|
Post by pangurban on Jul 11, 2017 19:16:42 GMT
Frankly i think this is a good thing. It addresses one of my main issues with themes really taking over the game : that is that themes indirectly contribute to stagnated list building by min-maxing effects. Secondly and actually related is that themes seem to be feast or famine: they are either terrific and the benchmark against what everything else is weighed within that faction, or garbage and almost never used. There's frighteningly little middle man, and the reason for that is the first point i brought up. Either the benefits are easily and egregiously fantastic, or they suck. I can't for the life of me see how this changes either of those two issues in any meaningful way. There'll be a period of trying to break this stuff (CID included), and that'll reveal what can be min/maxed. And though I haven't had a lot of time to try anything out seriously, I haven't really found any way to make bad themes at least mediocre. That might in part be due to a meta where lists built around warping a single strength for all its worth are the order of the day, so eliminating a weakness in a not so good list with a well-placed solo doesn't give it anything to bring it up to the good category, but a) that isn't likely to change soon and b) theme lists contribute significantly to that in the first place. Regardless, unless something is found that conclusively shows this results in actually broken lists I'm sure PP won't back down on this.
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Jul 11, 2017 19:26:39 GMT
So first up i mentioned that i actually really liked Oncomingstorm's points (edit - in fairness, it was in an edit), and after some consideration i agree, i don't think it will do that much for list diversity which is in essence the real problem behind themes. I don't really disagree with anything you wrote, but at the same time, i'll take an incrementally small change to list diversity over none. *shrug* I will be 100% honest, i have not played a game since early June because I really don't like the current state of the game, and i frankly don't really love CID either.
That said, i've been a vocal opponent of themes since their inception, and i see nothing on the horizon that will dissuade me from that. Frankly, it was disappointing to read PPS_Pagani's statement that they want In-theme list building to be the go to thought process for players. I may be 100% incorrect, but my initial impression and take away is that is an admission that Themes are the only way they can conceivably balance an ever widening game is if list building is effectively penned in a lot of the time or constrained by the benefits of "in theme" list building.
While not a perfect analogy, i feel the ever increasing tack towards the game being designed around Themes rather than Themes being designed around the game feels a bit like list-building gerrymandering. Fair being fair, my opinion doesn't really count for much, as i'm no longer buying very much at all, and therefore i am not their target audience.
|
|
|
Post by Morganstern on Jul 11, 2017 19:45:16 GMT
Is it possible that the reason you aren't buying anything is because you aren't enthused by the game. Maybe you should be the target audience.
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Jul 11, 2017 19:57:07 GMT
Heh, to the first yes. I don't like the ever shifting stance of it now, quite frankly it seems like work to keep up with, and the last time i felt like that about the game i took a 15 month break. As to the second... eh, i doubt it. I've bought into multiple factions twice across the life cycle of the game, the first time rising to 5 factions, the second to an embarrassing 7. THere won't be a third mass purchase. I have a small rhulic force i keep for games when my friends want to play because i enjoy how i painted them (aqua / orange scheme), but my disposable income is going elsewhere now (meaning, not even to tabletop gaming ... i find most of the games on the market currently not very intriguing, or if they are intriguing, there's no playgroup for them in my area despite a plethora of stores). I liquidated everything else on arrival of CID. TL;DR - Haight can't be Firetrucking bothered, which is half lack of interest, and half laziness when what little interest he has rears up, like checking a cool forum for a game he doesn't really play anymore, lol. So i am most assuredly not their target audience anymore. Their ideal customer is one that loves themes, is fully engaged with CID, 100% onboard with the transition to a more digital experience. That's three strikes in my book, and i typically play by softball rules. Sprinkle in a strong disagreement with the treatment of their volunteer corps (not to pick at that scab), and yeah, i'm certainly not their target audience. In fairness they are a pretty smart bunch of people. The risk of losing some vets who'd already spent most or all the cash they were going to (.. in my case twice, so i mean, who really won here, haha... spoiler... it was not me!) was a worthwhile one to try to get an additional crop of players into the game. ok that wasn't much of a TLDR.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jul 11, 2017 19:58:35 GMT
We'll see. I think that if the rationale behind this change is what I think it is (Mercs and Minions aren't selling well because of theme forces,) then pointing out that the change won't actually result in greater usage of mercs/minions (except for a few key solos most players already own) might actually provoke a response. The best compromise here would be for each list to get access to a specific subset of minions models they can take, which count towards theme benefits (as appropriate) and are screened so as not to break anything in two. Couple that with some targeted buffs to minions solos to bring them more in line with mercenary solos in terms of attractiveness and options they offer to a list, and you're in much better shape overall than the hot mess they dropped on us yesterday. Haight: loss of vets is NOT a good thing for a company. I recall that about 7 years ago, when I still played GW games, they embarked on a very similar enterprise, because they did the math and realized that their biggest profits came from new players who come in, buy a bunch of stuff, then rarely (if ever) play again. By contrast, vets don't buy as much, they often know where to pick up stuff cheaper/secondhand, and they're not big spenders in general. However, there are a ton of intangible benefits that attach to having an involved community in the store, and scaring away the vets was in large part why GW slumped for a number of years. I don't like seeing PP go down a similar path.
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Jul 11, 2017 20:02:00 GMT
I like your proposed changes. While milling about how i would fix the problem of exacerabation in min-maxing while not actually helping list diversity, i hit on something very similar, which was basically come up with a pool of mercs that are allowed on a per faction or per theme basis add to Theme Point benefits, etc. Per THeme would make more macro sense, but then its really just folding a list of allowable mercs into a theme, whereas per faction ... sorta kinda defeats the purpose. I just with Themes would catch a bullet frankly. I think that would do more to get me playing again than any other single change. I hate how they are this atrocious simulacrum that are the fulcrum the entire development of the game hinges on. oncomingstorm - Oh i know its not a good thing. That said, if they have to lose a customer, its vets they want to lose after they've spend their money and are only buying a trickle per month. Trust me i know loss of vets is bad, but in terms of a choice of evils, better to lose a vet who's spent his cash then a newcomer who has a lot of purchasing miles left to trek. I realize that is very pragmatic / binary, but its the truth if you're the company. Big changes shed customers ; the trick is keeping the ones with a lot of buying left to do. I am not in that category, so losing me as a customer is a lot less of a big deal than a comparative person who is just picking up the game and super duper excited to outlay a bunch of cash on it. The crazy thing is the core rules have never been better in my eyes, yet i like the current state of the game probably almost the least that i ever have. There isn't a competitive format i enjoy anymore, either.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jul 11, 2017 20:22:30 GMT
Oncomingstorm makes some good points, but ultimately I don't think the disparity in overall power between Themes can be addressed with limiting Merc selection.
If we take two extremes of the situation:
1.- On one end you have a game were nobody plays Theme Lists and everybody just takes Faction options plus their Merc options. This is were Mk3 started off and by definition this is were the game should be more balanced. In this situation Merc selection is not on issue, because factions either already have an in-faction solution (Lanyssa vs Druid Wilder for Hunters Mark), will get a solution in a future release (Eilish for example), or aren't design to have said solution available (arc nodes in Khador/Trolls).
2.- On the other extreme, you have a game were everybody plays a Theme Lists for a number of reasons (either because they are that much better than vanilla lists, or because PP made an errata to the core rules that forces you to pic a theme). In this situation, once again, Merc selection should not be the problem because if the first point is true, then the problem originates from adding the Theme layer on top.
It is my opinion that Mercs/Minions should be left as is, and to revisit the Bonuses each Theme provides on top, because as many people have stated Themes are just an easier way to balance the game.
Disclaimer: the only real issue with model availability I have is for factions that DO have an In Faction solution to a problem but are not able to take in In-Theme and there isn't a Merc/Minion replacement for it.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jul 11, 2017 20:28:53 GMT
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Jul 11, 2017 20:32:16 GMT
Good points Ganso. INteresting discussion. I guess that's my gripe. I don't accept the prevalence and domination of themes on how the game develops because balancing the wider, non penned-in game is "too hard". It's admitting defeat. The goal of themes once upon a time was to give bonuses for using collections of models previously usually not used together. It produced some mixed results already mentioned (i.e. - spam as doctrine, power disparity one theme to the next, feast or famine). Those results are now a core focus of the game (i.e. - The Dev Talk where Pagani says something along the lines of they envision In-Theme to be standard list building practice eventually). That to me (likely not their intent) means a soft abandoning of balancing the wider non-theme game. It's a bummer to me. I dunno. I'm chasing the dragon of my halcyon days of Warmachine gaming.
|
|
|
Post by Blargaliscious on Jul 11, 2017 20:47:03 GMT
Could you or someone please copy and post the text of the new wording for those of us who are not on the CID forums?
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jul 11, 2017 20:53:08 GMT
I guess that's my gripe. I don't accept the prevalence and domination of themes on how the game develops because balancing the wider, non penned-in game is "too hard". It's admitting defeat. While in principal I agree with this, ultimately it is an untenable task to attempt to balance a game with a growing SKU count. I have been gaming a long time, and most of that time has been with Collectible games, and the same thing always happens: there comes a time where new releases are impossible to balance against the legacy options. Card Games have it right, they just rotate the old stuff out of the "Standard" play. Even RPGs regularly update their rules and invalidate old splat books. The only miniature game company that has flat out told it's players to forget about the old stuff because they shouldn't be playing with them anymore is GW. Warmachine is nearing it's 15 year anniversary, and the SKU count is getting bigger and bigger year after year. Balancing the new stuff will get harder and harder in a No-Holds bar A la carte list building. So unless we want to see PP discontinue old models with obsolete rules, then grouping and packaging models into easily balance-able discrete Theme Lists packages is the way to go. Disclaimer: I for one would be glad if PP announced a Rotation system in which a subset of the SKU is rotated out of competitive play.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jul 11, 2017 20:55:26 GMT
Could you or someone please copy and post the text of the new wording for those of us who are not on the CID forums? Sure: Storm Division says: "This army can also include one Mercenary solo, Mercenary unit, and Mercenary battle engine. These models/units can be included even if they have the Partisan [Cygnar] special rule. If the Mercenary solo Savio Montero Acosta is included in this army, he is considered to be a Cygnaran model not a Mercenary model." vs Skorne teased theme says: "This army can include any number of Minion units. This army can also include one Minion solo and one Minion battle engine. These models/units can be included even if they have the Partisan [Skorne] special rule."
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jul 11, 2017 20:56:24 GMT
I'm not a vet. I started playing at the end of Mk2 and only bought two boxes (a battle box, and the first all-in-ones had just come out).
I had a lot of purchasing left to do, but I just cleared my wishlist on miniature market because I don't want to throw any more money down the toilet. So they're not just losing vets. In my area, a new player showing up at game night with his battle box under his arm is going to go home disappointed, because there is literally no-one else who wants to play. That can't be good for the health of the game.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jul 11, 2017 21:10:57 GMT
I guess that's my gripe. I don't accept the prevalence and domination of themes on how the game develops because balancing the wider, non penned-in game is "too hard". It's admitting defeat. While in principal I agree with this, ultimately it is an untenable task to attempt to balance a game with a growing SKU count. I have been gaming a long time, and most of that time has been with Collectible games, and the same thing always happens: there comes a time where new releases are impossible to balance against the legacy options. Card Games have it right, they just rotate the old stuff out of the "Standard" play. Even RPGs regularly update their rules and invalidate old splat books. The only miniature game company that has flat out told it's players to forget about the old stuff because they shouldn't be playing with them anymore is GW. Warmachine is nearing it's 15 year anniversary, and the SKU count is getting bigger and bigger year after year. Balancing the new stuff will get harder and harder in a No-Holds bar A la carte list building. So unless we want to see PP discontinue old models with obsolete rules, then grouping and packaging models into easily balance-able discrete Theme Lists packages is the way to go. Disclaimer: I for one would be glad if PP announced a Rotation system in which a subset of the SKU is rotated out of competitive play. Themes could do all they're meant to do without being so good as to eclipse non-themed lists. That's my personal gripe: I see no benefit whatsoever to wanting themes to be the dominant to the point of being the default way of building lists. I don't mind theme forces as a concept, in fact I think they could be good for the game. The current implementation makes that wishful thinking, however.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jul 11, 2017 21:28:31 GMT
Themes could do all they're meant to do without being so good as to eclipse non-themed lists. That's my personal gripe: I see no benefit whatsoever to wanting themes to be the dominant to the point of being the default way of building lists. I don't mind theme forces as a concept, in fact I think they could be good for the game. The current implementation makes that wishful thinking, however. I think I didn't explain my point. PP HAS to push towards Themes because UNLESS they're willing to rotate old stuff out (which I don't think they are, not just yet) balancing around Non-Themes is/will be unmanageable. At least this is my working hypothesis
|
|