|
Post by elladan52 on Jan 24, 2019 20:18:18 GMT
Most of the things you listed are community driven, not PP driven. But that's not at all my point. And neither is looking back to find some inflection point where things could have been different. We could both write a thousand words debating different things (believe me, I could argue at least 2 exist in your timeline). But it doesn't matter. The real inflection point is now. What are you going to do now? Maybe you aren't the right person to lead the meta, and that is 100% fine. Not everyone can be that. But if you can't be that, maybe you can be a staunch supporter of someone who can. Maybe you can encourage someone to step out and make the changes they want to see in their local community. This game will not survive thanks to top down mandates - it will continue to grow thanks to grassroots community building. This was the greatest strength of the PG program, and yes, it would be great if PP did more to replace it. But I can't change that. I can only change what I can control. And I - we - have the responsibility of seizing our respective wheels and righting our respective ships. So again the question to ask ourselves is not what can PP do - they need to be asking that question, and it is very important that they do. But we must ask what we can do. That will make our communities truly great. Edit: Also very significant: this needs to be a labor of love. If it is a tremendous and unenjoyable burden to lead, then you (speaking generally) should not do it. We are all in this for fun, after all. I don't want to be a debby downer but I don't think it can grow this way. Sorry but I think that the natural progression of the game is toward competitive chess....but without the things that chess uses (ranked play, seeding, FIDE) to try to encourage players of similar rankings to play one another (and to incent players to "get gud" if they are focused on rankings). Thus its steady state _IS_ to shrink (or at least I presume that is what the data is telling us) because there will be new players attracted this sort of game it isn't enough to grow the game.
PS. And to be precise - by "grow the game" I mean raw number of individuals playing WM. The paradox is that our southern California meta has never been healthier for the competitive crowd - with a SR going off nearly every weekend (sometimes two) that always fire with at least 8-10 guys.....the challenge being it is often a lot of the same 8-10 guys.
This is the exact attitude I am trying to pull you out of. You have accepted this decline and resigned yourself to it. I have not. And I want to encourage others to not give up as well, because it's a self fulfilling prophecy. And besides, why don't you just start doing local rank boards? There is no need for it to be national for it to have the effect you want.
|
|
|
Post by LoS Jaden on Jan 24, 2019 20:47:45 GMT
Ganso has made this point and I think there is something to this......
But I also would say that it isn't clear that market research really bares this out (or at least that it is a slam dunk and - I would point out - Tony Stark is a comic book character).....
Nearly every growing hobby game (table top or "independent" board game) has been trying to MINIMIZE complexity and barriers to entry. Indeed, one of the more amazing stories in the industry is the ability to move a $150 dollar game (Gloomhaven) which is tactically very rich but whose core rules are amazingly elegant and streamlined. D&D has worked hard to minimize complexity. Game of the year Scrye can be explained relatively quickly. etc. etc. etc.
Now an interesting game which bares out BOTH of our arguments is Pathfinder. Pretty clear that a lot of players are NOT happy with the more streamlined new rules. But they were getting killed by the bigger fish (D&D) who, with WoTC support, was growing like gangbusters with a much more accessible rule set. Doubling down on complexity would have appeals but it wasn't clear was going to "grow the game".
But again, I think that if you go for competitive than you go whole hog. Ranked play, handicapping, seeding and cons and tournaments.
I think EITHER approach is worth trying....but I do believe the status quo is not sustainable for PP (we will still all play and I wouldn't be at all surprised to start seeing community organized CIDs to justify our several thousand dollar investments ;-)
Something to note about most board games is that they (typically) represent a mid-sized to large one-time purchase, with limited added follow-up (barring expansions etc). Now, obviously you want your board games to be fun (otherwise bad reviews and word of mouth will kill your game), but they don't necessarily have to sustain the kind of dedicated fan base that you see in wargames. To take your example of Gloomhaven, the game is reasonably fun and has some depth, but the core game lacks variety and (at least for my group) failed to sustain interest in the long-term, because of the predictable nature of monster AI, lack of tactical depth, the veeeeery thin line between crushing victory and defeat encouraged by the cards-as-HP system, and the repetitive nature of most of the scenarios (and when they weren't repetitive, they were aggravating a la the escort missions). Was it a fun game? Sure. Did we get $150 worth of value from it? Probably. But is it the kind of game that's going to hold our interest for more than 6 months to a year of weekly sessions? Probably not. And for a product like Gloomhaven, that's probably enough. For something like WMH, which relies on getting committed players to invest hundreds or thousands of dollars into their product over a period of years, it's not enough to just be a 'moderately engaging product' that holds interest for a couple of months. You need to provide an engaging, ongoing experience which keeps player interest over years (or provide some other hook, like very nice models/aggressive marketing that makes players liable to invest in your product before they hear about any others, a la GW.) And that, at least IMO, means providing a level of complexity and depth to the game which makes it possible to stay engaged (which, at least for the players I know, means learning, developing, and discovering new interactions/strategies). Going all-in on ranked play is interesting, and I think I would support that. Another thing which helps accessibility is flattening the power curve between models, so that there's less of a 'pay to win/oops you bought the wrong thing' issue (CID is helping with this, slowly). And...I'll say again...a new player format which does not rely on Journeyman leagues would be a massive boon in terms of generating investment in the game. PPS_Jeff and I are working on a smaller format game size for competitive play and introducing the game to newer players. He might be showing it off at lock and load this year.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 24, 2019 21:15:03 GMT
PPS_Jeff and I are working on a smaller format game size for competitive play and introducing the game to newer players. He might be showing it off at lock and load this year. Is this why Will et al are all hot and bothered about playing nothing but 50 point games at the office? I'll be down for a smaller scale format seeing as I'm trying to perform some necromancy on my TJ meta. The thing about an alternate competitive format though, is that if it's not picked up by the WMW Invitational Circuit, then it's pretty much dead in the water (IG, Champions, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by LoS Jaden on Jan 24, 2019 21:59:04 GMT
PPS_Jeff and I are working on a smaller format game size for competitive play and introducing the game to newer players. He might be showing it off at lock and load this year. Is this why Will et al are all hot and bothered about playing nothing but 50 point games at the office? I'll be down for a smaller scale format seeing as I'm trying to perform some necromancy on my TJ meta. The thing about an alternate competitive format though, is that if it's not picked up by the WMW Invitational Circuit, then it's pretty much dead in the water (IG, Champions, etc.) I think that this could be a legitimate format for IG or WMW in a year or two. I've seen it played a couple of times, I've noodled around with it. I think it's legit. Currently testing the "broken" lists at that point level to see what needs to be banned etc. to make it viable.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 24, 2019 22:18:06 GMT
Currently testing the "broken" lists at that point level to see what needs to be banned etc. to make it viable. You had my curiosity, but now you have my attention
|
|
|
Post by peemster on Jan 24, 2019 22:35:36 GMT
Something to note about most board games is that they (typically) represent a mid-sized to large one-time purchase, with limited added follow-up (barring expansions etc). Now, obviously you want your board games to be fun (otherwise bad reviews and word of mouth will kill your game), but they don't necessarily have to sustain the kind of dedicated fan base that you see in wargames. To take your example of Gloomhaven, the game is reasonably fun and has some depth, but the core game lacks variety and (at least for my group) failed to sustain interest in the long-term, because of the predictable nature of monster AI, lack of tactical depth, the veeeeery thin line between crushing victory and defeat encouraged by the cards-as-HP system, and the repetitive nature of most of the scenarios (and when they weren't repetitive, they were aggravating a la the escort missions). Was it a fun game? Sure. Did we get $150 worth of value from it? Probably. But is it the kind of game that's going to hold our interest for more than 6 months to a year of weekly sessions? Probably not. And for a product like Gloomhaven, that's probably enough. For something like WMH, which relies on getting committed players to invest hundreds or thousands of dollars into their product over a period of years, it's not enough to just be a 'moderately engaging product' that holds interest for a couple of months. You need to provide an engaging, ongoing experience which keeps player interest over years (or provide some other hook, like very nice models/aggressive marketing that makes players liable to invest in your product before they hear about any others, a la GW.) And that, at least IMO, means providing a level of complexity and depth to the game which makes it possible to stay engaged (which, at least for the players I know, means learning, developing, and discovering new interactions/strategies). Going all-in on ranked play is interesting, and I think I would support that. Another thing which helps accessibility is flattening the power curve between models, so that there's less of a 'pay to win/oops you bought the wrong thing' issue (CID is helping with this, slowly). And...I'll say again...a new player format which does not rely on Journeyman leagues would be a massive boon in terms of generating investment in the game. PPS_Jeff and I are working on a smaller format game size for competitive play and introducing the game to newer players. He might be showing it off at lock and load this year. As a returning player who looks at 75-pt themes and just sees *so many models* (I mean let's be real, these games are functionally 120 points or so), this has me all hot and bothered.
|
|
|
Post by LoS Jaden on Jan 24, 2019 22:44:41 GMT
I'll give you the bullet points:
25 points 5-6 pieces of terrain 4 scenarios, all super central ALA mark 2 destruction No huge based non-casters Incorporeal models cannot contest or control things Zones and flags controllable by basically everything Win by 3, not by 5 No Feats or Arcana FA 1 (except WAs) Themes don't give you deployment bonuses (no Ambush, Advanced Move, +2 deploy, +1 to go first) Deploy off the clock, 35 minute deathclock (for tournaments only)
|
|
|
Post by netdragon on Jan 24, 2019 22:48:07 GMT
I'll give you the bullet points: 25 points 5-6 pieces of terrain 4 scenarios, all super central ALA mark 2 destruction No huge based non-casters Incorporeal models cannot contest or control things Zones and flags controllable by basically everything Win by 3, not by 5 No Feats or Arcana FA 1 (except WAs) Themes don't give you deployment bonuses (no Ambush, Advanced Move, +2 deploy, +1 to go first) Deploy off the clock, 35 minute deathclock (for tournaments only) Now we are talking.
I would add rules to ensure the complexity of the game is not high. For that I would ban all unit attachements, and any character-type model except for the caster/lock.
|
|
|
Post by LoS Jaden on Jan 24, 2019 22:49:21 GMT
I'll give you the bullet points: 25 points 5-6 pieces of terrain 4 scenarios, all super central ALA mark 2 destruction No huge based non-casters Incorporeal models cannot contest or control things Zones and flags controllable by basically everything Win by 3, not by 5 No Feats or Arcana FA 1 (except WAs) Themes don't give you deployment bonuses (no Ambush, Advanced Move, +2 deploy, +1 to go first) Deploy off the clock, 35 minute deathclock (for tournaments only) Now we are talking.
I would add rules to ensure the complexity of the game is not high. For that I would ban all unit attachements, and any character-type model except for the caster/lock.
Probably not going there. Unit attachments are integral to a lot of units and they're not that complicated. Ditto for character models, especially when you can only fit like one or two in a list. This isn't meant to *just* be for new players, it's got to have tactical depth and be interesting for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by LoS Jaden on Jan 24, 2019 22:55:51 GMT
Off the top of my head, potential banned Casters that we will test for inclusion in the format before formalizing anything:
Butcher 3 Butcher 1 Makeda 3 Kromac 2 Borka 2 Stryker 2 Vlad 1 Thagrosh 2 Karchev Xerxis 2 Child Harbinger Reznik 2 Reznik 1 Siege 2 Caine 2 Terminus Skarre 3 Thyron
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Jan 24, 2019 23:36:09 GMT
Off the top of my head, potential banned Casters that we will test for inclusion in the format before formalizing anything: Butcher 3 Butcher 1 Makeda 3 Kromac 2 Borka 2 Stryker 2 Vlad 1 Thagrosh 2 Karchev Xerxis 2 Child Harbinger Reznik 2 Reznik 1 Siege 2 Caine 2 Terminus Skarre 3 Thyron Thyron =(
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Jan 25, 2019 0:03:31 GMT
I'll give you the bullet points: 25 points 5-6 pieces of terrain 4 scenarios, all super central ALA mark 2 destruction No huge based non-casters Incorporeal models cannot contest or control things Zones and flags controllable by basically everything Win by 3, not by 5 No Feats or Arcana FA 1 (except WAs) Themes don't give you deployment bonuses (no Ambush, Advanced Move, +2 deploy, +1 to go first) Deploy off the clock, 35 minute deathclock (for tournaments only) It's finally time for Vlad3's lack of feat to be useful! What is the reasoning behind those caster bans? Some of them seem odd.
|
|
seul
Demo Gamer
Posts: 15
|
Post by seul on Jan 25, 2019 0:17:55 GMT
It looks like personal output. Being able to kill heavies or full units on their own for the most part. He said it was off the top of his head so give or take a few more such casters. I'm sure they will look into other caster archetypes like unkillable defensive/armor, missile like assassins. Anything the low model/point count could be susceptible to. A quick format is intriguing, although I always wish I could put all my models on the table at once!
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Jan 25, 2019 0:34:08 GMT
My own take is that they should think about why limited format magic "works" (which in My opinion is that it continues to encourage buying into the new sets while providing that you are not forced to buy ultra rare cards with 1000s of $ to stay "competitive"). It also means (in WM/H case) that the learning curve is less steep as now you have less models to "learn" since so much of the game comes down to understanding the strengths and limitations of not only your models but theirs and thus planning accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jan 25, 2019 0:34:48 GMT
I'll give you the bullet points: 25 points 5-6 pieces of terrain 4 scenarios, all super central ALA mark 2 destruction No huge based non-casters Incorporeal models cannot contest or control things Zones and flags controllable by basically everything Win by 3, not by 5 No Feats or Arcana FA 1 (except WAs) Themes don't give you deployment bonuses (no Ambush, Advanced Move, +2 deploy, +1 to go first) Deploy off the clock, 35 minute deathclock (for tournaments only) Heh, I thought about trying to organize an event where people signed up with their preferred Warcaster/Warlock, with no duplicates for a faction (makes Goreshade, Witch, and Sturgis somewhat of an issue, though) at that point level.
Instead of being 1:1, it would be set up in a village with all the players running across a big board, think a Narrative Unbound. Each Faction would have an objective for the village to complete, and each Warcaster/Warlock would have their own personal objective. Mercs and Minions may be tied to someone to help in their faction objective if some are low or if not many of a group sign up. Never got further than the theory phase, though.
I figured that similar army set up would be able to keep everything quick and manageable. I was wondering if Themes should be allowed, but non-Themed armies would be able to bring 30 points or not.
|
|