|
Post by greytemplar on Jun 5, 2019 5:07:13 GMT
1) You won't be able to override a bad experience if its very likely to just keep happening. If you're playing with a faction that has a severe handicap, or against one with a boost, its going to keep happening in game after game. Particularly in a small meta. If your only opponent only has Goreshade1 as a caster, all your low point games are going to suck. The only remedy for this is either increase the point size or for your opponent to get a different caster. Playing at low points with the same list isn't an option for it remain fun. Add caster swapping might only make it worse if they get another caster who is overpowered at low points, or if the opposite occurs and they get someone who sucks. Imbalance is actually way more important at the more casual level than at the competitive level. Competitive players can just not play the bad stuff if winning is all they care about. They won't care they can't play X model, if it sucks they don't necessarily care. Casual players need balance far more because they will play specific models and lists because they want to play that specific model/list. If their favorite thing happens to suck, the game becomes a negative experience because when they play their favorite thing they always get their teeth kicked in. 2) Limited collections stymie the arms race idea. Sure, in a perfect setting where every player has everything in his faction you can get the continual arms race. However, reality doesn't come close to this. Especially with new players, especially with players with a limited budget. And by the time you have most of the faction in your collection, you'll be playing normal sized games and not dillydallying around at the battle box level. Battlebox games are only useful for learning the game and for while a new player is building up his collection or trying out a new army. But for normal gameplay it is a deficient way to play that can quite easily lead to negative play experiences. Great points! But here is where the strength of LPGs really shines, because everything you said is equally true in 75 pts games, just with different casters. A) The games are shorter - so the iterations happen faster, less time feels wasted, and it's easier to set up a new game. Assuming no one gives up on Goreshade1, by the end of a night a player will have 4 games of experience and I guarantee will be finding clever ways to use terrain and scenario to make up for G1s advantage, assuming they have not changed their lists. But my main argument here is that the length of the game still dramatically lessens the negative impact compared to a 75 pt game. The same r-p-s imbalance exists at both levels, and both can be done in 5 minutes, but one takes 20 to unpack and set up and the other takes 3. B) The Arms Race - this just sort of solves most NPEs, because warmachine is like rock-paper-scissors and everything has a weakness. 2) Allow me here to defend the LPG Arms Race pretend I said it before I used it above You are absolutely right: limited collections stymie the arms race. And the assumption is that players can afford to new models. However, my contention is that the arms race is significantly more viable with LPGs than at 75 pts. At 10-20 pts, a caster swap, a single beast, a single solo, or single unit creates an entirely new list. Or heck, any combination of the above. A fully new list will likely run you less than $100, a list with a single component replaced significantly less, and with that you can solve basically any 10-20 pt problem. At 75 pts, if you can stay in the same theme and solve the problem that's good, you can get away with maybe a solo or new caster. But if you need to change themes, like to get an rfp effect or bring a specific unit? You are looking at an easily $300+ price tag for that solution. Oof! The Arms Race argument definitely assumes an ability to make purchases; but those purchases cost significantly less at LPG levels than at 75 pts. Finally, I would not consider battleboxes to be true LPGs. They are basically their own thing, much closer to a board game. As always, try it out! Give me some awesome 10 pts lists to break the game and I will get a local to play them. I have tried it out.
I've been in 3 metas over the years. All with periods of new players coming in and building up their collections where we had to play low point games.
Everyone pretty much universally agreed that the low point games sucked because of the lack of balance. Games were usually very swingy, and we lost a few players because their limited collections were suboptimal at the point level. We had a new guy start with Trolls and another with Cryx. I used Goreshade1 as my example precisely because it happened in real life. The troll guy was having no fun having to play against Goreshade1 every game while he had gimped support choices. he only got maybe 15 games before he quit, because half of them were against his friend who only had a Goreshade list.
The Cryx player managed to stick with the game, and he dropped Goreshade later and moved on to Denny once he got to higher tiers.
Thats why balance is more important at lower levels than higher ones. It will prevent scenarios where a player's suboptimal choice of starting point ends up being the reason he abandons the game.
Yes, you get more bang for your buck at low points because a single new model has a bigger impact. But thats just the normal growth of expanding your collection, and eventually you'll want to play with all of your toys at the same time, not just a small number of them.
Small games are useful, but not really as a place to play just for the sake of enjoyment. Too many possible pitfalls that can sabotage people's enjoyment of the game compared to higher point levels. Small games should always be viewed as a stepping stone to full sized games.
Frankly, I think the 75 points is itself too small. 100 points would probably result in more overall balance between factions and playstyles.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jun 5, 2019 7:58:02 GMT
1) Privateer Press CAN control the first. They are the ones who are classified as "official" in the "official support", after all.
2) I was actually saying that in the very second point, except, I cannot shape it if no one else in the meta is willing to help out in that. The local TOs MIGHT be able to do it, but if they aren't on board, this won't get far, at least in my meta. Even then, if no one bothers to show up for them, then it will be stillborn.
I really must disagree with you. Privateer could say the standard size game is any arbitrary number, but no one is beholden to it. It really is up to the players involved!
As for point #2: uh...just shape it? Say "Hey, I want to play 50 points instead" and do it...? It is not that hard. You have the power to control this. I promise. If the people you play with insist on all-Steamroller-all-the-time, then... That's still not Privateer's doing?
The point of being official will make it easier get people's attention who are Steamroller-locked. Only Privateer Press controls what is "official".
When the only response I get back is, "We only play Steamroller here", and everyone else who would have enjoyed the smaller games has already sold off everything they own and won't touch it with a ten-foot pole again, it's really hard to shape anything. Even more difficult when my game time opportunities can be measured as "very rarely". AND I never said it was Privateer's doing or responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Jun 5, 2019 12:28:58 GMT
Great points! But here is where the strength of LPGs really shines, because everything you said is equally true in 75 pts games, just with different casters. A) The games are shorter - so the iterations happen faster, less time feels wasted, and it's easier to set up a new game. Assuming no one gives up on Goreshade1, by the end of a night a player will have 4 games of experience and I guarantee will be finding clever ways to use terrain and scenario to make up for G1s advantage, assuming they have not changed their lists. But my main argument here is that the length of the game still dramatically lessens the negative impact compared to a 75 pt game. The same r-p-s imbalance exists at both levels, and both can be done in 5 minutes, but one takes 20 to unpack and set up and the other takes 3. B) The Arms Race - this just sort of solves most NPEs, because warmachine is like rock-paper-scissors and everything has a weakness. 2) Allow me here to defend the LPG Arms Race pretend I said it before I used it above You are absolutely right: limited collections stymie the arms race. And the assumption is that players can afford to new models. However, my contention is that the arms race is significantly more viable with LPGs than at 75 pts. At 10-20 pts, a caster swap, a single beast, a single solo, or single unit creates an entirely new list. Or heck, any combination of the above. A fully new list will likely run you less than $100, a list with a single component replaced significantly less, and with that you can solve basically any 10-20 pt problem. At 75 pts, if you can stay in the same theme and solve the problem that's good, you can get away with maybe a solo or new caster. But if you need to change themes, like to get an rfp effect or bring a specific unit? You are looking at an easily $300+ price tag for that solution. Oof! The Arms Race argument definitely assumes an ability to make purchases; but those purchases cost significantly less at LPG levels than at 75 pts. Finally, I would not consider battleboxes to be true LPGs. They are basically their own thing, much closer to a board game. As always, try it out! Give me some awesome 10 pts lists to break the game and I will get a local to play them. I have tried it out.
I've been in 3 metas over the years. All with periods of new players coming in and building up their collections where we had to play low point games.
Everyone pretty much universally agreed that the low point games sucked because of the lack of balance. Games were usually very swingy, and we lost a few players because their limited collections were suboptimal at the point level. We had a new guy start with Trolls and another with Cryx. I used Goreshade1 as my example precisely because it happened in real life. The troll guy was having no fun having to play against Goreshade1 every game while he had gimped support choices. he only got maybe 15 games before he quit, because half of them were against his friend who only had a Goreshade list.
The Cryx player managed to stick with the game, and he dropped Goreshade later and moved on to Denny once he got to higher tiers.
Thats why balance is more important at lower levels than higher ones. It will prevent scenarios where a player's suboptimal choice of starting point ends up being the reason he abandons the game.
Yes, you get more bang for your buck at low points because a single new model has a bigger impact. But thats just the normal growth of expanding your collection, and eventually you'll want to play with all of your toys at the same time, not just a small number of them.
Small games are useful, but not really as a place to play just for the sake of enjoyment. Too many possible pitfalls that can sabotage people's enjoyment of the game compared to higher point levels. Small games should always be viewed as a stepping stone to full sized games.
Frankly, I think the 75 points is itself too small. 100 points would probably result in more overall balance between factions and playstyles.
I am sorry you had that experience. Keep in mind that this is not meant to be a replacement, so if people want to play larger and larger games that should be encouraged too. And I think ultimately our views are most effective when blended together - if a new player has no interest in spending the money or single game time on a 75 pt steamroller pair, there needs to be a place for them. If they want to grow into that, then that should also be encouraged. Locally, we have several people that have no interest in large games, so adding them back into the community with small point games has been very beneficial, and is likely to continue growth. This has already begun to happen. I think the main takeaway from our two experiences is that no one size fits all - not everyone wants to play LPGs, and not everyone wants to play at 75 pts, and if we want to grow the metas I think that elevating LPGs to a more common level (without replacing 75 pts) will greatly help that. My dream is that people could buy into Warmachine at any level and feel comfortable playing at that level. Making the game more accessible is always a good thing, and offering a style of play that doesn't involve dropping $400 up front would be huge for that. It has its flaws, to be sure. But that's why community is so important, and that's why I created this thread: to find like minded people who can begin to foment change in their meta, even if it's only a little at a time. The more players there are - at ALL points levels - the better for us all.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Jun 5, 2019 12:34:47 GMT
Here is the list I first played and had a blast into Kromac1, Caine2, Makeda1, and a couple others:
Skorne - Jalaam - 10pts
Theme: Imperial Warhost 1 / 1 Free Cards 10 / 10 Army
Primus Jalaam - WB: +28 - Agonizer - PC: 0 - Titan Cannoneer - PC: 16 (Battlegroup Points Used: 16) - Bronzeback Titan - PC: 17 (Battlegroup Points Used: 12)
Paingiver Beast Handlers - Leader & 3 Grunts: 5
THEME: Imperial Warhost --- GENERATED : 06/05/2019 08:33:02 BUILD ID : 2071.19-02-05⁰
Jalaam is pretty great at this level, and I got a surprising amount of use out of warpath. His ability to snipe out useful solos is very strong. Even Caine2 had trouble pinning him down as he dodged from cover to cover.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 5, 2019 12:36:20 GMT
I would have thought that elladan’s above point was obvious and didn’t need to be said, but now that he said it, I realize I was wrong. Anyway, yes: diversity is critical. A gaming group cannot thrive on either extreme. But also, the players have to be cool people and need to be willing to be flexible in order to accommodate their opponents. That applies for all the players involved!
|
|
Munindk
Junior Strategist
Posts: 210
|
Post by Munindk on Jun 6, 2019 6:48:57 GMT
I would go with 20 points, which makes it very rare for beast themes to get 2 free cards and leave it at that. Still technically doable, but I am very uncomfortable with restricting list building in any way. In my experimentation, a huge draw for vets was the unfettered list construction. Keep the points low enough and themes will have some impact but not outweigh all non-theme combos. 20 or 25pts makes little difference, I'd be fine with either. As for restricting list building I think its OK if there'se a good reason and in this case I'd argue that allowing themes heavily favours beast/jack themes, so it levels the playing field and honestly. If this format is supposed to be newbie friendly, playing without themes allows players to use more of their collection as well.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Jun 6, 2019 13:19:08 GMT
Maybe having some sort of choose/ban mechanic like in LoL, but that would need a new army creation system... I think there's been a few people on the forums and FB group who have suggested a three list format where you ban one of your opponent's lists. That could work I like this, it would greatly reduce the rock-paper-scissors character of small games. It also encourages beginning players to start out with universally usefull models that can fit many lists, learn about (subtle) differences casters bring to similar lists, and learn about taking a carefull look at the opponents list... all right of the bat on a scale thst doesn't blow your mind. The format fits with having a relatively small collection (starters) as well as a big one.
|
|
|
Post by GumbaFish on Jun 6, 2019 16:29:26 GMT
I am interested and might give this a shot. My main worry is that at even 25 points the current scenario packet would make it tough to actually play for scenario wins as has already been pointed out. In my experience though players generally like sticking to standard/supported formats from a company so introducing some house-rule version often results in very low interest. I think it would be neat if PP put some more thought into making smaller games function better since that is the obvious entry point for players. However, without official support it feels like a tough idea to sell to other people.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Jun 6, 2019 16:33:30 GMT
I am interested and might give this a shot. My main worry is that at even 25 points the current scenario packet would make it tough to actually play for scenario wins as has already been pointed out. In my experience though players generally like sticking to standard/supported formats from a company so introducing some house-rule version often results in very low interest. I think it would be neat if PP put some more thought into making smaller games function better since that is the obvious entry point for players. However, without official support it feels like a tough idea to sell to other people. I would start by playing without scenario and then go from there. Maybe try one of the scenarios out of the core rulebook. Trying to treat it as the exact same thing will dilute the fun of it though, playing 25 pts with steamroller scenarios will almost certainly not work out right. Then it will just feel like a more boring version of a 75 pt game. To your point about houseruling I agree, which is why I am so opposed to changing/restricting list building. The freedom LPGs provide simply by virtue of reducing the obvious strength of themes is huge. My exception the the houseruling is the table itself, mandating 8+ pieces is necessary for it to work and be fun.
|
|
|
Post by GumbaFish on Jun 6, 2019 17:43:53 GMT
I've just found from running demo games or small (10pt) games that not having a scenario element to force central conflict can make games kind of strange. If you are only playing for assassination you can end up with a scenario where you are just chasing the opposing caster around the board for several turns trying to kill them even though you have effectively killed the rest of their army that threatens you being assassinated. Unlike mangled metal, you aren't sort of bound by the win condition of destroying the enemy battlegroup so that feels like a minor point to consider ahead of time. I just bring it up because I particularly have noticed new players focus on not loosing rather than how they can win games and this can lead to very protracted games that were effectively over.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Jun 7, 2019 8:05:59 GMT
I am interested and might give this a shot. My main worry is that at even 25 points the current scenario packet would make it tough to actually play for scenario wins as has already been pointed out. In my experience though players generally like sticking to standard/supported formats from a company so introducing some house-rule version often results in very low interest. I think it would be neat if PP put some more thought into making smaller games function better since that is the obvious entry point for players. However, without official support it feels like a tough idea to sell to other people. Yes I think you are right, but this is not a bad thing. In my (limited) experience drawing up smaller lists for intro games (for people used to wargames) you are drawn to a 35-ish pt format to play a smaller version of the game. Get smaller (0-25 pt games) and lists become so limited it's just a different game. Scenario and terrain rules should accomodate for that. Perhaps something simpler, comparable to certain 40k scenario's where you get X objectives every model in the game can hold/contest, and before deployment you each place objectives one by one, some within, some outside terrain features. Maybe an expending killbox to keep ushering the action to the centre of the table and promote quick games even further? For now, if we can come up with one solid scenario for small games we have something to take to PP.
|
|
|
Post by netdragon on Jun 7, 2019 10:51:37 GMT
I am interested and might give this a shot. My main worry is that at even 25 points the current scenario packet would make it tough to actually play for scenario wins as has already been pointed out. In my experience though players generally like sticking to standard/supported formats from a company so introducing some house-rule version often results in very low interest. I think it would be neat if PP put some more thought into making smaller games function better since that is the obvious entry point for players. However, without official support it feels like a tough idea to sell to other people. Yes I think you are right, but this is not a bad thing. In my (limited) experience drawing up smaller lists for intro games (for people used to wargames) you are drawn to a 35-ish pt format to play a smaller version of the game. Get smaller (0-25 pt games) and lists become so limited it's just a different game. Scenario and terrain rules should accomodate for that. Perhaps something simpler, comparable to certain 40k scenario's where you get X objectives every model in the game can hold/contest, and before deployment you each place objectives one by one, some within, some outside terrain features. Maybe an expending killbox to keep ushering the action to the centre of the table and promote quick games even further? For now, if we can come up with one solid scenario for small games we have something to take to PP.
That's kinda the original size of the orginal MK1 game for which things were designed to.
I still think that some units are too overpowered for that format, so a ban list would be needed too.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Jun 7, 2019 15:35:16 GMT
Ok, what are the first couple units that spring to mind to top that banlist?
I can see legion chosen for instance being pretty broken in smaller games,but tbh I can't be the judge of that.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Jun 7, 2019 15:59:28 GMT
See now you're getting into another reason small point games are not a good idea for long term gameplay. Banning stuff is anti-fun because maybe someone really likes a particular unit that you've decided to ban.
Maybe someone really likes the Chosen and bought them as his first real unit for Legion. Now you've banned them so he can't play them.
If a point level needs you to house rule and ban certain things for balance, then maybe you shouldn't be hanging around that point level in the first place. Especially since you're now telling your opponent what he can and cannot make his list with.
Which feeds into my earlier point about why balance is even more important for casual play than for competitive play. The more balanced the game is, the more equitable the fun is because it gives the players more freedom to do what they feel is fun. So if the low point games are unbalanced to the point where you're having to ban stuff and house rule, then maybe you should reconsider the low point games entirely. Especially since banning stuff is going to ruin someone's fun(you wouldn't be banning X if X wasn't being used by someone in your group).
So its really best for everyone involved to play the game with the end goal of reaching 75ish point games. For balance and freedom of choice purposes so that everybody can build their lists how they want to.
I intensely dislike Caine2 and his stupid assassination threat. Same with Haley2 and her assassination game. I may get frustrated when trying to deal with them, but I would never EVER consider banning them because that would interfere with the fun of the people who enjoy playing that type of caster.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Jun 7, 2019 16:04:04 GMT
I 100% agree about banning models, it really should not be done for LPGs.
Throwing out the whole idea of LPGs though is definitely tossing the baby with the bathwater.
|
|