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.
Deadnight wrote: 'I want better balance' will mean whatever is provided will always fall short and 'good enough' balance is always suspiciously vague but when pressed, there is often so little daylight between it the 'perfect balance' folks acknowledge as impossible that they might as well be the same thing. Also of note that the game will never be 'good enough' as is.
Bull. People are generally pretty forthright about "45-55% win rate" when they talk about ideal balance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nomeny wrote: A perfectly balanced game is just a 50/50 coin flip.
Only because your brain has been cooked by GW-style gameplay where there aren't important decisions to make on the table or a way to outwit your opponent.
In a lot of other games, "balance" means the player who plays better that day will win.
I watched the video. Very interesting.
If GW does indeed take this approach, I think it has merit, but they are still flopping at it.
For one, why aren't all codices released at the same time? This tells me they are making the rules up AS THEY GO, (which is either true or becomes self-fulfilling because, for many editions now, they have been injecting new sweeping rules before all of them are even out yet. WHAT. THE. F-CK?)
tneva82 wrote: Why would they? You think they want to lose profits?
Anecdotally, they lose more money from people leaving the game due to the awful state of the rules than they gain from the whales who buy every new meta army. The last time the rules were in this bad of a state, Warhammer dropped completely out of top 5 miniatures games and 40k lost the top spot for the first time ever. Warmahordes and Xwing were more popular than 40k/WFB for a couple years. GW got those people back with 8th index edition which was balanced and cheap to get into because every army didn't have their rules split into 3-5 different places. Those same people are leaving again due to the balance for the last 6-8 months.
The thing is that you can 'leave' the game without leaving the hobby. I collect GW models, I paint them, I like reading the novels. The game isn't really necessary.
The concept of 'perfect imbalance' doesn't mean that a balanced game inevitably comes down to a coin toss, with player skill rendered totally irrelevant. It means cultivating a rotating set of imbalances to force players to constantly play catch-up rather than settle into optimal strategies. Chess, the given example of a 'solved' game that 'perfect imbalance' is contrasted against, is very obviously not a game where the outcome is totally random.
But also, this idea of 'perfect imbalance' is not anywhere near as widely accepted as he makes it out to be. Portnoy has no relevant industry experience (or at least did as of when that video was published- it's been a while), and people in the comments rightly criticize his use of League of Legends as an example. He's also wrong in identifying imbalance as the cause of an evolving meta, because it's change that prevents 'solving' the game that matters. You can have a game that is constantly adding new content or changing existing content, that maintains a state of balance, while still providing the churn that prevents optimal strategies from metastasizing into a solved game.
In any case, I'm not sure how you watched the video and came to the conclusion that 'a perfectly balanced game is just a 50/50 coin flip', because that's not even remotely implied. A perfectly balanced game and a perfectly solved game are two very different things; a solved game where both players employ optimal strategies (like chess plays or Starcraft build orders) may come down solely to random chance if both players play perfectly. A balanced game that is not solved, where players have to make decisions that express player skill, will not.
And the more balanced a game is, the harder it is to solve, as meta lists (ie solutions) only pop up whenever imbalance is significant. An imbalanced 40K gives us SM2.0 Iron Hands. A balanced 40K gives us a plethora of tournament-viable lists that prevent it from stagnating through sheer complexity of interactions, even without the drip-feed of new content.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2022/06/03 21:36:56
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea I don't know what other people are experiencing, but I'm having a blast with competitive 40K ( there was a shaky period there before the dataslate ).
Am I going to be a world champ and take down Tyranids at a major? Nope, but I will have tons of fun trying.
my main gripe with Competitive 40k is that its soo fething boring. Every game is basically the same and listbuilding has too much of an impact.
"Ok so i play thousand sons, i get 15 from TTL on my termies and characters, if they bring a psyker i get 15 from WoM, then i can do engage because i'm playing duplicity with crystal"
People tend to play the lists closest to what they think is powerful.
My recent test games have been with Magnus and Mutation -- screwing with mobility. My games play way differently than the prototypical 20 scarab stuff. I do find stuff like 4 knights or armies that have little diversity more boring to play with and against.
We'd have to spend a really long time discussing how to determine if something is balanced.
Someone who isn't very good might think the game is less balanced than it might be. For me I might consider it closed to balanced if there's simply a diverse set of armies at top tables and that there's diversity among lists. There shouldn't be any one or two armies dominating the rankings unless they're overrepresented.
Knights don't seem to have knocked the table over so a few taps with the CA in a couple weeks could put things in a "good enough" spot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: i get 15 from TTL on my termies and characters, if they bring a psyker i get 15 from WoM, then i can do engage because i'm playing duplicity with crystal"
So it looks like TTL and Stranglehold are gone from the new mission set. If it's true I think it could be good since those were a little too binary.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/06/04 05:44:36
So 3rd Ed. 40K with the rulebook army lists? Same with 6th Ed. WFB with Ravening Hordes.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Just_Breathe wrote: Playing my best game ever and still losing handily to fething Tyranids is going to hang the gloves up for a while.
Garbage.
Not to have a go at you or kick a dog when its down, but just because you've played your best game doesn't mean you've played well. If you're a bad player, your best game could still be worse than your opponents worst game if they happen to be a very good player.
I'll have to say that it shocked me that it took 2 pages to get to "Git Gud"...
I wouldn't call it a "git gud" per se. The game in unbalanced and nids are broken, no question about it - but that doesn't mean that you can't arrive at the correct conclusion by way of incorrect data
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
chaos0xomega wrote: I wouldn't call it a "git gud" per se. The game in unbalanced and nids are broken, no question about it - but that doesn't mean that you can't arrive at the correct conclusion by way of incorrect data
Do you think it is possible to have a game of 40k and when you ask "how could I have played better" the answer would be "bring a better army"?
chaos0xomega wrote: I wouldn't call it a "git gud" per se. The game in unbalanced and nids are broken, no question about it - but that doesn't mean that you can't arrive at the correct conclusion by way of incorrect data
I could have gone into more detail.
But nobody wants to hear that sh-t.
I play A LOT of competitive games. I usually lost to Tyranids by t2, before they were nerfed, with mistakes to boot. This time I made zero mistakes, got good dice rolls, and still completely lost the Primary game by turn 3.
Don't be that guy.
I'm not lying.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/06/04 15:54:27
chaos0xomega wrote: I wouldn't call it a "git gud" per se. The game in unbalanced and nids are broken, no question about it - but that doesn't mean that you can't arrive at the correct conclusion by way of incorrect data
Do you think it is possible to have a game of 40k and when you ask "how could I have played better" the answer would be "bring a better army"?
Oh absolutely. I got that answer on several occasions playing Militarum Tempestus into basically every army released in 9th through to Custodes. Thats why I'm maining Thousand Sons and Chaos Knights now lol
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
GW has made it their business model to break the game every few months with a new codex, so the power gamers will go out and at the very least buy the new codex.
johnpjones1775 wrote: GW has made it their business model to break the game every few months with a new codex, so the power gamers will go out and at the very least buy the new codex.
That's true in practice, but I doubt that's their intent.
To imply otherwise would mean that GW are malicious, and I don't think they are capable of such a thing. That would require too much forethought.
I wonder why they suddenly forgot how to make good fur or hair. GW was never very good with faces, aside for maybe WFB elf models, but they always made good looking hair and fur. The new models they make for w40k, necromunda and even AoS are attrocious to a pont where having stuff without helmets is a very bad idea for some armies.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
GW could balance the game quite easily. That's what points are for. All they need to do is an in-depth MFM that addresses every faction and nearly every unit in those factions.
One massive problem is point compression at the floor. If Gretchins are suppose to represent a 5 point model, then everything should be based off that cost.
Say for example, look at the massive difference between 5 and 6 point models. 5 and 7 point models. 5 an 8 point models. Etc. GW needs to push model costs up. Such as:
- Gretchin 5 points
- Conscripts and Cultists 6 points
- Guardsmen and Neophytes 7 points
45-55% is the sweet spot.
But even then people would still complain, as they lose more than 55% of the times against certain factions.
45-55% is for the overall winrate, if you consistently play vs the few factions you struggle a lot with, it's perfectly fine to lose more often than not.
But that is because just being a troop option or cheap, doesn't mean that GW had plans for the specific unit to be core of the army. With orks for example the boys or grots don't have the rules or point costs for ork players to want to run them. If any infantry is taken, it is/was the specialists, commandos, trukk boys etc The basic ork in 9th, at least when the codex was efficient, had the form of a buggy and a flyer.
On top of that GW has point costs glued up, if they are shared by different books. A unit or gear may have totaly different jobs in two different armies, but GW will keep the cost the same. And then we get such gems as 20pts strikes with 1W and csm with 1W for 2 years of 9th.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Nomeny wrote: The thing is that you can 'leave' the game without leaving the hobby. I collect GW models, I paint them, I like reading the novels. The game isn't really necessary.
Theres even free alternatives that let you use your GW minis are they are to play a much better game. Yes, i'll keep shilling for OnePageRules
So it looks like TTL and Stranglehold are gone from the new mission set. If it's true I think it could be good since those were a little too binary.
are they? I stopped paying attention to GT stuff since tempest of war came out. Thats a good news, hopefully theres some new stuff overall because it feels like half the secondaries are (almost) unplayable
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/06 12:36:59
Jarms48 wrote: GW could balance the game quite easily. That's what points are for. All they need to do is an in-depth MFM that addresses every faction and nearly every unit in those factions.
One massive problem is point compression at the floor. If Gretchins are suppose to represent a 5 point model, then everything should be based off that cost.
Say for example, look at the massive difference between 5 and 6 point models. 5 and 7 point models. 5 an 8 point models. Etc. GW needs to push model costs up. Such as:
- Gretchin 5 points
- Conscripts and Cultists 6 points
- Guardsmen and Neophytes 7 points
Then keep pushing things up from there.
It gets way more difficult than that. Not all armies have parity of units. Not all armies have the same support characters. Marines generally can't compete on bodies and have to compete elsewhere.
If you also imagine a marine unit with an absurd gun with a million shots. Then an Ork gun with two million shots. The marine gun will be far more effective with access to reroll hits/wounds and increased AP.
They should definitely double the points for more granularity though.
Jarms48 wrote: GW could balance the game quite easily. That's what points are for.
The implication here is that adjusting points is the only mechanism needed for balance. Things would be a lot easier if that were true.
Design can make certain units or factions difficult or impossible to balance. Combos that punch well above their weight, for example, make it hard to appropriate cost the constituent pieces. Buffs like support units and free subfaction bonuses have a major impact on the utility of a unit. And you can very well end up with a codex where if you take the tippy-top competitive list it's reasonably balanced against other optimal competitive lists, but the balance is completely out of whack for more casual play. There are also design-based limitations on points adjustment- GW's insistence on having universal costs for wargear means that it may be impossible to set a cost for a weapon that is appropriate for every platform it can be taken on.
I'm hardly an apologist for GW's rules-writing but if achieving decent balance were as easy as reworking points, GW would probably have managed it by now. Design change has to go into it as well and that's a much taller order, particularly while they're also beholden to the obsolete distribution limitations of print media.
Jarms48 wrote: GW could balance the game quite easily. That's what points are for.
The implication here is that adjusting points is the only mechanism needed for balance. Things would be a lot easier if that were true.
Design can make certain units or factions difficult or impossible to balance. Combos that punch well above their weight, for example, make it hard to appropriate cost the constituent pieces. Buffs like support units and free subfaction bonuses have a major impact on the utility of a unit. And you can very well end up with a codex where if you take the tippy-top competitive list it's reasonably balanced against other optimal competitive lists, but the balance is completely out of whack for more casual play. There are also design-based limitations on points adjustment- GW's insistence on having universal costs for wargear means that it may be impossible to set a cost for a weapon that is appropriate for every platform it can be taken on.
I'm hardly an apologist for GW's rules-writing but if achieving decent balance were as easy as reworking points, GW would probably have managed it by now. Design change has to go into it as well and that's a much taller order, particularly while they're also beholden to the obsolete distribution limitations of print media.
I think a new game edition should release when the design team has enough ideas and improvements to put a new and improved game out if they are beholden to not having a living game.
Unfortunately it seems marketing decides the release schedule alone.
Karol wrote: I wonder why they suddenly forgot how to make good fur or hair. GW was never very good with faces, aside for maybe WFB elf models, but they always made good looking hair and fur. The new models they make for w40k, necromunda and even AoS are attrocious to a pont where having stuff without helmets is a very bad idea for some armies.
Very likely because their plastic models are all designed for rigid steel moulds, and possibly only 2 part steel moulds. When they were casting pewter from silicone or another soft substance, they could do things with hair that would be impossible to do now.
Here are the win rates for Blood Bowl teams from the NAF (sorry for the formatting from copying/pasting). Except for most of the Tier 3 "stunty" teams (ex. Halflings, Goblins, etc.) which everyone playing the game knows are a challenge to play, the win percentages for the rest of the teams range from approximately 45% to 55%. That's quite good and what I consider to be a "balanced" game.
https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=statistics
Edit: But I do not credit GW for the balance of Blood Bowl. The game was in the hands of the fans for many years, after GW abandoned it, who kept it alive and made updates to a "Living Rulebook" to create a more balanced ruleset. GW adopted that ruleset for its 2016 re-release, and only made relatively minor tweaks to the rules for the 2020 rules (which are quite good overall in my opinion).
The implication here is that adjusting points is the only mechanism needed for balance. Things would be a lot easier if that were true.
Design can make certain units or factions difficult or impossible to balance. Combos that punch well above their weight, for example, make it hard to appropriate cost the constituent pieces. Buffs like support units and free subfaction bonuses have a major impact on the utility of a unit. And you can very well end up with a codex where if you take the tippy-top competitive list it's reasonably balanced against other optimal competitive lists, but the balance is completely out of whack for more casual play. There are also design-based limitations on points adjustment- GW's insistence on having universal costs for wargear means that it may be impossible to set a cost for a weapon that is appropriate for every platform it can be taken on.
I'm hardly an apologist for GW's rules-writing but if achieving decent balance were as easy as reworking points, GW would probably have managed it by now. Design change has to go into it as well and that's a much taller order, particularly while they're also beholden to the obsolete distribution limitations of print media.
Better to make an attempt than no attempt at all. If you rebalance all the points for every faction at once it'll be more balanced than the game is now. Then just closely watch the meta and see what's working and what's not working. Then make smaller adjustments from there.
It's not perfect, but it's the easiest process to do until the new edition drops.
They already did, its called Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game, check it out! The specialist games in general seem to have tighter rule sets, meanwhile 40k and AoS exist to sell models, which requires imbalance.
Or if you really want to play 40k, find like minded casual people. Once you move away for the comp list crowd, the game can still be a lot of fun, regardless of the current meta.
