privvy
Junior Strategist
Formerly The Nomad on PP's forums
Posts: 317
|
Post by privvy on Jan 25, 2019 19:39:48 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. Emphasis mine. Ditto. Maybe he should chime in on what the actual purpose of the format is because I don't feel that new player friendly formats are also competitive formats.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jan 25, 2019 19:45:44 GMT
That is not very beginner friendly, and largely not that big in a lot of the different games, as far as I can recall. Well I guess it depends. IME premeasuring helped good players even more and widened the gap, but I get how intuition would say otherwise. It's just that good players are pretty fast these days to measure what is going to happen in the next two turns, and that can be sometimes overwhelming for the beginner. It was (almost) possible earlier too, but now it's not even a clock restraint. No, it only allows players who are good carpenters be better and widen the gap. Being able to eyeball a distance is very helpful, but not a talent that everyone has or capable of developing. And a person who is not good at eyeballing will have more clock problems if it causes them to hesitate where their premeasuring allows them to.
While people complained about it, initially, it hasn't done 40K any injury in the run since 7th Edition started (their rules-bloat and army build method did that). Nor has it seriously affected AoS (again, army building and loss of rank-and-file did more damage there).
I can't recall if Malifaux has any problems, but it is a bit of a non-issue in X-Wing because of how maneuvering is handled in that game which requires no pre-measurement (You hide your movement decision at the beginning of the turn).
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Jan 25, 2019 20:15:12 GMT
So, since it's a competitive new format and all. Anyone got ideas how to break it? My guess would be a caster that gets long threats without feat, i.e. Haley2 for example. Or maybe caster that can sphread threats wide like Vlad2 with his "use focus on solos" spell or just a Synergy caster.
|
|
|
Post by peemster on Jan 25, 2019 20:15:27 GMT
(Until we get an official name, a placeholder might help.) I thought that it would be good to start a new thread for discussion of the new limited format that @los_Jaden and Jeff Olsen are working on. I'd appreciate it if they could jump in and break it down for us in their own words, but for my own part, I am definitely interested in this. I have given significant thought to the dynamics at play in general if not to this idea in specific, having just heard of it. I do appreciate the work that they're doing on this and their willingness to discuss it with us. So, any thoughts on the idea or its implementation? My thought: They're testing it. We have scant details. Let them test it and come to the community when they need help. What could we possibly add to the conversation at this point? People giving their opinions on a non-existent format that they are missing crucial details on, that is currently in playtest to boot is just a waste of time.
Jan 25, 2019 9:35:57 GMT -8 netdragon said: I just find it deeply ironic that this format was what MKI offered vs the "big" games of the time like 40k and Fantasy.
It really shows how bloated and out of its original core design the way has gone.
Hope it catches up thou, I've been trying to get people in my community to play smaller games and haven't had any luck.
The other day in the discord I looked at Mk1 Escalation's 1000pt armies, which were two casters and double the size of a normal game.
I point-costed out the Cygnar army, and it was 89 points. So basically smaller than an in-theme 75 point army today. The size of the game has doubled since it began.
I think that's terrible.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Jan 25, 2019 20:27:41 GMT
Playing without feats seems weird. A lot of casters would not be very interesting to play / competitive without their feat. While Grissel 1 has her one disadvantage completely erased and Grissel 2 isn't hurt enough to be taken out of commission, some casters really rely on their feats to do what they need to. FWIW I do wonder if Haley 2 would be playable. Telekinesis is a hell of a drug. I am also leaning against this, though. Feats really are a big part of the game and what makes it unique. Casters whose feats are too strong or harsh can be excluded from the format if need be. On that point, I would rather use the ADR as a rotating list that is allowed than have a set list of who isn't. That means that the roster itself has to be a lot more "safe & sane" than the current one, but again, I think that is a good thing. Largely because there is no point in Champions limiting us to the short list of casters that we're already using anyway, just with no dark horses that could otherwise shake that up. This also strikes me as more efficient, and hey, maybe a player who likes the small format decides to try a Champions event next.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Jan 25, 2019 20:49:14 GMT
Okay, for my part, I'm very interested. Mitigating the effects of high-impact models such as the huge bases and certain casters is a good step. These changes, along with the Incorporeal change, feat removal, and the scoring changes, would seem to imply that they're trying to remove situations where you've lost before you start playing, and reduce the incidence of massive swing events in the game. But this doesn't seem like a competitive format, as was implied in the other thread. It's like Training+. Streamlined, minimal decisions to make, minimal models to deal with, quick to play. But there's not enough flexibility, I feel, for it to be competitive. I agree with the first part but disagree with the second part. There really is a lot to be said for getting back to basics. I recently started playing MTG Arena and honestly enjoying Magic for the first time in about a decade. It's cheap, it's quick and I can play just a few games at any time, and people play all kinds of janky inefficient decks because collections are hard to build. It is, in a way, "a purer experience of the game" than the cutthroat pay-to-win of paper or even MTGO tournament formats. I do think that this format could easily have enough latitude to develop a real meta, even if limited to the ADR casters though not themes. In fact, we should get it written up enough to start playtesting it soon, and I think we will see that it actually does have enough depth and stamina to stand on its own. I'm sure that people who play a lot will eventually say, "I'm kinda burned out on Vanguard right now. Can we play Steamroller today?" but that's part of what multiple formats are for.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Jan 25, 2019 20:53:44 GMT
I just find it deeply ironic that this format was what MKI offered vs the "big" games of the time like 40k and Fantasy. It really shows how bloated and out of its original core design the way has gone. Hope it catches up thou, I've been trying to get people in my community to play smaller games and haven't had any luck. Let's not overlook the importance of this. Like I've said, Warmachine is really just a big skirmish game, but it got too big for its own rules to handle, and I really do think that is the root of a lot of the problems.
|
|
|
Post by anderfreak on Jan 25, 2019 20:53:46 GMT
I'd personally like to see less of the core game banned or scrapped. Things like banned casters, scrapped theme benefits, and no feats rub me the wrong way and it feels a lot like lazy design work.
If you're trying to make it competitive it needs to be the full game on a smaller scale, and if you want it to be an entry point for new players it needs to scale naturally. Banning colossals and battle engines makes some sense because they already swing the scale of the full size game, and are expensive models that aren't really beginner friendly anyway. No reason to start new players with that mess.
I can get behind this:
25 points 5-6 pieces of terrain Purpose built scenarios No huge based non-casters Incorporeal models cannot contest or control things Win by 3, not by 5 No theme lists
Banning casters just feels like such a big can of worms to open up that it will dominate any discussion of the new format and completely defeat the purpose of bringing in new players by turning them off in the beginner format.
If the format can't handle the core rules of the full game then it's not a format that will appeal to new players.
If we're scrapping anything it should be themes, they're ancillary by nature, they're already a contentious topic in the community that it seems natural to exclude them so new players don't have to have engage with that element right away. Also, it would provide a format for the players who dislike themes to jump in and actually be excited about the list building and teach the newer players the ropes.
I love the idea, and I think a beginner-competitive format is a dogganm genius idea for making the game accessible, but the execution seems a little unfocused right now.
EDIT: Any imbalance between casters should be addressable via the actual scenarios, and will just take time and creativity to flesh out. The recent evolution of SR (since 2017 I think) have proven that the interplay between how armies fight each other is at least as viable a way to tweak the balance of the game as editing cards, if not more.
|
|
|
Post by streetpizza on Jan 25, 2019 20:56:21 GMT
So, since it's a competitive new format and all. Anyone got ideas how to break it? My guess would be a caster that gets long threats without feat, i.e. Haley2 for example. Or maybe caster that can sphread threats wide like Vlad2 with his "use focus on solos" spell or just a Synergy caster. Any serious recursion caster could break it as well. Imagine trying to deal with restoration ravagers with only 25pts on the field.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 25, 2019 21:11:45 GMT
If we're scrapping anything it should be themes, they're ancillary by nature, they're already a contentious topic in the community that it seems natural to exclude them so new players don't have to have engage with that element right away. I don't follow, Themes compartmentalize options for newer players in small digestible chunks. Opening up 100+ faction options plus Merc options is daunting for a player starting out. Also, I would argue that of the players currently enjoying the game on a regular basis, those that hate Themes are in the minority.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Jan 25, 2019 21:41:26 GMT
Regardless of the parameters of this new format, I am very excited for it. Any option below 75 points would be welcome. I hope it becomes a viable and commonly-played competitive format. If this leads to a 50 point version of those restrictions that allows feats, I would probably never play anything else. What do you think of this? Changes to all competitive formats:
Models cannot contest or control things while Incorporeal All zones scored by units or jacks/beasts Flags scored by solos or jacks/beasts (casters can score anything but can't contest, same as now) ADR could maybe be slightly larger, at least for full factions; 5 casters plus battle box (Ideally, Magnus 1 returns in a new Merc starter) but still rotates every 6 months Exactly three formats. That feels like a good number, some options, but not too many. VanguardAlways 35 points, ADR casters only, but no themes allowed No huge bases Everything is FA: 1 Different scenarios designed for the smaller format, maybe with winning by 3, not by 5 30x48 inch table with 8-10 pieces of terrain that only need to be 3 inches apart except for trenches can be touching. ChampionsAlways 50 points, with ADR casters and themes only All FA maxes out at 3 Is otherwise exactly like it is now. SteamrollerIs officially always 75 points but otherwise unchanged.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jan 25, 2019 21:42:20 GMT
If we're scrapping anything it should be themes, they're ancillary by nature, they're already a contentious topic in the community that it seems natural to exclude them so new players don't have to have engage with that element right away. I don't follow, Themes compartmentalize options for newer players in small digestible chunks. Opening up 100+ faction options plus Merc options is daunting for a player starting out. Also, I would argue that of the players currently enjoying the game on a regular basis, those that hate Themes are in the minority. For a full 75 point Steamroller or JML end game, I agree. At 25 points, only pre-CID Irregulars would even have a chance to bring more than 1 free solo in it, and very few models will be able to take advantage of the Special Rules they bring in.
On the other hand, JML brings in Themes at 30 points, so there is some relationship to 25 points. If one wants to use Vanguard as a "Beginner/Entry Point/Short Form Competitive", then one should not completely short form oneself for future Steamroller activity.
|
|
|
Post by anderfreak on Jan 25, 2019 22:02:04 GMT
If we're scrapping anything it should be themes, they're ancillary by nature, they're already a contentious topic in the community that it seems natural to exclude them so new players don't have to have engage with that element right away. I don't follow, Themes compartmentalize options for newer players in small digestible chunks. Opening up 100+ faction options plus Merc options is daunting for a player starting out. Also, I would argue that of the players currently enjoying the game on a regular basis, those that hate Themes are in the minority. I can follow that, I'm okay with leaving themes in tact in their entirety. My assumption was that we're currently contemplating cherry picking theme benefits to ban, and if that's the case we should probably just eliminate them from the format all together and save the headache of justifying EVERY individual theme benefit every time some crew whines about how it interacts with the format. Same with banning casters or changing feats. It's going to be a pain to continually justify which ones are banned and why, we might as well leave them the way they are and let the chips fall where they may. If a caster proves to be too powerful at 25 points we can adjust the more casual scenarios to minimize the element that is making them too powerful. I'm not against themes. I'm against making the format obtuse and subjective for the playtesters, and I'm against making the entry level players interact with the discussions parallel to those opinions. The entry level format should be as easy to understand and friendly to the uninitiated as possible, and cherry picking just leads to arguments that they will likely be discouraged from participating in because "they're too new".
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 25, 2019 22:45:38 GMT
I can follow that, I'm okay with leaving themes in tact in their entirety. My assumption was that we're currently contemplating cherry picking theme benefits to ban, and if that's the case we should probably just eliminate them from the format all together and save the headache of justifying EVERY individual theme benefit every time some crew whines about how it interacts with the format. Yea, that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Jan 25, 2019 23:24:08 GMT
If we're scrapping anything it should be themes, they're ancillary by nature, they're already a contentious topic in the community that it seems natural to exclude them so new players don't have to have engage with that element right away. I don't follow, Themes compartmentalize options for newer players in small digestible chunks. Opening up 100+ faction options plus Merc options is daunting for a player starting out. Also, I would argue that of the players currently enjoying the game on a regular basis, those that hate Themes are in the minority. I would argue that this proposal is already in digestible chunk format. Your list will be 50%+ warnouns, and then a unit and a solo. Or maybe two min units and a solo. There's not a lot of wiggle room in 25 points. My take on the latter point would be that players who currently enjoy the game on a regular basis are likely to do so because of the strength of the game itself, not because of themes. Themes are just an extra layer on the core game. I don't feel it's an integral one.
|
|