|
Post by mcdermott on Apr 25, 2019 19:58:10 GMT
Faction loyalty kills games. Hasn't killed Warhammer yet. Warhammer doesn't offer any sort of significant "influence the story" or "help us test the game" or "have a forum to complain to the developers" either. Funny how that turns out isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Apr 25, 2019 20:00:59 GMT
I disagree here, the issue with multifaction games and balance is that whichever faction the best players gravitate to are the ones the community are going to view as imbalanced. Its also completely possible that the level of imbalance is well within ok levels but because the extremerollers go to it and are better players the level of imbalance is exaggerated in the eyes of the community. Faction loyalty kills games. or the most competitive players play the best stuff... Yeah because they never make decisions on what factions they own, or models they own or what aesthetics and playstyle they prefer. I've never once seen a top tier player say they prefer a certain playstyle and while X faction is powerful they find it boring to play. Not once ever.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Apr 26, 2019 0:16:11 GMT
Hasn't killed Warhammer yet. Warhammer doesn't offer any sort of significant "influence the story" or "help us test the game" or "have a forum to complain to the developers" either. Funny how that turns out isn't it.
They don't now because they did. They all turned in to dumpster fires.
Mods on GW's forum were spending more time banning accounts and closing threads than doing anything else.
They had a huge world-wide campaign that was going to "change the direction of 40K" representing the 13th Black Crusade. This campaign was gamed by several metas to make sure Chaos won. GW wrote the story and then walked it back almost immediately making the whole thing completely pointless.
What almost killed Warhammer was an ever-increasing complexity of the game with a complete apathy towards balance. Faction loyalty (I know of quite a few fellows that will only play one army, ever) and a reduction of complexity has kept it from going completely down the dumpster fire under X-Wing's guns. Warmachine's guns would have been involved to, but Mk 3 tended to follow some of the patterns of 40K's last edition, which caused a lot of jumping of ship.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Apr 26, 2019 1:42:38 GMT
Faction loyalty led to gaming a system that rendered something that could have been cool pointless.
Faction loyalty killed L5R
Faction loyalty screws with the CID process in warmachine.
Faction loyalty IS the dumpster fire of war/card gaming
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Apr 26, 2019 4:31:24 GMT
Faction loyalty led to gaming a system that rendered something that could have been cool pointless. Faction loyalty killed L5R Faction loyalty screws with the CID process in warmachine. Faction loyalty IS the dumpster fire of war/card gaming Faction loyalty didn't kill L5R. That's what made it great! Developers that lost sight of L5Rs strengths and a storyline that jumped the shark (looking at you Spider Clan) caused the buyout and reboot from FFG. That said, the LCG model lends itself more to faction hoping than the old collectible model, but FFG is still pushing faction loyalty because it's fun and engages the community, and at the end of the day, you want engaged customers that are having fun with your game.
|
|
|
Post by beardmonk on Apr 26, 2019 7:48:21 GMT
I actually want a faction to be loyal to. I want the factions to be distinct with their own flavour and ways a of waging war. I'm less interested in the factions being blended together. I do get where Oblivion is going, the old religions coming together to defeat an ancient evil. But I want Khador to be distinctly Khador and separate from Cygnar. I want trollbloods to retain their character. Unique factions that a player can get behinds are key for a wargame.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Apr 26, 2019 9:31:01 GMT
Faction loyalty led to gaming a system that rendered something that could have been cool pointless. Faction loyalty killed L5R Faction loyalty screws with the CID process in warmachine. Faction loyalty IS the dumpster fire of war/card gaming Faction loyalty didn't kill L5R. That's what made it great! Developers that lost sight of L5Rs strengths and a storyline that jumped the shark (looking at you Spider Clan) caused the buyout and reboot from FFG. That said, the LCG model lends itself more to faction hoping than the old collectible model, but FFG is still pushing faction loyalty because it's fun and engages the community, and at the end of the day, you want engaged customers that are having fun with your game. and when one groups favored faction is weaker its the end of the world and fills the community with negativity and accusations that the company is literally trying to screw their players out of a JUSTLY EARNED prize (looking at you scorpion playerbase)
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Apr 26, 2019 9:46:23 GMT
Faction loyalty led to gaming a system that rendered something that could have been cool pointless. Faction loyalty killed L5R Faction loyalty screws with the CID process in warmachine. Faction loyalty IS the dumpster fire of war/card gaming I'm an avid collector of L5R (pm me if you are looking for cards) and played from emerald until it died. Faction loyalty allowed a game that existed on faction loyalty and cool alone. Balanced metas were boring metas. It survived on a rotating broken mechanic. Why do you say it waskilled by faction loyalty?
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Apr 26, 2019 9:58:28 GMT
Faction loyalty led to gaming a system that rendered something that could have been cool pointless. Faction loyalty killed L5R Faction loyalty screws with the CID process in warmachine. Faction loyalty IS the dumpster fire of war/card gaming I'm an avid collector of L5R (pm me if you are looking for cards) and played from emerald until it died. Faction loyalty allowed a game that existed on faction loyalty and cool alone. Balanced metas were boring metas. It survived on a rotating broken mechanic. Why do you say it waskilled by faction loyalty? Played from Gold til it died Test of Enlightenment was busted all to shit because a group of faction loyalists flooded the testing with shit data regarding their pet clan. Faction loyalty decimated tons of playgroups when the largest scorpion forum accused AEG of literally cooking the data to deny them a win in the race for the throne and ragequit the game over it. Faction loyalty prevented the effective use of temporary and minor factions. Ratlings, naga, toturis army, all temporary factions, all ending in a playerbase drop when they phased out of the game.
|
|
|
Post by jagius021 on Apr 26, 2019 15:01:35 GMT
I don't know much about l5r, so I assume you are correct in what you're saying. However, there's also a confounding variable that came from the dev teams being swayed by faction loyalty rather than being a good dev team. Faction loyalty is a great thing for a game until someone allows it to move beyond the player base.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Apr 26, 2019 15:48:39 GMT
Faction loyalty didn't kill L5R. That's what made it great! Developers that lost sight of L5Rs strengths and a storyline that jumped the shark (looking at you Spider Clan) caused the buyout and reboot from FFG. That said, the LCG model lends itself more to faction hoping than the old collectible model, but FFG is still pushing faction loyalty because it's fun and engages the community, and at the end of the day, you want engaged customers that are having fun with your game. and when one groups favored faction is weaker its the end of the world and fills the community with negativity and accusations that the company is literally trying to screw their players out of a JUSTLY EARNED prize (looking at you scorpion playerbase)
And yet, it still hasn't destroyed Warhammer, despite fanboys being actual designers of the armies (i.e. Vampires, Daemons, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, etc). Admittedly, it was getting close there, but their general rule system was doing as much of that as the army construction.
Warhammer does share something in common with Warmachine that L5R lacks, they are both tabletop miniature games which emphasize some aspects of personalization while L5R is a card and PnP game set, correct?
|
|
shiver
Junior Strategist
Posts: 150
|
Post by shiver on Apr 26, 2019 16:28:12 GMT
or the most competitive players play the best stuff... Yeah because they never make decisions on what factions they own, or models they own or what aesthetics and playstyle they prefer. I've never once seen a top tier player say they prefer a certain playstyle and while X faction is powerful they find it boring to play. Not once ever. I think I've seen more competitive players play what is good vs what they like more than the other side of that. I'll concede that I spoke in an absolute where I shouldnt have, but I think the player who is limited either by their own volition or by their access to material is likely in the minority of the top 5% of competitive play. I'm sure availability has a great deal to do with it, amd play style likely does for some, but I think for every one JVM, who has dedicated himself to legion, there are all kinds of other players who just play what is good. I think just looking at ATC and the WTC lists from the last few years supports this view. I havent heard anything about if there is going to be another international cool kids club this year, but assuming there is, (and surely there is, I just havent heard from their Twitter or social media yet) I'd be willing to bet that the trends for this years WTC lists are going to trail very close to "percieved best" to least accepted as best lists.
|
|
shiver
Junior Strategist
Posts: 150
|
Post by shiver on Apr 26, 2019 16:31:37 GMT
Warhammer doesn't offer any sort of significant "influence the story" or "help us test the game" or "have a forum to complain to the developers" either. Funny how that turns out isn't it.
They don't now because they did. They all turned in to dumpster fires.
Mods on GW's forum were spending more time banning accounts and closing threads than doing anything else.
They had a huge world-wide campaign that was going to "change the direction of 40K" representing the 13th Black Crusade. This campaign was gamed by several metas to make sure Chaos won. GW wrote the story and then walked it back almost immediately making the whole thing completely pointless.
What almost killed Warhammer was an ever-increasing complexity of the game with a complete apathy towards balance. Faction loyalty (I know of quite a few fellows that will only play one army, ever) and a reduction of complexity has kept it from going completely down the dumpster fire under X-Wing's guns. Warmachine's guns would have been involved to, but Mk 3 tended to follow some of the patterns of 40K's last edition, which caused a lot of jumping of ship.
Ypu, I'll give it to you, you nailed this. I was so frustrated at that crusade, and the "Black Summer" for the black legion. I was happy with the little blurb of ulthran sacrificing himself and slaneesh finally getting him, but as you stated, it was all walked back.
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Apr 26, 2019 17:02:51 GMT
In-game faction loyalty is fine.
It's when it's taken to CiD-like processes where you get things like: "Dear devs, please nerf scissors, rock is fine. Regards, Paper."
- that it is a problem. When overtuned bullshit like the Tharn themeforce and Iona drop and the fanboys tell you "you just have to adapt", because their bias puts faction asskicking before game health. Sometimes paired with a combination of victim complex and entitlement: "we sucked for X time so we get our chance to shine".
|
|
smoth
Junior Strategist
Posts: 156
|
Post by smoth on Apr 26, 2019 17:57:23 GMT
Oh, look my thread is now another doom train dumpster fire. Can a moderator at least lock/delete it?
|
|