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.
Insectum7 wrote: This balance hurts non-tourney peoole too. Should Space Marines be so invulnerable to the weapons of so many other troops? Methinks not.
I don't think anyone is arguing for that. At most people are arguing that their armies should "feel like" the lore presents them, but that creates some problems when balance is concerned at times.
Insectum7 wrote: This balance hurts non-tourney peoole too. Should Space Marines be so invulnerable to the weapons of so many other troops? Methinks not.
I don't think anyone is arguing for that. At most people are arguing that their armies should "feel like" the lore presents them, but that creates some problems when balance is concerned at times.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, and I think GW is doing a particularly poor job of it.
Insectum7 wrote: This balance hurts non-tourney peoole too. Should Space Marines be so invulnerable to the weapons of so many other troops? Methinks not.
I am a non-tourney person. I don't think I have played another opponent that had an army more pillow-fisted than my CSM. And I've done okay for myself versus space marines despite that. Thanks for trying to look out for us, but I think we'll be okay. With Armor of Contempt, we non-tourny folk might just have to get used to playing all 5 turns of games again.
Adherance to PL is generally stink-smell of CAAC, which there is nothing wrong with inherently but also means said CAAC player generally doesn't care about game balance because of PL's side effects.
Whereas a player using points can both talk about game balance *and* control the fun of the game. It's a bit like that age old stormwind fallacy people talk about in RPG's and other tabletops.
@hecaton, while list building is a skill, it's also the least "interactive" use of "skill" in 40k. I'd personally love to see less gotchas in list creation (Which is where better external balance comes into play, and where a more granular scaling of "cost" comes into play... see where I'm going?).
Edit: Why does Dakka think I'm from thailand lmao, I have my country set to Australia....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rolsheen wrote: Honestly I think 50% of people on this forum just need to bugger off and leave 40k for people that enjoy the game, wah wah that bad man has nerfed my tournament army, now I can't be a dick to all those casual players.
Show me where on a doll those tournament players hurt you.
Insectum7 wrote: This balance hurts non-tourney peoole too. Should Space Marines be so invulnerable to the weapons of so many other troops? Methinks not.
I don't think anyone is arguing for that. At most people are arguing that their armies should "feel like" the lore presents them, but that creates some problems when balance is concerned at times.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, and I think GW is doing a particularly poor job of it.
Totally agree, and it's a massive shame it's happening like that too.
One of my personal best examples was back in 8e how GW nerfed Warlocks, boosting them from iirc 80 points for a squad to like 250 points for a squad.
All because of a tournament where people were taking individual Warlocks to spam runes on making jetbikes faster.
A good friend of mine just looked at his list, went ?WTF? as they died to a 100 point stormboy squad and stopped playing.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/04/18 01:45:52
Nah see, if someone uses PL? To Hecaton(someone from the official Infinity forums who just so happened to start posting here after I stopped posting there), apparently it means they don't understand how the game works. It totally means that! And I guess I should feel bad for enjoying my time playing games these days rather than worrying about what's "optimal".
Don't let that ego get out of control. I've been posting here (not under this account, lost my old password and email) since the early 2000's when I was in high school. Me coming here had nothing to do with you.
lol, okay. That's why you keep showing up in threads where I've been posting, explicitly to try to pick fights? Constantly trying to start crap?
If you can go a WHOLE WEEK without posting in a thread I'm active in, I'll believe you.
What you should feel bad about is calling people who have a better understanding of this game, or any other, than you "scrubs."
And you should feel bad for assuming that using points is somehow "a better understanding of this game".
I've definitely played with PL when doing Crusade or whatever, but iirc you *exclusively* play with PL (though I'm guessing you play rarely if at all). And that lack of broader understanding of the game makes it laughable when you try to call out other players for having a lesser understanding of the game.
Right, because I need to use points to know that the plasmas are gud, yeah?
And frankly? Having a winning list doesn't mean you cannot be a scrub.
Kanluwen wrote: It doesn't take number-crunching to make "OMG awesome" lists to know what is good or what is not good in an army. Mathhammer isn't the whole game, list-building isn't a skill, and actually ensuring your opponent has as much fun as you do is more important than a win.
List-building is definitely a skill. You can be good or bad at it, and you can get better with practice. You've played 40k and Infinity, so I know you know this unless you're deeper in denial than I thought. You should say what you mean - that listbuilding *shouldn't* be something you can gain an advantage with in-game. But stating it explicitly would invite ridicule, so you're trying to amble at the idea sideways.
bUt iT's NoT yOuR LiSt iT's YoU!1!
List-building is not a skill. You do not need to be some kind of savant to know what options are good and what options are bad.
And your last statement about fun isn't true. Some people only have fun if they beat their opponent, and will cheat to do so, and will taunt their opponent during the game. They will stop having fun if they're losing. It's nobody's responsibility to make sure those people have fun.
so your counterpoint is that "your opponent might be a twit, thus you should never endeavor to try to ensure both players have fun"?
cool story, I guess?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/04/18 02:01:21
PenitentJake wrote: A part of the problem is that many of the people complaining about the impact of the tournament scene upon the game should just STOP PLAYING ONLY THE PART OF THE GAME THAT IS DESIGNED FOR TOURNAMENTS.
The shoddy codex balancing and power creep isn't just a tournament problem.
Eonfuzz wrote: Adherance to PL is generally stink-smell of CAAC, which there is nothing wrong with inherently but also means said CAAC player generally doesn't care about game balance because of PL's side effects.
Whereas a player using points can both talk about game balance *and* control the fun of the game.
Wildly disagree.
I don't need to use points to be able to tell what a "better option" weapon might be. Points does nothing for balance, other than to artificially add another layer of "optimizing" to everything because your list does not become necessarily based upon what you like or what you might want to field but rather you become subject to min/max issues.
Edit: Why does Dakka think I'm from thailand lmao, I have my country set to Australia....
It looks at your IP address not your set country, IIRC.
Tyran wrote: There is a point that a game being too balanced starts hurting the game's income, as experienced players lose any desire to buy more models. 40k isn't even close to that point, but theoretically you want (as a company) to have a dynamic imbalance that forces even experience players to constantly buy new miniatures while still being balanced enough to avoid a player exodus.
You do see this in online shooters though, where a static gamestate grows stale and only the next release shakes things up again.
GW embracing intentional "perfect imbalance" isn't wrong, the problem is their business model still being tied to physical books makes it impossible to really keep the game up to speed in a timely manner.
Successful online shooters don't keep things fresh by deliberately rotating imbalance; they keep things fresh by adding content and fixing existing imbalances to open new viable options.
A static, tired game state is the result of no new content and sufficient imbalance that there are right and wrong choices and, thus, only a few ways to 'actually' play.
I mean what they often do is release a new game with different gear. Or at least that's the CoD/Battlefield model.
I'm not saying they can't make the game work without a shifting meta, but when leaning into competitive trying to keep the game from being solve and staying solved is important to keep the game from being too stale, which seems to be why GW has taken the design approach they have. It's not one that works without a living digital ruleset, but it's what they've adopted.
Now that I'm home I want to talk a little more about how tabletop gaming compares to videogames in terms of keeping things fresh. This isn't really meant to be argumentative, more an observation.
Back in the day, up until the mid-2000s, you had multiplayer shooters where all the content was available from the outset. Doom, Unreal Tournament, Quake, Counter-Strike, Halo, all the classic franchises worked the same way: A server can run any map, you can play any game type, you can use any weapon, all the content is available to you right from the outset. It gets stale when you're so used to all the weapons and all the maps that it becomes a dull and same-y experience, unless you really enjoy that experience in which case you become one of the die-hards. Sometimes these games got expansion packs that added new content, or patches that address balance, but sometimes not.
Similarly I think it's safe to say that most wargames are/were designed as cohesive, one-off experiences. Historical miniature wargames are generally intended to be complete from the outset; the sorts of games Warlord or TooFatLardies produce are intended to be 'final', with changes made either to improve balance or add content, but not 'living' wargames. The game gives you rules, you assemble the forces needed to play those rules, and off you go. It becomes stale when you stop supplying new forces to try, stop playing new scenarios, and stop making new terrain or playing with new people. Honestly, compared to classic shooters, I'd say wargames have a lot more going for them in terms of keeping things fresh.
In the mid-2000s PC gaming started to adopt player progression, particularly the Call of Duty and Battlefield franchises. Now you didn't just have a variety of maps and scenarios; you also were drip-fed new weapons and equipment as you played. In theory these didn't give you an advantage over other players, just sidegrade options, but that wasn't always the case- and people complained bitterly when high-level gear was flat-out superior. But the idea was that the starting gear would give you a curated, simple way to play, and then as you got more familiar with the game you were given all these whizz-bang accessories to try out and 'grow into'.
I think GW's tried to apply a similar model to 40K, though for marketing reasons in addition to longevity. 40K has more support than ever for starting with a single squad (Kill Team), expanding to a small force (Combat Patrol), and ultimately progressing up to the very expensive 2000pt army. They also have Crusade, which more directly applies a progression system to your army. Just as CoD4 used that experience bar and drip-feed of New Stuff to drive you to keep playing, Crusade offers the promise of new battle honors to keep you coming back even if you and your friends are using the exact same set of models as last time.
Now the current trend is seasons, where games rotate in large amounts of new content on a timed basis. Progression mechanisms are used to access some of it, enticing players who have burned out to return and start grinding to get the new stuff, while continuing players get new carrots on the end of the stick to keep playing. Throughout all this, there's ongoing balance improvement. The common practice is not churn for the sake of churn, but adjustment as new content affects the balance of existing content, or just general improvement to legacy content. The important thing from a business standpoint is that there is heavy use of monetization, particularly of cosmetics, so that the constant drip of New Stuff is associated with a constant drip of continued revenue from existing players.
Is GW doing this? Absolutely. Books like Vigilus and Psychic Awakening are a perfect example. They add new content for existing factions and/or new scenarios to try, and you pay for the privilege. PA in particular added novel mechanics to existing factions, and was tied into adding new models as well, so there was that drive to get New Stuff for your particular faction. Buy the new Chapter Approved to get the new balance updates and missions. Buy the New Stuff to keep playing.
At no point in here is there any concept of a game being 'too balanced', needing deliberate imbalance to keep things fresh. Some companies actually put a lot of time and effort into making their games as balanced as possible- Valve, for example, playtested the hell out of Team Fortress 2 to make every class feel equally useful on launch. But once developers start adding new content, then balance tweaks and even major gameplay changes are needed to make it all fit, as well as improve on things that were deemed acceptable for release but not as fun or interesting as they could be. And problems start to crop up. Ostensibly positive gameplay changes hurt balance. New content renders old content obsolete, or interacts with it in unanticipated ways. The game starts to bloat out of control, and its old virtues of simplicity and balance are usurped by the financial drive to add more New Stuff, despite the best efforts of the developers. Eventually active development ends, the game state is frozen, and they move on to another project- leaving behind a half-broken game and dissatisfied fans. But if it's not a total trainwreck by the end, they'll probably buy the sequel.
Put bluntly: I don't think there's any credibility to the idea that GW deliberately rotates the meta to make people buy things, or that they don't want balance because people would be bored. I am much more inclined to attribute the pendulum swings to a design team struggling to tread water while under the pressure of a business decision to constantly release more, more more New Stuff because that's what makes them more money. Then there's the stupid print media release schedule hanging like an albatross around their necks, to say nothing of the difficulty of gathering reliable data or playtesting a game that may not actually look or play the same in consumers' homes as it does in the studio (see: terrain, and how little of it players tend to use). The question of whether they seek balance or deliberate slight imbalance is ultimately irrelevant, as they can't manage to achieve either under these conditions (though before anyone jumps down my throat about it- yes, they could be doing a lot better than they are). And we're never going to see a balanced state of 9th Ed, because this ends the same way it does for games: A new edition will be released, legacy content will be purged, and the cycle will begin again.
So if we want balance to be sufficiently achievable that 'deliberate imbalance' is even worth discussion, then getting away from the codex creep and the constant cycle of one-upmanship is a basic requirement. The moving target of balance in a changing game state where by the time you get any useful data it's too late to change the next codex is just not reasonable. I think it is possible to simultaneously work towards balance and release New Stuff to keep people excited and keep the game fresh, but that New Stuff has to be primarily additive content- rules for new theaters of war, new campaigns, new Crusade content, new (optional, with opponent's permission) armies of renown, new mission packs, new tournament packs, stuff that you can choose to add on to your game rather than something that forcibly changes your play experience (unless you outright reject the concept of New Stuff altogether). As long as there's a relatively static 'core' game, that's something that can be iterated upon without constantly having to catch up with changes to the game state. That said, if you add new units (let alone factions) mid-edition that's going to shake things up; but at least it would be more controlled and manageable than the current approach of a whole faction's worth of upset every few months plus all the other content.
Of course, as long as people keep buying stuff under the current model, there's no incentive to change.
PenitentJake wrote: A part of the problem is that many of the people complaining about the impact of the tournament scene upon the game should just STOP PLAYING ONLY THE PART OF THE GAME THAT IS DESIGNED FOR TOURNAMENTS.
The shoddy codex balancing and power creep isn't just a tournament problem.
While not untrue, if you unhook your gaming from the competitive part of the game you can do things to level the playing field like comping poor armies points (or having strong armies take a handicap), engineer missions that give advantages to the weaker army (such as free reinforcements for instance), ect.
When you don't lock yourself into strictly playing the GT mission side of the game and embrace the sandbox the game has a lot more options.
And yes, this doesn't fix pick up games with random strangers unless you're the one offering to take a handicap for their benefit, but in local clubs or groups it's not impossible to hash this stuff out with people you play with regularly if it helps make the game more fun for everyone.
Though I'm going to bet someone is going to tell me that talking to their group is impossible and they only play the hardest baby seal clubbing lists they can and honestly at that point maybe it's time to start a new group and see if you can't find some more casual people who want to play with you instead.
Tyran wrote: There is a point that a game being too balanced starts hurting the game's income, as experienced players lose any desire to buy more models. 40k isn't even close to that point, but theoretically you want (as a company) to have a dynamic imbalance that forces even experience players to constantly buy new miniatures while still being balanced enough to avoid a player exodus.
You do see this in online shooters though, where a static gamestate grows stale and only the next release shakes things up again.
GW embracing intentional "perfect imbalance" isn't wrong, the problem is their business model still being tied to physical books makes it impossible to really keep the game up to speed in a timely manner.
Successful online shooters don't keep things fresh by deliberately rotating imbalance; they keep things fresh by adding content and fixing existing imbalances to open new viable options.
A static, tired game state is the result of no new content and sufficient imbalance that there are right and wrong choices and, thus, only a few ways to 'actually' play.
I mean what they often do is release a new game with different gear. Or at least that's the CoD/Battlefield model.
I'm not saying they can't make the game work without a shifting meta, but when leaning into competitive trying to keep the game from being solve and staying solved is important to keep the game from being too stale, which seems to be why GW has taken the design approach they have. It's not one that works without a living digital ruleset, but it's what they've adopted.
Now that I'm home I want to talk a little more about how tabletop gaming compares to videogames in terms of keeping things fresh. This isn't really meant to be argumentative, more an observation.
Back in the day, up until the mid-2000s, you had multiplayer shooters where all the content was available from the outset. Doom, Unreal Tournament, Quake, Counter-Strike, Halo, all the classic franchises worked the same way: A server can run any map, you can play any game type, you can use any weapon, all the content is available to you right from the outset. It gets stale when you're so used to all the weapons and all the maps that it becomes a dull and same-y experience, unless you really enjoy that experience in which case you become one of the die-hards. Sometimes these games got expansion packs that added new content, or patches that address balance, but sometimes not.
Similarly I think it's safe to say that most wargames are/were designed as cohesive, one-off experiences. Historical miniature wargames are generally intended to be complete from the outset; the sorts of games Warlord or TooFatLardies produce are intended to be 'final', with changes made either to improve balance or add content, but not 'living' wargames. The game gives you rules, you assemble the forces needed to play those rules, and off you go. It becomes stale when you stop supplying new forces to try, stop playing new scenarios, and stop making new terrain or playing with new people. Honestly, compared to classic shooters, I'd say wargames have a lot more going for them in terms of keeping things fresh.
In the mid-2000s PC gaming started to adopt player progression, particularly the Call of Duty and Battlefield franchises. Now you didn't just have a variety of maps and scenarios; you also were drip-fed new weapons and equipment as you played. In theory these didn't give you an advantage over other players, just sidegrade options, but that wasn't always the case- and people complained bitterly when high-level gear was flat-out superior. But the idea was that the starting gear would give you a curated, simple way to play, and then as you got more familiar with the game you were given all these whizz-bang accessories to try out and 'grow into'.
I think GW's tried to apply a similar model to 40K, though for marketing reasons in addition to longevity. 40K has more support than ever for starting with a single squad (Kill Team), expanding to a small force (Combat Patrol), and ultimately progressing up to the very expensive 2000pt army. They also have Crusade, which more directly applies a progression system to your army. Just as CoD4 used that experience bar and drip-feed of New Stuff to drive you to keep playing, Crusade offers the promise of new battle honors to keep you coming back even if you and your friends are using the exact same set of models as last time.
Now the current trend is seasons, where games rotate in large amounts of new content on a timed basis. Progression mechanisms are used to access some of it, enticing players who have burned out to return and start grinding to get the new stuff, while continuing players get new carrots on the end of the stick to keep playing. Throughout all this, there's ongoing balance improvement. The common practice is not churn for the sake of churn, but adjustment as new content affects the balance of existing content, or just general improvement to legacy content. The important thing from a business standpoint is that there is heavy use of monetization, particularly of cosmetics, so that the constant drip of New Stuff is associated with a constant drip of continued revenue from existing players.
Is GW doing this? Absolutely. Books like Vigilus and Psychic Awakening are a perfect example. They add new content for existing factions and/or new scenarios to try, and you pay for the privilege. PA in particular added novel mechanics to existing factions, and was tied into adding new models as well, so there was that drive to get New Stuff for your particular faction. Buy the new Chapter Approved to get the new balance updates and missions. Buy the New Stuff to keep playing.
At no point in here is there any concept of a game being 'too balanced', needing deliberate imbalance to keep things fresh. Some companies actually put a lot of time and effort into making their games as balanced as possible- Valve, for example, playtested the hell out of Team Fortress 2 to make every class feel equally useful on launch. But once developers start adding new content, then balance tweaks and even major gameplay changes are needed to make it all fit, as well as improve on things that were deemed acceptable for release but not as fun or interesting as they could be. And problems start to crop up. Ostensibly positive gameplay changes hurt balance. New content renders old content obsolete, or interacts with it in unanticipated ways. The game starts to bloat out of control, and its old virtues of simplicity and balance are usurped by the financial drive to add more New Stuff, despite the best efforts of the developers. Eventually active development ends, the game state is frozen, and they move on to another project- leaving behind a half-broken game and dissatisfied fans. But if it's not a total trainwreck by the end, they'll probably buy the sequel.
Put bluntly: I don't think there's any credibility to the idea that GW deliberately rotates the meta to make people buy things, or that they don't want balance because people would be bored. I am much more inclined to attribute the pendulum swings to a design team struggling to tread water while under the pressure of a business decision to constantly release more, more more New Stuff because that's what makes them more money. Then there's the stupid print media release schedule hanging like an albatross around their necks, to say nothing of the difficulty of gathering reliable data or playtesting a game that may not actually look or play the same in consumers' homes as it does in the studio (see: terrain, and how little of it players tend to use). The question of whether they seek balance or deliberate slight imbalance is ultimately irrelevant, as they can't manage to achieve either under these conditions (though before anyone jumps down my throat about it- yes, they could be doing a lot better than they are). And we're never going to see a balanced state of 9th Ed, because this ends the same way it does for games: A new edition will be released, legacy content will be purged, and the cycle will begin again.
So if we want balance to be sufficiently achievable that 'deliberate imbalance' is even worth discussion, then getting away from the codex creep and the constant cycle of one-upmanship is a basic requirement. The moving target of balance in a changing game state where by the time you get any useful data it's too late to change the next codex is just not reasonable. I think it is possible to simultaneously work towards balance and release New Stuff to keep people excited and keep the game fresh, but that New Stuff has to be primarily additive content- rules for new theaters of war, new campaigns, new Crusade content, new (optional, with opponent's permission) armies of renown, new mission packs, new tournament packs, stuff that you can choose to add on to your game rather than something that forcibly changes your play experience (unless you outright reject the concept of New Stuff altogether). As long as there's a relatively static 'core' game, that's something that can be iterated upon without constantly having to catch up with changes to the game state. That said, if you add new units (let alone factions) mid-edition that's going to shake things up; but at least it would be more controlled and manageable than the current approach of a whole faction's worth of upset every few months plus all the other content.
Of course, as long as people keep buying stuff under the current model, there's no incentive to change.
I think you nailed it on the head and said more clearly things I was trying to communicate but couldn't do as well while also just expanding it much further than I'd thought.
And yes, I think I agree 110%, especially about the release cycle of New Stuff.
Insectum7 wrote: This balance hurts non-tourney peoole too. Should Space Marines be so invulnerable to the weapons of so many other troops? Methinks not.
I don't think anyone is arguing for that. At most people are arguing that their armies should "feel like" the lore presents them, but that creates some problems when balance is concerned at times.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, and I think GW is doing a particularly poor job of it.
Yeah. It is something 40k seems to have been really bad about in 9th. Much worse than any other point I can recall. Balance I (sadly) remember worse times, but as far as narrative theme/immersion goes? 40k is at its worst in that regard. For me anyways.
Eonfuzz wrote: Adherance to PL is generally stink-smell of CAAC, which there is nothing wrong with inherently but also means said CAAC player generally doesn't care about game balance because of PL's side effects.
Whereas a player using points can both talk about game balance *and* control the fun of the game.
Wildly disagree.
I don't need to use points to be able to tell what a "better option" weapon might be. Points does nothing for balance, other than to artificially add another layer of "optimizing" to everything because your list does not become necessarily based upon what you like or what you might want to field but rather you become subject to min/max issues.
Yeah so that's where people go 404 does not compute.
Basically a multimelta is a better option than a bolter, so to stop someone going all multimeltas there *must* be a cost associated with that unit.
I know you can handwave this by saying "dont do it", but you could theoretically play the below game:
Tommy "DEVASTATOR" McFluffy, an army filled with devastators all with bolters and bolters
versus
Spike McMulta, an army filled with devestators with multimeltas and plasma
Power Level shows they are two equal armies, Points do not.
Who would win?
I don't need to use points to be able to tell what a "better option" weapon might be. Points does nothing for balance, other than to artificially add another layer of "optimizing" to everything because your list does not become necessarily based upon what you like or what you might want to field but rather you become subject to min/max issues.
Yeah so that's where people go 404 does not compute.
Yeah, and that's where I say PEBKAC.
Basically a multimelta is a better option than a bolter, so to stop someone going all multimeltas there *must* be a cost associated with that unit.
I know you can handwave this by saying "dont do it", but you could theoretically play the below game:
Tommy "DEVASTATOR" McFluffy, an army filled with devastators all with bolters and bolters
versus
Spike McMulta, an army filled with devestators with multimeltas and plasma
Power Level shows they are two equal armies, Points do not.
Who would win?
Why are these examples always so objectively terrible?
Who is taking Devastators with Bolters?
Or is this the new "Archaon isn't unique so everyone is going to run a bunch of Archaons"?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/18 02:52:04
Under PL, I can put Inferno Pistols on all my Sister Superiors for no cost over someone who doesn't.
For me? I put bolt pistols on for fluff, as my Order didn't have lots of expensive equipment as a lore point (no vehicles either). I literally played a game with someone who DID put all inferno Pistols on their Superiors.
I don't need to use points to be able to tell what a "better option" weapon might be. Points does nothing for balance, other than to artificially add another layer of "optimizing" to everything because your list does not become necessarily based upon what you like or what you might want to field but rather you become subject to min/max issues.
Yeah so that's where people go 404 does not compute.
Yeah, and that's where I say PEBKAC.
Basically a multimelta is a better option than a bolter, so to stop someone going all multimeltas there *must* be a cost associated with that unit.
I know you can handwave this by saying "dont do it", but you could theoretically play the below game:
Tommy "DEVASTATOR" McFluffy, an army filled with devastators all with bolters and bolters
versus
Spike McMulta, an army filled with devestators with multimeltas and plasma
Power Level shows they are two equal armies, Points do not.
Who would win?
Why are these examples always so objectively terrible?
Who is taking Devastators with Bolters?
Or is this the new "Archaon isn't unique so everyone is going to run a bunch of Archaons"?
Right, I can see why Hecaton has resolved to just throw insults.
You're clearly a bad faith actor. Carry on.
While not untrue, if you unhook your gaming from the competitive part of the game you can do things to level the playing field like comping poor armies points (or having strong armies take a handicap), engineer missions that give advantages to the weaker army (such as free reinforcements for instance), ect.
I'm not interested in re-balancing the game for GW, to be honest. I'd rather play other games in which I don't have to do that. If I was doing that my efforts would be better spent in, I dunno, developing my own wargame.
ClockworkZion wrote: When you don't lock yourself into strictly playing the GT mission side of the game and embrace the sandbox the game has a lot more options.
Eonfuzz wrote: Adherance to PL is generally stink-smell of CAAC, which there is nothing wrong with inherently but also means said CAAC player generally doesn't care about game balance because of PL's side effects.
Whereas a player using points can both talk about game balance *and* control the fun of the game.
Wildly disagree.
I don't need to use points to be able to tell what a "better option" weapon might be. Points does nothing for balance, other than to artificially add another layer of "optimizing" to everything because your list does not become necessarily based upon what you like or what you might want to field but rather you become subject to min/max issues.
Yeah so that's where people go 404 does not compute.
Basically a multimelta is a better option than a bolter, so to stop someone going all multimeltas there *must* be a cost associated with that unit.
I know you can handwave this by saying "dont do it", but you could theoretically play the below game:
Tommy "DEVASTATOR" McFluffy, an army filled with devastators all with bolters and bolters
versus
Spike McMulta, an army filled with devestators with multimeltas and plasma
Power Level shows they are two equal armies, Points do not.
Who would win?
The sentiment is that points are so badly balanced that players must self-balance to get a matching game, so if you are already doing it might as well use the simpler numbers since either way they are at best rough guidelines.
After all, the points say 2k of guardsmen is evenly matched against 2k of Tau. Who would win!?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/18 03:47:18
Curious about your thoughts on how well the campaign books achieve that "optional" status from your perspective. From mine, I feel like they've done a better job of being optional than the PA books.
I've always thought that getting this right was an integral part of building the infrastructure for a persistent edition.
The shoddy codex balancing and power creep isn't just a tournament problem.
True.
The angst over matched play updates, however, IS typically a matched play only problem.
As I said in another post though, this most recent update, while billed as a Matched Play update doesn't really work that way- some of these updates are more like unit level changes as opposed to game changes like the number of aircraft an army is allowed to bring, or whether or not an army can be composed of detachments from different subfactions.
It muddies the water a bit, and I would say THIS update seems to affect other modes of play more than the other updates we've seen so far.
2022/04/18 05:32:40
Subject: Re:Annd Time of death for 9th is 4/14/2022
Perhaps what needs to happen is a deep look at the game along historical contexts. For the life of me the bread and butter of any army was your Basic Soldier and there is nothing to suggest that this will ever change. Foot Soldiers are cheap to train and equip in any army and the most common. They hold ground, defend and attack. If we revert to percentages say 50% of your army is troops then we reduce the elite, fast attack and heavy spam that is prevalent now
Tyran wrote: There is a point that a game being too balanced starts hurting the game's income, as experienced players lose any desire to buy more models. 40k isn't even close to that point, but theoretically you want (as a company) to have a dynamic imbalance that forces even experience players to constantly buy new miniatures while still being balanced enough to avoid a player exodus.
You do see this in online shooters though, where a static gamestate grows stale and only the next release shakes things up again.
GW embracing intentional "perfect imbalance" isn't wrong, the problem is their business model still being tied to physical books makes it impossible to really keep the game up to speed in a timely manner.
Successful online shooters don't keep things fresh by deliberately rotating imbalance; they keep things fresh by adding content and fixing existing imbalances to open new viable options.
A static, tired game state is the result of no new content and sufficient imbalance that there are right and wrong choices and, thus, only a few ways to 'actually' play.
I mean what they often do is release a new game with different gear. Or at least that's the CoD/Battlefield model.
I'm not saying they can't make the game work without a shifting meta, but when leaning into competitive trying to keep the game from being solve and staying solved is important to keep the game from being too stale, which seems to be why GW has taken the design approach they have. It's not one that works without a living digital ruleset, but it's what they've adopted.
Now that I'm home I want to talk a little more about how tabletop gaming compares to videogames in terms of keeping things fresh. This isn't really meant to be argumentative, more an observation.
Back in the day, up until the mid-2000s, you had multiplayer shooters where all the content was available from the outset. Doom, Unreal Tournament, Quake, Counter-Strike, Halo, all the classic franchises worked the same way: A server can run any map, you can play any game type, you can use any weapon, all the content is available to you right from the outset. It gets stale when you're so used to all the weapons and all the maps that it becomes a dull and same-y experience, unless you really enjoy that experience in which case you become one of the die-hards. Sometimes these games got expansion packs that added new content, or patches that address balance, but sometimes not.
Similarly I think it's safe to say that most wargames are/were designed as cohesive, one-off experiences. Historical miniature wargames are generally intended to be complete from the outset; the sorts of games Warlord or TooFatLardies produce are intended to be 'final', with changes made either to improve balance or add content, but not 'living' wargames. The game gives you rules, you assemble the forces needed to play those rules, and off you go. It becomes stale when you stop supplying new forces to try, stop playing new scenarios, and stop making new terrain or playing with new people. Honestly, compared to classic shooters, I'd say wargames have a lot more going for them in terms of keeping things fresh.
In the mid-2000s PC gaming started to adopt player progression, particularly the Call of Duty and Battlefield franchises. Now you didn't just have a variety of maps and scenarios; you also were drip-fed new weapons and equipment as you played. In theory these didn't give you an advantage over other players, just sidegrade options, but that wasn't always the case- and people complained bitterly when high-level gear was flat-out superior. But the idea was that the starting gear would give you a curated, simple way to play, and then as you got more familiar with the game you were given all these whizz-bang accessories to try out and 'grow into'.
I think GW's tried to apply a similar model to 40K, though for marketing reasons in addition to longevity. 40K has more support than ever for starting with a single squad (Kill Team), expanding to a small force (Combat Patrol), and ultimately progressing up to the very expensive 2000pt army. They also have Crusade, which more directly applies a progression system to your army. Just as CoD4 used that experience bar and drip-feed of New Stuff to drive you to keep playing, Crusade offers the promise of new battle honors to keep you coming back even if you and your friends are using the exact same set of models as last time.
Now the current trend is seasons, where games rotate in large amounts of new content on a timed basis. Progression mechanisms are used to access some of it, enticing players who have burned out to return and start grinding to get the new stuff, while continuing players get new carrots on the end of the stick to keep playing. Throughout all this, there's ongoing balance improvement. The common practice is not churn for the sake of churn, but adjustment as new content affects the balance of existing content, or just general improvement to legacy content. The important thing from a business standpoint is that there is heavy use of monetization, particularly of cosmetics, so that the constant drip of New Stuff is associated with a constant drip of continued revenue from existing players.
Is GW doing this? Absolutely. Books like Vigilus and Psychic Awakening are a perfect example. They add new content for existing factions and/or new scenarios to try, and you pay for the privilege. PA in particular added novel mechanics to existing factions, and was tied into adding new models as well, so there was that drive to get New Stuff for your particular faction. Buy the new Chapter Approved to get the new balance updates and missions. Buy the New Stuff to keep playing.
At no point in here is there any concept of a game being 'too balanced', needing deliberate imbalance to keep things fresh. Some companies actually put a lot of time and effort into making their games as balanced as possible- Valve, for example, playtested the hell out of Team Fortress 2 to make every class feel equally useful on launch. But once developers start adding new content, then balance tweaks and even major gameplay changes are needed to make it all fit, as well as improve on things that were deemed acceptable for release but not as fun or interesting as they could be. And problems start to crop up. Ostensibly positive gameplay changes hurt balance. New content renders old content obsolete, or interacts with it in unanticipated ways. The game starts to bloat out of control, and its old virtues of simplicity and balance are usurped by the financial drive to add more New Stuff, despite the best efforts of the developers. Eventually active development ends, the game state is frozen, and they move on to another project- leaving behind a half-broken game and dissatisfied fans. But if it's not a total trainwreck by the end, they'll probably buy the sequel.
Put bluntly: I don't think there's any credibility to the idea that GW deliberately rotates the meta to make people buy things, or that they don't want balance because people would be bored. I am much more inclined to attribute the pendulum swings to a design team struggling to tread water while under the pressure of a business decision to constantly release more, more more New Stuff because that's what makes them more money. Then there's the stupid print media release schedule hanging like an albatross around their necks, to say nothing of the difficulty of gathering reliable data or playtesting a game that may not actually look or play the same in consumers' homes as it does in the studio (see: terrain, and how little of it players tend to use). The question of whether they seek balance or deliberate slight imbalance is ultimately irrelevant, as they can't manage to achieve either under these conditions (though before anyone jumps down my throat about it- yes, they could be doing a lot better than they are). And we're never going to see a balanced state of 9th Ed, because this ends the same way it does for games: A new edition will be released, legacy content will be purged, and the cycle will begin again.
So if we want balance to be sufficiently achievable that 'deliberate imbalance' is even worth discussion, then getting away from the codex creep and the constant cycle of one-upmanship is a basic requirement. The moving target of balance in a changing game state where by the time you get any useful data it's too late to change the next codex is just not reasonable. I think it is possible to simultaneously work towards balance and release New Stuff to keep people excited and keep the game fresh, but that New Stuff has to be primarily additive content- rules for new theaters of war, new campaigns, new Crusade content, new (optional, with opponent's permission) armies of renown, new mission packs, new tournament packs, stuff that you can choose to add on to your game rather than something that forcibly changes your play experience (unless you outright reject the concept of New Stuff altogether). As long as there's a relatively static 'core' game, that's something that can be iterated upon without constantly having to catch up with changes to the game state. That said, if you add new units (let alone factions) mid-edition that's going to shake things up; but at least it would be more controlled and manageable than the current approach of a whole faction's worth of upset every few months plus all the other content.
Why isn't there an eye roll orkmoji?
In case you weren't aware of this, GW has been operating under this exact formulae since beforeFPS games were a thing. Rogue Trader came out & they promptly set about releasing more & more content be it in dedicated 40k books or the pages of WD, changing how the game worked, adding new stuff, and occasionally some errata & FAQs. Some good, some bad, some.... And before RT? They were already doing it with WHFB 1st & 2nd edition. They did not adopt any of this from the video game industry.
catbarf wrote: Of course, as long as people keep buying stuff under the current model, there's no incentive to change.
Oh this again....
{shrugs} Look, as long as they keep making new models that I want & I find the price acceptable they'll keep getting $ from me. However they interpret "Got x$ from CCS."? Not my concern.
I'm sure I'm not alone in this stance.
While not untrue, if you unhook your gaming from the competitive part of the game you can do things to level the playing field like comping poor armies points (or having strong armies take a handicap), engineer missions that give advantages to the weaker army (such as free reinforcements for instance), ect.
I'm not interested in re-balancing the game for GW, to be honest. I'd rather play other games in which I don't have to do that. If I was doing that my efforts would be better spent in, I dunno, developing my own wargame.
ClockworkZion wrote: When you don't lock yourself into strictly playing the GT mission side of the game and embrace the sandbox the game has a lot more options.
Of course, but the core imbalance remains.
I won't dictate how others can have their fun but this refusal to step one foot outside of the strict framework of matched play and try open play or even narrative and make the game fun by giving up a slavish devotion to what is clearly a broken format is a bit baffling to me. It's like getting a whole sandbox to play on but insisting on only playing in the sand that smells like pee.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...I won't dictate how others can have their fun but this refusal to step one foot outside of the strict framework of matched play and try open play or even narrative and make the game fun by giving up a slavish devotion to what is clearly a broken format is a bit baffling to me. It's like getting a whole sandbox to play on but insisting on only playing in the sand that smells like pee.
The fundamental problem with open/narrative play is that they're still using the same Codexes as matched play (stats, special rules, points costs, PL costs, etc., etc.), which means you're subject to the same endless parade of bloat, power creep, and general mess that makes matched play horrible, but then you get told "oh, no, this is narrative, as long as you can make up a good story about why you got tabled in two turns it's all fine!"
ClockworkZion wrote: ...I won't dictate how others can have their fun but this refusal to step one foot outside of the strict framework of matched play and try open play or even narrative and make the game fun by giving up a slavish devotion to what is clearly a broken format is a bit baffling to me. It's like getting a whole sandbox to play on but insisting on only playing in the sand that smells like pee.
The fundamental problem with open/narrative play is that they're still using the same Codexes as matched play (stats, special rules, points costs, PL costs, etc., etc.), which means you're subject to the same endless parade of bloat, power creep, and general mess that makes matched play horrible, but then you get told "oh, no, this is narrative, as long as you can make up a good story about why you got tabled in two turns it's all fine!"
Hell, if Narrative play had a genuine attempt at story telling I'd love to try it.
Sadly "crusades" is the most bland pile of crap I've ever seen. LMAO, one tesla rifle in a squad gets +1 to hit against air units? Feth off.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...I won't dictate how others can have their fun but this refusal to step one foot outside of the strict framework of matched play and try open play or even narrative and make the game fun by giving up a slavish devotion to what is clearly a broken format is a bit baffling to me. It's like getting a whole sandbox to play on but insisting on only playing in the sand that smells like pee.
The fundamental problem with open/narrative play is that they're still using the same Codexes as matched play (stats, special rules, points costs, PL costs, etc., etc.), which means you're subject to the same endless parade of bloat, power creep, and general mess that makes matched play horrible, but then you get told "oh, no, this is narrative, as long as you can make up a good story about why you got tabled in two turns it's all fine!"
Hell, if Narrative play had a genuine attempt at story telling I'd love to try it.
Sadly "crusades" is the most bland pile of crap I've ever seen. LMAO, one tesla rifle in a squad gets +1 to hit against air units? Feth off.
Narrative is about telling your own stories. Crusade is just a tool to allow you to show growth and give you narrative goals to pursue in doing so.
And yes, to respond to AnonmanderRake: it's not perfectly balanced. That was the whole point about doing things beyond just slapping equivalently pointed forces on the table and rolling dice. Narrative play is a system that requires effort to get good stories out of and approaching it like matched play is a mistake.
2022/04/18 06:16:37
Subject: Re:Annd Time of death for 9th is 4/14/2022
IronBob wrote: Perhaps what needs to happen is a deep look at the game along historical contexts. For the life of me the bread and butter of any army was your Basic Soldier and there is nothing to suggest that this will ever change. Foot Soldiers are cheap to train and equip in any army and the most common. They hold ground, defend and attack. If we revert to percentages say 50% of your army is troops then we reduce the elite, fast attack and heavy spam that is prevalent now
Let me think about that for a moment. Hmmm.... Yeah, I'll pass.
Why? Because I've played for years under such/similar restrictions in previous editions. Grew bored of that long ago. The 8e+ detachment system is wonderful. If I WANT to go troop heavy I can. And I do with some of my forces. Other times? If I have an idea/theme/just want to switch it up? All I have to do is spend the CP.
And some things just aren't possible if the Troops slot must be filled. Go ahead, tell me 1) how I'd field a pure Necron Destroyer cult (there are no Destroyer units in the troops section), 2) WHY I shouldn't be able to do this? And BTW? My Destroyers can hold objectives just fine. Even without ObSec.
Hell, even GW figured out that the 3e-7e FoC limitations couldn't accommodate various thematic armies. Such as Deathwing, Ravenwing, bike heavy White Scars, Iyanden, tank companies.... And so they set about making al kinds of exceptions to the force chart by swapping what slots things were in.
PenitentJake wrote: It muddies the water a bit, and I would say THIS update seems to affect other modes of play more than the other updates we've seen so far.
Yup. The local Crusade league immediately adopted it in the middle of their league.
I won't dictate how others can have their fun but this refusal to step one foot outside of the strict framework of matched play and try open play or even narrative and make the game fun by giving up a slavish devotion to what is clearly a broken format is a bit baffling to me. It's like getting a whole sandbox to play on but insisting on only playing in the sand that smells like pee.
No, it's not. The whole sandbox has been pissed in by an incontinent elephant and we're swimming in it, but you're saying if I pump out the urine and replace the sand I can have a sandbox to play in. Or... I can go play in another sandbox.
Narrative is *just* as screwed up as matched play, because the core imbalance is persistent across all game modes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/18 06:30:08
PenitentJake wrote: It muddies the water a bit, and I would say THIS update seems to affect other modes of play more than the other updates we've seen so far.
Yup. The local Crusade league immediately adopted it in the middle of their league.
I won't dictate how others can have their fun but this refusal to step one foot outside of the strict framework of matched play and try open play or even narrative and make the game fun by giving up a slavish devotion to what is clearly a broken format is a bit baffling to me. It's like getting a whole sandbox to play on but insisting on only playing in the sand that smells like pee.
No, it's not. The whole sandbox has been pissed in by an incontinent elephant and we're swimming in it, but you're saying if I pump out the urine and replace the sand I can have a sandbox to play in. Or... I can go play in another sandbox.
Narrative is *just* as screwed up as matched play, because the core imbalance is persistent across all game modes.
Narrative is only as screwed as the rest if you treat it like a strict system and not a toolset and take a step outside of the pee corner.
You know what? I give up. Enjoy your wallowing in your pee sand. I can't convince you, just like I can't convince anyone who has decided that GW's ruleset is an ironclad law on how to play rather than a framework meant to be worked with while you craft the experience to make both players happy instead of just mashing armies into each other to see whose brain is the most wrinkled in the list writing stage.
Narrative is about telling your own stories. Crusade is just a tool to allow you to show growth and give you narrative goals to pursue in doing so.
And yes, to respond to AnonmanderRake: it's not perfectly balanced. That was the whole point about doing things beyond just slapping equivalently pointed forces on the table and rolling dice. Narrative play is a system that requires effort to get good stories out of and approaching it like matched play is a mistake.
Specifically, how do you do this? Because this sounds like a handwave of a solution, and the upthread comment about "how many times can we tell the story of being tabled in 2 turns" becomes very relevant.
