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.

Hecaton wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Hecaton - GW indeed killed FB... as a response to how insular the community became. It became a toilet-circling bowl of poop between GWs lack of desire to improve the situation and the community doing anything other than... do exactly what the community is doing to 40k right now. Instead of continuing to carry that drama forward, GW nuked the game... neckbeards be damned.

GW had a lack of desire to improve the game. They failed to balance it, and constructed the rules such that it was incredibly inaccessible, with a massive buy-in to play, because they wanted to extract more money from people.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
I remember this explicitly because I was for all functionality gatekept out of the FB scene by the people GW nuked the game over. I would have been a fantasy player had the community not been so insular and toxic towards their new players and GW. If you do not think the community had anything to do with the fate of WHFB, then you are very likely one of the people that got it nuked.

I sincerely doubt that that is a factual retelling of events.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
At the end of the day, GW pulled the trigger, but the community loaded the stupid gun for them to begin with.

Nope! GW made decisions that resulted in short-term gains at the expense of long-term profit - they made it so you needed to buy bigger units to keep playing, which then made new players not want to get into the game, and then they torpedoed the setting in a way which pissed a lot of people off. Any attempt to put this on the playerbase is authoritarian-submissive corporate bootlicking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:


Yup. You have no idea what you're talking about. Bye.

The fact that you can't explain it shows me that nobody should take you seriously on any claims about game design. I gave specific examples and you refused to engage because you know you don't have an argument.

You're literally substituting your reality in place of my retelling you of what factually happened to keep me out of Fantasy Battles? Come on man, you can do better than that.

A lot of the commentary your spewed as to WHY WHFB was squatted was correct: huge wind up to get into the game, armies having to be so ponderous to play that it wasn't inviting to new players, rules that were all over the place, etc. All true, I even said GW had a hand in this with not caring, just like they've had an issue with 40K recently suffering under the same system weight. But to put off how harshly the in-person community dogged the game, GW, and everything related to WHFB literally gatekept me out of the community. Like to the tune of: even if I bought in, people wouldn't play with me unless I built an army that they thought I should play with because otherwise it was a waste of their time. Your game isn't going to survive for very long in a setting like that, your community is literally cutting its nose off to spite its face. I don't think you have any idea what I'm talking about, because you weren't there. Please refrain from reframing my life to better suit your argument.

 auticus wrote:
* Unit variety is important. In traditional wargames - unit variety is fairly stagnant. A foot soldier will largely be a foot soldier across all factions with a minor variation of its stats and abilities. In the newer paradigm every unit should at least appear to be different.

That's not a CCG thing. Look at Starcraft - a Marine is different from a Zergling is different from a Zealot. Compare to Warcraft II - the factions are much more similar, only spells and a few upgrade costs were different. And yet the genre of the game didn't change - they're both RTS computer games.

 auticus wrote:
* The game should be about building up effective combinations with your list or deck. Much of the fun we have found in marketing from a lot of players is the joy of building up a deck or a list and tinkering with its math and then winding it up and watching it go. In traditional wargaming, the lists were largely not as important as no one in historical wargaming wants to play a game where one side is going to stomp the other side because their list is over bearing.

Again, not specific to CCGs. And who is "we?" Or are we getting another patronizing argument from authority here?

 auticus wrote:
Typically in traditional wargaming if one side has a superior force to the other (a fairly common occurrence) the weaker side has objectives they can achieve for victory other than a military wipe them out victory. For example, against overwhelming odds you may simply have to have a unit alive on the board for four turns or something to hold the enemy off.

Ok, how is this relevant to 40k? I've seen those missions in 40k too. Doesn't sound like a CCG thing.

 auticus wrote:
Other examples - you may need to assassinate the enemy general or an important hero. Things that are possible to do with a weaker force other than straight up fight.

Other examples in traditional wargaming may be a superior force that has a negative battleground experience, such as Agincourt where the knights sloughed through thick mud in the face of an arrow storm. The french "army list" was decidedly more powerful but the scenario evened that out by having the weaker list in better position.

In a CCG styled tabletop game, the list's weight is the most important element. The players want to see their creation wind up and go.

Hold up, you've just said that tabletop games are "CCG styled" without saying how that's the case. Again, you're making an unjustified argument.

 auticus wrote:
* In a CCG styled game, where listbuilding is the key, the main important element is identifying combinations. Having an army of five units of tactical marines, a jump squad, a tank, and a captain where nothing makes the other things better is not exciting to the target audience.

That isn't "CCG styled" in any particular way. And combinations are not the end-all be-all of CCG play - do you know what Sligh was? Or any aggro deck that relies on efficiency rather than combination potential? I think you don't understand CCG gameplay very well.

 auticus wrote:
Having the captain grant his tactical marines bonuses and then the presence of a tank giving other bonuses (hypothetical obviously) and being able to weigh points cost to bonuses granted from a myriad of choices, most of them false choices, is what draws the excitement.

Standard wargames do not do this other than at their most basic.

All you're showing here is that 40k is different from traditional wargames, not that it's "CCG styled."

 auticus wrote:
* CCG style games are designed to be less about maneuvering (which is a key element of wargaming) and more about getting stuck in the action. The less you have of facings, flanks, rears, etc... and the more you can just basically "tap unit, have unit attack" in some form is highly desirable because maneuvering and having to wait for the action is not seen as desirable and is seen by many of the target audience to be boring. Additionally some call maneuver "gatekeeping" because if I have a solid combo-chained unit built up but then I have to also maneuver it to get good effect out of it, that is a negative play experience and some call that "gatekeeping" for tabletop skill, when that tabletop skill is not what we are designing for.

Again, you've failed to show how this different take is "CCG styled."

 auticus wrote:
This is where you see things like deepstrike/assault or in AOS just being able to move 30" or whatever and engage in combat in turn 1 without needing to worry about maneuvering into a good position to do it. Particularly deepstrike or teleport assault.

It is very akin to "I tap my unit of terminators and they attack your unit" because you get the same effect: the terminators appear and attack what you want them to. Now some layering comes into play, where we can layer a bubble-wrap around my important bits.

This is akin to trigger-effects where a card can be triggered to block the attack and take the damage instead if it is on the field.

That's a fething stretch lol. The same would apply to long-range artillery in a traditional wargame.

 auticus wrote:
They both provide the same type of experience.

Nah lol. They definitely don't.

 auticus wrote:
* the sales model of both CCG and 40k are very similar in that they are intentionally designed to make the competitive players want to buy the latest thing to stay competitive. In MtG that is new card packs and formats that they have to have to play in the latest tournaments. In 40k its shuffling points around to make some good things not so good anymore and some things not so good are pretty good now.

Yes, but that's not because 40k has become CCG-like - it's that they both have been optimized by suits for churn and whales. This is true of many electronic games too.

 auticus wrote:
It was this model particularly that was discussed and why the store managers were encouraged to look into MtG if they didn't have experience with it because that was their heralding of what was to come (this was several years ago when I was still playing when I was shown pictures of that presentation - and ultimately one of the main reasons I sold all my stuff shortly after).

In what way? You'd have to be more specific with that for it to be anything meaningful. As it stands I'm just imagining you have a bug-eyed atavistic fear response at the mention of MtG and noping out of the game, which is honestly hilarious.

 auticus wrote:
* Resource management is a thing that you see a lot of games start to employ. In MtG it is land decks and things that provide "mana" that you provide for in your deck building. In 40k or AOS it is command points or other things you can harvest via list building that provide special combinations of powers or enhancements.

The psychic phase had resource management back in the day in 2e too.

 auticus wrote:

Those are the main things that come to mind when we see how traditional wargames have drifted into more of a CCG territory, short of being cards themselves.

Again, it's just how the game has changed/is different, not how it's become more CCG-like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

You're literally substituting your reality in place of my retelling you of what factually happened to keep me out of Fantasy Battles? Come on man, you can do better than that.

No, you made a claim as to the state of WHFB at the end as a whole, not *your* experience with it.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

A lot of the commentary your spewed as to WHY WHFB was squatted was correct: huge wind up to get into the game, armies having to be so ponderous to play that it wasn't inviting to new players, rules that were all over the place, etc. All true, I even said GW had a hand in this with not caring, just like they've had an issue with 40K recently suffering under the same system weight. But to put off how harshly the in-person community dogged the game, GW, and everything related to WHFB literally gatekept me out of the community. Like to the tune of: even if I bought in, people wouldn't play with me unless I built an army that they thought I should play with because otherwise it was a waste of their time. Your game isn't going to survive for very long in a setting like that, your community is literally cutting its nose off to spite its face. I don't think you have any idea what I'm talking about, because you weren't there. Please refrain from reframing my life to better suit your argument.

The WHFB community, everywhere, worldwide? If you said that a specific people or collection of people treated you poorly, I'd have no reason to disagree with you, but extending out your experience to everyone's is just wrongheaded.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
I remember this explicitly because I was for all functionality gatekept out of the FB scene by the people GW nuked the game over. I would have been a fantasy player had the community not been so insular and toxic towards their new players and GW. If you do not think the community had anything to do with the fate of WHFB, then you are very likely one of the people that got it nuked.


I sincerely doubt that that is a factual retelling of events.

^
Here, let me point out what you're trying to avoid now.

Those words are implying I am either deliberately lying about the situation, or that it was simply a fabrication to begin with. Unless there's another interpretation for "factual retelling" that I am not aware of.

Everyone I asked, again me personally, in a few different states (I've held up in many places from government/military work) always said the same thing when recalling the end of WHFB: GW gave up, the community became some dark nasty thing that made the problem even worse. It was truly a dark time for miniature games and even darker time for the GW community. It is widely acknowledged as a problem, though the reactions to how GW handled it are varied.

I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair to GW, seeking to disprove my experience as an outlier. The more I sought to disprove it, however, the more confirmation the experience was given. You're like oddly the only person who has argued that none of the blame lied with the community and it was all laid at the feet of GW. And then call me a booklicker for implying that some of the responsibility ALSO lay in the hands of people outside of the corporate monster.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Purifying Tempest wrote:
I remember this explicitly because I was for all functionality gatekept out of the FB scene by the people GW nuked the game over. I would have been a fantasy player had the community not been so insular and toxic towards their new players and GW. If you do not think the community had anything to do with the fate of WHFB, then you are very likely one of the people that got it nuked.


I sincerely doubt that that is a factual retelling of events.

^
Here, let me point out what you're trying to avoid now.

Those words are implying I am either deliberately lying about the situation, or that it was simply a fabrication to begin with. Unless there's another interpretation for "factual retelling" that I am not aware of.

Everyone I asked, again me personally, in a few different states (I've held up in many places from government/military work) always said the same thing when recalling the end of WHFB: GW gave up, the community became some dark nasty thing that made the problem even worse. It was truly a dark time for miniature games and even darker time for the GW community. It is widely acknowledged as a problem, though the reactions to how GW handled it are varied.

I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair to GW, seeking to disprove my experience as an outlier. The more I sought to disprove it, however, the more confirmation the experience was given. You're like oddly the only person who has argued that none of the blame lied with the community and it was all laid at the feet of GW. And then call me a booklicker for implying that some of the responsibility ALSO lay in the hands of people outside of the corporate monster.

For some people, placing any blame or responsibility on anything but GW, or even giving any suggestion that isn't "complain about GW", is somehow defending GW, or giving GW a pass.

I'd say each according to their works, and that GW still has much to be blamed for (high prices, poor communication, and shoddy game balance, to name just a few).

Hecaton wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Okay then, I'll spell it out for you. 40k and MTG not being literally the same, which is what you seem to think is what people are implying is NOT the same as modern 40k borrowing CCG-esq elements to a tabletop game, which they clearly are doing.

If you cannot see this then there is an Egyptian river you must need pulling out of.

Again, you're in Dunning-Kruger territory with your understanding of these games.

You invoking Dunning-Kruger in any context of game design is hilarious levels of being oblivious

nou wrote:

You invoking Dunning-Kruger in any context of game design is hilarious levels of being oblivious

You keep saying that but you don't have any evidence. For you, it's all buzzwords without any actual understanding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Those words are implying I am either deliberately lying about the situation, or that it was simply a fabrication to begin with. Unless there's another interpretation for "factual retelling" that I am not aware of.

I would probably say "sensationally exaggerating" but to each their own.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Everyone I asked, again me personally, in a few different states (I've held up in many places from government/military work) always said the same thing when recalling the end of WHFB: GW gave up, the community became some dark nasty thing that made the problem even worse. It was truly a dark time for miniature games and even darker time for the GW community. It is widely acknowledged as a problem, though the reactions to how GW handled it are varied.

And my experience contradicts that. Without anything concrete I don't have a reason to think you're correct.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair to GW, seeking to disprove my experience as an outlier. The more I sought to disprove it, however, the more confirmation the experience was given. You're like oddly the only person who has argued that none of the blame lied with the community and it was all laid at the feet of GW. And then call me a booklicker for implying that some of the responsibility ALSO lay in the hands of people outside of the corporate monster.

To a certain extent I put the blame for elements of what the community does on GW - like the amount of cheating in the 40k community? That is, in part, because GW is trying ot make a game where playing well gives you the least advantage possible.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Hecaton - GW indeed killed FB... as a response to how insular the community became.

You think a global business worth $1B+ cancels a game that sells $100M+/yr because people are saying mean words on internet forums? Have you ever interacted with C-suite executives from large companies? They thought they could make more money by turning WHFB into AoS, period, full stop. That is why they killed FB and released AoS.

Toofast wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Hecaton - GW indeed killed FB... as a response to how insular the community became.

You think a global business worth $1B+ cancels a game that sells $100M+/yr because people are saying mean words on internet forums? Have you ever interacted with C-suite executives from large companies? They thought they could make more money by turning WHFB into AoS, period, full stop. That is why they killed FB and released AoS.

GW is our friend though. They have social media now!

@Hec- You're right to point out that these things aren't just CCG traits... But I think what Auticus is saying is that CCG's is where the idea started.

CCG's predate DLC and pay to win video games; CCG's were the inspiration for these trends too.

All of the game platforms that use these elements learned them from CCGs. The world of gaming was very, very different before CCGs came into existence- there were RPGs and table-top wargames. There was no mainstream internet either, so online gaming wasn't really a thing.

Game conventions existed, but they were far fewer and farther between than what you see now.

RPGs and Wargames were the entire gaming scene, and had come up slowly together. CCGs hit like a bomb, and while both RPGs and Wargames had taken more than a decade to grow their player bases, CCGs had explosive growth out of the gate, and they bled players from both of the existing giants.

Viewed through the lens of the present, you may be right, and the parallels maybe stronger between 40k and digital gaming than between 40K and CCGs... It's just that when you zoom out to see the historical perspective, digital gaming learned everything that GW borrowed from it by watching how CCG's disrupted the market a decade earlier.

But I think what Auticus is saying is that CCG's is where the idea started.

Correct. We call them CCG-like because they originated there. We've gone many years now with games having them baked in where that has gotten blurred and its now just "wargames are like that" but... they really weren't. The last 15 or so years yes but they originated from CCG players and their desires and tapping into that market.

Deckbuilding paradigms also seeped into video games, where I started my career back in the early 1990s.

So yes I agree 40k has strong parallels with digital gaming. But TODAYS digital gaming pulled in those CCG mechanics and design metrics well before. Its just been so long now that we just blur that transition in our heads.

CCGs hit like a bomb

Indeed. 100%. And the waves from that CCG tsunami were quickly examined, analyzed, and put into practice in other formats in the early to mid 00s to great effect and impact (to where now they are indistinguishable).

And again - they are called CCG-like because thats where they stemmed from and most designers and people in general know what one is talking about when they say a tabletop game is similar to a CCG, particularly if they have experience with games OR game design that predated MtG.

The parallels between the two things are very closely linked.

For the OP: As long as there is some kind of limit to special weapons and upgrades per unit it doesn't make much of a difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifying Tempest wrote:It was truly a dark time for miniature games and even darker time for the GW community. It is widely acknowledged as a problem, though the reactions to how GW handled it are varied.

GW is not the same as "miniature games", the rest of us were just fine. I was happily playing 15mm Ancients while noping out every time I got curious enough to look into Warhammer again.

For a large group of people GW games are the table top games they play, because nothing else gets played in their area

Hecaton wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Okay then, I'll spell it out for you. 40k and MTG not being literally the same, which is what you seem to think is what people are implying is NOT the same as modern 40k borrowing CCG-esq elements to a tabletop game, which they clearly are doing.

If you cannot see this then there is an Egyptian river you must need pulling out of.

No, there are no ccg-esque elements in 40k's gameplay. There's no deck of cards to shuffle, no randomized packs to buy. Again, you're in Dunning-Kruger territory with your understanding of these games.

You sure about that?
There's the feeling I get any time I play a strat..... I pay x manna (sorry, CP) to modify my cards (sorry, Unit/Model) abilities. If I don't have any Manna/CP then I can't play my strat. :(
Sure puts me in mind of when I played MTG all those years ago. Spending x Green manna to cast Giant Growth + Bezerk + etc on my elf.... Only here I'm give one of my Necron Units "Talent For Anhilation" or something. At least I don't have to worry about what color my CP is.

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Okay then, I'll spell it out for you. 40k and MTG not being literally the same, which is what you seem to think is what people are implying is NOT the same as modern 40k borrowing CCG-esq elements to a tabletop game, which they clearly are doing.

If you cannot see this then there is an Egyptian river you must need pulling out of.

No, there are no ccg-esque elements in 40k's gameplay. There's no deck of cards to shuffle, no randomized packs to buy. Again, you're in Dunning-Kruger territory with your understanding of these games.

You sure about that?
There's the feeling I get any time I play a strat..... I pay x manna (sorry, CP) to modify my cards (sorry, Unit/Model) abilities. If I don't have any Manna/CP then I can't play my strat. :(
Sure puts me in mind of when I played MTG all those years ago. Spending x Green manna to cast Giant Growth + Bezerk + etc on my elf.... Only here I'm give one of my Necron Units "Talent For Anhilation" or something. At least I don't have to worry about what color my CP is.

"Not cards, doesn't count"

Except if you choose to get your faction's data cards....

ccs wrote:


You sure about that?

Yes. There's no randomization or collectibility. It's not a collectible card game. I'm not necessarily saying it's a good mechanic - I'd actually prefer a deck-based mechanic like ASOIAF or Aristeia has - but it doesn't make 40k a card game. At all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arcanis161 wrote:


"Not cards, doesn't count"

Except if you choose to get your faction's data cards....

The difference is it's a choice to use those cards to keep track of things. You can't choose to play MtG without the cards; in 40k you can just play your stratagems out of the codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
@Hec- You're right to point out that these things aren't just CCG traits... But I think what Auticus is saying is that CCG's is where the idea started.

CCG's predate DLC and pay to win video games; CCG's were the inspiration for these trends too.

You'll need a citation for that one - the stuff I'm thinking of is where people analyzed Diablo II from the perspective of psychology, and extrapolated it out to make games that were more addictive and so on. I don't think it came from CCGs as much as you were saying.

PenitentJake wrote:
All of the game platforms that use these elements learned them from CCGs. The world of gaming was very, very different before CCGs came into existence- there were RPGs and table-top wargames. There was no mainstream internet either, so online gaming wasn't really a thing.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

PenitentJake wrote:
Viewed through the lens of the present, you may be right, and the parallels maybe stronger between 40k and digital gaming than between 40K and CCGs... It's just that when you zoom out to see the historical perspective, digital gaming learned everything that GW borrowed from it by watching how CCG's disrupted the market a decade earlier.

I don't think that's true in the way you're saying it.

Hecaton wrote:

ccs wrote:


You sure about that?

Yes. There's no randomization or collectibility. It's not a collectible card game. I'm not necessarily saying it's a good mechanic - I'd actually prefer a deck-based mechanic like ASOIAF or Aristeia has - but it doesn't make 40k a card game. At all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arcanis161 wrote:


"Not cards, doesn't count"

Except if you choose to get your faction's data cards....

The difference is it's a choice to use those cards to keep track of things. You can't choose to play MtG without the cards; in 40k you can just play your stratagems out of the codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
@Hec- You're right to point out that these things aren't just CCG traits... But I think what Auticus is saying is that CCG's is where the idea started.

CCG's predate DLC and pay to win video games; CCG's were the inspiration for these trends too.

You'll need a citation for that one - the stuff I'm thinking of is where people analyzed Diablo II from the perspective of psychology, and extrapolated it out to make games that were more addictive and so on. I don't think it came from CCGs as much as you were saying.

PenitentJake wrote:
All of the game platforms that use these elements learned them from CCGs. The world of gaming was very, very different before CCGs came into existence- there were RPGs and table-top wargames. There was no mainstream internet either, so online gaming wasn't really a thing.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

PenitentJake wrote:
Viewed through the lens of the present, you may be right, and the parallels maybe stronger between 40k and digital gaming than between 40K and CCGs... It's just that when you zoom out to see the historical perspective, digital gaming learned everything that GW borrowed from it by watching how CCG's disrupted the market a decade earlier.

I don't think that's true in the way you're saying it.

Mtg predates Diablo by 4 years and Diablo II by 7. I’ve played Mtg already in ’94 with the release of 3rd ed and through ’95, when it was all the rage, in parallel with 2nd ed 40k. Mid ’90 were the times when many later trends in game desing begun, which were then widely adapted in early to mid ’00, and there is exactly zero controversy amongst game designers in naming MTG as the father of deck/list building and addiction through living meta paradigm. It took a decade for first computer games to catch up, because for the living computer game format you need broadband internet, which was not a standard up until mid ’00.

If you compare the gameplay of 2nd 40k with MTG and then 9th ed with MTG then inspirations and direct transplants of core paradigms of MTG into 40k are so obvious, it takes higher forms of ignorance to try to deny it.

Maybe this will help - stop focusing on the „card” word as the defining trait of the whole „colectible games”category as used in game design? You can recreate exactly same phenomenon with collectible dice, tokens, miniatures, virtual items, whatever, because the defining trait of this category is creating dopamine based addiction to the game via living meta and purchases that increase your in game abilities/possibilities. That it takes different exact implementation depending on the exact medium you are working with is irrelevant to the underlying principle.

The problem with you is that you only skim the surface level of game design - „the specifics” that you so love, and are oblivious of the entire underlaying knowledge and don’t realise, that your „specifics” are just secondary, technical implementations of said knowledge.

Yes, I know, buzzwords and no specifics from me again

Karol wrote:
For a large group of people GW games are the table top games they play, because nothing else gets played in their area

That still doesn't make "GW games" equivalent to "miniature games".
I also strongly doubt that there isn't someone in the woodwork playing DBA. They might be harder to find, but there are more wargamers than people think.

Maybe this will help - stop focusing on the „card” word as the defining trait of the whole „colectible games”category as used in game design? You can recreate exactly same phenomenon with collectible dice, tokens, miniatures, virtual items, whatever, because the defining trait of this category is creating dopamine based addiction to the game via living meta and purchases that increase your in game abilities/possibilities. That it takes different exact implementation depending on the exact medium you are working with is irrelevant to the underlying principle.

Except... 40k doesn't do any of that either. If you're really going to run 'dopamine addiction' as your flag of choice, you're going to have to explain what's different in buying a box of 40k minis today vs buying a box of 40k minis in 1989. Or a set of historical figures in the years or decades before that.

You buy and (theoretically) paint a known quantity of models and put them on the table. That hasn't changed because of MtG.

Neither has listbuilding, frankly. I'm still putting armies of units, characters and vehicles plus additional wargear together the same way today that I did in 1990.

Voss wrote:
If you're really going to run 'dopamine addiction' as your flag of choice, you're going to have to explain what's different in buying a box of 40k minis today vs buying a box of 40k minis in 1989.

Living meta is your answer - this kind of player profile we are talking about is not the same player profile as historical wargamer or Rouge Trader era 40k player. He doesn't buy a box of minis because they are hobby items - to assemble, paint, display and the feeling of achievement created by that activity. The kind of player that was honed by MTG buys those minis for the perceived gain in power within the game. Do I really have to elaborate on this trivial context further?

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Okay then, I'll spell it out for you. 40k and MTG not being literally the same, which is what you seem to think is what people are implying is NOT the same as modern 40k borrowing CCG-esq elements to a tabletop game, which they clearly are doing.

If you cannot see this then there is an Egyptian river you must need pulling out of.

No, there are no ccg-esque elements in 40k's gameplay. There's no deck of cards to shuffle, no randomized packs to buy. Again, you're in Dunning-Kruger territory with your understanding of these games.

You sure about that?
There's the feeling I get any time I play a strat..... I pay x manna (sorry, CP) to modify my cards (sorry, Unit/Model) abilities. If I don't have any Manna/CP then I can't play my strat. :(
Sure puts me in mind of when I played MTG all those years ago. Spending x Green manna to cast Giant Growth + Bezerk + etc on my elf.... Only here I'm give one of my Necron Units "Talent For Anhilation" or something. At least I don't have to worry about what color my CP is.

I spend one slot of my Vancian casting system to cast magic missile! I don't have any more spell slots so I can't play my spells. (D&D Release date 1974). So are CCG's just rpgs in disguise now because D&D had a casting system that had something similar?

I'm just poking a little fun at this cause it's all so weirdly specific and doesn't really define things well.

Tygre wrote:
Reminds me a bit of 2nd edition. Where you paid for the squad, not per model. SM weren't 30pts each. A Tactical squad was 300pts and contained 10 marines.

I don't think 2nd was all that much different. You still paid "per model" but you were locked into 10, not minimum 5 and optional up to 5 more - also you still paid for upgrades like special/heavy weapons.

nou wrote:
Mtg predates Diablo by 4 years and Diablo II by 7. I’ve played Mtg already in ’94 with the release of 3rd ed and through ’95, when it was all the rage, in parallel with 2nd ed 40k. Mid ’90 were the times when many later trends in game desing begun, which were then widely adapted in early to mid ’00, and there is exactly zero controversy amongst game designers in naming MTG as the father of deck/list building and addiction through living meta paradigm. It took a decade for first computer games to catch up, because for the living computer game format you need broadband internet, which was not a standard up until mid ’00.

I'm very aware, but Magic in the mid-90's was very different from how it was at the turn of the millennium. If there's zero controversy, I'm sure you could share some of this information with me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
Maybe this will help - stop focusing on the „card” word as the defining trait of the whole „colectible games”category as used in game design? You can recreate exactly same phenomenon with collectible dice, tokens, miniatures, virtual items, whatever, because the defining trait of this category is creating dopamine based addiction to the game via living meta and purchases that increase your in game abilities/possibilities. That it takes different exact implementation depending on the exact medium you are working with is irrelevant to the underlying principle.

No, the lack of randomness in purchases means it isn't the same thing at all. They're not chasing the gambling impulse with things like "loot boxes."

nou wrote:
The problem with you is that you only skim the surface level of game design - „the specifics” that you so love, and are oblivious of the entire underlaying knowledge and don’t realise, that your „specifics” are just secondary, technical implementations of said knowledge.

Yes, I know, buzzwords and no specifics from me again

You can say that, but you don't understand why a pack of Magic cards and an online lootbox are alike, while a box of 40k minis is like neither of those. So it's clear my understanding is actually deeper; you're just using buzzwords without understanding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

Living meta is your answer - this kind of player profile we are talking about is not the same player profile as historical wargamer or Rouge Trader era 40k player. He doesn't buy a box of minis because they are hobby items - to assemble, paint, display and the feeling of achievement created by that activity. The kind of player that was honed by MTG buys those minis for the perceived gain in power within the game. Do I really have to elaborate on this trivial context further?

Yes, you actually do - because it's not the kind of thing MtG is trying to engineer. Magic is just gambling. They're trying to get people to chase the cards for that brain chemical rush the same way people playing blackjack at a casino, or making runs on Diablo II are. 40k cannot create a Skinner box.

Hecaton wrote:

nou wrote:
Mtg predates Diablo by 4 years and Diablo II by 7. I’ve played Mtg already in ’94 with the release of 3rd ed and through ’95, when it was all the rage, in parallel with 2nd ed 40k. Mid ’90 were the times when many later trends in game desing begun, which were then widely adapted in early to mid ’00, and there is exactly zero controversy amongst game designers in naming MTG as the father of deck/list building and addiction through living meta paradigm. It took a decade for first computer games to catch up, because for the living computer game format you need broadband internet, which was not a standard up until mid ’00.

I'm very aware, but Magic in the mid-90's was very different from how it was at the turn of the millennium. If there's zero controversy, I'm sure you could share some of this information with me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
Maybe this will help - stop focusing on the „card” word as the defining trait of the whole „colectible games”category as used in game design? You can recreate exactly same phenomenon with collectible dice, tokens, miniatures, virtual items, whatever, because the defining trait of this category is creating dopamine based addiction to the game via living meta and purchases that increase your in game abilities/possibilities. That it takes different exact implementation depending on the exact medium you are working with is irrelevant to the underlying principle.

No, the lack of randomness in purchases means it isn't the same thing at all. They're not chasing the gambling impulse with things like "loot boxes."

nou wrote:
The problem with you is that you only skim the surface level of game design - „the specifics” that you so love, and are oblivious of the entire underlaying knowledge and don’t realise, that your „specifics” are just secondary, technical implementations of said knowledge.

Yes, I know, buzzwords and no specifics from me again

You can say that, but you don't understand why a pack of Magic cards and an online lootbox are alike, while a box of 40k minis is like neither of those. So it's clear my understanding is actually deeper; you're just using buzzwords without understanding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

Living meta is your answer - this kind of player profile we are talking about is not the same player profile as historical wargamer or Rouge Trader era 40k player. He doesn't buy a box of minis because they are hobby items - to assemble, paint, display and the feeling of achievement created by that activity. The kind of player that was honed by MTG buys those minis for the perceived gain in power within the game. Do I really have to elaborate on this trivial context further?

Yes, you actually do - because it's not the kind of thing MtG is trying to engineer. Magic is just gambling. They're trying to get people to chase the cards for that brain chemical rush the same way people playing blackjack at a casino, or making runs on Diablo II are. 40k cannot create a Skinner box.

For a person who claims to understand MTG so much, you really don’t have the faintest clue about it, or about psychology. Aftermarket for MTG cards was there since the very beginning of the game. When you bought a booster, you did not gamble in hope of getting the exact cards you needed for your deck, you were exchanging currency. That is because the composition of a booster was known, you get X commons, Y uncommons, Z rares, and trade value of cards from a booster was higher than the cost of a booster. In other words, it usually was a better deal to buy a booster, unpack and trade rares than to spend money directly on the rare you needed for your build. The dopamine injection did not happen at opening of a booster, but at the moment you completed your deck as you envisioned it and went out to playtest it. This is exact same drive as listbuilding in a living 40k meta and buing 9 Voidweavers.

Now with lootboxes it is pretty much the same. You know the composition of a loot box and games have either trade markets or „forges” built in. If you happen to draw an exact thing you need you then even better, but you do not expect it to happen. Microtransactions are not about gambling, but about desire to grow in power, just drip fed at a controllable rate. This is the biggest difference with 40k though, because a dedicated meta chaser will just spend all the money necessary for a build at once, so 40k employs „balance dataslates” to keep meta chasers spend their money to feed their desire of power on a regular basis.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Okay then, I'll spell it out for you. 40k and MTG not being literally the same, which is what you seem to think is what people are implying is NOT the same as modern 40k borrowing CCG-esq elements to a tabletop game, which they clearly are doing.

If you cannot see this then there is an Egyptian river you must need pulling out of.

No, there are no ccg-esque elements in 40k's gameplay. There's no deck of cards to shuffle, no randomized packs to buy. Again, you're in Dunning-Kruger territory with your understanding of these games.

You sure about that?
There's the feeling I get any time I play a strat..... I pay x manna (sorry, CP) to modify my cards (sorry, Unit/Model) abilities. If I don't have any Manna/CP then I can't play my strat. :(
Sure puts me in mind of when I played MTG all those years ago. Spending x Green manna to cast Giant Growth + Bezerk + etc on my elf.... Only here I'm give one of my Necron Units "Talent For Anhilation" or something. At least I don't have to worry about what color my CP is.

I spend one slot of my Vancian casting system to cast magic missile! I don't have any more spell slots so I can't play my spells. (D&D Release date 1974). So are CCG's just rpgs in disguise now because D&D had a casting system that had something similar?

I'm just poking a little fun at this cause it's all so weirdly specific and doesn't really define things well.

Poke all you want, it doesn't change the fact that in the back of my mind is that old MTG feeling anytime I play a strat.
I don't get that feeling when I play non-GW minis/wargames (well except for in X-Wing - Pokemons "gotta catch 'em all" concerning the upgrade cards is in effect in 1e. No idea about 2e)
Nor have I ever gotten the D&D feeling while playing a GW minis game. Sure, a wizard using up a limited spell slot might resemble using a strat. But the difference lies in the "story". Even at our most Hack & Slashiest we've always been trying to tell some sort of "story" in D&D. That is not really ever been the case in 99.9999% of all the Warhammer (FB/40k/Sigmar/etc) I've played. Not even in our recent Crusades & Path to Glories.

 DarkBlack wrote:

Karol wrote:
For a large group of people GW games are the table top games they play, because nothing else gets played in their area

That still doesn't make "GW games" equivalent to "miniature games".
I also strongly doubt that there isn't someone in the woodwork playing DBA. They might be harder to find, but there are more wargamers than people think.

As well known evil person once said, quantity turns in to quality at some point. This why we call all sports shoes addidas here. Xero is a Xero.etc So yeah, there could be more table top gamers, then people may think they are. And most of them play or played w40k.

nou wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

nou wrote:
Mtg predates Diablo by 4 years and Diablo II by 7. I’ve played Mtg already in ’94 with the release of 3rd ed and through ’95, when it was all the rage, in parallel with 2nd ed 40k. Mid ’90 were the times when many later trends in game desing begun, which were then widely adapted in early to mid ’00, and there is exactly zero controversy amongst game designers in naming MTG as the father of deck/list building and addiction through living meta paradigm. It took a decade for first computer games to catch up, because for the living computer game format you need broadband internet, which was not a standard up until mid ’00.

I'm very aware, but Magic in the mid-90's was very different from how it was at the turn of the millennium. If there's zero controversy, I'm sure you could share some of this information with me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
Maybe this will help - stop focusing on the „card” word as the defining trait of the whole „colectible games”category as used in game design? You can recreate exactly same phenomenon with collectible dice, tokens, miniatures, virtual items, whatever, because the defining trait of this category is creating dopamine based addiction to the game via living meta and purchases that increase your in game abilities/possibilities. That it takes different exact implementation depending on the exact medium you are working with is irrelevant to the underlying principle.

No, the lack of randomness in purchases means it isn't the same thing at all. They're not chasing the gambling impulse with things like "loot boxes."

nou wrote:
The problem with you is that you only skim the surface level of game design - „the specifics” that you so love, and are oblivious of the entire underlaying knowledge and don’t realise, that your „specifics” are just secondary, technical implementations of said knowledge.

Yes, I know, buzzwords and no specifics from me again

You can say that, but you don't understand why a pack of Magic cards and an online lootbox are alike, while a box of 40k minis is like neither of those. So it's clear my understanding is actually deeper; you're just using buzzwords without understanding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

Living meta is your answer - this kind of player profile we are talking about is not the same player profile as historical wargamer or Rouge Trader era 40k player. He doesn't buy a box of minis because they are hobby items - to assemble, paint, display and the feeling of achievement created by that activity. The kind of player that was honed by MTG buys those minis for the perceived gain in power within the game. Do I really have to elaborate on this trivial context further?

Yes, you actually do - because it's not the kind of thing MtG is trying to engineer. Magic is just gambling. They're trying to get people to chase the cards for that brain chemical rush the same way people playing blackjack at a casino, or making runs on Diablo II are. 40k cannot create a Skinner box.

For a person who claims to understand MTG so much, you really don’t have the faintest clue about it, or about psychology. Aftermarket for MTG cards was there since the very beginning of the game. When you bought a booster, you did not gamble in hope of getting the exact cards you needed for your deck, you were exchanging currency. That is because the composition of a booster was known, you get X commons, Y uncommons, Z rares, and trade value of cards from a booster was higher than the cost of a booster. In other words, it usually was a better deal to buy a booster, unpack and trade rares than to spend money directly on the rare you needed for your build. The dopamine injection did not happen at opening of a booster, but at the moment you completed your deck as you envisioned it and went out to playtest it. This is exact same drive as listbuilding in a living 40k meta and buing 9 Voidweavers.

Now with lootboxes it is pretty much the same. You know the composition of a loot box and games have either trade markets or „forges” built in. If you happen to draw an exact thing you need you then even better, but you do not expect it to happen. Microtransactions are not about gambling, but about desire to grow in power, just drip fed at a controllable rate. This is the biggest difference with 40k though, because a dedicated meta chaser will just spend all the money necessary for a build at once, so 40k employs „balance dataslates” to keep meta chasers spend their money to feed their desire of power on a regular basis.

[url=https://m.facebook.com/nt/screen/?params=%7B%22note_id%22%3A969097270250061%7D&path=%2Fnotes%2Fnote%2F&_rdr]

Get reading. Then we have stuff to discuss. [/url]

Hecaton wrote:

nou wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

nou wrote:
Mtg predates Diablo by 4 years and Diablo II by 7. I’ve played Mtg already in ’94 with the release of 3rd ed and through ’95, when it was all the rage, in parallel with 2nd ed 40k. Mid ’90 were the times when many later trends in game desing begun, which were then widely adapted in early to mid ’00, and there is exactly zero controversy amongst game designers in naming MTG as the father of deck/list building and addiction through living meta paradigm. It took a decade for first computer games to catch up, because for the living computer game format you need broadband internet, which was not a standard up until mid ’00.

I'm very aware, but Magic in the mid-90's was very different from how it was at the turn of the millennium. If there's zero controversy, I'm sure you could share some of this information with me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
Maybe this will help - stop focusing on the „card” word as the defining trait of the whole „colectible games”category as used in game design? You can recreate exactly same phenomenon with collectible dice, tokens, miniatures, virtual items, whatever, because the defining trait of this category is creating dopamine based addiction to the game via living meta and purchases that increase your in game abilities/possibilities. That it takes different exact implementation depending on the exact medium you are working with is irrelevant to the underlying principle.

No, the lack of randomness in purchases means it isn't the same thing at all. They're not chasing the gambling impulse with things like "loot boxes."

nou wrote:
The problem with you is that you only skim the surface level of game design - „the specifics” that you so love, and are oblivious of the entire underlaying knowledge and don’t realise, that your „specifics” are just secondary, technical implementations of said knowledge.

Yes, I know, buzzwords and no specifics from me again

You can say that, but you don't understand why a pack of Magic cards and an online lootbox are alike, while a box of 40k minis is like neither of those. So it's clear my understanding is actually deeper; you're just using buzzwords without understanding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

Living meta is your answer - this kind of player profile we are talking about is not the same player profile as historical wargamer or Rouge Trader era 40k player. He doesn't buy a box of minis because they are hobby items - to assemble, paint, display and the feeling of achievement created by that activity. The kind of player that was honed by MTG buys those minis for the perceived gain in power within the game. Do I really have to elaborate on this trivial context further?

Yes, you actually do - because it's not the kind of thing MtG is trying to engineer. Magic is just gambling. They're trying to get people to chase the cards for that brain chemical rush the same way people playing blackjack at a casino, or making runs on Diablo II are. 40k cannot create a Skinner box.

For a person who claims to understand MTG so much, you really don’t have the faintest clue about it, or about psychology. Aftermarket for MTG cards was there since the very beginning of the game. When you bought a booster, you did not gamble in hope of getting the exact cards you needed for your deck, you were exchanging currency. That is because the composition of a booster was known, you get X commons, Y uncommons, Z rares, and trade value of cards from a booster was higher than the cost of a booster. In other words, it usually was a better deal to buy a booster, unpack and trade rares than to spend money directly on the rare you needed for your build. The dopamine injection did not happen at opening of a booster, but at the moment you completed your deck as you envisioned it and went out to playtest it. This is exact same drive as listbuilding in a living 40k meta and buing 9 Voidweavers.

Now with lootboxes it is pretty much the same. You know the composition of a loot box and games have either trade markets or „forges” built in. If you happen to draw an exact thing you need you then even better, but you do not expect it to happen. Microtransactions are not about gambling, but about desire to grow in power, just drip fed at a controllable rate. This is the biggest difference with 40k though, because a dedicated meta chaser will just spend all the money necessary for a build at once, so 40k employs „balance dataslates” to keep meta chasers spend their money to feed their desire of power on a regular basis.

[url=https://m.facebook.com/nt/screen/?params=%7B%22note_id%22%3A969097270250061%7D&path=%2Fnotes%2Fnote%2F&_rdr]

Get reading. Then we have stuff to discuss. [/url]

You are aware, that this post is by THE Richard Garfield, author of MTG, right? And I don’t see how this invalidated the claim, that MTG started such trends and they then evolved depending on the exact medium and specific targettable populations. This post only describes how the mechanism he introduced evolved/devolved.

At this point I don’t really believe anymore that you can even read with comprehension, as Garfield directly addresses the desire to „grow in power” in this post. Jesus, you are exceptionally delusional about your knowledge and level of understanding.

nou wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

nou wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

nou wrote:
Mtg predates Diablo by 4 years and Diablo II by 7. I’ve played Mtg already in ’94 with the release of 3rd ed and through ’95, when it was all the rage, in parallel with 2nd ed 40k. Mid ’90 were the times when many later trends in game desing begun, which were then widely adapted in early to mid ’00, and there is exactly zero controversy amongst game designers in naming MTG as the father of deck/list building and addiction through living meta paradigm. It took a decade for first computer games to catch up, because for the living computer game format you need broadband internet, which was not a standard up until mid ’00.

I'm very aware, but Magic in the mid-90's was very different from how it was at the turn of the millennium. If there's zero controversy, I'm sure you could share some of this information with me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
Maybe this will help - stop focusing on the „card” word as the defining trait of the whole „colectible games”category as used in game design? You can recreate exactly same phenomenon with collectible dice, tokens, miniatures, virtual items, whatever, because the defining trait of this category is creating dopamine based addiction to the game via living meta and purchases that increase your in game abilities/possibilities. That it takes different exact implementation depending on the exact medium you are working with is irrelevant to the underlying principle.

No, the lack of randomness in purchases means it isn't the same thing at all. They're not chasing the gambling impulse with things like "loot boxes."

nou wrote:
The problem with you is that you only skim the surface level of game design - „the specifics” that you so love, and are oblivious of the entire underlaying knowledge and don’t realise, that your „specifics” are just secondary, technical implementations of said knowledge.

Yes, I know, buzzwords and no specifics from me again

You can say that, but you don't understand why a pack of Magic cards and an online lootbox are alike, while a box of 40k minis is like neither of those. So it's clear my understanding is actually deeper; you're just using buzzwords without understanding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

Living meta is your answer - this kind of player profile we are talking about is not the same player profile as historical wargamer or Rouge Trader era 40k player. He doesn't buy a box of minis because they are hobby items - to assemble, paint, display and the feeling of achievement created by that activity. The kind of player that was honed by MTG buys those minis for the perceived gain in power within the game. Do I really have to elaborate on this trivial context further?

Yes, you actually do - because it's not the kind of thing MtG is trying to engineer. Magic is just gambling. They're trying to get people to chase the cards for that brain chemical rush the same way people playing blackjack at a casino, or making runs on Diablo II are. 40k cannot create a Skinner box.

For a person who claims to understand MTG so much, you really don’t have the faintest clue about it, or about psychology. Aftermarket for MTG cards was there since the very beginning of the game. When you bought a booster, you did not gamble in hope of getting the exact cards you needed for your deck, you were exchanging currency. That is because the composition of a booster was known, you get X commons, Y uncommons, Z rares, and trade value of cards from a booster was higher than the cost of a booster. In other words, it usually was a better deal to buy a booster, unpack and trade rares than to spend money directly on the rare you needed for your build. The dopamine injection did not happen at opening of a booster, but at the moment you completed your deck as you envisioned it and went out to playtest it. This is exact same drive as listbuilding in a living 40k meta and buing 9 Voidweavers.

Now with lootboxes it is pretty much the same. You know the composition of a loot box and games have either trade markets or „forges” built in. If you happen to draw an exact thing you need you then even better, but you do not expect it to happen. Microtransactions are not about gambling, but about desire to grow in power, just drip fed at a controllable rate. This is the biggest difference with 40k though, because a dedicated meta chaser will just spend all the money necessary for a build at once, so 40k employs „balance dataslates” to keep meta chasers spend their money to feed their desire of power on a regular basis.

[url=https://m.facebook.com/nt/screen/?params=%7B%22note_id%22%3A969097270250061%7D&path=%2Fnotes%2Fnote%2F&_rdr]

Get reading. Then we have stuff to discuss. [/url]

You are aware, that this post is by THE Richard Garfield, author of MTG, right? And I don’t see how this invalidated the claim, that MTG started such trends and they then evolved depending on the exact medium and specific targettable populations. This post only describes how the mechanism he introduced evolved/devolved.

At this point I don’t really believe anymore that you can even read with comprehension, as Garfield directly addresses the desire to „grow in power” in this post. Jesus, you are exceptionally delusional about your knowledge and level of understanding.

No. The claim is invalidated because nowhere does it describe GW's sales model in that post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Okay then, I'll spell it out for you. 40k and MTG not being literally the same, which is what you seem to think is what people are implying is NOT the same as modern 40k borrowing CCG-esq elements to a tabletop game, which they clearly are doing.

If you cannot see this then there is an Egyptian river you must need pulling out of.

No, there are no ccg-esque elements in 40k's gameplay. There's no deck of cards to shuffle, no randomized packs to buy. Again, you're in Dunning-Kruger territory with your understanding of these games.

You sure about that?
There's the feeling I get any time I play a strat..... I pay x manna (sorry, CP) to modify my cards (sorry, Unit/Model) abilities. If I don't have any Manna/CP then I can't play my strat. :(
Sure puts me in mind of when I played MTG all those years ago. Spending x Green manna to cast Giant Growth + Bezerk + etc on my elf.... Only here I'm give one of my Necron Units "Talent For Anhilation" or something. At least I don't have to worry about what color my CP is.

I spend one slot of my Vancian casting system to cast magic missile! I don't have any more spell slots so I can't play my spells. (D&D Release date 1974). So are CCG's just rpgs in disguise now because D&D had a casting system that had something similar?

I'm just poking a little fun at this cause it's all so weirdly specific and doesn't really define things well.

Poke all you want, it doesn't change the fact that in the back of my mind is that old MTG feeling anytime I play a strat.
I don't get that feeling when I play non-GW minis/wargames (well except for in X-Wing - Pokemons "gotta catch 'em all" concerning the upgrade cards is in effect in 1e. No idea about 2e)
Nor have I ever gotten the D&D feeling while playing a GW minis game. Sure, a wizard using up a limited spell slot might resemble using a strat. But the difference lies in the "story". Even at our most Hack & Slashiest we've always been trying to tell some sort of "story" in D&D. That is not really ever been the case in 99.9999% of all the Warhammer (FB/40k/Sigmar/etc) I've played. Not even in our recent Crusades & Path to Glories.

Your feelings aren't necessarily rational, however, and definitely aren't in this case. You and you alone are responsible for your irrational feelings.

Hecaton wrote:

nou wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

nou wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

nou wrote:
Mtg predates Diablo by 4 years and Diablo II by 7. I’ve played Mtg already in ’94 with the release of 3rd ed and through ’95, when it was all the rage, in parallel with 2nd ed 40k. Mid ’90 were the times when many later trends in game desing begun, which were then widely adapted in early to mid ’00, and there is exactly zero controversy amongst game designers in naming MTG as the father of deck/list building and addiction through living meta paradigm. It took a decade for first computer games to catch up, because for the living computer game format you need broadband internet, which was not a standard up until mid ’00.

I'm very aware, but Magic in the mid-90's was very different from how it was at the turn of the millennium. If there's zero controversy, I'm sure you could share some of this information with me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
Maybe this will help - stop focusing on the „card” word as the defining trait of the whole „colectible games”category as used in game design? You can recreate exactly same phenomenon with collectible dice, tokens, miniatures, virtual items, whatever, because the defining trait of this category is creating dopamine based addiction to the game via living meta and purchases that increase your in game abilities/possibilities. That it takes different exact implementation depending on the exact medium you are working with is irrelevant to the underlying principle.

No, the lack of randomness in purchases means it isn't the same thing at all. They're not chasing the gambling impulse with things like "loot boxes."

nou wrote:
The problem with you is that you only skim the surface level of game design - „the specifics” that you so love, and are oblivious of the entire underlaying knowledge and don’t realise, that your „specifics” are just secondary, technical implementations of said knowledge.

Yes, I know, buzzwords and no specifics from me again

You can say that, but you don't understand why a pack of Magic cards and an online lootbox are alike, while a box of 40k minis is like neither of those. So it's clear my understanding is actually deeper; you're just using buzzwords without understanding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

Living meta is your answer - this kind of player profile we are talking about is not the same player profile as historical wargamer or Rouge Trader era 40k player. He doesn't buy a box of minis because they are hobby items - to assemble, paint, display and the feeling of achievement created by that activity. The kind of player that was honed by MTG buys those minis for the perceived gain in power within the game. Do I really have to elaborate on this trivial context further?

Yes, you actually do - because it's not the kind of thing MtG is trying to engineer. Magic is just gambling. They're trying to get people to chase the cards for that brain chemical rush the same way people playing blackjack at a casino, or making runs on Diablo II are. 40k cannot create a Skinner box.

For a person who claims to understand MTG so much, you really don’t have the faintest clue about it, or about psychology. Aftermarket for MTG cards was there since the very beginning of the game. When you bought a booster, you did not gamble in hope of getting the exact cards you needed for your deck, you were exchanging currency. That is because the composition of a booster was known, you get X commons, Y uncommons, Z rares, and trade value of cards from a booster was higher than the cost of a booster. In other words, it usually was a better deal to buy a booster, unpack and trade rares than to spend money directly on the rare you needed for your build. The dopamine injection did not happen at opening of a booster, but at the moment you completed your deck as you envisioned it and went out to playtest it. This is exact same drive as listbuilding in a living 40k meta and buing 9 Voidweavers.

Now with lootboxes it is pretty much the same. You know the composition of a loot box and games have either trade markets or „forges” built in. If you happen to draw an exact thing you need you then even better, but you do not expect it to happen. Microtransactions are not about gambling, but about desire to grow in power, just drip fed at a controllable rate. This is the biggest difference with 40k though, because a dedicated meta chaser will just spend all the money necessary for a build at once, so 40k employs „balance dataslates” to keep meta chasers spend their money to feed their desire of power on a regular basis.

[url=https://m.facebook.com/nt/screen/?params=%7B%22note_id%22%3A969097270250061%7D&path=%2Fnotes%2Fnote%2F&_rdr]

Get reading. Then we have stuff to discuss. [/url]

You are aware, that this post is by THE Richard Garfield, author of MTG, right? And I don’t see how this invalidated the claim, that MTG started such trends and they then evolved depending on the exact medium and specific targettable populations. This post only describes how the mechanism he introduced evolved/devolved.

At this point I don’t really believe anymore that you can even read with comprehension, as Garfield directly addresses the desire to „grow in power” in this post. Jesus, you are exceptionally delusional about your knowledge and level of understanding.

No. The claim is invalidated because nowhere does it describe GW's sales model in that post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Okay then, I'll spell it out for you. 40k and MTG not being literally the same, which is what you seem to think is what people are implying is NOT the same as modern 40k borrowing CCG-esq elements to a tabletop game, which they clearly are doing.

If you cannot see this then there is an Egyptian river you must need pulling out of.

No, there are no ccg-esque elements in 40k's gameplay. There's no deck of cards to shuffle, no randomized packs to buy. Again, you're in Dunning-Kruger territory with your understanding of these games.

You sure about that?
There's the feeling I get any time I play a strat..... I pay x manna (sorry, CP) to modify my cards (sorry, Unit/Model) abilities. If I don't have any Manna/CP then I can't play my strat. :(
Sure puts me in mind of when I played MTG all those years ago. Spending x Green manna to cast Giant Growth + Bezerk + etc on my elf.... Only here I'm give one of my Necron Units "Talent For Anhilation" or something. At least I don't have to worry about what color my CP is.

I spend one slot of my Vancian casting system to cast magic missile! I don't have any more spell slots so I can't play my spells. (D&D Release date 1974). So are CCG's just rpgs in disguise now because D&D had a casting system that had something similar?

I'm just poking a little fun at this cause it's all so weirdly specific and doesn't really define things well.

Poke all you want, it doesn't change the fact that in the back of my mind is that old MTG feeling anytime I play a strat.
I don't get that feeling when I play non-GW minis/wargames (well except for in X-Wing - Pokemons "gotta catch 'em all" concerning the upgrade cards is in effect in 1e. No idea about 2e)
Nor have I ever gotten the D&D feeling while playing a GW minis game. Sure, a wizard using up a limited spell slot might resemble using a strat. But the difference lies in the "story". Even at our most Hack & Slashiest we've always been trying to tell some sort of "story" in D&D. That is not really ever been the case in 99.9999% of all the Warhammer (FB/40k/Sigmar/etc) I've played. Not even in our recent Crusades & Path to Glories.

Your feelings aren't necessarily rational, however, and definitely aren't in this case. You and you alone are responsible for your irrational feelings.

Of course it does, in „Advantage in Multiplayer Games”. This is 100% what GW does via balance dataslates, temporary add-ons like Crusher Stampede and generally shuffling validity around. The randomness of purchase that you think is absent from 40k, because you buy a specific box of miniatures is succesfully introduced by unforseeable period of validity of such purchase, which not only gives incentive to but stuff, but also exploits the fear of missing out. Just ask around on Dakka, if people who freed themselves from churn and burn felt like quitting an addiction.

Which leads me directly to quitting any further discussions with you, in this or other threads. I don’t see any point in wasting my time on your delusions of grandeur.

nou wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

nou wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

nou wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

nou wrote:
Mtg predates Diablo by 4 years and Diablo II by 7. I’ve played Mtg already in ’94 with the release of 3rd ed and through ’95, when it was all the rage, in parallel with 2nd ed 40k. Mid ’90 were the times when many later trends in game desing begun, which were then widely adapted in early to mid ’00, and there is exactly zero controversy amongst game designers in naming MTG as the father of deck/list building and addiction through living meta paradigm. It took a decade for first computer games to catch up, because for the living computer game format you need broadband internet, which was not a standard up until mid ’00.

I'm very aware, but Magic in the mid-90's was very different from how it was at the turn of the millennium. If there's zero controversy, I'm sure you could share some of this information with me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
Maybe this will help - stop focusing on the „card” word as the defining trait of the whole „colectible games”category as used in game design? You can recreate exactly same phenomenon with collectible dice, tokens, miniatures, virtual items, whatever, because the defining trait of this category is creating dopamine based addiction to the game via living meta and purchases that increase your in game abilities/possibilities. That it takes different exact implementation depending on the exact medium you are working with is irrelevant to the underlying principle.

No, the lack of randomness in purchases means it isn't the same thing at all. They're not chasing the gambling impulse with things like "loot boxes."

nou wrote:
The problem with you is that you only skim the surface level of game design - „the specifics” that you so love, and are oblivious of the entire underlaying knowledge and don’t realise, that your „specifics” are just secondary, technical implementations of said knowledge.

Yes, I know, buzzwords and no specifics from me again

You can say that, but you don't understand why a pack of Magic cards and an online lootbox are alike, while a box of 40k minis is like neither of those. So it's clear my understanding is actually deeper; you're just using buzzwords without understanding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

Living meta is your answer - this kind of player profile we are talking about is not the same player profile as historical wargamer or Rouge Trader era 40k player. He doesn't buy a box of minis because they are hobby items - to assemble, paint, display and the feeling of achievement created by that activity. The kind of player that was honed by MTG buys those minis for the perceived gain in power within the game. Do I really have to elaborate on this trivial context further?

Yes, you actually do - because it's not the kind of thing MtG is trying to engineer. Magic is just gambling. They're trying to get people to chase the cards for that brain chemical rush the same way people playing blackjack at a casino, or making runs on Diablo II are. 40k cannot create a Skinner box.

For a person who claims to understand MTG so much, you really don’t have the faintest clue about it, or about psychology. Aftermarket for MTG cards was there since the very beginning of the game. When you bought a booster, you did not gamble in hope of getting the exact cards you needed for your deck, you were exchanging currency. That is because the composition of a booster was known, you get X commons, Y uncommons, Z rares, and trade value of cards from a booster was higher than the cost of a booster. In other words, it usually was a better deal to buy a booster, unpack and trade rares than to spend money directly on the rare you needed for your build. The dopamine injection did not happen at opening of a booster, but at the moment you completed your deck as you envisioned it and went out to playtest it. This is exact same drive as listbuilding in a living 40k meta and buing 9 Voidweavers.

Now with lootboxes it is pretty much the same. You know the composition of a loot box and games have either trade markets or „forges” built in. If you happen to draw an exact thing you need you then even better, but you do not expect it to happen. Microtransactions are not about gambling, but about desire to grow in power, just drip fed at a controllable rate. This is the biggest difference with 40k though, because a dedicated meta chaser will just spend all the money necessary for a build at once, so 40k employs „balance dataslates” to keep meta chasers spend their money to feed their desire of power on a regular basis.

[url=https://m.facebook.com/nt/screen/?params=%7B%22note_id%22%3A969097270250061%7D&path=%2Fnotes%2Fnote%2F&_rdr]

Get reading. Then we have stuff to discuss. [/url]

You are aware, that this post is by THE Richard Garfield, author of MTG, right? And I don’t see how this invalidated the claim, that MTG started such trends and they then evolved depending on the exact medium and specific targettable populations. This post only describes how the mechanism he introduced evolved/devolved.

At this point I don’t really believe anymore that you can even read with comprehension, as Garfield directly addresses the desire to „grow in power” in this post. Jesus, you are exceptionally delusional about your knowledge and level of understanding.

No. The claim is invalidated because nowhere does it describe GW's sales model in that post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Okay then, I'll spell it out for you. 40k and MTG not being literally the same, which is what you seem to think is what people are implying is NOT the same as modern 40k borrowing CCG-esq elements to a tabletop game, which they clearly are doing.

If you cannot see this then there is an Egyptian river you must need pulling out of.

No, there are no ccg-esque elements in 40k's gameplay. There's no deck of cards to shuffle, no randomized packs to buy. Again, you're in Dunning-Kruger territory with your understanding of these games.

You sure about that?
There's the feeling I get any time I play a strat..... I pay x manna (sorry, CP) to modify my cards (sorry, Unit/Model) abilities. If I don't have any Manna/CP then I can't play my strat. :(
Sure puts me in mind of when I played MTG all those years ago. Spending x Green manna to cast Giant Growth + Bezerk + etc on my elf.... Only here I'm give one of my Necron Units "Talent For Anhilation" or something. At least I don't have to worry about what color my CP is.

I spend one slot of my Vancian casting system to cast magic missile! I don't have any more spell slots so I can't play my spells. (D&D Release date 1974). So are CCG's just rpgs in disguise now because D&D had a casting system that had something similar?

I'm just poking a little fun at this cause it's all so weirdly specific and doesn't really define things well.

Poke all you want, it doesn't change the fact that in the back of my mind is that old MTG feeling anytime I play a strat.
I don't get that feeling when I play non-GW minis/wargames (well except for in X-Wing - Pokemons "gotta catch 'em all" concerning the upgrade cards is in effect in 1e. No idea about 2e)
Nor have I ever gotten the D&D feeling while playing a GW minis game. Sure, a wizard using up a limited spell slot might resemble using a strat. But the difference lies in the "story". Even at our most Hack & Slashiest we've always been trying to tell some sort of "story" in D&D. That is not really ever been the case in 99.9999% of all the Warhammer (FB/40k/Sigmar/etc) I've played. Not even in our recent Crusades & Path to Glories.

Your feelings aren't necessarily rational, however, and definitely aren't in this case. You and you alone are responsible for your irrational feelings.

Of course it does, in „Advantage in Multiplayer Games”. This is 100% what GW does via balance dataslates, temporary add-ons like Crusher Stampede and generally shuffling validity around. The randomness of purchase that you think is absent from 40k, because you buy a specific box of miniatures is succesfully introduced by unforseeable period of validity of such purchase, which not only gives incentive to but stuff, but also exploits the fear of missing out. Just ask around on Dakka, if people who freed themselves from churn and burn felt like quitting an addiction.

Which leads me directly to quitting any further discussions with you, in this or other threads. I don’t see any point in wasting my time on your delusions of grandeur.

I don't think they will go full on Power Level. There will be points in 10th edition, hopefully not as micro as they are now.