wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Apr 26, 2017 10:48:25 GMT
The customer is always right A saying that normally means "keep your customers happy". But at the same time, customers can't always get what they want. The only way to get exactly what you want is to make it yourself (or custom order something to your specifications), rather than relying on someone else to make something based on their own ideas and then sell it to you.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Apr 26, 2017 10:51:40 GMT
In order to counter balance premeasuring, WMH needs more non-linear threats, pushes, pulls, places, beat backs, vengeances, and side steps. Threats that are difficult to premeasure against. Restricting widgets that they sponsor is not the correct pathway forward. Arena Rex has lots of this too. But both Guild Ball and Arena Rex are games with less than 10 models per side, as I understand it, with no units of troops. And Arena Rex has alternating activations too, so your "turn" is only the activation of one model. If WM was like that too, we would not see these problems with premeasuring and proxy bases.
|
|
|
Post by Gaston on Apr 26, 2017 11:00:13 GMT
I mean, we would still see proxy base clutter, but tbh I care more about the game I am playing than making it visually appealing to the audience.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Apr 26, 2017 11:20:59 GMT
That they want to reintroduce risk means that they did not think premeasuring through. When premeasuring was first introduced, I was pretty neutral, can play with or without, don't care. But one of the things they completely missed was the old system of measuring control was a wonderful hybrid of no measuring and premeasuring--you could gauge distances, but still had to take the risk. Once you go full premeasure, that is eliminated. Once that is eliminated, you need to introduce other risk methods. Warhammer did random charge lengths, which is icky. But GuildBall got it right with all the pushes and dodges. In order to counter balance premeasuring, WMH needs more non-linear threats, pushes, pulls, places, beat backs, vengeances, and side steps. Threats that are difficult to premeasure against. Restricting widgets that they sponsor is not the correct pathway forward. Not sure I'd use the description "wonderful hybrid" for a something that essentially came down to an institutionalized "you're not allowed to do this, but so and so is how you do it anyway". None of the devs mention it, as far as I know, but I'm fairly in sure that the fact that everybody premeasured as much as they could anyway played a part in the decision to just allow it in the first place.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Apr 26, 2017 11:32:14 GMT
That they want to reintroduce risk means that they did not think premeasuring through. When premeasuring was first introduced, I was pretty neutral, can play with or without, don't care. But one of the things they completely missed was the old system of measuring control was a wonderful hybrid of no measuring and premeasuring--you could gauge distances, but still had to take the risk. Once you go full premeasure, that is eliminated. Once that is eliminated, you need to introduce other risk methods. Warhammer did random charge lengths, which is icky. But GuildBall got it right with all the pushes and dodges. In order to counter balance premeasuring, WMH needs more non-linear threats, pushes, pulls, places, beat backs, vengeances, and side steps. Threats that are difficult to premeasure against. Restricting widgets that they sponsor is not the correct pathway forward. Not sure I'd use the description "wonderful hybrid" for a something that essentially came down to an institutionalized "you're not allowed to do this, but so and so is how you do it anyway". None of the devs mention it, as far as I know, but I'm fairly in sure that the fact that everybody premeasured as much as they could anyway played a part in the decision to just allow it in the first place. That's essentially the same as PPs "Premeasuring was already in the game" line from the Mk3 launch.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Apr 26, 2017 12:06:30 GMT
That's essentially the same as PPs "Premeasuring was already in the game" line from the Mk3 launch. But apparently they didn't leave proxy bases all over the table all the time back then.
|
|
|
Post by schostoppa1 on Apr 26, 2017 12:33:29 GMT
That they want to reintroduce risk means that they did not think premeasuring through. When premeasuring was first introduced, I was pretty neutral, can play with or without, don't care. But one of the things they completely missed was the old system of measuring control was a wonderful hybrid of no measuring and premeasuring--you could gauge distances, but still had to take the risk. Once you go full premeasure, that is eliminated. Once that is eliminated, you need to introduce other risk methods. Warhammer did random charge lengths, which is icky. But GuildBall got it right with all the pushes and dodges. In order to counter balance premeasuring, WMH needs more non-linear threats, pushes, pulls, places, beat backs, vengeances, and side steps. Threats that are difficult to premeasure against. Restricting widgets that they sponsor is not the correct pathway forward. I think this is the argument boiled down perfect. It comes down to how much risk PP wants or envisioned vs player comfort level of risk. The problem stems from what side of the argument PP tried to balance the game from. The new SR terrain rules are a perfect example of how PP seems to be trying to tone down gunlines. They recognized that people were still playing on mk2 tables and with premeasuring ranged has become devestating. Did they design models like Malik Karn and Imperatus with the intent that they can measure out side step shennanigans with perfect clarity all the time? Or intend these models to only go on crazy long side step trains every blue moon and ment to be a memorable experience? Same thing with models that have swift hunter and the like. is my new Hellslinger phantom balanced with my assumed perfect knowledge of 4 swift hunter moves before taking on the risk of commiting? More importantly with this line of thought. Are the new grymkin balanced with the assumption of perfect knowledge since playtesting was done with the community actively participating and if there is a hard limit made to premeasuring is a whole faction recieving a subtle nerf?
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Apr 26, 2017 12:44:38 GMT
Possibly. Planning things like a full advance + 4 swift hunter moves precisely with measurement markers takes time and in a tournament setting that is a finite resource. So I always felt like there is already a limit on this, but it is flexible. It scales with the player's skill to play fast and decide which measurements require precision and which can get by on margin of error.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Apr 26, 2017 12:55:22 GMT
I think there is a point to be made here that might be being missed.
People are saying that PP shouldn't be trying to stop the players from doing what they want. That the players doing what they want is the way it should be, and PP shouldn't try to artificially limit us in what we want to do.
However, it is PP's responsbility to design a game that they think is designed well.
It seems to me that it's not about whether PP cares about what we do or don't do. They really don't. But they look at how the game is played to see whether or not they succeeded in their goals.
It seems that their goal was to design a game that is dynamic and flows quickly, with decisions and movements being made reactively on the fly rather than planned out in detail in advance. So when they see players doing the opposite, and making sure not to move their models without having already measured and noted how far their other models can move in detail, then it's not that they think "the players are displeasing us by acting in a way we don't like". It's that they think "it seems like we have failed in our goal to design a game that is dynamic and fluid". And their tweaking with their rules is their way of trying to change their product in line with what they earnestly think is the best design. Not just to curtail the freedom of players.
Disclaimer: These are not meant to be statements of fact, just speculative observations.
|
|
|
Post by Swampmist on Apr 26, 2017 13:00:17 GMT
Possibly. Planning things like a full advance + 4 swift hunter moves precisely with measurement markers takes time and in a tournament setting that is a finite resource. So I always felt like there is already a limit on this, but it is flexible. It scales with the player's skill to play fast and decide which measurements require precision and which can get by on margin of error. See, this is why I think people who have requested "No measuring on opponent's clock" are in the right. When doing all of the premeasuring takes half an hour off of your clock before rolling a die, that's on you. When you are ding it in the middle of the opponent's turn and leaving a bunch of your own clock, then I have an issue. I also think that all of these measurement rules should probably go into the sportsmanship method in whatever form they take by the end; tell people "if your premeasuring so much that your a die hasn't been rolled in 30 minutes, stop being a buttmunch and play the game."
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Apr 26, 2017 13:04:22 GMT
That they want to reintroduce risk means that they did not think premeasuring through. When premeasuring was first introduced, I was pretty neutral, can play with or without, don't care. But one of the things they completely missed was the old system of measuring control was a wonderful hybrid of no measuring and premeasuring--you could gauge distances, but still had to take the risk. Once you go full premeasure, that is eliminated. Once that is eliminated, you need to introduce other risk methods. Warhammer did random charge lengths, which is icky. But GuildBall got it right with all the pushes and dodges. In order to counter balance premeasuring, WMH needs more non-linear threats, pushes, pulls, places, beat backs, vengeances, and side steps. Threats that are difficult to premeasure against. Restricting widgets that they sponsor is not the correct pathway forward. I think this is the argument boiled down perfect. It comes down to how much risk PP wants or envisioned vs player comfort level of risk. The problem stems from what side of the argument PP tried to balance the game from. The new SR terrain rules are a perfect example of how PP seems to be trying to tone down gunlines. They recognized that people were still playing on mk2 tables and with premeasuring ranged has become devestating. Did they design models like Malik Karn and Imperatus with the intent that they can measure out side step shennanigans with perfect clarity all the time? Or intend these models to only go on crazy long side step trains every blue moon and ment to be a memorable experience? Same thing with models that have swift hunter and the like. is my new Hellslinger phantom balanced with my assumed perfect knowledge of 4 swift hunter moves before taking on the risk of commiting? More importantly with this line of thought. Are the new grymkin balanced with the assumption of perfect knowledge since playtesting was done with the community actively participating and if there is a hard limit made to premeasuring is a whole faction recieving a subtle nerf? Again, premeasuring isn't the cause of ranged models being strong. Ranged models - by which I mean the ones that actually get taken competitively, which isn't even the majority - are strong because their preferred targets have no counterplay. We had premeasuring (albeit in a roundabout way) before Mk III and we had players that could eyeball well enough that they didn't have to premeasure. Premeasuring makes no meaningful difference in that regard for strong players. What would balance out ranged combat is ways to keep ranged attrition down to acceptable levels, and terrain can be a strong means to that end.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Apr 26, 2017 13:16:01 GMT
The customer is always right Not in my experience. (15 years in retail/catering). To add to the discussion: I think that PP are using CID in exactly the right way. To test these rules and to see what sort of push back they get from the community. Maybe they'll drop it for this year, maybe they'll add it as a variant and add it in full next year but given the amount of push back from the community when the rule is only being tested, I will be surprised if it remains as it is. At the worst case for those that hate this particular rule, they may even decide that two measurement markers is better than one and implement that. (I am going to point out once again that I am neutral on this particular rule being tested, I am simply trying to add to the discussion) As for those that say that this is a black and whit situation (have full premeasurement or have none), I am going to say that it looks as though PP are trying to find a grey area that appeals to everyone. I'm not sure that they will succeed, but I do think that they should at least try to find it in CID. They started the discussion on premeasuring by saying that they aren't going to remove it, that it's going to happen. Not the way CID should happen.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Apr 26, 2017 13:19:52 GMT
I think there is a point to be made here that might be being missed. People are saying that PP shouldn't be trying to stop the players from doing what they want. That the players doing what they want is the way it should be, and PP shouldn't try to artificially limit us in what we want to do. However, it is PP's responsbility to design a game that they think is designed well. It seems to me that it's not about whether PP cares about what we do or don't do. They really don't. But they look at how the game is played to see whether or not they succeeded in their goals. It seems that their goal was to design a game that is dynamic and flows quickly, with decisions and movements being made reactively on the fly rather than planned out in detail in advance. So when they see players doing the opposite, and making sure not to move their models without having already measured and noted how far their other models can move in detail, then it's not that they think "the players are displeasing us by acting in a way we don't like". It's that they think "it seems like we have failed in our goal to design a game that is dynamic and fluid". And their tweaking with their rules is their way of trying to change their product in line with what they earnestly think is the best design. Not just to curtail the freedom of players. Disclaimer: These are not meant to be statements of fact, just speculative observations. A difficult decision made with information is much more interesting, quick and impactful. The game is slower when players have to decide to turn a game on a dime on whether they get to do what they want or they can't.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Apr 26, 2017 13:21:59 GMT
Possibly. Planning things like a full advance + 4 swift hunter moves precisely with measurement markers takes time and in a tournament setting that is a finite resource. So I always felt like there is already a limit on this, but it is flexible. It scales with the player's skill to play fast and decide which measurements require precision and which can get by on margin of error. See, this is why I think people who have requested "No measuring on opponent's clock" are in the right. When doing all of the premeasuring takes half an hour off of your clock before rolling a die, that's on you. When you are ding it in the middle of the opponent's turn and leaving a bunch of your own clock, then I have an issue. I also think that all of these measurement rules should probably go into the sportsmanship method in whatever form they take by the end; tell people "if your premeasuring so much that your a die hasn't been rolled in 30 minutes, stop being a buttmunch and play the game." I have never seen anyone argue that they can measure things on opponents clock. They can request to be careful about measurements the opponent is doing, but they can't measure on the enemy clock. This argument is one I see occasionally but have literally never ever seen.
|
|
spideredd
Junior Strategist
Summer Gamer
Posts: 588
|
Post by spideredd on Apr 26, 2017 13:25:05 GMT
They started the discussion on premeasuring by saying that they aren't going to remove it, that it's going to happen. Not the way CID should happen. This is clearly a divisive subject, but PP probably didn't think that it would be. CID at least offers PP the opportunity to gauge community response as well as test a rule before releasing it in the wild. Better to find out in CID if an idea works than to just put it out there is what I meant. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear enough (not meant sarcastically, I really wasn't very clear). As I said, I doubt very much that the rule will remain as it is currently written. I actually suspect that they'll make it a variant instead, but I have nothing to base that on beyond the push back from the community.
|
|