What should GW do to balance AoS?

[Eevika]

Just now, Creatan said:

Who designs this stuff?! That's a non-obvious place to hide the points. Thank you for letting me know where I can find them.

Yeah it's not the most obvious spot but you anyways want to add all the units you play with to your battle so it kinda makes sense thats where you see the points

 

[Overread]

A few thoughts:

1) Blizzard has been balancing Starcraft for decades and its still adjusting things. In fact I think computer games reveal that in highly complex games one element is that perfect balance is near unobtainable. Not just at a mechanical level, but in a perception level too. Take Daughters of Khaine as an example. They might be getting a 70% win right now because they are a bit above the power curve; lower that and they could still be pulling a high percentage win rate; but then it wouldn't be because the army isn't balanced, but because the higher skilled players built DoK armies and stuck with them. As a result they end up getting a higher win because skilled players are using them not because of inherent balance issues. 

And that's just one example of perception of balance. Many a bad gamer thinks the problem is the armies and balance and not their own skill and the internet can echo-chamber those views.

2) Computer games also, I think, change their own meta frequently (eg LOL and Starcraft 2) not to improve balance but to shake things up a bit. If perfect balance is unobtainable they at least aim to shake things now and then to unseat the current meta choices and to promote new meta choices. This works easily because releasing an update is fast and simple and access to new strategies/options is either free for gamers or comes with minimal cost. Wargames, whilst there are some who buy new power-curve armies, are a bigger investment and more customers are likely to hold onto an army than just sell and replace (even then there's going to be a lag time due to buying building and painting). 

3) AoS isn't quite yet at its balance stage yet. There's still quite a few armies to come out and a period of time to see how they match up. Could be DoK are going to pale in comparison to combos and stats from the recent Goblins Battletome. So in some ways less balance adjusting now is a good thing. Because we've now got a reasonable chance of GW getting ALL armies released and updated we can hope that once we reach that stage GW can let the game settle and then start tweaking things- perhaps even considering changes that are not just tied to points alone*.

4) GW must be careful to not pull a Warmachine - they went the path of fast updating and it only led to confusion and pushback. Whilst we do have tablets and phones Warhammer is a physical real world game. Not everyone wants to use their phone battery for 4-5 hours for a game; not everyone wants or owns a tablet; not every game centre has charge points within each reach of the table. It's a real world product and favours real world and slower updates. Fast updates are not the solution (heck even games like Starcraft might wait 4 or more months before pushing out a major balance update). 

5) At present the rules bloat is not too bad honestly. What GW could clean up on is improving the depth and variety of content in each Generals Handbook - putting the FAQ and Errata into that book alone each year would be a big help in cutting down on excess paper. Plus for newbies they don't need anything more than the core rules and Battletome - the rest is all support material that polishes the game but isn't critical to making the core of it function. 

 

 

 

*As an example the core of many DoK lists is 90 Witch Aelves backed up with queens. In order to actually shut that down via points you have to increase them significantly to the point where it actually breaks those units as a functional block. That means any modest increase just cuts down on army diversity and the core powerhouse remains. The real trick is to address the balance and impose changes there - limiting bonuses Aleves can have at once; changing the properties of spells - perhaps even taking a spell away or changing how a temple works. 

[calcysimon]

Main ussues  are only 2 since 8 months :

All dok abilities say "within" and not "wholly within" like all factions after, and they can benefit multiple times of 1 buff (hags) , it's like casting 3 times the same buffing spell with models costing half (mages cost 120+) with a casting roll of 4

Nighthaunt summonables stronger in lon than in their alliance... 

[Lucio]

You're right, the balance *does* seem off in the data set you've cited, though you'd need to do more than take a single statistic and say "this is too high"

 

The analysis that could be done would look at patterns of winning, number of games played with the army, who is playing them, how do the losses look etc.

 

 

[Furuzzolo]

41 minutes ago, calcysimon said:

Main ussues  are only 2 since 8 months :

All dok abilities say "within" and not "wholly within" like all factions after, and they can benefit multiple times of 1 buff (hags) , it's like casting 3 times the same buffing spell with models costing half (mages cost 120+) with a casting roll of 4

Nighthaunt summonables stronger in lon than in their alliance... 

 

The witchbrew is not a prayer, just a buff from the warscroll.

You play Nurgle and the majority of your buffs do have the "within" wording, not the updated "wholly within" but still nurgle isn't performig.

I see the problem in the spammable battle line witch aelves and the immunity to battleshock; very hard to interact with that! That could be fixed with the gh19, tho. 

 

[stato]

14 minutes ago, Lucio said:

You're right, the balance *does* seem off in the data set you've cited, though you'd need to do more than take a single statistic and say "this is too high"

 

The analysis that could be done would look at patterns of winning, number of games played with the army, who is playing them, how do the losses look etc.

 

 

I dont think the data collected is an issue.  Its not there to be 100% correct, its intent is to be an indicator, it shows that some options are better than others, you can then delve into it a pick apart the reasons why things are happening and make adjustments from that info. You dont make changes based solely on the win rate figures.

The issue is people expecting GW to jump on it and make sweeping changes to the game to give balance when they are a business with long term plans, goals and significant responsibilities (to staff and shareholders), not to mention a whole heap of new stuff in  production which takes up all their time.  There is no doubt GW are taking information on board and changes will come, but well planned changes to give balance takes time, a long time.

[Eevika]

1 minute ago, stato said:

The issue is people expecting GW to jump on it and make sweeping changes to the game to give balance when they are a business with long term plans, goals and significant responsibilities (to staff and shareholders), not to mention a whole heap of new stuff in  production which takes up all their time.  There is no doubt GW are taking information on board and changes will come, but well planned changes to give balance takes time, a long time.

This is exactly the issue! The balance of the game should not lean on the rules team working on new stuff. Like videogames you need to have a team that works on the new stuff and a team that works on the balance of the current game. This way the new stuff wont be hindered but the older stuff wont be forgotten either. 

[stato]

1 minute ago, Eevika said:

This is exactly the issue! The balance of the game should not lean on the rules team working on new stuff. Like videogames you need to have a team that works on the new stuff and a team that works on the balance of the current game. This way the new stuff wont be hindered but the older stuff wont be forgotten either. 

'a team that works on the balance of the current game' - They are a business, they know their numbers and where spending money returns investment, so far their investment into balance has included spending time on GHBs and FAQ.    If you want more balance (beyond just fixing outliers like DoK for example), thats a significant investment, where does that come from?  more expensive kits?  a more expensive GHB?  less Lore and background? less new or existing faction development? 

Certainly we can see they are becoming more interested in the competitive gaming environment, but so far this has been in specific games designed for the purpose such as Underworlds and Kill-Team.   I hope this comes to AoS and 40k scale games, but i think it likely they will do it through development of a entire new game architecture and probably a 5 year development.

[Eevika]

3 minutes ago, stato said:

'a team that works on the balance of the current game' - They are a business, they know their numbers and where spending money returns investment, so far their investment into balance has included spending time on GHBs and FAQ.    If you want more balance (beyond just fixing outliers like DoK for example), thats a significant investment, where does that come from?  more expensive kits?  a more expensive GHB?  less Lore and background? less new or existing faction development? 

 Certainly we can see they are becoming more interested in the competitive gaming environment, but so far this has been in specific games designed for the purpose such as Underworlds and Kill-Team.   I hope this comes to AoS and 40k scale games, but i think it likely they will do it through development of a entire new game architecture and probably a 5 year development.

Games Workshop is valued around 1billion pounds and they have a large team just for social media. I bet they have the cash to have a few people working on the balance of the game. 

[chord]

Maybe they want the newer factions to do well to increase sales for those who chase the meta?

Also, AoS is not meant to be balanced

[Mosquito onthe TenthFloor]

2 minutes ago, Eevika said:

Games Workshop is valued around 1billion pounds and they have a large team just for social media. I bet they have the cash to have a few people working on the balance of the game. 

Afraid to say they've never had a balanced big game. Not once. Theres always been something that people have considered to be broken - although everyone has a different opinion on what. To expect it now is pouring water down a drain.

[stato]

7 minutes ago, Eevika said:

Games Workshop is valued around 1billion pounds and they have a large team just for social media. I bet they have the cash to have a few people working on the balance of the game. 

Im sure they could, theyve given us the GHB and FAQ which is more than we ever had before, question is will they?  what is the benefit to them?  im sure they are fully aware of the current state of their game and their sales, yet so much of what they put out through different channels or media or products is not based on competitive balance.  That suggests to me that hobby and other aspects are seen by them (historically at least) as a much better avenue for investment, and the fact that they are a billion pound company bucking market trends would suggest they kind of know what they are doing.

Of course things change, and with GW being in a good place currently they will certainly be looking to how they can maintain that and continue to grow so hopefully they do try and improve the game.  But I dont think we will see that hugely for a while yet.

[schwabbele]

I kinda would like some sort of a duo warscroll system. Version a) is for narrative and b) is for matched play.

That would allow GW to balance some units easier while still keeping their narrative purpose intact.

 

 

[Dead Scribe]

One thing you have to keep in mind is that win % is kind of self perpetuating with us tournament types.

If something is deemed powerful then we will flock to it, which artificially inflates the number of games played.  Other armies that may be powerful but hidden will seem weak simply because we won't play it since it doesn't have a proven record.

As to balance I would say GW is doing fine.  If you make the game too balanced it will become boring and listbuilding won't have any impact and that would actually serve to turn people off to the game.   

Another issue with looking at tournament win % is that while the upper end more "professional" players are heavily influencing these numbers, these do not correlate to the non professional scene / casuals.  An army that may not do well at the tournament level will absolutely destroy casuals.  For example: stormcast are somewhat difficult to win tournaments with even with the best players but on a casual table they utterly wreck their opponents and seem OP.

Lizardmen are another that will wreck casual armies but struggle (from what I see) at the more professional levels of the game.

I think people just need to accept that if you are playing to win and if losing bothers you then you simply have to chase around the meta every year and that every other army will not do well and you have to be ok with losing based off of the army you are playing.

[Gaz Taylor]

+++ Mod Hat On +++

I've just had to hide the last couple of posts to this thread due to swearing and tone. Whilst discussion is encouraged on TGA, we want you to bear in mind that this forum is for everybody to enjoy. Can you please think before you reply to a post and think if it's appropriate language and tone.

Also can I ask if you are going to quote somebody and there is swearing as part of that quote, can you please edit or remove it. I'm getting tired of going in and tweaking these. 

Cheers

[Overread]

7 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

As to balance I would say GW is doing fine.  If you make the game too balanced it will become boring and listbuilding won't have any impact and that would actually serve to turn people off to the game.   

I've never understood this viewpoint at all. 

A balanced game is often MORE fun because the game isn't won or lost based on who brought which army/army composition. In fact when you have  distinct lack of balance it favours mono-power builds almost exclusively. Meanwhile any build or army that isn't powerful enough and is very under powered gets left behind. Just look at how armies like Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle and Necrons all fell way behind in sales and popularity when they were abandoned by GW and left with ever more outdated rules and (in the case of necrons) very limited models range. 

It turns people away to see armies that won't work or have models within a single army where there's big power shifts. 

 

Instead if you can present a game where most armies are viable for a win and a well built list can include almost any models in a specific army and do well - then you've a LOT more fun and freedom. You can pick and choose a wider variety of armies and army compositions because you've got a balanced game and thus a fair chance of  a win based on player skill. Rather than a system that only rewards certain models and model combos. 

 

 

We've years of GW overpowered balance to show that an unbalanced game doesn't improve things in general. Heck their more recent attempts to resolve and even out balance have resulted in VAST sales improvements; big uptakes on the number of players and in general much increased popularity. Tyranids now have a codex where most models are viable and many tyranid players are very happy with that - far more so than if only a few were viable. 

 

List building will always have impact, but it shouldn't be the win-lose end of things save when comparing a very bad list to a good list. Ergo if you took all clan-rats chances are its not a very good list. The key is not having it so that when a player puts down their army their opponent goes "well I'm losing this game unless the dice gods mess up every roll my opponent makes". Challenge against players is one thing; but we shouldn't want a game where challenge is impossible from the core mechanics of the game. 

[Eevika]

2 minutes ago, Overread said:

I've never understood this viewpoint at all. 

A balanced game is often MORE fun because the game isn't won or lost based on who brought which army/army composition. In fact when you have  distinct lack of balance it favours mono-power builds almost exclusively. Meanwhile any build or army that isn't powerful enough and is very under powered gets left behind. Just look at how armies like Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle and Necrons all fell way behind in sales and popularity when they were abandoned by GW and left with ever more outdated rules and (in the case of necrons) very limited models range. 

 It turns people away to see armies that won't work or have models within a single army where there's big power shifts. 

  

Instead if you can present a game where most armies are viable for a win and a well built list can include almost any models in a specific army and do well - then you've a LOT more fun and freedom. You can pick and choose a wider variety of armies and army compositions because you've got a balanced game and thus a fair chance of  a win based on player skill. Rather than a system that only rewards certain models and model combos. 

 

 

We've years of GW overpowered balance to show that an unbalanced game doesn't improve things in general. Heck their more recent attempts to resolve and even out balance have resulted in VAST sales improvements; big uptakes on the number of players and in general much increased popularity. Tyranids now have a codex where most models are viable and many tyranid players are very happy with that - far more so than if only a few were viable. 

I agree with all of this. Sums up well what I want from the game

[Dead Scribe]

Simply because if the game is "balanced" to the point where I can just pull 2000 points and you can pull 2000 points and show up and the lists have no bearing, then I might as well just make a random army list.  Puzzling together the most optimal army configurations is a good chunk of the reason why a lot of people play these games.  Remove that and you have removed interest.

It would be the same if Hasbro made all magic cards similar so that random decks would be as viable as a carefully constructed deck.  The Magic scene would lost a ton of players if that happened.  

AOS and Magic have a lot in common with what type of person it attracts, particularly in the competitive sense.

I don't know the history of GW but I will say that years of GW overpowered balance shows that they still lead the industry and games that are considered very balanced are not seen anywhere in the states for the most part except for the largest of conventions.  I believe there is a reason for that.  Listbuilding is the vital ingredient.

Thats why I play the game and not something else, because I like figuring out how to make my army powerful given the point constraints, and balance actively goes against that if I can just randomly put an army together and it gives me the same chance of winning because the points are the same.

Now what I do agree is  missing is that a lot of armies need to have some over powered components added to them to make a wider target of forces that can at least compete.  But thats still not really balance, thats giving each faction their own Tom Brady and Bill Belechick combo instead of keeping it to two or three factions game-wide.

[Eevika]

1 minute ago, Dead Scribe said:

Simply because if the game is "balanced" to the point where I can just pull 2000 points and you can pull 2000 points and show up and the lists have no bearing, then I might as well just make a random army list.  Puzzling together the most optimal army configurations is a good chunk of the reason why a lot of people play these games.  Remove that and you have removed interest.

It would be the same if Hasbro made all magic cards similar so that random decks would be as viable as a carefully constructed deck.  The Magic scene would lost a ton of players if that happened.  

 AOS and Magic have a lot in common with what type of person it attracts, particularly in the competitive sense.

I don't know the history of GW but I will say that years of GW overpowered balance shows that they still lead the industry and games that are considered very balanced are not seen anywhere in the states for the most part except for the largest of conventions.  I believe there is a reason for that.  People say they want balance, but I dont think that they really do.  They want listbuilding to matter.  

Thats why I play the game and not something else, because I like figuring out how to make my army powerful given the point constraints, and balance actively goes against that if I can just randomly put an army together and it gives me the same chance of winning because the points are the same.

But all the top lists are the same once one person figures out that bringing 90 witches and hags is the best. Then everyone brings 90 witches and hags and only very little list building happens with the top armies. 

[Dead Scribe]

1 minute ago, Eevika said:

But all the top lists are the same once one person figures out that bringing 90 witches and hags is the best. Then everyone brings 90 witches and hags and only very little list building happens with the top armies. 

I play in one or two tournaments a month plus Adepticon and hopefully LVO and I can tell you that not everyone is bringing the same list.  The lists are all based on the same three lists or so yes but they are all different enough to give an interesting experience.  

The top lists are varied enough from event to event to give the illusion that the game is balanced, and I think thats really all that is needed.  

[prochuvi]

Yes im with you.

 

Im a economist and those win rates are so stupid in a balanced game that i dont know how people arent raging at gw.

 

It is imposible that one game have armys with 70% win rate and others as dispossesed with 20% for one year and the company dont do nothing to fix it.

 

It is so easy to balance the game that it is obvious that gw give a ****** about the balance and only want sell minis.

 

Give a number to each stat,as 1 to each move,4 to each wound,1 to bravery,10 to fly keyword,10 to sumoneable keyword,etc etc and then each mini must have the same number when you sum all these numbers.

Then we have a balanced game,where if any unit have more in one stat than other then must have less in other stat.

 

It is so stupid see how some units as elfs wytchs cost 100 points and have as 300% more attacks than every other 100 points units,have more move and can chargue and run.

Or nameds as hag quuen for only 60 points have a 100% sucess inmune to moral and reroll wound and moreover a prayer,that mini must cost as 120 to be near to balanced

 

And those are only some examples,it is also stupid that sumoneable units have top stats as the ghost,sumoneable units in every other game are suposed to be the worst units of the game due to can be revived

[Dead Scribe]

I don't think that is stupid at all, I think thats what makes listbuilding fun and also makes it more of a skill.  You have to be able to recognize the units that over perform their points cost, include them, and find a way to maximize their power coefficients over your opponents' abilities to do the same.

[Eevika]

Just now, Dead Scribe said:

I don't think that is stupid at all, I think thats what makes listbuilding fun and also makes it more of a skill.  You have to be able to recognize the units that over perform their points cost, include them, and find a way to maximize their power coefficients over your opponents' abilities to do the same.

But what if the opponents army has nothing with the same power level. Is that fair? 

[Overread]

2 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Simply because if the game is "balanced" to the point where I can just pull 2000 points and you can pull 2000 points and show up and the lists have no bearing, then I might as well just make a random army list.  Puzzling together the most optimal army configurations is a good chunk of the reason why a lot of people play these games.  Remove that and you have removed interest.

I think you're confusing things a little.

A balanced game does NOT mean that you can just put any old units into a list and have an even chance of winning. It doesn't mean that in the slightest. Army composition will still be important - just as much so. What it means is that two well built 2000 point armies can play against each other and the winner is NOT decided by which armies or army compositions are being played. Ergo that, by and large how they play the game for the next 4 hours is what wins it not what they chose to bring and put on the table in the first 10 minutes of the game.

For Magic the Gathering they can get away with more imbalance because a match might only last 10 mins and they can play best of 3. For Warhammer you've got perhaps one or two games a week for most people. If that one game is decided upon by army composition alone then its a LOT of negativity for anyone who isn't bringing the meta "win list"  to each and every game. Any player that hasn't got the winning combo army will lose and lose to it and steadily feel pushed out. 

 

Furthermore if you've overpowered combos that - as said above- means there's less pressure on people choosing different armies and taking different compositions. You can end up with a game where everything graviates toward the easy win then GW changes things a little and another army becomes the easy win. All those easy win chasers feel abandoned because their once overpowered is now underpowered; and instead of jumping to the new army many might drift away.

 

 

[Overread]

1 minute ago, Dead Scribe said:

I don't think that is stupid at all, I think thats what makes listbuilding fun and also makes it more of a skill.  You have to be able to recognize the units that over perform their points cost, include them, and find a way to maximize their power coefficients over your opponents' abilities to do the same.

And with better balance between and within armies that doesn't go away. You still have to build a solid working army. 

The difference is that you don't have to auto-include specific units to win. Instead you can focus your army around different compositional elements. It's not a puzzle where you want ONE build everyone copies; you want Multiple builds anyone can find and work from and have an even chance of winning