Tournament Balance and GW's Next Big Decision

[mmimzie]

3 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

However, I think the community's biggest issue is overestimating the impact of the competitive meta on the overall health of the game.  The competitive meta doesn't even dominate the *tournament scene*, much less the whole game.  The competitive meta dominates the top 1/3 or so of tournament players, influences (but doesn't dominate) the middle 1/3 of tournament players and some casual players, and doesn't affect at all the bottom 1/3 of tournament players (other than determining what particular OP filth they play in round one on their way down to the fun tables) and most casual players.

This is definitely quite true; as many causal metas exist in local game shops and homes where lacking skilled or poor match up lead to alot of mistaken perceptions of Imbalance. 

 

That said sites like this do inflate this competitive notion alot. As the above folks seeking to understand either how to stomp thier friend or why they keep getting stomped will come to sites like this. I in so doing while they dont become part of the competitive meta they become very aware of this meta and it helps to either sate or strike thier fears about the games balance. 

 

So I'd say the games competive balance is very important. 

[Nos]

18 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

However, I think the community's biggest issue is overestimating the impact of the competitive meta on the overall health of the game.  The competitive meta doesn't even dominate the *tournament scene*, much less the whole game.  The competitive meta dominates the top 1/3 or so of tournament players, influences (but doesn't dominate) the middle 1/3 of tournament players and some casual players, and doesn't affect at all the bottom 1/3 of tournament players (other than determining what particular OP filth they play in round one on their way down to the fun tables) and most casual players.

That's a very fair point and one I completely agree with. I was meaning to address high level competitive play specifically in my post but I accept that that's far from clear.

I totally agree, thankfully the game I and most others play is virtually unrecognisable from the meta I described. That game sounds frankly rubbish to be honest and not something I would remotely look forward to orwant to  put my lovingly nurtured mind through.

[SwampHeart]

6 hours ago, Kevlar1972 said:

Imbalance sells models.  Of course the new flashy miniatures hot off the sculpting press are going to get the most favorable rules.  That's how they drive sales.  Always have, always will.  

I find this very interesting because there are plenty of older kits that are still rock solid (and even get better with new books) and then new models that release that are regarded as very poor for competitive play. 

[amysrevenge]

4 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

I find this very interesting because there are plenty of older kits that are still rock solid (and even get better with new books) and then new models that release that are regarded as very poor for competitive play. 

This hearkens back to my point in that discussion a couple weeks ago about feedback cycles in sales and how much we don't know.

Everyone knows that flashy new miniatures are going to get the most favourable rules.  Except all those times where they don't, which don't support that narrative and get forgotten because "sometimes" is such a less compelling point than "always".

[Nos]

11 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

This hearkens back to my point in that discussion a couple weeks ago about feedback cycles in sales and how much we don't know.

Everyone knows that flashy new miniatures are going to get the most favourable rules.  Except all those times where they don't, which don't support that narrative and get forgotten because "sometimes" is such a less compelling point than "always".

Yeah that argument about new miniatures being deliberately over buffed is garbage frankly. 

The best and worst thing about GW as a game is it's utter randomness I think. Aside from the fact that they're a mini company who make toys to paint and play with any other theory about their intent and strategy beyond their game design is very hard to even begin to prove 

[Ravinsild]

7 hours ago, Overread said:

Which is fine for Magic the Gathering because a match can be over in 5-10 minutes. Plus they have multiple brokenly powerful decks to build. In Warhammer you've not even set the board up and put your armies down in that time frame. So to have armies that are brokenly powerful is terrible for the game really. If you've won the match on listbuilding then its no fun to go through 4 hours of losing/winning. The winner doesn't "really" get that full sense of winning (first couple of time they will, then its just turn up and steam roll) and the loser doesn't get that feeling of rising to a challenge or even having a chance. 

So it becomes an un-fun situation for both sides, esp the loser who is likely to leave the hobby or migrate to another tabletop wargame instead of going out to spend hundreds of $/£ and dozens of hours building up their own broken new army. Many people pick their first army and most of their armies on the lore and visual appeal; so it should be standard that each army is powerful in line with the others. Plus having more than one powerful viable list within the army means that you can vary things.

You can take Morathi; or leave her behind and take a legion of witches; or a slithering smattering of snakes or a mixture and still have viable chances to win each time. 

 

It's not about making "any" list work, there will always be bad choices; but its about having a majority of decently put together lists function well. That puts some pressure on the army building and more on the player skill and use of their army in the game. Shifting toward objective based games instead of purely combat based ones also helps increase this aspect

That’s how i play. I picked Khorne because I love the lore around him, I love the models and I love melee. 

I picked Ironjawz because I love Warcraft and the Horde. 

I picked Death to play vampires and skelemingturns. 

I win a lot of games, and usually with stupid lists, but it’s because I always bring what I love and want. I also don’t play super competitively or in tournaments. 

Personally I’m looking forward to some of the older broken factions getting a sweet update to become really good. Free People, Dispossessed, literally all of the Elves, ogres, greenskins, grots, literally the rest of Death that isn’t Nighthaunt (plz plz plz plastic vampires) etc...

[Ravinsild]

2 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

However, I think the community's biggest issue is overestimating the impact of the competitive meta on the overall health of the game.  The competitive meta doesn't even dominate the *tournament scene*, much less the whole game.  The competitive meta dominates the top 1/3 or so of tournament players, influences (but doesn't dominate) the middle 1/3 of tournament players and some casual players, and doesn't affect at all the bottom 1/3 of tournament players (other than determining what particular OP filth they play in round one on their way down to the fun tables) and most casual players.

TBH I avoid the tournament scene and all that comes with it in favor of the RPG side of the game and lore and trying to play narratively. 

So I don’t even know what the meta is... 

last I heard it was kroak and Seraphon something involving Tzeentch I think and uh always bring Nagash? 

[swarmofseals]

I did a very bad thing and didn't stay on top of replies XD ... so now I have some catching up to do!

 

On 10/1/2018 at 4:18 AM, Dead Scribe said:

Balance is boring.  If the game were balanced and any faction was viable against any faction...

I don't entirely disagree with this. Super strict balance is boring. That said, I think it's generally very good for as many factions as possible to be viable. Not against every other faction, but in a generic sense. What I mean by viable is that there should be at least one or two builds of just about every faction (and to be clear, I'm not talking about teeny tiny factions that don't have and never will have a battletome) that could enter a tournament and, if played well, have a reasonable shot of finishing well. 

Good and bad matchups are important. It's fine if one faction has another faction that they just can't beat. It's when a faction has nothing but good matchups or nothing but bad matchups that a problem exists.

On 10/1/2018 at 5:23 AM, SuperHappyTime said:

1. Warscrolls and Battalions should never be changed. Ever. 

2. Points should never be static from GHB to GHB. Lower played/performing armies should receive points decreases (and we should get smaller degrees of point changes, than 10 points at a time). “Must Take” models should receive increases.

3. New battalions can help out suffering armies. New models/releases can also help.

4. As points decrease for all armies, and we are putting more and more models on the table, there are two options: A. Make 1500 points the tournament standard (from 2000, or 2000 from 2500). Or B. Increase all points across the board to match the battle to the correct size. 

1. The ship has sailed on this one, and I can't really pretend I even understand your reasoning. GW has shown a willingness to change warscrolls for a variety of reasons. I'm also not sure how this is really relevant to the overall argument that I was making.

2. I disagree with you on this one. Decreasing the price on underused units I think is generally fine, but I don't think heavily used units need to be nerfed automatically. They only need to be nerfed if they are actively crowding out everything else. I'd be open to hearing your argument as to why it's so important to always increase points on heavily played warscrolls though. I can tell you my counter argument right now -- take Daughters of Khaine for example. Witch Aelves and Hag Queens are definitely undercosted right now. But they aren't stopping Melusai, Khinerai, Sisters of Slaughter, Slaughter Queens, Doomfire Warlocks etc. from seeing play. If Witches and hags get nerfed into the ground, I'd argue that all those other units will be come less viable, not more. All of those units that I mentioned are good for specific purposes, but none are really on par with truly efficient warscrolls. If you nerf witches until they are inefficient and buff melusai until they are hyper-efficient, then all you've done is trade one OP thing for another. But if you heavly nerf witches and don't buff the other stuff to compensate, then all it means is that whole faction drops out of competitive play. How is that a good thing?

3 + 4. I absolutely agree. Points creep is potentially a real problem. 

On 10/1/2018 at 6:28 AM, Dead Scribe said:

But if anyone could just create a list that was viable that would remove listbuilding as a skill.

I have to think that you mean something different when you say "viable." Obviously if you could just throw warscrolls together at random and be guaranteed a competitive force, then yeah that'd be pretty dumb. But even in that case, the skill of listbuilding wouldn't be removed. It'd just be more subtle. I'd say the game as a whole benefits greatly when building a viable list is relatively easy but building an optimal list is very hard.

 In a game like Magic, for example, the thing that separates good deckbuilders from great deckbuilders is the ability to make very small and narrow tweaks that absolutely maximize expected performance in a given metagame. Correctly anticipating the metagame takes a great deal of knowledge of skill. Actually applying that knowledge and adjusting something as small as 5% of your list to absolutely maximize your matchups takes even more skill. (continued below)

On 10/1/2018 at 6:32 AM, Luke82 said:

There’s no skill when a list is just a google search away though.

Hogwash. Even if you accept that all the best lists are already discovered (which is almost certainly false), picking the best list for a given tournament takes skill. Understanding the list fully and being intelligent enough to make tweaks to maximize it further takes even more skill. See my reply to Dead Scribe just above. And beyond that, playing the actual game takes skill. And plus, the internet exists. The ability to netlist isn't going away and has little to do with GW's approach to game balance.

15 hours ago, Ravinsild said:

I asked a question in another thread but it went unanswered but maybe it will be answered here: 

...

What makes something bad to begin with...

This is a very complex question, and I think it might make more sense to think about what makes something good. I think there are three main ways something becomes good (in no particular order)

1. Efficiency - If something deals or takes more damage or is faster for it's cost than something else, it has an advantage. If a warscroll is very efficient in one dimension it has the potential to be good, and if a warscroll is very efficient in multiple dimensions it's very likely to be good.
2. Tactical Usefulness - This encompasses abilities that don't necessarily relate to combat exactly but have more to do with influencing the dynamics of the game. Things like taking up space on the board, deepstriking, holding objectives, blocking LOS etc. all fit in here. It's also important to consider the context of the faction a warscroll belongs in. Does the warscroll do something well that nothing else in the faction can do? Then it's probably tactically useful.
3. Counterplay - If a warscroll is particularly good at countering something else, then it can be very good if that thing that it counters is popular. The Gaunt Summoner is a great example of this. In a horde meta, the Gaunt Summoner is very likely to be good. In a monster meta, it's very likely to be bad. 

So if we keep these things in mind, it's easy to imagine how something might be bad. If a unit is just very inefficient (or if there is another unit that does basically the same thing but is more efficient), then it's likely that the inefficient unit will be bad. Skeletons vs. zombies is a good example. Zombies are pretty bad because skeletons do basically the same thing, but more efficiently. If skeletons didn't exist, then zombies wouldn't be as bad as they are. An inefficient unit can still be good though as long as it's tactically useful. Khinerai are a great example of this. Their offensive and defensive efficiency are both crappy, but they are very fast and very tactically useful. If a unit has no particular tactical usefulness though AND it's inefficient, then it's basically guaranteed to be bad. Zombies again provide a good example -- they are a slow infantry block with no remarkable abilities that distinguish them, so they live or die based on their efficiency. Finally, if a unit is countered by something else that is really popular then it's likely to be bad (at least in the context of that metagame). For example, if a unit is super efficient against rend 0 but horrible against mortal wounds, then it's going to be good if rend 0 is really popular but bad if mortal wound spam is really popular. 

9 hours ago, Nos said:

For a game with as much bombast and splendour as AOS it feels ridiculous for games to finish so quickly. There needs to be at least a few turns of competitive playtime to allow strategy to emerge and character and challenge to develop so that the system's strengths can come to the fore.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I prefer games that go longer. That said, the reality of time constraints at tournaments mean that five intense turns just really isn't possible. If competitive games only realistically have time for 3 turns, then I'd rather have the game be designed so that most of the intense decisions are made in the first three turns rather than have games constantly ending due to time running out when they are clearly very far from being over. I totally agree though about armies that are designed to end the game before the opponent can play. It can be interesting figuring out how to make such armies work, but in practice they get old very quickly. I think there is a world of difference between the action starting on turn 1 and the action ending on turn 1. 

6 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

However, I think the community's biggest issue is overestimating the impact of the competitive meta on the overall health of the game.  The competitive meta doesn't even dominate the *tournament scene*, much less the whole game.  The competitive meta dominates the top 1/3 or so of tournament players, influences (but doesn't dominate) the middle 1/3 of tournament players and some casual players, and doesn't affect at all the bottom 1/3 of tournament players (other than determining what particular OP filth they play in round one on their way down to the fun tables) and most casual players.

This is very on point, and even for games with very established competitive scenes (like Magic), kitchen table players drive sales. That said, I think it's easy to ignore the splash effect that the tournament scene has. There are plenty of casual players who never play in tournaments but still at least vaguely follow what goes on in the competitive scene. I think this is more true of Magic than Warhammer, but I still think it happens here. Having a vibrant, healthy tournament scene is just good for the game. It creates the perception of balance, which trickles down to casual players. Creating an even progression between casual play and competitive play is also generally helpful. GW wants to get new people into the game, but it also wants those people to invest in the game. Dabblers are fine, but players who keep going for years or even decades are better. If there is a huge disconnect between casual and competitive play, then fewer casual players will ever convert over to tournament play and few tournament players will ever also engage in casual play. For example, lets say Jimmy has been playing for a while and is having fun with his Ironjawz list in games with his friends. He sees that there is a tournament coming up and thinks about entering. Lets say he has a chat with a tournament player and hears one of the following:

1. "Yeah, Ironjawz aren't necessarily the top of the heap right now but maybe if you make some tweaks and buy a couple of new kits you'll be able to have a real shot if you play well."
2. "Ironjawz are just too underpowered to perform well at the moment. You're going to have to buy and paint a new army if you want to play in the tournament. Ohh, and if you want to play tournaments consistently you should expect to buy a new army every year at the very least."

In scenario 1, there's a good chance that Jimmy buys a couple of new kits and goes to the tournament. In scenario 2 Jimmy probably feels bad about the army he was previously enjoying and is not only less likely to try the tournament but he's less likely (even if just slightly) to continue with the hobby at the same level as he was. 

Now consider the opposite situation. Jimmy has been rocking tournaments with his Stormcast, but he wants to play some at the club level too. He takes his Stormcast, stomps some heads, and his opponents sit him down for a chat:

1. "I think your list might be a little hard for this setting. It's just not fun to play against with the kinds of armies we have. Maybe if you took out Gavriel and didn't take so many Evocators we could get some better games in."
2. "Stormcast are just too good for this setting. It's just not fun to play against Stormcast with the kinds of armies we have. Maybe if you picked up Gutbusters or Wanderers we could get some better games in."

In the first scenario, Jimmy is likely to get more invested. In the second scenario, he's likelier to just keep playing in tournaments with his existing group. If Jimmy adjusts his lists and really gets into that club level play, maybe he will help get some of his club friends into the tournament scene. If Jimmy concludes that the gulf is too wide, his departure just expands the disconnect between the tournament community and the casual community. 

So yeah, I think that anyone claiming that GW should exclusively cater to the competitive crowd is crazy. But I also think that GW should work for a vibrant competitive environment that reduces the barrier of entry while maintaining the need for skill at the high level.

Easy to learn, difficult to master is the gold standard. Simply replacing "difficult to master" with constant nerfs just to shake things up is a good way to burn out your player base. 

[Overread]

One thing I think which is hard to understand is the line between a "tournament list" and a "casual list". These two terms are thrown around a lot in balance discussions and there is often a desire to create them as specific things. Yet whilst at tournament list is generally understood as "powerful" or "the best an army can do" or "that list that won that big national event"; the definition and understanding of a "casual list" is almost like defining good art or good music or such. It's a horribly hazy concept that really boils down to personal preferences and local metas rather than anything concrete that one can work with. 

 

To me its a huge stumbling block of thinking. 

 

MY personal view is that there should be no such thing as tournament or casual lists. Yep no such concept what so ever, when one talks about game balance. Instead what should be the focus of the game to balance for play is the overall structure. Ergo you aim to ensure that each army has viable units, multiple possible builds and that, ideally, no one build or couple of builds, are vastly above the armies average power level in terms of how strong/diverse/powerful it is (accepting that those terms are very hazy in their own right). In short if you build the game to have a generally balanced, fair and flat field of play then the tournament end will use those best lists; the casual end will have even more variety of choices to use and you almost remove the whole "tourney VS casual" discussion from ever arising as an issue. 

You've not removed good list building, you've simply made the gains far more subtle, which actually raises the skill because now you're looking for little bonuses to get advantage rather than just getting that one BIG bonus that clearly stands out. It also means that there's far more chance to vary lists without losing significant chunks of potential. So now a player has far more reason to diversify their building. 

 

IT also means that you flatten the game at the mechanical level, which means that the skill in the game shifts away from just buying overpowered stuff and into how you actually play the game. You know the thing you're going to be doing for 2-6 hours on average per match.

 

To my thinking this provides a game system that is fair to newbies and experienced players; has skillful list building for subtle gains; allows for a greater variety in armies and army compositions (which encourages diversity and thus model sales); and also reduces the potential for auto win/lose situations in the game. It doesn't make the game boring, instead it makes it far more exciting because now most players have a fair chance against each other; so now you've got a real challenge for every match. 

Considering that GW had the whole "overpowered armies" approach for years and was steadily bleeding gamers; now they've taken steps toward a flatter field of balance and they've had roaring sales. To me that suggests that the idea of a fair and balanced game resonates far more with the playerbase than having overpowered armies. It means that you can pick whatever army you want and have a chance of winning (provided that you choose your composition of that army well). 

 

I think that is far more healthy for a game where you can spend weeks buying, building and painting an army before it ever sees the tabletop for a game. We can't ignore that Warhammer is not like a computer game or card game - there are hours and hours and quite significant (for geek hobbies) sums of money that go into armies. Nothing is more discouraging than having a vast power difference in the game - when you might auto lose games just because your army isn't able to beat the opponents army on the stats level. Losing time and again because your army is out of date or just weaker at the mechanical level isn't fun; it doesn't encourage people into the hobby it turns them away at lightning speed. 

Plus I think if you achieve a flat level of balance in a random game you've still got those powerful spells; those awesome dragons and beasties to do epic things on the tabletop; just that when they are doing those epic things they are not breaking the game at the mechanical level

[alexmcgee123]

On 10/1/2018 at 2:32 PM, Luke82 said:

There’s no skill when a list is just a google search away though.

True, but a kid with a sniper rifle isnt a crack shot.  You still need to learn the game.  Personally, I would fear too much levelling as it were, thats what 9th age did (an example being making dwarfs as fast as elves and giving them magic and cav) and it killed the game.  Chess is a fine game, but AoS, and its diversity is what I like.  

[Overread]

14 minutes ago, alexmcgee123 said:

True, but a kid with a sniper rifle isnt a crack shot.  You still need to learn the game.  Personally, I would fear too much levelling as it were, thats what 9th age did (an example being making dwarfs as fast as elves and giving them magic and cav) and it killed the game.  Chess is a fine game, but AoS, and its diversity is what I like.  

Exactly. The real challenge and skill should be in using the army on the tabletop. In making choices about what to move, deploy, shoot, attack, etc... That is where the game is played and that's where the skill of the players should shine through; rather than them building a super-powered list that just batters many others aside without much thought other than "CHARGE!" 

[Dead Scribe]

Quote

I have to think that you mean something different when you say "viable." 

When I read people talking about bad balancing they are talking about the point system and it enforcing some kind of balance.  I have never seen the point systems enforcing balance at all.  What they want is two forces of the same point size being viable because they are of the same point size.  Thats what I mean when I say viable.

I also agree with the notion that there should be no such thing as tournament list and casual list.  To me there is just a good list and a bad list.  Optimizing is part of the game.  If a unit is bad or is not worth its points and you take it anyway then you are essentially handicapping yourself.  Thats just a bad list.  Not a casual list.  

[AaronWilson]

38 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

When I read people talking about bad balancing they are talking about the point system and it enforcing some kind of balance.  I have never seen the point systems enforcing balance at all.  What they want is two forces of the same point size being viable because they are of the same point size.  Thats what I mean when I say viable.

I also agree with the notion that there should be no such thing as tournament list and casual list.  To me there is just a good list and a bad list.  Optimizing is part of the game.  If a unit is bad or is not worth its points and you take it anyway then you are essentially handicapping yourself.  Thats just a bad list.  Not a casual list.  

I suppose what a good / bad list is determined by what you want to get from the game though? If you're playing a purely story driven game where your goal is tell a story of a epic battle, or a ambush in a specific of time etc what defines a bad / good list different. 

[Dead Scribe]

In regards to people talking about tournament list vs casual list, they are always talking about an optimized powerful list vs a weaker list that could never win an event, so in that context good vs bad list is an optimized list with good powerful choices vs a bad list which is random units put together because someone likes the models but they don't play well on the table or are overcost or cost right but there are undercosted choices that are better because they are more optimal and efficient to take.

If you are playing a purely story driven game where the goal is to tell an epic battle, you likely aren't using the terms tournament list and casual list either.

[Overread]

5 minutes ago, AaronWIlson said:

I suppose what a good / bad list is determined by what you want to get from the game though? If you're playing a purely story driven game where your goal is tell a story of a epic battle, or a ambush in a specific of time etc what defines a bad / good list different. 

I think when one talks of balance in a wargame its important to put narrative to one side. 

Focus on producing a central balanced game where by each army is balanced to the others and also has internal balance. This means whilst not every unit is the best, every unit should have a place within the army. Armies with very few units might have more generalist units and less specialists or might have a specific specialist focus - eg the army might be very close combat focused at a cost of ranged potential. 

Once you've got yourself a solid balanced game, building narrative events or twisting the rules so suit a new unique situation is far EASIER. It's much easier to tell a narrative if the central core of the game is balanced because then you know what you're dealing with. You know if you give one army 1000 points more spearmen what is likely to happen and thus what can fit the narrative - eg you might recreate the battle of the 300 with stormcast against skaven. The solid balance lets you roughly know what can be fair even if you're giving the skaven player lots of extra rats.

 

 

 

You can tell a story with any army composition; that's just down to the skill and imagination of the writer. If you've got armies which are well balanced then you've far more freedom to do those more obscure lists. 

 

A lot of people think balance just means building one powerful list per army and its far from that. It's about levelling the playing field so that you've more variety and more choice. It actually plays right into having more narrative options perfectly. 

[Zetsu20]

it like a close beta game that tester was a player..who bought some model to play because they like

some ability on warscroll but then gw change it for example Lord-ordinator. I love the past command ability so much and try to build

an army with him..and then gw change his CM ability to WTF? Can't use anymore for me ..