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.
Jidmah wrote: Customization and balance are not mutually exclusive.
indeed. no better way to show this with the 4th edition double wing lash DP with tripple three obliterators...
siren was bad, this though, was worse.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Eonfuzz wrote: I gotta disagree there. Customization will either be garbage or have a meta defining option. In every game or tabletop where customization exists there's some gak combo that will break the game
This is not a matter of opinion. Just because the games you are aware of have bad balance doesn't mean that it can't be done.
Even the full customization options of all editions accumulated are a trivial amount of moving parts compared to many decently balanced video games.
And to directly address the first person claiming that this is something different and cannot be compared: No it isn't, yes it can.
Any game can archive balance with a sufficient number of iterations - more options just increase complexity and complexity increases the number of iterations necessary.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/12 09:08:26
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Eonfuzz wrote: I gotta disagree there. Customization will either be garbage or have a meta defining option.
In every game or tabletop where customization exists there's some gak combo that will break the game
This is not a matter of opinion. Just because the games you are aware of have bad balance doesn't mean that it can't be done.
Even the full customization options of all editions accumulated are a trivial amount of moving parts compared to many decently balanced video games.
And to directly address the first person claiming that this is something different and cannot be compared: No it isn't, yes it can.
Any game can archive balance with a sufficient number of iterations - more options just increase complexity and complexity increases the number of iterations necessary.
The issue with comparing 40k balance to videogame balance is that there isn't any skull based matchmaking, data collection based on literally every match plated, and even if there were there are fewer 40k games played in a month than many popular games have in a couple of days. GW wishes they could have a tenth the data LOL collects between patches.
Eonfuzz wrote: I gotta disagree there. Customization will either be garbage or have a meta defining option.
In every game or tabletop where customization exists there's some gak combo that will break the game
This is not a matter of opinion. Just because the games you are aware of have bad balance doesn't mean that it can't be done.
Even the full customization options of all editions accumulated are a trivial amount of moving parts compared to many decently balanced video games.
And to directly address the first person claiming that this is something different and cannot be compared: No it isn't, yes it can.
Any game can archive balance with a sufficient number of iterations - more options just increase complexity and complexity increases the number of iterations necessary.
Yet again I have to disagree. Fighting games for example have been trying customization for years now, and there's *always* one or two things that are extremely broken, no matter how many iterations there are.
There comes a point where the concept of a customizable option is too strong, or in order to have perfect balance everything has to be extremely generic.
Even in Starcraft 2, the world's self acclaimed most balanced game has a very large balance problem statistically (afaik it was something like a 10% swing based on matchups).
You must have not read goonhammers recent articles - we already have the data of thousands of games available for 9th alone, despite a pandemic going on any large parts of the world being on lockdown. GW just needs to tap into that data - or just read their articles.
I'd also like to point out that skill based matchmaking is a rather new thing, and companies managed to balance their games way before that became a regular feature. Also the nature of how opponents are matched in tournaments, the primary source of data, kind of is skill-based matchmaking.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/12 09:22:00
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Jidmah wrote: Customization and balance are not mutually exclusive.
This is true.
No they definitely are not.
However, the more customization a game has the harder the game is to balance exponentially.
You are totally right, its just important to also acknowledge that one effects the other greatly. Customization inherently creates exponentially increased computation time on the designers when/if they are trying to achieve balance for all attainable combinations.
A super customization game would be great, but, expecting GW to put even more work into balance then the minimal effort they put in as is , i feel, is a bit of a stretch... but we can all hope.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/11/12 09:52:09
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Jidmah wrote: You must have not read goonhammers recent articles - we already have the data of thousands of games available for 9th alone, despite a pandemic going on any large parts of the world being on lockdown. GW just needs to tap into that data - or just read their articles.
I'd also like to point out that skill based matchmaking is a rather new thing, and companies managed to balance their games way before that became a regular feature. Also the nature of how opponents are matched in tournaments, the primary source of data, kind of is skill-based matchmaking.
That's nothing. League has a minimum of 9 million matches per day assuming no player plays more than one match per day. Every one of those matches are skill matched based on MMR with ranked play even more tightly controlled. 40K would take decades to gather the data LoL gathers in several hours and they'd need to sort it and organize it which a game can automate away.
Even without any skill based matching a game like OG Starcraft would have generated datasets that 40k literally never will.
Eonfuzz wrote: I gotta disagree there. Customization will either be garbage or have a meta defining option.
In every game or tabletop where customization exists there's some gak combo that will break the game
This is not a matter of opinion. Just because the games you are aware of have bad balance doesn't mean that it can't be done.
Even the full customization options of all editions accumulated are a trivial amount of moving parts compared to many decently balanced video games.
And to directly address the first person claiming that this is something different and cannot be compared: No it isn't, yes it can.
Any game can archive balance with a sufficient number of iterations - more options just increase complexity and complexity increases the number of iterations necessary.
Yet again I have to disagree. Fighting games for example have been trying customization for years now, and there's *always* one or two things that are extremely broken, no matter how many iterations there are.
There comes a point where the concept of a customizable option is too strong, or in order to have perfect balance everything has to be extremely generic.
Even in Starcraft 2, the world's self acclaimed most balanced game has a very large balance problem statistically (afaik it was something like a 10% swing based on matchups).
I don't think 'generic' is necessarily the right word... I would say the word "static" sums it up better. Less variables doesn't necessarily mean more generic.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/11/12 09:42:40
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Eonfuzz wrote: Even in Starcraft 2, the world's self acclaimed most balanced game has a very large balance problem statistically (afaik it was something like a 10% swing based on matchups).
This shows exactly what I'm talking about - while there are some setbacks, over time their balance continuously got better. It also seems like that the difference actually was 10% (and higher) at some point, so your information might be dated.
Jidmah wrote: You must have not read goonhammers recent articles - we already have the data of thousands of games available for 9th alone, despite a pandemic going on any large parts of the world being on lockdown. GW just needs to tap into that data - or just read their articles.
I'd also like to point out that skill based matchmaking is a rather new thing, and companies managed to balance their games way before that became a regular feature. Also the nature of how opponents are matched in tournaments, the primary source of data, kind of is skill-based matchmaking.
That's nothing. League has a minimum of 9 million matches per day assuming no player plays more than one match per day. Every one of those matches are skill matched based on MMR with ranked play even more tightly controlled. 40K would take decades to gather the data LoL gathers in several hours and they'd need to sort it and organize it which a game can automate away.
Even without any skill based matching a game like OG Starcraft would have generated datasets that 40k literally never will.
What makes you think that you need that much data to balance a 40k? Warhammer 40k is nowhere near as complex as LoL.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/12 09:37:56
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Disagree, League of Legends is actually simpler than 40k. Both numbers and mechancis wise.
League is an incredibly simple game, with items that basically only effect 1 of 8 stats and each character only having four abilities. Personal skill and mechanical prowess does come into play, but an MMR system ignores that problem entirely.
40k has more numbers, a "value" of a unit can be distilled into points etc etc. By far a more complex game to balance.
Eonfuzz wrote: Even in Starcraft 2, the world's self acclaimed most balanced game has a very large balance problem statistically (afaik it was something like a 10% swing based on matchups).
This shows exactly what I'm talking about - while there are some setbacks, over time their balance continuously got better. It also seems like that the difference actually was 10% (and higher) at some point, so your information might be dated.
55% vs 45% is a 10% swing.
But basically balancing while things are customizable is essentially pointless. The better goal should be maintaining "fun".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/12 09:47:26
My Kroot army just became possible again, now that Knarlocs (Great and Riders) have point values and 9th ed rules!!
Still sucks that the formerly three difffent Great Knarloc datasheet were compressed into one.
Now I have 9 Great Knarlocs!
I guess I can run them all in Narritive- oh, wait, right, Crusade, so nope, I guess only in Open Play now. Dammit.
What makes you think that you need that much data to balance a 40k? Warhammer 40k is nowhere near as complex as LoL.
I'm not certain that's true.
Ultramarines alone have (27 x 20 = 540) x (6^6 = 46,656) × (41^3 = 68,921) × (13^3 = 2,197) x (27^3 = 19,683) = 7.5e19 possible unit combinations using the ancient FOC which means we aren't accounting for fliers, superheavies, or LoWs. Add in variable unit sizes, points costs, wargear, command traits, relics, psychic powers, detachments, allies, and stratagems and it spirals from there. If they played a codex vs codex mirror match that rises to 5.65e9 possible combos of just units versus other units. Now add dice to the mix because 40k is random and League isn't...
Meanwhile League merely has ~52 billion champon combos (many of which are nearly unplayable) plus masteries, summoner spells, and items. League is about a billion times less complex than a single army list from codex Ultramarines is.
For context there are 1e21 stars in the observable universe. And 1e82 atoms in the observable universe. One codex, if fully factored for all variables may well have more potential combinations than there is stuff in the universe...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/12 10:30:49
Eonfuzz wrote: 55% vs 45% is a 10% swing.
But basically balancing while things are customizable is essentially pointless. The better goal should be maintaining "fun".
According to goonhammer 40k currently sitting at 28.8%. For 40k, in the times before the SM 8.5 disaster we have seen that people tend to enjoy the game when their and their opponents' army are both sitting at 47-53% winrates.
What makes you think that you need that much data to balance a 40k? Warhammer 40k is nowhere near as complex as LoL.
I'm not certain that's true.
Ultramarines alone have (27 x 20 = 540) x (6^6 = 46,656) × (41^3 = 68,921) × (13^3 = 2,197) x (27^3 = 19,683) = 7.5e19 possible unit combinations using the ancient FOC which means we aren't accounting for fliers, superheavies, or LoWs. Add in points costs, wargear, command traits, relics, psychic powers, detachments, allies, and stratagems and it spirals from there. Meanwhile League merely has ~52 billion champon combos (many of which are nearly unplayable) plus masteries, summoner spells, and items. League is about a billing times less complex than codex Ultramarines is.
You are just comparing list building to team composition, ignoring the actual game. All that complexity you calculated above is exactly what you see inside their glorious app when you enter your code, and I think you would agree with me that this beautiful piece of software cannot be considered "complex" in any way. Even if you take battlescribe as an example, most of the complexity in their software is related to transforming a huge blob of badly shaped data into a usable user interface.
40k is played for just 5 turns. Even a "surrender at 10" game is played for thousands of turns. Realtime alone adds so much complexity over turn-based strategy that they are hardly comparable.
In addition, there is no in-game economy, no NPCs like jungle, minions or towers, no spawn timers, no cooldowns, no vision, no status effects, no early, mid or late game, no power spikes and probably more things I forgot. Even the entire map you are playing on might change half way through the game.
Also note that when calculating the complexity of a system (which is what I do for a living), a character with ten different melee weapons wouldn't add much complexity compared to a character with just three options. Linear growth is a lot less important that exponential growth.
The game Warhammer 40k itself, even including all its options, barely matches the complexity of an average mobile game.
Mind you, neither does chess, so don't confuse me saying that 40k is not complex for me saying that it doesn't have depth or is particularly easy to play. It just means that is simple enough to allow you to play it without the help of a machine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: My Kroot army just became possible again, now that Knarlocs (Great and Riders) have point values and 9th ed rules!!
Still sucks that the formerly three difffent Great Knarloc datasheet were compressed into one.
Now I have 9 Great Knarlocs!
I guess I can run them all in Narritive- oh, wait, right, Crusade, so nope, I guess only in Open Play now. Dammit.
What's the issue with crusade?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/11/12 10:52:07
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Blndmage wrote: My Kroot army just became possible again, now that Knarlocs (Great and Riders) have point values and 9th ed rules!!
Still sucks that the formerly three difffent Great Knarloc datasheet were compressed into one.
Now I have 9 Great Knarlocs!
I guess I can run them all in Narritive- oh, wait, right, Crusade, so nope, I guess only in Open Play now. Dammit.
What's the issue with crusade?
Crusade still has the Ro2/3/4, so I can't use all 9
Blndmage wrote: My Kroot army just became possible again, now that Knarlocs (Great and Riders) have point values and 9th ed rules!!
Still sucks that the formerly three difffent Great Knarloc datasheet were compressed into one. Now I have 9 Great Knarlocs! I guess I can run them all in Narritive- oh, wait, right, Crusade, so nope, I guess only in Open Play now. Dammit.
What's the issue with crusade?
Crusade still has the Ro2/3/4, so I can't use all 9
Crusade has no limit on how often you can bring datasheets besides what you can fit into your crusade rooster. The rule of 3 is part of the matched play and tournament mission pack, but the grey box describing it iss missing from the crusade mission pack. Enjoy!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/12 12:17:40
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Jidmah wrote: You are just comparing list building to team composition, ignoring the actual game. All that complexity you calculated above is exactly what you see inside their glorious app when you enter your code, and I think you would agree with me that this beautiful piece of software cannot be considered "complex" in any way. Even if you take battlescribe as an example, most of the complexity in their software is related to transforming a huge blob of badly shaped data into a usable user interface.
40k is played for just 5 turns. Even a "surrender at 10" game is played for thousands of turns. Realtime alone adds so much complexity over turn-based strategy that they are hardly comparable.
In addition, there is no in-game economy, no NPCs like jungle, minions or towers, no spawn timers, no cooldowns, no vision, no status effects, no early, mid or late game, no power spikes and probably more things I forgot. Even the entire map you are playing on might change half way through the game.
If you just want gross faction level balance for 40k you don't even need turn-by-turn data, you can literally just look the VP scores and total turn count for games and adjust from there. However, that isn't what people on Dakka are advocating for, they want each option to be viable and, if possible, unique in some key way and that requires cross-referencing every unit with every other unit and figuring out which metrics are important out of the data you generate. Each of these steps are simple, but the sheer volume of calculations is so vast that the system as a whole ends up being difficult to evaluate beyond the simple Army A win% vs Army B win% method that GW uses.
For League, there's nothing deep to balance so you end up being able to cull most of your possible data. The only points you really need to consider (and not all of these will be relevant for every champion) are jungle clear speed, first blood rate and time, damage dealt to various targets (monsters, minions, champions, structures) and then gold and experience at specific points in the game. A lot of the other data can be discarded because you have skill matched play over a large sample size so excellent plays and dismal ones tend to even out.
So yes, if you wanted to sample a League game and plot every possible outcome at a specific tenth of a second it would be nearly infinitely complex however there's no need to do that if all you want is balanced items and champions. Thus what could be complex is made simple due to smart data collection and elegant game design.
TheBoy wrote: So noticed an obvious copy paste error. But it seems all the Legends commanders lost the Battlesuit keyword and gained infantry. Which could make for some hilarious rule interactions. They gain all buffs from infantry stratagems ( double tap shooting), can ride in devilfish, can't be repaired by technical drones or use Battlesuit stratagems.
Sentineil wrote: The Destroyer Tank Hunter got quite a nice boost to it's weapon. It use to be essentially a D3 shot Lascannon, now it's Heavy 2 S12 Ap-4 Damage D3+3.
The S12 is somewhat meaningless, but the extra reliability and Ap are certainly welcome.
It did lose its tank Hunter ability though which is is a shame. I'm just happy to not be wasting my time putting it on a table. It's not so much a tank Hunter, more a scavenger picking off wounded vehicles with a bit of reliability.
I was really hoping for the Leman Russ keyword though, as it's a model that screams out for a tank ace ability.
I've had a Destroyer tank hunter since 2001. Man, has that thing been banged back and forth every edition with beta rules, download rules, 2nd printings, FAQs, and new books. It's like they never really could give it the right rules. I actually like how this turned out. Wounding carnifexes and daemon princes on a 2+ isn't half bad. I just with Vanquisher cannons would almost this good, god those things suck.
60PL 
12PL 
