crimsyn
Junior Strategist
Posts: 389
|
Post by crimsyn on Dec 10, 2018 17:56:49 GMT
I think my biggest problem with CoI is that it is a skirmish game that wasn't really designed as a skirmish game. The biggest example of this is in building an army; trying to build a 20 or 25 point list when you are constrained in having to take entire minimum or maximum units can be maddening. If each individual model had a point cost, you could make more interesting and unique companies. However, as it is, if you want to take something like a MoW Bombardier, you can't just take one and even a min unit without UA is like half your points. I think list building would have been much better if they just gave every individual model a point cost and did away with units (UAs could just affect all relevant models in an aura). However, I feel like they ended up sticking a little too close to WMH rules.
Second, it's not good as an entry drug for WMH because it is basically WMH rules, plus cards, and changed up just enough to be confusing.
Finally, for existing players of WMH, because it doesn't have warcasters or warlocks, it ends up basically being WMH without the really cool parts of WMH.
So, I personally find for all these reasons, it's kind of meh. If I'm in the mood for WMH, I'd rather play WMH. If I'm in the mood for a skirmish game, I'd rather play Necromunda.
|
|
|
Post by anderfreak on Dec 10, 2018 18:46:14 GMT
The equivalent in warmachine would be putting your Heavies on small bases, except condoned by the rulebook. not really since the card tells you what base youre required to put the mini on. there isnt much changing that.if it was in a tournament he'd be called out as soon as he put the mini down for cheating. in 40k there arent clear cut rules like that. hence the modification of minis to game the rules That's literally what I said.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Dec 10, 2018 22:22:04 GMT
Wow this is a long thread. Offering up the following A) Like a lot of firms in a lot of industries PP suffers from the problem of not FULLY embracing what its core customers want. It is CLEAR that PP caters to the gamers (and I am not even sure that is the right term) that want a competitive game. Why I saw "not sure" is that I know a fair number of WM/Hs players who _ONLY_ play WM/H as their "game". Oh they might take up a board game from time to time but they are not going to random board game night or FFM or dabbling in casuals. They play WM for a variety of reasons but it akin to the reason that people play competitive chess - to win and to test one's mental abilities. B) Embracing this would include, for example, rankings, ladders, etc. etc. Tournaments and SR would likely be seeded. There could be divisions. Lots of things to embrace the fact that it is competitive, some folks are better than others and that playing "up" is not always fun and enjoyable for people (or one might also say "down").
We always hear the "competitive vs. casual" debate. But I don't buy that. For a "casual" game WM/H is not that fun. It doesn't HAVE those moments where the whole table laughs at the ridiculousness of it. It is VERY expensive (probably costing several hundred dollars for 150 points - when most would say you need a minimum of 300 to adapt to changing meta conditions). It has way too many rules. It isn't over the top fluffy (see Orks).
Instead I think that debate is between "advanced" and "beginner/intermediate" players. Advanced want a very tight game played tightly at the highest level with as much balance as possible (but even better advantages to the factions they own). B/I want something where they can be competitive with what they have - against other players that make mistakes (and trust me, mistakes is relatively since even the highest level play forgets something - see paragraph above).
On the business side I think PP suffers from Matt Wilson's desire to make movies. I heard from a high source that is the reason he is in LA. It is why he holds close the IP and Fluff. He is, in the end, an artist whose background was in art for magic cards. You then add on Soles who is I think a great game designer but not, I think, a business guy....and a CEO who tries to keep the kittens in line. I think that the best thing for PP would be for it to get sold because hopefully someone (Fantasy Flight? WOC?) that understood the economics of games would come in and really think through the overall business strategy - rather than what seems to be the strategy of using power creep in CIDs and New faction releases to grow revenue. That is NOT a winning long term strategy (and I say this with WAY too much money into this game)
|
|
granor
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by granor on Dec 11, 2018 0:37:06 GMT
COI is an odd duck for sure I played it once and really never wanted to play it again.
It really feels like casters were taken out of the game found that units don't work very well and then a card system was designed to bring everything back in. But now you caster is basically some random cards you use.
Everything was given stealth .. kind of with a -2 to hit if you are outside 5" making most long range guns pretty weak.
The scenario felt off somehow not sure what was up could have been my inexperience.
Models with 2 attacks are a huge deal felt like their cost did not reflect this. We could have been playing the wounding rules incorrectly
Playing my skorne army I felt shield wall and CMA just didn't port well into the alternating activations
over all I got the feeling if you are at a con and have your tray with you and just randomly pick some stuff off to play it will be fine but I got the feeling if you built for the game it would break. Has anyone seen this?
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Dec 11, 2018 3:57:22 GMT
COI needed to use the RPG rules and advancement to be a bridge between the properties.
|
|
|
Post by mydnight on Dec 11, 2018 6:19:22 GMT
COI needs a proper MKII treatment and identity. It's just at the right level of confusion that I can't switch between it and the main game. Looks like they're doing Riot Quest instead.
|
|
Miafan
Junior Strategist
Eater of Brains
Posts: 130
|
Post by Miafan on Dec 11, 2018 12:01:00 GMT
Apologies for a slight offtopic, but I just took a look at the main page and damn, it looks like a nice time paradox...
|
|
|
Post by beardmonk on Dec 11, 2018 14:10:17 GMT
We always hear the "competitive vs. casual" debate. But I don't buy that. For a "casual" game WM/H is not that fun. It doesn't HAVE those moments where the whole table laughs at the ridiculousness of it Im sorry but I disagree a little with this part of your post. The two groups I play in manage to have a great deal of fun with our games, banter back and forth, micky taking etc. Even when we are playing SR on deathclock, its always been fun and friendly. At the few tournaments I have been at (8-16 man local SR’s) I have also found that almost all of my opponents have been fun and enjoy a bit of cheeky banter during the game. But I do accept this may not be the same all over. IMO it’s all about the attitude you bring to the table.
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Dec 11, 2018 14:31:33 GMT
But I do accept this may not be the same all over. IMO it’s all about the attitude you bring to the table. I think you and sand20go just have a different definition of "casual". Competitive players still have fun while playing the game and they're generally decent human beings so of course they throw some friendly banter around and all in all seem happy to be there and be playing the game. But, Warmachine can indeed be an unforgiving game to the unprepared and competitive players often put a lot of time into the game, even while not at the table. It's possible that casual players get only 1 game in per month and don't really bother much with keeping up with the meta outside of that. They can still have fun at tournaments, but it's not necessarily because they're winning, and that can be disheartening for some people.
|
|
mrtuna
Junior Strategist
Posts: 117
|
Post by mrtuna on Dec 11, 2018 14:48:50 GMT
Wow this is a long thread. Offering up the following A) Like a lot of firms in a lot of industries PP suffers from the problem of not FULLY embracing what its core customers want. It is CLEAR that PP caters to the gamers (and I am not even sure that is the right term) that want a competitive game. Why I saw "not sure" is that I know a fair number of WM/Hs players who _ONLY_ play WM/H as their "game". Oh they might take up a board game from time to time but they are not going to random board game night or FFM or dabbling in casuals. They play WM for a variety of reasons but it akin to the reason that people play competitive chess - to win and to test one's mental abilities. B) Embracing this would include, for example, rankings, ladders, etc. etc. Tournaments and SR would likely be seeded. There could be divisions. Lots of things to embrace the fact that it is competitive, some folks are better than others and that playing "up" is not always fun and enjoyable for people (or one might also say "down").
We always hear the "competitive vs. casual" debate. But I don't buy that. For a "casual" game WM/H is not that fun. It doesn't HAVE those moments where the whole table laughs at the ridiculousness of it. It is VERY expensive (probably costing several hundred dollars for 150 points - when most would say you need a minimum of 300 to adapt to changing meta conditions). It has way too many rules. It isn't over the top fluffy (see Orks).
Instead I think that debate is between "advanced" and "beginner/intermediate" players. Advanced want a very tight game played tightly at the highest level with as much balance as possible (but even better advantages to the factions they own). B/I want something where they can be competitive with what they have - against other players that make mistakes (and trust me, mistakes is relatively since even the highest level play forgets something - see paragraph above).
On the business side I think PP suffers from Matt Wilson's desire to make movies. I heard from a high source that is the reason he is in LA. It is why he holds close the IP and Fluff. He is, in the end, an artist whose background was in art for magic cards. You then add on Soles who is I think a great game designer but not, I think, a business guy....and a CEO who tries to keep the kittens in line. I think that the best thing for PP would be for it to get sold because hopefully someone (Fantasy Flight? WOC?) that understood the economics of games would come in and really think through the overall business strategy - rather than what seems to be the strategy of using power creep in CIDs and New faction releases to grow revenue. That is NOT a winning long term strategy (and I say this with WAY too much money into this game) So as a business owner vet, warmahordes newb, I do think the business model of warmahordes is missing something. I live in the world of software. The warmahordes equivalent is selling a piece of software for $300, with free updates for life. This is how software worked for many many years, but the upfront revenue means to grow your business, you need an ever increasing number of NEW users coming in to buy your software. Existing users are nothing, just complain about bugs and take up support costs. There is a reason damn near all software in the last 10 years has switched to a monthly subscription model. Every month you get a chunk of money based on how many customers you have. No big up front cost, but very steady revenue. This is how I am able to run a software business and feed my fam. I don't fully know how to do this in miniatures. I know GW sells rules and codex and other things that cost existing users money to keep playing. I think they also sometimes replace models with better models, requiring you to buy more. Looking at my local meta, most players have 1 army. Some have had the same army for 5 years. Sure they buy 1-2 new units a year, but once you plop down the $600 or whatever to buy most of an army - you can very easily be done. Some players will go build other factions for fun, but most people I know stop at 1 faction (and some either 1 list, or 2 lists). Now as a player, I love the PP business model. I got in for a fair price, and I don't think I need to buy anything for the next 5 years to keep playing my Khador (1-2 models a year maybe). But I also would happily pay more to keep the game growing and more popular, whatever that looks like. Some kind of paid rules thing yearly? Paid entry tournaments? Not exactly sure what, but to me warmahordes is too cheap.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Dec 11, 2018 16:25:57 GMT
But I do accept this may not be the same all over. IMO it’s all about the attitude you bring to the table. I think you and sand20go just have a different definition of "casual". Competitive players still have fun while playing the game and they're generally decent human beings so of course they throw some friendly banter around and all in all seem happy to be there and be playing the game. But, Warmachine can indeed be an unforgiving game to the unprepared and competitive players often put a lot of time into the game, even while not at the table. It's possible that casual players get only 1 game in per month and don't really bother much with keeping up with the meta outside of that. They can still have fun at tournaments, but it's not necessarily because they're winning, and that can be disheartening for some people. It isn't that competitive players are not having "fun". Obviously they are because no one MAKES people play WM/H (or for that matter competitive chess).
I know this may not resonate but let me give you an example. Diplomacy is one of the great "screw your friends" games. Indeed, it can ONLY be won by pulling out the knife at the right time and turning the screws at that great moment. There is a reason it is still in print - even though it takes HOURS to play a game - some 50 years after it was introduced. It is, I would argue, a wonderful CASUAL game. You can get good at Diplo but ultimately because of the rule set your success isn't about memorizing a 12 page rule book or understanding the board as much as it is understanding personalities, anticipating the other guys strategy and finding the precise right time to put the knife in their back. Obviously experience helps with that - but I have seen first time Diplo players do very well their first time out based on skills they brought from other parts of their life.
Because the game's rules are remarkable simple and can be learned in a 1/2 hour - even though the strategy is ridiculous rich (better than WM/H?) people can pick it up. With the right attitude, those great backstabs are relished by the all 7 players - as Germany suddenly finds its screwed over by the Russian-A/H alliance it thought it had checked with Turkey and England who have decided to sit this year out. And if with the right group of friends people congrat. the winner.
WM/H for reasons I am not sure I get, doesn't work that way. Rather it lends itself to Scholar's mate very often.....or power lists that ask questions your opponent simple can not answer. Is that really a mutually satisfying "win"? I don't think so very often. And even at the competitive level, I don't think WM/H lends itself often to the great Russian backstab reveal. Oh sure, sometimes. The dude that makes 3 tough rolls in a row to deny scoring that turns the game. But, instead, a lot of WM involve about 60 minutes of slow grinding attrition - that produces an unwinnable game state for your opponent.....or gotcha moments that result not from the play on the board but rather not understanding/knowing a particular combo and getting caught.
Maybe that last sentence gets at things. GREAT games - ones that last decades and ideed go into the public domain - are built on moments that are remembered. Drawing to an inside straight, rolling the hard 10 you need to grab boardwalk, figuring out a way to snatch mate when all looks lost as you plan things out 4 turns ahead, bidding out the perfect bridge hand, rolling that saving throw to snatch death from the hands of the ancient red dragon. ALL players can appreciate it. While warmachine _CAN_ produce those moments it isn't inherent in the design.
|
|
|
Post by darkshroud on Dec 11, 2018 16:32:48 GMT
not really since the card tells you what base youre required to put the mini on. there isnt much changing that.if it was in a tournament he'd be called out as soon as he put the mini down for cheating. in 40k there arent clear cut rules like that. hence the modification of minis to game the rules That's literally what I said. well, i cant read. so take that! /s
|
|
crimsyn
Junior Strategist
Posts: 389
|
Post by crimsyn on Dec 11, 2018 16:43:50 GMT
So as a business owner vet, warmahordes newb, I do think the business model of warmahordes is missing something. I live in the world of software. The warmahordes equivalent is selling a piece of software for $300, with free updates for life. This is how software worked for many many years, but the upfront revenue means to grow your business, you need an ever increasing number of NEW users coming in to buy your software. Existing users are nothing, just complain about bugs and take up support costs. ... Looking at my local meta, most players have 1 army. Some have had the same army for 5 years. Sure they buy 1-2 new units a year, but once you plop down the $600 or whatever to buy most of an army - you can very easily be done. Some players will go build other factions for fun, but most people I know stop at 1 faction (and some either 1 list, or 2 lists). Now as a player, I love the PP business model. I got in for a fair price, and I don't think I need to buy anything for the next 5 years to keep playing my Khador (1-2 models a year maybe). But I also would happily pay more to keep the game growing and more popular, whatever that looks like. Some kind of paid rules thing yearly? Paid entry tournaments? Not exactly sure what, but to me warmahordes is too cheap. So... charge a monthly subscription for War Room to help cover development and CID costs rather than bake it into overhead which ultimately goes into the cost of the models? This might also be good for new players who are interested in trying out the game... after all, it's a lot easier to say "there is this app which is a couple bucks a month" than "okay, now that you've bought this battlebox, go out and buy an $80 app."
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Dec 11, 2018 16:49:36 GMT
So as a business owner vet, warmahordes newb, I do think the business model of warmahordes is missing something. I live in the world of software. The warmahordes equivalent is selling a piece of software for $300, with free updates for life. This is how software worked for many many years, but the upfront revenue means to grow your business, you need an ever increasing number of NEW users coming in to buy your software. Existing users are nothing, just complain about bugs and take up support costs. ... Looking at my local meta, most players have 1 army. Some have had the same army for 5 years. Sure they buy 1-2 new units a year, but once you plop down the $600 or whatever to buy most of an army - you can very easily be done. Some players will go build other factions for fun, but most people I know stop at 1 faction (and some either 1 list, or 2 lists). Now as a player, I love the PP business model. I got in for a fair price, and I don't think I need to buy anything for the next 5 years to keep playing my Khador (1-2 models a year maybe). But I also would happily pay more to keep the game growing and more popular, whatever that looks like. Some kind of paid rules thing yearly? Paid entry tournaments? Not exactly sure what, but to me warmahordes is too cheap. So... charge a monthly subscription for War Room to help cover development and CID costs rather than bake it into overhead which ultimately goes into the cost of the models? This might also be good for new players who are interested in trying out the game... after all, it's a lot easier to say "there is this app which is a couple bucks a month" than "okay, now that you've bought this battlebox, go out and buy an $80 app." I think that the software model (which has been great for that industry) breaks down when you have a tangible product like a mini. While there is SOME ability to create a secondary market, for the most part software as service is not reseallable. COnversely, a problem for PP is all the second hand sales of WM/H models - which allow people to pick up a new army (selling their own) for minimal transaction costs.
In the end the problem is that PP just isn't run like a well run business. Compare the value of the starter boxes for GDW and how it is a very well thought out entry point into their game versus the hot mess that is our 2 player boxes that often leave people with $100 of models that doen't really work well together. If King for the day that would be the ONLY golden rule I would have - that no changes in any CID should make the 2 player box not a good place to enter.
(And yes, the 2 player box should either come in at 50 or 75 points so that you can buy it and immediately put down an army at a SR as opposed to not having enough)
|
|
cain
Junior Strategist
Posts: 243
|
Post by cain on Dec 11, 2018 20:11:53 GMT
Infinity has also understood the importants of starting boxes. They pump out army boxes with terrain regurarly. Same with Guild ball where you can by a playable team in one box (smaller game though).
|
|