shiver
Junior Strategist
Posts: 150
|
Post by shiver on Dec 28, 2018 8:50:08 GMT
Or maybe some of us have actually studied this thing called "marketing" and "bussines administration", or even maybe work in such fields and have something to say about a company that we wanted really hard to do better than it is doing...
Ah yes, the softest of soft sciences. Ah yes...the smuggest of responses. Or maybe business management has roots in risk management, accounting, and project implementation and planning... And maybe marketing has its roots in applied behavioral sciences, and statistics.... Nahhh.... Best just be a smug dick...
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Dec 28, 2018 15:09:15 GMT
You don't need to be any kind of (soft) scientist to realise what has happened.
When this game first released, warhammer (with a big playerbase) was a sodden mess and from that mess players got interested in this new game where you only needed one 30dollar box and was good to go.
Cute, fun, more robots and then some units were released. It didn't feel less balanced, felt like it had a lot of potential and from that big playerbase PP menaged to cut it's fair share.
Which PP fed, and fed, and fed some more. Now the game stands far removed from what it was when it started, and while it did pick up players along the way, it developed the way an MMO would. It tries to hold on the the playerbase is has, tries to milk it for all it's worth with double colossals being a think, double engines, spammy this spammy that, enfuriating pricehikes...
This is nothing a new player is interested in and on top of that the existing playerbase seems to forget this game started out with two/three jacks and a caster in a box, and were smoothed into the depth the game has today.
Please tell me, why would you even wànt to bring new players into this nightmare world? [\overly negative explaining]
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Dec 28, 2018 15:41:53 GMT
Still the best mini rules I know of. I see it as a gamers game. Do you like a game that demands a lot of attention and devotion in return for great rules, great games and a live tournament scene? Then I have no problem recommending WMH to you with the following warnings: - You will get stomped by simple mistakes. - It'll take work. - It's likely to consume a huge portion of your gaming time. - The game won't play itself. You snooze and it'll likely end up as a massacre. What can we do to help? IMO, explain what people are getting into and don't go full blown tournament mode on them as they start. Be exact, warn them of mistakes and show them the strong points of the game and ofc don't play Harby into them
|
|
shiver
Junior Strategist
Posts: 150
|
Post by shiver on Dec 28, 2018 15:49:43 GMT
Still the best mini rules I know of. I see it as a gamers game. Do you like a game that demands a lot of attention and devotion in return for great rules, great games and a live tournament scene? Then I have no problem recommending WMH to you with the following warnings: - You will get stomped by simple mistakes. - It'll take work. - It's likely to consume a huge portion of your gaming time. - The game won't play itself. You snooze and it'll likely end up as a massacre. What can we do to help? IMO, explain what people are getting into and don't go full blown tournament mode on them as they start. Be exact, warn them of mistakes and show them the strong points of the game and ofc don't play Harby into them I have often made the comment, and i stand by it, that WMH is the AR15 of the gaming world. It's a rifleman's rifle. Its complex, accurate, sometimes cantankerous, but precise. Warhammer is the AK47. It's sometimes ugly, more simply designed, but still fun to shoot and parts can be found anywhere.(and used to be a hell of a lot cheaper too).
|
|
privvy
Junior Strategist
Formerly The Nomad on PP's forums
Posts: 317
|
Post by privvy on Dec 28, 2018 17:46:34 GMT
with double colossals being a think, double engines, spammy this spammy that, This isn't a game problem, this is a player problem. All of these things have counters and people that run them choose to net list instead of innovate.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Dec 28, 2018 19:41:02 GMT
with double colossals being a think, double engines, spammy this spammy that, This isn't a game problem, this is a player problem. All of these things have counters and people that run them choose to net list instead of innovate. You are missing the point. I don't want to lay blame, I'm just claiming things like that make this an unattractive game to newcommers, claiming that as the games has been evolving, it has grown away from potential new players. You might not like it, it might not have been anyones intent, but it is what happened. People that have no commitment to the game will shy away from a prospect like that, because (at first glance) it's just not pleasant. When it comes to laying blame you can't seperate PP from the playerbase and this has become ever so apparent during these CID cycles. PP is catering towards the existing playerbase of powergamers that view competition as facing up the most powerful lists. They do not want to be left in someone elses dust which is why there's powercreep in the CID cycle (or "futureproof releases"). This is what the (vocal) existing playerbase wants and what they get. Seeing how this isn't attractive to new players, their's definitely a joined effort here.
|
|
|
Post by netdragon on Dec 28, 2018 19:47:25 GMT
You don't need to be any kind of (soft) scientist to realise what has happened. When this game first released, warhammer (with a big playerbase) was a sodden mess and from that mess players got interested in this new game where you only needed one 30dollar box and was good to go. Cute, fun, more robots and then some units were released. It didn't feel less balanced, felt like it had a lot of potential and from that big playerbase PP menaged to cut it's fair share. Which PP fed, and fed, and fed some more. Now the game stands far removed from what it was when it started, and while it did pick up players along the way, it developed the way an MMO would. It tries to hold on the the playerbase is has, tries to milk it for all it's worth with double colossals being a think, double engines, spammy this spammy that, enfuriating pricehikes... This is nothing a new player is interested in and on top of that the existing playerbase seems to forget this game started out with two/three jacks and a caster in a box, and were smoothed into the depth the game has today. Please tell me, why would you even wànt to bring new players into this nightmare world? [\overly negative explaining]
It's a bad selling proposition to a new player that sees all these new shiny smaller games.
I don't undertand why there's no "simpler" format for warmachine. Not a Journeyman league, as these leagues are a way to bring players to the 75-pt armies. I mean a simpler-game format that combines not only a smaller army point size (easier to buy) but also simpler warcasters, warjacks, units and solos.
I add the second condition of simpler units as points do not seem to matter anymore in the standard theme list army building (free solos and stuff); also warcasters do not scale down properly as they are designed with the 75-pt game in mind.
Something like champions, but at 35 pts, no attachments, no huge bases and no characters? could work.
|
|
shiver
Junior Strategist
Posts: 150
|
Post by shiver on Dec 28, 2018 20:08:03 GMT
with double colossals being a think, double engines, spammy this spammy that, This isn't a game problem, this is a player problem. All of these things have counters and people that run them choose to net list instead of innovate. This is 100% a PP problem. Gamers arent suppose to balance the game. That's the developers job. Gamers are supposed to play the game and if the object is to win, gamers will use whatever tools at their disposal to do so. So if the parent company doesnt stop someone from spamming a model, it's really hard to blame the gamer for doing what they can to win. The problem is with PP because they didnt do their homework/testing/development/whatever to find those broken points. Now, sometimes things get through. Thats fine, they should be dealt with quickly and eagerly, not 6 months after the broken interaction is discovered and they have conspicuously sold out of karchev and mad dogs, or una 2s and griffons, or revenant crew....
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 28, 2018 20:13:47 GMT
This isn't a game problem, this is a player problem. All of these things have counters and people that run them choose to net list instead of innovate. You are missing the point. I don't want to lay blame, I'm just claiming things like that make this an unattractive game to newcommers, claiming that as the games has been evolving, it has grown away from potential new players. You might not like it, it might not have been anyones intent, but it is what happened. People that have no commitment to the game will shy away from a prospect like that, because (at first glance) it's just not pleasant. When it comes to laying blame you can't seperate PP from the playerbase and this has become ever so apparent during these CID cycles. PP is catering towards the existing playerbase of powergamers that view competition as facing up the most powerful lists. They do not want to be left in someone elses dust which is why there's powercreep in the CID cycle (or "futureproof releases"). This is what the (vocal) existing playerbase wants and what they get. Seeing how this isn't attractive to new players, their's definitely a joined effort here. Actually I can separate PP from the player base when PP offers many things besides Steamroller and the noisiest players in a meta only play Steamroller so that everyone else feels like that is the only way to play the game.
It's a bad selling proposition to a new player that sees all these new shiny smaller games. I don't undertand why there's no "simpler" format for warmachine. Not a Journeyman league, as these leagues are a way to bring players to the 75-pt armies. I mean a simpler-game format that combines not only a smaller army point size (easier to buy) but also simpler warcasters, warjacks, units and solos. I add the second condition of simpler units as points do not seem to matter anymore in the standard theme list army building (free solos and stuff); also warcasters do not scale down properly as they are designed with the 75-pt game in mind. Something like champions, but at 35 pts, no attachments, no huge bases and no characters? could work.
It's partly what Company of Iron was supposed to be. I never did get in to either version because I been in a "building" phase for a long time, and it has gotten harder since I moved with my new LGS having WMH on Fridays (but apparently my old LGS went to only did Steamroller and only on Wednesdays). I guess the point is, the options ARE THERE. Just so many people ignore them.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Dec 28, 2018 20:18:22 GMT
This isn't a game problem, this is a player problem. All of these things have counters and people that run them choose to net list instead of innovate. This is 100% a PP problem. Gamers arent suppose to balance the game. That's the developers job. Gamers are supposed to play the game and if the object is to win, gamers will use whatever tools at their disposal to do so. So if the parent company doesnt stop someone from spamming a model, it's really hard to blame the gamer for doing what they can to win. The problem is with PP because they didnt do their homework/testing/development/whatever to find those broken points. Now, sometimes things get through. Thats fine, they should be dealt with quickly and eagerly, not 6 months after the broken interaction is discovered and they have conspicuously sold out of karchev and mad dogs, or una 2s and griffons, or revenant crew.... Except that kind of reactionary nerfing leads to unnecessary nerfs, when the meta could just...shift to accommodate the new list. Gaspy3, Anamag, Mak2, Haley3 would all have been nerfed if this model were followed. Unnecessary nerds are worse than well thought out, delayed nerfs.
|
|
Juris
Junior Strategist
Posts: 578
|
Post by Juris on Dec 28, 2018 21:07:12 GMT
You had done literally nothing with the Demo Corps, I would've allowed you to switch activations even in a tournament game. Also, yeah, models that don't get an order, just activate normally, they definitely don't "just sit there". The guy was indeed a jerk, do you think you could talk to him about it? Or have someone? While it's annoying to have a guy like this in the meta, it's definitely better to try to reform them rather than lose a player because everybody ignores them. I disagree with the assertions that "the guy was...a jerk." When you make a decision and your opponent informs of you some interaction as a consequence of your decision, you are not entitled to change your plans. Your opponent may let you change your plans, but that is entirely upon the grace of your opponent. Furthermore, this is a personal responsibility issue. Now, Sand20go, I want you to read this knowing that I speak out of love and friendship, and there is no malice behind my words. But this is a personal responsibility issue. You lost focus and/or lacked a complete enough awareness of the gamestate and you were punished for it. It is as simple as that. That is not your opponent's fault, nor the game's fault. The information was there, and you did not adequately parse and process it. The good news is that this is an area where you can improve if you want to perform better. Rather than blame external factors, rejoice in the fact that there is an obvious and easy area for you to focus on becoming a better player. Analogize this to a real-world situation. If you are driving and someone in front of you suddenly slams on their brakes for no reason at all and you collide with them, you could have avoided the collision. You can say "they had no reason to stop!" or blame them for driving poorly, but ultimately it is on you to maintain a safe follow distance and always be able to stop without hitting the car in front of you. You have ultimate agency over whether you will collide with the vehicle in front of you. There is no hidden information in this game. You also have ultimate agency over awareness of the game state and knowledge and awareness of rules interactions. If you are "gotcha'd," blame yourself, not your opponent. And after you're done accepting responsibility for your mistake, don't be too hard on yourself. We all make mistakes of many varieties. The best players aren't the best because they don't make mistakes; they are the best because they are always looking to learn from their mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by netdragon on Dec 28, 2018 21:08:12 GMT
It's partly what Company of Iron was supposed to be. I never did get in to either version because I been in a "building" phase for a long time, and it has gotten harder since I moved with my new LGS having WMH on Fridays (but apparently my old LGS went to only did Steamroller and only on Wednesdays). I guess the point is, the options ARE THERE. Just so many people ignore them.
We agree on the options, but I have to disagree on the blame. This is a product, it's PP's fault things have gone this way.
Besides that, Company of Iron is a game I have managed to play once. I love the concept but it was targeted to the wrong audience IMHO.It tried to be "cusual", while most other companies are designing smaller games to be their competitive option. Also, the launch was disastrous as they tried to cater to the existing player base which found preposterous having to buy card decks again. Getting the main deck was not easy as you either had to order it online or buy a really strange starter box that was totally unappealing for existing players. Also, forcing the exiting ruleset to accomodate alternate activations was very confusing IMHO.
|
|
Juris
Junior Strategist
Posts: 578
|
Post by Juris on Dec 28, 2018 21:10:09 GMT
1) PP's business plan has nothing to do with this. Their business plan screw up was a lack of a Mk3 beta test like they did for Mk2, not making a game with a lot of varied units. 2) Your opponent was a jerk. Maybe everyone will get lucky and he'll get hit by a car. A good chunk of the blame for your crappy game experience is his. 3) Sorry if this comes off as mean, but the rest is your fault. I have read several of your battle reports and participated in discussions with you, and one of the common themes of your losses is lack of knowledge of your opponent's stuff. While an encyclopedic knowledge of everything in the game is not required, it helps. Instead of perfecting your army list to win the game for you, take time to review the units, stats and rules of other factions. Work on your battlefield awareness. Work on you. It's really not cool to wish harm on someone because of what they did in a game, especially when you only heard one side of the story.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 28, 2018 21:36:41 GMT
It's partly what Company of Iron was supposed to be. I never did get in to either version because I been in a "building" phase for a long time, and it has gotten harder since I moved with my new LGS having WMH on Fridays (but apparently my old LGS went to only did Steamroller and only on Wednesdays). I guess the point is, the options ARE THERE. Just so many people ignore them.
We agree on the options, but I have to disagree on the blame. This is a product, it's PP's fault things have gone this way.
Why is it PP's fault because my meta only wants to play 75 point Steamroller and ignores everything else? Besides that, Company of Iron is a game I have managed to play once. I love the concept but it was targeted to the wrong audience IMHO.It tried to be "cusual", while most other companies are designing smaller games to be their competitive option. Also, the launch was disastrous as they tried to cater to the existing player base which found preposterous having to buy card decks again. Getting the main deck was not easy as you either had to order it online or buy a really strange starter box that was totally unappealing for existing players. Also, forcing the exiting ruleset to accomodate alternate activations was very confusing IMHO.
The cards were largely a mistake. I have no idea why the added them. They weren't in the first version, if I recall (admittedly, it had stock companies to work with), and it was supposed to go based off of what already existed for Warmachine. Some say it balanced over-powered units, but I have to wonder at a balance which requires an outside nerf to be effective.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Dec 28, 2018 21:57:13 GMT
Charistoph, I wasn't necessarily talking about the gameformat, but about the needless thirst for powercreep on the players part and PPs readiness to accommodate. This evershifting meta is very cool when this game is your life, but not wellsuited at all for people who want to tag along with the existing, supermotivated playerbase that does follow these shifts. It's not just that they have to learn depth, but that, by the time they have learned to play their army well, they have move to the next list cause the old one won't do.
|
|