|
Post by Gamingdevil on Apr 11, 2019 14:06:50 GMT
I think your first mistake is in thinking it's an "argument". It's not. Its an explanation of why someone felt the game was no longer fun for him. He's not trying to win a point and he's not trying to tell you why your view is wrong. argumentnoun 1. exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one. 2. reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory. I meant definition 2: the game is no longer fun, this is the reason for it. I don't understand the reason. Sometimes you just want to play a game. You don't want to have to be hyper-alert for every ability. You don't want to have to ask what each identical-looking sprayed-black warjack is every 2 minutes (a pet peeve of mine) - it can get exhausting. It's also not only threat ranges (although that's the most common example), but more generally something that could be highly impactful that you just didn't realise (your blightbringer just shot a no-tough AoS to catch that whole unit of Ravager, but what the hell? Since when does Caul have Shield Guard?? That sort of thing) The answer may even be as simple as "this game is not for casual play" (I hope not), but if that's the case it needs to recognised and not papered over. Exactly, the game has a lot of internal synergies and things to look out for. In tournament games, standard questions I ask are always things that can mess up my game plan. "What can allow you to see through Stealth?" "What's your threat range?" "Where do you have Shield Guards/Countercharge?". It's true that I won't always catch everything, but most of the time I get the general gist of it. In your described situation, if I were the Circle player in a casual game, with no stakes, I will always say "Sure, you can do that, but I will Shield Guard it in that case, do you want to pick a different target or activate something else first?" Playing a "casual" game is a mindset; abilities and special rules are there to serve your tactics, not to go GOTCHA on your opponent and getting a cheap win. That mindset is not as much on the game as it is on the players playing it.
|
|
unded
Junior Strategist
Posts: 760
|
Post by unded on Apr 11, 2019 14:28:22 GMT
While I agree with your approach (and I try to follow the same approach myself), it's certainly not everybody's preferred approach. Hell, I played two games last night, and one player had exactly your approach while the other had a much more tournament-minded approach. I'm not going to say the second did anything wrong though, it's just how he enjoys playing the game. The nature of the game lends itself to the more by-the-book hard-nosed style, and often on a weekday I can understand the desire to be more hard-nosed about it - the more casual approach is often slower, and can lead to you only getting one game in on a week-night rather than two, which is pretty rough. Decrying that as doing it wrong isn't really helpful imo, even if it's not the way you and I prefer it.
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Apr 11, 2019 14:37:00 GMT
While I agree with your approach (and I try to follow the same approach myself), it's certainly not everybody's preferred approach. Hell, I played two games last night, and one player had exactly your approach while the other had a much more tournament-minded approach. I'm not going to say the second did anything wrong though, it's just how he enjoys playing the game. The nature of the game lends itself to the more by-the-book hard-nosed style, and often on a weekday I can understand the desire to be more hard-nosed about it - the more casual approach is often slower, and can lead to you only getting one game in on a week-night rather than two, which is pretty rough. Decrying that as doing it wrong isn't really helpful imo, even if it's not the way you and I prefer it. Meh, I see the point, but I personally learn more when I don't rely on my opponent's lack of knowledge, which I won't be able to count on in a tournament setting, even if that means I get to play 1 game instead of 2 bottom of 2 win ones. Not to mention it makes everyone into better players in the long run, which is good for everyone involved. I really do get it, but like you said, I don't find it the most enjoyable way to play, so maybe it's possible to convince people like this of the advantages of helping their opponent's grow.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Apr 11, 2019 14:40:35 GMT
GW is now releasing a big FAQ aimed at game balance twice a year, once after adepticon, and once in September. So far they have been on time with those commitments, though sometimes they have been a bit off on the targeted balancing part, but they are getting there and it is improving the game. I think twice a year is a reasonable amount of re-scaling and re-balancing. I'm not sure the game is really served well by doing it every month or so. It is no more aimed at game balance than anything else GW releases, poorly and with apathy. Most of it involves point decreases based on age of Codex.
Oddly enough, many of those who I've seen decry the CID process I see pushing 40K more than X-Wing. Which is just odd to me considering the point you bring up.
Just as a counterpoint. I have had a friend walk away from the game because of CiD and I have encountered others who have done the same. We play in a group of friends. Often on the clock but in a friendly casual way. He wanted to just turn up and play as mates. He reasons primarily were: - "I buy things, expecting them to do X and then after a while PP changes them to do Y. Sometimes making that purchase “useless”. I feel ripped off and lied to in respect to that purchase"
- "The game is expensive for what it actually is. Not prepared to buy things if they are going to change".
- "I learn what other armies units and models do, then it changes. So what was the point in learning it? I just want to turn up and game".
- "Unless I keep up with the changes at the same rate you (as in me) do, I am at a massive disadvantage".
- "I bought a Mk3 deck and almost instantly they were invalid. Now every month I have to keep on printing new cards. Why cant PP just give me something that works" (he doesn’t/won’t use war room)
Now I don't really accept his reasons. Many of those could be refuted. But in his mind it was CiD that made him stop playing. He wanted the game to be able to be played out the box as written with the cards he purchased at the start of Mk3. He still comes to our game nights to chat, hang out etc. He just wont put models on the table
I have met some people at the gaming club in London who used to play WM/H who have expressed similar opinions about why they left and that the fact that PP lost their trust. They feel that PP doesn't really know how to balance the game, only fight the fires closest to the them and have abdicated game development to the community, rather than doing it themselves. Some of those opinions I can sympathise with in all honesty.
I was simply talking about the people I've actually talked to. As a side note, is he in tabletop gaming any more, and if so, what game?
As bad as CID CAN potentially be, I've seen Warhammer do far worse in its process, and I have seen a lot of people had gone back to it or rededicating themselves to it full time. Which is why I don't see CID as a valid excuse for most of them, especially when Warhammer flips tables with the release of every new book.
For the concept of not keeping up with the Joneses' that I've seen brought up, I have seen very few big systems NOT do this on a regular basis. There's always a new release coming up which changes the dynamics. With X-Wing either the ship itself brings new concepts up or the upgrade cards that come in the blister/box shake things up. With Warhammer, each Codex and Battletome requires reading up on how they work in order to counter them. CID only affects a faction itself only a little more often than a Codex (Mercs being an apparent exception), but they are usually far more beneficial and don't discount the hot selling items for the low selling items out of peak.
For the argument of being exposed to a vast amount of rules, I cannot disagree. When WHFB was out, and before 40K went AoS, they were all equally complex, though Warhammer rules tended to be more about trying to figure out what they meant more than what they actually did (Independent Characters and Special Rules, anyone?). AoS & 40K 8th became simplified. X-Wing was never a terribly complex rule system. Which leaves WMH and Infinity being the big games with complex rulesets. PP either didn't see what was happening to the market, or didn't consider the ramifications when they developed Mk 3, and now they are hurting for it.
|
|
unded
Junior Strategist
Posts: 760
|
Post by unded on Apr 11, 2019 14:46:58 GMT
While I agree with your approach (and I try to follow the same approach myself), it's certainly not everybody's preferred approach. Hell, I played two games last night, and one player had exactly your approach while the other had a much more tournament-minded approach. I'm not going to say the second did anything wrong though, it's just how he enjoys playing the game. The nature of the game lends itself to the more by-the-book hard-nosed style, and often on a weekday I can understand the desire to be more hard-nosed about it - the more casual approach is often slower, and can lead to you only getting one game in on a week-night rather than two, which is pretty rough. Decrying that as doing it wrong isn't really helpful imo, even if it's not the way you and I prefer it. Meh, I see the point, but I personally learn more when I don't rely on my opponent's lack of knowledge, which I won't be able to count on in a tournament setting, even if that means I get to play 1 game instead of 2 bottom of 2 win ones. Not to mention it makes everyone into better players in the long run, which is good for everyone involved. I really do get it, but like you said, I don't find it the most enjoyable way to play, so maybe it's possible to convince people like this of the advantages of helping their opponent's grow. Be careful - coming to an agreement on the internet is liable to cause the site a divide-by-zero error. When the site crashes, I'm blaming you!
|
|
|
Post by frumiousbandersnatch on Apr 11, 2019 15:42:50 GMT
The thing I don't really understand here is that everywhere, at least on the internet, there are people essentially complaining that they cannot keep up with WarmaHordes. There's a tournament crowd and there's the casuals who are left "homeless", but if so many people are put out this way, surely there might be enough people to have their own playgroup of people that feel the same way. This is effectively what has happened in my meta. We buttress up against a couple big time competitive metas, but strictly locally things are casual (almost non existent sometimes...); no one ever really comes down here from the comp metas to play, but sometimes a player from here takes a daytrip to the big city to play in a tournament. With that being said, the ~4-10 local casual players (this number kinda waxes and wanes over time) here who might otherwise be lost/put out from the game are able to just play with each other. Pickup games a couple times per month and we generally have a good time. Sometimes people take a break for a month or two due to business, involvement in other games, etc, but the leftovers from the "Extremeroller" crowd pretty seamlessly transitioned into their own playgroup. Of course, we usually do all still play steamroller games (normally with no clock), but none of us are married to the idea of that being the only way to play. It's just agreed that it's the best/most fun to use PP's scenario packet.
Just thinking, there HAS to be some places where there's enough of a casual crowd, or at least enough people not focused on the tournament circuit, to build a playgroup. I work 30-35 hours per week and do the full-time college thing at a university I commute to, so there's no way I can practice enough to keep sharp with tournament people anymore. I don't really feel the burnout anyone describes here, though. I still feel excited and energized by CID. I love seeing the development unfold and get excited by changes even though I probably I won't get to play with or against them much. I enjoy reading about the game still, painting, and getting my one game a month in or so.
|
|
shiver
Junior Strategist
Posts: 150
|
Post by shiver on Apr 11, 2019 20:56:20 GMT
GW is now releasing a big FAQ aimed at game balance twice a year, once after adepticon, and once in September. So far they have been on time with those commitments, though sometimes they have been a bit off on the targeted balancing part, but they are getting there and it is improving the game. I think twice a year is a reasonable amount of re-scaling and re-balancing. I'm not sure the game is really served well by doing it every month or so. It is no more aimed at game balance than anything else GW releases, poorly and with apathy. Most of it involves point decreases based on age of Codex. Oddly enough, many of those who I've seen decry the CID process I see pushing 40K more than X-Wing. Which is just odd to me considering the point you bring up.
I don't think it's released with apathy or poorly, I think it is a concerted effort to correct game balance, I just think its likely a much slower process. If they didn't want to try to work through balancing the game I think they just wouldn't go through the cost and expense of the big surveys, working for hand in hand with dedicated playtesters, and with the ITC guys (as well as the NR and ETC guys) to both test rules, balance rules, and to balance missions. Sure, it's still hit and miss, I agree, but I think you are attributing a negative personality motivation to the work, and I'm not sure that is really the case anymore (though to be completely fair, we all react the way we see fit, and I obviously hold a significant amount of animosity towards Soles and Wilson, and PP as a company for their most recent decisions, so it isn't like my pulpit I speak from is free of sin) I do think the difference between the two is that GW is moving in more logical pacing with their changes I feel and would rather have had CID carried out by people who know how to playtest and have some background in the development cycle. As it stands, the perception (whether it's real or otherwise, and there is some discussion as to how "real" it may be) is that a faction can "CID harder" to get the changes they want and that PP is a little to loose with the changes they make, and that additionally, there are concerns about PP's own internal playtesting and whether or not the even do so, relying on the public testers to find the problems. This has been told to me by a several of my locals that left the game, but again, it's all anecdotal, but I really think the process matters more than the result sometimes and I think that is true in this case.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Apr 12, 2019 0:43:29 GMT
I don't think it's released with apathy or poorly, I think it is a concerted effort to correct game balance, I just think its likely a much slower process. If they didn't want to try to work through balancing the game I think they just wouldn't go through the cost and expense of the big surveys, working for hand in hand with dedicated playtesters, and with the ITC guys (as well as the NR and ETC guys) to both test rules, balance rules, and to balance missions. Sure, it's still hit and miss, I agree, but I think you are attributing a negative personality motivation to the work, and I'm not sure that is really the case anymore (though to be completely fair, we all react the way we see fit, and I obviously hold a significant amount of animosity towards Soles and Wilson, and PP as a company for their most recent decisions, so it isn't like my pulpit I speak from is free of sin) Oh, there's plenty of apathy there. If there wasn't, then some of the point changes wouldn't be so sweeping, or even need to be. I was watching a 3 way game being set up and they had just cracked open the CA from last year, and the Chaos player literally went from his pre-made list to have enough point space left to pull out some more models he just happened to have and then go buy his Daemon Primarch, to make up for the lack. Meanwhile, so little in how those models operated and coordinated with the rules changed that the player had no concerns in playing it against two other players that day.
And apathy is not a negative personality motivation, it is the LACK of motivation. GW has no desires to be a game company. Their objective is to sell their models (and this is something GW has repeatedly stated), and the game just happens to be a mover for it.
I do think the difference between the two is that GW is moving in more logical pacing with their changes I feel and would rather have had CID carried out by people who know how to playtest and have some background in the development cycle. As it stands, the perception (whether it's real or otherwise, and there is some discussion as to how "real" it may be) is that a faction can "CID harder" to get the changes they want and that PP is a little to loose with the changes they make, and that additionally, there are concerns about PP's own internal playtesting and whether or not the even do so, relying on the public testers to find the problems. This has been told to me by a several of my locals that left the game, but again, it's all anecdotal, but I really think the process matters more than the result sometimes and I think that is true in this case. Actually, I think the perception of the process matters more when it comes to keeping people in the game. I know that there is a considerable number of current (and former) Warhammer players who honestly do not believe that there is anything resembling a proper testing department in Nottingham. Of course, not a relative many people expect Warhammer to be a balanced game (no matter how much they WANT it to be), and that's why GW can get away with it, while WMH cannot.
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on Apr 12, 2019 10:49:41 GMT
I've never understood this argument. When I ask people what their max threat range with a model is, they give me a truthful answer. If the result is unclear, they will say something like "Easily X with Y included, but I can add 3" from Road to War". It pays to know in broad strokes what the opposing army does, and the less questions you have to ask, the better it is on your time, but if you have a mental check list of things you should look out for and questions to ask, it's uncommon to get gotcha'd.
Broad strokes doesn't really cut it, when the precise wording of one rule or a half-inch of distance can decide the game. And yes, you're right that I can check maximum possible threat at any time.
The problem comes when I need to bear that in mind for everything in the army. And when I simultaneously need to keep track of command / control / miscellaneous aura bubbles, keep the objectives controlled, remember which model is which, position important pieces so they don't get instagibbed, blocked in or get left far away, and keep track of 1.3 bajillion special rules--many of which will be unintuitive ("okay, turns out those three skinny guys with sticks all have Shield Guard") or riddled with random exceptions ("okay, I've spent a turn setting this up, so now my anti-cloud and anti-stealth guns shoot at Syvestro....wait, how is that ability different from the Stealth everyone else in the game has?"). or it got changed since I last met it ("cloud wall in place....wait, that guy has Guidance now?")
That's what I mean by stressful. Something is going to get forgotten, and it's often going to cost me the game when played in an unforgiving high-skill environment. And yes, memory is a skill necessary to playing the game, but it's become more important over time, and at a certain point, there was just to much for me to keep track of with my limited ability to play. Compared to board games, even the most complex ones of those still have less junk to keep track of than a typical WM game.
|
|
|
Post by slaughtersun on Apr 12, 2019 11:09:52 GMT
And when you forget something you learn for the next time.
This is true for everything in life why should it not be for a wargame?
Has anyone here won their first game of chess or checkers? Or their first game of tic tac toe? Perhaps everyone is a natural born settlers of catan player that wins every game and imediatelly understands all the rules just by reading games manuals once.
WM/H is complex but lets not paint a worst picture than it is.
|
|
|
Post by dogganmguest on Apr 12, 2019 11:55:43 GMT
The last update to the card database added 8 new models, with a bare minimum of four special rules each on the back of their cards. The next one will likely add a new faction.
The last update to chess was a thousand years ago. Let's not paint a Firetrucking stupid picture.
|
|
|
Post by slaughtersun on Apr 12, 2019 12:36:11 GMT
I wasn't talking about changes to the game...i was talking about a billion interactions and stuff? Are these really more complicated than Magic for example? And I dont hear players complaining that magic is terrible to understand or play when the game us based upon card after card after card interacting.
Also, unless a person has eidetic memory there's no way that there wint be any mistakes made or rules forgotten/ misinterpreted.
And if there are mistakes, its only human. Even if you play at wtc level mistakes happen and people forget things / dont know everything.
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on Apr 12, 2019 13:35:38 GMT
And when you forget something you learn for the next time. This is true for everything in life why should it not be for a wargame? Has anyone here won their first game of chess or checkers? Or their first game of tic tac toe? Perhaps everyone is a natural born settlers of catan player that wins every game and imediatelly understands all the rules just by reading games manuals once. WM/H is complex but lets not paint a worst picture than it is. Thing there is, the next time I'm playing against a completely different army with a completely different gimmick and a new set of special rules and exceptions to memorise (assuming I didn't just auto-gg at list selection without realising it). Combined with the pace of CID updates, and I just can't get enough games in to catch up. I show up for Catan, turns out the other guy is playing Quartermaster General, 7 Wonders or Terraforming Mars.
I've been playing since 2011 without interruption, but my ability to keep track of everything has only become worse, and the odds of getting a notfun game as a result have risen. It might be me changing or it might be the game changing (maybe both), but it's not a case of lrn2play n00b.
|
|
|
Post by squighopper on Apr 12, 2019 14:01:34 GMT
Warmachine is a fantastic competitive game, but that same strength is also his weakness. It's now my favorite game, I played it almost exclusively and I'm the first to admit... it has a serious rule bloat problem. Too many rules, too many models, too many rules on models.
Almost every model has 4-5 different rules and as someone already pointed out, not knowing some can rapidly turn into some gotchas situations. Because of the number of different rules, the number of interactions rapidly explode. This coupled with a ticking death clock, scenario points and trying to not get your caster killed can be very stressful for a player, especially to a newer one.
I've lost count on the number of games I or my opponent slightly misplaced the caster and boom, knockdown/place/stationary/charge from a bazilion miles away and voilá, dead caster...
It really isn't a game made for casual players.
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Apr 12, 2019 14:08:22 GMT
It really isn't a game made for casual players. I don't necessarily agree. I do agree that the many rules and potential for gotchas lend themselves to being less forgiving, even in a casual situation. But if both players have the mindset to play a more casual game and communicate during the game, the other can say "ok, but if you do this, I will do these things, which will probably cause you to lose" At tournaments this won't fly, because something is at stake and the deathclock is unforgiving, but I don't agree that the game can't be played casually, just that it's harder to do without some facilitating.
|
|