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.
Desubot wrote: ...2) what are you on about? im asking you what you would do to balance these hypothetical high mobility units? because there are only a few options.
a) adjust the points based off the average chance of a mission,
b) adjust points based on overall performance ignoring missions
c) adjust rules some how so they are some how
balanced for the 1 of many possible missions
d) delete the unit
e) delete the mission
im honestly not understanding what it is that you want or have against unit points.
Would it be an interesting thought experiment to consider how you might make high mobility valuable in all missions? Like...I don't know...by giving you some advantage to being able to get behind vehicles?
That would be different from what was being asked. But in general higher mobility would cost more points. abilities that ignore terrain would also cost more points.
you would look at the game data to see overall of people taking a bunch of high mobility things are winning or losing games and adjust the points.
Now as a core rule should intervening models do a thing? yes yes they should. and last i checked models still do block LOS. as if you cannot draw los to something through a rhino you cannot shoot it still. (might be off base on this one)
Desubot wrote: ...2) what are you on about? im asking you what you would do to balance these hypothetical high mobility units? because there are only a few options.
a) adjust the points based off the average chance of a mission,
b) adjust points based on overall performance ignoring missions
c) adjust rules some how so they are some how
balanced for the 1 of many possible missions
d) delete the unit
e) delete the mission
im honestly not understanding what it is that you want or have against unit points.
Would it be an interesting thought experiment to consider how you might make high mobility valuable in all missions? Like...I don't know...by giving you some advantage to being able to get behind vehicles?
I honestly hope GW never brings back vehicle faces. the mechanic was not terrible the issue was in implementation and values. a landraider could be 14/14/14 but a lot of xenos vehicles were 10 in the back. this wouldn't necessarily be as much of an issue except the mechanic for deermining facing wwas the sticks over the model and some models like necron flyer transport had ill defined spaces. likewise Ork battlewagons and trukks were so long and narrow they were basically always hit on side armor which in the case of the battlewagon meant payign for AV14 but actually being AV 12
maybe adding something like a simple +1 to wound if in the back half of a vehicle might work though. facing suddenly matters and its fairly easy to implement. is the model towads the front half.. then even roll if back half +1.
1) no SOME people are asking for balance. minor details and variables may be important, but not so important that you blow up everything. this definition of good enough would be close to 50% win rate for all factions in general over a large sample size and variations of list builds and missions
So, essentially close enough to 'perfect balance' as to make no difference. With respect, this is A unicorn.
im honestly not understanding what it is that you want or have against unit points.
My original point in this thread was towards goofysmily's comment where's he said 'I don't know about balancing the rules but balancing the points would be doable by any data analyst. '
I plainly disagree. Hence my initial comment.
What I 'wanted' was to respond to goofysmily. I did that. Regarding what I have 'against' points - Have you not read my posts? I've commented on this over the last few years more than once.
But fair enough, I shall elaborate.
Firstly, I have nothing 'against' points. They're a useful tool, within a broader context. However, they are far from perfect. They ascribe an 'official' value, not an 'accurate' or 'correct' value. I have issues with the idea that 'but fix the points cost' is the solution to game problems. I have issues with the blind faith people have in points - that a single universal value that denotes worth can in any way be taken as an accurate measurement of its in-game 'worth' (you know... context...), that some perfect ratio of numbers can magically balance everything. There's bigger picture that people refuse to see.
Regarding what you asked earlier as the solution to balancing that's high mobility unit:
a) adjust the points based off the average chance of a mission,
b) adjust points based on overall performance ignoring missions
c) adjust rules some how so they are some how
balanced for the 1 of many possible missions
d) delete the unit
e) delete the mission
For what it's worth, there are other options like unit caps that can be brought into play or different methods of list building. For us, in our group, we would probably 'eyeball' it In terms of what to put alongside it, and what's against it. It's how we've played for over five years now. But then again, we lean more towards collaborate game building and narrative stuff in our group than cut throat tournament play so I dont think our solution would work for you and your group. Equally though, Realistically, none of the solutions about offer a perfect solution. Ttgs are far too limited. They're all somewhat flawed.
Cheers,
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/11 21:18:12
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
1) no SOME people are asking for balance. minor details and variables may be important, but not so important that you blow up everything. this definition of good enough would be close to 50% win rate for all factions in general over a large sample size and variations of list builds and missions
So, essentially close enough to 'perfect balance' as to make no difference. With respect, this is A unicorn.
No its to essentially balance based of overall aggregated data rather than focusing heavily on every theoretical minute details which would result in ether no benefit or and entire gutting of units or books.
Firstly, I have nothing 'against' points. They're a useful tool, within a broader context. However, they are far from perfect. They ascribe an 'official' value, not an 'accurate' or 'correct' value. I have issues with the idea that 'but fix the points cost' is the solution to game problems. I have issues with the blind faith people have in points - that a single universal value that denotes worth can in any way be taken as an accurate measurement of its in-game 'worth' (you know... context...), that some perfect ratio of numbers can magically balance everything. There's bigger picture that people refuse to see.
Regarding what you asked earlier as the solution to balancing that's high mobility unit:
a) adjust the points based off the average chance of a mission, b) adjust points based on overall performance ignoring missions c) adjust rules some how so they are some how balanced for the 1 of many possible missions d) delete the unit e) delete the mission
For what it's worth, there are other options like unit caps that can be brought into play or different methods of list building. For us, in our group, we would probably 'eyeball' it In terms of what to put alongside it, and what's against it. It's how we've played for over five years now. But then again, we lean more towards collaborate game building and narrative stuff in our group than cut throat tournament play so I dont think our solution would work for you and your group. Equally though, Realistically, none of the solutions about offer a perfect solution. Ttgs are far too limited. They're all somewhat flawed.
Cheers,
so with the example of unit caps. how would this work in other missions that dont focus on mobility or are we talking list limitations based on missions or a restructuring of the entire game to focus on TAC central units vs specialists?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/11 21:30:09
Lance845 wrote: The excuse that balancing 40k is hard is bull gak.
It doesn't need to be that hard. Start from the beginning. Build each army up from the available units and cut the ones that don't fit. GW could do it. They just don't. Because balance isn't a priority for them.
By all means, please show us how it's done.
GW haven't balanced it properly. The ITC guys haven't done it with their homebrew, neither have the ETC guys.
Go on, write us a balanced set of rules. It's not that hard, as you say.
ITC and ETC don't attempt to balance the game. They attempt to balance the playing field. GW isn't trying to balance the game. They never have. GW is selling you models. And balancing the game requires cutting models.
Dudeface wrote:
Lance845 wrote: The excuse that balancing 40k is hard is bull gak.
It doesn't need to be that hard. Start from the beginning. Build each army up from the available units and cut the ones that don't fit. GW could do it. They just don't. Because balance isn't a priority for them.
But the problem is there are a great many people up in arms on these forums about the shoddy rules writing, proofing and testing claiming it's easy to better and the bar is low. These same people then aren't able or willing to do the task they deem "easy" and instead continue to perpetuate the GW cycle they hate and just spend time pouring complaints out. All that does is erode the validity of their statements and frustrate others.
Lets say I spend the next year rebuilding half the armies in the game into balanced lists with new point values. How many people, realistically, are going to play it? 1 page 40k does "something" like that. And have you ever seen people actually play it? Home brew rule sets that are better balanced show up in proposed rules all the time. Nobody cares. It's not worth the effort.
All it takes is a group or community to band together and try and embrace a good idea. It's the same way ITC missions are even a thing in the first place, some people wrote something they preferred and got a small group playing it and then involved other small groups etc. Until we end up with a spinoff rule set.
If it's not worth the effort because nobody wants a fix, then logically we can only assume that people like what they get from GW as it is.
Itc isnt remaking what units and wargear are available and recosting them. There appears to be a limit to what people will accept without gws stamp on it.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Now who do you want even doing the play testing? Average John Doe who has a basic understanding of the rules or the top 40k players around that consistently win tournaments? That is going to have a huge impact on your findings as well.
Neither. Both are bad. I want people with jobs being testers to do testing.
You're going to be disappointed then. No tabletop company professional testers, it's just not cost effective in any way shape or form.
I am not disappointed because I know GW sucks.
That being said, it is cost effective. GW has massive profit margins and a break neck release schedule. That release schedule would be more profitable in the long run if the products were all more reliable in the long run.
WotC, FFG, several other TT companies also have the release schedules to justify professional Beta testers, none of them do though. It's not financially sensible for them to do so, whatever their current profit margin is or isn't.
You say that but I doubt it. Yes, they run "open' and "closed" beta tests with volunteers because volunteers from their communities are plentiful. But I highly doubt FFG gets their games functioning at the level they do without any internal controlled testing. And their production quality says everything about the difference between them and GW.
They have better technical writers, 3x the number of Alpha/Beta 1 tests, smaller pool of rules interaction and plenty of shonky rules make it to the the large scale beta tests.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Speaking from experience, the 40KRPG books were tested across multiple different external play groups as well as internal testing with the editors.
Of course, that's how it should be. What was the hourly pay for the external play groups though?
...wait what? Wizards (the publishers of Magic) do a massive amount of Alpha and Beta testing of all cards in a set before publishing. They test 200+ Individual cards and their interactions with other existing standard (1,200) and block (400) legal cards, all of which have anything from basic stats to complex rules available for interaction. Their design schedule runs 2 years in advance (which includes for Alpha testing) and is followed by a development cycle 1 year in advance (which includes for Beta testing). WotC is very nearly the practical gold standard for game publishing, which explains its dominance in the CCGs format since 1992 (28 years).
...and even they make outrageous, arguably foreseeable mistakes (Skullclamp, affinity, marvel, power9, etc.).
But their budget is probably an order of magnitude greater than GW, with lower capex costs, and a cheaper product capable of deployment at scale for a cheap RRP.
That was... kind of my point? Large scale tests that pick up most of the problems don't pay people.
Martel732 wrote: Yeah im not sure why they dont put out their own points values and rules of play. Not like the bar is very high.
Well volunteered, let us know when you have a draft ready.
While I don't really want to be associated with Martel... I mean, during 5th edition I actually did put together an expansive Sisters of Battle homebrew codex. Including special rules and new units and streamlined but effective act of faith rules (compared to 5th edition's, at least). It's really not that hard to do, the biggest thing is finding people to playtest-- something that ITC should have no problem with.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/12 03:36:22
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
G00fySmiley wrote:
I don't know about balancing the rules but balancing the points would be doable by any data analyst.
No.
Points are about the last lever that should be pulled when it comes to trying to balance things.
The thing your app doesn't account for is context, and that is a huge issue.
The problem with points is you are attempting to ascribe a single universal 'value' to denote in-game worth within an ecosystem where context can drastically change something's value, almost on a whim- you need to account for what it's fielded alongside. what it's fielded against, what the mission objectives were, the terrain set up and concentration etc or more nebulous ideas like the skill of the player, the sheer luck of the dice rolls etc. You also need to account for what it could be fielded alongside Or against.
For points to be accurate, you need to essentially answer this question - what single value can accurately account for the points cost, for, say, a space marine armed with a lascannon, on a terrainless board, against an tank-based army in a 'defender' type scenario, and simultaneously, accurately account for the same space marine on a 90+% terrain board against an army of a few hundred grots, in a recon style scenario. And you have to answer this for every unit I need the game across every context.
The only way this can work is if points costs were self mutating and can account for each of dozens of different variables.
Apple fox wrote:
It’s not really a issue at the high Competitive levels, at casual levels is where it can really start to break. The game is competitive, you play against each other. Even in narrative games you often play against each other, unless something more specific or story driven does otherwise
Competitive is a gradient, not a line in the sand. You don't suddenly go from 'not serious, throw dice around and make pew pews' to tearing out the other guys throat wife yer teef. This needs to be considered.
Apple fox wrote:
And I do think that some people at GW would want better ballance, there is so much good that comes from that. Not perfect ballance, but a close imbalanced ruleset creates a system for players to experiment without falling into traps. It keeps the strongest and the weakest factions both in the game.
We all do, but is it genuinely acheivable?
How good is 'good enough'. If we accept the idea that perfect balance is impossible, and that we should aim for 'good enough', how much imbalance is ok? Bear in mind, 'as little as possible' is just a polite way of saying 'I want the perfect balance unicorn, but I'll fluff it out with nice sounding words'" let's get real and be pragmatic. And what price will you pay, or be willing to pay, in terms of structural mechanisms to allow for this (e.g., multiple win conditions, multiple lists, sidebars, severely reduced variety, smaller game, smaller scope pre-set lists etc because every structural tool has a price to pay and I've seen every one have its consequences, and consequently it's haters. Magnify that by the size of the 40k community...)
Apple fox wrote:
It also creates more variety with what is seen on the table. It’s a good thing in the casual setting and should be far more important there than in the higher competitive market.
You are not wrong. Let's be clear on that. I am not disagreeing. However, I would also add to this and sat that Different approaches to game building also allow for greater variety. I often find wanting greater variety and wanting a competitive approach end up being mutually exclusive at their greater extremes. There will always be imbalance, therfore witherher its 1% or 10% you'll have 'top' tier and 'trash' tier. Magnify that by the usual internet hyperbole...
My quote there is entirely in response that the game is competitive in that most games are against other players, and high competitive is just used as shorthand for players that desire to play at a high skill and put time and effort to achieve that.
You can have narrative and story driven games where both players are playing to that same mindset, my group does most of our narrative gaming in warmachine for instance just fine and without issues that pop up constantly in 40k.
Perfect balance is not only unachevable, it is undesirable. But that does not mean that ballance is not something to work towards, when balanced is concerned a good baseline is that every faction has the tools, units and ability to win games within a close margin. External ballance.
Internal ballance can be a bit further apart, but this is where units that are underused to the point of irrelevance. Not just in tournament play, but in casual.
This can be as simple as a unit that dies first turn, every game as it has no way to keep it alive to do anything. Therefor it gets put on the shelf. It’s not fun to use, it just dies and nothing in the faction exist to keep it alive.
This is all super basic, and I do think GW needs to work on missions and core rules, as well as there faction design. It’s all over the place and leads to throwing the ballance off where it could probably be much smoother.
How far can players go to change this is of interesting debate here I think, and how much of the core game can be reasonably dropped until you are running two games and not just one.
To the last point, I am a casual player, every issue I address is from the point of game fun first. The issue is, I have been stuck in many games that where not fun now. Just as it’s very hard to stop players thinking about the game, even from a casual point. Players are thinking and aiming to win, picking units and synergy for there strategy. Even if it’s though a casual lense, this can still pushed at the game and I find it more often breaks. Players do not jump onto the best things, often they are just sad there faverate unit sucks.
The worst is when one player ends up with the army no one wants to play against, negotiation I find leads to less fun in the end. We want to be talking about the fun parts of the game, not working out ways to even out a potential huge curve :(
AnomanderRake wrote: Would it be an interesting thought experiment to consider how you might make high mobility valuable in all missions? Like...I don't know...by giving you some advantage to being able to get behind vehicles?
I honestly hope GW never brings back vehicle faces. the mechanic was not terrible the issue was in implementation and values. a landraider could be 14/14/14 but a lot of xenos vehicles were 10 in the back. this wouldn't necessarily be as much of an issue except the mechanic for deermining facing wwas the sticks over the model and some models like necron flyer transport had ill defined spaces. likewise Ork battlewagons and trukks were so long and narrow they were basically always hit on side armor which in the case of the battlewagon meant payign for AV14 but actually being AV 12
maybe adding something like a simple +1 to wound if in the back half of a vehicle might work though. facing suddenly matters and its fairly easy to implement. is the model towads the front half.. then even roll if back half +1.
I've been trying out Flames of War and am liking the front half/back half facings. It lets you have facings without needing to be overly precise about angles.
AnomanderRake wrote: Would it be an interesting thought experiment to consider how you might make high mobility valuable in all missions? Like...I don't know...by giving you some advantage to being able to get behind vehicles?
I honestly hope GW never brings back vehicle faces. the mechanic was not terrible the issue was in implementation and values. a landraider could be 14/14/14 but a lot of xenos vehicles were 10 in the back. this wouldn't necessarily be as much of an issue except the mechanic for deermining facing wwas the sticks over the model and some models like necron flyer transport had ill defined spaces. likewise Ork battlewagons and trukks were so long and narrow they were basically always hit on side armor which in the case of the battlewagon meant payign for AV14 but actually being AV 12
maybe adding something like a simple +1 to wound if in the back half of a vehicle might work though. facing suddenly matters and its fairly easy to implement. is the model towads the front half.. then even roll if back half +1.
I've been trying out Flames of War and am liking the front half/back half facings. It lets you have facings without needing to be overly precise about angles.
I can get behind front half back half but like i said def needs to be a simple system. addign +1 to wound or -1 extra ap in 40k so its a simple glance and go mechanic.
The problem are never the game mechanics added to the core, but what GW does with them when making the faction rules.
However, facings would be nice thing if it would be worth it to move around and use them but as long is you can kill everything anyway it does not matter if they are there or not.
40k in general has 2 problems, one is a pure mathematical one, the other a design problem with the core rules
the first one is easy, there are weapons with high rate of fire (or single shot weapons on cheap masses) and those with high damage.
usually, the high damage weapon would be good against single models with a lot of wounds and the high ROF weapon good against a lot of single wound models
but somehow GW manages it to get in every edition weapons in that are better at both than dedicated weapons which makes spamming those the best way to play
So as long as 6 single shot Damage 1 weapons (or a single 6 shot D1 weapon) are better at doing damage to a single model than a 1 shot D6 Damage weapon, there is a problem which could be solved by just having fixed or more reliable damage values for single shot weapons (and having saves against the single shot weapons)
the other problem is a tricky one, as each defensive value on a model should have an offensive value to counter it
the less such values are present the easier it is to balance units
Strength VS Toughness
AP VS Armour Saves
Damage, High ROF VS Wounds
to hit VS --
Mortal Wounds VS Invulnerable Saves, Toughness, Armour Saves
-- VS ignore Wounds
so as soon as most units in the game use just the basic values, everything is more or less fine, while as the edition proceeds other values increases and it starts to become a mess and impossible to balance
there is also the problem that the core rules changed, but the values were not changed according to the new rules but kept the same
Overall, adding Facings VS Speed, to this would just make more problems than it might solve
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
7000 
