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.

How are the win rates calculated, when those guys didn't even play a 100 games of 9th? 4 games played and a 50% win rate, can be a buy, followed by opponent leaving and then you leaving. And you get a 50% win rate that way.

Karol wrote:
How are the win rates calculated, when those guys didn't even play a 100 games of 9th? 4 games played and a 50% win rate, can be a buy, followed by opponent leaving and then you leaving. And you get a 50% win rate that way.

Byes are pretty rare and all these games have an opponent and score recorded.

The best solution for GW to fix IG has very little to do with changing anything about IG and very much to do with changing lots about GW.

If you rule out changes in the way GW does things, then you've overconstrained the problem and of course you're going to get answers that don't work and disgruntled employees.

If I elevate a problem I can't fix, and management says "deal with it, dill weed" then I'm not the one who's wrong for not being able to fix the problem.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The best solution for GW to fix IG has very little to do with changing anything about IG and very much to do with changing lots about GW.

If you rule out changes in the way GW does things, then you've overconstrained the problem and of course you're going to get answers that don't work and disgruntled employees.

If I elevate a problem I can't fix, and management says "deal with it, dill weed" then I'm not the one who's wrong for not being able to fix the problem.

Your task is to fix the problem as it stands with the methods available. Anything surrounding the creation or prevention of the issue is irrelevant, because it is out of scope.

Out of scope for "the Jidmah challenge" sure.

But addressing symptoms without addressing causes is just a road to more of the same. Obviously WE can't fix whatever process or biases govern the GW design process, but we could at least point out why we think it's not working.

Sure, no disagreement there. If GW is doing anything on that front it probably won't be apparent for a year at least...unless pigs fly and they go proper digital.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The best solution for GW to fix IG has very little to do with changing anything about IG and very much to do with changing lots about GW.

If you rule out changes in the way GW does things, then you've overconstrained the problem and of course you're going to get answers that don't work and disgruntled employees.

If I elevate a problem I can't fix, and management says "deal with it, dill weed" then I'm not the one who's wrong for not being able to fix the problem.

Your task is to fix the problem as it stands with the methods available. Anything surrounding the creation or prevention of the issue is irrelevant, because it is out of scope.

Ok. I elevate the task to the next level of authority, since the methods available cannot satisfactorily fix it, and the next level of authority should have more methods available.

The way this works in a sane company is each level tries to fix it with the tools they have, and if they are unable they continue to elevate, until it reaches a high enough level that a fundamental restructuring occurs to fix the problem.

You assume this is error for gw and not intentional feature.

Gw hates idea of balanance as it's less profitable.

tneva82 wrote:
You assume this is error for gw and not intentional feature.

Gw hates idea of balanance as it's less profitable.

I'd still see that as a management issue. I think GW could remain profitable while still keeping the amount of "churn" to a much more acceptable level. I definitely think the game can be better without being at the expense of profit.

tneva82 wrote:
You assume this is error for gw and not intentional feature.

Gw hates idea of balanance as it's less profitable.

*groan*

Must we do this every single friggin' post?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Points are not the great leveller. If there are problems with the faction, simply changing the points won't fix the problem

They definitely *can*. It's not the only way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


*groan*

Must we do this every single friggin' post?

Until it stops being accurate.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

*groan*

Must we do this every single friggin' post?

I don't think they hate balance or that balance is less profitable. but it would require more work, and to have a core of people that could actualy do and test a balanced system. Plus at the moment we are right now, GW is not much thinking about 9th anymore, they are probably finishing 10th ed rules or just finished them and working on the first space marine codex for the edition. They don't have time to retest stuff, they designed 9 or 12 months ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton 804430 11354239 wrote:

They definitely *can*. It's not the only way.

In the end it is what we call a theological debate. We can warp ourselfs in to a pretzel, but the chance of GW doing anything is rather minor. I think the only thing that can produce imidiate reaction from GW is stuff like. Suddenly they find out that people could buy and play extremly efficient armies for 400$. Or they actually get to see what happens when someone plays tyranids, 9 voids or similar. And even then it is just a chance of reaction, because sometimes the reaction is. Lets nerf the big bad DE, but also the orks and ad mecha, and suddenly DE have a different build even better then the old one, because the only armies that were given them trouble just got nerfed. Plus they react to meta, probably in no small reason, because of how printed books work, to metas from 6 or 12 months ago. I will never understand the hate boner they had for GK in 8th, or for SoB and DG in 9th.

Hecaton wrote:
Until it stops being accurate.

The old 'make flawed assertions until you just start believing it' switch-a-roo.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Until it stops being accurate.

The old 'make flawed assertions until you just start believing it' switch-a-roo.

On a serious note, it's a mix of incompetence and malice.

maybe incompetence, but we lack any proof of malice. Until they know they can sell models, no matter what they do, they will not change. why would they put the effort, It is like training, I have seen guys who were just born better for sports, some of them, specially if they win a lot and don't get a higher rank partner to train with start slacking, because there is no need for them to learn techniques or watch other people fights etc problems of course start when they run in to a just as big or bigger guy. weight cathergory or age group change for those guys are , from my expiriance, a career ending thing. So all we need is for some to create, out of nothing, a table top game the size of w40k, and GW will have to change.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Points are not the great leveller. If there are problems with the faction, simply changing the points won't fix the problem

Points can do a LOT of work. However there's only so low you can put something like Boyz and Infantry squads.

Points have a breaking point. If boys were 5-6pts and grots, 3-4 there would be some degeneracy happening. Not because this would make orcs crazy, but because tyranid troops would have to be adjusted down too. And I don't think anyone would want to see what happens when guants cost 4pts.

Karol wrote:
Points have a breaking point. If boys were 5-6pts and grots, 3-4 there would be some degeneracy happening. Not because this would make orcs crazy, but because tyranid troops would have to be adjusted down too. And I don't think anyone would want to see what happens when guants cost 4pts.

Honestly I was all for making Gaunts three points each!

After or before seeing the rules of the new codex? Because right now it feels like the old DE aka as if a 2000pts nid army was more like 2500 or 2750 pts.

Gaunts are slightly overcosted, specially after the introduction of AoC.

Obviusly making them 4 or 3 ppm would make them absurdly broken, but they could be 6 or even 5 ppm without breaking the game.

What is strong about the Tyranid codex is the monsters, not the swarm (which tbh it is kinda sad).

Hecaton wrote:
On a serious note, it's a mix of incompetence and malice.

I'd say apathy and a lack of understanding of how their game actually functions are the larger contributing factors. tneva82 assertion that GW 'hates' balance doesn't ring true because I don't think GW has strong emotions on balance either way.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Points are not the great leveller.

Points can do a LOT of work. However there's only so low you can put something like Boyz and Infantry squads.

Hecaton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Points are not the great leveller.

They definitely *can*. It's not the only way.

Neither of these two statements contradict what I said.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
On a serious note, it's a mix of incompetence and malice.

I'd say apathy and a lack of understanding of how their game actually functions are the larger contributing factors. tneva82 assertion that GW 'hates' balance doesn't ring true because I don't think GW has strong emotions on balance either way.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Points are not the great leveller.

Points can do a LOT of work. However there's only so low you can put something like Boyz and Infantry squads.

Hecaton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Points are not the great leveller.

They definitely *can*. It's not the only way.

Neither of these two statements contradict what I said.

It was more in support of your statement what I posted

Ah, understood.

Points are a very powerful tool, but I feel that recently the concept has become very polarising here, where it's either:

1. Points are useless and can't do anything for balance.
2. Points are the best way to balance and can fix any problem.

... when neither is true.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ah, understood.

Points are a very powerful tool, but I feel that recently the concept has become very polarising here, where it's either:

1. Points are useless and can't do anything for balance.
2. Points are the best way to balance and can fix any problem.

... when neither is true.

I don't see a lot of #2, but a lot of people who claim #1 misrepresenting people arguing against them as #2.

This is also true.

Points can fix some problems but not all of them. I don't know enough about the current guard army to tell.

I know for sure that points aren't going to fix ork boyz, for example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Out of scope for "the Jidmah challenge" sure.

But addressing symptoms without addressing causes is just a road to more of the same. Obviously WE can't fix whatever process or biases govern the GW design process, but we could at least point out why we think it's not working.

It's not really a challenge though - as someone who had to deal with having codices which had it worse than 8th edition guard for years, I would have loved if someone in the rules team had thrown orks a bone that looked even remotely like the IG data slate, just to get me by for the next couple of months.

So I genuinely think this is a great thing to happen for IG/AM players, and should happen much more often for any army in a similar predicament.

When, within GW, sales people have the power to tell rules teams to change their rules to improve sales, how high do you think are the chances of a rules team telling sales to change their ways to improve the rules?
For all the complaining about it, no one has really provided a better solution outside of waiting for the next round of point updates or asking impossible things to happen.

 vipoid wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
As a veteran game designer, how would you write a single bullet point army-wide buff to guard that improves their damage in a way that doesn't require a metric ton of re-rolls?

What if - bear with me here - you released everyone's codex at the same time?

That way you wouldn't put yourself in the position of needing to create a single, army-wide ability to make up for the fact that an army isn't getting an updated codex for half a year or so.

That would disbalance the sales data over the quartals and as such would make their shareholders unhappy.
So never gonna happen, because codices sales are probably quite important, despite it being better for the game. Also WAAAY more gametesting time required which would increase cost.

They can write all the codexes at once, with a comparable level of power in mind, and then slowly release them like they do now.

Having a look at the new codexes it's pretty clear that they weren't designed in the same time as the first codexes of the edition.

I'm ok with "slowly" releasing the codexes (IMHO the codex cycle of release is already extremely fast, and way too fast), I'm not ok with codexes getting rules and stats that belong to different leagues. Like weapons with D3+3 damage or even higher when the older counterparts are D6 or 3.

 Blackie wrote:
They can write all the codexes at once, with a comparable level of power in mind, and then slowly release them like they do now.

I was about to say. You don't need to release them all at once, but do write them all at once.

It would breed a level of cohesion, rather than each Codex building upon the last one, paradigm shifts in design ethos, and so on. Less designing in a vacuum and more deliberate control over the content of each book in the context of itself and every other book.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
They can write all the codexes at once, with a comparable level of power in mind, and then slowly release them like they do now.

I was about to say. You don't need to release them all at once, but do write them all at once.

It would breed a level of cohesion, rather than each Codex building upon the last one, paradigm shifts in design ethos, and so on. Less designing in a vacuum and more deliberate control over the content of each book in the context of itself and every other book.

it would still be unfair , especially for the last released faction.
It would not solve the issues of the codex cycle at all.

It would force them to commit upfront hours and then have writers being obsolete, for quite a while, before the next edition comes out.

it is unlikely, purely from a company standpoint, and even if it would happen there would still be severe missbalance for older codices.