|
Post by sand20go on Jan 24, 2019 19:06:20 GMT
My point is that I do not think without those changes it _CAN_ be welcoming to new players. I say that with sadness as I am heavily invested in the game and enjoy it.
But I think in the current marketplace it is simply ridiculous to think that you can going to "grow the game" when it is essentially taken as given that new players will lose their first 50 games and that, until you have played (and remembered) playing against every other caster in the game it can be a struggle unless you play an S tier caster that asks a question that allows you to play "your game" without much of a care.
I have offered another suggestion at some other point that doesn't house rule things - seeded and ranked play organized by PP through registrering players and their wins. No one likes THAT either but it is what competitive 1 v 1 sports/games do all the time. It also provides for handicapping opportunities - play way below/above you and get/accept a handicap of points.
With respect and as much love as I can give to a member of my same community that I have never met: this sort of passive defeatism is what will kill the meta. Everything you are saying here is mitigated or completely nullified by the people in the area if they recognize that THEY, not PP, are responsible for the community in their area. Play nice. Play kind. Come along side new players and mentor them. Have community building events. Have new players play new players. PP can't do any of that for you. Your community is in your control - if you are willing to take it. And if not, that's also fine. Find someone who is and support them, because it is hard work building this up. I TOTALLY don't agree andI don't believe this is an isolated case.
Here is the story. Going to ignore "me" as much as possible.
A) Our meta got really going in about 2010 +/- 2 years. There had been people playing in Mk1 but the rise of ominpotent cryx and the lack of good organized play SR document had led to a significant fall off. But right around that time a new store opened offering up good options. MK2 cleaned up a lot of the really ridiculous OP stuff. PG were present at all LGSs and they supported a number of different styles of play. SR were organized but so too regular Journeyman leagues, "new player" SR (vets discouraged from coming), narrative events, foodmachine as charities.
B) During this time perhaps a 1/2 dozen players "got gud". Might have been fewer. They didn't like Journeyman leagues and rarely participated but they did support narrative one dayers. They DID build powerlists for those (I still remember a couple of them) which seemed beside the point but oh well.....
C) A couple of players (1 from the "B" group and one seemingly new) got even more "gud". They would regularly win the SR events. It became a near forgone conclusion. Right about this time PGs got shut down and LGS lost staff that would otherwise organize stuff because they liked the game (indeed, at one store a key loss was an employee who would play after his shift ended because he loved the game. College called). 75 point lists became the normal course of event. People would play other formats but not initiate those - but would do if asked. Narrative one days died because they were not helping players "get gud". I believe one Journeyman league was half heartedly organized over the course of 2 years.
D) Players continued to "get gud". Indeed, 5 guys from my meta won last years ATC. This pulled the meta toward them - not because they were neckbeards but because they were there nearly every night WM/H would be played, they wanted the practice for WTC, and well....we wanted to play. SOMETIMES there would be enough so you were not playing them....but you had brought your S tier list and who really wants to schelp both your S tiers AND a third and fourth list for fun..... THis year my meta is sending 2 teams to ATC. We will see how they do.
E) And over time the game in our meta has shrunk. Now interestingly it hasn't DIED. Far from it. But it has largely now consists very much of a core of dedicated players, who don't need to buy much cause they already own it all, who work to win SR, Cons, ATC and WTC. The core travels up to 100 miles one way on Satursdays to congregate at LGS to play competitive warmachine. Interestingly one player, from the winning ATC team, is so burned out on how much work competitive WM/H takes he is on a long sabatical from the game.
I REFUSE to believe this is a unique story and I also think, from a sociological perspective, there is nothing malign about this. It feels to me a normal progression/development of things. There is no inflection point where things could have taken a different course by the "community". PERHAPS the isolation of the "get gudders" but that, in itself, is exclusionary and not inclusionary.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Jan 24, 2019 19:10:31 GMT
With respect and as much love as I can give to a member of my same community that I have never met: this sort of passive defeatism is what will kill the meta. Everything you are saying here is mitigated or completely nullified by the people in the area if they recognize that THEY, not PP, are responsible for the community in their area. Play nice. Play kind. Come along side new players and mentor them. Have community building events. Have new players play new players. PP can't do any of that for you. Your community is in your control - if you are willing to take it. And if not, that's also fine. Find someone who is and support them, because it is hard work building this up. I TOTALLY don't agree andI don't believe this is an isolated case.
Here is the story. Going to ignore "me" as much as possible.
A) Our meta got really going in about 2010 +/- 2 years. There had been people playing in Mk1 but the rise of ominpotent cryx and the lack of good organized play SR document had led to a significant fall off. But right around that time a new store opened offering up good options. MK2 cleaned up a lot of the really ridiculous OP stuff. PG were present at all LGSs and they supported a number of different styles of play. SR were organized but so too regular Journeyman leagues, "new player" SR (vets discouraged from coming), narrative events, foodmachine as charities.
B) During this time perhaps a 1/2 dozen players "got gud". Might have been fewer. They didn't like Journeyman leagues and rarely participated but they did support narrative one dayers. They DID build powerlists for those (I still remember a couple of them) which seemed beside the point but oh well.....
C) A couple of players (1 from the "B" group and one seemingly new) got even more "gud". They would regularly win the SR events. It became a near forgone conclusion. Right about this time PGs got shut down and LGS lost staff that would otherwise organize stuff because they liked the game (indeed, at one store a key loss was an employee who would play after his shift ended because he loved the game. College called). 75 point lists became the normal course of event. People would play other formats but not initiate those - but would do if asked. Narrative one days died because they were not helping players "get gud". I believe one Journeyman league was half heartedly organized over the course of 2 years.
D) Players continued to "get gud". Indeed, 5 guys from my meta won last years ATC. This pulled the meta toward them - not because they were neckbeards but because they were there nearly every night WM/H would be played, they wanted the practice for WTC, and well....we wanted to play. SOMETIMES there would be enough so you were not playing them....but you had brought your S tier list and who really wants to schelp both your S tiers AND a third and fourth list for fun..... THis year my meta is sending 2 teams to ATC. We will see how they do.
E) And over time the game in our meta has shrunk. Now interestingly it hasn't DIED. Far from it. But it has largely now consists very much of a core of dedicated players, who don't need to buy much cause they already own it all, who work to win SR, Cons, ATC and WTC. The core travels up to 100 miles one way on Satursdays to congregate at LGS to play competitive warmachine. Interestingly one player, from the winning ATC team, is so burned out on how much work competitive WM/H takes he is on a long sabatical from the game.
I REFUSE to believe this is a unique story and I also think, from a sociological perspective, there is nothing malign about this. It feels to me a normal progression/development of things. There is no inflection point where things could have taken a different course by the "community". PERHAPS the isolation of the "get gudders" but that, in itself, is exclusionary and not inclusionary.
That is not to complain
But everything here has to do with the people in your meta, not PP. That's my point. Ceding responsibility to PP is just a resignation to grow old and die. It's on the locals to keep planting and watering. Realistically, the only influence PP had was with PGs. Granted, adding them.back in would certainly help. But it would help jumpstart local leaders to rebuild metal. With sufficiently passionate people, that can be done right now. Also, I'm not trying to lay blame or anything like that, if that is how it is coming across. Rather I am trying to encourage people to step up and take control of their warmachine destiny
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Jan 24, 2019 19:13:42 GMT
The reason that multiple metas have this issue _IS_ the rule set. For a variety of reasons the game LENDS itself to a devolution to really complex chess. It just does. The rules are so tight and hinge on = or >< a precise amount of space that the game encourages that kind of precise placement. For example, There is a REASON that many (most?) WM/H players go out and buy 3rd party widgets for blast damage and, at most SR and competitive events, get them out not to determine who is hit but rather to space their models out to minimize Blast damage. Ditto measuring sticks. Ditto Flat terrain. Etc. etc. etc. To quote the GS owner "If a game requires a protractor and a laser tool I am out. That isn't a game". The funny part here is that for the longest time WM/H closest competitor wasn't even 40k, it was X-Wing. Which came pre-packaged with flat terrain, movement templates and measuring sticks, and I'm even sure players use lasers to draw LOS for each ship's firing arc. That game had a very robust OP system around it, with Store Championships feeding into Regionals, that fed into Worlds. People played it very chess like while still leaving room for casuals at the shop. I suspect that SW license and the low model count account for most of that though, because that game was probably as deep as any miniature game out there. I wish you luck. But I think you should look at the rule set and think - "if I want to keep people around for NARRATIVE play what house rules will I encourage to be introduced to make it less appealing as complex chess." Oddly enough, Narrative campaigns are really fun because of the wacky homebrew rules, I really enjoy a good Campaign, and would stab someone if PP would just published a generic campaign system for WM/H I have always been a bit surprised by the rise of X wing but I think you are right - IP was a huge part of it. Plus unlike WM the templates _ARE_ a core game play dynamic. And the entry point (and staying in the entry point) is SO much cheaper. I never go beyond a few games with it (it was "meh" to me) so I can't comment on how OP fed into its success. It DOES seem to be less popular but that is an anecdotal observation that may also reflect the loss of the game space at our used to be favorite "store I can play and drink at" establishment ;-)
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Jan 24, 2019 19:17:27 GMT
I TOTALLY don't agree andI don't believe this is an isolated case.
Here is the story. Going to ignore "me" as much as possible.
A) Our meta got really going in about 2010 +/- 2 years. There had been people playing in Mk1 but the rise of ominpotent cryx and the lack of good organized play SR document had led to a significant fall off. But right around that time a new store opened offering up good options. MK2 cleaned up a lot of the really ridiculous OP stuff. PG were present at all LGSs and they supported a number of different styles of play. SR were organized but so too regular Journeyman leagues, "new player" SR (vets discouraged from coming), narrative events, foodmachine as charities.
B) During this time perhaps a 1/2 dozen players "got gud". Might have been fewer. They didn't like Journeyman leagues and rarely participated but they did support narrative one dayers. They DID build powerlists for those (I still remember a couple of them) which seemed beside the point but oh well.....
C) A couple of players (1 from the "B" group and one seemingly new) got even more "gud". They would regularly win the SR events. It became a near forgone conclusion. Right about this time PGs got shut down and LGS lost staff that would otherwise organize stuff because they liked the game (indeed, at one store a key loss was an employee who would play after his shift ended because he loved the game. College called). 75 point lists became the normal course of event. People would play other formats but not initiate those - but would do if asked. Narrative one days died because they were not helping players "get gud". I believe one Journeyman league was half heartedly organized over the course of 2 years.
D) Players continued to "get gud". Indeed, 5 guys from my meta won last years ATC. This pulled the meta toward them - not because they were neckbeards but because they were there nearly every night WM/H would be played, they wanted the practice for WTC, and well....we wanted to play. SOMETIMES there would be enough so you were not playing them....but you had brought your S tier list and who really wants to schelp both your S tiers AND a third and fourth list for fun..... THis year my meta is sending 2 teams to ATC. We will see how they do.
E) And over time the game in our meta has shrunk. Now interestingly it hasn't DIED. Far from it. But it has largely now consists very much of a core of dedicated players, who don't need to buy much cause they already own it all, who work to win SR, Cons, ATC and WTC. The core travels up to 100 miles one way on Satursdays to congregate at LGS to play competitive warmachine. Interestingly one player, from the winning ATC team, is so burned out on how much work competitive WM/H takes he is on a long sabatical from the game.
I REFUSE to believe this is a unique story and I also think, from a sociological perspective, there is nothing malign about this. It feels to me a normal progression/development of things. There is no inflection point where things could have taken a different course by the "community". PERHAPS the isolation of the "get gudders" but that, in itself, is exclusionary and not inclusionary.
That is not to complain
But everything here has to do with the people in your meta, not PP. That's my point. Ceding responsibility to PP is just a resignation to grow old and die. It's on the locals to keep planting and watering. We are just gong to disagree here. the community didn't eliminate PG with no way to replace it. The Community didn't put out a SR package. The community (local) didn't organize ATC and WTC. The community doesn't run Jay Larson's web site with winning lists and the players name that won it. The community didn't publish con results in NQ. The community didn't screw retailers over by going digital (far better for competitive play) a week after encouraging them to buy a ton of books and cards.
And again, I don't see your "inflection" point. Are you saying the ATC team should handicap themselves by setting aside time to go run Journeyman leagues or play 20 points down so that they don't stomp people? Will they get a trophy for their efforts - or be held up by Loud Chris for their efforts and he points to his record to suggest that Khador is OK cause he has "gotten gud".
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jan 24, 2019 19:20:25 GMT
And this is my biggest reason to say "f* off" to people who insist "WM/H is a competitive game" all the time and want to play only SR and such, with clock and minimal terrain and all that.
Basicaly, I agree that due to the kind of ruleset WM/H has (precise rules, high level of interaction between models' rules, etc.) it is understandable it attracts competitive players. What I don't like is that those players tend to "take over" the local meta and scene, driving out everyone else, who want to play more relaxed games, communicating that their is the only way to play the game.
I'm Hungarian, so right now, due to PP's lack of support in Europe I'm waiting for what 2019 will bring to the company. However, if I'm seeing it doing okay and the availability of the game growing a bit, I decided I will dedicate at least half of my participation in wargaming to (re)build a local community around WM/H, which is pointedly aimed at narrative play, lagues and just relaxed gaming. I don't want to wage any wars with the local competitive scenes and I'll encourage participating in both, if the interest is there, but I like this game and I want to have alternative avenues to playing it.
Also, I have the firm oppinion that yes, it is the community's "fault" that it got this competitive focused which decreases how approachable it is to new players and not competitive-minded people, which will (and already is) hamstring the scenes themselves as they are becoming more and more closed. It is bad to the company too, financially.
In PP's place, I'll leave the precise rules and the combination-based gameplay in place, but would push the fluff and casual modes of play even more and more visibly because this needs to change and while surely there are people like me out there, PP could shape this much more effectively.
Had a LONG discussion with an LGS owner on this who has been around the industry for 25 years and I disagree (and do have a fix) The reason that multiple metas have this issue _IS_ the rule set. For a variety of reasons the game LENDS itself to a devolution to really complex chess. It just does. The rules are so tight and hinge on = or >< a precise amount of space that the game encourages that kind of precise placement. For example, There is a REASON that many (most?) WM/H players go out and buy 3rd party widgets for blast damage and, at most SR and competitive events, get them out not to determine who is hit but rather to space their models out to minimize Blast damage. Ditto measuring sticks. Ditto Flat terrain. Etc. etc. etc. To quote the GS owner "If a game requires a protractor and a laser tool I am out. That isn't a game". The fix? Much as it will generate hate it is randomizing certain aspects of the game which will, because we have now introduced more "luck" frustrate those who want to use WM/H to demonstrate, even if just internally to themselves, their smarts. So for example, what 8th edition does - charge ranges are randomized with a D3 or give out wounds and saves like that "bad" game. The complex chess crowd will move on - returning to magic, picking up guildball, or finding some other niche company to appeal to that play style.I wish you luck. But I think you should look at the rule set and think - "if I want to keep people around for NARRATIVE play what house rules will I encourage to be introduced to make it less appealing as complex chess." So...alienate your core player base in the hopes of more closely mimicking your largest competitor, who has...more resources, better models (seriously, it's not even a competition); better brand recognition, and a larger player base (making it easier to pick up and play wherever). In the immortal words of Tony Stark...not a great plan. Stop trying to make WMH something it is not (and has never been). Warmachine has ALWAYS been marketed as the game for competitive gamers - an alternative for people who are fed up with GW's crap rulesets. It is not a casual game. It has never been a casual game. In fact, it blows my mind that anyone could look at a game where mm-precise placements win or lose games and try to play it 'casually'. Much less that they would try to force their conception of a 'casual game' on the rest of community through core rules changes to introduce 'fun' concepts like added randomness (hey, remember how much community pushback ROF d3 guns get? And you want to introduce something like random charge distances?) and unpredictability. Does the game need to be more accessible to new players? Yes. PP needs to be better about marketing the game, developing intro products, and aggressively promoting new player recruitment. (the fact that there has been no attempt to replace the PG program with something like this is problematic). They certainly need a better intro format than journeyman leagues (which are just...the worst...in terms of new player development). They do not need to fundamentally alter what WMH is in a deluded attempt to appeal to the casual crowd.
|
|
|
Post by LoS Jaden on Jan 24, 2019 19:23:52 GMT
But everything here has to do with the people in your meta, not PP. That's my point. Ceding responsibility to PP is just a resignation to grow old and die. It's on the locals to keep planting and watering. We are just gong to disagree here. the community didn't eliminate PG with no way to replace it. The Community didn't put out a SR package. The community (local) didn't organize ATC and WTC. The community doesn't run Jay Larson's web site with winning lists and the players name that won it. The community didn't publish con results in NQ. The community didn't screw retailers over by going digital (far better for competitive play) a week after encouraging them to buy a ton of books and cards.
And again, I don't see your "inflection" point. Are you saying the ATC team should handicap themselves by setting aside time to go run Journeyman leagues or play 20 points down so that they don't stomp people? Will they get a trophy for their efforts - or be held up by Loud Chris for their efforts and he points to his record to suggest that Khador is OK cause he has "gotten gud".
SR was a community driven document that was eventually adopted by PP after the VAST majority of players were playing with it already.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 24, 2019 19:26:58 GMT
The fix? Much as it will generate hate it is randomizing certain aspects of the game which will, because we have now introduced more "luck" frustrate those who want to use WM/H to demonstrate, even if just internally to themselves, their smarts. So for example, what 8th edition does - charge ranges are randomized with a D3 or give out wounds and saves like that "bad" game. The complex chess crowd will move on - returning to magic, picking up guildball, or finding some other niche company to appeal to that play style. I have to question the conclusion that the game needs fixing at the core rules level
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Jan 24, 2019 19:33:33 GMT
But everything here has to do with the people in your meta, not PP. That's my point. Ceding responsibility to PP is just a resignation to grow old and die. It's on the locals to keep planting and watering. We are just gong to disagree here. the community didn't eliminate PG with no way to replace it. The Community didn't put out a SR package. The community (local) didn't organize ATC and WTC. The community doesn't run Jay Larson's web site with winning lists and the players name that won it. The community didn't publish con results in NQ. The community didn't screw retailers over by going digital (far better for competitive play) a week after encouraging them to buy a ton of books and cards.
And again, I don't see your "inflection" point. Are you saying the ATC team should handicap themselves by setting aside time to go run Journeyman leagues or play 20 points down so that they don't stomp people? Will they get a trophy for their efforts - or be held up by Loud Chris for their efforts and he points to his record to suggest that Khador is OK cause he has "gotten gud".
Most of the things you listed are community driven, not PP driven. But that's not at all my point. And neither is looking back to find some inflection point where things could have been different. We could both write a thousand words debating different things (believe me, I could argue at least 2 exist in your timeline). But it doesn't matter. The real inflection point is now. What are you going to do now? Maybe you aren't the right person to lead the meta, and that is 100% fine. Not everyone can be that. But if you can't be that, maybe you can be a staunch supporter of someone who can. Maybe you can encourage someone to step out and make the changes they want to see in their local community. This game will not survive thanks to top down mandates - it will continue to grow thanks to grassroots community building. This was the greatest strength of the PG program, and yes, it would be great if PP did more to replace it. But I can't change that. I can only change what I can control. And I - we - have the responsibility of seizing our respective wheels and righting our respective ships. So again the question to ask ourselves is not what can PP do - they need to be asking that question, and it is very important that they do. But we must ask what we can do. That will make our communities truly great. Edit: Also very significant: this needs to be a labor of love. If it is a tremendous and unenjoyable burden to lead, then you (speaking generally) should not do it. We are all in this for fun, after all.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Jan 24, 2019 19:39:50 GMT
Had a LONG discussion with an LGS owner on this who has been around the industry for 25 years and I disagree (and do have a fix) The reason that multiple metas have this issue _IS_ the rule set. For a variety of reasons the game LENDS itself to a devolution to really complex chess. It just does. The rules are so tight and hinge on = or >< a precise amount of space that the game encourages that kind of precise placement. For example, There is a REASON that many (most?) WM/H players go out and buy 3rd party widgets for blast damage and, at most SR and competitive events, get them out not to determine who is hit but rather to space their models out to minimize Blast damage. Ditto measuring sticks. Ditto Flat terrain. Etc. etc. etc. To quote the GS owner "If a game requires a protractor and a laser tool I am out. That isn't a game". The fix? Much as it will generate hate it is randomizing certain aspects of the game which will, because we have now introduced more "luck" frustrate those who want to use WM/H to demonstrate, even if just internally to themselves, their smarts. So for example, what 8th edition does - charge ranges are randomized with a D3 or give out wounds and saves like that "bad" game. The complex chess crowd will move on - returning to magic, picking up guildball, or finding some other niche company to appeal to that play style.I wish you luck. But I think you should look at the rule set and think - "if I want to keep people around for NARRATIVE play what house rules will I encourage to be introduced to make it less appealing as complex chess." So...alienate your core player base in the hopes of more closely mimicking your largest competitor, who has...more resources, better models (seriously, it's not even a competition); better brand recognition, and a larger player base (making it easier to pick up and play wherever). In the immortal words of Tony Stark...not a great plan. Stop trying to make WMH something it is not (and has never been). Warmachine has ALWAYS been marketed as the game for competitive gamers - an alternative for people who are fed up with GW's crap rulesets. It is not a casual game. It has never been a casual game. In fact, it blows my mind that anyone could look at a game where mm-precise placements win or lose games and try to play it 'casually'. Much less that they would try to force their conception of a 'casual game' on the rest of community through core rules changes to introduce 'fun' concepts like added randomness (hey, remember how much community pushback ROF d3 guns get? And you want to introduce something like random charge distances?) and unpredictability. Does the game need to be more accessible to new players? Yes. PP needs to be better about marketing the game, developing intro products, and aggressively promoting new player recruitment. (the fact that there has been no attempt to replace the PG program with something like this is problematic). They certainly need a better intro format than journeyman leagues (which are just...the worst...in terms of new player development). They do not need to fundamentally alter what WMH is in a deluded attempt to appeal to the casual crowd. Ganso has made this point and I think there is something to this......
But I also would say that it isn't clear that market research really bares this out (or at least that it is a slam dunk and - I would point out - Tony Stark is a comic book character).....
Nearly every growing hobby game (table top or "independent" board game) has been trying to MINIMIZE complexity and barriers to entry. Indeed, one of the more amazing stories in the industry is the ability to move a $150 dollar game (Gloomhaven) which is tactically very rich but whose core rules are amazingly elegant and streamlined. D&D has worked hard to minimize complexity. Game of the year Scrye can be explained relatively quickly. etc. etc. etc.
Now an interesting game which bares out BOTH of our arguments is Pathfinder. Pretty clear that a lot of players are NOT happy with the more streamlined new rules. But they were getting killed by the bigger fish (D&D) who, with WoTC support, was growing like gangbusters with a much more accessible rule set. Doubling down on complexity would have appeals but it wasn't clear was going to "grow the game".
But again, I think that if you go for competitive than you go whole hog. Ranked play, handicapping, seeding and cons and tournaments.
I think EITHER approach is worth trying....but I do believe the status quo is not sustainable for PP (we will still all play and I wouldn't be at all surprised to start seeing community organized CIDs to justify our several thousand dollar investments ;-)
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Jan 24, 2019 19:47:06 GMT
We are just gong to disagree here. the community didn't eliminate PG with no way to replace it. The Community didn't put out a SR package. The community (local) didn't organize ATC and WTC. The community doesn't run Jay Larson's web site with winning lists and the players name that won it. The community didn't publish con results in NQ. The community didn't screw retailers over by going digital (far better for competitive play) a week after encouraging them to buy a ton of books and cards.
And again, I don't see your "inflection" point. Are you saying the ATC team should handicap themselves by setting aside time to go run Journeyman leagues or play 20 points down so that they don't stomp people? Will they get a trophy for their efforts - or be held up by Loud Chris for their efforts and he points to his record to suggest that Khador is OK cause he has "gotten gud".
Most of the things you listed are community driven, not PP driven. But that's not at all my point. And neither is looking back to find some inflection point where things could have been different. We could both write a thousand words debating different things (believe me, I could argue at least 2 exist in your timeline). But it doesn't matter. The real inflection point is now. What are you going to do now? Maybe you aren't the right person to lead the meta, and that is 100% fine. Not everyone can be that. But if you can't be that, maybe you can be a staunch supporter of someone who can. Maybe you can encourage someone to step out and make the changes they want to see in their local community. This game will not survive thanks to top down mandates - it will continue to grow thanks to grassroots community building. This was the greatest strength of the PG program, and yes, it would be great if PP did more to replace it. But I can't change that. I can only change what I can control. And I - we - have the responsibility of seizing our respective wheels and righting our respective ships. So again the question to ask ourselves is not what can PP do - they need to be asking that question, and it is very important that they do. But we must ask what we can do. That will make our communities truly great. Edit: Also very significant: this needs to be a labor of love. If it is a tremendous and unenjoyable burden to lead, then you (speaking generally) should not do it. We are all in this for fun, after all. I don't want to be a debby downer but I don't think it can grow this way. Sorry but I think that the natural progression of the game is toward competitive chess....but without the things that chess uses (ranked play, seeding, FIDE) to try to encourage players of similar rankings to play one another (and to incent players to "get gud" if they are focused on rankings). Thus its steady state _IS_ to shrink (or at least I presume that is what the data is telling us) because there will be new players attracted this sort of game it isn't enough to grow the game.
PS. And to be precise - by "grow the game" I mean raw number of individuals playing WM. The paradox is that our southern California meta has never been healthier for the competitive crowd - with a SR going off nearly every weekend (sometimes two) that always fire with at least 8-10 guys.....the challenge being it is often a lot of the same 8-10 guys.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 24, 2019 19:49:01 GMT
Does the game need to be more accessible to new players? Yes. I agree wholeheartedly. And I would add that implementing a limited play format, drastically cutting legacy models, and consolidating SKUs will help it make it more approachable for newer players.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Jan 24, 2019 19:54:18 GMT
Does the game need to be more accessible to new players? Yes. I agree wholeheartedly. And I would add that implementing a limited play format, drastically cutting legacy models, and consolidating SKUs will help it make it more approachable for newer players. It is a really interesting idea of saying - with very limited variations - this the limited play 50 point (I think that is the right number) list (or 2 lists) for each of the factions. We are NOT going to change it for the next 18 months (I think the right time frame). Obviously players could mix and match to create variance but it is interesting.
And retailers, I think, would grow to love it _IF_ when you switch out the limited play you introduce new models so that should you wish to continue to participate in that you have to make new purchases.
Probably 3 casters (max), 3-4 beasts/jacks, 1 huge model, a smattering of support.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 24, 2019 20:00:13 GMT
yup, you can even produce resculpts just in case old players want to update their collection.
God knows I didn't need a new Behemoth, but dammit if the resculpt is not sexy.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jan 24, 2019 20:01:01 GMT
So...alienate your core player base in the hopes of more closely mimicking your largest competitor, who has...more resources, better models (seriously, it's not even a competition); better brand recognition, and a larger player base (making it easier to pick up and play wherever). In the immortal words of Tony Stark...not a great plan. Stop trying to make WMH something it is not (and has never been). Warmachine has ALWAYS been marketed as the game for competitive gamers - an alternative for people who are fed up with GW's crap rulesets. It is not a casual game. It has never been a casual game. In fact, it blows my mind that anyone could look at a game where mm-precise placements win or lose games and try to play it 'casually'. Much less that they would try to force their conception of a 'casual game' on the rest of community through core rules changes to introduce 'fun' concepts like added randomness (hey, remember how much community pushback ROF d3 guns get? And you want to introduce something like random charge distances?) and unpredictability. Does the game need to be more accessible to new players? Yes. PP needs to be better about marketing the game, developing intro products, and aggressively promoting new player recruitment. (the fact that there has been no attempt to replace the PG program with something like this is problematic). They certainly need a better intro format than journeyman leagues (which are just...the worst...in terms of new player development). They do not need to fundamentally alter what WMH is in a deluded attempt to appeal to the casual crowd. Ganso has made this point and I think there is something to this......
But I also would say that it isn't clear that market research really bares this out (or at least that it is a slam dunk and - I would point out - Tony Stark is a comic book character).....
Nearly every growing hobby game (table top or "independent" board game) has been trying to MINIMIZE complexity and barriers to entry. Indeed, one of the more amazing stories in the industry is the ability to move a $150 dollar game (Gloomhaven) which is tactically very rich but whose core rules are amazingly elegant and streamlined. D&D has worked hard to minimize complexity. Game of the year Scrye can be explained relatively quickly. etc. etc. etc.
Now an interesting game which bares out BOTH of our arguments is Pathfinder. Pretty clear that a lot of players are NOT happy with the more streamlined new rules. But they were getting killed by the bigger fish (D&D) who, with WoTC support, was growing like gangbusters with a much more accessible rule set. Doubling down on complexity would have appeals but it wasn't clear was going to "grow the game".
But again, I think that if you go for competitive than you go whole hog. Ranked play, handicapping, seeding and cons and tournaments.
I think EITHER approach is worth trying....but I do believe the status quo is not sustainable for PP (we will still all play and I wouldn't be at all surprised to start seeing community organized CIDs to justify our several thousand dollar investments ;-)
Something to note about most board games is that they (typically) represent a mid-sized to large one-time purchase, with limited added follow-up (barring expansions etc). Now, obviously you want your board games to be fun (otherwise bad reviews and word of mouth will kill your game), but they don't necessarily have to sustain the kind of dedicated fan base that you see in wargames. To take your example of Gloomhaven, the game is reasonably fun and has some depth, but the core game lacks variety and (at least for my group) failed to sustain interest in the long-term, because of the predictable nature of monster AI, lack of tactical depth, the veeeeery thin line between crushing victory and defeat encouraged by the cards-as-HP system, and the repetitive nature of most of the scenarios (and when they weren't repetitive, they were aggravating a la the escort missions). Was it a fun game? Sure. Did we get $150 worth of value from it? Probably. But is it the kind of game that's going to hold our interest for more than 6 months to a year of weekly sessions? Probably not. And for a product like Gloomhaven, that's probably enough. For something like WMH, which relies on getting committed players to invest hundreds or thousands of dollars into their product over a period of years, it's not enough to just be a 'moderately engaging product' that holds interest for a couple of months. You need to provide an engaging, ongoing experience which keeps player interest over years (or provide some other hook, like very nice models/aggressive marketing that makes players liable to invest in your product before they hear about any others, a la GW.) And that, at least IMO, means providing a level of complexity and depth to the game which makes it possible to stay engaged (which, at least for the players I know, means learning, developing, and discovering new interactions/strategies). Going all-in on ranked play is interesting, and I think I would support that. Another thing which helps accessibility is flattening the power curve between models, so that there's less of a 'pay to win/oops you bought the wrong thing' issue (CID is helping with this, slowly). And...I'll say again...a new player format which does not rely on Journeyman leagues would be a massive boon in terms of generating investment in the game.
|
|
cain
Junior Strategist
Posts: 243
|
Post by cain on Jan 24, 2019 20:07:24 GMT
What Sand20go described also happened to our meta in europe. Number of players where all time high when GW axed fantasy. After that it has been few new players, but lot of people quit. The ones who stay with warmahordes is mostly the die hard competetive players who only play the latest tournaments list, play regular tournaments with each other and go to team tournaments.
Since i play bouth xwing and warmahordes ill chime in on that topic to. If you leave the fluff out, and whether you prefere skirmish infantry vs space ships, xwing has several things going for it compared to warmahordes: - easier base rules - less models in the line for people to learn - less models to keep track on on table - less gotcha moments - less combos - less rock scissor matches - no complicated missions - faster games to play. Tournaments is 1 hour 15 min, and set uo is fast - cheaper to buy a full army - no time for building and painting
Overall lots of points which makes it easier to attract new people.
FF also has a good tournament system with linking local tournaments to the world championship.
FF also produce tournaments packs and packs for release waves for the flag store, with alternative art cards, tokens and measure devices.
|
|