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.

 Type40 wrote:
Reductio ad absurdum is not the same thing as a straw_man

for who it may be of concern ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I see why you say that but he is not taking my argument to an absurd level (though it is absurd). He is misrepresenting it by claiming I am asking for things I am not.

 Lance845 wrote:
I see why you say that but he is not taking my argument to an absurd level (though it is absurd). He is misrepresenting it by claiming I am asking for things I am not.

Read. The. Fething. Edit.

I made a glib joke and used the fact that I knew you would reply without considering the edit to heighten the punchline.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Reductio ad absurdum is not the same thing as a straw_man

for who it may be of concern ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I see why you say that but he is not taking my argument to an absurd level (though it is absurd). He is misrepresenting it by claiming I am asking for things I am not.

You are ignoring that the has been a lot of design space between 2nd and 9th
He points that out using an Reductio ad absurdum logic.

Your points about 2nd edition SWs similarity to SMs is just as valid for Orks and SMs in 2nd....
But a lot has changed for Orks since then,
and a lot has changed for SWs since then.
Even 3rd the differences were incredibly different between all 3 compared to 2nd ...

You are also objectively wrong about it just being a different paint coat like salamanders or iron hands... its just factually untrue, those subfactions did not get unique rules or units (other then one or two special characters) until many editions later.

So again, please stop making stuff up because you think your proving your point... you already pissed me off enough earlier by pretending you had a degree in game design whilst not understanding what the P v.s. NP problem in game design was... so, just stop making things up ... we can continue the conversation but really... if your going to make a claim,,, especially ones where we can literally pull out the books to check, know what your talking about.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I see why you say that but he is not taking my argument to an absurd level (though it is absurd). He is misrepresenting it by claiming I am asking for things I am not.

Read. The. Fething. Edit.

I made a glib joke and used the fact that I knew you would reply without considering the edit to heighten the punchline.

1) Jokes are funny.

2) It's not the first time you used that argument.

3) You have brought nothing to the table but your strawmans.

4) You can absolutely argue that they have expanded what SWs are over the editions. It's indisputable. But you cannot claim that they have always been unique. That is also indisputable. And you cannot claim that they are not being folded back in. As a supplement to codex spacemarines since code space marines 2.0 last edition they are very clearly not a separate faction. So they started as a part of SM and now they are a part of codex SM again. Claiming otherwise is just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring reality.

 Lance845 wrote:

4) You can absolutely argue that they have expanded what SWs are over the editions. It's indisputable. But you cannot claim that they have always been unique. That is also indisputable. And you cannot claim that they are not being folded back in. As a supplement to codex spacemarines since code space marines 2.0 last edition they are very clearly not a separate faction. So they started as a part of SM and now they are a part of codex SM again. Claiming otherwise is just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring reality.

Except now we know what the supplement has in it via the reviews released by Goonhammer and etc...

The unique differences that the wolves have gained over the yeas have 100% been preserved. They were folded in to make the vanilla primaris shared units easier to keep track of. Fine.
The only way to get rid of all the flavour of SWs is to literally remove it ,,, which is what your advocating for ... so supplement or not does not mater. The faction is different. Unless you remove what makes it different XD.

 Type40 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Reductio ad absurdum is not the same thing as a straw_man

for who it may be of concern ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I see why you say that but he is not taking my argument to an absurd level (though it is absurd). He is misrepresenting it by claiming I am asking for things I am not.

You are ignoring that the has been a lot of design space between 2nd and 9th
He points that out using an Reductio ad absurdum logic.

Your points about 2nd edition SWs similarity to SMs is just as valid for Orks and SMs in 2nd....
But a lot has changed for Orks since then,
and a lot has changed for SWs since then.
Even 3rd the differences were incredibly different between all 3 compared to 2nd ...

You are also objectively wrong about it just being a different paint coat like salamanders or iron hands... its just factually untrue.

So again, please stop making stuff up because you think your proving your point... you already pissed me off enough earlier by pretending you had a degree in game design whilst not understanding what the P v.s. NP problem in game design was... so, just stop making things up ... we can continue the conversation but really... if your going to make a claim,,, especially ones where we can literally pull out the books to check, know what your talking about.

P = NP or P /= NP is not a game design issue it's a computing and math one and it relates to methods of problem solving and verification not game balance. While yes, it CAN be applicable in game design it's mostly just as an exercise in computing power. Not balance. Not design from a mechanical point of view. I ignored it before because debating with you your obvious ignorance on a subject of theoretical math is a waste of everyones time and has no bearing on this discussion.

Again, you don't have to believe I have a degree in game design. I very much don't care what you think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

4) You can absolutely argue that they have expanded what SWs are over the editions. It's indisputable. But you cannot claim that they have always been unique. That is also indisputable. And you cannot claim that they are not being folded back in. As a supplement to codex spacemarines since code space marines 2.0 last edition they are very clearly not a separate faction. So they started as a part of SM and now they are a part of codex SM again. Claiming otherwise is just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring reality.

Except now we know what the supplement has in it via the reviews released by Goonhammer and etc...

The unique differences that the wolves have gained over the yeas have 100% been preserved. They were folded in to make the vanilla primaris shared units easier to keep track of. Fine.
The only way to get rid of all the flavour of SWs is to literally remove it ,,, which is what your advocating for ... so supplement or not does not mater. The faction is different. Unless you remove what makes it different XD.

I am. I am 100% advocating for scrapping all of the supplements and folding it all into a condensed SM codex.

 Lance845 wrote:


P = NP or P /= NP is not a game design issue it's a computing and math one and it relates to methods of problem solving not game balance. While yes, it CAN be applicable in game design it's mostly just as an exercise in computing power. Not balance. Not design from a mechanical point of view. I ignored it before because debating with you your obvious ignorance on a subject of theoretical math is a waste of everyones time and has no bearing on this discussion.

Again, you don't have to believe I have a degree in game design. I very much don't care what you think.

Do you think game design has nothing to do with math ?
P v NP is a math problem, it is related to computing power but its not ONLY related to computing power. Computing power is just one of the issues it would solve. It would also solve the balancing issues that come up if a designer choses to use restrictionless variable datasheets.

The fact that you do not see how this is related, or why P vs NP is relevant, shows me that you are lying about being in game design. Because when designing game mechanics knowing what kind of mechanic propose problems related to P vs NP is fundamental.

You don't have to care about what I think... but what you are/were doing is demonstrating, beyond a doubt, that you were lying about your degree and therefor making up fake credentials to dispute me from a place of "authority" rather then any real constructed arguments. which is a way lower argumentative tactic then even a strawman XD.

This also means, its quite clear, you are willing to make arguments based on lies, lack of research, or sheer fallacious facts to "prove" your points... and its really confusing on why would do that to prove SWs shouldnt have rules for riding wolves or being warewolves... like are the rules for my wolves hurting you THAT much ... We both agree other factions need more attention XD.

 Lance845 wrote:
1) Jokes are funny.

Not to their punchline.

2) It's not the first time you used that argument.

It's almost as if I'm using exaggeration and hyperbole to highlight that I find the crux of your argument as stupid as you find mine.

3) You have brought nothing to the table but your strawman.

You keep saying that but have yet to prove that this is the case. Mostly you just ignore large chunks of what I type, strip selected quotes of context, and pretend that I'm saying something that I'm not.

4) You can absolutely argue that they have expanded what SWs are over the editions. It's indisputable. But you cannot claim that they have always been unique. That is also indisputable. And you cannot claim that they are not being folded back in. As a supplement to codex spacemarines since code space marines 2.0 last edition they are very clearly not a separate faction. So they started as a part of SM and now they are a part of codex SM again. Claiming otherwise is just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring reality.

They've been unique for most of the game. Sometimes that uniqueness was simply that they got fluff where other chapters didn't, in other cases they got unique rules and models, now they're getting unique supplements while sharing a book in a worst of all worlds scenario that everybody hates.

See, this is the conversation I didn't want to have.

PvNP has no answer at the moment. It's theoretical. It's solution would have implications once the problem is solved. But it's not solved. And so while it can be a fun topic of discussion for those who understand enough about it to actually have that conversation it means nothing here. In this discussion.

 Lance845 wrote:
See, this is the conversation I didn't want to have.

PvNP has no answer at the moment. It's theoretical. It's solution would have implications once the problem is solved. But it's not solved. And so while it can be a fun topic of discussion for those who understand enough about it to actually have that conversation it means nothing here. In this discussion.

Lol you don't get it XD..
Yes, PvNP has no answer... precicely why it would take exponential time to balance variable unrestricted datasheets. if PvNP was solved I would agree 100% that balancing would be no problem... Then I would only have flavour arguments (which in IMO are even more valid XD then the balancing issues)

PvNP is theoretical in the same way gravity is theoretical.
PvNP actively dictates game design decisions ALL the time as well as computation coding decisions. Game balancing requires COMPUTATION. Either by a computer or people. When some one is doing algorithmic coding PvNP is an active concern. In game design , when figuring out mechanics you MUST keep PvNP in mind in order to figure out timing limitations for things like balance (in an actively maintained living game like 40k) as well as player options (so players arn't required (or are required) to me exponential amounts of decisions). 40k already has problems with the computation of point costs for balancing... you really think it is a good idea to severely and exponentially increase the amount of computing resources needed ?

PvNP in the case of unrestricted variable datasheets would cause a balancing nightmare (unless PvNP was solved) ...

If you understood PvNP or had studied game design, you would know exactly why this matters.

 Type40 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
See, this is the conversation I didn't want to have.

PvNP has no answer at the moment. It's theoretical. It's solution would have implications once the problem is solved. But it's not solved. And so while it can be a fun topic of discussion for those who understand enough about it to actually have that conversation it means nothing here. In this discussion.

Lol you don't get it XD..
Yes, PvNP has no answer... precicely why it would take exponential time to balance variable unrestricted datasheets. if PvNP was solved I would agree 100% that balancing would be no problem... Then I would only have flavour arguments (which in IMO are even more valid XD then the balancing issues)

IF P /= NP.

PvNP is theoretical in the same way gravity is theoretical.
PvNP actively dictates game design decisions ALL the time as well as computation decisions. When some one is doing algorythmic coding PvNP is an active concern. In game design , when figuring out mechanics you MUST keep PvNP in mind in order to figure out timing limitations for things like balance (in an actively maintined living game like 40k) as well as player options (so players arn't required (or are required) to me exponential amounts of decisions)

You really don't. Games were made long before PvNP was proposed and continue to be designed by people who don't give PvNP any thought. PvNP is a singular element in a broad spectrum of game design philosophy and in no way the central core tenant upon which all game design is built.

PvNP in the case of unrestricted variable datasheets would cause a balancing nightmare (unless PvNP was solved) ...

If you understood PvNP or had studied game design, you would know exactly why this matters.

I like your gumption but you're wrong.

You really don't. Games were made long before PvNP was proposed and continue to be designed by people who don't give PvNP any thought.

LOL LOL LOL

WOW !!!!

That's like saying "Gravity didnt exist before it was proposed. People used to play ball games long before gravity and people didn't give gravity any thought when they tried to figure out the weight of the ball to use"

"there was no such thing a sphere before the concept of a sphere was proposed, before that, people just kicked around cubes"

you are literally saying "No body thought about how much longer computation would take when adding extra variables before someone made up a name for the problem"

HOLY CRAP ....

You are too funny man,,, actually, toooooo funny. XD .

As I said. A waste of time.

 Lance845 wrote:
As I said. A waste of time.

Lol,,, it wouldn't have been a waste of time before someone came up with the concept of "time wasting" would it XD ?

LOL !!!!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
p.s. this was
Reductio ad absurdum
and not what you are calling a "strawman"

 Lance845 wrote:
You really don't. Games were made long before PvNP was proposed and continue to be designed by people who don't give PvNP any thought. PvNP is a singular element in a broad spectrum of game design philosophy and in no way the central core tenant upon which all game design is built.

Just because a theory wasn't formally proposed doesn't mean that aspects of it weren't considered. Rules complexity has always been a core issue in game design both in terms of balancing a large spread of rules and in readability for players of said games. We can also go and look at extant games and apply PvNP theory to them to understand a key aspect of what makes a game 'good' and to see if there are corelations between how complexity is handled and enjoyable gameplay.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Just because a theory wasn't formally proposed doesn't mean that aspects of it weren't considered. Rules complexity has always been a core issue in game design both in terms of balancing a large spread of rules and in readability for players of said games. We can also go and look at extant games and apply PvNP theory to them to understand a key aspect of what makes a game 'good' and to see if there are corelations between how complexity is handled and enjoyable gameplay.

Thanks for explaining this 100% more politely and clearly then me . XD, too funny.

At this point I'm for any option that means we don't need to spend month upon month in every new edition waiting for GW to release codices for every different flavour of Marine before maybe getting around to other factions.

As to whether that means consolidating identical or near-identical dataslates or just shoving every single one of them into the same book, I really don't care.

Of course, my preferred option would involve GW updating every faction at once right at the start of each edition with free, downloadable rules. However, that seems about as likely as me riding a winged marshmallow to the moon.

 Type40 wrote:

ok,,, so you DO want to give a new unit to a power armor faction ?

well yes? i never said i didnt.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
You really don't. Games were made long before PvNP was proposed and continue to be designed by people who don't give PvNP any thought. PvNP is a singular element in a broad spectrum of game design philosophy and in no way the central core tenant upon which all game design is built.

Just because a theory wasn't formally proposed doesn't mean that aspects of it weren't considered. Rules complexity has always been a core issue in game design both in terms of balancing a large spread of rules and in readability for players of said games. We can also go and look at extant games and apply PvNP theory to them to understand a key aspect of what makes a game 'good' and to see if there are corelations between how complexity is handled and enjoyable gameplay.

And yet games are made with a variable amount of complexity. Some games are designed to be completed in 30 minutes and are enjoyed by many. Some games are designed to be played in cycles of less than a minute and find mass appeal. And yet others are designed with such complexity that they take several days. There are die hard fans of a version of cricket that is played over many days and others who like the version thats played over hours.

The point I made was that games can be designed either way. That the degree of complexity on a data sheet does not mean an increase in the time to balance when compared to the degree of time to balance a multitude of data sheets. In order for you to prove that you would need to be able to prove PvNP one way or the other AND prove that the solution is applicable in this particular instance in a way that is favorable to you. And you can't so even bringing it up is just dumb.

PvNP often only matters when dealing with physical limitations (such as computing power) and otherwise it's an interesting philosophical debate but not much else. I don't have to keep PvNP in mind when designing a game because it's not a problem I can solve. I am not a mathematician who can solve a hereto unsolvable theoretical problem. What I can do is design interface, measure cost to impact, pay attention to psychology to predict player action and how mechanics influence predictable patterns of player action. I can build towards the philosophical goals of game design that I subscribe to. Write, run, measure, and iterate on test cases. Game design isn't pure math. It's also psychology and art.

You either understand that PvNP has no answer and is thus not applicable in this discussion or you don't.

Again. A waste of time.

I am done discussing this. I will not respond to anything related to it again.

 vipoid wrote:
At this point I'm for any option that means we don't need to spend month upon month in every new edition waiting for GW to release codices for every different flavour of Marine before maybe getting around to other factions.

As to whether that means consolidating identical or near-identical dataslates or just shoving every single one of them into the same book, I really don't care.

Of course, my preferred option would involve GW updating every faction at once right at the start of each edition with free, downloadable rules. However, that seems about as likely as me riding a winged marshmallow to the moon.

100% agreed here !
They should just release everything at once... and I do agree that some factions really don't need a supplement to list there 2 special characters.And it is 100% egregious to sit through 6 months of marine releases... but to keep the amount of customizability that exist,,, or the increased amount on single datasheets as people are proposing would take up MORE designer time, not less... not to mention it removes faction identity. Which not enough other armies have alot of access too , i agree, but that doesn't mean we should have removed, that doesnt make more design space, that space was spent... stop focusing on power armor, starting giving other factions more unique and interesting stuff.... and maybe don't drip release the releases,,, drip releasing is fething BS and its frustrating to literally everyone who plays the game,,, especially this time because its power armor for months .



Automatically Appended Next Post:



Your understanding of this concept is 100% wrong... PvNP is 100% not only concerned with physical limitations and is 100% concerned (and only concerned) with computational resources (like how many game designers can fit in a room and make calculation about potential balancing scenarios) and the exponential time it takes to make said calculations v.s. the limited amount of time it takes to reverse the formula if the answer variables are already present.

PvNP is 100% taught in game design unrelated to physical computing power and is also 100% not limited to philosophy...

You do not have an understanding of this concept and you are embarrassing yourself the more you try to push this weird idea this is a philosophical question. Let me break it down for you in an easy to understand way because your clearly getting caught up in something you read on wikipedia or w/e .

If you have a data sheet with 50 options on it and you can pick 5.
Finding out what combinations will equal 150 points will take some time for you to compute (as a human OR as a computer)
the more options you add the more exponential computational time will be needed.
NOW if you had already chose the 5 options and you wanted to see what points they equalled,,, that is very quick. but you are left with the same set of fixed variables at the end of both calculations.

This is just one example... so if on of the 50 options changes and becomes better, then the designer need to re-balance the other 49 options as they synergise with each other. not to mention adding more rules to the datasheet by letting other subfactions with different characters, rules, and relics have access to it increasing the exponential calculations even more...

Everything I have explained here is related to PvNP and none of it is "philosophical".
Computation /= only computers... you get that right ?

PvNP Solved : would mean all these calculations could be made as fast as the reverse formula i.e. calculating what combinations could equal 150 as fast as calculating the points cost of 5 chosen options.
Unfortunately PvNP is not solved... sooo ,,,, we need to considering it in game design,,, and we needed to consider it even before it was proposed, we just didnt have something specific to call it.
I am sorry I even mentioned it as PvNP i should have just explained the issue with unrestricted variable datasheets with tons of customization outright from the get go,,, I didn't realize someone would start making a bunch of nonsense up XD.

I am done discussing this. I will not respond to anything related to it again.

AKA " I am tired of making things up about something I have no understanding of so I will pretend I am the one who gets it and no one else does XD"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

ok,,, so you DO want to give a new unit to a power armor faction ?

well yes? i never said i didnt.

So the designers can sink even more time into design and balance of power armor whilst also removing a unique option from another army. Nice. ("BUT ITS ALL THE SAME ITS ALL JUST MARINES THEY ARNT DIFFERENT ARMIES." except they are different, because in order to make them the same you are proposing either removing what makes them different or giving what is different to the others. of course they are the same if you make them a clone of each other,,, its absurd that you think you can arbitrarily make that decision)

 Lance845 wrote:
And yet games are made with a variable amount of complexity. Some games are designed to be completed in 30 minutes and are enjoyed by many. Some games are designed to be played in cycles of less than a minute and find mass appeal. And yet others are designed with such complexity that they take several days. There are die hard fans of a version of cricket that is played over many days and others who like the version thats played over hours.

You're mistaking complexity for playtime. Test cricket is no more complex than 20/20 cricket, it merely requires a greater number of steps of the same complexity.

Likewise one could make an incredibly dense ruleset for a game that resolves very quickly. One such game could be a universe simulator where each player takes turns bidding to determine who gets to set certain universal constants with the end goal being to create a universe that reaches specific states at a set time after the big bang. Rules which govern the simulation of the universe would be incredibly complex but due to a limited number of constants, the gameplay itself could be completed fairly quickly. This sort of game disproves your idea that time = complexity.

The point I made was that games can be designed either way. That the degree of complexity on a data sheet does not mean an increase in the time to balance when compared to the degree of time to balance a multitude of data sheets. In order for you to prove that you would need to be able to prove PvNP one way or the other AND prove that the solution is applicable in this particular instance in a way that is favorable to you. And you can't so even bringing it up is just dumb.

Yet you argue that 40k is bounded by how complex it can be and how much design space it can have. This is, unless I'm mistaken, your core argument for why some factions should have their design space curtailed while others should have their design space expanded. You're literally arguing a PvNP style problem but refusing to see your argument in those terms.

PvNP often only matters when dealing with physical limitations (such as computing power) and otherwise it's an interesting philosophical debate but not much else.

Are humans not physically limited by how much we can compute in a given span of time? Is our enjoyment of a game not influenced by things such as how long it takes both ourselves and other players to decide upon an action?

------

Also, lol at your argument that taking 9th edition morale tests at an unmodified ld of 10 isn't the same as being immune to morale. This really shows off your chops as a game designer.

I'm not convinced that the PvNP problem even applies to the problem of balancing datasheets.

In plain english, the PvNP problem basically asks 'If the solution to a problem is easy to check for correctness, must the problem be easy to solve?'
For instance it's easy to verify that a filled in Sudoku grid is correct. However it's much more complex to fill one out.

I'm sure there's a complex algorithm which could be applied to balance the games datasheets (arguments over the run-time of this algorithm vs the heat death of the universe aside ).
However do you really think there's a simple algorithm which could be applied to verify that the game is actually balanced?
It would certainly save a lot of argument on these forums if there was

Arson Fire wrote:
I'm not convinced that the PvNP problem even applies to the problem of balancing datasheets.

In plain english, the PvNP problem basically asks 'If the solution to a problem is easy to check for correctness, must the problem be easy to solve?'
For instance it's easy to verify that a filled in Sudoku grid is correct. However it's much more complex to fill one out.

I'm sure there's a complex algorithm which could be applied to balance the games datasheets (arguments over the run-time of this algorithm vs the heat death of the universe aside ).
However do you really think there's a simple algorithm which could be applied to verify that the game is actually balanced?
It would certainly save a lot of argument on these forums if there was

This guy gets it.

Arson Fire wrote:
I'm not convinced that the PvNP problem even applies to the problem of balancing datasheets.

In plain english, the PvNP problem basically asks 'If the solution to a problem is easy to check for correctness, must the problem be easy to solve?'
For instance it's easy to verify that a filled in Sudoku grid is correct. However it's much more complex to fill one out.

I'm sure there's a complex algorithm which could be applied to balance the games datasheets (arguments over the run-time of this algorithm vs the heat death of the universe aside ).
However do you really think there's a simple algorithm which could be applied to verify that the game is actually balanced?
It would certainly save a lot of argument on these forums if there was

On a unit by unit basis, yes there are simple mathematical models that can show that one unit is objectively better than another unit point for point. Theoretically, these can be applied to compare every unit (in every configuration) to every other unit. Then theoretically we can apply these results to examine each faction, list, and meta for balance. Thus fundamentally 40k is solvable by simple equations but provable only by more work than can ever actually be done.

Arson Fire wrote:
I'm not convinced that the PvNP problem even applies to the problem of balancing datasheets.

In plain english, the PvNP problem basically asks 'If the solution to a problem is easy to check for correctness, must the problem be easy to solve?'
For instance it's easy to verify that a filled in Sudoku grid is correct. However it's much more complex to fill one out.

I'm sure there's a complex algorithm which could be applied to balance the games datasheets (arguments over the run-time of this algorithm vs the heat death of the universe aside ).
However do you really think there's a simple algorithm which could be applied to verify that the game is actually balanced?
It would certainly save a lot of argument on these forums if there was

So, the leading proposal to consolidate the datasheets is to have customizable options given to all subfactions with no restrictions.
so here is how it applies .

Data sheet has 50 options.
You have options chosen which = 150 pts... very easy to check
v.s.
You need to calculate which of the 50 options chosen together = 150 pts. much longer to compute.
^ this is for simply checking points costs but the same would apply for every piece of balancing consideration.

Now lets start balancing other variables,, like game length, what stats actually do, how many points rules are worth.

Make 1 change to one set of the 50 options and BAMB everything else now needs to be changed.

the more options the more exponential time needto make these calculations.

More dynamic variables increase calculation time exponential.

A static sheet has already chosen the options (or majority of) and has far less computation time for figuring out the balancing considerations.

Its simply, dynamic variables = exponential computation time. Static variables do not. Static variables are easy to check because you can work backwards. Sure we probably can't achieve total static variables without having an even bigger problem with books... but the less variables the better. The more restrictions the better. SWs only unit, great, no need to add the variables from the other faction rules,,, way less time. This type of unit only uses this wargear, GREAT no need to add the variables of that unit using other wargear... and etc etc etc.

It doesnt mater if the algorithm is simple. What matters is that it would be simplER to calculate the reveres once we have balanced armies . It is easy to see how knowing exactly the perfect balanced army rules would be quicker to figure out then how to make that army with out already knowing the solution Thats how PvNP applies.. and we don't want to make it more complicated then it already is for the designers during the process of balance and maintining balance because that would just take even more time.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
The point is,,, the problem right now is marines take up to much time... people think that less data sheets with less restrictions and more customization = more free time for the designers... when it in fact means the opposite.

Also, I don't want to lose the unique identity I have playing the rules of a unique SWs unit...

these two points together means, I lose, and every other faction loses at the same time. So why bother XD.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

Arson Fire wrote:
I'm not convinced that the PvNP problem even applies to the problem of balancing datasheets.

In plain english, the PvNP problem basically asks 'If the solution to a problem is easy to check for correctness, must the problem be easy to solve?'
For instance it's easy to verify that a filled in Sudoku grid is correct. However it's much more complex to fill one out.

I'm sure there's a complex algorithm which could be applied to balance the games datasheets (arguments over the run-time of this algorithm vs the heat death of the universe aside ).
However do you really think there's a simple algorithm which could be applied to verify that the game is actually balanced?
It would certainly save a lot of argument on these forums if there was

This guy gets it.

Lol ya he does XD you do realize he is disagreeing with you and not at all saying what you were saying XD .... LOL man ,,, you got to stop... XD

Before this thread moves on too quickly, I would like to say that I want more customizable options for the sake of having customizable options. Restricted units and characters are generally boring and frustrating to use imo. Unique rules are just kinda bleh imo.

I also feel that this thread overly focuses on marines (and sw in particular for some reason). There’s a lot of things that are redundant and could be condensed (eg infiltrators and incursors or tau strike teams and breachers) before we even need to touch wulfen.

@type40 it seems to me that you’re putting way to much emphasis on balancing variables by theory and you’re making it seem far more challenging than it is. Fundamentally, loosening restrictions would make the modeling and narrative side of the game more fun instead of being shoehorned into the same play styles. Since GW has proven they will never fully balance the game due to new releases and editions, why not let loose and have fun with the models?

Dandelion wrote:
Before this thread moves on too quickly, I would like to say that I want more customizable options for the sake of having customizable options. Restricted units and characters are generally boring and frustrating to use imo. Unique rules are just kinda bleh imo.

I also feel that this thread overly focuses on marines (and sw in particular for some reason). There’s a lot of things that are redundant and could be condensed (eg infiltrators and incursors or tau strike teams and breachers) before we even need to touch wulfen.

@type40 it seems to me that you’re putting way to much emphasis on balancing variables by theory and you’re making it seem far more challenging than it is. Fundamentally, loosening restrictions would make the modeling and narrative side of the game more fun instead of being shoehorned into the same play styles. Since GW has proven they will never fully balance the game due to new releases and editions, why not let loose and have fun with the models?

Now this ! this I can relate too.

Yes, customization for the sake of it,, sure 100% , but lets not pretend design space would increase because of it,,, cuz it wont.. But because you WANT customization... sure ! I get you
and ya the vanilla primaris stuff, i have been saying all along ,, sure ! but not TWC and wulfen,,, which a lot of people seem to be arguing for.

But ya, I am focused on the balancing variables because people keep saying reduced sheets with more variables = more design space... and thats not going to happen... buuutttt i get where your coming from 100% if you dont like unique rules or units... hey thats your choice, you play your game and I ll play mine... but i like my unique stuff and GW knows both me and you exist as types of players and they arnt going to forget it any time soon.

So ya, you enjoy, ill enjoy and we can both enjoy, no reason to take my unique stuff though when it doesnt stop you from enjoying your game.

 Lance845 wrote:
Right. 2nd. Which came out in 1993. The game started in 1987.

I am also looking at the 2nd ed book right now. It appears that you share 100% of your wargear with SM along with... 10? of your 26 datasheets. Ignoring of course that "rune priest" is just librarian with a different name and paint job so the shared data sheets is actually more.

On top of this... oh look! SWs on bikes! But no space wolves on wolves. That wouldn't happen until 2009, 22 god damn years into the games existence and only 11 years ago. Thats right. TWC have existed for only about 1/3rd of the time SW have. They are not a unique faction.

And any argument that they were for that less than half the time they existed ends at the end of last edition when they became a supplement to the main SM codex. Just like Ultramarines.

if sharing 100% of your wargear with space marines makes you space marines.....

does that make sisters of battle space marines?

Honestly, I think the biggest issue with marines right now is just how endless it feels. Whether or not units should be consolidated is somewhat academic when the real issue is that we should have had all the supplements released at once. Marines would have been a one and done deal at least, but instead they just keep dragging it on. And then they went and released a limited ed termie!

PS for what it’s worth, I do think marines could all share one book. Trimming some needless doubled datasheets (*cough* primaris *cough) and a whole bunch of generally uninteresting minor characters would leave plenty of space for full BA, DA and SW rules. And to be frank, only those 3 should have been supplements at all. The other chapters had too little to even need a whole book.

Dandelion wrote:
Honestly, I think the biggest issue with marines right now is just how endless it feels. Whether or not units should be consolidated is somewhat academic when the real issue is that we should have had all the supplements released at once. Marines would have been a one and done deal at least, but instead they just keep dragging it on. And then they went and released a limited ed termie!

PS for what it’s worth, I do think marines could all share one book. Trimming some needless doubled datasheets (*cough* primaris *cough) and a whole bunch of generally uninteresting minor characters would leave plenty of space for full BA, DA and SW rules. And to be frank, only those 3 should have been supplements at all. The other chapters had too little to even need a whole book.

define "unintreasting minor characters" because I suspect that would be.... subject to debate