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.
Melissia wrote: Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though. The top codices will still continue to be at the top. Therefore the data collected (army traits, maxed out units, strats) can be used for balancing decisions.
However the issue is that GW just kinda throws darts.
It really does though. Plenty of event winning lists have been unplayable in ITC and other above curve armies have had ITC results above their adverage.
Lance845 wrote:I know about the AFL in Australia but I have never seen a game and soccer (what we call everyone elses football) doesn't mean gak in America. Just because people in the rest of the world know what ITC is doesn't mean anything.
The question this thread asks is "Should ITC be considered "real" 40k". And if the argument in support of it being considered "real" is equating it to the Olympics then my argument is that that comparison is ridiculous.
GW should not, on any level, look to ITC for statistics to balance and change it's game. As mentioned a lot, ITC is a set of house rules not even equivalent to the NCAA, but instead equal to the YMCA running a dodgeball league.
It doesn't and shouldn't count for anything other than what it is. A way some people like to play the game. What GW SHOULD be doing is hiring actual game designers and testers to balance their game off actual design and testing. Fire Robin Cruddace for his years of bad work and hire real game developers to do a good job. Switch their focus from an ever changing balance to sell models to a solid foundation for steady sales of all product.
So do you often talk to people about the AFL rules when you're discussing FIFA?
No. Because I, like most 40k players, don't give a gak about Footy (read: tournaments).
Yet, ITC is the only tournament format that is easily recognized and commonly brought up here. So saying it isn't real is just blinding yourself to the reality that it has a significant following and influences how many people play. Even this thread here is an example of its level of influence.
I didn't say ITC doesn't exist. I said it's not as wide spread as you make it out to be and isn't as important as you are making it out to be. (or they. Whom so ever is making the argument)
Note, I am not arguing whether GW should or should not look to ITC results in balancing their games, as that is THEIR decision. ITC will restructure their ruleset around whatever GW chooses to do regardless of using their data or no. People will or will not play ITC formats depending on where they choose to go.
I have zero dog in this fight, as I am not a competitive player in any form, but I have had people be very specific about using ITC rules in their 40K games because training for the next tournament was all that mattered to them. I find ITC to be real in that it exists and is important to certain groups of people just like I find the NBA and Olympics to be real because they both exist and are important to certain groups of people. I am not going to dismiss their views just because I don't play that format, especially when such views are part of abstract concepts regarding formats and organizations.
Agreed. It's real. It's exists. People play it. Their data matters, but the importance of their data is mostly important only to them. There is some value to it for GW (if GW gave enough of a gak to mine it for useful information) but it's value is being greatly overstated by the people in support of it.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/02/01 22:57:36
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
In America, for the tournament going population who do not make up the majority of players. It is NOT the most popularly played, and followed and discussed format in the world. Tournament going players don't make up a majority of anything and it's only a single country where this format is all those things while the rest of the world mostly doesn't give a gak.
The caveat there is that said single country however is the largest single player/consumerbase with the widest reach and audience. I totally agree that tournament players make up a small portion of the total playerbase, but, as an American, every 40k event I come across has some level of ITC involvement these days.
I would argue that the most popularly played, followed and discussed format in the world is probably the missions out of the BRB and the codexes since thats what the vast majority of the people playing the game are actually playing.
If we're talking just pickup normal games and the like, I 100% agree, but that's why I said "event format". I have been to exactly one 40k event in 8E in the last two years that didn't use at least some ITC rules (even my last FLGS tournament using CA missions, used ITC terrain rules, even if it didn't use anything else), and the biggest events in town/regionally all use ITC rules and missions (which is also part of why I don't attend them as regularly). I haven't seen any event recently anywhere within several hundred miles that wasn't doing ITC in whole or in part.
I think it's very important to pop the self importance bubble that tournament players have. You (Not YOU Vaktathi. Tourny players.) are a minority. And you are a minority who are good at finding flaws and developing strategies that capitalize on those flaws but you are a minority none the less. Your data point is important but it is a data point that is equally important to the same scale of any other data points. With the caveat that once you start diverging from the actual game into house rules you become LESS valuable of a data point. Not more. Take the data point. Use it. Value it correctly.
I totally agree with that ultimate point, though the other issue is that due to the nature of events and the current scene, most of the data we have happens to be ITC related (at least that I've seen), which is why it plays the role it does.
As far as I'm concerned, CA updates have largely removed most of the need for ITC rules, so if it went away I wouldn't be terribly bothered, but tournaments have always also been something of a "house rule" environment, the core game for example has no rule concerning time limits (and stuff like 7E where terrain setup was part of the missions rules but events did this all beforehand instead of allowing players to set up terrain per the mission rules).
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.
@Vaktathi Which is why I said GW needs to hire real game developers and real testers. They need people who will systematically build lists and test units under controlled conditions that will gather data on every unit and a variety of strategies. Not just which units the tournies are deciding to spam because they found an exploit
No event data is telling GW anything about pyrovores or tyrannocytes for example. So again, value the data correctly.
Event data gives you a very specific set of data, based on a small % of the units, as utilized by a small minority of players, using a non standard format and missions, with the express goal of victory, not critical testing.
How useful is that really?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/01 23:08:21
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Yet, ITC is the only tournament format that is easily recognized and commonly brought up here. So saying it isn't real is just blinding yourself to the reality that it has a significant following and influences how many people play. Even this thread here is an example of its level of influence.
I didn't say ITC doesn't exist. I said it's not as wide spread as you make it out to be and isn't as important as you are making it out to be. (or they. Whom so ever is making the argument)
Note, I am not arguing whether GW should or should not look to ITC results in balancing their games, as that is THEIR decision. ITC will restructure their ruleset around whatever GW chooses to do regardless of using their data or no. People will or will not play ITC formats depending on where they choose to go.
I have zero dog in this fight, as I am not a competitive player in any form, but I have had people be very specific about using ITC rules in their 40K games because training for the next tournament was all that mattered to them. I find ITC to be real in that it exists and is important to certain groups of people just like I find the NBA and Olympics to be real because they both exist and are important to certain groups of people. I am not going to dismiss their views just because I don't play that format, especially when such views are part of abstract concepts regarding formats and organizations.
Agreed. It's real. It's exists. People play it. Their data matters, but the importance of their data is mostly important only to them. There is some value to it for GW (if GW gave enough of a gak to mine it for useful information) but it's value is being greatly overstated by the people in support of it.
So, in short, you're making arguments against me about things I am not saying, but what you want me to be saying. All I have stated in this thread is regarding the reality of ITC in regards to 40K. That is it, but others are contending that it isn't a reality, and it is to them that I have addressed my statements. Look about how your arguments are addressing things I have not stated in what you quoted.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Yet, ITC is the only tournament format that is easily recognized and commonly brought up here. So saying it isn't real is just blinding yourself to the reality that it has a significant following and influences how many people play. Even this thread here is an example of its level of influence.
I didn't say ITC doesn't exist. I said it's not as wide spread as you make it out to be and isn't as important as you are making it out to be. (or they. Whom so ever is making the argument)
Note, I am not arguing whether GW should or should not look to ITC results in balancing their games, as that is THEIR decision. ITC will restructure their ruleset around whatever GW chooses to do regardless of using their data or no. People will or will not play ITC formats depending on where they choose to go.
I have zero dog in this fight, as I am not a competitive player in any form, but I have had people be very specific about using ITC rules in their 40K games because training for the next tournament was all that mattered to them. I find ITC to be real in that it exists and is important to certain groups of people just like I find the NBA and Olympics to be real because they both exist and are important to certain groups of people. I am not going to dismiss their views just because I don't play that format, especially when such views are part of abstract concepts regarding formats and organizations.
Agreed. It's real. It's exists. People play it. Their data matters, but the importance of their data is mostly important only to them. There is some value to it for GW (if GW gave enough of a gak to mine it for useful information) but it's value is being greatly overstated by the people in support of it.
So, in short, you're making arguments against me about things I am not saying, but what you want me to be saying. All I have stated in this thread is regarding the reality of ITC in regards to 40K. That is it, but others are contending that it isn't a reality, and it is to them that I have addressed my statements. Look about how your arguments are addressing things I have not stated in what you quoted.
I started quoting you when you started quoting me. I answered a statement you made with what I had to say about it. I don't care enough about you to want you to be saying anything. If you don't agree with what I am saying then say that and present counter points. If you do agree say that. I agreed ITC exists. I disagree that it matters like you say it does.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/01 23:26:44
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Melissia wrote: Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though. The top codices will still continue to be at the top. Therefore the data collected (army traits, maxed out units, strats) can be used for balancing decisions.
However the issue is that GW just kinda throws darts.
It really does though. Plenty of event winning lists have been unplayable in ITC and other above curve armies have had ITC results above their adverage.
Where's this "plenty" you speak of? I don't care about some random store's 10 person tournament if that's what you're implying.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Melissia wrote: Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though. The top codices will still continue to be at the top. Therefore the data collected (army traits, maxed out units, strats) can be used for balancing decisions.
However the issue is that GW just kinda throws darts.
It really does though. Plenty of event winning lists have been unplayable in ITC and other above curve armies have had ITC results above their adverage.
Where's this "plenty" you speak of? I don't care about some random store's 10 person tournament if that's what you're implying.
80 person non ITC GT enough? 'Cause Genestealer Varieties and Various Chaos soups kept up with and beat out IF and IH. As well as Admech + Smash Captain and other trash ITC armies.
Melissia wrote: Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though. The top codices will still continue to be at the top. Therefore the data collected (army traits, maxed out units, strats) can be used for balancing decisions.
However the issue is that GW just kinda throws darts.
It really does though. Plenty of event winning lists have been unplayable in ITC and other above curve armies have had ITC results above their adverage.
Where's this "plenty" you speak of? I don't care about some random store's 10 person tournament if that's what you're implying.
80 person non ITC GT enough? 'Cause Genestealer Varieties and Various Chaos soups kept up with and beat out IF and IH. As well as Admech + Smash Captain and other trash ITC armies.
Chaos variants have already been not losing terribly so you're not presenting new information. However if your evidence is really just one tournament then you have nothing.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Melissia wrote: Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though. The top codices will still continue to be at the top. Therefore the data collected (army traits, maxed out units, strats) can be used for balancing decisions.
However the issue is that GW just kinda throws darts.
It really does though. Plenty of event winning lists have been unplayable in ITC and other above curve armies have had ITC results above their adverage.
Where's this "plenty" you speak of? I don't care about some random store's 10 person tournament if that's what you're implying.
80 person non ITC GT enough? 'Cause Genestealer Varieties and Various Chaos soups kept up with and beat out IF and IH. As well as Admech + Smash Captain and other trash ITC armies.
Chaos variants have already been not losing terribly so you're not presenting new information. However if your evidence is really just one tournament then you have nothing.
I mean, how far back do you want to go to still be relevant? There's evidence going back, but that's the only recent non ITC result available.
Melissia wrote: Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though. The top codices will still continue to be at the top. Therefore the data collected (army traits, maxed out units, strats) can be used for balancing decisions.
However the issue is that GW just kinda throws darts.
It really does though. Plenty of event winning lists have been unplayable in ITC and other above curve armies have had ITC results above their adverage.
Where's this "plenty" you speak of? I don't care about some random store's 10 person tournament if that's what you're implying.
80 person non ITC GT enough? 'Cause Genestealer Varieties and Various Chaos soups kept up with and beat out IF and IH. As well as Admech + Smash Captain and other trash ITC armies.
Chaos variants have already been not losing terribly so you're not presenting new information. However if your evidence is really just one tournament then you have nothing.
I mean, how far back do you want to go to still be relevant? There's evidence going back, but that's the only recent non ITC result available.
Only recent are your keywords there
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Melissia wrote: Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though. The top codices will still continue to be at the top. Therefore the data collected (army traits, maxed out units, strats) can be used for balancing decisions.
However the issue is that GW just kinda throws darts.
It really does though. Plenty of event winning lists have been unplayable in ITC and other above curve armies have had ITC results above their adverage.
Where's this "plenty" you speak of? I don't care about some random store's 10 person tournament if that's what you're implying.
80 person non ITC GT enough? 'Cause Genestealer Varieties and Various Chaos soups kept up with and beat out IF and IH. As well as Admech + Smash Captain and other trash ITC armies.
Chaos variants have already been not losing terribly so you're not presenting new information. However if your evidence is really just one tournament then you have nothing.
I mean, how far back do you want to go to still be relevant? There's evidence going back, but that's the only recent non ITC result available.
Only recent are your keywords there
Well then, you aren't going to get a satisfying answer anyway
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/02 03:05:22
Lance845 wrote: I started quoting you when you started quoting me. I answered a statement you made with what I had to say about it. I don't care enough about you to want you to be saying anything. If you don't agree with what I am saying then say that and present counter points. If you do agree say that. I agreed ITC exists. I disagree that it matters like you say it does.
Then maybe address what you quote instead of going off on your own tangent as if I said something else. What have I said how much it matters? Oh, yeah, that's right, to the people who actually play it, that's it. The Olympics comparison was not ever meant to classify its importance (though, to me, it may as well be since I pay as much attention to the Olympics as I do ITC results), which I have repeatedly stated, yet that's what you went off on.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Then maybe address what you quote instead of going off on your own tangent as if I said something else. What have I said how much it matters? Oh, yeah, that's right, to the people who actually play it, that's it.
Cool. We agree. The people who play ITC care about ITC results and maybe want the game balanced around the ITC format. Great. And?
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
But hell itc is by far far far not the most way how 40k is played. Dunno wy people still think that.
Mostly because many Americans have a hard time grasping that the world outside USA exists.
ITC might be the way a small minority of players play but even here in the US but even here in the US most people play GWCA missions on their day to day 40k. Also - I think most people in the US are well aware they are playing an English game - everyone has a pretty firm grasp on that.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Lance845 wrote: @Vaktathi Which is why I said GW needs to hire real game developers and real testers. They need people who will systematically build lists and test units under controlled conditions that will gather data on every unit and a variety of strategies. Not just which units the tournies are deciding to spam because they found an exploit
No event data is telling GW anything about pyrovores or tyrannocytes for example. So again, value the data correctly.
Event data gives you a very specific set of data, based on a small % of the units, as utilized by a small minority of players, using a non standard format and missions, with the express goal of victory, not critical testing.
How useful is that really?
The kind of play testing you are suggesting would take a literal army of people a very long time to do. 40k is not some video game that you can instantly set up a game and test stuff out over and over in a timely fashion. The average 2k point game takes 2-3 hours. Thats a decent chunck of a work day. It would take a full work day to get just 4 games in and thats 2 peoples time. Thats 20 games a week if they do nothing but play games. They still have make reports and comunicate with designers. There are literally billions if not trillions of possible unit interactions in this game. If you wanted 100 play testers even being payed minimum wage thats 2 million EUR a year in wages. I don't even think 100 people would be nearly enough to get all this testing done in a timely fashion you are likely looking at thousands of people required.
There is a reason GW uses outside data to make balancing changes. The kind of resources it takes to properly play test something like 40k is pretty stagering. Most online games continually take data from players and make balance changes as well.
All this isn't to say GW couldn't do a better job. I think there is always room for improvement.
kodos wrote: no need to make up something to fit the narritive
there are not even a 1000 possible unit interactions in the game, with every faction just can come up with one or two viable builds not even that much
Are you sure you understand playtesting?
I'm not sure how you're defining "unit interaction" here, kodos, Let's take Death Guard as an example, as they're the page of the MFM that opened when I grabbed it. You've got thirty-four different units in there, even before you look at upgrades or soup options. Even before looking at how the army interacts with an OpFor, you've got a lot of potential interactions there to consider, just looking at how the units in the book interact with each other, especially when you're considering buff auras, etc. And then you have to look at how psychic powers, stratagems and potential Warlord traits/relics affect those interactions - again, even before you've put them on the table to face another army.
I'm not even going to try to count the number of units in the core Space Marine codex, and look at how many potential interactions there are there.
kodos wrote: 10 play testers and 2-3 months work would be enough to make it a balanced game
but therefore they would need to have access to all the rules
saying that it is not achievable just to defend GW who does not want to do it
No, pointing out that it'd be a huge resource sink to do thoroughly - even without allowing for the fact that you may need to do multiple cycles as variables change - is not unreasonable. And given the player base seems willing to buy books without significant additional testing being required...
kodos wrote: most online games that take data from players are already better balanced by default and use it for fine tuning the game
Online games generally have a much tighter control of how their games behave, and, as you note, gather a huge amount of data about how their games are played automatically. Just capturing accurate basic win % figures for different characters on different maps in a MOBA, for example, would help you to understand basic strengths and weaknesses, and possibly where you might want to start looking to tweak things.
The number of extra variables in a tabletop game - from house rules, to terrain set-ups, to army size, to even people actually attempting to play RAW instead of allowing for RAI - would make such things impossible to do.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
kodos wrote: no need to make up something to fit the narritive
there are not even a 1000 possible unit interactions in the game, with every faction just can come up with one or two viable builds not even that much
Are you sure you understand playtesting?
I'm not sure how you're defining "unit interaction" here, kodos, Let's take Death Guard as an example, as they're the page of the MFM that opened when I grabbed it. You've got thirty-four different units in there, even before you look at upgrades or soup options. Even before looking at how the army interacts with an OpFor, you've got a lot of potential interactions there to consider, just looking at how the units in the book interact with each other, especially when you're considering buff auras, etc. And then you have to look at how psychic powers, stratagems and potential Warlord traits/relics affect those interactions - again, even before you've put them on the table to face another army.
I'm not even going to try to count the number of units in the core Space Marine codex, and look at how many potential interactions there are there.
ok, lets get into details
there is external balance, faction vs faction, and internal balance
the amount of units within a faction is per set by the available models and their possible equipment, so nothing the testers can do anything about
this leads to one of the big problems of 40k for players, as the different roles on the battlefield are covered by several nearly identical units
So unit A with option X is doing the same job as unit B with option Y and as both need to have different profiles in game, one will always be better than the other, no points can change this (eg if you just need a meat shield the cheapest option will the best, if you need long range snipers those that do more damage on higher range are better, no matter if the other costs the same but get better armour while having shorter range)
In the best case those are all equal options with minor differences that make one not obvious better than the other but for the job the play want the to do one will be better (a player who prefers better survivability over longer range will chose the other unit while the player who does not care if the unit survive the first engagement chose the other)
this is something you can adjust (up to a point) by math alone for the specific role on the battlefield.
For external balance those options are not important and kind of don't exists, as if one unit is overpowered all other units doing the same job within the same point range are also overpowered and just nerfing one and it will be replaced with the next best option.
if there is only one unit with one option that causes the problem, the internal balance is off in the first place like it was with the Horros at the beginning of 8th.
This was something obvious as the meat shield with the best defence per point is the best, and as long as the important defensive stats stayed the same, (health points and ward save) the cheapest unit was the way to go.
could have been that the designers, because of the new core rules, did not understand what are the important defensive stats until later into the game (were now it is pretty clear that the number of wounds is the main thing and not armour or toughness).
Next point is that no matter how many different units are available, the buffs available to an army define how it is played and this reduce the options available for a specific build that need to be tested.
With Unit A buffing unit B, going with a combination of unit A + C if this breaks the external balance is not that important except unit C is so powerful that it is always better than a buffed unit B (which is again a problem of internal balance)
Overall, you just need to test the best/strongest build of Faction A against the strongest build of Faction B, if this works out well, you can work on internal balance to make all units that have similar roles options for that build (this is also something you can do later with player data available as it is more a fine tuning of balance) and/or add another build and test it again
If the strongest build has no chance to win against one Faction you can stop as there is a problem and you need to set the level you want to have (buff the losing one, nerf the winning one of both) and adjust it in the first place before you go into details and start testing all available options.
This is a long process, but already the initial test run (playing the strongest build of the new Codex against the strongest build of each other faction) would avoid things we have seen during this edition.
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
kodos wrote: no need to make up something to fit the narritive
there are not even a 1000 possible unit interactions in the game, with every faction just can come up with one or two viable builds not even that much
Are you sure you understand playtesting?
I'm not sure how you're defining "unit interaction" here, kodos, Let's take Death Guard as an example, as they're the page of the MFM that opened when I grabbed it. You've got thirty-four different units in there, even before you look at upgrades or soup options. Even before looking at how the army interacts with an OpFor, you've got a lot of potential interactions there to consider, just looking at how the units in the book interact with each other, especially when you're considering buff auras, etc. And then you have to look at how psychic powers, stratagems and potential Warlord traits/relics affect those interactions - again, even before you've put them on the table to face another army.
I'm not even going to try to count the number of units in the core Space Marine codex, and look at how many potential interactions there are there.
ok, lets get into details
there is external balance, faction vs faction, and internal balance
the amount of units within a faction is per set by the available models and their possible equipment, so nothing the testers can do anything about
this leads to one of the big problems of 40k for players, as the different roles on the battlefield are covered by several nearly identical units
So unit A with option X is doing the same job as unit B with option Y and as both need to have different profiles in game, one will always be better than the other, no points can change this (eg if you just need a meat shield the cheapest option will the best, if you need long range snipers those that do more damage on higher range are better, no matter if the other costs the same but get better armour while having shorter range)
In the best case those are all equal options with minor differences that make one not obvious better than the other but for the job the play want the to do one will be better (a player who prefers better survivability over longer range will chose the other unit while the player who does not care if the unit survive the first engagement chose the other)
this is something you can adjust (up to a point) by math alone for the specific role on the battlefield.
For external balance those options are not important and kind of don't exists, as if one unit is overpowered all other units doing the same job within the same point range are also overpowered and just nerfing one and it will be replaced with the next best option.
if there is only one unit with one option that causes the problem, the internal balance is off in the first place like it was with the Horros at the beginning of 8th.
This was something obvious as the meat shield with the best defence per point is the best, and as long as the important defensive stats stayed the same, (health points and ward save) the cheapest unit was the way to go.
could have been that the designers, because of the new core rules, did not understand what are the important defensive stats until later into the game (were now it is pretty clear that the number of wounds is the main thing and not armour or toughness).
Next point is that no matter how many different units are available, the buffs available to an army define how it is played and this reduce the options available for a specific build that need to be tested.
With Unit A buffing unit B, going with a combination of unit A + C if this breaks the external balance is not that important except unit C is so powerful that it is always better than a buffed unit B (which is again a problem of internal balance)
Overall, you just need to test the best/strongest build of Faction A against the strongest build of Faction B, if this works out well, you can work on internal balance to make all units that have similar roles options for that build (this is also something you can do later with player data available as it is more a fine tuning of balance) and/or add another build and test it again
If the strongest build has no chance to win against one Faction you can stop as there is a problem and you need to set the level you want to have (buff the losing one, nerf the winning one of both) and adjust it in the first place before you go into details and start testing all available options.
This is a long process, but already the initial test run (playing the strongest build of the new Codex against the strongest build of each other faction) would avoid things we have seen during this edition.
strongest change depending on pilot, mission and board setup...
Lammia wrote: strongest change depending on pilot, mission and board setup...
Which is why people here saying that ITC is not the real 40k and by itself is a problem for balancing as if the factions are tested with the original missions, terrain rules and victory conditions changing any of those throws the balance out of the window.
on the other hand, if something changes from medicore to be completely over the top by just having different missions, the very core of the game already has a problem.
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
To get an acceptable playtesting of 40k you would need no less than 2 or 3 million games (and that is already assuming that you interpolate a lot and don't try everything).
At 3 hours each, you are looking at 9 million hours of work.
Assuming a team of 20 people dedicated to it, this translates in 242 years of testing.
Don't know you, but i'm not going to wait that long.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/02 11:29:21
Spoletta wrote: To get an acceptable playtesting of 40k you would need no less than 2 or 3 million games (and that is already assuming that you interpolate a lot and don't try everything).
I am really interested how you calculated that
I have a basic idea how you might get that number, but I just want to know for sure
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
Lammia wrote: strongest change depending on pilot, mission and board setup...
Which is why people here saying that ITC is not the real 40k and by itself is a problem for balancing as if the factions are tested with the original missions, terrain rules and victory conditions changing any of those throws the balance out of the window.
on the other hand, if something changes from medicore to be completely over the top by just having different missions, the very core of the game already has a problem.
Well by that standard we have a really big problem.
Take for example my problem solver of the Urban Conquest campaign I played, the Eradicator Nova Cannon. Not a shining star of 8th edition by anyone's standard, yet with a few changes within the long established 'spirit' of how 40k it saw a significant increase in worth.
Spoletta wrote: To get an acceptable playtesting of 40k you would need no less than 2 or 3 million games (and that is already assuming that you interpolate a lot and don't try everything).
Lance845 wrote: @Vaktathi Which is why I said GW needs to hire real game developers and real testers. They need people who will systematically build lists and test units under controlled conditions that will gather data on every unit and a variety of strategies. Not just which units the tournies are deciding to spam because they found an exploit
No event data is telling GW anything about pyrovores or tyrannocytes for example. So again, value the data correctly.
Event data gives you a very specific set of data, based on a small % of the units, as utilized by a small minority of players, using a non standard format and missions, with the express goal of victory, not critical testing.
How useful is that really?
The kind of play testing you are suggesting would take a literal army of people a very long time to do. 40k is not some video game that you can instantly set up a game and test stuff out over and over in a timely fashion. The average 2k point game takes 2-3 hours. Thats a decent chunck of a work day. It would take a full work day to get just 4 games in and thats 2 peoples time. Thats 20 games a week if they do nothing but play games. They still have make reports and comunicate with designers. There are literally billions if not trillions of possible unit interactions in this game. If you wanted 100 play testers even being payed minimum wage thats 2 million EUR a year in wages. I don't even think 100 people would be nearly enough to get all this testing done in a timely fashion you are likely looking at thousands of people required.
There is a reason GW uses outside data to make balancing changes. The kind of resources it takes to properly play test something like 40k is pretty stagering. Most online games continually take data from players and make balance changes as well.
All this isn't to say GW couldn't do a better job. I think there is always room for improvement.
GW doesn't need a literal army. It needs 1-2 testers per army working 8 hour days 40 hours a week. with 1 lead tester/supervisor. 8th was up for pre order june 3rd 2017. Which means it went to the printers about now that year. Roughly that staff would have had 3 years or 6240 hours PER EMPLOYEE to perform testing on the game since 8th came out. When they were going to make a change like the new SM codex every tester would be directed to play as or against SM to see how those rules function and the sheer power creep would have been obvious after the first week. They don't need to play full 2k games for every test case. And they should probably be spending 6-7 hours a day running that days assigned test cases before spending the last hour filling out their paperwork (which should be a digital log) and submitting it to the supervisor. Supervisor is the one in the meetings with the developers (most likely weekly) and compiling the data gathered, and designing and assigning the test cases.
Hiring real testers doesn't take what it does for video games. And the biggest issues become obvious and get addressed first.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/02 14:04:07
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
It's definitely a valid way to play the game insofar as any other house rule, but that's not to say i like ITC (I don't).
Crimson wrote: I have said it before and I say it again: If GW charges me real money for their points and they charge me real money for their missions, I bloody well expect those points to be balanced based on those missions, and not based on some third party houserules from other side of the globe!
I'll agree completely with this though.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/02 14:35:55
