|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Nov 2, 2017 8:43:01 GMT
Just wondering, why is so much energy put in wishthinking about new rules and point values for any given entry? On the one hand we have a thread where everybody says the game is in a great place and superbalanced and whatnot, but on the other hand the forums is very much alive with threads about "fixes" and the ones that actually begin with the question how to make the best with unit X (which is a really usefull question) gets turned into a debate about whether black penny and a point drop wouldn't make him perform at the required level about 3 posts later. I'v been spending time on wargameforums for a long time and while in a way what's happening here is more constructive than the whiny threads Iv seen on a big warhammerforum such as portent, the ammount of it here just strikes me as odd. Is it just the fact that CID is now a thing and everybody is paving the path for when unit X is officially put under scrutiny?
|
|
|
|
Post by darkangeldentist on Nov 2, 2017 9:36:59 GMT
CiD is definitely part of it. When model/unit X feels like something's missing or looks too powerful there is now hope that it can be changed without having to wait for a new edition or errata document. That hope spurs debate over just what changes would be right and suitable which leads to all kinds of tangents and side-discussions over rules and model interactions, which are amongst the most conversational subjects in wargaming anyway. So people are going to talk a lot about models and rules design on top of the more usual tactical & strategic discussions about how to make model X work best on the table.
So long as it doesn't get into doom and gloom rhetoric I don't mind this kind of thing as it does make the forums a more active place. It's depressing when you can see no new posts in a forum between visits.
|
|
|
|
Post by GumbaFish on Nov 2, 2017 11:10:19 GMT
These discussions feel like they have been common to warmachine since before CID. I honestly think because many people play this game because they feel it is a more balanced and competitive option than some other miniature games. This means a lot of people will probably comment on how balanced the game is (because it generally is) but also that people are always interested in things being more balanced.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Nov 2, 2017 18:46:40 GMT
Yeah, I agree.
In general, Warmachine selling point is that is more balanced than most miniature games and rewards skill more than luck.
That attracts players that think balance is a very important factor, and so a lot of discussions revolve around it.
The game itself is pretty balanced, but still not perfectly balanced, so people continue to argue to strive for that utopian "perfect balance".
In general, in a warmachine forum you could find people going crazy about a faction winning 55% of the times, while in other games you could find people saying that if a faction or list wins 85% of the times it's not a problem, since you shouldn't play to have the most competitive list possible, but build "fluffy lists", so if a certain combination is broken isn't that big deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Nov 2, 2017 22:57:07 GMT
People will always complain.
You could have:
1. This is op, this is op and the players are bad for playing it
2. This is op/up, here are some ideas to fix it.
I prefer the second because it makes more meaningful dialogue.
|
|
boozy
Junior Strategist
Posts: 429
|
Post by boozy on Nov 2, 2017 23:30:52 GMT
Aegis hit a crucial point on the head: WMH markets itself as a "balanced" miniature wargame to competitive players. As such, the portions of the community that it draws are more deeply interested in rules interactions and design than fluff elements. Whinging is part of the human condition, theorycraft and design is complaining constructively.
I said elsewhere that I'm surprised these boards don't have a Homebrew section. Tabletop RPG players are well known for creating their own content and testing it. Game design thoughts dovetail neatly into the same niche.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353 
|
Post by wishing on Nov 3, 2017 12:50:36 GMT
Aegis hit a crucial point on the head: WMH markets itself as a "balanced" miniature wargame to competitive players. As such, the portions of the community that it draws are more deeply interested in rules interactions and design than fluff elements. Whinging is part of the human condition, theorycraft and design is complaining constructively. I said elsewhere that I'm surprised these boards don't have a Homebrew section. Tabletop RPG players are well known for creating their own content and testing it. Game design thoughts dovetail neatly into the same niche. I think because of the competitive nature of the main WMH community, the competitive power of each individual card in the game is considered of extreme importance. And when you look at each card from a perspective of "is this strong enough to make the cut into my list?", if you decide "nope, it isn't", it is very easy to leap to a thought of "if it cost one point less, it would be". Which you can then share on the internet. I don't see this as homebrew or creating your own content. +/-1 points cost is not particularly creative. It is simply a mechanical attempt to remedy a perceived underpoweredness. Few WMH players care about the ideas themselves though. They care about what PP actually publish, since these are the only rules that are used. The ideas for -1 points cost are just talking points for discussions about competitiveness, not homebrew. |
|
draycos
Junior Strategist
Posts: 167
|
Post by draycos on Nov 3, 2017 15:20:02 GMT
Another point: The more balanced the game is over all, the more the odd ducks will stick out. Protectorate is an Excellent example. Almost all of our stuff is balanced (especially in faction) and this makes certain sub par models stick out more. *cough* Bastions *cough cough*
|
|
spideredd
Junior Strategist
Summer Gamer
Posts: 588
|
Post by spideredd on Nov 5, 2017 11:15:09 GMT
Another point: The more balanced the game is over all, the more the odd ducks will stick out. Protectorate is an Excellent example. Almost all of our stuff is balanced (especially in faction) and this makes certain sub par models stick out more. *cough* Bastions *cough cough* The new unit that the Protectorate will have soon only makes this more apparent. "What is this new unit?" I hear you ask. Deliverers. They've been a non-entity for so long that their change makes them feel and play like a new unit. I think that everyone is hoping that their lame-duck units will get the Deliverer treatment. Honestly, as long as nothing becomes overpowered, I think it's great. Every unit/solo/jack(or beast) should have a niche. |
|
draycos
Junior Strategist
Posts: 167
|
Post by draycos on Nov 5, 2017 13:12:34 GMT
Another point: The more balanced the game is over all, the more the odd ducks will stick out. Protectorate is an Excellent example. Almost all of our stuff is balanced (especially in faction) and this makes certain sub par models stick out more. *cough* Bastions *cough cough* The new unit that the Protectorate will have soon only makes this more apparent. "What is this new unit?" I hear you ask. Deliverers. They've been a non-entity for so long that their change makes them feel and play like a new unit. I think that everyone is hoping that their lame-duck units will get the Deliverer treatment. Honestly, as long as nothing becomes overpowered, I think it's great. Every unit/solo/jack(or beast) should have a niche. I knew they had changes coming when I wrote this but thinking about it... I probably would have forgotten they even existed they used to be so bad... |
|
Fire Step
Junior Strategist
Everyday I'm Wrastlin'
Posts: 334
|
Post by Fire Step on Nov 5, 2017 14:48:08 GMT
Another point: The more balanced the game is over all, the more the odd ducks will stick out. Protectorate is an Excellent example. Almost all of our stuff is balanced (especially in faction) and this makes certain sub par models stick out more. *cough* Bastions *cough cough* The new unit that the Protectorate will have soon only makes this more apparent. "What is this new unit?" I hear you ask. Deliverers. They've been a non-entity for so long that their change makes them feel and play like a new unit. I think that everyone is hoping that their lame-duck units will get the Deliverer treatment. Honestly, as long as nothing becomes overpowered, I think it's great. Every unit/solo/jack(or beast) should have a niche. Completely agree. Freshening up/tweaking less seen models is the way to really manage a product portfolio, compared to the GW method of outright cancelling/removing profiles. |
|
|
|
Post by Morganstern on Nov 5, 2017 16:00:06 GMT
The new unit that the Protectorate will have soon only makes this more apparent. "What is this new unit?" I hear you ask. Deliverers. They've been a non-entity for so long that their change makes them feel and play like a new unit. I think that everyone is hoping that their lame-duck units will get the Deliverer treatment. Honestly, as long as nothing becomes overpowered, I think it's great. Every unit/solo/jack(or beast) should have a niche. Completely agree. Freshening up/tweaking less seen models is the way to really manage a product portfolio, compared to the GW method of outright cancelling/removing profiles. Except that this is exactly what GW have been doing since the start of 40k 8th edition. |
|
