|
Post by W0lfBane on Aug 1, 2017 4:49:26 GMT
There's getting gud and then there is "having to spend hours tinkering with list creation and optimizing my play against this certain caster/faction" getting gud. One of those is extremely annoying. I'm all for getting gud. But sometimes power level discrepencies rear their ugly head and the difference between what is a power level discrepancy and what needs to be got gud against is hard to distinguish sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 1, 2017 4:50:47 GMT
Which doesn't invalidate my argument. You're talking about stuff that isn't obvious over text. You'd need to really be in-person to show most of those things. Some can be talked about over text, like putting Risen at max command forward instead of back. But other stuff can't really be explained without visuals. Nah, the human imagination is a pretty good thing, turns out. Yes. But using your imagination, and then relying on typing the exact right thing so that the same thing you are imagining gets into another different human's imagination is a stretch. Things like tone don't translate well over text. Something as nebulous as "Imagination" is going to be even worse. Its why its so difficult to write a good book.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 1, 2017 4:53:25 GMT
There's getting gud and then there is "having to spend hours tinkering with list creation and optimizing my play against this certain caster/faction" getting gud. One of those is extremely annoying. I'm all for getting gud. But sometimes power level discrepencies rear their ugly head and the difference between what is a power level discrepancy and what needs to be got gud against is hard to distinguish sometimes. And stuff like that is easier to discuss, since it's more quantifiable. It's easier to talk about and help when the problem is "X is good against Y if you use it like this" then if the problem is "You need to use X better".
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Aug 1, 2017 5:01:23 GMT
Nah, the human imagination is a pretty good thing, turns out. Yes. But using your imagination, and then relying on typing the exact right thing so that the same thing you are imagining gets into another different human's imagination is a stretch. Things like tone don't translate well over text. Something as nebulous as "Imagination" is going to be even worse. Its why its so difficult to write a good book. It really isn't that hard. Check out the output of human creations pre and post language. They didn't even have cameras. The information conveyed doesn't need to be perfect, just enough to allow the brain on the other side to understand the shape of what you are saying. Teachers do this a lot.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Aug 1, 2017 5:02:24 GMT
There's getting gud and then there is "having to spend hours tinkering with list creation and optimizing my play against this certain caster/faction" getting gud. One of those is extremely annoying. I'm all for getting gud. But sometimes power level discrepencies rear their ugly head and the difference between what is a power level discrepancy and what needs to be got gud against is hard to distinguish sometimes. And stuff like that is easier to discuss, since it's more quantifiable. It's easier to talk about and help when the problem is "X is good against Y if you use it like this" then if the problem is "You need to use X better". Easier to talk about doesn't mean it's better. All the fully sick tech in the world doesn't work when played badly.
|
|
|
Post by The Trane on Aug 1, 2017 5:50:45 GMT
Interesting that two strategizing tips, rather easily described in words, made it into this discussion (placing the risen and using countercharge). I think a lot more could be done on strategizing. Mainly being on the receiving end when it comes to advice, I sometimes feel I could use an explanation (use unit x with caster y – ok but why?). On the other hand, those asking questions (including me) could be better at adding that "how" question.
I don't think the medium is the issue. Referring to batreps on youtube for instance rarely helps, as they really don't discuss their tactics in-depth (Advanced Maneuvers come close though). But words will often suffice. More difficult things than these have been conveyed through text ....
(But I guess I'm a bit biased as I actually do write for a living ...)
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on Aug 1, 2017 7:33:49 GMT
I think the point people are making about Ghost Fleet is not that it is this broken unbeatable list, but that unless you have planned an answer for it you will just get rolled hard, personally I don't have a problem with lists that mean their existence demand a specific answer, I think it is unavoidable so just don't worry about it. But I can see how some people feel like their list making decisions are being dictated by a couple of lists, and that they would resent that. What I'd like is that if you don't have a specific counter for something a list does, the matchup is harder. But unfortunately, the best lists in WMH also tend to be the least interactive, where unless you can answer a specific question or do an even less interactive skew, you didn't need to show up. Una2 was a perfect example pre-nerf--no amount of ZOMGtactics! would help you, you either had the highly specific counters needed to interact with the list, or gg.
|
|
marke
Junior Strategist
Posts: 187
|
Post by marke on Aug 1, 2017 7:35:01 GMT
So, you say that Moorhouse's opponent willingly gave Moorhouse the high probability assasination and banked on him failing two boosted 7s? If the strategy in this game is so obivious, why are top players consistenly winning tournaments or playing X-1? Dice do happen and can decide the outcome of a game, sure, but they are not everything. That WTC game was during MK2 where pre-measuring wasn't allowed. In MK3 both you and your opponent know if assassination can be made, and it can be measured exactly. If you would've read my previous posts instead of just jumping into a discussion without much idea what we're talking about, you would've realized I simply argued dice are playing a relatively big role within a course of a single game in certain level of gameplay. I didn't say or imply anything absolute. Nope: www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhzSFRi4ObQ
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Aug 1, 2017 7:35:30 GMT
There's getting gud and then there is "having to spend hours tinkering with list creation and optimizing my play against this certain caster/faction" getting gud. One of those is extremely annoying. I'm all for getting gud. But sometimes power level discrepencies rear their ugly head and the difference between what is a power level discrepancy and what needs to be got gud against is hard to distinguish sometimes. I completely agree with this sentiment. Distinguishing between "my list is bad" and "I'm bad" can be difficult at times. But I have found that for the vast majority of situations assuming that it is me that needs more work is probably the right call. Something you often hear in podcasts is the notion of "getting reps", i.e. getting more games in, players like Tim Banky even goes as far as saying that you need to get at least 10 games in with a list before considering changes (generously paraphrasing here).
|
|
marke
Junior Strategist
Posts: 187
|
Post by marke on Aug 1, 2017 7:44:55 GMT
And yet Australia has repeatedly and consistently performed well in every WTC it has attended, the worst performance by a looooong shot being my team at last year's WTC languishing at 22nd or 23rd or something. And, well, we always knew we were the C-listers Us aside, that's a pretty small sample size with remarkably consistent performance. I'd expect to see a mite more variation in results over the years if the games were being decided by random luck, but those games seem to be very much the exception rather than the rule. Sigh.. Oh well, I guess I simply can't get my point through. I already said WM/H is a good vessel for measuring player skill, but it could be better over the course of a single game. I also said within multiple games it evens out nicely.
|
|
|
Post by celeb on Aug 1, 2017 7:54:26 GMT
Well, it is true that a single game isn't a perfect measure of skill. Dice can happen in a single game. But that is true for all games. Even in chess, where no randomness is involved, multiple games are played due to white having a small advantage. There is also a reason why in e-sports the games are always a Best-of X series, because single games are not always representative of player skill. Unfortunately, best-of series are not really viable in Warmachine due to the long playtime and the game "only" being a hobby and therefore tournaments can't last a week or so.
Still, I think the measurment of skill even in a single game is good enough to count Warmachine as a great competetive game. The better player will still usually win.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Aug 1, 2017 12:52:42 GMT
So I feel I'd like to comment on some post and then I'll comment directly to the topic.
@comments - WMH is a technical game. Explaining things over text without everyone involved having (roughly) the same experience really hampers the comprehension of the advice given. I've never played against ghost fleet. So all I have is the words of others and my own theories. For someone to explain how to beat it I can only take their words at face value and can only be skeptical of how things should go. Thus it does make it more difficult to put those words into action on the table. Not impossible. But if I had previous experience with GF I would innately understand the advice better as I would have directly experienced the situation before.
Now, my wife plays Circle. There are players out there that do very well with the faction. I can theory craft all day long with her. But it absolutely never seems to work out the way it's intended or how others have found success. I can speak with her in person and I still have trouble conveying what I mean for her to learn or do. Because she has a different experience frame work than I do. So even in the best case scenario it can be hard to explain how to play this game.
@post - I cannot tell you how many threads show up as "how to defeat x/y/z". I myself have even fallen to the fault trying to ask what the heck Legion could do to deal with Karchev as I'd play tested it half a dozen times at home to no avail. I don't mind this in the least. It's a good way to make a focused discussion on a good topic and flesh out tactics and get multiple points of view. My problem I find is that people seem to follow the herd a bit more than I like. My Karchev thread was immediately answered with "Fyanna is our best option". Another thread the other day the same exact "fyanna is our best option" cropped up. When blatantly she is not. Just because she's popular in tournaments because no one is dedicating effort towards countering her does not make her the key to every lock. I can understand that, for the specific topic, you bring up a caster (meta avatar or not) and then explain why and with what models it would succeed. But just leaving a one line "X is the best, play that" gets under my skin. I cannot for the life of me convince people of the capability of Kryssa. I've Championed her since the start and have found tons of fun tactics and eventually plenty of success. But she's not the flavor of the month, which is what people gravitate towards. No fault of the model, the game, or the people. What's good is good for a time; play it and enjoy until someone gets tired and starts countering it. But DO NOT take a single model as a blanket answer to everything and just tell people to play it and ignore everything else because "Tournaments".
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Aug 1, 2017 12:56:14 GMT
Which doesn't invalidate my argument. You're talking about stuff that isn't obvious over text. You'd need to really be in-person to show most of those things. Some can be talked about over text, like putting Risen at max command forward instead of back. But other stuff can't really be explained without visuals. Nah, the human imagination is a pretty good thing, turns out. Thing is, I can't see what you're seeing in your imagination. So if I explain something and you tell me you understand but you actually don't and will be trying something slightly but meaningfully different, things are not copacetic.
|
|
|
Post by Azahul on Aug 1, 2017 13:08:14 GMT
Sigh.. Oh well, I guess I simply can't get my point through. I already said WM/H is a good vessel for measuring player skill, but it could be better over the course of a single game. I also said within multiple games it evens out nicely. See, I thought that's what you were trying to say, but I kind of disregarded it because it's a weird thing to say in the first place and doesn't really mean anything. Your point to Moops' game at the WTC as an example was citing a 1/100 event. I understand that randomisation is a spectrum and that some games are more or less random than others, but most games with any element of random chance will have 1/100 upsets. If you reduce your sample size to one, and then cherry pick which of those "ones" you use, then any game with randomisation mechanics looks like dice influence it heavily. That's why we usually look at larger sample sizes. I would find it far easier to find games that weren't decided by dice, but rather by positioning and target prioritisation, if I wanted to go through my battle report history and cherry pick random single games to hold up as the definitive Warmachine experience.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Aug 1, 2017 14:37:12 GMT
Nah, the human imagination is a pretty good thing, turns out. Thing is, I can't see what you're seeing in your imagination. So if I explain something and you tell me you understand but you actually don't and will be trying something slightly but meaningfully different, things are not copacetic. And yet human society has marched onwards.
|
|