|
Post by Cryptix on Jun 19, 2017 19:48:17 GMT
Chiming in; I routinely walk into random objects, can't tell the difference between one foot and 5, and lack basically every part of spatial awareness. I would not be playing a game without premeasuring Sounds suspiciously similar to my wife ... or ... wait ... Honey, is that you ...? Unless your wife is a 19 year old male....
|
|
|
Post by The Trane on Jun 19, 2017 19:52:29 GMT
Sounds suspiciously similar to my wife ... or ... wait ... Honey, is that you ...? Unless your wife is a 19 year old male.... In Sweden we are very liberal. [/OT]
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Jun 19, 2017 20:02:55 GMT
Chiming in; I routinely walk into random objects, can't tell the difference between one foot and 5, and lack basically every part of spatial awareness. I would not be playing a game without premeasuring Sounds suspiciously similar to my wife ... or ... wait ... Honey, is that you ...? Seriously, I personally like the new rules. To some of the recent commentators, remember that we're still allowed to premeasure. It's the multi-move planning that has disappeared. Comparing to Guild Ball, where premeasurement is free, I feel that it's less of a problem there, as it's a game where you alternate with moving a single model. Planning out several steps largely becomes unnecessary as the game state changes in between – and you risk giving the opponent hints about your tactics. In Warmachine, on the other hand, I find excessive premeasurement just too boring to watch (yes, it's a subjective opinion, as opinions tend to be). Moreover, I agree with the idea of committing and taking some risks that PP seems to want to advocate with this. It's a bit of a cumbersome rule and it will likely need some more polishing, but all in all I think it's good for the game and the feeling when playing it. That said, if someone developed a hex-based wargame of this size (32 mm models, 3'–4' play area) I'd be very interested. It would certainly speed things up even more. The discussion has devolved into arguing whether or not Premeasuring is good/bad/indifferent. We've skewed the topic a bit. Swampist - What's it like watching 3D movies (gogg les/glasses/whatever)? I'd be happy if the 2 proxy limit was a tournament only thing. I feel no obligation to enforce the idea at a local level. But I would get peeved if someone just kept laying out proxy after proxy and deciding he's "got it" because of how he measured before quickly removing everything. I've easily seen the case where a player uses the proxy as a way to legitimize their bad measurement.
|
|
|
Post by Swampmist on Jun 19, 2017 20:21:38 GMT
It has been so long since I've seen one that I couldn't tell you.
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Jun 19, 2017 20:23:03 GMT
Chiming in; I routinely walk into random objects, can't tell the difference between one foot and 5, and lack basically every part of spatial awareness. I would not be playing a game without premeasuring Sounds suspiciously similar to my wife ... or ... wait ... Honey, is that you ...? Seriously, I personally like the new rules. To some of the recent commentators, remember that we're still allowed to premeasure. It's the multi-move planning that has disappeared. Comparing to Guild Ball, where premeasurement is free, I feel that it's less of a problem there, as it's a game where you alternate with moving a single model. Planning out several steps largely becomes unnecessary as the game state changes in between – and you risk giving the opponent hints about your tactics. In Warmachine, on the other hand, I find excessive premeasurement just too boring to watch (yes, it's a subjective opinion, as opinions tend to be). Moreover, I agree with the idea of committing and taking some risks that PP seems to want to advocate with this. It's a bit of a cumbersome rule and it will likely need some more polishing, but all in all I think it's good for the game and the feeling when playing it. That said, if someone developed a hex-based wargame of this size (32 mm models, 3'–4' play area) I'd be very interested. It would certainly speed things up even more. I understand the marker rules, no worries. Bad ideas supported by poor logic are cancerous. I am legitimately concerned for greytemplar's health.
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Jun 19, 2017 20:25:41 GMT
Sounds suspiciously similar to my wife ... or ... wait ... Honey, is that you ...? Seriously, I personally like the new rules. To some of the recent commentators, remember that we're still allowed to premeasure. It's the multi-move planning that has disappeared. Comparing to Guild Ball, where premeasurement is free, I feel that it's less of a problem there, as it's a game where you alternate with moving a single model. Planning out several steps largely becomes unnecessary as the game state changes in between – and you risk giving the opponent hints about your tactics. In Warmachine, on the other hand, I find excessive premeasurement just too boring to watch (yes, it's a subjective opinion, as opinions tend to be). Moreover, I agree with the idea of committing and taking some risks that PP seems to want to advocate with this. It's a bit of a cumbersome rule and it will likely need some more polishing, but all in all I think it's good for the game and the feeling when playing it. That said, if someone developed a hex-based wargame of this size (32 mm models, 3'–4' play area) I'd be very interested. It would certainly speed things up even more. The discussion has devolved into arguing whether or not Premeasuring is good/bad/indifferent. We've skewed the topic a bit. Swampist - What's it like watching 3D movies (gogg les/glasses/whatever)? I'd be happy if the 2 proxy limit was a tournament only thing. I feel no obligation to enforce the idea at a local level. But I would get peeved if someone just kept laying out proxy after proxy and deciding he's "got it" because of how he measured before quickly removing everything. I've easily seen the case where a player uses the proxy as a way to legitimize their bad measurement. I agree, that is markers gone wrong. They should be used to clarify intent as well as a save point for a measurement both players have agreed upon.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Jun 19, 2017 20:38:48 GMT
I understand the marker rules, no worries. Bad ideas supported by poor logic are cancerous. I am legitimately concerned for greytemplar's health. There's a critical flaw in that (not just that you're attacking the person)... That is his experience, his Logic. You cannot tell him how he should change his perception. I don't really recall that he has tried to forcibly change anyone else's. While he has been avidly defending himself with only perceptions. We cannot tell him his perception is wrong. If that's the way he sees the game, that's how it will stay. If I see the game as a poor attempt at copying candy crush, and I believe that wholeheartedly with unwavering commitment. That's how my perception will stay. Now I'm going to use a word because it fits, not trying to imply negative connotations of person involved whom I've never met. Elitism. Some people believe that certain things require a certain prerequisite to partake. In this case Grey believes the skill floor should be high. That's not terrible in itself. It's wanting to have the game be highly challenging. But it does become a skill "gate" when you are intentionally trying to force others out of the "elite" game/hobby/club/whatever. That is where the idea, for or against, is no longer intellectual. It's become detrimental to the game itself. Grey's opinion doesn't impede his own enjoyment but it would impede other's. That is something worth fighting for but Grey doesn't write the rules to the game. So even if he does lean his posts close to malice he's not able to hurt the game or anyone's health. So try to relax and enjoy the back and forth of opinions and try to be cordial. If we all shared the same opinion we'd never get anywhere. (edit: to clarify i know opposing opinions like this do cause stalemates, thus "we get no where". But I meant in a cultural sense. If everyone agreed with slavery, guess what... We'd still be perpetuating that atrocity of fellow human beings.) Grey - please try to consider no one is exactly like another. Everyone is different and they have no obligation to anyone other individual's expectations. We're humans trying to play a game of toy soldiers, with a reasonable amount of accuracy. We've grown out of "i got you", "nuh-uh", "yeah-huh".
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 19, 2017 23:12:30 GMT
False. How is "knowing how far things are away from each other" immediately leading to "knowing the best action"? Seriously, explain the logic to me because I seriously don't get it. Because it immediately eliminates the vast majority of potential outcomes. Making the decision making process far easier. Thus, it dumbs the game down. Instead of having to actually put some skill into deciding what course of actions are possible, and then determining which of those actions would be best. You simply measure what actions are possible(no thinking whatsoever), and then you can just do number crunching to see which is best. Very little skill at all. And don't give me any of this "not everybody can guess distances equally" crap. That's totally false. If you have enough depth perception to actually function enough to even play a game that takes place in three dimensional space, you can learn to guess distances. Anybody who is handicapped enough to not be able to learn how to guess the distances between two points would be handicapped enough to where they literally could not play this game at all, premeasuring or not. *How* does it immediately eliminate the vast majority of potential outcomes? Unless you are talking about just attacking models that are obviously out of range then this opinion makes no sense. The Chess analogy is pretty close to perfect because it shows that even with perfect information you can still make mistakes. Not only that but in Chess there often is a clear single outcome which is better than the others, but due to the possibilities of dice and terrain and other factors that isn't true in Warmachine. Strategies are far more nuanced because there isn't always a best choice. The fact that you think that knowing measurements immediately leads to finding the best choice (which doesn't necessarily exist) is ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Jun 20, 2017 0:14:37 GMT
Because it immediately eliminates the vast majority of potential outcomes. Making the decision making process far easier. Thus, it dumbs the game down. Instead of having to actually put some skill into deciding what course of actions are possible, and then determining which of those actions would be best. You simply measure what actions are possible(no thinking whatsoever), and then you can just do number crunching to see which is best. Very little skill at all. And don't give me any of this "not everybody can guess distances equally" crap. That's totally false. If you have enough depth perception to actually function enough to even play a game that takes place in three dimensional space, you can learn to guess distances. Anybody who is handicapped enough to not be able to learn how to guess the distances between two points would be handicapped enough to where they literally could not play this game at all, premeasuring or not. *How* does it immediately eliminate the vast majority of potential outcomes? Unless you are talking about just attacking models that are obviously out of range then this opinion makes no sense. The Chess analogy is pretty close to perfect because it shows that even with perfect information you can still make mistakes. Not only that but in Chess there often is a clear single outcome which is better than the others, but due to the possibilities of dice and terrain and other factors that isn't true in Warmachine. Strategies are far more nuanced because there isn't always a best choice. The fact that you think that knowing measurements immediately leads to finding the best choice (which doesn't necessarily exist) is ludicrous. Nailed it.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Jun 20, 2017 0:31:27 GMT
*How* does it immediately eliminate the vast majority of potential outcomes? Unless you are talking about just attacking models that are obviously out of range then this opinion makes no sense. The Chess analogy is pretty close to perfect because it shows that even with perfect information you can still make mistakes. Not only that but in Chess there often is a clear single outcome which is better than the others, but due to the possibilities of dice and terrain and other factors that isn't true in Warmachine. Strategies are far more nuanced because there isn't always a best choice. The fact that you think that knowing measurements immediately leads to finding the best choice (which doesn't necessarily exist) is ludicrous. Nailed it. It's only because of premeasure that he had perfect information to come up with the best reply. Sorry. that wasn't nice...
|
|
Nyxu
Overseer
NaCl Elemental
Posts: 119
|
Post by Nyxu on Jun 20, 2017 0:37:08 GMT
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If I were to give you any arbitrary boardstate, assuming you have perfect measurement and can proxy out your potential turns... you're claiming, greytemplar, that you don't actually need to think?
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Jun 20, 2017 0:59:16 GMT
Because it immediately eliminates the vast majority of potential outcomes. Making the decision making process far easier. Thus, it dumbs the game down. Instead of having to actually put some skill into deciding what course of actions are possible, and then determining which of those actions would be best. You simply measure what actions are possible(no thinking whatsoever), and then you can just do number crunching to see which is best. Very little skill at all. And don't give me any of this "not everybody can guess distances equally" crap. That's totally false. If you have enough depth perception to actually function enough to even play a game that takes place in three dimensional space, you can learn to guess distances. Anybody who is handicapped enough to not be able to learn how to guess the distances between two points would be handicapped enough to where they literally could not play this game at all, premeasuring or not. *How* does it immediately eliminate the vast majority of potential outcomes? Unless you are talking about just attacking models that are obviously out of range then this opinion makes no sense. The Chess analogy is pretty close to perfect because it shows that even with perfect information you can still make mistakes. Not only that but in Chess there often is a clear single outcome which is better than the others, but due to the possibilities of dice and terrain and other factors that isn't true in Warmachine. Strategies are far more nuanced because there isn't always a best choice. The fact that you think that knowing measurements immediately leads to finding the best choice (which doesn't necessarily exist) is ludicrous. Of course you can still make mistakes. I suppose I was being a little hyperbolic earlier, but I hope we can all agree that eliminating premeasuring has reduced the skill level of the game. It's just that some people don't like the skill of guessing distances, IMO because they were unwilling to put in the effort needed to develop it, to be relevant to the game. Which is fine for an opinion. But given that uncertain distances has been a fixture of table top gaming since the beginning, it's clearly something important to the genre. It's only been recently that the premeasuring fad appeared, and it was not to the benefit of the games. Sure, more people are playing, but the skill level and complexity of the games has gone down. It's just part of the general trend of making games more "accessible" instead of mentally stimulating. It's not just wargames either. Video games have also suffered from this general trend away from being complex or interesting. I like complex and interesting, and I hate anything that takes away from that. My main point is that IMO, premeasuring has eliminated too much skill. The game needs grey area for the critical thinking to exist, its why the game is enjoyable. Without distances being an uncertain variable, the game becomes less skill based. Too little in my opinion. And that is bad. The main appeal of this game is that it is genuinely a challenge. Taking away any of that challenge is bad. Most people that would get scared away by not being able to measure everything are more likely to have been scared away by any number of other things with the game. The alleged benefits are just not justified by what was lost.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 20, 2017 1:10:55 GMT
It seems a little contrary to your primary point, but I agree.
So, let me get this straight. 1. You designate something as a skill (in this case, learning distances by eye) 2. You then say that skill is important (with no evidence apart from "that is the way it always was") 3. You then lambast people who you believe don't have that skill as being lazy.
You then describe premeasuring as a 'fad' (much like Herders thought agriculture was a fad, or artisans thought machinery was a fad) and then start throwing out buzz words like "less mentally stimulating" without saying *why*.
The challenge from the game should be your opponent, not your own eyes. What has been lost? Tell me an example of what wonderful thing has been lost.
|
|
|
Post by Scrub_of_Menoth on Jun 20, 2017 1:16:22 GMT
Right. As much as I disagree with some of the points made here, let's get the topic back on track. The merits of pre-measuring can be taken to a different thread, and specific disagreements with other forum members can be taken to PMs.
Let's keep the discussion to the final wording of tokens/measurements, etc as per the Insider please.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jun 20, 2017 1:17:30 GMT
Saying that uncertain distances are important to the genre is akin to stating that tie breakers of some sort are important to the genre. Neither is true.
There are minis games that allow you to measure whatever you like, pretty much however you like (though usually not whenever you like, at least). Games that don't allow this, WM/H in particular, often allow for tricks or techniques to reduce or even eliminate this uncertainty. Uncertain distances don't make the game more complex. They just don't. Period. Whether they make it more interesting is a matter if what you find interesting, but it certainly appears a good number of players don't think so.
|
|