so it's not in doubt that GW's sales numbers will reflect a decline in most super heavies outside of knights, etc. You don't need to attribute any of this to a conspiracy, it's just basic business practice.

Well, you probably couldn't establish a mathematical formula for the points cost of 40k units; because there are too many variables and potential interactions to consider. It's definitely not easy to balance a wargame, particularly one with as many units, factions, and options.

The best to really do is to get close, largely based on legacy, and then make fine adjustments until you zero in.

This is further compounded by the requirement to continuously release more models.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Well, you probably couldn't establish a mathematical formula for the points cost of 40k units; because there are too many variables and potential interactions to consider. It's definitely not easy to balance a wargame, particularly one with as many units, factions, and options.

The best to really do is to get close, largely based on legacy, and then make fine adjustments until you zero in.

This is further compounded by the requirement to continuously release more models.

Nobody is saying it's easy to balance a wargame. They'd be wrong. Almost as wrong as anyone saying it's easier to balance a fighter, which is even more difficult.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Well, you probably couldn't establish a mathematical formula for the points cost of 40k units; because there are too many variables and potential interactions to consider. It's definitely not easy to balance a wargame, particularly one with as many units, factions, and options.

The best to really do is to get close, largely based on legacy, and then make fine adjustments until you zero in.

This is further compounded by the requirement to continuously release more models.

Nobody is saying it's easy to balance a wargame. They'd be wrong. Almost as wrong as anyone saying it's easier to balance a fighter, which is even more difficult.

Well they are difficult for completely different reasons.

In fighter games you have the problem that minimal changes can have huge effects on the gameplay, while in a wargame you have the problem of list building and small sample size.

Both cannot be solved by a formula obviously, only testing and refining.

Even STarcraft can't use a formula. Get real.

 Trickstick wrote:
Draigo in a unit of like 10 paladins, all different loadouts. You could tank all the wounds on Draigo, or pass them off to a big sea of Paladin wounds. Then you had a couple of dreads or dreadknights or something. I may have forgot some key part but it was basically Draigo leading a swarm of paladins.

Draigowing wasn't OP, GK MSU was. Draigowing was fun, only in relic mission it was a pain in the neck. But almost no one used it since there was a better list to field, 2x5 pagk, 2x5 purifiers, 4x3 acolytes, all inside razorbacks with THB psybolt ammo and 3x dreddy psyrifle (twin auto cannon with psybolt).

That was OP, in particular because Nemesis weapons, as force weapons, ignored armour save, the high amount of +1 STR shots and good psionic powers.

So I'm wondering what bearing guilty gear has on whether or not 40k can truly be balanced on are not. Assuming I'll take your word that guilty gear is fully balanced (as I've never played it) there is a large reason for why that doesn't mean much.

Its a video fighting game. That's so far removed from 40k that it is kinda of irrelevant. I could just as easily say 40k should be balanced because Madden NFL or Fortnight are near perfectly balanced. What factors go into balancing a fighting game are so far removed from balancing a table top game, that you might as well be comparing apples to oranges. It almost seems like we are debating which is harder to learn; programming with JavaScript or playing the violin. It seems to me in this case you're basically saying "I was able to learn JavaScript almost instantly, therefore I should have no trouble mastering the violin."

That being said I do agree that removing complexity from 40k will make it easier to balance, but I think that is mostly a bad idea for the game. Back when I first started playing, people where clamoring for things like gene-stealer cults, chaos legion specific books, ad-mech, and many other things that GW has now recently added. These things added complexity, but I'm very happy they are here. Sure GW has also added a lot of nonsense to boost sales (we really didn't need space marines with gravity guns, or what seems like their 20 unique flyers), but that stuff is here now and would ruin a lot of people's days if they where removed.

Furthermore, how much more balanced would the game be if some of the more niche options where removed? Where does the line get drawn? Barely anybody complained that Knights shouldn't be in regular 40k before their codex, yet now that's a common complaint. During 5th tons of people complained that tank companies shouldn't exist either. Heck there are still people claiming that any model bigger than a rhino should have never been added. Who's right here? My previous examples of infinity falls in area which is far closer to a small-scale skirmish with limited options that some people are clamoring for, yet is far from being near-perfectly balanced.

Again I'm not saying that 40k is near perfect, or that it can't be made to be better; only that GW has a done a good job moving the needle in the right direction recently, and that expecting 40k to be balanced as guilty gear is unrealistic.

Spoletta wrote:
Well they are difficult for completely different reasons.

In fighter games you have the problem that minimal changes can have huge effects on the gameplay, while in a wargame you have the problem of list building and small sample size.

Both cannot be solved by a formula obviously, only testing and refining.

Not totally convinced.

In a fighting game - or an RTS - two players are interacting with each other in real time. You can say (kind of anyway) that in a game of perfect knowledge - and perfect skill - the game should go on forever, as each player counters the other's actions. At the danger of getting even more pompous - all actions occur in a sort of spacetime. If you are doing a low kick you can't also be doing an uppercut. If you go for a 6 pool you can't also do a 10 pool. If someone commits to a 6 pool, you can break down, second by second, all possible options for the opponent. If none of these work you can conclude the rush is too powerful and needs to be nerfed in some way. Or if the skill required to counter it is disproportionate to the effort the attacking player has put in.
The probable solution would be making the rush "slower" so opponents have more time to deploy countermeasures.

It would be a challenge to express this in a formula.

But at the same time there isn't a risk when I tell my character to punch that he just... doesn't. Or when I spawn 6 Zerglings I might sometimes get 3, or 12.

While base movement is set - almost everything else in 40k comes down to stats and probability. Typically a good unit is one which has a better than average chance to do damage (whether via shooting, psychic, assault) - while giving your opponent a worse than average chance to do damage. They can either do this directly - or by buffing other units. There are also wider considerations of scoring objectives - but these are typically related.

Identifying these isn't that difficult since there is nothing beyond the maths. It can get reasonably complicated with units operating in multiple phases - but yes, I think you can express this as a formula. Or at least get sufficiently close. When we say Ravagers are good, we mean that they are odds on to do a lot of damage, while offering the opponent limited upside. By contrast Tactical marines suffer from being the reverse. If we can identify this I don't see why we can't break things down to some sort of points formula.

Salt donkey wrote:
So I'm wondering what bearing guilty gear has on whether or not 40k can truly be balanced on are not. Assuming I'll take your word that guilty gear is fully balanced (as I've never played it) there is a large reason for why that doesn't mean much.

Its a video fighting game. That's so far removed from 40k that it is kinda of irrelevant. I could just as easily say 40k should be balanced because Madden NFL or Fortnight are near perfectly balanced. What factors go into balancing a fighting game are so far removed from balancing a table top game, that you might as well be comparing apples to oranges.

1.) that's not the case at all. It's a game with 15+ factors each with their own very unique identity, playing 1v1 match ups, in a game system that has tons of depth, even more than 40k. This myth that things need to be a direct parallel for a comparison to work never holds up, and is almost always used to handwave comparisons that hold implications that some may dislike. The comparison works just fine, you take into account the differences when making it. At the very least, it's balance speaks at least to the possibility of drawing balance across such a varied system - something people are waving as an argument for why it's impossible for GW to achieve the same.

2.) Why can't we compare apples to oranges?

Salt donkey wrote:
and it It almost seems like we are debating which is harder to learn; programming with JavaScript or playing the violin. It seems to me in this case you're basically saying "I was able to learn JavaScript almost instantly, therefore I should have no trouble mastering the violin."

Except that's not what's being said, and your metaphor completely rewrites the argument being made. Arc System spent 20 years tweaking updating and balancing their much more in depth game, and have eventually gotten it to a state of very tight balance, therefor there's little reason for why the same thing can't be done by GW, who's game is much less complex. The equivalent metaphor would be "It's possible for someone to put an effort in and learn Javascript, so we can see it's possible, there's no real reason that someone else couldn't also learn Javascript if they put in enough effort"

Salt donkey wrote:
Again I'm not saying that 40k is near perfect, or that it can't be made to be better; only that GW has a done a good job moving the needle in the right direction recently, and that expecting 40k to be balanced as guilty gear is unrealistic.

maybe you should take a second out to read my posts. You asked, and I quote, "How on earth does anybody create a system which ensures that 15+ unque factions are extremely close in power-level?". I gave you an example of just that, off the top of my head. I also said that 40k is progressing nicely and 8th is the best edition yet, and CA is good addition to that. But expecting 40k to be as balanced as Guilty is not at all unrealistic, and is extremely achievable. If anything, people should be saying "expecting Guilty to be as balanced as 40k is unrealistic", as 40k is a far less complex game with much less hurdles towards balance, and a decade longer of development time. But let's be real, they haven't really been trying for most of that time. I don't expect them to do it in a day. It would be nice if people would stop calling it unrealistic to get it balanced, because it's far from it

I think the comparison between Guilty Gear and Warhammer is a bit dishonest.

In a digital game you can control every variable, every frame, and every minute detail. The developer has absolute control of every single variable, it is the nature of the digital beast.

In 40k you have an analog battlefield that is entirely subjective to each player's whim, using rulers that are not always super accurate when used(X-Wing does it better), using dice that add a whole random layer, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Now some of those issues can be fixed and I have even advocated for some of them. Make table setups that are match approved, rely less on random rolls(GW has already addressed some of these issues in 8th), and so on.

I am really not seeing how this Arc System and 40k comparison came up. It is entirely unrealistic as these are two completely different things. To be fair I'd rather expect people to compare StarCraft/Warcraft to Warhammer as they at least share some commonalities despite being much different things.

Now, to the original question of whether Warhammer can be truly balanced I would say: Maybe. It all depends on how brutal GW wants to be and I am talking about End Times brutal. No faffing about continuing with pointless options and index models. Cut all extra fat and focus the game on what is actually usable and is distinct enough to be used. I doubt, however, that GW will ever go that far as they do like selling models and want to keep people buying them.

 Trickstick wrote:
Draigo in a unit of like 10 paladins, all different loadouts. You could tank all the wounds on Draigo, or pass them off to a big sea of Paladin wounds. Then you had a couple of dreads or dreadknights or something. I may have forgot some key part but it was basically Draigo leading a swarm of paladins.

A ) that unit was literally 1000+ points by itself, and could only attack one unit at a time, if opponent dropped that down you laughed and auto-won the game as you fed it 50 pts squad per turn (especially given no split fire and 'you charge what you shot' rule), B ) it was so slow it could be easily kited, unless you wanted to risk extra perils of the warp and deep strike mishaps on top of it, risking suicide, C ) still died to single vindicator (or IG equivalent) shot with every single model besides Draigo being ID, especially if you deep struck it to make it even easier for pie plate to cover them all, D ) a lot of books actually had melee responses to it (say, 15 hammernators costing the same points would pulp them with ease, then laugh as Draigo's S4 sword bounces off them), never mind the fact Lysander, Calgar, Logan and Abaddon could all take on Draigo 1 vs 1 and win (with Swarmlord having a good shot too) making him not even top 5 melee threat in game...

Again, I played GK, and besides a few fun games, I never used Paladins because they had so many drawbacks they were borderline underpowered, not OP by any means.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Im not gonna lie, I used to wreck face with a space marine biker command squad/w storm shields and grav + apothecary, attached to two captains (one of which iron hands, other white scars). Used to tank all incoming shooting with the Iron hands 2+/3++/4+++

Um, grav was not 5th edition. Neither was smashy IH dude. Whatever you can say about both, neither can be blamed on 5th. In fact, if anything, both were added after Ward left...

 SHUPPET wrote:

Mymearan wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
What a garbage excuse. So Guilty Gear can be balanced, but 40k can't be balanced because the developers only want to milk more money. That doesn't make sense on so many levels, not least of which being that Guilty Gear still managed to achieve that balance all the while selling every its patches at almost the price of the entire game.

No, Guilty Gear is orders of magnitude easier to balance because a playtest is 5 minutes long as opposed to 3 hours, and only requires two people and a machine no matter which combination of characters and variables you're testing. I can't even begin to imagine what large scale testing of 40k would entail (obviously GW are not even attempting it). There's also the fact that Guilty Gear is completely standardized, in that the game will be exactly the same for every player in every match. There's no player-set-up terrain to account for and no dozens of optional scenarios to balance against.

Ah so you have literally no idea what you are talking about, but still decided to weigh in anyway?

fighters are notoriously hard to balance. every single FRAME of time on the screen is relevant. People are still finding new things, every single day, for each character, for a game that he been out for years and years. All these characters interact with each in a far more dynamic way than two different armies do. There is an insane amount of depth, it's hilarious that you genuinely think you can playtest it 5 minutes.

I’ve been following competitive fighting games for 10 years, I like to think I know something about them. A play test, as in a single, complete match, the thing you are balancing for, is five minutes, yes, as opposed to a 40k game which is 3 hours long. That’s all I said. But you read into it what you want I guess. And “all these characters interact with each other in a far dynamic way then two armies” is a pretty bold statement to make casually. Are two characters more complex to balance against each other than any two armies? Sure. If those armies consist of static lists that you aren’t allowed to change. When you want to balance dozens or hundreds of permutations against each other? Nope. Simply because of the time commitment and logistics required for testing, a point you didn’t address at all.

To no one in particular, it occurs to me that expectations of balance in a game may actually be kinda unreasonable where:

- There are thousands of possible combinations of units and upgrades.
- There has to be a significant difference between units and upgrades to maintain army "uniqueness".
- Many units act as profound force multipliers on one or many other units. (i.e. you can't usefully compare units in a vacuum)
- The game may be played with any number of units (i.e. point scaling).
- The game will be played on boards of differing sizes.
- The game will be played on boards ranging from no terrain up to every square inch covered.
- The game relies on randomness for almost any action taken.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Ah, the typical inane trolling of 'hurr durr if you don't like something sell your army that you've invested a ton of time and money into for a pittance.'

I'll remember this comment when the nerf bat next hits TS and you express any disappointment.

What is your beef? Ork codex and CA was likely written at about the same time - so no changes - this should have been expected.

Current orks are top tier. An unbuffed ork boy was undercosted at 6 points. A 7 point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually better than the 6 point boy was. DE with no changes is actually kind of suprising - I am assuming they used DE as baseline for everything and tried to get every codex up to that level. They did fail miserably at this - but that seems to be what happened.

You're right about CA, it was well known that orks would have been out of the book because their codex is too new.

I disagree about drukhari, it's the aeldari soup that is top tier and too powerful. In fact I wished that several drukhari units and loadouts were buffed by CA since we have lots of underperforming stuff.

Orks top tiers is also debatable, but I think SM are solid top tiers, always have been so fair enough. AM and IK deserved a lot of nerfs, way more than drukhari, and the fact that they didn't get massive points hikes is the real surprise.

Where did you get that +1A for orks boyz?

Speaking of the +1 attack if they have a certain number of boys in the unit. Much like the geensteeler rule? right?

I dont know if anyone responded to you yet (might have missed it) but Boyz had this ability in the index. Its not new to the codex. We basically are paying for DDD (which is crap on boyz, and most ork units) since nobody else pays for their chapter tactics

Boyz are not paying one point for DDD.

Boyz were nerfed, plain and simple.

They were a top competitive choice (no, not only for slow play) BEFORE traits and stratagems, so GW decided to play it safe and apply a nerf to boyz with the codex, otherwise they would have created a monstruosity. I though we were supposed to be interested in a balanced game.

 Billagio wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Ah, the typical inane trolling of 'hurr durr if you don't like something sell your army that you've invested a ton of time and money into for a pittance.'

I'll remember this comment when the nerf bat next hits TS and you express any disappointment.

What is your beef? Ork codex and CA was likely written at about the same time - so no changes - this should have been expected.

Current orks are top tier. An unbuffed ork boy was undercosted at 6 points. A 7 point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually better than the 6 point boy was. DE with no changes is actually kind of suprising - I am assuming they used DE as baseline for everything and tried to get every codex up to that level. They did fail miserably at this - but that seems to be what happened.

You're right about CA, it was well known that orks would have been out of the book because their codex is too new.

I disagree about drukhari, it's the aeldari soup that is top tier and too powerful. In fact I wished that several drukhari units and loadouts were buffed by CA since we have lots of underperforming stuff.

Orks top tiers is also debatable, but I think SM are solid top tiers, always have been so fair enough. AM and IK deserved a lot of nerfs, way more than drukhari, and the fact that they didn't get massive points hikes is the real surprise.

Where did you get that +1A for orks boyz?

Speaking of the +1 attack if they have a certain number of boys in the unit. Much like the geensteeler rule? right?

I dont know if anyone responded to you yet (might have missed it) but Boyz had this ability in the index. Its not new to the codex. We basically are paying for DDD (which is crap on boyz, and most ork units) since nobody else pays for their chapter tactics

Technically what happened is GW forced you into buying that one grenade or bomb or whatever that was 10 points but suddenly free.

Is Guilty Gear balanced if I decide to play by smashing only one button as quickly as possible?

If not, why not?

I’m pretty excited; my preference is Slaanesh Daemons, and my army can be pretty big with these changes.

Mymearan wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Mymearan wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
What a garbage excuse. So Guilty Gear can be balanced, but 40k can't be balanced because the developers only want to milk more money. That doesn't make sense on so many levels, not least of which being that Guilty Gear still managed to achieve that balance all the while selling every its patches at almost the price of the entire game.

No, Guilty Gear is orders of magnitude easier to balance because a playtest is 5 minutes long as opposed to 3 hours, and only requires two people and a machine no matter which combination of characters and variables you're testing. I can't even begin to imagine what large scale testing of 40k would entail (obviously GW are not even attempting it). There's also the fact that Guilty Gear is completely standardized, in that the game will be exactly the same for every player in every match. There's no player-set-up terrain to account for and no dozens of optional scenarios to balance against.

Ah so you have literally no idea what you are talking about, but still decided to weigh in anyway?

fighters are notoriously hard to balance. every single FRAME of time on the screen is relevant. People are still finding new things, every single day, for each character, for a game that he been out for years and years. All these characters interact with each in a far more dynamic way than two different armies do. There is an insane amount of depth, it's hilarious that you genuinely think you can playtest it 5 minutes.

I’ve been following competitive fighting games for 10 years, I like to think I know something about them. A play test, as in a single, complete match, the thing you are balancing for, is five minutes, yes, as opposed to a 40k game which is 3 hours long. That’s all I said. But you read into it what you want I guess. And “all these characters interact with each other in a far dynamic way then two armies” is a pretty bold statement to make casually. Are two characters more complex to balance against each other than any two armies? Sure. If those armies consist of static lists that you aren’t allowed to change. When you want to balance dozens or hundreds of permutations against each other? Nope. Simply because of the time commitment and logistics required for testing, a point you didn’t address at all.

nah, you absolutely haven't been because nobody with any level of understanding would think this. It doesn't make sense on any level. For starters, imbalances are not discovered in live play, the time it takes to play out a match is irrelevant. The fact that you think a "playtest" is a single match, exposes your lie for what it is, if you follow the scene at all you do so extremely casually. You don't need to balance every single permutation of models against each other to balance 40k either, and not every single unit needs to be useful in every single match up for 40k to be balanced. I've addressed this already and I'm not going to repeat myself.

Daedalus81 wrote:Is Guilty Gear balanced if I decide to play by smashing only one button as quickly as possible?

If not, why not?

the game is still balanced yes, the same way Starcraft is still balanced if you just build drones all game, or Counter Strike is still balanced if you just shoot at a wall all game. The game still works just fine, you're just playing it very poorly.

 SHUPPET wrote:
"expecting Guilty to be as balanced as 40k is unrealistic", as 40k is a far less complex game with much less hurdles towards balance

That seems unlikely. The rules for 40K are pretty simple, but the army-wide interactions can be very complex. Imo you're selling 40K a little short here.

Spoletta wrote:
Boyz are not paying one point for DDD.

Boyz were nerfed, plain and simple.

They were a top competitive choice (no, not only for slow play) BEFORE traits and stratagems, so GW decided to play it safe and apply a nerf to boyz with the codex, otherwise they would have created a monstruosity. I though we were supposed to be interested in a balanced game.

This is an extremely narrow view.

They were anything but nerfed. Things like Green Tide exist, as well as clan bonuses or whatever.

Stop acting like a 1 point increase is a nerf when it is part of a huge set of changes.

"Each Ork Boy now carries a lascannon that hits automatically. But, their points are going up by 1 per model." NERF NERF NERF OMG NERF NERF NEF

 SHUPPET wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:Is Guilty Gear balanced if I decide to play by smashing only one button as quickly as possible?

If not, why not?

the game is still balanced yes, the same way Starcraft is still balanced if you just build drones all game, or Counter Strike is still balanced if you just shoot at a wall all game. The game still works just fine, you're just playing it very poorly.

Is this like people who complain about their fluffy mono list sucking when soup is available to them and encouraged?

Just kidding, kidding...

 SHUPPET wrote:

1.) that's not the case at all. It's a game with 15+ factors each with their own very unique identity, playing 1v1 match ups, in a game system that has tons of depth, even more than 40k. This myth that things need to be a direct parallel for a comparison to work never holds up, and is almost always used to handwave comparisons that hold implications that some may dislike. The comparison works just fine, you take into account the differences when making it. At the very least, it's balance speaks at least to the possibility of drawing balance across such a varied system - something people are waving as an argument for why it's impossible for GW to achieve the same.

2.) Why can't we compare apples to oranges?

I’m going to have to disagree with you here. In my mind there is range of comparisons between direct Parallel and completely unrelated. As you move further and further away from direct parrallel, the less value your comparison has. Otherwise we reach a point where any absurd statement can be backed up with a comparison. For example, I could say there’s no reason why Starburst shouldn’t be loaded with protein, becuse steak manages to do it and both of these items are food. Another might be “why doesn’t apples and oranges taste the same? They are both fruit after all.” While I’m not saying your argument falls this far towards completely unrelated, I do think you are making an argument in a similar vein. Their just aren’t enough similarities between guilty gear and 40k to back up the extreme nature of your position. Now If you where to have said “I think there some lessons that 40k can learn from guilty gear about balencing.” I would have agreed because this statement requires less similarities between games vs your actual argument. To put it simply I believe that 40k and gultiy gear can have some comparisons drawn, but lack the similarities needed to justify your extreme position.

I sometimes wonder what people mean by balance.

Obviously they don't mean all lists have an equal chance of winning, so what do they mean, then? What would balance mean?

Does it mean players with the same lists facing off should have only skill determine the win? That seems self-evidently true already.

Does it mean that different lists should win? Mono-codex only? Is the game balanced if mono-codexes can't compete on an even footing with soup?

One could argue that "not playing the best meta list" is "not playing the game correctly" in the same manner that shooting at a wall in Counterstrike is "not playing the game correctly."

40k is obviously balanced at some level, because two equal lists facing off have a 50% win chance, skill aside. What is "more balanced"?

I`m really surprised by the amount of negativity in this forum, even like negative person myself i cant judge so many changes they are doing only on 2 books.
I`m sure they play tested a lot of staff and tried their best to balance it and people should never forget that this edition is so open for soap and it give you so much option for list building. That is insane.
If you wanna be super competitive you have to invest to get the newest and hottest thing, if not i don`t see reason you can have fun with every army.

Marin wrote:
I`m really surprised by the amount of negativity in this forum

Anyway. Honestly outside of GK still "sucking" and IG not being brought up to cultist complaints how is everything else?

Marin wrote:
I`m really surprised by the amount of negativity in this forum...

That mainly stems from people being more likely to post if they are annoyed at a thing. The happy people are probably off doing something else. You see this in all sorts of discussions. For example, a higher proportion of people will leave negative reviews for a product because they are more motivated than the people who thought it was fine.