What should GW do to balance AoS?

[Skreech Verminking]

3 minutes ago, Eevika said:

See this is what I was looking for. You only enjoy winning. You dont enjoy being better than your opponent you enjoy winning. You dont want to even compete. You want to walk to a table and know you will win. I personally find enjoyment in games that stay even for as long as possible and the better player not the better list will win. 

Yeah well there are many people out there who seek to win most of the time.

but in the end it can mean profit for you (or me).

how do you think I got around 2000points worth of skaven for free?

[Mosquito onthe TenthFloor]

5 minutes ago, Eevika said:

See this is what I was looking for. You only enjoy winning. You dont enjoy being better than your opponent you enjoy winning. You dont want to even compete. You want to walk to a table and know you will win. I personally find enjoyment in games that stay even for as long as possible and the better player not the better list will win. 

The best game is a close, well fought, draw as far as I'm concerned.

[Mosquito onthe TenthFloor]

2 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Yeah well there are many people out there who seek to win most of the time.

but in the end it can mean profit for you (or me).

how do you think I got around 2000points worth of skaven for free?

Like the man said, Heroin for Middle Class Nerds

[Dead Scribe]

The more viable builds that exist, the less impactful listbuilding is.  

You dont enjoy being better than your opponent you enjoy winning.

No.  I enjoy competing.  To compete you need the right tools.  I wouldn't expect to compete on a professional athletic team without the proper tools anymore than I'd expect to compete in a hobby without the proper tool.  

Nowhere in anything that I communicated did I mention that I want to walk to a table and just win.  In fact I have said a few times that playing against unoptimized casual lists is not something that I do or enjoy doing.

[Dead Scribe]

The best game is a close, well fought, draw as far as I'm concerned.

If tournaments gave us better standings for close wins, I would agree.  But the reality is to make it to the final table you have to win often by a lot, not have a close game.

[Skreech Verminking]

9 minutes ago, michu said:

Exactly @Overread, how can be listbuilding  trivialized  by having more options? Listbuilding shouldn't be like "find the only combination that works", but "find how many different combinations you can make work".

Actually trivialize would be the wrong word.

more interesting and a challenge to make good armie list would probaly be the right word.

trying to find the most unexpected and underrated combinations is what I love doing, and I’m probably not the only one.

also if every armie was some what compatible to at least stand a change against each other, the winning wouldn’t be determined on who has the best kill-slay all button but who is more cunning and knows how to strike when the time is right.

so I wouldn’t really say they’d loose their flavor, nor would the armie get boring.

 

[Overread]

Just now, Dead Scribe said:

The more viable builds that exist, the less impactful listbuilding is.  

In what way do you mean this. 

If you have 1 powerful list per faction (at best) then list building is fairly marginal to non existent at the competitive end. There's 1 list. Once you've found it (or copied it) you're done. 

If you've 3 lists there's only 3 levels of variation and likely little to swap or change between them or they rely on the same core mechanic and you're mostly just changing support.

If there's 10 or more viable lists (per army) now there's a lot more to choose from. Now the list building is far more varied, creative, adaptable, changeable. There's no clear cut perfect pathway so there's more reason to evolve and change and try out ne wthings and new approaches. 

 

The last might not be the most conductive to someone who wants to design and commission 1 functional army in one go. But its very conductive to the more common gamer who is building an army and faction collection and will likely stick with it for years. 

[michu]

Just now, Skreech Verminking said:

Actually trivialize would be the wrong word.

more interesting and a challenge to make good armie list would probaly be the right word.

trying to find the most unexpected and underrated combinations is what I love doing, and I’m probably not the only one.

also if very armie was so what compatible to at least stand a change against each other, the winning wouldn’t be determined on who has the best kill-slay all button but who is more cunning and knows how to strike when the time is right.

so I wouldn’t really say they’d loose their flavor, nor would the armie get boring.

 

And we have a bingo! That's what "balanced game" means. 

[Eevika]

6 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Actually trivialize would be the wrong word.

more interesting and a challenge to make good armie list would probaly be the right word.

trying to find the most unexpected and underrated combinations is what I love doing, and I’m probably not the only one.

 also if every armie was some what compatible to at least stand a change against each other, the winning wouldn’t be determined on who has the best kill-slay all button but who is more cunning and knows how to strike when the time is right.

 so I wouldn’t really say they’d loose their flavor, nor would the armie get boring.

  

Yeah this is what I want. Skilled gameplay to matter. Not rolling up to tables with predetermined 70% chance to win. 

[Skreech Verminking]

14 minutes ago, Overread said:

Please don't sell trade your army to Skreech - he's an addict! You're feeding enabling his addiction need. 

I think he ate too much warpstone onetime. 

Me an addict?

Who told you that?😱

was it Thanqoul again?

I think I really need a new pet-thing

(maybe Queek, he seems to be faithfull)

[Dead Scribe]

In what way do you mean this. 

The more viable builds that exist, the closer you get to the end of the spectrum where 2000 points are equal to 2000 points regardless of content.

Thats the part I have a concern over.  If each faction has 10 viable builds x 20+ factions thats like 200 viable builds.  Compared to the dozen or so that exist today.

I think 200 is far too close to the "2000 points are equal to 2000 points reqardless of content" line that I'm comfortable with.

[Black Blade]

5 hours 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... 

 

I think with horde armies not everything needs "wholly within" but DoK could use a bit more of it here and there while also seeing the non stacking change and a bit of a price hike on the hags. I think they are just really well designed otherwise

[SwampHeart]

Just now, Dead Scribe said:

I think 200 is far too close to the "2000 points are equal to 2000 points reqardless of content" line that I'm comfortable with.

But you don't write your own lists anyway so why does it matter? If you're not creating the list you're going to use why does it matter how many viable builds exist. 

[Mosquito onthe TenthFloor]

1 minute ago, SwampHeart said:

But you don't write your own lists anyway so why does it matter? If you're not creating the list you're going to use why does it matter how many viable builds exist. 

I can answer this - its because more lists means the net takes longer to find the optimal option and as each game has to use the most OTT one, theres a chance of turning up with a suboptimal list.

We want it here and we want it now, essentially. More lists may mean a delay.

[Eevika]

1 minute ago, Dead Scribe said:

 

 

The more viable builds that exist, the closer you get to the end of the spectrum where 2000 points are equal to 2000 points regardless of content.

 Thats the part I have a concern over.  If each faction has 10 viable builds x 20+ factions thats like 200 viable builds.  Compared to the dozen or so that exist today.

 I think 200 is far too close to the "2000 points are equal to 2000 points reqardless of content" line that I'm comfortable with.

Why would you not want to have 2000 points be equal regardless of context? I mean you just want to be competitive just be better than your opponent. Thats true competition only player difference mattering. Are you scared you cant win if you arent playing something OP? Pro athletes almost always for example compete in the best shoes possible and the difference in who wins depends on who is the fastest runner. Shouldnt the winner in everything be based on who is the better athlete not on who has the best shoes?

[Dead Scribe]

4 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

But you don't write your own lists anyway so why does it matter? If you're not creating the list you're going to use why does it matter how many viable builds exist. 

I write my own lists.  They are based off of netlists that I then tweak and change pieces out as I want.  If there are a lot of viable builds than listbuilding is neutralized to some or most degree which is boring and uninteresting to me.  Thats really all I have left to say on the matter since I am being forced to repeat myself now.

Why would you not want to have 2000 points be equal regardless of context?

Because list or deck building and solving the puzzle of efficiency is my main interest.

[Skreech Verminking]

2 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Because list or deck building and solving the puzzle of efficiency is my main interest.

Wouldn’t than a balance between all armies, make this puzzles much more interesting, since it would mean, to find a solution to your own playstyle would be more of a challenge?

[michu]

It's not neutralized. Not even close. You repeat it like it's a fact, when we constantly give arguments that contradict this statement. Multiple viable builds makes it harder to just netdeck some lists with slight upgrades and forces you to actually invent your list from a scratch, a real puzzle - which is something you said you want.

EDIT: It will never achieve the level that no matter what I put on the table I can win. Someone already said - even with much better balance, all clanrats list  (no stormvermin or warlocks, just warlord and horde of clanrats) will never be competitive.

[Skreech Verminking]

3 minutes ago, michu said:

EDIT: It will never achieve the level that no matter what I put on the table I can win. Someone already said - even with much better balance, all clanrats list  (no stormvermin or warlocks, just warlord and horde of clanrats) will never be competitive.

Wow that’s hurts.

I’m guessing you never faced, 380clanrats?

[michu]

Ok, sorry that was a random example (even weirder - I play skaven list with clanrats). Maybe I should say "all rat swarms" list with minimal battlelines.

[Skreech Verminking]

6 minutes ago, michu said:

Ok, sorry that was a random example (even weirder - I play skaven list with clanrats). Maybe I should say "all rat swarms" list with minimal battlelines.

Nah don’t worry 😉 you’d need more to break my ratty heart.

just as a reminder if rightfully used an armie consisting of only clanrats can do much more than most players would anticipate.

ps: also think of them als meatshields, and you’ll understand what I mean.

[Nos]

LoL and DOTA are ruthlessly balanced based for the competitive scale of players but that’s because their flagship tournaments offer some of the highest cash prizes in literally any competition of any sort in the world. Winners of the DOTA major get more than 10x than winners of the Super Bowl as their prize. 

Theres simply nothing to be gained from comparing GW with E-Sports at that level. GW has made no indication that it desires that future for its products for one thing, and for another they have nothing like the resources or capacity to begin contemplating even a small scale analogue model to capture detail at that level. 

[relic456]

56 minutes ago, Eevika said:

See this is what I was looking for. You only enjoy winning. You dont enjoy being better than your opponent you enjoy winning. You dont want to even compete. You want to walk to a table and know you will win. I personally find enjoyment in games that stay even for as long as possible and the better player not the better list will win. 

I feel personally attacked 😄 There's nothing wrong with only enjoying winning! Personally, winning is the greatest feeling, no matter the opponent.  To illustrate, I find going 30-5 in Call of Duty against sub-par players to be wayyy more fun than squeaking by a close win against a more balanced team.  But that's just me! 

Just to throw in my 2 cents (super bummed I missed this thread!), I think there's room in AoS for everyone to have a good time, improving the balance isn't a zero sum game. I always despise the argument that AoS isn't "intended" to be a competitive game.  I strongly take the position that it most certainly CAN be with the right support and concur with @DeadScribe that I don't think GW has made any statements to the contrary.  I'll continue to support any steps that help move the game in this direction and honestly it seems like they've made quite a few.  I do wish the balancing cycle was a bit faster, even quarterly/biannually instead of annually, but this is a MUCH slower moving hobby than MtG was (is?).   Like someone else mentioned, a lot of time has to go in to getting an army ready for a tournament.  Whether you're doing the building and painting or someone else is!  I do sympathize though that it would stink to buy an army that's on the top of the heap but gets nerfed down three months later, and I don't know the best solution.  Maybe that's just the risk of chasing the meta.

I will refute the previous commenter's post about how MtG players need to buy new decks every season since that completely ignores Modern, which when I was playing was a very competitive format.  It was also very similar to AoS in that it had a high upfront cost but once you were up and running your ongoing costs were (relatively) low. 

[LLV]

Got to love how threads like these start with a point and then go off on wild tangents and arguments between people

My thoughts on the original discussion of balance and stats, for what it’s worth:

- Balance is good for the game regardless of the 'way' you play. Outside of highly competitive tournaments it could be argued that balance could be more integral to the health and growth of the game. I'm thinking of the new player that picked up Ironjawz to play against his friends Daughters of Khaine and losing repeatedly regardless of what they tried or did. That feeling of hopelessness can mean a player is less likely to stay invested in the game. It's one of the reasons I think the stats are important - for players to have a point of reference and a realistic expectation of their chosen faction before they spend countless hours and funds on it. 

- For those arguing GW have no intention to make the game balanced, I think this is a fallacy and my 'proof' would be the existence of match play and the existence of a large play tester network. Neither of these would exist if GW were not interested in at least trying to make a balanced game. FAQ's and patches also provide strong support of GW's desire for balance.

- Perfect balance - that is, in stats terms, every army being a 50% win ratio - is largely unachievable without constant updates. I think neither match play enthusiasts nor the casual crowd want rolling monthly changes. Also each change in a variable has a knock on effect. Maybe DoK and LoN are holding a bigger monster in check ?  My opinion is that the aim should be for a given range. 45-55% win ratio I think should be achievable to maintain via the current update structure and using the visibility of the stats.

- Taking the above point into consideration AoS is actually in a very good place right now. Discounting factions with very little data; there are only a handful of factions that fall outside the 45-55% win ratio. As far as time and resources of balance go, the stats should enable GW to highlight the factions falling outside of a desired 'balance bubble' and bring those in line  - the key here is small tweaks. For instance DoK being gutted and falling below the 45% win ratio is almost worse than leaving then at their 70-75% (fluctuating) current win rate. In hindsight I'm of the opinion now that this is why nothing was touched in the last FAQ

 

TLDR; There is always going to be a 'best' and 'worst' faction. I think the goal is to narrow the margin between those 2 points. In the meantime it's about managing expectation. If you're playing for fun or narratively - great! The old addage of choose what you like the look of works. If you're wanting to play AoS a little more seriously - the stats should help you decide what's best for your intentions.

 

 

 

 

 

[relic456]

2 minutes ago, LLV said:

Got to love how threads like these start with a point and then go off on wild tangents and arguments between people

We're just all having the same debate every couple weeks, they should give us a megathread so we can just have it all in one place at least! 😄