Discussing balance in AoS

[whispersofblood]

13 minutes ago, wayniac said:

I think it is rather disingenuous to assume that faction is not a major factor. Nobody cares about the top tournament results because those players are not in the normal curve and on top of that most if not all of them are never going to take a low tier army to an event they are going to take the army that performs the best to give them the best chance of winning.  The results from the top tournaments do nothing but skew the data and push the narrative that faction balance is a lot closer than it really is. Which goes back to the point that those people are not the people you want testing the direction of the game because while their skill is there they are oblivious to the actual problems under them. 

Look. There is an inverse relationship between the effects of skill and faction strength. But faction strength doesn't drive the curve skill does. Like why are we still debating this point the math is clear, you're arguing something you yourself have zero evidence to share?

[pnkdth]

1 hour ago, whispersofblood said:

I've never disputed that some factions are easier to play than others, or that some factions provide more or better tools for low or no cost. The question is how much does that impact the outcome of games? And why are factions having an impact? Are averaged skilled players using factions beyound their skillset? Are the some books so inherently more powerful than others? There are a lot of assumptions built into the question you ask datasets and AI. 

My position again is in the middle I think we want player skill and faction choice to be roughly equivalent in determining outcomes of games so that players at that level can choose how much effort they want to put in.

This of course means that your favourite faction could end up not on top of the pile, and hard to play.

I think this is more or less the ideal. Sort of a "easy to understand but hard to master"-design. This design would be on a clearly defined spectrum to ensure we don't end up with a chess situation where everyone are playing the same army with a different paint scheme. In that regard, I'll happily accept there will be some imbalances and meta shifts. A game which remain static is boring and would probably die. On the other extreme, I don't want a game which is so hard to get into that we eventually end up with a small group of die hard fans and then it dies.

My main issue with recent releases though (LRL, DoK, HoS) is how they appear to be written with three completely different design philosophies. That said, out of the three HoS is the only one without BR rules (and those twins look pretty rad). 

In short, I want better consistency and updates which corrects units/battalions which end up being under/over-costed to mitigate the extremes. It would make the scene more interesting overall, whether it is casual or competitive.

[wayniac]

4 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Look. There is an inverse relationship between the effects of skill and faction strength. But faction strength doesn't drive the curve skill does. Like why are we still debating this point the math is clear, you're arguing something you yourself have zero evidence to share?

Because it's very obvious from the video that the math is skewed to show that narrative

[whispersofblood]

7 minutes ago, wayniac said:

Because it's very obvious from the video that the math is skewed to show that narrative

It doesn't though... Can you snip and paste what is making you say that? Like actual math don't quote Vince.

Edited April 23, 2021 by whispersofblood

[RuneBrush]

+++ MOD HAT +++

Think it could be time to take a deep breath before posting folks.  Feels like the conversation is veering down the "less friendly" route.

Always worth remembering that everybody is entitled to their own opinion even if it differs from your own.  It's perfectly acceptable to agree to disagree on a subject.  AoS is great because it's an all encompassing hobby that you can play in multiple ways, but this can result in people not agreeing on subjective matters like balance.

[Golub87]

24 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Well. First of all take a deep breath.

Please stop with the condescension.
 

25 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

What I said previously is if you flatten the effect of faction choice you maximize differences in player skill, which means you can't have games of roughly equal player ability.

So you advocate for imbalance in order to make up the difference in player skill? Pay to win if you will?

The core of the issue here is the fact that the game is very explosive and is decided by T3 most of the time. Shorter game means less decisions to make and less decisions to make means greater impact of every single decision. Slow down the game and you give room to players to breathe.
 

31 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

It also has the effect of chilling interesting faction development as there is no room for risk in design.

No, it just means that people who design the rules need to put a modicum of effort in it. You can make risks, but that means that you actually need to think about the rules you are writing, work on that as a team so that there is a level of baseline expectations and have FAQ chambered and ready to go as soon as you put out a risky rule.

It would also help if GW abandoned cultish secrecy when it comes to rules design. I am a mediocre player that does not want to put in the effort and time and still have fun with the game with the people of similar engagement levels, which is something that I stated several times despite how @Phasteon misrepresents me. So, if everyone is scratching their heads why is unit A worth X points and unit B worth Y points it would be nice if a team that wrote that stuff came out and said: "We wanted to do this with it and for it to have that role in the army. This is how it fits with the rest of the book, these are the synergies etc."
 

38 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

That doesn't exclude the fact that sylvaneth, GSG, BoC need significant mechanical work.

I'm sorry you invested based on a lie, limited or incorrect information. But rules changes can't fix a constant that for you are experiencing. I have experienced engaging with the curve without information myself and it's not a good feeling.

Funny that you say that... I play(ed) Slaanesh. And yes people from my circle did ask me "Why do you complain when you are winning so much?". Because winning is not the point. The point is in fun and not in one-sided games. That is not a good feeling. I do not mind losing one bit. I prefer it to this.

New book is step down in power and a step up in diversity of tools so power wise it is great. Designwise... well, it is very lazy and uninspired but that is a tale for another time.

43 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

I'm interested in AoS, I'm interested in data analysis professionally and in several of my other hobbies. Apparently the outcomes of my games are hardly impacted by faction choice at all, but I still am concerned for the larger AoS community. Which is why I'm so interested in education and community, I don't actually talk about "competitive AoS" on forums very much at all...

Great... sounds like you are one of those players that are of such great skill that you are not impacted by faction choice. I am glad for you. But please... drop the condescending act of being concerned about the community. You have data that clearly shows that players below your apparent level are hurting, you have people directly telling you that and all that you offer is bootstrap pulling and personal responsibility. That does not sound like you are concerned for the people.

Well thanks but no thanks... I'd rather have some balance.

You have the data and you have personal input from us. What motivates you to keep telling us that we are good where we are? The game will not change for you whatever happens. You are too good. So, what gives?

[Skreech Verminking]

So to disagree with @whispersofblood comment, about the Doomwheel being awfully bad I’ll be sending you guys

a new chatroom, dedicated to the best scurry-fastest unit in the whole game.

although it will take me some time, and you guys might have to wait a few hours till I’m ready to write down the stuff  (I’m currently at work, unless I am allowed to write down the bull points, in this Discussion

Edited April 23, 2021 by Skreech Verminking

[whispersofblood]

Mate you're really toeing the line of ad hominin...

The conversation I keep trying to have is objective, purposeful description of what that graph should look like to the segment of the community who insist the relationship is fundamentally incorrect. I'm interested because the game requires a community and just because I'm not competing against all of the community doesn't mean I don't benefit from all the discussion, painting and converting and general hype the community generates. 

My experience playing game 5s is useful to the people who want faction strength differences to be reduced. Day 2 is rewarding but not fun, and frankly exhausting. Every choice is critical because they can all be exploited. From what I can tell less than a 5% skill difference is highly determinate of results in that top 10% of players. Is the game better if the average player, that group of players within the first deviation, the group who by their own admission don't want to give the game that much attention, lose every match to a player 2% better than them? It's just moving the goal post of table top experience.  

My argument is that it is better to have a selection of difficultly levels so that players can self select their experience of AoS. Which requires us to be honest about factions, and still requires balance to be maintained. It doesn't however require flattening out faction power or being worried about the winrates of every faction individually only those outside their design space. 

I've taken the Kingdom of Heaven argument and the status quo is best arguments off the table. I've provided you with ample arguments and opinions you can attempt rebutte with reference to the source material, but if you want to insist I'm saying something I'm not perhaps it's best we don't respond to each other from this point. 

You can call me condescending all you'd like but it will be clear when I choose to be. Like this; "I'm fairly sure you haven't looked at the slides the whole day, and probably don't know how to do the calculus for yourself."

What you are actually coming to grips with is a person who won't cowtow to your need to yell your way all through a discussion with no facts, no analysis, and poor at best supposition.

[wayniac]

36 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

My argument is that it is better to have a selection of difficultly levels so that players can self select their experience of AoS. Which requires us to be honest about factions, and still requires balance to be maintained. It doesn't however require flattening out faction power or being worried about the winrates of every faction individually only those outside their design space. 

Without flattening out faction power then how would you achieve this? We have already seen where somebody who likes for example beasts of chaos will get steamrolled by somebody playing seraphon due to that faction imbalance except maybe if they are the top percentile of player.

If some factions are clearly stronger than others they should be toned down to an acceptable level for the majority of people not just for the high level. Again, the problem seems to be that the middle where most of the imbalance happens is being downplayed by the results at the top. 

Edited April 23, 2021 by wayniac

[whispersofblood]

1 hour ago, wayniac said:

Without flattening out faction power then how would you achieve this? We have already seen where somebody who likes for example beasts of chaos will get steamrolled by somebody playing seraphon due to that faction imbalance except maybe if they are the top percentile of player.

If some factions are clearly stronger than others they should be toned down to an acceptable level for the majority of people not just for the high level. Again, the problem seems to be that the middle where most of the imbalance happens is being downplayed by the results at the top. 

Flattening is the wrong objective. There are obviously glaring issues with some factions, but those are outliers you don't burn down your house cause you don't like you doors. 

If you exclude the really bad stuff mostly things need warscroll tweaks to improve their ability to the things their armies do, and then a bit of observation to see what that changes. 

But again what does that graph look like at the end of your opinion? 

[stratigo]

5 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

The top bit has kinda already been addressed to some degree. Faction has almost no impact on the outcome of games of highly skilled gamers.

 

You're, frankly, not reading your data well. Or are trying to be misleading with it. And in either case it makes it extremely frustrating to see you continue to post things that are simply not true.

[stratigo]

3 hours ago, wayniac said:

I think it is rather disingenuous to assume that faction is not a major factor. Nobody cares about the top tournament results because those players are not in the normal curve and on top of that most if not all of them are never going to take a low tier army to an event they are going to take the army that performs the best to give them the best chance of winning.  The results from the top tournaments do nothing but skew the data and push the narrative that faction balance is a lot closer than it really is. Which goes back to the point that those people are not the people you want testing the direction of the game because while their skill is there they are oblivious to the actual problems under them. 

And they statistically play... mostly seraphon. 

 

WHAT A SHOCK

[whispersofblood]

12 minutes ago, stratigo said:

You're, frankly, not reading your data well. Or are trying to be misleading with it. And in either case it makes it extremely frustrating to see you continue to post things that are simply not true.

So demonstrate it. I'm perfectly willing to do so, don't just disagree.

Edited April 23, 2021 by whispersofblood

[wayniac]

16 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

But again what does that graph look like at the end of your opinion? 

I mean to me it's basically this, I can' draw a graph or anything though.  I would think that:

A) If two players are of roughly equivalent skill level* the faction power can be the deciding factor  That is, you will rarely see a player using a C-tier army defeat a similarly skilled player using an S-tier army.  NOTE:  It's not impossible just rare.

B) If two players are of different skill levels, for example a more skilled player facing a lesser skilled player, the faction power is less important.  It still is going to be a factor, because that imbalance does not go away, but not nearly as much given one player is more skilled than the other.  It is not as bad as some previous editions of 40k where, for example, you could see a newbie with a "busted" army defeat an advanced player using a "weak" army.

*E.g. both highly skilled, both average, etc.

Now in the WHW video the impression I got was that the top percentile, that is the more skilled players, seems to show the opposite of #1, in that the faction does NOT really factor in as much as it appeared at first. Which if true is fine, but the "fat middle" as it's called among most players the faction can have major effects on the game.  This is the area that seems to be downplayed due to the top not seeing faction being the main factor in games, ergo the top players (who are often the ones that feel they should decide the game's direction) aren't even seeing the problem that the majority (that fat middle) are seeing.  Therefore my concern is that, if we trust the game's direction to that upper percentile, how are they going to fix the issues perceived in the middle when they aren't seeing those issues as major?  The issue doesn't simply go away because the top 10% or whatever don't see it as impactful.

Edited April 23, 2021 by wayniac

[whispersofblood]

3 minutes ago, wayniac said:

I mean to me it's basically this, I can' draw a graph or anything though.  I would think that:

A) If two players are of roughly equivalent skill level* the faction power can be the deciding factor  That is, you will rarely see a player using a C-tier army defeat a similarly skilled player using an S-tier army.  NOTE:  It's not impossible just rare.

B) If two players are of different skill levels, for example a more skilled player facing a lesser skilled player, the faction power is less important.  It still is going to be a factor, because that imbalance does not go away, but not nearly as much given one player is more skilled than the other.  It is not as bad as some previous editions of 40k where, for example, you could see a newbie with a "busted" army defeat an advanced player using a "weak" army.

*E.g. both highly skilled, both average, etc.

Now in the WHW video the impression I got was that the top percentile, that is the more skilled players, seems to show the opposite of #1, in that the faction does NOT really factor in as much as it appeared at first. Which if true is fine, but the "fat middle" as it's called among most players the faction can have major effects on the game.  This is the area that seems to be downplayed due to the top not seeing faction being the main factor in games, ergo the top players (who are often the ones that feel they should decide the game's direction) aren't even seeing the problem that the majority (that fat middle) are seeing.  Therefore my concern is that, if we trust the game's direction to that upper percentile, how are they going to fix the issues perceived in the middle when they aren't seeing those issues as major?  The issue doesn't simply go away because the top 10% or whatever don't see it as impactful.

Ok. Your understanding of the top and bottom is correct. 

What I'm saying is in a relationship between "skill" and "faction strength" one or the other will fill the vacuum. If you try to force faction strength to zero (which in itself is a monumental task) skill fills the gap. Meaning any difference in player skill explodes in relative effectiveness. That can still be something like @stratigo suggest like skill at building lists (which includes knowing why things are in lists). Therefore small differences in skill will produce consistent difference in outcomes. Which will stratify the "fat middle" meaning overall less fun games as players suffer defeat after defeat to players they believe are similarly skilled. 

My suggestion and opinion is two fold. 

1. We repair the functionality of the worst factions, Slyvaneth, BoC, et al. And, keep our eyes on the best factions the Seraphons in particular at the moment. Ideally I think Faction strength should be around .4-.3.

2. The community accepts the blood bowl ideology that some factions are harder to pilot for a number of reasons and we communicate that aggressively so that people can make informed decision and control their own hobby and play experiences.

And, our pundit class stop being so hyperbolic, the walk back of release day opinions of OP, sin/bin are never downloaded by the community and do significant harm long term to the discourse.

 

[NinthMusketeer]

For my part, when I say something is broken/awful on release day, that is exactly what I mean. But I also don't say it very often, maybe there's a connection...

[Golub87]

3 hours ago, wayniac said:

If some factions are clearly stronger than others they should be toned down to an acceptable level for the majority of people not just for the high level. Again, the problem seems to be that the middle where most of the imbalance happens is being downplayed by the results at the top. 

And that is being downplayed very aggressively in this very thread.

[Skreech Verminking]

Mates here is my explanation for why I think the Doomwheel is the best scurry-fastest unit in the whole game, why that very weird system is missing data, and why I disagree with the concepts of @whispersofblood

 

Edited April 23, 2021 by Skreech Verminking

[Overread]

5 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

My suggestion and opinion is two fold. 

1. We repair the functionality of the worst factions, Slyvaneth, BoC, et al. And, keep our eyes on the best factions the Seraphons in particular at the moment. Ideally I think Faction strength should be around .4-.3.

2. The community accepts the blood bowl ideology that some factions are harder to pilot for a number of reasons and we communicate that aggressively so that people can make informed decision and control their own hobby and play experiences.

 

I think you are getting pushback because your point did not come across clearly to all in the thread. 

Essentially there are two points - the difficulty of winning with an army and the difficulty of playing an army. 

Some are taking your meaning that making an army harder to play means making it weaker and thus harder to win with, ergo that it is inherently weaker. This isn't helped by the fact that you are sort of dismissing flat balancing as an idealistic goal.

 

 

However what I believe you're actually doing is advocating flat balancing, just within the boundaries of reality that it would never be achieved and that instead there would simply be smaller differences, but that there would be some difference. Just that the difference would be one where player skill still has a greater impact on results than the raw army stats. Which is basically agreeing with those who want "flat balance" just that they are going for the flat term as an idealistic goal, even though I assume most realise that its an idealistic goal not a realistic one. 

 

 

At its core I believe most players (the vast majority) want to be able to turn up to a game and have player skill be a key element in the game; not the core army stats. In addition most players are also hobbyists and they want their army choice (as a faction) to be viable at the tabletop. Even if some are easier to control and others are harder and require a little more skill to use; they want the raw stats to be in favour of neither force to an extreme degree.

 

In short I think you're actually agreeing, just that you're coming from different angles which makes it easy to sound like you're arguing against each other. 

 

[Battlefury]

@Overread100% agree. Couldn't bring that to this wording, thank you for this!

11 hours ago, Overread said:

At its core I believe most players (the vast majority) want to be able to turn up to a game and have player skill be a key element in the game; not the core army stats. In addition most players are also hobbyists and they want their army choice (as a faction) to be viable at the tabletop. Even if some are easier to control and others are harder and require a little more skill to use; they want the raw stats to be in favour of neither force to an extreme degree.

That's exactly, what I ( and I guess almost all of us ) mean. I want my 1000€ army be viable, no matter whom I play against.

[Phasteon]

25 minutes ago, Battlefury said:

@Overread100% agree. Couldn't bring that to this wording, thank you for this!

That's exactly, what I ( and I guess almost all of us ) mean. I want my 1000€ army be viable, no matter whom I play against.

I disagree, your list should not be viable no matter who you face. 

If you play a OBR army with 4 Mortek Crawlers your damage should be nullified against an army with high rerollable saves because you heavily invested into low rend shooting which would OBLITERATE low save armies. 

Just because you spend 240€ on those catapults should not make them good against EVERYTHING. 

Same goes for every other army concept. 

Your army is viable in a sense that you can still move, roll dice, hold objectives and theoretically win - how easy or hard it will be should always depend on the „tools“ you equipped yourself with compared to the tools your opponent brings.

Edited April 24, 2021 by Phasteon

[Overread]

12 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

I disagree, your list should not be viable no matter who you face. 

 

Aye, but Battlefury didn't say list, he said army, which is a key difference.

Sure if someone builds a really poor list or skews it to a specific theme very heavily they might find that they have a hard time winning or that they have an easier time against some armies but much harder against others. However a well built list should work and most armies should have within them the capacity to have several well built lists.

 

This is again about flattening the curve, though it means less about between forces and more about within a battletome. That is having the power spread over the army in general rather than having one or two niches that are pure power options. The Slaanesh tome is a great example of this. The last version of the Battletome had a setup whereby taking lots of Keepers and summoning more Keepers was the powerplay. It was by far and away far more powerful than anything else the tome could do. Within the tome it was bad balance because it invalidated so many other options by virtue of being so effective. Even if it had been balanced against other armies, it was a bad internal balance because it limited choice within the book. 

Again we come back to this idea of flat/smooth balancing. The idea that we make the game more engaging, more fun and more exciting and more practical by having a smoother softer curve of power variation. Both within the book and between the books - armies. That allows players to have options and choices when building their army list. It allows variation in play and there will be strong and weak matchups, but ideally they won't steamroll just through the numbers alone. A skilled player or a few mistakes will turn the tide more than the fact that you'll just roll a huge bunch of dice and take half the opponents army off the table in one turn with no effort or thinking.

 

Building real choice into the game is great for all involved. IT means that GW can expect sales on most of the models in an army range to customers of those armies; it means players have more choice and options to use the majority of their collection; it means that players aren't "left out" or unfairly challenged by their choice of army. It means that people aren't left feeling like they have to swap armies every few months to stay ahead*

 

 

Now the real challenge is how we reach that point and GW doesn't make it easy. New editions can mess up balancing and GW's clearly got elements of its rules construction which are more casual than ideal. They have improved and I'd say that the tournament scene for AoS does show a far more broad range of armies being played at a general level. There are still those that appear more than others and some that hardly appear at all; but the spread is far more even. In general we are heading in what I'd consider is the right direction, though we still get oddities like the previous Slaanesh Battletome. 

 

*whilst you might argue GW would benefit from this, my observation is that people who army hop/swap very often tend to do it as cheaply as they can and are more likely to buy secondhand models and paint strip them or even whole secondhand forces. So they are far less likely to put fresh money into buying brand new from GW and are instead more recycling what's in the market already.

[Maogrim]

Well, I'm a really new AOS player, so maybe my perspective is somewhat interesting to veterans?! When trying to decide on an army (and henceforth declaring myself ready to pour substantial amounts of money into it) I followed two principles:

A) The obvious one: Rule of Cool. Which army appeals to me from a visual standpoint and seems to have a cool concept. 

B) After trying to tap into the community a little: which army will usually have an edge in most match-ups. 

While I really liked Sylvaneth aesthetically I decided against them because I kept reading that they are bad. So I went with Lumineth. 

GW had a chance to sell me Sylvaneth, but by shaping the faction meta in a way that made the community represent them as disadvantaged I chose another faction. Now, I would assume they still want to sell Sylvaneth, but if other new players think and act like I do, they'll less of them.

[Phasteon]

53 minutes ago, Overread said:

Aye, but Battlefury didn't say list, he said army, which is a key difference.

Sure if someone builds a really poor list or skews it to a specific theme very heavily they might find that they have a hard time winning or that they have an easier time against some armies but much harder against others. However a well built list should work and most armies should have within them the capacity to have several well built lists.

He said army but you are always bringing a list. And a 2000 points list will always have some theme (aka rock paper scissors) in it, you will never bring everything your battltome has to offer in a single list. 

So my point stands.

[Battlefury]

1 hour ago, Phasteon said:

If you play a OBR army with 4 Mortek Crawlers your damage should be nullified against an army with high rerollable saves because you heavily invested into low rend shooting which would OBLITERATE low save armies. 

Just because you spend 240€ on those catapults should not make them good against EVERYTHING.

I agree with you completely on this.

 

51 minutes ago, Overread said:

Aye, but Battlefury didn't say list, he said army, which is a key difference.

Building real choice into the game is great for all involved. IT means that GW can expect sales on most of the models in an army range to customers of those armies; it means players have more choice and options to use the majority of their collection; it means that players aren't "left out" or unfairly challenged by their choice of army. It means that people aren't left feeling like they have to swap armies every few months to stay ahead*

@PhasteonI meant this in detail. I am literally sitting on a 7000 point Khorne collection, that is worth about 1000€ now. Can't play, because it frustrates me to a degree, that it will ruin a whole day if I do. Shouldn't be like that.
Of course I see, that it depends on the local meta. My local meta gives BoK no chance.

I had a talk with the top player after one tournament, that I organised. He told me, that BoK must be a good army. I asked him, if he wants to play it on the nxt tournament. I would give him what is needed and he buids the list how he wants to. 100% free decision on what he wants to play. He smiled at me, then laughed and sait: No.

Another player went to me and saied: "I feel very sorry for you, for GW f*cking up your army so hard."

And, as I told before, another of my top players did play the army, wnet 8 out of 10 and saied, that the army is worse, than he thought. Before, he was one of them telling me, that the army is good and I just have to play different.

 

25 minutes ago, Maogrim said:

While I really liked Sylvaneth aesthetically I decided against them because I kept reading that they are bad. So I went with Lumineth. 

GW had a chance to sell me Sylvaneth, but by shaping the faction meta in a way that made the community represent them as disadvantaged I chose another faction. Now, I would assume they still want to sell Sylvaneth, but if other new players think and act like I do, they'll less of them.

It is also a problem over here. Same stuff goes on on a daily basis. I am 190% sure, that it shouldn't happen. People shall be free to play what they like and have a good chance to win versus other armies, if caertain list compositions are played.