Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/02 22:15:31
Subject: Re:Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
[MOD]
Fixture of Dakka
|
Time to simmer down, people. Please remember the rules and do better at following them. Especially #1.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/02 22:15:57
On parle toujours mal quand on n'a rien à dire. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/02 22:17:12
Subject: Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Aecus Decimus wrote:
Not in the part I quoted:
For the record I don't own any Votann models, I don't even own the Codex and I don't play as Votann. I don't play at tournaments either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
"I'm not a squat player, I just make "friendly" army lists that spam their best unit and multiple threads complaining about the fact that it got nerfed."
Everyone believes you.
And I can't believe you are borderline stalking me at this point.
"I can't believe someone looked at my public post history to see that my claims are inconsistent with my past actions."
Given your passionate interest in apologies for insulting comments I assume you'll be very quick to apologize for accusing me of "borderline stalking".
You are going into my posts on Army design in a totally different section of the forum and they don't even prove what you are trying to assert. That gives off stalker vibes.
Btw I haven't looked into any of your post history - because, frankly I don't care. I mean if I look in and find you field a Nid army should I be like " OMG he just wants to keep Nids overpowered!"
And really what you believe doesn't matter. If you think I own the Votann Codex and all the models and play in tournaments that's up to you. It's weird you are committed to this belief but I don't see how I'm going to change your mind.
I don't even own a single model nor have I played one game with them though. If I'm a Votann player, apparently I'm one with no models that doesn't play the faction ever.
I guess just designing armies means I play the faction now. Pretty weird.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ingtaer wrote:
Time to simmer down, people. Please remember the rules and do better at following them. Especially #1.
Agreed. Arguments should be made about the substance of the post, not people's character or perceptions of their motives.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/02 22:20:04
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/02 22:26:21
Subject: Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot
|
Asenion wrote:You are going into my posts on Army design in a totally different section of the forum and they don't even prove what you are trying to assert. That gives off stalker vibes.
It gives off "stalker vibes" because it's inconvenient for your claim that you don't have a personal stake in this debate, nothing more.
If you think I own the Votann Codex and all the models and play in tournaments that's up to you.
I'm well aware that you don't own the land fortress models you wanted to spam, given that they're still up for pre-order and haven't shipped yet. This is one of those things where you're technically telling the truth but doing so in a way that misleads people into believing something you didn't directly say. It was very obvious from the way you talked about those lists that you intended to play them even if the models aren't yet available, and it strongly suggests that your motive for making multiple complaint threads about the squat nerf is that you are frustrated that you didn't get to take full advantage of the list you had planned.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/02 22:31:22
Subject: Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Aecus Decimus wrote:Asenion wrote:You are going into my posts on Army design in a totally different section of the forum and they don't even prove what you are trying to assert. That gives off stalker vibes.
It gives off "stalker vibes" because it's inconvenient for your claim that you don't have a personal stake in this debate, nothing more.
If you think I own the Votann Codex and all the models and play in tournaments that's up to you.
I'm well aware that you don't own the land fortress models you wanted to spam, given that they're still up for pre-order and haven't shipped yet. This is one of those things where you're technically telling the truth but doing so in a way that misleads people into believing something you didn't directly say. It was very obvious from the way you talked about those lists that you intended to play them even if the models aren't yet available, and it strongly suggests that your motive for making multiple complaint threads about the squat nerf is that you are frustrated that you didn't get to take full advantage of the list you had planned.
Can you please stop making accusations and calling me a liar without evidence?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/02 22:34:07
Subject: Re:Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord
|
ingtaer wrote:
Time to simmer down, people. Please remember the rules and do better at following them. Especially #1.
Understood but as someone often involved in these situations please be heavier handed. A reminder clearly isn't curbing behaviour and as long as there is a chunk of the members whose sole content is " GW is gak and if you argue disagree you're an idiot LOL" it'll keep happening. I'll take a ban or suspension if desired because eventually it either has to stop or someone gets driven away anyway.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/02 22:44:49
Subject: Re:Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
[MOD]
Fixture of Dakka
|
Dudeface wrote: ingtaer wrote:
Time to simmer down, people. Please remember the rules and do better at following them. Especially #1.
Understood but as someone often involved in these situations please be heavier handed. A reminder clearly isn't curbing behaviour and as long as there is a chunk of the members whose sole content is " GW is gak and if you argue disagree you're an idiot LOL" it'll keep happening. I'll take a ban or suspension if desired because eventually it either has to stop or someone gets driven away anyway.
Please hit the yellow triangle of friendship on any post that breaks the rules so that a moderator can take a look at it, unfortunately we can not read every post in the forum and so rely on members alerting things.
|
On parle toujours mal quand on n'a rien à dire. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/02 22:46:05
Subject: Re:Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Dudeface wrote: ingtaer wrote:
Time to simmer down, people. Please remember the rules and do better at following them. Especially #1.
Understood but as someone often involved in these situations please be heavier handed. A reminder clearly isn't curbing behaviour and as long as there is a chunk of the members whose sole content is " GW is gak and if you argue disagree you're an idiot LOL" it'll keep happening. I'll take a ban or suspension if desired because eventually it either has to stop or someone gets driven away anyway.
Well one side has been dropping f bombs and accusations without consequences while others like me get in trouble over telling a Wendy's joke because apparently that is "spam" i.e..they said it was for " The Greater Good" that some players fun be sacrificed so that 90 percent can enjoy the game.
My response was " Sir this is a Wendy's" which I felt was a light hearted way of saying - look this is about a product/service. The idea that anyone has to be sacrificed or any sort of greater good logic involving such needs be applied at all is kind of a joke.
Apparently THAT joke was too much and I'm presuming someone reported me. But pages of insults and f bombs and accusations are just fine.
In any case I still think their argument that 90 percent of players can't have any fun unless 10 percent are sacrificed is ridiculous or that any sacrifice of a percentage of the player base is required at all. This is not a real life economic or military situation. There is no reason GW can't make it so the game is fair and everyone is having a good time. If a fast food worker can do it - GW should be able to do it.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/02 23:00:01
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/02 23:01:56
Subject: Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Tyel wrote: vict0988 wrote:You are way overestimating the difficulty. If you have 10-15 lists you want tested that's 30-45 games per faction, you don't need to revise points for every faction every month. Hiring 20 people would absolutely be expensive and wouldn't do a damn thing if they were just playing for fun, what GW needs is structure to their playtesting. Volunteers can absolutely do it, maybe GW shouldn't send the darn finished codex to them and should instead include them WAY earlier in the process so they have influence and cannot leak the thing.
I feel you are underestimating the issues of your method.
Because you are going "30-45 games will identify if this book as written seems overpowered".
I agree with that. I also agree 5 is too low. There are multiple ways of running every codex - and you need to test them into a variety of different armies. Is 3 Hekatons with Pre-nerfed Magna Rail the problem? Is 1 not so bad? What about the other gun options? How does someone spamming basic Hearthkyn feel? What about maxing bikes? Or 30 Hearthguard?
But GW surely don't just want to know something is overpowered, they also have to playtest the fix.
So lets say you have the original Votann codex. You play 30 games, it wins 22 of them, seems very strong and busted.
So lets change points.
But now you would want to test say Beserks at 25, Hearthguard at 40, Hekatons at 250. And Beserks at 30, Hearthguard at 45, Hekatons at 300. And possibly Beserks at 35, Hearthguard at 50, Hekatons at 350 etc. Which means another 90-135 games. The result of which would hopefully inform you where a sensible points level is.
Now I guess you could say "no, this is stupid, its obvious what the correct points are" - but it clearly isn't obvious for GW, hence why they've screwed it up for about 2/3rds of codexes.
And the final (and most important) question is:
How high a pts value actually interferes with sales?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/02 23:30:04
Subject: Re:Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM
|
Asenion wrote:
In any case I still think their argument that 90 percent of players can't have any fun unless 10 percent are sacrificed is ridiculous
That wasn't the argument at all tho..
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/03 00:16:31
Subject: Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Someone did mention the fact that nerfing one faction in order for others to have fun was the most optimal choice. It would not be a problem if GW was the same with all books their write. But somehow in case of some they are willing to pre nerf the books at the level of writing the rule sets, while others are left in an "OP" state for months.
|
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/03 01:39:03
Subject: Re:Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
VladimirHerzog wrote:Asenion wrote:
In any case I still think their argument that 90 percent of players can't have any fun unless 10 percent are sacrificed is ridiculous
That wasn't the argument at all tho..
I did ask it as a question at one point, and they did agree that yes, literally it's better to sacrifice the gaming experience for 10 percent of players so that 90 percent can enjoy the game. I think that's pretty unwarranted to be willing to go to that extreme.
This was in response to their similar claim that it's okay for Votann to be underpowered because if they are OP it ruins the game for everyone else playing as another faction ( I find both claims questionable - one because the game doesn't need to be ruined for anyone - GW has the resources to fix this or at least engage in some basic Alpha Testing with volunteers, and second, I really think it's a bit exaggerated to say that having the Votann or any new faction temporarily OP so that balance changes can be made after even just a couple months testing ruins the game for the majority. The majority of players are not competitive as in tournament level and tournaments can just ban the faction temporarily if there is a serious problem. )
I brought up the 10 percent vs 90 just to see how far they would be willing to go with this reasoning. I like to know where people are honestly coming from so I can get directly to the crux of the issue. So they made one argument and then a separate related argument when queried in a direct manner.
In fact I did see them using numbers like that as hypotheticals before this so part of it was also clarification and they clarified saying yes, ten percent can be sacrificed for the 90 percent. And then tried to justify it using Vulcan logic over a board game. I commented that we don't need Star Trek level logic about making cold, tough choices for what is for most people a hobby they are using to unwind at the end of a hard day. This is supposed to be chips and soda time, not a " who gets the chopping block" time. I joked around about it, and while I don't see how that was wrong ( they weren't personal attack jokes, just more things on how that sounds like Thanos logic ) - I wish that didn't upset whoever reported me that bad as it was not meant to insult anyone. I mean " Sir this is a Wendy's" is pretty light.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/03 01:55:10
Subject: Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Paramount Plague Censer Bearer
|
"We'd rather have one army with a 10% win rate than a 90% win rate."
This is not
"We'd be willing to sacrifice the fun of 10% of people for 90% of people."
And that is not
"90% of players can't have any fun unless 10% are sacrificed."
Notice how each one is more extreme than the last? None of them are the same. Please do not think they are the same.
|
‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
- Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/03 01:57:33
Subject: Re:Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot
|
Asenion wrote:I did ask it as a question at one point, and they did agree that yes, literally it's better to sacrifice the gaming experience for 10 percent of players so that 90 percent can enjoy the game. I think that's pretty unwarranted to be willing to go to that extreme.
But how is it "extreme"? You can't propose a scenario where you either have 10% of the players be unhappy or 90% of the players be unhappy and then complain that people choose the least-worst option of the two instead of a nonexistent third option where nobody is unhappy because the scenario is avoided entirely. The premise of the scenario is that it isn't possible to make everyone happy by doing better design/testing, that pre-release testing has already failed and your choice is to either allow the overpowered codex to dominate or to nerf it.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/03 01:58:19
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/03 01:59:41
Subject: Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
TheBestBucketHead wrote:"We'd rather have one army with a 10% win rate than a 90% win rate."
This is not
"We'd be willing to sacrifice the fun of 10% of people for 90% of people."
And that is not
"90% of players can't have any fun unless 10% are sacrificed."
Notice how each one is more extreme than the last? None of them are the same. Please do not think they are the same.
I made the statement " It is hard to believe anyone would actually suggest we have to sacrifice 10 percent of players for the 90 percent" and they then chose to defend that statement.
I may have introduced it, but they defended it for pages and began making arguments on how this is logical for the greater good.
Nobody forced them to defend that statement. You can try to argue I tricked them or trapped them but they know how to read and they defended that statement exact for several pages.
Btw if I don't respond to certain arguments it's likely because the person is on ignore. I rarely do that but I think having the same person crop up in multiple unrelated threads with the same unpleasant tone warrants this. I'm not naming anyone, just letting you know if I seem to be ignoring an argument you think I should address you might wish to present it yourself.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/11/03 02:04:58
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/03 15:18:28
Subject: Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Asenion wrote: TheBestBucketHead wrote:"We'd rather have one army with a 10% win rate than a 90% win rate."
This is not
"We'd be willing to sacrifice the fun of 10% of people for 90% of people."
And that is not
"90% of players can't have any fun unless 10% are sacrificed."
Notice how each one is more extreme than the last? None of them are the same. Please do not think they are the same.
I made the statement " It is hard to believe anyone would actually suggest we have to sacrifice 10 percent of players for the 90 percent" and they then chose to defend that statement.
I may have introduced it, but they defended it for pages and began making arguments on how this is logical for the greater good.
Nobody forced them to defend that statement. You can try to argue I tricked them or trapped them but they know how to read and they defended that statement exact for several pages.
Btw if I don't respond to certain arguments it's likely because the person is on ignore. I rarely do that but I think having the same person crop up in multiple unrelated threads with the same unpleasant tone warrants this. I'm not naming anyone, just letting you know if I seem to be ignoring an argument you think I should address you might wish to present it yourself.
Now this is absolutely hilarious to come back to and read.....
You propose the hypothetical of a 90/10 Win loss ratio. I say which of those would clearly be the lesser of two evils. Then you twist it around to make it sound as if we want 1/25 of the playable codexes to have a 10% win rate. I even posted "Nobody was advocating for 10% win rates. But if faced with a 10% or 90% a 10% would be healthier for the game... obviously, the goal is between 45-55 as stated multiple times by GW"
The amount of underhandedness you are going through to try to gain internet brownie points is ridiculous. You must be super salty about these nerfs to go to this length to discredit people with a different viewpoint in such a rediculous way.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/03 15:32:37
Subject: Re:Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Asenion wrote: VladimirHerzog wrote:Asenion wrote:
In any case I still think their argument that 90 percent of players can't have any fun unless 10 percent are sacrificed is ridiculous
That wasn't the argument at all tho..
I did ask it as a question at one point, and they did agree that yes, literally it's better to sacrifice the gaming experience for 10 percent of players so that 90 percent can enjoy the game. I think that's pretty unwarranted to be willing to go to that extreme.
Why? Your hypothetical situation is already comedically extreme and unrealistic, so you can't really complain it if produces silly results.
Asenion wrote:
I brought up the 10 percent vs 90 just to see how far they would be willing to go with this reasoning. I like to know where people are honestly coming from so I can get directly to the crux of the issue. So they made one argument and then a separate related argument when queried in a direct manner.
Can you explain what's wrong with the response to your question (actually, I think it was Dudeface that first asked it)? If our only two options are for a faction to have a 90% win rate or a 10% win rate, why is picking the 10% win rate wrong? The logic presented when the question was first asked is sound: better to have one faction's players negatively affected than all but one faction's players negatively affected.
If you want to actually engage with the argument and explain what's wrong with it, I'd be interested to hear your explanation. Bear in mind this was a purely hypothetical scenario, where 90% and 10% were the only options presented.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/03 15:53:30
Subject: Re:Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord
|
Slipspace wrote:Asenion wrote: VladimirHerzog wrote:Asenion wrote:
In any case I still think their argument that 90 percent of players can't have any fun unless 10 percent are sacrificed is ridiculous
That wasn't the argument at all tho..
I did ask it as a question at one point, and they did agree that yes, literally it's better to sacrifice the gaming experience for 10 percent of players so that 90 percent can enjoy the game. I think that's pretty unwarranted to be willing to go to that extreme.
Why? Your hypothetical situation is already comedically extreme and unrealistic, so you can't really complain it if produces silly results.
Asenion wrote:
I brought up the 10 percent vs 90 just to see how far they would be willing to go with this reasoning. I like to know where people are honestly coming from so I can get directly to the crux of the issue. So they made one argument and then a separate related argument when queried in a direct manner.
Can you explain what's wrong with the response to your question (actually, I think it was Dudeface that first asked it)? If our only two options are for a faction to have a 90% win rate or a 10% win rate, why is picking the 10% win rate wrong? The logic presented when the question was first asked is sound: better to have one faction's players negatively affected than all but one faction's players negatively affected.
If you want to actually engage with the argument and explain what's wrong with it, I'd be interested to hear your explanation. Bear in mind this was a purely hypothetical scenario, where 90% and 10% were the only options presented.
I'll chip in my stance a final time just to aid as a summary: the whole thing was in the confines of a 5 round 25+ player event with equal faction spread, going for bare minimums if one player has a 90% win rate 1st place is already decided pretty much. 24/25 players have a 4.2% of playing the "auto win" army, which means that for 79% of the event, nobody is impacted by the presence of the 90% win faction and of the 21% who are, it's one game out of 5. The 10% army is the other way round, last place is a dead certainty, the same ratios and % apply to likelihood of impact. The difference is that it's preferable to play a game you're almost dead certain to win for most players, so there will be a meta-game of people trying to pair into the 10% to boost win rate, although arguably the same might happen with the 90% with people being thrown under the bus.
Both are bad, both twist the outcome of the event, both lead to bad times. Factoring the human element, it's better however for 5 people to have 1 miserable game than 1 person have 5. That is literally the only deciding factor for me. A 10% or 90% army needs to be banned for the sakes of a healthy community in either direction, but forced to pick, I choose wider happiness as people having at least 4 close games is more important than who gets first place.
Obviously this falls apart the second you get out a hypothetical because people generally don't think that way and will swarm to the easy wins.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/03 16:41:27
Subject: Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
1. 90% win rate does not equate close games whatsoever. To think that is just wrong.
2. Nobody has Votaan to begin with, so these hypothetical players don't matter.
3. We have super casual man saying he only plays casual and then posts lists that fish for 6s with the rail weapons, so the whole argument is defunct by them.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/03 16:55:46
Subject: Re:Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!
|
Dudeface wrote:
I'll chip in my stance a final time just to aid as a summary: the whole thing was in the confines of a 5 round 25+ player event with equal faction spread, going for bare minimums if one player has a 90% win rate 1st place is already decided pretty much. 24/25 players have a 4.2% of playing the "auto win" army, which means that for 79% of the event, nobody is impacted by the presence of the 90% win faction and of the 21% who are, it's one game out of 5. The 10% army is the other way round, last place is a dead certainty, the same ratios and % apply to likelihood of impact. The difference is that it's preferable to play a game you're almost dead certain to win for most players, so there will be a meta-game of people trying to pair into the 10% to boost win rate, although arguably the same might happen with the 90% with people being thrown under the bus.
Both are bad, both twist the outcome of the event, both lead to bad times. Factoring the human element, it's better however for 5 people to have 1 miserable game than 1 person have 5. That is literally the only deciding factor for me. A 10% or 90% army needs to be banned for the sakes of a healthy community in either direction, but forced to pick, I choose wider happiness as people having at least 4 close games is more important than who gets first place.
Obviously this falls apart the second you get out a hypothetical because people generally don't think that way and will swarm to the easy wins.
Ah. I was thinking everyone else had a 10% win rate (it's possible if you really REALLY ~REALLY~ force the statistics waaaaaay out of kilter by selectively pairing against the 90% army lol). Thanks for spelling it out. And that is an interesting point: I think it would indeed be better to have 1 bad game for each of 5 people rather than 5 bad games for one person if we are forcing each player to play a certain faction. (If everyone's left to their own devices, presumably the 10% army would have been brought by someone who knows what they're getting into and then the balance of what is better changes a bit...but that's not the scenario we're talking about so it needn't concern us here heh).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/03 16:56:46
Subject: Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
It is physicaly impossible for a faction to reach 90% win rates, because if it was that much better then other faction, in the end rounds, people would be running in to mirror matches and with one person losing and one person winning, it would lower the over all faction win rate.
Just like in sports, the best way to really judge how strong a faction is, first check how many members of it end up in top 8 or top 16, and then over all, what is the avarge for the team, faction or school of round they suffer their first lose. If it even crosses 2, or the avarge is really close to that number the faction is very unbalanced. On the other hand if the first turn avarge for a faction is 1, then the faction is in dire situation and in need of instant help or fix. the only worse situation is if a faction would have an avarge of 0, which would mean it is so bad, that even people that like it and owned it don't bring it to events.
|
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/03 17:09:28
Subject: Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Karol wrote:It is physicaly impossible for a faction to reach 90% win rates, because if it was that much better then other faction, in the end rounds, people would be running in to mirror matches and with one person losing and one person winning, it would lower the over all faction win rate.
Just like in sports, the best way to really judge how strong a faction is, first check how many members of it end up in top 8 or top 16, and then over all, what is the avarge for the team, faction or school of round they suffer their first lose. If it even crosses 2, or the avarge is really close to that number the faction is very unbalanced. On the other hand if the first turn avarge for a faction is 1, then the faction is in dire situation and in need of instant help or fix. the only worse situation is if a faction would have an avarge of 0, which would mean it is so bad, that even people that like it and owned it don't bring it to events.
Mirror matches don't count Karol, you know that.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/03 17:24:47
Subject: Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
If that is a thing in w40k in the west, then I am suprised, because it would really skew the data. Especialy for those times when some factions had +60% win rates. In sports, it is always counted and noticed, when suddenly a school or nation dominates at something.
|
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/03 17:27:28
Subject: Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Karol wrote:If that is a thing in w40k in the west, then I am suprised, because it would really skew the data. Especialy for those times when some factions had +60% win rates. In sports, it is always counted and noticed, when suddenly a school or nation dominates at something.
Mirror matches are more handy for determining internal balance compared to external balance.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/03 17:30:08
Subject: Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I guess the problem is I'm struggling to imagine a scenario where a faction has a 10% win rate* whereas a 90% isn't much of a push from where certain factions have approached.
*I think several weak factions have been pushing 10% win rates into the top faction - but have had a 40-50% rate against other factions lower down the pecking order.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/03 18:00:49
Subject: Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord
|
Tyel wrote:I guess the problem is I'm struggling to imagine a scenario where a faction has a 10% win rate* whereas a 90% isn't much of a push from where certain factions have approached.
*I think several weak factions have been pushing 10% win rates into the top faction - but have had a 40-50% rate against other factions lower down the pecking order.
It shouldn't happen by any stretch but the issue is the herd mentality and human nature means lower win rate armies have lower representation so cause less issues and higher win rate armies have higher than appropriate representation. Humans aren't always, but frequently are egocentric, people value winning over fun over others quite a lot in this hobby as an observation. I know it doesn't apply to all but it's certainly a trend.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/03 20:26:03
Subject: Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
It is a very interesting idea, that somehow winning is not fun. What seems more plausible is that people don't like to not have fun and lose over and over again. Especialy when they have to pay for the hobby, which makes playing a losing army, a bit as if you were paying for other people to have fun with your own money.
|
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/03 20:32:02
Subject: Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought
|
Winning has zero impact on my enjoyment of the game. My existence does not require me to crush my enemies and hear the lamentations of their women.
Some of my best remembered games are when I lost.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/03 20:35:13
Subject: Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
EviscerationPlague wrote:Karol wrote:If that is a thing in w40k in the west, then I am suprised, because it would really skew the data. Especialy for those times when some factions had +60% win rates. In sports, it is always counted and noticed, when suddenly a school or nation dominates at something.
Mirror matches are more handy for determining internal balance compared to external balance.
If you take something like 80%+ represenation of all tyranids are leviathan, pre nerfs, and mirrors leviathan lists win over non leviathan lists that it is telling. Same if lets say pre voidweaver CWE lists are taken from 16-8-4. And one finds out that the armies with more voidweaver not only got higher placments on the avarge, but also won vs armies who had fewer voidweavers. Probably yes.
Problems start when GW tries to hide stuff and tries to explain "marine" win rates with class of players. Yet in the same "marine" bag, there are WS and IH and something like IF/ CF or RG. Or when an army has more then one build at the same time or it is a multi codex soup etc.
Now checking for things, does require to both lists be gathered and then someone going over them, so that is a chore for sure. But it is not like it is impossible. It is not less hard to do then track all players in a team sport. I don't think GW cares about all of those things. They don't care about balance, and their modus operandi of The Hobby enjoyer is to own multiple armies, for multiple games, and play those which ever are most fun at a give time. Good for 30+year old players with free income and 15-20 years of collecting behind them. Not so good for Jimmy the Noob, who decied that GSC is going to be his army of choice. Automatically Appended Next Post: Racerguy180 wrote:Winning has zero impact on my enjoyment of the game. My existence does not require me to crush my enemies and hear the lamentations of their women.
Some of my best remembered games are when I lost.
Now I could write walls of text here, but I will make it easier. First there are hormons, which are very detrimental to your health if you get flooded with them over and over again. And that is more or less what happens to a dude who had the great idea to pick an army like IF as his choice to play in w40k. And then there is thousands of articles about the psychology of losing, experiments regarding wining and losing done on people and animals etc. And if an animal or human loses enough times, then he will not just get depressed and feel bad about it, but sooner or later he will stop playing at all. And not wanting to play at all, is , and this is not my opinion but people who are very smart with PhDs in sports psychology etc, super impactful. In order to not be impactful the person or animal would have to not want to play to begin with, and I think the argument here is limited to the population that actualy wants to play the game. Because yes, if someone has models to paint them, and games exist only for them to do stuff other then actualy playing the game, then yeah a per nerf to Votan and any of its possible repercussions in the future don't matter.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/03 20:42:38
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/04 00:13:40
Subject: Re:Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM
|
feth off Karol, we've told you multiple times before that its possible for us to have fun regardless of the outcome.
I personally would rather lose a close game than win a runaway one.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/11/04 01:03:35
Subject: Votann Nerfed Prematurely
|
 |
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan
Mexico
|
Karol isn't arguing about winning or losing once, but about losing most of the time. And they have a point.
Sure we all have fun in a close game we lost, but I'm guessing most of us didn't have fun in those games we lost and it wasn't even close. And being on the bad side of a losing streak? That can even kill someone's enjoyment of the hobby.
Winning may not be all there is to having fun, but the perception of having a decent chance at winning? Most of us probably want that to have a chance at having fun.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/04 01:05:31
|
|
 |
 |
|