|
Post by greytemplar on Feb 7, 2019 18:23:18 GMT
4th edition DnD was a failure not because it was balanced. It was a failure because, while they did bring balance, they also made an utterly bland system. Which is NOT a good thing for an RPG to do.
Balance doesn't have to mean bland though. One can strive for balance while also giving lots of flavor.
For example. Take the Cygnar Firefly, and a hypothetical Protectorate light jack with a Spear, Shield, immunity Fire, and the Fuel for the Flames ability.
Both cost 8 points, and IMO would be a good illustration of balance. Both do similar, but uniquely different things and would be appropriately costed.
One has a good gun, increases electrical damage within 5" by 2, and has a decent melee attack.
The other has better melee output, but no gun. Increases fire damage by 2, and is much more durable.
Both are very flavorful for their respective factions, and would be well balanced vs each other.
Which is why everyone just plays chess or checkers instead, being the most balanced of all possible wargames. Checkers isn't a wargame.
Chess is a wargame only on the most abstract level. But it is the most widely played game in the world, so it does prove the point...
My point is that every wargame should strive for as much balance as is possible, ideally without losing the flavor of the setting. because otherwise yes, you might as well play chess.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Feb 7, 2019 23:41:54 GMT
checkers is absolutely a wargame, its just the most simplistic one in existence, it involves control of territory and sacrifice of pieces.
As for chess? Yeah for the same reason soccer is the most played sport. Its really freaking old and doesn't require a ton of outlay. Yet people continue to play and migrate to things like GW and warmahordes, despite the lack of perceived balance in stepping out ofthe bounds of checkers/chess type games.
Balance != a fun game.
|
|
|
Post by Cryptix on Feb 8, 2019 1:21:00 GMT
Balance in all war games is not the topic at hand here, but feats and their contribution to Warmahordes. It's fine to talk about balance in relation to feats, but please don't turn this into an argument about balance please.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Feb 8, 2019 16:32:34 GMT
I guess my problem with feats is the simplicity and ease of their use. WM&H has this very interesting dance of preparation, timing and positioning which lets you layer buffs. It is challenging and interesting. Feats in comparison have the finesse of a sledgehammer, offering severe impact on a huge area for a simple push of the big red button.
My rule for similar mechanics in games is that the power and impact of an ability should increase with the amount of effort and cunning the player has to use to benefit from it. Powerful abilities should require a lot of thought and effort to pull off. Then they are interesting to play with and against. Feats combine ease of use with huge impact, so they are the opposite of this rule. I think that's why they very often feel arbitrary, dumb and simplisitic to me.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Feb 8, 2019 18:13:06 GMT
So? Why can't a sledge hammer have a place in a game? They're another tool in the toolbox. The only real problem with feats is that some are too strong and others are too weak. Which isn't a problem with the feat mechanic itself, its a problem with PP's ability to balance the game.
Some feats actually require a lot of planning about when to use them for the most impact. Even some of the more "sledgehammer-y" ones. Kreoss2s feat is a good example. His feat is just a straight damage multiplier, but deciding when its best to use it can be more nuanced than you think. Do you pop it on the initial charge? Or do you wait for another turn so you can push even deeper into their lines?
|
|
|
Post by josephkerr on Feb 9, 2019 0:11:20 GMT
I find feats bad just for perceived power balance. Its hard to point an average balance for casters, ie comparing casters with great non feat abilities and dogshit feats, vs models with little non feat power but a baller feat, vs the krueger2s of the world with an amazing feat, plus spell list, and legit personal assassination threat.
|
|
mrtuna
Junior Strategist
Posts: 117
|
Post by mrtuna on Feb 11, 2019 1:03:46 GMT
So? Why can't a sledge hammer have a place in a game? They're another tool in the toolbox. The only real problem with feats is that some are too strong and others are too weak. Which isn't a problem with the feat mechanic itself, its a problem with PP's ability to balance the game.
Some feats actually require a lot of planning about when to use them for the most impact. Even some of the more "sledgehammer-y" ones. Kreoss2s feat is a good example. His feat is just a straight damage multiplier, but deciding when its best to use it can be more nuanced than you think. Do you pop it on the initial charge? Or do you wait for another turn so you can push even deeper into their lines? Some are strong because the casters have weak buffs. Some are weak because the caster has strong buffs. You can't just balance FEATS. You must balance the entire caster.
|
|
|
Post by dragonstitch on Feb 13, 2019 19:57:08 GMT
I never found 4e to be bland really if you played none casters is was far from bland, and from what I have played of 3.5, 4e was a lot more tactics based then 3.5 ever was. Also 4e was only a failure in the eyes of the older players which were not the target people since older players whined about every new edition of dnd dating back to when 2rd was brought out and really if 4e truly failed it would not have lasted 6 years. which I will point out is longer then 3.5's 5 years of official support.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Feb 13, 2019 20:15:15 GMT
I never found 4e to be bland really if you played none casters is was far from bland, and from what I have played of 3.5, 4e was a lot more tactics based then 3.5 ever was. Also 4e was only a failure in the eyes of the older players which were not the target people since older players whined about every new edition of dnd dating back to when 2rd was brought out and really if 4e truly failed it would not have lasted 6 years. which I will point out is longer then 3.5's 5 years of official support. Upon the release of 4e Pathfinder, a 3.5 clone, took the crown of best selling tabletop rpg away from dungeons and dragons for the first time in basically ever.
|
|
|
Post by copperflame on Feb 14, 2019 15:04:52 GMT
I never found 4e to be bland really if you played none casters is was far from bland, and from what I have played of 3.5, 4e was a lot more tactics based then 3.5 ever was. Also 4e was only a failure in the eyes of the older players which were not the target people since older players whined about every new edition of dnd dating back to when 2rd was brought out and really if 4e truly failed it would not have lasted 6 years. which I will point out is longer then 3.5's 5 years of official support. Upon the release of 4e Pathfinder, a 3.5 clone, took the crown of best selling tabletop rpg away from dungeons and dragons for the first time in basically ever. True, but that wasn't (wholly) because of 'balance' (the achievement of or the lack of). There was a host of other factors that were more dividing than balance. As far as 'fun' - 4e was still a role-playing game so fun could be contributed to who you play with and who runs the game. Nor do I believe it was a bland system but it was definitely different than any of its processors. I really enjoy enjoyed the system. I did not enjoy the push to digital or almost competitive scope that WotC was headed for (but this is what they know to make money). But we digress. There are plenty of articles stating why 4e failed and why 5e resumed the throne (yet Pathfinder still remains strong). I would be willing to dive into any of those conversations on a different thread. To bring us back, comparing the balance/fun of 4e to the balance/fun of Feats withing WarmaHordes ... Feats are iconic to the game system similar to how the spells of 3.5/5e are to D&D. To take that away may loose some of the systems identity.
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Feb 16, 2019 7:40:26 GMT
Well there is balance and balance.
Ideally the balance would be so that matchups shift from ~50/50 to 70-30, the latter being cases like walking a melee infantry list against Harbinger or something.
And while that is mostly the case, let's be honest that there are absolutely trash models people almost never take or only in the the most niche of niche roles. Should PP fix those?
From a player perspective, yeah. But how much effort do you really think PP is willing to invest in you putting Sorscha2 back on the table?
Feats are part of the game, if they feel unbalanced at lower pointsI'd rather have people select one out of a bunch of generic feats than do away with them entirely.
|
|
|
Post by cygnarstronk on Feb 18, 2019 11:12:54 GMT
horrible for the gme, they often are a negative play experience.
|
|
|
Post by tjhairball on Feb 25, 2019 21:21:35 GMT
I never found 4e to be bland really if you played none casters is was far from bland, and from what I have played of 3.5, 4e was a lot more tactics based then 3.5 ever was. Also 4e was only a failure in the eyes of the older players which were not the target people since older players whined about every new edition of dnd dating back to when 2rd was brought out and really if 4e truly failed it would not have lasted 6 years. which I will point out is longer then 3.5's 5 years of official support. Upon the release of 4e Pathfinder, a 3.5 clone, took the crown of best selling tabletop rpg away from dungeons and dragons for the first time in basically ever. That wasn't because 4th edition was really a bad system. As a 2nd edition grognard, I liked it a lot better than 3rd, and so did a number of other people, and I think new players found it if anything easier to pick up than 3rd edition, especially ones who had MMO familiarity. Mechanically, tactical combat on a grid ran more smoothly (and tactical combat on a grid was basically already required in 3rd), the skill system was more refined and less prone to abuse, ritual casting was a slick way of separating out non-combat casting into a different set of mechanics - it was a better game than 3rd, and from my perspective its worst drawback (heavy emphasis on tactical grid combat and combat-related abilities) was one it shared with 3rd. I'd also disagree on the "bland" count. It wasn't any "blander" than prior WOTC content as far as I was concerned.
Pathfinder wasn't just a 3rd edition clone, but an upgrade. Just like 3.5 was rolled out to fix numerous evident problems with 3.0, Pathfinder was a clear incremental upgrade from 3.5, which by that point had basically an entire book's worth of errata and a lot of very messy problems that had built up over time, splatbooks, and the player base swapping charop ideas. While there are a number of people who "downgraded" back down to 2nd edition after trying out 3rd, or never upgraded, because it was a relatively major change and 3rd didn't fit their ongoing campaigns or preferences or what-not, the sales pitch to upgrade from 3rd edition to Pathfinder was easy:
"Hey, this works basically the same, only it's not a broken mess and we're going to provide the supplemental online stuff freely instead of charging you through the nose with D&D online stuff. We're also not going to suddenly change policy on third-party content on you."
There was a lot of other stuff going on than just the core rules changes. Remember that roll-out period? WotC didn't just change the system, they also tried to change how they were making money on the system at the same time, change how they were handling IP stuff moving forward, etc, and that backfired on them in terms of driving away customers.
I think there is a lesson to be learned in that the more things you change at once, the larger the shock effect on your player base is going to be. 4th edition D&D rolled out with a combination of really big changes to mechanics, community relations, rule distribution, and product all at once. PP did the same sort of combo roll with Mk III - the core rule changes PLUS theme forces changing the entire game again PLUS CID PLUS War Room PLUS nuking the forums and Pressganger system.
These games happen in communities. If a local community has around 10 players, losing 1-2 players isn't a big shock all at once, and the community can recover relatively easily when that happens (which it does regularly - people move or quit hobbies for other reasons all the time), especially since a new edition can also drum up excitement, bring back old players who quit, etc. Losing 4-5, on the other hand, will seriously impact the community, and might bring it below a minimum viable size to continue growing. If those were central players, the community might just disintegrate completely; if the remaining players are close to each other, they might just play together in private as a clique and not try to recruit new players anymore.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Feb 28, 2019 1:38:07 GMT
Everyone loves to say that but there's a primary issue here. What I said is a simple statement of fact. After 4th edition D+D lost the top spot, thats not up for dispute. What everyone says as 4th ed apologia is a bunch of unsupported opinion based on supposition and no actual data points.
|
|
|
Post by copperflame on Feb 28, 2019 14:37:38 GMT
Loves to say what? That statement is unclear. I don't believe anyone has stated that the fact you presented was false or even up for dispute. I did point out that your eluded statement [paraphrasing here so if I'm wrong, please correct me] "A balanced system like 4E is not fun, and that is why 4E failed" was not a complete picture of why 4E failed. If this is not the opinion that you are trying to covey - please help me understand. I did have to look up "apologia" - I won't lie - and most of things presented on the forum an apologia?
|
|