shiver
Junior Strategist
Posts: 150
|
Post by shiver on Mar 16, 2019 19:36:48 GMT
This just in: ignorant laymen who behave as if they are experts argue on the Internet. Details at 11! Also at 11. Passive aggressive dude makes another passive-aggressive statement about people he doesn't have the sack or courage to call out. Special report at 12: worlds best sales person with a 90% closure rate is a volunteer! Was unavailable for comment when asked about it.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Mar 16, 2019 21:04:59 GMT
False. Metas always make their own decisions on what and how they play. PP does play a part, but it is inconsequential to what the players decide. You didn't exactly say this, but both shortcomings and successes are all on the company. Any company. Sure, luck plays some part in it, but successfull companies are not magic or randomness. The beginnings might be, but managing an already established company is obviously something else.
Inaccurate. Shortcomings and successes are not all on the company. The customers determine what is a success (no matter how good or bad it actually is), and whether a shortcoming is any concern.
PP's shortcoming with Mk 3 was that the biggest whales in the market chased after 40K's simplified system, while PP doubled down on that which almost crushed 40K's 7th Edition and not really changing Mk 3 in to being a more easily managed game.
Some of the meta didn't care for this (particularly the ThemeMachine aspect) and left, leaving not enough of the strong casual players to leave doors open for new players while the frenetic Steamrollers pretty much locked them out.
Now, the meta could have ignored the shortcomings of Mk 3 and persevered, but they chose to have it be a marked concern, much like competitive 40K players ignoring the lack of balance in Warhammer games. If GW had kept 40K 7th Edition around for a year or two more or had not released the General's Handbook for AoS for a couple more years, it probably wouldn't have greatly affected WMH as much.
However, GW made their starter drugs become easily manageable messes instead of the over-wrought massive messes of the past, and Fantasy Flight's siren song of Star Wars had been ever increasing in strength provided no reason to stay in WMH.
From there, WMH has found itself in a bit of a no man's land. X-Wing is good for the small collection crowd who like a balanced game (even better, don't have to hobby it), while the Warhammers are better for the epic combats (though balance still sucks as much as ever). Even Corvus Belli has been working on Infinity to make it more accessible, and collection level has always been a strength of theirs (though sku count is still quite ridiculous).
Right now, the market does not care as much for the shortcomings of WMH (and every game has shortcomings, ex: can't do the full fighter load out of Imperial Star Destroyer in X-Wing without severely bogging the game down; 40K can't do small actions without switching games), so success is dwindling a little. But then, the local Steamrollers aren't really doing anything to help address them, either, as they are shutting out the players who would be new or simply want to play something lighter. PP has zero control over Steamrollers just as GW has zero control over the ITC and ETC, so they can do little to address this.
PP could release a new Mk, and that's the only thing that anyone would seem to pay attention to (few were paying attention to anything else WMH-related they were releasing, after all), but new editions are expensive, especially when one needs to consider the costs involved in printing and software development, and they often don't show a direct profit. So, more profitable ventures, such as Crucible Guard, are put forth first to provide that buffer.
.. and your statement about GW & competitiveness is clearly just misinformed. It's alright to have an opinion, but this is not about an opinion. The information is out there, just look for it. GW does plenty to support the competitiveness of their game. The successfulness of that is another story, and there I agree with you. Their games seem very dicey to me as well. Then again, quite a few people don't agree with this, but my theory is living in a GW bubble has a big effect. Too bad there is WM/H bubble as well..
Compared to what PP has done to support competitiveness, and what GW has done in the past, GW has done little to support competitiveness with 40K and AoS. They have released a couple of games that they claim is a competitive form, and I haven't seen much comment on them as being a run away hit. I don't know how well they have been received over all (or even fully released yet), but my local meta hasn't started running tournaments with them, yet, but still run Steamrollers and normal 40K and AoS tournaments alongside X-Wing games.
|
|
marke
Junior Strategist
Posts: 187
|
Post by marke on Mar 17, 2019 7:10:58 GMT
PP has zero control over Steamrollers I'm trying my best not to be a condescending jerk, but saying stuff like this makes it very hard.
Maybe you have zero control over it? Maybe I would be condescending, no matter what you'd say.. geez..
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Mar 17, 2019 15:02:35 GMT
PP has zero control over Steamrollers I'm trying my best not to be a condescending jerk, but saying stuff like this makes it very hard.
Maybe you have zero control over it? Maybe I would be condescending, no matter what you'd say.. geez..
Or maybe you are misunderstanding what I was saying. I was using a shorthand there, and will admit that much is my fault. What I meant when I said "Steamrollers" there are those local players who will only play 75 point Steamroller scenarios, even in casual play, and refuse to consider playing anything else. Mayhaps I should have called them "Steamrollerers" or "Steamrolling players" for better clarity. The attitude fits the basic name so well it was hard not to keep using it.
|
|
|
Post by frumiousbandersnatch on Mar 21, 2019 21:27:03 GMT
For what it's worth there's a reason people gravitate towards steamroller. It isn't perfect, but it's a good system. I'm not married to 75 point games, I enjoy smaller ones, but I don't dislike 75 points so it's pretty rare we play fewer than that. I'd be glad to player smaller games with new players who have a small colelction, but you know. There are no new players and haven't been any in a couple years haha.
WarmaHordes NEEDS a scenario for any semblance of balance. Back in the early days we would play pick up "assassination only" games all the time. It was really quite a terrible experience. Stumbling into Steamroller around the Mk1/2 transition was a huge breath of relief when certain players/armies were beginning to feel quite toxic/oppressive. This game doesn't function without some kind of scenario on the table. Had some fun with the leagues back in the day, but our LGS just stopped supporting them in the middle of Mk2's heyday for reasons unknown. Community is now too small to really justify it. C'est la vie!
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Mar 21, 2019 21:41:46 GMT
And on the converse side, I've literally been told by someone, "We only play Steamroller here," at my previous LGS. With that kind of attitude, why WOULD you have new players?
Not saying that's your situation Frumious, but that's a frustrating aspect of my meta.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Mar 26, 2019 13:42:56 GMT
Lots of posts and words.
WM/H is a COMPLICATED game. Even after HUNDREDS of games there are mistakes on will make and interactions that are new. Some intrepid soul would try to compile a glossary for the game - I am guessing it would number in the HUNDREDS of different terms and keywords that each have unique meaning. That is both its appeal and challenge.
And the BEST way - BY FAR - of overcoming that challenge is a system like PressGangers. It also helps with what WM/H does best - create a place for competitive table top gaming. Until PP figures out an alternative that legally works it is going to struggle.
And no. A facebook group is NOT going to be a replacement.
(And, BTW, I am not even sure that TO'ing is that critical. Rather it is convincing/incenting essentially a sales rep to sit at a LGS, after putting up flyers the 2 weeks prior, and demo'ing battle box games for several hours. The reason WM/H is struggling is not natural attrition by existing players (which probably waxes and wanes for a huge number of reasons). It is, rather, the critical need to generate new Blood and I don't know any other easy way to do that for a company of PP's size and probably undercapitalized state than demo'ing battle box games over and over and over again. )
PS. [Which actually raises the interesting question of whether PP's margins would support a sales rep model. Probably not but I know I would look at the say a market like southern california (probably a dozen plus stores) and see how much product I would need to move to pay someone say 25K plus commission to support the game. Then the question is how many other territories have that many stores to support and/or where there are even better geographies. Given location you actually probably would launch this in Pacific Northwest since that is closer to management and you can see if it works. ]
PPS. THis is actually the Games Workshop model with its stores. The guys that work there are hourly employees. I think they also get a bonus based on product moved. They are there to try to help generate new players, with the entire inventory system being designed to help folks start collecting a faction and get an army built up.]
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 26, 2019 15:41:11 GMT
GW is also probably easily, what, ten times bigger than Privateer? Twenty times bigger?
They cracked 1 billion pounds in sales last year. That’s a lot. Not to mention, they had a 20-year headstart.
Privateer nearly brought GW to its knees. Remember that.
|
|
|
Post by darkshroud on Mar 26, 2019 16:23:36 GMT
Privateer nearly brought GW to its knees. Remember that. i feel like this gets used a lot but i never saw numbers associated with it. how do we know it wasnt just an end of cycle/edition lull for GW and people arnt reading between the lines. was guildball around too? it clearly isnt an issue for GW with how well theyre doing now.
|
|
shiver
Junior Strategist
Posts: 150
|
Post by shiver on Mar 26, 2019 19:04:00 GMT
GW is also probably easily, what, ten times bigger than Privateer? Twenty times bigger? They cracked 1 billion pounds in sales last year. That’s a lot. Not to mention, they had a 20-year headstart. Privateer nearly brought GW to its knees. Remember that. Wait, do you have their sales numbers? Cause if you dont, aren't you just using your opinion as fact? Your supposition based on, what? ICV2 sales stack rank? Now, based on your personal sales performance, and your insider super secret track with PP, you may have singlehandedly crushed GW, but no one else sees this, and this sounds like your using your opinion as fact. I could be wrong tho. I dont have the super secret master key to everything PP.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 26, 2019 19:23:57 GMT
Privateer nearly brought GW to its knees. Remember that. i feel like this gets used a lot but i never saw numbers associated with it. how do we know it wasnt just an end of cycle/edition lull for GW and people arnt reading between the lines. was guildball around too? it clearly isnt an issue for GW with how well theyre doing now. I’m referencing the 2010-2012/2013 era. Guildball was not around then.
|
|
|
Post by tjhairball on Mar 26, 2019 22:52:50 GMT
Lots of posts and words. WM/H is a COMPLICATED game. Even after HUNDREDS of games there are mistakes on will make and interactions that are new. Some intrepid soul would try to compile a glossary for the game - I am guessing it would number in the HUNDREDS of different terms and keywords that each have unique meaning. That is both its appeal and challenge. This was one of the things that the Mk 3 transition was theoretically intended to simplify - condensing down the more complicated rules, and getting rid of the situations where there were similar (or even otherwise identical) rules X and Y with different names and entries.
They (A) probably didn't go far enough and (B) promptly resumed generating brand-new rules, including ones similar to old rules or with unnecessarily complicated changes.
For example, with (A), they got rid of Camouflage but kept a wide variety of different anti-shooting rules of varying complexity but not terrific depth, and (B) continue to introduce new rules that do similar basic things. ("This model is harder to shoot at than its base DEF score indicates.")
I would use the changes to GLT in the last cycle as an example of changes that make the game more complicated.
Blizzard was changed from being a spell with a normal mechanic for casting it on things ("target") to having the word changed in order to allow it to target untargetable models (doom reavers), which is the kind of twisty curlicue that confuses people. Frostbite, a straightforward offensive spell found on other models, was replaced with a new spell, Bonds of Woe, which is unique and among the more complicated offensive spells. (It has two curlicues, the "remove from play" feature as well as the way it replaces missing Doomreavers in a separate unit.) - GLT became an option for a "free card," making them only one of two cases in Khador list-building of a unit being free (the other being Winter Guard weapons crews) as well as the only case of a 7 point free option in Khador.
The design goal of those changes seems clear enough (make GLT much better at supporting Doomreaver units in the Wolves of Winter theme) - I don't know if it's a better or worse change in terms of balancing Wolves of Winter lists against other options, but I can unequivocally say it made the game more complicated.
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on Mar 27, 2019 9:39:17 GMT
i feel like this gets used a lot but i never saw numbers associated with it. how do we know it wasnt just an end of cycle/edition lull for GW and people arnt reading between the lines. was guildball around too? it clearly isnt an issue for GW with how well theyre doing now. I’m referencing the 2010-2012/2013 era. Guildball was not around then.
GW bought themselves to their knees more than anything, PP just provided lifeboats for some of the people jumping ship.
|
|
|
Post by beardmonk on Mar 27, 2019 9:45:22 GMT
Lots of posts and words. WM/H is a COMPLICATED game. Even after HUNDREDS of games there are mistakes on will make and interactions that are new. Some intrepid soul would try to compile a glossary for the game - I am guessing it would number in the HUNDREDS of different terms and keywords that each have unique meaning. That is both its appeal and challenge. One of the things i am trying to get me head around now i have been playing some of the Malifaux M3e Beta rules is the difference between "depth" and "complication" in a rule set. Having taken a little break from WM/H and now come back to it with more enthusiasm than I had 2 month ago, I would argue that in an attempt to make a game with deep tactical depth and decisions, PP has instead ended up with a complicated game. Due to the CiD process etc you multiple version of the same rules across different models, lots of gotchas down to wording. Any emerging issue or crack in the rule or models has been dealt with by pretty much papering over the issue with a CiD or update rather than going back to the core rule or interaction and simplifying/changing it. What Wyrd has done is re-consider their entire core rules and removed as many duplicate interactions, effects etc that it could find. Secondly it has re-written the rules for each model and character to try and level the playing field and give Master unique play styles. Thirdly it has conducted a closed alpha, closed beta and public beta of its new edition and taken constant feedback PRIOR to the release of the main product (due summer-ish 2019). The game has huge depth of play, but due to the removal of all the duplication etc, the game is far less complicated once you get use to playing with cards rather than dice. Mk3 was designed to simplify the game. I would say it has failed in that aim. However it is still a good game if your willing to deal with the unnecessary complications
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Mar 27, 2019 13:36:45 GMT
Lots of posts and words. WM/H is a COMPLICATED game. Even after HUNDREDS of games there are mistakes on will make and interactions that are new. Some intrepid soul would try to compile a glossary for the game - I am guessing it would number in the HUNDREDS of different terms and keywords that each have unique meaning. That is both its appeal and challenge. One of the things i am trying to get me head around now i have been playing some of the Malifaux M3e Beta rules is the difference between "depth" and "complication" in a rule set. Having taken a little break from WM/H and now come back to it with more enthusiasm than I had 2 month ago, I would argue that in an attempt to make a game with deep tactical depth and decisions, PP has instead ended up with a complicated game. Due to the CiD process etc you multiple version of the same rules across different models, lots of gotchas down to wording. Any emerging issue or crack in the rule or models has been dealt with by pretty much papering over the issue with a CiD or update rather than going back to the core rule or interaction and simplifying/changing it. What Wyrd has done is re-consider their entire core rules and removed as many duplicate interactions, effects etc that it could find. Secondly it has re-written the rules for each model and character to try and level the playing field and give Master unique play styles. Thirdly it has conducted a closed alpha, closed beta and public beta of its new edition and taken constant feedback PRIOR to the release of the main product (due summer-ish 2019). The game has huge depth of play, but due to the removal of all the duplication etc, the game is far less complicated once you get use to playing with cards rather than dice. Mk3 was designed to simplify the game. I would say it has failed in that aim. However it is still a good game if your willing to deal with the unnecessary complications A great example of this is Sylvestro. Why in the world introduce a rule that is BETTER than Stealth. Just give him stealth and then, if it is a problem, bump his arm or def a point to increase his survivability. Or make is just stealth rather than a cloud effect so it can't be removed by anti-cloud stuff (say windblast). Another CG offender is ice cage and alchemists. Why make Ice Cage in some models an AOE and in others a direct target effect? Again, if it is a balance issue solve it another way. Ultimately I think this reflects that wilson (and soles?) come out of a MtG background. But what they miss there is that with formats that rotate out cards, a HUGE support staff/play test arm and then the Magic judges program Wizards has the resources to support that look. I don't know if you can "solve" Wm/H problems. What I do think you can do is try to figure out what you need to do as a company to support the game you have and to me that means some sort of staff support to drive sales and increase adoption by new gamers.
|
|