Is there a community accepted definition of balance?

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.

**jeff white**

vict0988 wrote:
jeff white wrote:
What seems missing is a systematic approach to relative faction design. What seems necessary is a chart with X factions and at least X specilizations, then designers spend a set number of points into those specializations. So, in the design process, the eldar have 4 points spent on speed, and the orks spend 3, the marines 2, imperial guard 1 (just a or example). With armor, guard spends 4, marines 3, orks 3, eldar 1... making sure that every faction has specializations that suit their intended play style. Then, these numbers are used to make coefficients modifying points ascriptions to different units. So, a guard tank may be a bit cheaper than a marine tank, though it may perform differently than those of other factions because of other aspects characteristic of the army, in this case speed. So, during the design process, a guard tank unit that moves fast (basically a speed upgrade over a basic tank platform in the guard army in this example) should be more points costly than an eldar tank getting a speed upgrade, for instance. Eldar, on the other hand, would have more costly armor upgrades, heavily armored units may be more expensive or have limitations (for example, the wave serpents have seen such heavy use on so many fronts for so long, that they have become rare! and so while still super effecive, they are more costly or the army is limited to only 3, or some of both...).

This is a super terrible idea, all this is going to do is make 80% of the 40k range useless, just ban the units that don't fit the MO of an army instead of giving them terrible pts costs. Make every unit conform to the army's playstyle instead and make all units equally pts efficient such that every unit is balanced, no units are useless and every army feels like it's representing the faction it is representing and not just a generic tank list, but bad because CSM are not supposed to have tanks that are as efficient as AM tanks. Instead of saying Craftworlds is a Tanky 1, Fast 4, Killy 3 army you just make every unit somehow fit in with how Craftworlds play, helping them play their mobile tricksy glasscannon playstyle instead of introducing a cool-looking super slow unit for them and then just ensuring it won't ever be played by making it terrible. This is the reason why the big Tau mechs were a mistake, even if they were terrible as your "balancing" doctrine would have made them because they don't fit the Tau fighting doctrine, that would still leave a lot of people with minis they cannot enjoy on the battlefield. How does it make sense for a military to field units that don't fit the tactical doctrines of that military? I don't care how cool the Riptide concept is, it didn't fit, it shouldn't have been made, but after it was making it trash to fix the mistake of developing it is anti-consumer BS.

Cannot ignore this fast enough. Thanks for the kneejerk reaction.

**Martel732**

I hate tripoint, and that was coloring my play. Problem is, I still hate it, and so hate playing 8th ed with BA.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Nitro Zeus wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

What are you even babbling about?

Nah. Nope. YOU do not get to open your post like this and expect it to be taken at all seriously, or in my case, even read. Seriously look at your posts so far. Not just this thread. You've sacrificed the right to accuse others of babbling, or being biased, or whatever nonsense you have dreamt up in slayer land today.

So let me get this straight: you think I'm somehow bad at the game and that's why I complain, even though the same complaints are made by other players, some of which could be better than me, which means they would have to be bad players too, which means no good player complains about the game.

Does that REALLY make sense to you?

**Nitro Zeus**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nitro Zeus wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

What are you even babbling about?

Nah. Nope. YOU do not get to open your post like this and expect it to be taken at all seriously, or in my case, even read. Seriously look at your posts so far. Not just this thread. You've sacrificed the right to accuse others of babbling, or being biased, or whatever nonsense you have dreamt up in slayer land today.

So let me get this straight: you think I'm somehow bad at the game and that's why I complain, even though the same complaints are made by other players, some of which could be better than me, which means they would have to be bad players too, which means no good player complains about the game.

Does that REALLY make sense to you?

I think you have an awful understanding of this game at a competitive level, and whether or not better players agree with you, does not mean you understand the gameplay complaints you are making.

On top of that, you've gone out of your way to target me in this thread, when all I did was quote someone else and say I agree that a lot of these complaints are often due to a lack of player skill. The underlying point is that even in a perfectly balanced game, there would still be lower level players who complain because they lost. It was never about you until you interjected yourself in as a focal point of that, but yeah, your post history would serve as an excellent example of what we were saying, so I guess that's why you took it as addressed to you.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Nitro Zeus wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nitro Zeus wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

What are you even babbling about?

Nah. Nope. YOU do not get to open your post like this and expect it to be taken at all seriously, or in my case, even read. Seriously look at your posts so far. Not just this thread. You've sacrificed the right to accuse others of babbling, or being biased, or whatever nonsense you have dreamt up in slayer land today.

So let me get this straight: you think I'm somehow bad at the game and that's why I complain, even though the same complaints are made by other players, some of which could be better than me, which means they would have to be bad players too, which means no good player complains about the game.

Does that REALLY make sense to you?

I think you have an awful understanding of this game at a competitive level, and whether or not better players agree with you, does not mean you understand the gameplay complaints you are making.

On top of that, you've gone out of your way to target me in this thread, when all I did was quote someone else and say I agree that a lot of these complaints are often due to a lack of player skill. The underlying point is that even in a perfectly balanced game, there would still be lower level players who complain because they lost. It was never about you until you interjected yourself in as a focal point of that, but yeah, your post history would serve as an excellent example of what we were saying, so I guess that's why you took it as addressed to you.

Seeing as nobody is complaining about balance in Chess that's DEFINITELY wrong, so thanks for playing. In reality, the only people that can defend GW at this point ARE the white Knights. 40k isn't a deep a game as you'd like that "player skill" is all that. GW escalates a few broken stuff with further releases (after all, we still had people using the dumb "wHaT aBoUt PlAyEr SkilL" when Scatterbikes and Gladius were a thing in case your memory is short), and then we get the whole "the game is what you make it" and "forge the narrative". Extreme pregame negotiations are proof a wargame game is badly written.

But no, you wanna rag on saying it's because the players are bad LMAO

**Nitro Zeus**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nitro Zeus wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nitro Zeus wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

What are you even babbling about?

Nah. Nope. YOU do not get to open your post like this and expect it to be taken at all seriously, or in my case, even read. Seriously look at your posts so far. Not just this thread. You've sacrificed the right to accuse others of babbling, or being biased, or whatever nonsense you have dreamt up in slayer land today.

So let me get this straight: you think I'm somehow bad at the game and that's why I complain, even though the same complaints are made by other players, some of which could be better than me, which means they would have to be bad players too, which means no good player complains about the game.

Does that REALLY make sense to you?

I think you have an awful understanding of this game at a competitive level, and whether or not better players agree with you, does not mean you understand the gameplay complaints you are making.

On top of that, you've gone out of your way to target me in this thread, when all I did was quote someone else and say I agree that a lot of these complaints are often due to a lack of player skill. The underlying point is that even in a perfectly balanced game, there would still be lower level players who complain because they lost. It was never about you until you interjected yourself in as a focal point of that, but yeah, your post history would serve as an excellent example of what we were saying, so I guess that's why you took it as addressed to you.

Seeing as nobody is complaining about balance in Chess that's DEFINITELY wrong, so thanks for playing.

Chess is not a perfectly balanced game. It isn't even the most balanced game, there is like a 5% win rate for advantage for first turn. And it's a very common thing for awful players to "blame black" when they lose. Nice try though.

Nitro Zeus wrote:
In reality, the only people that can defend GW at this point ARE the white Knights. 40k isn't a deep a game as you'd like that "player skill" is all that. GW escalates a few broken stuff with further releases (after all, we still had people using the dumb "wHaT aBoUt PlAyEr SkilL" when Scatterbikes and Gladius were a thing in case your memory is short), and then we get the whole "the game is what you make it" and "forge the narrative". Extreme pregame negotiations are proof a wargame game is badly written.

But no, you wanna rag on saying it's because the players are bad LMAO

I didn't defend GW. I criticised poor players, I also criticised GW. I think the only thing worse than your understanding of the game is your comprehension.

**Grey40k**

Nitro Zeus wrote:

I didn't defend GW. I criticised poor players, I also criticised GW. I think the only thing worse than your understanding of the game is your comprehension.

Now, that doesn't contribute to a nice discussion, does it?

Is your point that some sore losers may blame balance on ANY game?

Is slayer's point that, while that might be true, wh40k's balance is bad enough that this is second order in the current discussion?

**Nitro Zeus**

Grey40k wrote:
Nitro Zeus wrote:

I didn't defend GW. I criticised poor players, I also criticised GW. I think the only thing worse than your understanding of the game is your comprehension.

Now, that doesn't contribute to a nice discussion, does it?

Is your point that some sore losers may blame balance on ANY game?

Is slayer's point that, while that might be true, wh40k's balance is bad enough that this is second order in the current discussion?

My point was indeed the first thing you said.

Slayers point was, quite unmistakeably, that being of this opinion means I'm "white Knighting" for GW. Not the second thing that you said at all.

**PoorGravitasHandling**

Balance in your local scene is always going to be an adventure in keeping track of people, not faction power.

The people who bring unoptimized lists and have a good time go on one list.

The people who bring BobbyG, 8 snipers, and a fourth detachment of assassins to fight your silly character heavy mono DG army go on the "aw shucks, work scheduled me, can't play, please read the subtext" list next to the guy running unpainted gatekeeper list du-jour.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also: Playing at lower point values (1000-ish) that is supported in 9th edition by more than a "you can play this way I guess" line in the BRB will help a ton.

Tournaments will probably still run 2K-ish, so people who want min-maxed cheese will have to work it out for themselves instead of reading about it on Bell of Lost Clicks.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Nitro Zeus wrote:
Grey40k wrote:
Nitro Zeus wrote:

I didn't defend GW. I criticised poor players, I also criticised GW. I think the only thing worse than your understanding of the game is your comprehension.

Now, that doesn't contribute to a nice discussion, does it?

Is your point that some sore losers may blame balance on ANY game?

Is slayer's point that, while that might be true, wh40k's balance is bad enough that this is second order in the current discussion?

My point was indeed the first thing you said.

Slayers point was, quite unmistakeably, that being of this opinion means I'm "white Knighting" for GW. Not the second thing that you said at all.

Blaming players on losing instead of actually understanding the core issues with the game (which is a lot) is white knighting for GW, yes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nitro Zeus wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nitro Zeus wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nitro Zeus wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

What are you even babbling about?

Nah. Nope. YOU do not get to open your post like this and expect it to be taken at all seriously, or in my case, even read. Seriously look at your posts so far. Not just this thread. You've sacrificed the right to accuse others of babbling, or being biased, or whatever nonsense you have dreamt up in slayer land today.

So let me get this straight: you think I'm somehow bad at the game and that's why I complain, even though the same complaints are made by other players, some of which could be better than me, which means they would have to be bad players too, which means no good player complains about the game.

Does that REALLY make sense to you?

I think you have an awful understanding of this game at a competitive level, and whether or not better players agree with you, does not mean you understand the gameplay complaints you are making.

On top of that, you've gone out of your way to target me in this thread, when all I did was quote someone else and say I agree that a lot of these complaints are often due to a lack of player skill. The underlying point is that even in a perfectly balanced game, there would still be lower level players who complain because they lost. It was never about you until you interjected yourself in as a focal point of that, but yeah, your post history would serve as an excellent example of what we were saying, so I guess that's why you took it as addressed to you.

Seeing as nobody is complaining about balance in Chess that's DEFINITELY wrong, so thanks for playing.

Chess is not a perfectly balanced game. It isn't even the most balanced game, there is like a 5% win rate for advantage for first turn. And it's a very common thing for awful players to "blame black" when they lose. Nice try though.

Nitro Zeus wrote:
In reality, the only people that can defend GW at this point ARE the white Knights. 40k isn't a deep a game as you'd like that "player skill" is all that. GW escalates a few broken stuff with further releases (after all, we still had people using the dumb "wHaT aBoUt PlAyEr SkilL" when Scatterbikes and Gladius were a thing in case your memory is short), and then we get the whole "the game is what you make it" and "forge the narrative". Extreme pregame negotiations are proof a wargame game is badly written.

But no, you wanna rag on saying it's because the players are bad LMAO

I didn't defend GW. I criticised poor players, I also criticised GW. I think the only thing worse than your understanding of the game is your comprehension.

1. The only people saying Chess isn't really balanced are the same exact people saying that perfect balance makes the game boring like chess. I'm like 95% sure you're one of those people.
2. You're clearly not criticizing GW if your first argument is against the players themselves. You and Sim-Life are doing just that: blame the players. GW does the same thing though not directly (Forge the narrative everyone!!!1!)

**Hellebore**

40k can never be perfectly balanced because it doesn't provide a range of costs for each unit and weapon depending on what they play.

Each army would need to have its value measured against the opposing force to determine its actual 'balanced' value.

ie how effective is this particular list against its opponent would in theory change the points costs dynamically. A thunderhammer is overcosted against an all Grot army, but very effective against a marine army. But it would be less effective against an all scout marine army.

Given this, you will never have true balance, only an approximation.

IMO for tournaments they should be creating a set of army lists or detachment lists that you can choose from that have been playtested and approved.

If you can constrain the variety you increase balance. so if your tournament pack has a finite set of combos for people to use, it will create a more balanced game environment.

It means that tournaments are treated separately to the normal game, but I don't think that's a bad thing

**Karol**

Nitro Zeus wrote:

My point was indeed the first thing you said.

Slayers point was, quite unmistakeably, that being of this opinion means I'm "white Knighting" for GW. Not the second thing that you said at all.

But players having problems in game is the fact that most of the time skill does not cover for difference in army power. If two guys of basic level play against each other the results are going to be similar if two top tier tournament players play against each other with armies with different power level.

What can a person learn in w40k, if they pick the wrong army anyway? this army is bad, I should buy another one, how does that fix anything, aside for people that can buy an army every few months.

It is GW designs the game, not the players, and new players don't even get the insight in to the game veteran players have, plus on top of that they are spoon feed the whole play what you want and everything is playable bluber. So in the end it comes down to luck and money you have.

40k can never be perfectly balanced because it doesn't provide a range of costs for each unit and weapon depending on what they play.

You know, but people that defend GW still make it sound as if w40k in 8th was almost perfect and almost perfectly balanced. When it is no where near the case.
The term learn to play gets thrown a lot, but in the case of people with armies that GW gave weak rules, in boils down to buy an army with good rules next time.
But it is always next time. No one is telling you on the GW site, you are now trying to buy something we knew not how to write rules for, buy at your own peril or if you like to paint very much.

**Tristanleo**

Hellebore wrote:
40k can never be perfectly balanced because it doesn't provide a range of costs for each unit and weapon depending on what they play.

Each army would need to have its value measured against the opposing force to determine its actual 'balanced' value.

ie how effective is this particular list against its opponent would in theory change the points costs dynamically. A thunderhammer is overcosted against an all Grot army, but very effective against a marine army. But it would be less effective against an all scout marine army.

Given this, you will never have true balance, only an approximation.

IMO for tournaments they should be creating a set of army lists or detachment lists that you can choose from that have been playtested and approved.

If you can constrain the variety you increase balance. so if your tournament pack has a finite set of combos for people to use, it will create a more balanced game environment.

It means that tournaments are treated separately to the normal game, but I don't think that's a bad thing

The balance here is supposed to come from a rock/paper/scissor analogy.
Part of playing the game should really be list building and trying to out-think your opponent.
part of the issue you see is that there are some models and units that are Auto-takes because they don't play to the rock paper scissor analogy.
Given your example. You say that you wouldn't bring a thunderhammer against grots because its potential is wasted, That's because it is and an opponent that charges your thunderhammers has made that descision specifically to counter you.

It would be exactly the same if I were to tell my opponent I am bringing orks to the field, so they field a lot of high shot, low AP firepower.
If my list happens to consist entirely of vehicles or meganobz in anticipation of lots of low Ap firepower, then that is me trying to counter expectation and force my opponent into a disadvantage.
Having units that can disrupt the rock paper scissor analogy and are ridiculously cheap or that are so good that they beat the analogy anyway makes for a poor game because it removes any risk involved with making an army.