A Suggestion on Balance

[Maloc]

1 hour ago, whispersofblood said:

When it comes to data analysis volume is not depth. Especially in a data set that is constantly changing. Data from the summer is essentially useless beyond the most rudimentary conclusions. In my line of work using data as shown by THG would be laughable, these data sets need to be heavily curated, especially given that specific players are showing up multiple times in numerous data sets disproportionately.  The British data set is dominated by probably less than 30 players, and British data dominates the data set, the Aus/NewZ meta is similarly dominated and disproportionate. There is this high school math belief that aggregation averages out, it is incorrect. That only works as well as the strength of your data collection and robustness of the curation method. As is the current method would increase the representation of any skews in the data, skewing the results to be inline with the preferences of maybe 100 individuals globally. 

So you end up with problems like factions which appear to be good, get picked up by good players, which gives good results, which confirms the original assumption. Especially as a good player doesn't expect to go less than 4-1, which is already an 80% winrate. That's before you get into the context of the event, realm spells, artefacts. An event that uses realm spells and rotates realms, is a vastly different beast from an event that plays the whole event in Aqshy with realm spells, to an event with no realms at all. 

And, that's before we even get started on the assumption that the stats represent the "best build" without ever actually measuring the occasions any variation of what could be considered the best build shows up. Or even an estimation of what the "best build" would be as an archetype. The lack of rigor combined with the hyperbolic level of usage literally does my head in.

For these reasons and more I would heavily recommend people do not use TWG stats as anything more than an inference. 

My favorite quote "there are 3 types of lies... lies , damn lies, and statistics". THW has 13,490 matches recorded from over 69 events since drop of GHB 2019. 

In my line of work we use data sets to actuality make decisions and decide courses of action. What you propose is more of what we refer to as analysis paralysis. wanting a 100% perfect set of data before you can draw any conclusions is impossible in reality as you can never get it from something like this. If it is 80% direction-ally correct you can draw conclusions from the data.

Take storm cast vs skaven

Skaven make up 8.33% of the sample group with a win % of 55.6% 

SCE  are 9.21% with a win rate of 43%. 

We know Skaven have become much more competitive since the drop of their new tome. The data reflects that and the SCE under preform in comparison . sure there is going to be some noise in there but data always has it. 

can do same comparison to Night haunts vs DOK.  AoS is not well balanced for competitive play and the data shows it. 

Source data

https://thehonestwargamer.com/13th-december-stats/

[gjnoronh]

2 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

When it comes to data analysis volume is not depth. Especially in a data set that is constantly changing. Data from the summer is essentially useless beyond the most rudimentary conclusions. In my line of work using data as shown by THG would be laughable, these data sets need to be heavily curated, especially given that specific players are showing up multiple times in numerous data sets disproportionately.  The British data set is dominated by probably less than 30 players, and British data dominates the data set, the Aus/NewZ meta is similarly dominated and disproportionate. There is this high school math belief that aggregation averages out, it is incorrect. That only works as well as the strength of your data collection and robustness of the curation method. As is the current method would increase the representation of any skews in the data, skewing the results to be inline with the preferences of maybe 100 individuals globally. 

So you end up with problems like factions which appear to be good, get picked up by good players, which gives good results, which confirms the original assumption. Especially as a good player doesn't expect to go less than 4-1, which is already an 80% winrate. That's before you get into the context of the event, realm spells, artefacts. An event that uses realm spells and rotates realms, is a vastly different beast from an event that plays the whole event in Aqshy with realm spells, to an event with no realms at all. 

And, that's before we even get started on the assumption that the stats represent the "best build" without ever actually measuring the occasions any variation of what could be considered the best build shows up. Or even an estimation of what the "best build" would be as an archetype. The lack of rigor combined with the hyperbolic level of usage literally does my head in.

For these reasons and more I would heavily recommend people do not use TWG stats as anything more than an inference. 

This 100%

4 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

The flaw with the honest wargamer stats is that they don't show you the context.  They don't show you the skill level of the players involved, and they are heavily weighted and influenced by volume of games played by people bringing what the meta considers OP.  

The honest wargamer stats contextually show what people are bringing to events, and overall how that faction does.  It highlights inferred imbalance.  It definitely points at trends of what the community feels is very weak and what is very strong.  

 

14 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I guess I've seen that tweet or versions of that tweet so regularly that I'm numb to it.  A lot of the people complaining and tweeting like that have been doing so for literally years now and are still hanging around spending money on the game and playing it.

And these two 100% as well.  The player who brings the battletome that is expected  to be pretty weak to a GT is not going there to win - their list design probably doesn't max what their book could do, and they aren't practicing continuously.    The folks who see Tzeentch as the next greatest thing and have access to a collection that lets them quickly switch their army to it are probably much more interested in wins and losses then the player who has played their same dispossesed army for the last 20 years.   

To the previous poster - how many people just starting AoS use one of the armies in the boxed starter set (i.e. Stormcast) as their introduction to tournament play.  A big chunk of the Stormcast users in the data set.  How many use a 100-200 model Skaven list - it's a lot less for a variety of reasons.      If you want to talk about stats see the thread I linked to on the previous page - we'd want a lot more data then just Win loss by army.     Blood Bowl does it better with player skill and track record built into their data base of ELO ratings.  

I've been doing internet discussions about Warhammer since 1995 and this gamer  angst about balance has been present throughout those 26 years. 

I used to quote the following starting in _2001 _  really the Warhammer internet hasn't changed since then.  The tech  we use for discussions has changed and the list restriction terminology is different, the discussions have not.    Direwolf was _the _competitive Warhammer newsgroup before  the Warhammer.org forum  which of course predates this forum.   

Quote

New army book angst/whinging is a staple of the internet this was originally posted on Direwolf in _2001_ by Roy E, and is still a gem.
  
---------------------
Ok I am going to get this out of my system, and it will enable me to easily bypass tons of threads until Dec 2002. There are 2 options, if I put them both down, then you can just pick one, cut and paste it, and resend it to the list. So I, the Reiksmarshall, am simplifying the Direwolf List for everyone.

Option 1 *********

I have just heard about the insanely broken {insert army here} piece of ****** book that was written by that total dickweed {insert GW employee here}.

This book is waaaay to OTT. The magic items are too incredible, the core is too varied, the specs and rares have faaaar too many special abilities.

I don't need to read the book or have it in front of me, it sucks!

Option 2 *********

Good Lord!! Have you seen what that (censored for TGA sensibilities) {insert GW employee here} did to my army list? He totally screwed the {insert army list here} for me.

I CANNOT win with this - it is sooo broken....my core choices suck, the Magic is pathetic, my rares and specials are totally useless, and my characters have no punch.

The {insert army race here} are not supposed to be like this...they totally go against the fluff that they wrote and it makes no sense. I built my entire army to be {insert tactics for another edition here) and now I cant do that, so they screwed me.

I am auctioning off all of my {insert army list here} tomorrow on Ebay.

Now that those are out there, feel free to take from them for the next year, and post away. The
Reiksmarshall graciously accepts all donations and appreciations for his singlehandedly eliminating many threads next year.

Reiksmarshall Roy

 

 I used to pull it out every 3-6 months pre AoS : 

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/wyrmlingx/it-39-s-official-t10212-s525.html

Chill out - wait a bit and see if any of this matters in six months.  Just think back over the last 5 years of AoS about each of the moments the community lost their minds about some new army breaking the games balance and then it's old news in six months.    

AoS isn't the best game if you think pushing toy soldiers should be a life and death matter of supreme skill.  It is a great game to have fun, and using competition as an excuse to play with toy soldiers and make new friends.

 

 

Edited January 30, 2020 by gjnoronh

[Dead Scribe]

I can get behind that.

[Vakarian]

38 minutes ago, gjnoronh said:

Chill out - wait a bit and see if any of this matters in six months.  Just think back over the last 5 years of AoS about each of the moments the community lost their minds about some new army breaking the games balance and then it's old news in six months.    

 

This is why the 6-month update period GW has instituted is about the right point to make balance-based changes.

 

More data will help that. One hopes GW are using the data currently available, but it would be nice to see a bit further than Honest Wargamer's stats and lots of internet comments.

 

Even with a larger number of beginners playing Stormcast, for example, more data collection would show whether there's actually serious intra-faction balance issues with SCE. I would posit there are, but if GW collects more data on units chosen and performance of lists over the course of six months or so, per faction, they'll have a better idea of what's actually needed, and that really benefits everyone.

 

I realize I may not have made this explicitly clear earlier, so I'll say it now: the data is at least as useful, if not more useful, to show what is underperforming and needs to be tweaked with a points drop or better rules. The "broken" stuff tends to show itself easily enough, although the stats will certainly show that too. The best little gem good stats should show are what units are regularly underwhelming.

[whispersofblood]

1 hour ago, Maloc said:

My favorite quote "there are 3 types of lies... lies , damn lies, and statistics". THW has 13,490 matches recorded from over 69 events since drop of GHB 2019. 

In my line of work we use data sets to actuality make decisions and decide courses of action. What you propose is more of what we refer to as analysis paralysis. wanting a 100% perfect set of data before you can draw any conclusions is impossible in reality as you can never get it from something like this. If it is 80% direction-ally correct you can draw conclusions from the data.

Take storm cast vs skaven

Skaven make up 8.33% of the sample group with a win % of 55.6% 

SCE  are 9.21% with a win rate of 43%. 

We know Skaven have become much more competitive since the drop of their new tome. The data reflects that and the SCE under preform in comparison . sure there is going to be some noise in there but data always has it. 

can do same comparison to Night haunts vs DOK.  AoS is not well balanced for competitive play and the data shows it. 

Source data

https://thehonestwargamer.com/13th-december-stats/

I'm not, here is why.

Those are decent inferences, and probably not incorrect. But, there is a difference in the actions you take when you have are being conclusive and when you have a conclusion. 

Lets do a cross section of the players who have finished in the top 10 more than once in 2019. How many of those players have any entries for a faction outside the top 5? If you don't think that is going to skew your dataset I'm not sure what to say. I would say player flows can add anywhere between 5-9% to winrate, based on admittedly in my head arithmetic. But, how useful is the dataset when half of the people behind the representative dataset, are suddenly the players contributing to the downward pressure on the statistic? The real question is who is doing this analysis? 

Secondary, even based on their loose approximation of the "meta" the meta is so fluid any snap shot is out of date in what 4-6 weeks from the point of initial collection? How long do you think it takes for the 4-1 crowd to come up with successful DoT strategies? 1 week? 2 weeks if it requires building and painting the correct units? How would we figure out if this has happened since the stats get buried behind a year of junk stats. TBH there are enough events that the stats should basically be bookmarked 2-3 weeks after a books launch, and not just grandfathered in.  Its like tracking the price of coal, after the whole world has switched to oil as the main fuel and tracking its growth while its a tertiary resource and saying its not meeting forecasts. 

And, then we enter the world of army strength based on meta participation rates. In a HoS dominated world, OBR were an immensely powerful debutante. The durability surpassed the ability of HoS to make it up in speed and precision. But, DoT dismantle OBR, fairly easily in fact, and HoS have a much better time with DoT than OBR. If OBR are out of the meta, HoS will do better. How do we measure these flows, and are these flows even have anything to do with balance or just the nature of drastic strategies? 

If we are going to take these stats seriously they need significantly more depth, we need to figure out archetypes, and measure variance from the archetype so we can rule out erroneous data.

Far from paralysis, I'm just asking basic questions I would expect any Jr.  policy adviser to have answers prepared for at a meeting. 

[gjnoronh]

1 hour ago, Vakarian said:

This is why the 6-month update period GW has instituted is about the right point to make balance-based changes.

 

More data will help that. One hopes GW are using the data currently available, but it would be nice to see a bit further than Honest Wargamer's stats and lots of internet comments.

 

Even with a larger number of beginners playing Stormcast, for example, more data collection would show whether there's actually serious intra-faction balance issues with SCE. I would posit there are, but if GW collects more data on units chosen and performance of lists over the course of six months or so, per faction, they'll have a better idea of what's actually needed, and that really benefits everyone.

 

I realize I may not have made this explicitly clear earlier, so I'll say it now: the data is at least as useful, if not more useful, to show what is underperforming and needs to be tweaked with a points drop or better rules. The "broken" stuff tends to show itself easily enough, although the stats will certainly show that too. The best little gem good stats should show are what units are regularly underwhelming.

Yeah I think win rates in tournament games may help in determining what needs a boost.  I think it's probably not the win rates that matter most to them as most games are played out side of a  tournament environment and factors we've mentioned skew bad win  rates further down and good rates further up.   

Check out when you can  the following  thread it's on points and balance but it applies to trying to understand big picture win loss rates and balance

We know from other GW games factions that newbies tend to select tend to have a lower win rate - it's hard to separate that out as noise vs signal even in a  more comprehensive data set  .  Blood Bowl has the most comprehensive data set I'm aware of for miniature games and even with data base information on player skill level it still can't capture everything to make universal statements  across all tournaments on faction balance and 'sweet spot' for tweaking. 

i.e. see for example the work of this guy who just does some data crunching with one of the four potentially available data sets for the game. 

https://public.tableau.com/profile/mike.sann0638.davies#!/

 

 

Edited January 30, 2020 by gjnoronh

[Vakarian]

I’m aware of the impact new players have on win rates—it’s a big part of why data analysis down to the unit level is important, and why tracking player success with a faction matters too. Different types of data are useful for different things.

I’d be willing to bet that Stormcast have underperforming units and underperform as a faction regardless of player (i.e. once skill is accounted for in the stats). But my point here isn’t to say that SCE need a fix; it’s to say that GW could use more information in making their decisions about what to balance, and how. 

[Dead Scribe]

I've seen people do statistical analysis on AOS and it never ends well for them.  They get ridden out of the room on a flaming broom lol

[Vakarian]

Some of the reactions do make it seem like my proposal might have been a bit much. 😆

[gjnoronh]

14 hours ago, Vakarian said:

I’m aware of the impact new players have on win rates—it’s a big part of why data analysis down to the unit level is important, and why tracking player success with a faction matters too. Different types of data are useful for different things.

I’d be willing to bet that Stormcast have underperforming units and underperform as a faction regardless of player (i.e. once skill is accounted for in the stats). But my point here isn’t to say that SCE need a fix; it’s to say that GW could use more information in making their decisions about what to balance, and how. 

I'm willing to bet you are right as well

What I'm saying is you don't have enough data in the available data set to have math get you there in an objective fashion.    Your gut instinct is probably at least as right as math using a poor quality data set with missing core elements.   

Read the other thread - lots of discussion of the math and what we'd need to do good quality math.

For example I'm willing to bet most games of AoS  internationally aren't  playing with the  full rules as written in terms of mysterious terrain and GW specific terrain war scrolls.     It's also probably the case that a good chunk of tournaments don't use them in full either.     I'd also guess Ghyran as a Realm of Battle shows up less often at tournaments then it should if we were really randomly determining the Realm of Battle.   The playtesters however   are  playing with those intended core rules. (and GW has said in their guidance of TO's for tournaments balance works better if we do use the rules as written.)        Should we balance the game  with the rules most convenient for TO's to use that avoid  meta shifting random elements or should we balance the game  and armies as intended?    The rules writers are likely playtesting against armies that aren't released yet do we balance based on what won the last tournament or the meta as it will exist until AoS 3.0?   Slaanesh, and Ossiarch looked pretty unbeatable until the next army book came out.     

 

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by gjnoronh

[Vakarian]

Yea, I’ve read the thread, and I have training in statistics. I understand the problems limited data sets present. That’s why I’m advocating for GW to acquire more data—in fact, as much as possible. Even that may not be enough by statistical preferences—you’re probably right about that—but any set of data has its uses, even if the user has to be aware of its limitations and its margin of error. 
 

If GW games present a too-small set of data, then I’m amazed that CB has managed to glean good information from a set of data that’s probably 10% of what GW has available. The reality is the difference is like having a study on 300 vs. 3,000 people. Only 3,000 or more is truly reliable, and yet we’re often able to draw valuable conclusions even from the 300-person set, even if we have to be more careful doing so because there’s much more room for error. 

[gjnoronh]

8 minutes ago, Vakarian said:

Yea, I’ve read the thread, and I have training in statistics. I understand the problems limited data sets present. That’s why I’m advocating for GW to acquire more data—in fact, as much as possible. Even that may not be enough by statistical preferences—you’re probably right about that—but any set of data has its uses, even if the user has to be aware of its limitations and its margin of error. 
 

If GW games present a too-small set of data, then I’m amazed that CB has managed to glean good information from a set of data that’s probably 10% of what GW has available. The reality is the difference is like having a study on 300 vs. 3,000 people. Only 3,000 or more is truly reliable, and yet we’re often able to draw valuable conclusions even from the 300-person set, even if we have to be more careful doing so because there’s much more room for error. 

Note it's not a sample size and P value type issue - that's really the least concern.

It's depth and breadth of data and consensus on the underlying assumptions to do good quality of math  you really want.  What's the right assumption of player skill for  determining balance?  Should we balance for the average player (where  the vast majority of the games are played and very very few get into any data set), the average GT level tournament player (significantly higher skill then the average player),  or the top of the largest GTs tournament player (very very small group of players/games but the results that get the most internet commenting player attention.)     What level  player are you balancing for?     

Some books  (Idoneth for example) perform much better in a very skilled players hands then an average players hands.  Other books (I won't name one) might be 'easier cars to drive' so a good player vs an average player will have a smaller win rate differential.   

 

[Vakarian]

Honestly, those questions aren’t answerable without making some very serious assumptions, and no amount of data is ever going to provide those answers. GW has to choose a direction and stick with it. They’ve indicated multiple times that they have—it’s not the tournament players, it’s the narrative and casual players. No data set available is actually going to provide the “best” answer for that group. 
 

In my previous career, we had a saying that really holds a lot of truth in any application: “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” 
 

GW can use what’s available to make the game better. If they wait for a perfect data set to answer the questions you posed, well, that’s never going to happen. They should use what they have available, with the understanding that while it’s less than perfect, it’s at least applicable in some manner. 

[gjnoronh]

47 minutes ago, Vakarian said:

Honestly, those questions aren’t answerable without making some very serious assumptions, and no amount of data is ever going to provide those answers. GW has to choose a direction and stick with it. They’ve indicated multiple times that they have—it’s not the tournament players, it’s the narrative and casual players. No data set available is actually going to provide the “best” answer for that group. 
 

In my previous career, we had a saying that really holds a lot of truth in any application: “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” 
 

GW can use what’s available to make the game better. If they wait for a perfect data set to answer the questions you posed, well, that’s never going to happen. They should use what they have available, with the understanding that while it’s less than perfect, it’s at least applicable in some manner. 

Vakarian I'd suggest your first and second paragraphs really don't make sense when taken together.

If their focus isn't tournament gamers (and I agree  with that assumption) and we know (as you have asserted above) the tournament results data set isn't particularly relevant for that  focus, and that _no_ data set is going to be particularly helpful for that focus  how do we get to a conclusion of use the data to make the game better.

Is the most useful data from their standpoint sales?  They could balance the game based on what kits are selling well and not selling well and possibly get to the answers that matter to them most.  

I understand and agree "perfect is the enemy of the good."    But are we applying it correctly?    Do we have 'good' now in Warhammer , is shooting for 'perfect'  going to get in that way?  I think if we ignore another maxim early programming and math modeling GIGO (Garbage in Garbage out) you might indeed have 'shooting for perfect get in the way of good'   Will an analysis focusing on tournament results potentially   make the game better for top of the GT balance and worse for the core sales focus of basement gamers?   Does that meet GW or the player base's needs (very few members of the player base are serious tournament goers.)    

I'm not arguing we can't shoot for better balance - i'm saying  math  (no matter how intricate) based on faulty underlying data sets won't get you there any faster then a gestalt of the data.    Could an experienced tournament player give you their sense of what's good and what's bad that would match the results of a 10,000  tournament game simple win loss analysis ? Almost certainly.  Would either player impression or data set review  pick up on 'this book has synergies  or value in the emerging  meta the majority of the players haven't recognized?' Probably not but the experienced tournament player would be much more likely to identify that then a highly lumped retrospective data  set.      Would either sources of balance analysis give you the best data to guide balance choices that would make the game better for the average player?  Possibly not.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Vakarian]

12 minutes ago, gjnoronh said:

Vakarian I'd suggest your first and second paragraphs really don't make sense when taken together.

If their focus isn't tournament gamers (and I agree  with that assumption) and we know (as you have asserted above) the tournament results data set isn't particularly relevant for that  focus, and that _no_ data set is going to be particularly helpful for that focus  how do we get to a conclusion of use the data to make the game better.

Is the most useful data from their standpoint sales?  They could balance the game based on what kits are selling well and not selling well and possibly get to the answers that matter to them most.  

I understand and agree "perfect is the enemy of the good."    But are we applying it correctly?    Do we have 'good' now in Warhammer , is shooting for 'perfect'  going to get in that way?  I think if we ignore another maxim early programming and math modeling GIGO (Garbage in Garbage out) you might indeed have 'shooting for perfect get in the way of good'   Will an analysis focusing on tournament results potentially   make the game better for top of the GT balance and worse for the core sales focus of basement gamers?   Does that meet GW or the player base's needs (very few members of the player base are serious tournament goers.)    

I'm not arguing we can't shoot for better balance - i'm saying  math  (no matter how intricate) based on faulty underlying data sets won't get you there any faster then a gestalt of the data.    Could an experienced tournament player give you their sense of what's good and what's bad that would match the results of a 10,000  tournament game simple win loss analysis ? Almost certainly.  Would either player impression or data set review  pick up on 'this book has synergies  or value in the emerging  meta the majority of the players haven't recognized?' Probably not but the experienced tournament player would be much more likely to identify that then a highly lumped retrospective data  set.      Would either sources of balance analysis give you the best data to guide balance choices that would make the game better for the average player?  Possibly not.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think we’re actually in almost total agreement and to some extent talking past each other (or at least I was talking past you, so let me apologize for that). 
 

My statements in my previous post need to be read in the context of my whole argument in this thread; they may not quite make sense in a vacuum. My larger point is that “good” is available in tournament data, as shown by CB’s use of similar data to provide a game that is better balanced for both tournament and casual players. Better balance for one generally translates to better balance for the other. In large part, this isn’t focused on what’s considered the new, OP hotness—yes, good tournament players can usually identify that without needing a large pool of results. What data is actually useful for us finding underperforming units and determining that they need some sort of tweak. This has to be an iterative process—it isn’t necessarily going to be right the first time. There certainly isn’t enough information to allow for that. 
 

I don’t think sales data can provide any useful information for a game when sales are heavily influenced by pure hobbyists. That leaves tournament data as the only realistic, outside data available to GW. 

[whispersofblood]

I think in someways you are talking to me @Vakarian.

I don't have an issue really with the data set, its what's available. I have a larger issue with what people are saying while using the data set. 
 For instance what does the changes that allow one unit to score multiple objectives do for each army? Currently that is huge bonus for DoT, larger than any of the top 5 I would say. It we undo that change what does that do to DoT win percentage? A change that is completely outside any faction. The big one is that we measure all wins exactly the same for the data, but almost no two major events give out wins the same, and even in the core rules a major victory is by an inch or a mile.
 

[Vakarian]

Yea, that's fair, I was as well.

 

You bring up a good point. I'm not sure there's any guaranteed way to observe those sorts of effects without taking statistical samples and having a control group to compare the results to. That's not really going to be possible to do with tabletop games, unless you've got a very robust playtesting system, and I doubt any company (even GW) can really manage that level of playtesting.

 

The best answer is that they really shouldn't change too many things about the core game at once (preferably only one). Then the results are at least in some way attributable to the general rule change. If changes are made to factions at the same time, then it probably isn't ever going to be able to be separated out.

 

That said, the process doesn't need to be that scientific. Tracking data to see which factions aren't quite measuring up should be sufficient to indicate to GW what isn't worth taking. How they approach fixing that is up to them. Then, track the next 6 months' results. If the problem has gone away, something worked, and nothing else got broken. If the problem's still there, or things got worse... well, better wind the clock back or consider other changes. This doesn't need to be handled like rocket science; the most useful thing the data can provide is an indicator that something needs an update. I don't think, and would never advocate, that these sorts of data sets could point to the best, or even a specific, solution.

[Rollcage]

Nobody knows the formula for designing a Fun game. People have tried for a very long time. 

But I do know that any game designed using statistics isn't a fun game for very many people.

Games workshop makes more money then any other competitor and they don't do this level of competitive statistics. To change to this idea of designing would actually destroy the fun in this game and reduce their player base numbers to their competitors levels. 

So be careful what you wish for. It just might come true.

[Dead Scribe]

The question is "is unbalance fun or not fun".  It seems to me the answer is a solid "unbalance is very fun".

Or - do we dig deeper.  And is the answer "unbalance is not fun, but our community so large that that makes up for everything else".  Meaning if a competing game had the same population as AOS, would that make up for it?

Edited January 31, 2020 by Dead Scribe

[Vakarian]

52 minutes ago, Rollcage said:

Nobody knows the formula for designing a Fun game. People have tried for a very long time. 

But I do know that any game designed using statistics isn't a fun game for very many people.

Games workshop makes more money then any other competitor and they don't do this level of competitive statistics. To change to this idea of designing would actually destroy the fun in this game and reduce their player base numbers to their competitors levels. 

So be careful what you wish for. It just might come true.

I disagree with this, fundamentally. I've offered CB/Infinity's success, as a fun game, as a counter to this. I really doubt that balancing underperforming units to be more effective would make the game less fun for anyone. Please note what I'm not saying: I'm not actually asking for new things to be toned down, necessarily (I'll consistently hold to the idea that the sky isn't usually falling with each new release). What I believe would make the game more fun for every type of player is if the generally less-desirable units were regularly tweaked with interesting updates. Further, Infinity has seen an explosion in its playerbase over the last several years as CB has committed to using this sort of data to improve their game.

 

51 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

The question is "is unbalance fun or not fun".  It seems to me the answer is a solid "unbalance is very fun".

Or - do we dig deeper.  And is the answer "unbalance is not fun, but our community so large that that makes up for everything else".  Meaning if a competing game had the same population as AOS, would that make up for it?

I suspect the latter, but there are enough comments here supporting the former that I'm genuinely unsure what the GW playerbase as a whole desires.

If the community doesn't want balance, GW will definitely never have an incentive to provide it.

[Kasper]

But what exactly is balance? If AoS had 3 armies of pure rock-paper-scissor, each army would have a “perfect win % and be balanced” according to stats, but the gameplay experience would be onesided and suck for players.

That is why I dont give all that much for stats or win %, even though it is always fun to see a new army going straight up to 75% win rate. Some armies are very oppresive but are being kept in check by certain armies when you look at win %, but does that  really matter?

The above is obviously an oversimplification, but we have all heard the comments that the solution to X army is “just shoot the heroes off the table” - What if your army doesnt have any shooting?

[Dead Scribe]

I guess balance means a lot of things to a lot of people.  There is a guy on dakka for example that seems to always pop up regularly complaining about balance and everyone basically shouts him down everytime.  I think his idea of balance is every army has an equal chance of winning.  It is obvious that no one really wants that.  Others ideas of balance are that overall if you play 100 different people you'll have an ok time overall and have to stomach being tabled a few times but thats ok.  

I think the more balanced the game is, the less successful it becomes.  All of the games that are supposed to be really balanced have very little if any players.

[thediceabide]

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

I think his idea of balance is every army has an equal chance of winning.  It is obvious that no one really wants that.

Speak for yourself! Two players of equal skill with two equally optimized armies, should absolutely have an equal chance of winning. Not just the player who bought the most recently released, poorly worded army. 

[Dead Scribe]

I'm speaking from my observation.  If there was really a desire for balanced armies, GW would be in trouble, they wouldn't be selling so well, and other games that have better balance should be doing a lot better with player population.  Additionally, I watch posters get run out of forums for arguing for balance to know that its not a hill worth dying on, and that it doesn't appear to be something a lot of people truly want.

[Overread]

Just now, Dead Scribe said:

I'm speaking from my observation.  If there was really a desire for balanced armies, GW would be in trouble, they wouldn't be selling so well, and other games that have better balance should be doing a lot better with player population.  Additionally, I watch posters get run out of forums for arguing for balance to know that its not a hill worth dying on, and that it doesn't appear to be something a lot of people truly want.

Considering that when GW shifted their attitude and updated all the 40K armies at once for a new edition with Index's which were pretty decently balanced on the whole - not perfect but a LOT better than what had been before. Plus no more "waiting 5 or more years for updated rules" as was standard under the old system where armies could be left without updates for ages and fall way behind the balance curve. 

When all that happened GW's sales went so high so fast they topped the UK stockmarket and have stayed high; in addition they exceeded their production demand for the first time in, basically, forever. In fact they are still only just keeping on top of domestic stocks and overseas often fall out of stock for a while on several kits at once. They've invested over 9 million in a new land and a factory in the UK and new warehousing and more.

 

 

So basically when GW updated the rules and improved balance their sales skyrocketed. To me that sends a VERY clear message. Sure GW can and did survive with bad balance; but better improved balance resulted in increased sales.