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.
chaos0xomega wrote: Might want to redo your math there, 120-250k copies of indomitus vs ~2.4 million players is a lot less than 1 in 4. At best its 1:10, at worst its at least 1:24 or at the extreme end of the scale 1:400
chaos0xomega wrote: Might want to redo your math there, 120-250k copies of indomitus vs ~2.4 million players is a lot less than 1 in 4. At best its 1:10, at worst its at least 1:24 or at the extreme end of the scale 1:400
There is fourteen not four there in my post…
My bad
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
chaos0xomega wrote: Might want to redo your math there, 120-250k copies of indomitus vs ~2.4 million players is a lot less than 1 in 4. At best its 1:10, at worst its at least 1:24 or at the extreme end of the scale 1:400
While very interesting (I haven't read the full article yet) I soon as I read this extract, I understood that goonhammer is simply reading whatever it wants in it:
"Competitive Play is the most visible aspect of the hobby. Because Competitive players focus on building competitive communities, because competitive play happens in public, and because casual play is more likely to happen in private at homes, competitive play ends up being the most readily visible aspect of the game. Which means it’s also the most likely aspect of the game to draw in new players. A strong competitive game that looks fun will naturally attract more players, and as a result, attract more casual, narrative, and hobby-focused players to the game as well. If you want to promote the game, you have to promote it where people can see it and as much as I love beerhammer at home, nobody sees those games."
Competitive play is almost non existent from an outsider point of view, and the only content people may come across by definition, is casual content, simply because it's played in stores, broadcasted in casual environment (you may well found Warhammer content in bookstores for example, like white dwarfs or the good old Hachette "The lord of the rings" that got a lot of us here) Even just focusing strictly on games, I have only seen competitive games in tournament I have attended, in paid events. The internet is full of casual battle reports, campaigns, events etc and I don't believe that people would come across competitive events and game first if they don't actively look for it.
. The internet is full of casual battle reports, campaigns, events etc and I don't believe that people would come across competitive events and game first if they don't actively look for it.
Before I started collecting an army, my first foray into 40k was Tabletop Titans ITC competitive battle reports on youtube. I would read goonhammer and other sites about competitive data before I even had the core rule book. When I search "battle report" on youtube, the majority are "competitive" (GT Missions). Most of my friends who play are the same, consuming competitive 40k content as opposed to narrative/casual. I think newer players in more modern times are more likely to be exposed to completive viewpoints compared to when 40k wasn't as big.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/15 19:56:27
godardc wrote: While very interesting (I haven't read the full article yet) I soon as I read this extract, I understood that goonhammer is simply reading whatever it wants in it:
"Competitive Play is the most visible aspect of the hobby. Because Competitive players focus on building competitive communities, because competitive play happens in public, and because casual play is more likely to happen in private at homes, competitive play ends up being the most readily visible aspect of the game. Which means it’s also the most likely aspect of the game to draw in new players. A strong competitive game that looks fun will naturally attract more players, and as a result, attract more casual, narrative, and hobby-focused players to the game as well. If you want to promote the game, you have to promote it where people can see it and as much as I love beerhammer at home, nobody sees those games."
Competitive play is almost non existent from an outsider point of view, and the only content people may come across by definition, is casual content, simply because it's played in stores, broadcasted in casual environment (you may well found Warhammer content in bookstores for example, like white dwarfs or the good old Hachette "The lord of the rings" that got a lot of us here) Even just focusing strictly on games, I have only seen competitive games in tournament I have attended, in paid events. The internet is full of casual battle reports, campaigns, events etc and I don't believe that people would come across competitive events and game first if they don't actively look for it.
respectfully, classifying "any game that happens outside of a GT" as "casual", or at least "not competitive", is a rather elitist viewpoint.
Like i said earlier, i play mostly relaxed 1k games with a mate at his house because thats the only place i can play, but that doesnt mean im not intrested in optimising my army or playstyle, or that im not intrested in listening to other players opinions on army composition/tactics/etc. I only have a limited budget for hobby purchases, so i do take the opinions of goonhammer into consideration when planning my purchases because i wish to optimise my purchases. If comparatively high level players (at least to me) are saying "x unit is not great (because of <reason>, but Y unit is really good at what it does (becuase <reason>", then naturally i am more likely to buy Y unit than X unit.
could i have worked out some of this on my own form the books? yhea, but goonhammer often has the book before i do, so why shouldnt i listen to them?
To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be relearned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods.
Coven of XVth 2000pts
The Blades of Ruin 2,000pts Watch Company Rho 1650pts
Also depends on what corner of the world you are in.
In the usa, almost everyone I've ever encountered that watches content online is honed in and focused on competitive youtubes and streams and articles.
As such I agree with Goonhammer. Competitive tournament play is the most public and visible and is the gateway for a great number of players, particularly in the US.
. The internet is full of casual battle reports, campaigns, events etc and I don't believe that people would come across competitive events and game first if they don't actively look for it.
Before I started collecting an army, my first foray into 40k was Tabletop Titans ITC competitive battle reports on youtube. I would read goonhammer and other sites about competitive data before I even had the core rule book. When I search "battle report" on youtube, the majority are "competitive" (GT Missions). Most of my friends who play are the same, consuming competitive 40k content as opposed to narrative/casual. I think newer players in more modern times are more likely to be exposed to completive viewpoints compared to when 40k wasn't as big.
Both casual/narrative batreps and competitive content is dwarfed by the amount of hobby material out there and it is the hobby aspect, not the gaming aspect of any flavour that is both the most visible and most appealing to newcomers. Only after this initial interest the division on casuals and competitives happens, depending mostly on local community environment. Also, don't forget that a lot of people are in this hobby solo, without friends or easily available FLGS to share the interest with. For example, nearly half of population of Poland lives in rural areas, where having another player close by is the exception, not the norm.
Also, a side question, as this is not covered by the survey - how many of you know stories of people driven away from the hobby by over-competitive focus of their local community and how many of you know stories of people who were driven away from the hobby by overly casual focus of local community? Because dakka is full of the former but I can't recall any of the latter. Personally I don't know anyone who would leave the hobby because of casual approach but I know both those, who were driven away and those who have not even started at all because of overly competitive focus of the community.
Dudeface wrote: The big thing here is the 0.6% of the estimated total community are "competitive players" which takes us back to the less than 1% deciding how the game goes for the other 99%. And I'd wager a fair chunk of that 99% screaming that they're actually really a competitive player.
As a competitive player, I sure would love to live in this imaginary world people talk about where GW does things that are good for competitive play. Rather than garbage like CA2022.
. The internet is full of casual battle reports, campaigns, events etc and I don't believe that people would come across competitive events and game first if they don't actively look for it.
Before I started collecting an army, my first foray into 40k was Tabletop Titans ITC competitive battle reports on youtube. I would read goonhammer and other sites about competitive data before I even had the core rule book. When I search "battle report" on youtube, the majority are "competitive" (GT Missions). Most of my friends who play are the same, consuming competitive 40k content as opposed to narrative/casual. I think newer players in more modern times are more likely to be exposed to completive viewpoints compared to when 40k wasn't as big.
Both casual/narrative batreps and competitive content is dwarfed by the amount of hobby material out there and it is the hobby aspect, not the gaming aspect of any flavour that is both the most visible and most appealing to newcomers. Only after this initial interest the division on casuals and competitives happens, depending mostly on local community environment. Also, don't forget that a lot of people are in this hobby solo, without friends or easily available FLGS to share the interest with. For example, nearly half of population of Poland lives in rural areas, where having another player close by is the exception, not the norm.
Also, a side question, as this is not covered by the survey - how many of you know stories of people driven away from the hobby by over-competitive focus of their local community and how many of you know stories of people who were driven away from the hobby by overly casual focus of local community? Because dakka is full of the former but I can't recall any of the latter. Personally I don't know anyone who would leave the hobby because of casual approach but I know both those, who were driven away and those who have not even started at all because of overly competitive focus of the community.
Generally, people aren't 'driven away' if their area plays more casually than they do. They simply lose interest/get bored. Especially if there aren't any events of significance near them. Casual players who leave slam the door behind them, competitive players who leave slip out without anybody really noticing.
Dudeface wrote: The big thing here is the 0.6% of the estimated total community are "competitive players" which takes us back to the less than 1% deciding how the game goes for the other 99%. And I'd wager a fair chunk of that 99% screaming that they're actually really a competitive player.
Competitive players are great at finding and exploiting busted combos and units. At the very least GW can act on data such as list compilations to figure out what is consistently showing in top performing lists and try to patch them accordingly. Not to say this happens, but competitive players providing feedback indirectly to how balance patches could be applied could be a very good thing for the health of the game and community. Unfortunately, stratagems and auras make determining what exactly made those units and war gear options busted in the first place a bit murky.
It's more that whacking power builds does nothing to adjust the stuff that the rest of the game might use or want to use. Taking core off the talos etc. is good for competitive play, but it doesn't make a land raider any better to use as a loose example. Until that top wad of competitive players get them to bring things up, rewrite units, as well as push top units down, we won't get a game wide health check.
Which was exactly my problem with the most recent CA and balance dataslate. They seemed to only pay attention to what's "meta" and a few hand picked units, while ignoring most of the rest of the game. It seems if it isn't in a brand new codex, or "meta", they aren't interested in balancing it.
Addendum, they're interested in the meta from 8 months ago.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/02/16 00:38:28
Dudeface wrote: The big thing here is the 0.6% of the estimated total community are "competitive players" which takes us back to the less than 1% deciding how the game goes for the other 99%. And I'd wager a fair chunk of that 99% screaming that they're actually really a competitive player.
Competitive players are great at finding and exploiting busted combos and units. At the very least GW can act on data such as list compilations to figure out what is consistently showing in top performing lists and try to patch them accordingly. Not to say this happens, but competitive players providing feedback indirectly to how balance patches could be applied could be a very good thing for the health of the game and community. Unfortunately, stratagems and auras make determining what exactly made those units and war gear options busted in the first place a bit murky.
It's more that whacking power builds does nothing to adjust the stuff that the rest of the game might use or want to use. Taking core off the talos etc. is good for competitive play, but it doesn't make a land raider any better to use as a loose example. Until that top wad of competitive players get them to bring things up, rewrite units, as well as push top units down, we won't get a game wide health check.
Which was exactly my problem with the most recent CA and balance dataslate. They seemed to only pay attention to what's "meta" and a few hand picked units, while ignoring most of the rest of the game. It seems if it isn't in a brand new codex, or "meta", they aren't interested in balancing it.
Addendum, they're interested in the meta from 8 months ago.
Indeed, just another problem with trying to address balance with printed material.
Generally, people aren't 'driven away' if their area plays more casually than they do. They simply lose interest/get bored. Especially if there aren't any events of significance near them. Casual players who leave slam the door behind them, competitive players who leave slip out without anybody really noticing.
Oh no, given that our gaming environment improves/relaxes we notice. We definitely notice.
Siegfriedfr wrote: Regarding the influence of the competitive scene on GW, i think it's here, but i also think they do not grasp how to improve the gameplay with. All they did so far is add more firepower, and then more defense stats inflation to counter the firepower they made up with no oversight.
Tactical gameplay is still left out, aside from hiding no-LOS weapons behind walls.
I think once you resign yourself to the fact it is a competitive game not a tactical wargame the various aura, special card abilities and everything else make more sense. And if you look at hobby market stuff like 40k, Magic and the like is very popular. The group of people who like to use clever pre worked out combo's and get them to happen in the game is bigger than the group of people that want to use combined arms effectively.
What's interesting to me is how low Blood Bowl is on their "What games have you played in the last year?" list.
In the UK at least, it feels like Blood Bowl dwarfs every other Specialist Game for organised events and just players generally. Similarly, I've seen far more MCP than Infinity.
I dunno, I wouldn't consider the gaming that happens in hobby shops on a daily basis to be "competitive" play - to me thats casual. And the number of "normies" who will take a spontaneous casual stroll to the local hobby shop and encounter people playing with their wardollies is a lot larger than the number of people who will take a spontaneous casual stroll through a convention center/hotel exhibition area during LVO. TO me, the visibility is on the "casual" end of the spectrum rather than the competitive end. "Normies" are unlikely to spontaneously encounter competitive play before first encountering the casual play and casual hobby content at their local stores, they aren't going to spontaneously search for "Warhammer 40k batrep" and encounter tabletop titans GT videos, because they don't know what warhammer 40k is nor do they know what batrep/battle report would even mean. Their first contact with the hobby overwhelmingly will come through a casual portal to familiarize themselves with the concept of the game, hobby, and setting, etc. Its only after that point that they would begin hitting up facebook, youtube, google, etc. and start consuming competitively produced content.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
The "other games" category makes me think that their audience is a very specific niche that doesn't venture much from the GW universe and may lack points of reference.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/16 14:13:07
Arbitrator wrote: What's interesting to me is how low Blood Bowl is on their "What games have you played in the last year?" list.
In the UK at least, it feels like Blood Bowl dwarfs every other Specialist Game for organised events and just players generally. Similarly, I've seen far more MCP than Infinity.
Blood Bowl is a massive club/tourney game, but has very little presence in GW stores and in small groups of friends that aren't already into it. You could argue it is surprising it has the reach it has without GW showing much interest through its retail network, but of course we know they got back into BB because its independent success was hard to ignore.
Arbitrator wrote: What's interesting to me is how low Blood Bowl is on their "What games have you played in the last year?" list.
In the UK at least, it feels like Blood Bowl dwarfs every other Specialist Game for organised events and just players generally. Similarly, I've seen far more MCP than Infinity.
Similarly I was like: Where is lotr on that list?
Because in Germany I have the feeling it's the next thing right after 40K.
I've never seen anyone play Blood Bowl... but I also know many people who buy Blood Bowl minis in very large quantities for games that they play at home or in clubs, etc. other than our local stores. Definitely an invisible community with more reach than people realize.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
, but Y unit is really good at what it does (becuase <reason&
Coven of XVth 2000pts
The Blades of Ruin 2,000pts 
Watch Company Rho 1650pts
