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.

There isn't a community accepted definition of balance. Balance means something different to everyone.

I'm less bothered than most about internal and external balance, and balance of all things against all other things at all times. Im a lot less bothered about it than I used to be years ago. And not because I'm a white knight or I think everything is fine. Ttgs are limited systems, every single one of them has problems and in my mind, you can only expect so much from them and I simply do not believe things like point values are a good tool of implementing balance. I feel the same about any tools that are used as 'universal structures' that are baked into the game like force org limits, unit caps etc. One size fits all universal/official values to denote the in game worth of things that feeds balance simply does not work in my experience. Context makes a mockery of it. (I'm recently quite intrigued by the game-building structures in pp's upcoming warcaster game, or their monsterpocalype game as they represent a very different shift away from 'count the point values up to a defined total, but this is off topic here)

For me,I think 'good enough balance' is the best that can be realistically expected from any game or game designer. And by good enough, I mean some things, but by no means all things, hold up reasonably well against some other things within certain contexts. And that comes with the expectation that the 'context' is an ever shifting concept, that game-building and list-matching (as opposed to individual/blind 'list-building-for-advantage') on the part of players is an essential element of introducting balance to our games, and that, yes, I might also have to put some work in at the front end, talk to the other guy, I might have to play down or accomodate in some way. If that leads to a fair(er) game and helps give back to my community, then I'm happy to do my bit.

I'm pretty sure there's not a lot of folks here who share my perspective on this, but there you go. My £0.02.

It's not just units. Single shot weapons are total trash in 8th. I can't comprehend how GW thinks this is okay.

Deadnight wrote:
There isn't a community accepted definition of balance. Balance means something different to everyone.

I'm less bothered than most about internal and external balance, and balance of all things against all other things at all times. Im a lot less bothered about it than I used to be years ago. And not because I'm a white knight or I think everything is fine. Ttgs are limited systems, every single one of them has problems and in my mind, you can only expect so much from them and I simply do not believe things like point values are a good tool of implementing balance. I feel the same about any tools that are used as 'universal structures' that are baked into the game like force org limits, unit caps etc. One size fits all universal/official values to denote the in game worth of things that feeds balance simply does not work in my experience. Context makes a mockery of it. (I'm recently quite intrigued by the game-building structures in pp's upcoming warcaster game, or their monsterpocalype game as they represent a very different shift away from 'count the point values up to a defined total, but this is off topic here)

For me,I think 'good enough balance' is the best that can be realistically expected from any game or game designer. And by good enough, I mean some things, but by no means all things, hold up reasonably well against some other things within certain contexts. And that comes with the expectation that the 'context' is an ever shifting concept, that game-building and list-matching (as opposed to individual/blind 'list-building-for-advantage') on the part of players is an essential element of introducting balance to our games, and that, yes, I might also have to put some work in at the front end, talk to the other guy, I might have to play down or accomodate in some way. If that leads to a fair(er) game and helps give back to my community, then I'm happy to do my bit.

I'm pretty sure there's not a lot of folks here who share my perspective on this, but there you go. My £0.02.

I think you can expect more from GW, or should be able to.

For something like MEdge, which is a free rules system made by a relatively small and new group of people, a lot more leeway should be there than a multi-million dollar company that's got decades of experience.

ccs wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

PS. I'm not a fan boy. I play maybe 1 40k game a month and stopped doing events. I've been playing AoS almost non stop, its such a better game, even tho they have imbalances too (some armies are 60% winrates like in 40k) its still WAY more fun. Heck i play BoC the "worst" army in AoS and i still have more fun than 40k.

You should not take advice from people who tell you BoC is the worst army in AoS.

Im one of the top BoC players, i take them to GT's i know how bad they are. By CoS is leaps and bounds better, so much so its not even funny. In events with less than a 40% winrate, the lowest winrate of any battletome. I personally think they are are only a little under powered but the community as a whole knows they are bad outside of board control (which is how you win with them). Its 160 models that only 26 will deal any damage, the other 100+ will move, advance, and put in a place just to die lol.

For those that don't know, its like playing 140 Gants, 3 Neurothropes, 1 genestealer unit, and 1 Warrior Prime. Can it win? Yeah, will it deal a lot of damage? No not really, will it feel good or strong? Not at all. I personally like playing that way so its fine for me, for most players its not fine at all.

I don't understand how GW hasn't written a really tight rules set on accident by now.

Considering this thread is now 4 pages long, we can pretty definitively say: No.

 JNAProductions wrote:

]I think you can expect more from GW, or should be able to.

For something like MEdge, which is a free rules system made by a relatively small and new group of people, a lot more leeway should be there than a multi-million dollar company that's got decades of experience.

I think it's more complicated. Good is good, Bad is bad. Doesn't matter if it comes from small or large. I think it's unfair and more than a bit hypocritical to criticise gw for doing 'x', but then turn a blind eye and turn down the rage when company y does 'x'. Not that gw hasn't done plenty bad things - they have, and do.They're a ruthless profit driven company. Then again, plenty other players in this industry are just as bad. Privateer press are much smaller and have made some spectacularly boneheaded decisions over the last five years, including price gouging, retailer screwing etc. You come across plenty kickstarter horror stories as well. Small =\= heroic, and I will judge them on the quality of their product not the size of their operation.

Now, in terms of expecting more, I could be cheeky and say 'define 'more'?' what do you mean by that? What I expect from gw is great, to outstanding models and a functional rules set that me and my friends can tinker with. I've long since learned never to value gw for their rules. So I don't. So I could therefore say I already get what I want from them. I could argue I don't really need 'more' from them. Smaller games from smaller companies can be great, and I've played plenty to know this. I am not blind to the other offerings of our hobby. Some are true gems.

But I do get what you mean. I could ask for 'more' in some areas. I like my rules to be written clearly. I like rules like I want my power. Green and clean. Gw do have a long way to go here. That said, while other rules sets are technically better, and pp's WMH and Corvus belli's infinity (probably the most technicallly brilliant wargame on the market, at least in my opinion...) come to mind, I am genuinely left cold by them, and just am not interested in playing them. For all the times that i loved playing WMH, I am just not interested in the game any more. As for infinity, the complexity is a genuine turn off for me. Ironically, it's the simpler games that I enjoy now. the most fun I've had in terms of gaming these last few years has been gw games - shadespire and warcry are very good fun and the old lotr sbg is a brilliant little gem if you wield it right. But I'm getting off topic here and I apologise.

Lack of balance in a game to me isn't necessarily the greatest turn off, provided that we, as players have the scope within that game, and it's mechanics to build interesting games, and/or interesting scenarios, that the game allows for immersionor that other things are there that I value equally as much as 'balance'. For me, ninety-something percent stems from a players approach to their game.

Cheers.

Well yes, but different standards apply.

If your friend decides he wants to design a wargame, I wouldn't expect him to make a well-balanced game on his first go, or his second, or his third, or really for quite a long while. Because he's one guy, working with minimal resources.

GW is not that. GW should be held to higher standards than the little guy, because they're the big guy. And, more than that, they charge substantial money for their rules. If I'm paying a premium for rules, I expect a premium product. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Absolutely not. For example, in my group, "balance" is a term of derision. We play scenarios and campaigns and totally ignore points, using 40k power levels and AOS wounds (or open war force points) as a rough guide for playing said scenarios and campaigns. The best part of gaming is the experience.

Plus the fact that GW games are random-dominant and by definition are impossible to achieve a mythological "balance". Even if it had zero random determiners and was a rebranded Chess, there'd be no "balance" unless worldwide ELO was used.

 judgedoug wrote:
Absolutely not. For example, in my group, "balance" is a term of derision. We play scenarios and campaigns and totally ignore points, using 40k power levels and AOS wounds (or open war force points) as a rough guide for playing said scenarios and campaigns. The best part of gaming is the experience.

Plus the fact that GW games are random-dominant and by definition are impossible to achieve a mythological "balance". Even if it had zero random determiners and was a rebranded Chess, there'd be no "balance" unless worldwide ELO was used.

I don't think you understand what's meant by balance.

A balanced game, in this instance, is one in which two players who know the rules playing against each other will have the primary determinant of victory be skill. Yes, sometimes people get lucky or unlucky enough to win/lose a game where there was a hefty skill difference, but that should not be the norm. What it is NOT is saying that two players will always have a 50% win rate against each other.

Given that the thread is about whether or not we all agree on the definition of "balance" I think the fact that we've got people lecturing each other on whether their definition of "balance" is correct indicates that no, we don't.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Given that the thread is about whether or not we all agree on the definition of "balance" I think the fact that we've got people lecturing each other on whether their definition of "balance" is correct indicates that no, we don't.

Most pwoplw will agree on a definition of balance, at least in broad terms. What we have here are the usual naysayers claiming that it is just too hard and disrupting the discussion.

Funny thing is even GW agrees with this general idea of balance (similar win rates, no one unit too prevalent). Their problem is that they either fail to implement it correctly or choose to create imbalance as a way to keep the game “dynamic”.

I am genuinely confused at the people who say "if lists are balanced, why play? It is a coin flip."

The reason to play is to test your *player skill* obviously. It is only a coin flip if you and your opponent are EXACTLY evenly matched skillwise - and then the game would probably actually be quite engaging with fantastic moves on both sides.

I just don't get the criticism of a perfectly balanced game being "boring". It is only boring if the players are automata following a script and have no distinct styles or flourishes of their own...

The whole POINT of being better balanced is to make lists matter less (or not at all) and player skill matter more....

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I am genuinely confused at the people who say "if lists are balanced, why play? It is a coin flip."

To be fair it depends on how much player skill actually matters past that point.

You flip a coin to go first in chess and a good player will beat a bad player either way. You flip a coin to go first in 40k with two equally balanced alpha strike armies and one of you may have just lost, dice willing. It's easy to become jaded.

A.T. wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I am genuinely confused at the people who say "if lists are balanced, why play? It is a coin flip."

To be fair it depends on how much player skill actually matters past that point.

You flip a coin to go first in chess and a good player will beat a bad player either way. You flip a coin to go first in 40k with two equally balanced alpha strike armies and one of you may have just lost, dice willing. It's easy to become jaded.

Which gets to a whole 'nother design paradigm question that's divorced from balance entirely (i.e. turn structure and the role of dice). Generally, though, "perfect balance" is asserted to be boring, which I just don't see. Perfect balance is exactly the condition where tactical, in-game play skill is tested more than mathematical pre-game listbuilding skill.

Some people may prefer pre-game listbuilding be the real challenge of 40k and the execution of game itself to be comparatively irrelevant, but that makes me wonder why we're playing a wargame at all and not just plugging units into spreadsheets with the random() function to represent dicerolls.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I am genuinely confused at the people who say "if lists are balanced, why play? It is a coin flip."

To be fair it depends on how much player skill actually matters past that point.

You flip a coin to go first in chess and a good player will beat a bad player either way. You flip a coin to go first in 40k with two equally balanced alpha strike armies and one of you may have just lost, dice willing. It's easy to become jaded.

Which gets to a whole 'nother design paradigm question that's divorced from balance entirely (i.e. turn structure and the role of dice). Generally, though, "perfect balance" is asserted to be boring, which I just don't see. Perfect balance is exactly the condition where tactical, in-game play skill is tested more than mathematical pre-game listbuilding skill.

Some people may prefer pre-game listbuilding be the real challenge of 40k and the execution of game itself to be comparatively irrelevant, but that makes me wonder why we're playing a wargame at all and not just plugging units into spreadsheets with the random() function to represent dicerolls.

The usual problem, I think, is that things like chess get held up as examples of well-balanced games, and people start conflating "balance" (a property of a game where you're presented with an interesting variety of choices rather than one obvious choice and a load of bad ones) with "symmetry" (a property of a game where both players have identical starting configurations), and then they start thinking that since balance = symmetry people arguing for balance must necessarily arguing for armies to be bland and identical.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I am genuinely confused at the people who say "if lists are balanced, why play? It is a coin flip."

To be fair it depends on how much player skill actually matters past that point.

You flip a coin to go first in chess and a good player will beat a bad player either way. You flip a coin to go first in 40k with two equally balanced alpha strike armies and one of you may have just lost, dice willing. It's easy to become jaded.

Which gets to a whole 'nother design paradigm question that's divorced from balance entirely (i.e. turn structure and the role of dice). Generally, though, "perfect balance" is asserted to be boring, which I just don't see. Perfect balance is exactly the condition where tactical, in-game play skill is tested more than mathematical pre-game listbuilding skill.

Some people may prefer pre-game listbuilding be the real challenge of 40k and the execution of game itself to be comparatively irrelevant, but that makes me wonder why we're playing a wargame at all and not just plugging units into spreadsheets with the random() function to represent dicerolls.

The usual problem, I think, is that things like chess get held up as examples of well-balanced games, and people start conflating "balance" (a property of a game where you're presented with an interesting variety of choices rather than one obvious choice and a load of bad ones) with "symmetry" (a property of a game where both players have identical starting configurations), and then they start thinking that since balance = symmetry people arguing for balance must necessarily arguing for armies to be bland and identical.

Yes, and that's maddening. And they keep on doing it.

Martel732 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
...The usual problem, I think, is that things like chess get held up as examples of well-balanced games, and people start conflating "balance" (a property of a game where you're presented with an interesting variety of choices rather than one obvious choice and a load of bad ones) with "symmetry" (a property of a game where both players have identical starting configurations), and then they start thinking that since balance = symmetry people arguing for balance must necessarily arguing for armies to be bland and identical.

Yes, and that's maddening. And they keep on doing it.

Because we keep throwing "balance" at them without explaining the difference properly. Words may mean different things to different people (compare "fanny" in British English to American English), which is why we're having this discussion.

If someone doesn't understand what you're saying you can try and find another way to say the same thing instead of getting snippy about how you're "correct" and it's their fault for not parsing it the way you meant it.

Maybe. Most of the time no here, it seems like willful ignorance. They know full well what we mean, but they have to get the chess dig in anyway.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe. Most of the time no here, it seems like willful ignorance. They know full well what we mean, but they have to get the chess dig in anyway.

I'm reasonably certain that you know full well that not everyone plays Blood Angels, but you still love to jump into every thread and complain about how crap they are in your local meta whether or not it's relevant to the discussion.

You think that's comparable? I'm not deliberately misunderstanding words to bolster my viewpoint.

In theory a perfectly balanced game where player skill is the main determinant would be best.

In practice though I'm not sure how you'd ever measure player skill - and the issue is that a system which purely concerns itself with faction win rates would have to reduce the game down to a point where player skill was largely eliminated.

In practice I believe - foolhardy or otherwise - that GW would design a better game, where there were no trap units, there were no trap chapter tactics, there were no trap relics or warlord traits. I doubt however you would get 50-55% win rates in the best factions if this was the case - and a meta is still likely to exist, based on either what certain factions can't counter, or what certain factions are bad at countering. See most computer games.

But if things are close enough, its certainly better than now, and at least would leave you feeling like your army was okay in itself - even if bringing no anti-tank weapons against a mech wall would leave you a bit screwed.

Theoretically I'd like to see balance to cull skews, and encourage a multi-component TAC list drawn from across the faction but I don't know how you'd do it and almost every game I can think of doesn't work this way. Also I know some people think highlander is ugly, gib spam.

Tyel wrote:
In theory a perfectly balanced game where player skill is the main determinant would be best.

In practice though I'm not sure how you'd ever measure player skill - and the issue is that a system which purely concerns itself with faction win rates would have to reduce the game down to a point where player skill was largely eliminated.

In practice I believe - foolhardy or otherwise - that GW would design a better game, where there were no trap units, there were no trap chapter tactics, there were no trap relics or warlord traits. I doubt however you would get 50-55% win rates in the best factions if this was the case - and a meta is still likely to exist, based on either what certain factions can't counter, or what certain factions are bad at countering. See most computer games.

But if things are close enough, its certainly better than now, and at least would leave you feeling like your army was okay in itself - even if bringing no anti-tank weapons against a mech wall would leave you a bit screwed.

Theoretically I'd like to see balance to cull skews, and encourage a multi-component TAC list drawn from across the faction but I don't know how you'd do it and almost every game I can think of doesn't work this way. Also I know some people think highlander is ugly, gib spam.

Yeah-perfect balance is not possible in a game like 40k. Or most any game, really.

But GW could be doing WAY better than they are now. They have the resources.

Martel732 wrote:
You think that's comparable? I'm not deliberately misunderstanding words to bolster my viewpoint.

If you think people who use a different narrow definition of a broad/vague word than you do are being deliberately obtuse to annoy you why are you talking to them? They're just there to push your buttons.

Tyel wrote:In theory a perfectly balanced game where player skill is the main determinant would be best.

In practice though I'm not sure how you'd ever measure player skill - and the issue is that a system which purely concerns itself with faction win rates would have to reduce the game down to a point where player skill was largely eliminated.

Not if the data is gathered across the whole playerbase. If the average winrate for a faction is 48%, that means bad players are winning, say, 30% of the time, and good players are winning, say, 60% of the time, while REALLY GOOD players can win 80% and really bad players win 10%. The average will still be 48%, and the game will be balanced because this is possible with all armies.

This is predicated on the assumption that all players of each faction range from very good to very bad, and that you don't end up with factions only played by bad players or only played by good players. But I think that's not an unreasonable assumption.

Tyel wrote:In practice I believe - foolhardy or otherwise - that GW would design a better game, where there were no trap units, there were no trap chapter tactics, there were no trap relics or warlord traits. I doubt however you would get 50-55% win rates in the best factions if this was the case - and a meta is still likely to exist, based on either what certain factions can't counter, or what certain factions are bad at countering. See most computer games.

Most computer games go for perfect imbalance rather than perfect balance in order to keep things interesting and sell stuff. In a well-designed tabletop game, new edition releases could keep things interesting by opening up new and different tactics (for example, the change to Fleet/Run in 5th edition from its iteration in 4th wasn't unbalanced but shook up the way the game was played) - and a balanced game might sell better because unlike a computer game, you can't just swap factions/champions/builds on a whim; it takes loads of money and effort and emotional investment.

Tyel wrote:But if things are close enough, its certainly better than now, and at least would leave you feeling like your army was okay in itself - even if bringing no anti-tank weapons against a mech wall would leave you a bit screwed.

Theoretically I'd like to see balance to cull skews, and encourage a multi-component TAC list drawn from across the faction but I don't know how you'd do it and almost every game I can think of doesn't work this way. Also I know some people think highlander is ugly, gib spam.

See, I am one of the people that likes spam in some armies (Imperial Guard should serve spam to the soldiers it spams to man the tanks it spams to fight the spammed wars it fights), and not others (no two daemons are alike, after all).

Tyel wrote:
In practice I believe - foolhardy or otherwise - that GW would design a better game, where there were no trap units, there were no trap chapter tactics, there were no trap relics or warlord traits.

The concept of trap features to a codex is probably the most prevalent concept to reemerge in these discussions really.

In regards to winrate, it is mostly impossible to get the match-up win-lose% down to a reasonable medium due to a number of factors. The most difficult to reconcile of these, in my opinion is the options or 'theme' of your army being dictated by fluff.

Theming is what 40K does well but isnt created with the win conditions of the game in mind. I think a meaningful overarching category to my earlier statement

- All units within each respective codex being playable. In this case I will say “Breaking Even” (Pt Investment is roughly equivalent value-gained). Either other extreme being a point of failure.

Is something like
- Codexs define their win conditions and provide the features to accomplish those conditions.

This is probably a bit divisive and thus, unrefined but something to this affect. Also allies generally makes this 'codex' talk a little silly but humor me. Hard enough to define balance rules when there are 20 individual factions let alone 20^2 lol.

 Halfton wrote:

- All units within each respective codex being playable. In this case I will say “Breaking Even” (Pt Investment is roughly equivalent value-gained). Either other extreme being a point of failure.

Is something like
- Codexs define their win conditions and provide the features to accomplish those conditions.

This is probably a bit divisive and thus, unrefined but something to this affect. Also allies generally makes this 'codex' talk a little silly but humor me. Hard enough to define balance rules when there are 20 individual factions let alone 20^2 lol.

Not if everyone gets pure-faction buffs on the level of Doctrines, or if they copy over the allied points limit idea out of Sigmar.

I don't think that this was about pron; I think that it was about obscenity.

I think that balance is established with stablized expectations.
With stable expectations, adjustments can be made.

This is one way that additional realism might help with achieving balance, because it helps to stabilize expectations.

Once we know what to expect, then adjustments can be made to meet desired expectations.

And again, these expectations are imported from everyday experience, so realism is perhaps an aid.

I'm one of the guys who may have made a statement that was taken as "Balance is boring," so I'd like to provide context and explain why I made the comment I made.

I don't think that balance is boring- it can actually be exciting.

It's the way SOME people suggest that we achieve balance is boring. That's because many people suggest things that make the game universe boring. Like suggesting fewer factions. Boring. Like eliminating Strategems. Boring. Like eliminating units. Boring.

Balance? Not boring.

Getting to it by reducing the very detailed universe we have to the fewest possible factions, units and rules in the name of balance.

No thanks. Boring as heck for me personally. It's depth and inclusion of obscure factions, odd ball units and rules to support literally anything you want to do in a game are the things that make 40k better than other games, and in fact, make it not a game, but a family of games that share a persistent galaxy.

If you can balance within that, great. I think we all want that.

But if you start to compromise the detail of the galaxy within which this family of games exists, and you limit players options to achieve that balance, for folks like me, and a lot of the other folks commenting here, the trade off isn't worth it.

For people who want different things out of the game than I do (valid points of view, all of them, BTW), they might be inclined to say exactly the opposite; what they want is a fair game. To them, detail and immersion is nice, but they don't want that to compromise the "fairness" of the game play.

I understand and accept the validity of it. I have a different point of view; it is equally valid, and it would be nice of some of the over venomous balance mongers would just acknowledge the validity of the viewpoint. They don't have to agree- that's their choice and preference.

I also feel like people who play competitive should TRY an escalation campaign. It kills me how many have never tried, yet they post so much about how they are hating playing it the way they choose to play it. I mean, if you've tried it, and you don't like it, fine.

But it's frustrating having to tell these folks over and over again that the things you hate are there for people who play the game in different ways, and that if you played the game that way, you'd understand why the rules you hate work for other people.

My favourite are the ones who keep trying to argue that 40k is bad in comparison to X-Wing. To be fair, I haven't seen one of those posts in a long time. Maybe they took my advice, and since they liked X-Wing, they just decided to play it instead of trying to make the game I like into X-Wing.

PenitentJake wrote:
...For people who want different things out of the game than I do (valid points of view, all of them, BTW), they might be inclined to say exactly the opposite; what they want is a fair game. To them, detail and immersion is nice, but they don't want that to compromise the "fairness" of the game play...

I find your viewpoint overly binary, and I've stressed the key point here.

I love options, detail, and immersion. I don't want to get rid of options, detail, and immersion. I don't want to delete units or delete factions. What I do want is for GW to stop making useless options (why play Deathwatch when standard Marines have more stuff and are better at the things the Deathwatch are supposed to be good at?), trap options (why is there a Daemons Codex when GW insists on designing the four Daemon sub-factions to interact more with CSM than with each other?), or "adding detail" with nonsensical restrictions (let's face it, the only reason why standard Terminators can't mix weapons is because it'd make Deathwing less "special").

"Balance", to me, is not about cutting options out. It's about making the options that exist better instead of cannibalizing existing stuff to sell new models that are more powerful.