|
Post by elladan52 on Jun 3, 2019 20:18:46 GMT
Let me present a few arguments here, because I think your concern is totally valid and ought to be addressed. Group A: Why Potential Imbalance Will Have a Less Negative Impact Than You Think 1: The game is much shorter, and any bad experience can be immediately overwritten with another one. Unlike a 75pt game, LPGs can be set up, go bad, be completely changed, and be re set up in a matter of minutes. This reduces the impact of NPEs considerably, since it will be rare for a player to be able to only play one or two games in an evening (and therefore often in a week). 2. The arms race that your goreshade scenario creates is what drives a dynamic meta - if Lamentation is dominating a few games, then people can bring casters that rely less on spells. If guns are ruling the roost, people can bring casters that are highly resistant to them. And if Butcher3 is running amok, people can bring things that stymie his approach. And this can all happen over a couple of weeks by the sheer volume of games that can be played! 3. This is not meant to be a 1:1 replacement of 75 pt games. The only thing I think should remain consistent is the list building, meaning no additional restrictions because it's an LPG. Terrain and scenario will need some adjustment, for sure. Bottom line though, balance being off matters less in a more casual format, and this becomes more true the more games you can play in a night. Group B: How to Help with Existing Balance Issues 1. Terrain - setting up 8 (or even 8-10) pieces in the center 24x24 zone of the board with plenty of LoS blocking matters quite a bit and takes the edge off certain super solos. There also needs to be some sort of instant death killbox, we've had it work well at 12" from all sides, but less might also be fine. 2. Scenario - this one needs more testing, bit with 2019 objectives giving some sweet abilities I think they could go a long way to help out certain specific issues. Two objectives per side and 2 flags might be something we try, but the current SR packet is definitely not great for LPGs. But again, this isn't meant for tournaments. 3. Tournaments - I know I just said it isn't meant for them, but I mean for a standard SR. I think you could do some very fun tournaments where your list evolves as the day goes on. The small size and low time should be what is leveraged in creating a new format. I think balance concerns are legitimate, but I also think they won't be as bad as feared. A single game won't be balanced, but I guarantee Goreshade1 won't stay at the top for long. Support heavy faction fun issues: I think in the case of protectorate you are thinking too small (literally), because basically every caster can take choir and a Judicator, which we have had happen locally. It's actually still fun on both sides because it presents a unique challenge to both players. It definitely requires out of the box thinking, and I won't deny that trolls especially can feel that support bloat constriction harshly - but I also think that dismissing it out of hand because of that is a mistake. As a skorne player, beast handlers take up 5/10 potential army points, and that forces me to decide if it's worth it or not to take them. Interestingly, the entire anatomy of the game shifts, and that impacts the value of support. At 75 pts, the amount of models the Krielstone, Choir, and Beast Handlers can affect is large enough to always make it worth it. At 10-20 pts, maybe not? It's worth a try, I think. And hey - if you can get 3-4 games in when you could normally only get 1, data gathering goes much more quickly!
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Jun 3, 2019 20:23:37 GMT
And for those just tuning in: I think that low point games (LPGs) should be seen as a valid way to experience warmachine because it greatly reduces the barrier of entry for new players in terms of cost, knowledge, and game time.
By "valid", I mean that the ramp to 75 pts continues, but the stops along the way are seen as ends in and of themselves and just as means to the end of 75.
Practically speaking, this means that the veteran no longer feels like they are playing down and wasting time with new people because it is another fun way to experience Warmachine, and the new player is not essentially required to climb the very steep learning curve and shell out a ton of cash just to really start playing.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Jun 4, 2019 8:28:56 GMT
This is another one of those things that pops up all the time. I'm a massive fan of lower point games, but unless 50 points becomes more common at a tournament level everyone will just carry on playing 75 points.
Which I feel is a shame, because 50 points is great fun. I've never noticed it being any more unbalanced than 75 points, and I enjoy the listbuilding challenges it presents. Scenarios can be a bit of a bugger at the lower levels, though. Below 50 they're a struggle, and they were a nightmare at 25.
You could try using the old Rumble scenarios. You'll need to houserule some things (Advanced Deployment is actually something of a liability, and colossals can be problematic), and the scenario scoring is often irrelevant so you might want to play around with that. But it's a seriously fun way to play a 25pt game, and it takes no time at all. It's a shame PP dropped it from the Steamroller package.
|
|
|
Post by netdragon on Jun 4, 2019 10:05:51 GMT
I'd love to see small point games happening, but warcasters and character units (and some regular ones) are designed for a 75 pts power level.
It would need a ban list and use junior casters as army commanders to even start testing.
|
|
whydak
Junior Strategist
Posts: 288
|
Post by whydak on Jun 4, 2019 10:10:17 GMT
I'd love to see small point games happening, but warcasters and character units (and some regular ones) are designed for a 75 pts power level. It would need a ban list and use junior casters as army commanders to even start testing. I'm sure that most of the Hordes factions will be awesome with their acess to juniors But yeah, I agree that balance would be shaken and some things will need 2nd look. But this is also present right now at 75 and game manages to run.
|
|
snoozer
Junior Strategist
Posts: 467
|
Post by snoozer on Jun 4, 2019 10:13:49 GMT
I think 35 points is pretty nice to play, just because the game is shorter and less "messy". People always want to bring "everything" so points tend to always go up, not down. I wonder how much balance would be affected. Stronger casters would be more inluencial, but the lower WJ points also hurt a lot more! Warjack Themes would be pushed right now (easier to get free stuff) and probably some stuff would be less strong. But it could just develop its own meta where things would be shifted, but that is not necessarily a problem
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Jun 4, 2019 10:23:01 GMT
I'd love to see small point games happening, but warcasters and character units (and some regular ones) are designed for a 75 pts power level. I've never been convinced by this line of reasoning. Most things in the game were simply ported over from Mk2 with their points costs more or less doubled. I suspect something similar happened in the Mk1-Mk2 transition, although in the other direction (points were more WH40k level in Mk1). With that in mind, I find it difficult to believe that models from Mk2 were designed with Mk3 in mind. I'm also reasonably sure that if PP had pushed 50 points as the competitive standard, everyone would be happily playing 50 point games.
|
|
|
Post by GumbaFish on Jun 4, 2019 11:25:04 GMT
Elladan, what do you consider to be low point games?
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Jun 4, 2019 11:26:53 GMT
I'd love to see small point games happening, but warcasters and character units (and some regular ones) are designed for a 75 pts power level. It would need a ban list and use junior casters as army commanders to even start testing. In my experience, what happens is they behave very differently when you use them in a way they aren't "designed for", which is not usually a bad thing. In some cases, casters can actually do what they were "designed for" much better. Any super solo caster that isn't the Butcher certainly feels more like a super solo when the points go lower.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Jun 4, 2019 11:33:47 GMT
Elladan, what do you consider to be low point games? 10-20, but the specific points are not as important as the impact on the way the game plays. Meaning at 10-20 pts you have to make a lot of hard choices and can't really afford to do more than 1 or 2 things, your lists are pretty focused into either 3 ish warjacks or warbeasts or 2 and a unit (at the 10 point level). Going to 20 gives you access to every model in the game, but you can't take a battle engine, a couple units and several warbeasts. This fundamentally changes how the game plays than at 75 pts, where you can have all kinds of different threats on the board at once. An LPG includes any points level that gives you a quick brutal game. 30 and up also starts giving certain themes noticably more power, too, which is why I favor the 10-20 range.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Jun 4, 2019 11:40:26 GMT
Warmachine tends to be very rock paper scissors, more so at lower levels. I'd go 25pts and have a 2 list format, that should take care of most of the balance issues. 25pts wont be as fast as 10pts, but everyone can bring a bit of support, and either a unit or a larger battlegroup. No themes allowed as it would favour battlegroup casters too much, potentially allowing 2 free solos in some themes. No denying the rock-paper-scissors nature. I would go with 20 points, which makes it very rare for beast themes to get 2 free cards and leave it at that. Still technically doable, but I am very uncomfortable with restricting list building in any way. In my experimentation, a huge draw for vets was the unfettered list construction. Keep the points low enough and themes will have some impact but not outweigh all non-theme combos.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Jun 4, 2019 11:54:45 GMT
I think part of the problem with low point games is that without official support they aren't likely to be tempting anyone away from 75pt Steamroller, final destination, no items. That would require a compelling strategic difference from that standard. That's why fun formats like caster draft and Who's the Boss find some interested competitive players. They offer a completely different way lists must be built to compensate for the change in construction and create new, unique challenges to face on the table. The difficult part is finding a way for low point games to offer that compelling difference without using a gimmick that introduces random elements to gameplay like those variants. A lasting format needs reproduceable results in order to grow a meta. The same but smaller is not offering a unique or compelling challenge, nor anything exciting during list construction. But it does have reproduceable results going for it. Now if only pp were inclined to make a format with all three features... Keep in mind the goal here is not to tempt anyone away from tournaments, but to validate a new style of play. No need for a replacement, just something additional. Of course, time being what it is, people will need to make a decision on game night, so I am here making the case for additional consideration. But the goal is certainly not to topple 75 or play. As for strategic difference, I have a couple arguments: first, scenario and terrain changes (different scenarios and much denser terrain) makes it different. Second, at low points the game strategy does indeed change, and often from caster to caster. This is born out of experience playing LPGs, it really does change. Third, the number of games you can play doesn't necessarily impact strategy, but it is a benefit to the style of game over larger point formats. As always, I say give it a try and let me know what you think. Play 4 games in an evening and let us know how it goes! As for list construction, it absolutely does offer something different: weakened themes and streamlined tricks. When building a list for an LPG, you can really only do one thing: buff a big heavy, buff a unit, run a couple small units under a buff, etc. No denying complexity goes down. Paradoxically, this has, both in my personal and meta experience, increased the fun people have when list building! It allows people to try out really goofy combos for a half hour and then rebuild and try a completely new one. And the weakened themes only add to this: they aren't thrown completely out, but a single free model is not usually impactful enough to make it the only way to play. Try it out, my friend! I think you will find it to be a surprising fun and different way to play.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Jun 4, 2019 12:25:32 GMT
1) You won't be able to override a bad experience if its very likely to just keep happening. If you're playing with a faction that has a severe handicap, or against one with a boost, its going to keep happening in game after game. Particularly in a small meta. If your only opponent only has Goreshade1 as a caster, all your low point games are going to suck. The only remedy for this is either increase the point size or for your opponent to get a different caster. Playing at low points with the same list isn't an option for it remain fun. Add caster swapping might only make it worse if they get another caster who is overpowered at low points, or if the opposite occurs and they get someone who sucks. Imbalance is actually way more important at the more casual level than at the competitive level. Competitive players can just not play the bad stuff if winning is all they care about. They won't care they can't play X model, if it sucks they don't necessarily care. Casual players need balance far more because they will play specific models and lists because they want to play that specific model/list. If their favorite thing happens to suck, the game becomes a negative experience because when they play their favorite thing they always get their teeth kicked in. 2) Limited collections stymie the arms race idea. Sure, in a perfect setting where every player has everything in his faction you can get the continual arms race. However, reality doesn't come close to this. Especially with new players, especially with players with a limited budget. And by the time you have most of the faction in your collection, you'll be playing normal sized games and not dillydallying around at the battle box level. Battlebox games are only useful for learning the game and for while a new player is building up his collection or trying out a new army. But for normal gameplay it is a deficient way to play that can quite easily lead to negative play experiences. Great points! But here is where the strength of LPGs really shines, because everything you said is equally true in 75 pts games, just with different casters. A) The games are shorter - so the iterations happen faster, less time feels wasted, and it's easier to set up a new game. Assuming no one gives up on Goreshade1, by the end of a night a player will have 4 games of experience and I guarantee will be finding clever ways to use terrain and scenario to make up for G1s advantage, assuming they have not changed their lists. But my main argument here is that the length of the game still dramatically lessens the negative impact compared to a 75 pt game. The same r-p-s imbalance exists at both levels, and both can be done in 5 minutes, but one takes 20 to unpack and set up and the other takes 3. B) The Arms Race - this just sort of solves most NPEs, because warmachine is like rock-paper-scissors and everything has a weakness. 2) Allow me here to defend the LPG Arms Race pretend I said it before I used it above You are absolutely right: limited collections stymie the arms race. And the assumption is that players can afford to new models. However, my contention is that the arms race is significantly more viable with LPGs than at 75 pts. At 10-20 pts, a caster swap, a single beast, a single solo, or single unit creates an entirely new list. Or heck, any combination of the above. A fully new list will likely run you less than $100, a list with a single component replaced significantly less, and with that you can solve basically any 10-20 pt problem. At 75 pts, if you can stay in the same theme and solve the problem that's good, you can get away with maybe a solo or new caster. But if you need to change themes, like to get an rfp effect or bring a specific unit? You are looking at an easily $300+ price tag for that solution. Oof! The Arms Race argument definitely assumes an ability to make purchases; but those purchases cost significantly less at LPG levels than at 75 pts. Finally, I would not consider battleboxes to be true LPGs. They are basically their own thing, much closer to a board game. As always, try it out! Give me some awesome 10 pts lists to break the game and I will get a local to play them.
|
|
|
Post by netdragon on Jun 4, 2019 12:45:36 GMT
Maybe having some sort of choose/ban mechanic like in LoL, but that would need a new army creation system...
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Jun 4, 2019 13:27:40 GMT
Maybe having some sort of choose/ban mechanic like in LoL, but that would need a new army creation system... I think there's been a few people on the forums and FB group who have suggested a three list format where you ban one of your opponent's lists. That could work
|
|