Speculation: Will AOS ever be balanced or is this as good as it gets?

[tripchimeras]

I think for the most part people don't actually want balance.  They want diversity.   These are not the same things imo, but they are adjacent.  With balance, the more balanced a game is, the more homogeneous.  The more variance in function, rules, and stats from side to side the more imbalance that is introduced.  There are of course degrees and various ways to mitigate some of this, at least in part, but if you have a varied game system with lots of different units and abilities 9 times out of 10 you have a game system rife with imbalance.  I'd say that there are few tabletop gaming systems with quite as much variety, breadth, and customization as GW affords its players.  This has a price and it is balance.  If you have ever played Kings of War, you will see the price they have payed for a much more balanced system: their units are vanilla, the lore in game is non existent, and there is significantly less to think about in terms of army comp etc.  For some this is fine and ideal, for me personally, if I wanted that I would play chess.

But I think when people talk about balance in relation to AoS tourneys, they are really talking about build diversity.  That the top tier is too small.  It is possible to have a game about as balanced as AoS is now, but with completely acceptable army diversity.  The problem is, and this is where balance and diversity very much intersect, for diversity to be possible I think the balance issues can't be that of phase function, but instead unit function if that makes sense? The balance issues need to be more weighted internally towards specific books, rather then externally toward specific styles.  Hordes, elites, fast/alpha strike, avoidance, shooting lists all need to valid and potentially strong as they work as counters against one another.  This is going to support list diversity which projects the appearance of balance.   What we have right now at the top is a play-style that is vastly under-represented.  Shooting/avoidance.  Shooting is the #1 counter for both FEC and Slaanesh that I have seen mentioned continuously online.  Yet it is also the playstyle most under-represented in the top tier.  The result?  List diversity is shot and you see a crazy amount of FEC and Slaanesh (I think DOK is more of an "internal balance" problem and is just a book that needs a desperate re-work in general as their strength is not so easily explained by meta representation imo).  Cities very well may serve to help begin the remedy for this idk, but I think the major source of "imbalance" ruffling the feathers of so many AoS gamers right now is more a diversity issue then a balance issue. 

There are always going to be balance complaints, and balance quality will ebb and flow, but I really think tourney list diversity is the #1 reason for outsized complaints in the AoS community.  Real balance is not something AoS or any other table top game that puts a premium on lore and personality are ever likely to achieve much of, and I am absolutely okay with that, as long as skill remains extremely important and capable of overcoming a lot of the imbalance.  List diversity is my big issue, and I hope that a couple of the new books shift the meta enough that we will see that at the top of tournies again here soon.

[Panzer]

30 minutes ago, TheWilddog said:

MTG designers and pretty up front about the fact that they are constantly trying to balance introducing cool new toys to generate interest and promote sales verses the concerns of internal game balance. 

GW and most of the industry has borrowed heavily from this approach. In my opinion GW has a conscious plan to weight sales and appeal over balance as a marketing philosophy.  That is the reason the release schedule is fueled by the new. Every week new stuff is pushed for us to buy.  Primaris replace old marines, ect. Their focus is on the rules pushing the new models. Yes they want a modicum of balance, but their main focus is pushing out the next product.  They will now react to obvious overly powerful rules, but they still value pushing the rules power for sales over balance. Again this is not inherently bad, in fact it is the industry standard and a proven winning technique.  I just don't see any other companies taking a drastically different approach in our niche. 

The big difference is that MTG gets completely carried by what's strong and competetive while Warhammer gets also carried what appeals to the customer aesthetically. That's not to be underestimated. The actual hardcore tournament players are only a small part of the whole customerbase.

[TheWilddog]

6 minutes ago, Panzer said:

The big difference is that MTG gets completely carried by what's strong and competetive while Warhammer gets also carried what appeals to the customer aesthetically. That's not to be underestimated. The actual hardcore tournament players are only a small part of the whole customerbase.

I agree and that is part of the issue.  For GW the emphasis is on what looks great and what rules will get people to buy it. The way the balance plays is at best a distant second that comes well after the first. 

As a long term magic player I would argue that Magic is the same. Wizards of the Coast has repeatedly stated that casual players are 90 percent or more of their sales. In recent years they have dumped more and more resources in casual formats like Commander, and put emphasis on the "cool" and "unique" features of each new set to appeal to the casual crowd.  

GW and Wizards know where their bread is buttered, they want to give us enough balance to make us happy while delivering the power creep and new hotness to drive sells.  Again, nothing against it but to expect something outside this industry standard seems unrealistic.

[JackStreicher]

4 hours ago, TheWilddog said:

Again, nothing against it but to expect something outside this industry standard seems unrealistic

The only group powercreep is a sales-factor To are competitive gamers, which are the minority.

the whole powercreep business has the opposite effect of attracting people in my area, no one wants it because it is unfun and no one wants to play your absurdly strong new toy which leads to people skipping the broken faction/models.

So I assume that powercreep is either very ill adviced or it is caused by sloppy rules-writing and a lack of review and thoroughly testing the product, which makes GW‘s products overall lack in quality (to me) though they charge for a premium product. 

Edited October 16, 2019 by JackStreicher

[chord]

33 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

The only group powercreep is a sales-factor To are competitive gamers, which are the minority.

the whole powercreep business has the opposite effect of attracting people in my area, no one wants it because it is unfun and no one wants to play your absurdly strong new toy which leads to people skipping the broken faction/models.

So I assume that powercreep is either very ill adviced or it is caused by sloppy rules-writing and a lack of review and thoroughly testing the product, which makes GW‘s products overall lack in quality (to me) though they charge for a premium product. 

I agree the power creep makes it less fun for casual players who just want a pick up game in a store that is not against a face stomp list.

[Dead Scribe]

In our store the casual gamers get mad because most of us only have competitive lists and models so they only have like three people to play against unless they buy new models.

[TheWilddog]

2 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

The only group powercreep is a sales-factor To are competitive gamers, which are the minority.

the whole powercreep business has the opposite effect of attracting people in my area, no one wants it because it is unfun and no one wants to play your absurdly strong new toy which leads to people skipping the broken faction/models.

So I assume that powercreep is either very ill adviced or it is caused by sloppy rules-writing and a lack of review and thoroughly testing the product, which makes GW‘s products overall lack in quality (to me) though they charge for a premium product. 

I disagree. Not just power gamers are attracted to power creep.  How much buzz has there been with the release of each of the newer, overpowered books? The casual players are drawn to "good" rules too. I know several local FEC players who have never got anywhere close to a tournament that went out and bought AGKoTG like they were going out of style. 

Magic is the the exact same. Casual players want cool cards, that do cool things, Wizards keeps making cooler more powerful cards to appease the casuals as well as the competitive. It's less about competitive play and more about constantly having cool stuff to sell, it just happens that the easiest way to do that is to ramp up the power. 

I agree with all you guys that power creep and rules to sell models are not the most positive thing but I also contend that almost all big tabletop war gaming companies and collectible trading card games do it.  In the case of Wizards Of The Coast and GW they have been very successful and have a lot of data on who their customers are and what they are willing to buy. That is what leads to the constant product churn and the accompanying rules push to sell the new coolness.

 

[Rollcage]

I stopped playing sigmar because the game has no balance. 

It's entirely based on newer armies being stupidly power creeped with some massive random chances determining your fate. 

This is casually played amongst a group of friends, pretty much died after Legions of Nagash battle tome onwards came out. 

[zilberfrid]

4 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

In our store the casual gamers get mad because most of us only have competitive lists and models so they only have like three people to play against unless they buy new models.

This is what stopped me from getting into WFB back in the day, investment was too high.

I'd highly advise that store to help new and casual players to get a game on.

[Ludicola]

Something I remember Warhammer Weekly mentioning is that at a decently sized tournament of 30-50 people, if you're playing a casual list after the first round you should be matched with similarly styled lists. So the requirement to field filth is really only for those who really are gunning for that trophy.

[Panzer]

1 hour ago, Ludicola said:

Something I remember Warhammer Weekly mentioning is that at a decently sized tournament of 30-50 people, if you're playing a casual list after the first round you should be matched with similarly styled lists. So the requirement to field filth is really only for those who really are gunning for that trophy.

Unless your list is more casual than 90% of the lists you are facing and even if you get matched against similar lists quickly it still means that winning would likely match you against more competetive lists again. Tournaments are simply the wrong place to bring non-competetive lists.

[Karragon]

I would like to remind everyone that in fact chess is not "perfectly balanced" and that the player using white has an advantage. If you want perfect balance it's rock-paper-scissors. 

[Jamopower]

8 hours ago, TheWilddog said:

I agree with all you guys that power creep and rules to sell models are not the most positive thing but I also contend that almost all big tabletop war gaming companies and collectible trading card games do it.  In the case of Wizards Of The Coast and GW they have been very successful and have a lot of data on who their customers are and what they are willing to buy. That is what leads to the constant product churn and the accompanying rules push to sell the new coolness.

 

I agree, but would emphasis, that the power creep is not the intended end result, but merely a side effect when the main focus is just to bring out fresh rules. In most cases there is much underpowered content as overpowered, but for obvious reasons the overpowered part is what has a bigger effect on the overall gaming experience.

[Dead Scribe]

Players that buy underpowered models because they look really cool but then find out later that they wasted money if they want to use it in a game are very affected as well.

I see that weekly.  

[michu]

1 minute ago, Dead Scribe said:

Players that buy underpowered models because they look really cool but then find out later that they wasted money if they want to use it in a game are very affected as well.

I see that weekly.  

That's why there are 3 ways to play. If you want some people to stay in your community don't play only tournaments with best lists. Play some open and some narrative. There are really fun rules for smaller games in GHB2019. Some people will never be competitive. Create a place for them. You say non-competitive players have only three people to play with. Maybe you should play non-tournamental games with non-optimal lists with them ? Even with your competitive collections you can build some non-competitive lists. Different spells, weaker artefacts, add houserules, use msu units instead of hordes (20 clanrats instead of 40, no plague monks)... Diversity in game styles breads diversity in army lists. You're an MTG player so you probably know player psychographics - give Timmies a chance. Tournament games - optimal lists, non-tournament lists - slightly weaker lists. Use WD battlereports as inspiration.

[Jamopower]

Yes of course that as well, but that's something that doesn't show up in this kind of discussions so often as it's bit more of a personal disaster.

[Dead Scribe]

7 minutes ago, michu said:

That's why there are 3 ways to play. If you want some people to stay in your community don't play only tournaments with best lists. Play some open and some narrative. There are really fun rules for smaller games in GHB2019. Some people will never be competitive. Create a place for them. You say non-competitive players have only three people to play with. Maybe you should play non-tournamental games with non-optimal lists with them ? Even with your competitive collections you can build some non-competitive lists. Different spells, weaker artefacts, add houserules, use msu units instead of hordes (20 clanrats instead of 40, no plague monks)... Diversity in game styles breads diversity in army lists. You're an MTG player so you probably know player psychographics - give Timmies a chance. Tournament games - optimal lists, non-tournament lists - slightly weaker lists. Use WD battlereports as inspiration.

This is an expensive hobby.  Most of us buy what we need to play.  I don't think its reasonable to demand that players buy enough models to cover 3 ways to play.   I have said that many times before - I only have what I need to play.  I'm not spending more money on sub optimal models that I will need to pay someone to paint just so I can play sub optimally.  

If the rules for units weren't as skewed as they were, this wouldn't be as bad of an issue.

The only way for me to currently make a weaker army would be to cut out two of my three keepers and then buy some demonette foot troops and have them painted up.   The moment I have even two keepers, the casual players have a meltdown about waac and being "that guy".  

I don't think a game should push its players to do that.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Dead Scribe

[Nezzhil]

In my LGS is making more casual tournaments, if one of the very competitive players comes with a "one turn win combo" they'll be banned for all the tournaments... The truth is that competitive players are the ones that waste less money, and this is true in Magic, 40k or AoS... they're the less important players for a good and healthy LGS

[michu]

58 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I only have what I need to play.  I'm not spending more money on sub optimal models that I will need to pay someone to paint just so I can play sub optimally.  

Did I say something about buying new models? Your 2000 pts competitive army can be easily made into 1000 pts non-competitive army (e.g. use only 1 Keeper of Secrets instead of 3). You can use units you already have just create weaker list out of them.

Edited October 16, 2019 by michu

[Jator]

10 hours ago, TheWilddog said:

I disagree. Not just power gamers are attracted to power creep.  How much buzz has there been with the release of each of the newer, overpowered books? The casual players are drawn to "good" rules too. I know several local FEC players who have never got anywhere close to a tournament that went out and bought AGKoTG like they were going out of style.

 

I have to disagree with you on this point. Following your example, the appeal here was not the power creep: An army with 3 or 4 AGKoTG sounded appealing because a monster mash looks cool, seems fun to play with, and allows you to collect FEC (well-loved for their fluff) without having to paint a hundred ghouls. The fact that is overpowered can actually prevent people from collecting such army for fear of being considered "that guy" among his casual gaming group.

[michu]

3 minutes ago, Jator said:

The fact that is overpowered can actually prevent people from collecting such army for fear of being considered "that guy" among his casual gaming group.

Is it still OP after nerf? I actually agree with @TheWilddog - yes, I would assemble Gristlegore army mostly because of lore and low model count but good rules are also a factor (not the most important one but it's still nice to have good rules).

[DerZauberer]

Although this topic has been discussed several thousand time on TGA, i'll add something:

Several people got to know the terms "balance" and "OP" from videogames. Lets take Starcraft2 for example. There are 3 races in Starcraft2: Terran, Zerg and Protoss. Starcraft is said to be the most competetive and balanced out asymmetrical game ever existed in video game history, and with Korean GSL Players earning around 300.000$-800,000$ in playing Starcraft2 proves to me the game is in a good shape.

Mirrormatches, like Terran vs Terran or Zerg vs Zerg are 100% balanced, right? Everything is symmetrical. Map, Unit-Pool, etc.

But Protoss vs. Zerg?  

Following the recent SC2 Events Protoss is absolutly busted and unbalanced, allthough a finnish guy called Serral won WCS Global Finals 2018 with Zerg. The Community is under the heavy impression Protoss is "OP" and Zerg "Bad". That's ~70 unique Zerg, Terran and Protoss units not well balanced against each other, by a 75 billion dollar company balancing the game since nearly 10 years where the whole purpose of the game is to be the best balanced strategy game ever made, it is the eSport.

Now compare the small eco-system of Strarcraft 2 to AoS:

• Asymetrical maps by default
• Several hundreds of Warscrolls
• Unique rules, e.g. Hand of Dust
• Unique faction rules

We agree that two identical slaanesh lists are 100% balanced, right? But now deviate one-by-one each change you do to the lists and how it affects the pros and cons of the map, etc. You end up so hard in unknown territory that you can't say "what" or "how" something should be "buffed" or "nerfed", just that it needs a change due to pure gut-feeling. 

Videogames deliver with each interaction in the game data. They are determined in their numbers and you cant change them. You can't change the mission you are playing to favour one player or nerfing the damage of your Zergs. I can't choose which skills i use in dota, which units are available for me in starcraft, which weapons i can buy in counterstrike. You can't alter the balance of the game, so the typical videogamer goes to reddit and makes a karma winning topic "P R O T O S S E D" and how starcraft2 is bad.

In AoS you can be the balancing factor, you can bring units you usually dont use, you can tailor the objective to the weaker list, houserule stuff, etc.

When such a limited eco-system like a video game can't be balanced, how should GW balance such a vast eco-system that is Age of Sigmar?

Edited October 16, 2019 by DerZauberer
Removed a typical video-game classification and replaced it with "Bad"

[Dead Scribe]

That is once again arguing "true balance", which everyone knows cannot be done.  

[michu]

It rather was arguing "some level of unbalance will always exist - you can want more balance but don't shout that sky is falling. There will be periods of better and worse balance, we have to deal with it."

[Moldek]

19 minutes ago, DerZauberer said:

Although this topic has been discussed several thousand time on TGA, i'll add something:

Several people got to know the terms "balance" and "OP" from videogames. Lets take Starcraft2 for example. There are 3 races in Starcraft2: Terran, Zerg and Protoss. Starcraft is said to be the most competetive and balanced out asymmetrical game ever existed in video game history, and with Korean GSL Players earning around 300.000$-800,000$ in playing Starcraft2 proves to me the game is in a good shape.

Mirrormatches, like Terran vs Terran or Zerg vs Zerg are 100% balanced, right? Everything is symmetrical. Map, Unit-Pool, etc.

But Protoss vs. Zerg?  

Following the recent SC2 Events Protoss is absolutly busted and unbalanced, allthough a finnish guy called Serral won WCS Global Finals 2018 with Zerg. The Community is under the heavy impression Protoss is "OP" and Zerg "Bad". That's ~70 unique Zerg, Terran and Protoss units not well balanced against each other, by a 75 billion dollar company balancing the game since nearly 10 years where the whole purpose of the game is to be the best balanced strategy game ever made, it is the eSport.

Now compare the small eco-system of Strarcraft 2 to AoS:

• Asymetrical maps by default
• Several hundreds of Warscrolls
• Unique rules, e.g. Hand of Dust
• Unique faction rules

We agree that two identical slaanesh lists are 100% balanced, right? But now deviate one-by-one each change you do to the lists and how it affects the pros and cons of the map, etc. You end up so hard in unknown territory that you can't say "what" or "how" something should be "buffed" or "nerfed", just that it needs a change due to pure gut-feeling. 

Videogames deliver with each interaction in the game data. They are determined in their numbers and you cant change them. You can't change the mission you are playing to favour one player or nerfing the damage of your Zergs. I can't choose which skills i use in dota, which units are available for me in starcraft, which weapons i can buy in counterstrike. You can't alter the balance of the game, so the typical videogamer goes to reddit and makes a karma winning topic "P R O T O S S E D" and how starcraft2 is bad.

In AoS you can be the balancing factor, you can bring units you usually dont use, you can tailor the objective to the weaker list, houserule stuff, etc.

When such a limited eco-system like a video game can't be balanced, how should GW balance such a vast eco-system that is Age of Sigmar?

I’ve been thinking about that point but you put it better than I could. Video game skews perception of balancing into something that has to be entirely handled by the company, and be as frequent as possible. But who would want to play competitive aos with weekly stat tweaks? How would we collect data half as plentiful and accurate as games that record litterally every interaction in a predetermined environment?

The truth is that wargaming is a social contract. Personal interaction is THE MOST important factor in a fun game of AoS. Being able to have fun and to give your opponent a good time is crucial. I’m sure I could have fun being crushed by a tournament player if he’s nice about it, and I’m certain we could find ways for him to challenge himself : e.g giving me double the points to see if he can still beat me, etc.

To be able to have fun outside of pure hardcore tournament, you have to make playing against you sound at least as fun as having a couple of pints with a mate. And of course the other person also has to check their expectations : if you refuse to try to optimize your lists, don’t get salty when a tournament player destroys you 😉