Jump to content

Discussing balance in AoS


Enoby

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

You realise ofcourse that your position assumes those players are only using very "strong" armies? Some of these players are using SCE, BoC, GSG and a variety of fat middle feather weights. This argument trends pretty close to @stratigo's perspective that the best players only use the best books and that isn't the case where players are playing multiple armies according to the developer.

This is a question that can be resolved very quickly with listbot's data.

8 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

It also relatively ordinary to normalize stats for expected result in a dataset. It's pretty easy to see when an individual is outperforming the norm. That is usually refered to as alpha which can be skill, access or an exploit. 

This has nothing to do with normalization, it is about establishing the causal effect of armies on scores. He is using the same player playing some other faction as a counterfactual to establish how much the faction adds to scores. If top players tend to play top factions, their scores across factions will differ very little and this metric will conclude that skill is driving most of the results. Which is exactly what he is observing at the very top of the distribution.

To rule out this possibility, he would need to look into this explicitly.

8 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Lastly it's usually not good faith to argue a algorithm is flawed without using the dataset  to produce results the hasn't been able to identify, as these things can have any number of blind spots but supposition but what we are really looking for is the best answer to our question, not the most complete dataset. ML algorithms frequently find that data humans think is critical is irrelevant and the opposite. 

I do not know what this means, as this is really not about algorithms, but about causal inference. What I am saying is not outlandish and relatively easy to check.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Greybeard86 As far as I understand from the explanation given in the discussion video is that it is not about how that player performed with different compared armies, it was about how that player performed when compared to the field with several different armies (or as many as available). Also the counter factual is going to be extremely rare, as model wargames are a resource heavy endeavour so we are unlikely to see statistically significant numbers of otherwise identifiably great players fielding otherwise identifiably poor factions. Part of this whole study is to identify if there are any good players!

This is how I understand their dataset fyi. Example; Player $ uses factions 1,2 and 3 at events. His performance in order is X, Y, Z, the field's normalized performance (excluding said player) does a=(X-5), b=(Y-7), c=(Z+3). This is the relationship that is being used to determine said players alpha on faction performance. 

If listbot's hypothesis holds and skill is casual in outcomes, stronger player should dominate outcomes, and Vince's slides seems to show that. Only 10% of all included matches with a delta of at least 15% in player skill being won by the "weaker" player + stronger faction. 

The impact of below average skill seems to be forgotten in these discussion, competitive players taking competitive factions seems to assumed as fact, but the same relationship is found at the top and bottom of the first deviations which we can assume will include a larger variance of "player types", yes? This seems to be true, on both sides of player behaviour low skill play and high skill play dominate the factions outcomes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whispersofblood said:

@Greybeard86 As far as I understand from the explanation given in the discussion video is that it is not about how that player performed with different compared armies, it was about how that player performed when compared to the field with several different armies (or as many as available).

I was curious, so I looked into it.

https://aoslistbot.herokuapp.com/sotm/

Quote

*Player Power Boost
How much better does playing this faction make you than you normally are?
This statistic measures the average percentage change in a player's performance while playing the faction vs while playing other factions. If a player averages a rankings score of 100pts at their events on most factions, but averages 90pts when they play Faction X, Faction X would have a Player Power Boost of -10%. If they average 110pts on Faction Y, that would be a PPB of +10%. This is averaged across all of the players who have played the faction. It is useful to separate how much of a faction's power comes from its rules vs the players playing it. 

So, it is exactly what I said. If a player picks only top factions, they'll perform similarly across factions. This will lead you to believe that faction doesn't "power boost" that individual player. When listbot is giving you that famous plot, they are potentially falling for this very same thing.

As long as the very top performing players are more likely to pick "top factions", then scores across factions for them will vary "relatively" less than for others that choose factions with more power diversity. In other words, the method is as good at identifying skill as the variety in power between factions picked by the players.

This is problematic and, based on what I have seen, a possible reason behind "skill is all that matters at the top" conclusion.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

I was curious, so I looked into it.

https://aoslistbot.herokuapp.com/sotm/

So, it is exactly what I said. If a player picks only top factions, they'll perform similarly across factions. This will lead you to believe that faction doesn't "power boost" that individual player. When listbot is giving you that famous plot, they are potentially falling for this very same thing.

As long as the very top performing players are more likely to pick "top factions", then scores across factions for them will vary "relatively" less than for others that choose factions with more power diversity. In other words, the method is as good at identifying skill as the variety in power between factions picked by the players.

This is problematic and, based on what I have seen, a possible reason behind "skill is all that matters at the top" conclusion.

 

Wouldn't be a player picking any good faction and having good results with it be a "proof" of their skill, and that skill mostly matters at the top end? I mean if I pick-up Tzeentch tomorrow and go to a tournament in a month or two with the Archaon list, I wouldn't expect good results for myself. And then pick-up Seraphon in 6 months or something. 

You also assume that the top players just pick up top factions - which isn't a bad assumption mind you - but several tournaments have been won by people using factions which aren't thought to be that powerful (but maybe the actual lists are, and other people just haven't found out, shrug). 

You could ask JP (the guy who made the listbot), he seems to be happy to discuss things like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/25/2021 at 10:34 PM, Golub87 said:

Aassuming 100% honest actors, if A says "I feel no problem, therefore the problem does not exist" and person B says "I feel the problem, therefore it does exist.", person B is correct 100% of the time and person A is absolutely wrong. A is basically gaslighting here.

This is true, but has little relevance to this discussion, as these are not the type of opinions being expressed here.

Person A says, "I feel this problem, therefore it is a MASSIVE problem."

Person B says, "I agree it's a problem, but I feel it has less impact than you claim."

We're not arguing about whether balance is a problem. We're arguing about how much of a problem it actually is. Some people think it's such a huge problem that the game isn't even worth playing, and others would be happy to see it improved but still enjoy playing. There is no "correct" position.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Double turned?  Double bravery!  At least that's my line of thought as of late after watching a number of BRs.

Also on double turns rerolling 6's to hit during the shooting phase, not just because of KO and Sentinels, but yeah...KO and Sentinels. haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Golub87 said:

Another important thing that needs to be looked into is how specific armies perform vs other specific armies.

My hunch is that we would see some spectacular discrepancies there.

Check out The Honest Wargamer episode from yesterday, they started to do exactly that -of course for the moment they have a limited amount of stats so it's mostly to show what they will be doing in the future when more events will send their data

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LuminethMage said:

Wouldn't be a player picking any good faction and having good results with it be a "proof" of their skill, and that skill mostly matters at the top end?

The point is not whether there are good or bad players, or good or bad factions. It is obvious that the answer is an unambiguous yes to both.

What we are trying to find out is the weight of lists / factions in the odds of "winning", as a roundabout way to assess whether factions are properly balanced or not.

Quote

You also assume that the top players just pick up top factions - which isn't a bad assumption mind you - but several tournaments have been won by people using factions which aren't thought to be that powerful (but maybe the actual lists are, and other people just haven't found out, shrug). 

I am just explaining how the current metric is flawed. Maybe I was right, and the very top players are mostly choosing top factions. Or maybe the data says otherwise. But the flaw that I pointed out remains, which means that this is not a good metric. It cannot ascertain correctly the "power boost" for players that stick to factions of a similar "power level". It is a flawed estimator of the power of a faction.

I focused on the results for the very top players because they were very flashy and attracted lots of attention. However, the exact same problems takes place among the bottom players, for which JP reports a similar result. If bottom players are people mostly sticking to flavor outdated armies (or other "low power" armies), listbot will incorrectly assume they are "bad players". Because they perform poorly across armies, but those armies are mostly "bad" armies.

Quote

You could ask JP (the guy who made the listbot), he seems to be happy to discuss things like that. 

Is he around? Of course, I appreciate his effort to bring data to the matter and I am sure we could come up with a better measure of skill. I insist, the current one is, in my opinion, flawed.

Edited by Greybeard86
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick question about the methodology used to compare armies - apologies if this has already been addressed.

As far as I can see the debate is generally based on army per army win rates.

Another way to measure balance would  be to find a way to compare lists on a "skill by skill" basis (probable damage output in the hero phase, probable damage output in the shooting phase, range, max move, possibility to teleport , max charge, bravery + bravery buffs/debuffs, tanking, probable amount of MW in each phase, summoning, etc.).

I appreciate that it would obviously be far from perfect. E.g. how to take into account the effects of bonuses to cast spells, range, the buff/debuffs of the opponent, how the opponent tanks, specific abilities, etc. In addition, the amount of data to be recorded for each army would be significant. Also it would not be possible to compare all the possible list options.

Yet it seems that users of each army are able to identify a couple of "strongest" (or at least more frequent) lists.  Wouldn't it be possible to think about building a table comparing these lists?

At least the result (which would not only be a figure, but rather a list "skill per skill" comparison) would not depend on the skill of the players.

It would probably not directly tell if list A is stronger than list B. However my guts feeling is that in many cases it would give a pretty good idea.

Now maybe it is just not feasible...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tom0tom said:

Quick question about the methodology used to compare armies - apologies if this has already been addressed.

As far as I can see the debate is generally based on army per army win rates.

Another way to measure balance would  be to find a way to compare lists on a "skill by skill" basis (probable damage output in the hero phase, probable damage output in the shooting phase, range, max move, possibility to teleport , max charge, bravery + bravery buffs/debuffs, tanking, probable amount of MW in each phase, summoning, etc.).

I appreciate that it would obviously be far from perfect. E.g. how to take into account the effects of bonuses to cast spells, range, the buff/debuffs of the opponent, how the opponent tanks, specific abilities, etc. In addition, the amount of data to be recorded for each army would be significant. Also it would not be possible to compare all the possible list options.

Yet it seems that users of each army are able to identify a couple of "strongest" (or at least more frequent) lists.  Wouldn't it be possible to think about building a table comparing these lists?

At least the result (which would not only be a figure, but rather a list "skill per skill" comparison) would not depend on the skill of the players.

It would probably not directly tell if list A is stronger than list B. However my guts feeling is that in many cases it would give a pretty good idea.

Now maybe it is just not feasible...

I see your point. Maybe it could compare several stats ( would be do define, wich that would be ) and translate it into a rating from 0 to 10 maybe, where 10 is the absolute best existing at this moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kadeton said:

This is true, but has little relevance to this discussion, as these are not the type of opinions being expressed here.

Person A says, "I feel this problem, therefore it is a MASSIVE problem."

Person B says, "I agree it's a problem, but I feel it has less impact than you claim."

We're not arguing about whether balance is a problem. We're arguing about how much of a problem it actually is. Some people think it's such a huge problem that the game isn't even worth playing, and others would be happy to see it improved but still enjoy playing. There is no "correct" position.

This is manipulative phrasing. Notice how in my example, both A and B are tone neutral and mirror each other. In your example, A is presented as unreasonable and overreacting (all caps) while B seems calm and collected. You want us to agree with B. That is the position you identify with.

Your second paragraph completely misinterprets this entire discussion. If a group of people feel that this is such a huge problem that the game is not worth playing and another group of people feels like it is no big deal but would be happy to see it improved, then why are we consistently accosted with people who vehemently defend the current state of the game?

If the second group is happy with the game and happy to see it further improved by a good team that did a fine job so far, why the need to chime in this discussion at all, when nothing will change for them, and a lot will change for this other group?

Yes, we're arguing about how much of a problem it actually is. Some people have experienced this problem to the point where the game isn't even worth playing for them, and others claim they would be happy to see it improved but still enjoy playing, but in reality they just take up public space with nothing to show for it.


Bottom line is - if you do not experience the problem, you do not get to determine how big of a problem it is, how much it impacts other people and if it should be fixed or not.

We have the numbers that show quite conclusively that the problem exists for a significant chunk of the player base - the fat middle that is allegedly the target audience according to the game creators themselves. This is not marketed as competitive spectator sport.

Also - there is a correct position. *Always*

As long as everyone shares a goal there is a correct position that allows for the best way to reach the goal. If there is no agreement then it is either due to some sort of fallacy and bias or differing goals altogether.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Battlefury said:

I see your point. Maybe it could compare several stats ( would be do define, wich that would be ) and translate it into a rating from 0 to 10 maybe, where 10 is the absolute best existing at this moment.

It would probably be difficult to boil it down to a unique comprehensive rating. But you would a have line by line comparaison for a number of selected "core" stats/abilities.

That said probably easier said than done.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, tom0tom said:

It would probably be diffult to boil it down to a unique comprehensive rating. But you would a have line by line comparaison for a number of selected "core" stats/abilities.

That said probably easier said than done.

This is kind of what listbot list checker tries to do, but its "understanding" of special rules and so on is of course very limited (it basically "counts" how many special rules a warscroll has) and it only evaluates lists based on warscrolls (no allegiance abilities and so on)

 

http://aoslistbot.herokuapp.com/legal/

Edited by Marcvs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Marcvs said:

This is kind of what listbot list checker tries to do, but its "understanding" of special rules and so on is of course very limited (it basically "counts" how many special rules a warscroll has) and it only evaluates lists based on warscrolls (no allegiance abilities and so on)

 

http://aoslistbot.herokuapp.com/legal/

Yes. That said, it is hard to evaluate special rules on a single objective scale. Especially if they are as complex as say LRL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Golub87 said:

This is manipulative phrasing. Notice how in my example, both A and B are tone neutral and mirror each other. In your example, A is presented as unreasonable and overreacting (all caps) while B seems calm and collected. You want us to agree with B. That is the position you identify with.

Your example is a pure strawman, whereas my example is based on the things people have actually said in this thread. And you say mine is manipulative phrasing?

1 hour ago, Golub87 said:

Your second paragraph completely misinterprets this entire discussion. If a group of people feel that this is such a huge problem that the game is not worth playing and another group of people feels like it is no big deal but would be happy to see it improved, then why are we consistently accosted with people who vehemently defend the current state of the game?

It might feel that way to you, but all the people who are being accused of "vehemently defending" the game (including myself, at various points) have done nothing of the sort. That's the overreaction of people who see any form of questioning of their position as taking the extreme opposite position. As far as I've seen, nobody here holds the position of "balance is totally fine" at all.

1 hour ago, Golub87 said:

If the second group is happy with the game and happy to see it further improved by a good team that did a fine job so far, why the need to chime in this discussion at all, when nothing will change for them, and a lot will change for this other group?

Degree and speed of change is important to consider.

Personally, I think there is an inherent tradeoff between balance and the unique and varied units and abilities that add colour and flavour to the game. Beyond a certain point, the closer you get to "true" balance, the more bland the game must inherently become in order to achieve that. I've seen this happen with other games, and I don't want to see it happen here. So for me, balance is something that should be pursued in small increments, to avoid over-correcting and sacrificing the things that make the game interesting. (Caveat: This may not be the only way to achieve better balance, but it's by far the most straightforward way and the way that requires the least effort, so it's the go-to path for most designers.)

Changing too much, too fast, will hurt the community even if it improves the game overall. The transition between Warhammer Fantasy and Age of Sigmar is a perfect example, if you were around for that. It shattered the playerbase, generated a ton of resentment, and took years to rebuild. So be careful when you claim that anyone will be unaffected by whatever changes might be introduced.

Finally, you clearly have a low opinion of the GW design studio's ability to balance their game. So why do you expect that shouting "Balance more! Balance faster!" at them is going to produce a better result?

A bit more balance would be good. A lot more balance would (in my experience) be bad.

1 hour ago, Golub87 said:

Yes, we're arguing about how much of a problem it actually is. Some people have experienced this problem to the point where the game isn't even worth playing for them, and others claim they would be happy to see it improved but still enjoy playing, but in reality they just take up public space with nothing to show for it.

Pardon? What do you have to "show for it"? Has there been some drastic improvement in game balance for which we owe credit to you? Have you achieved something by shouting down anyone who disagrees, even mildly, with your position?

This is a discussion forum, and you do not get to decide who is allowed to have a voice.

1 hour ago, Golub87 said:

Bottom line is - if you do not experience the problem, you do not get to determine how big of a problem it is, how much it impacts other people and if it should be fixed or not.

Well, for one thing, everyone experiences this problem, so nobody should be excluded. For another, yes, you absolutely should get a say in how it should be fixed if that fix is going to have an impact on you - and balance changes affect everyone, always.

1 hour ago, Golub87 said:

Also - there is a correct position. *Always*

As long as everyone shares a goal there is a correct position that allows for the best way to reach the goal. If there is no agreement then it is either due to some sort of fallacy and bias or differing goals altogether.

Oh, my god. No. This is incredibly black-and-white thinking.

The lack of agreement, in this and essentially all cases, is due to complexity. Game balance is an incredibly complicated problem, and any change will have a range of impacts on different players. Some of those impacts will be obvious, but most will be subtle, and they will have different levels of importance and different interactions with various other impacts for everyone involved. Given a large group of people, you will never find a consensus on the "best way" to reach a common goal, especially one as poorly-defined and subjective as "balance".

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An issue I have with all this balance-talk and talk about faction win percentages etc. is that it feels like factions are being reduced to little more than thier alligiance name. As an example you have Tzeentch - Tzeentch consists of Archaon Tzeentch, Flamer/Changehost Tzeentch and "Control" Tzeentch. There are other army lists as well but these are the 3 primary ones that are being played - To be honest it is probably like 60% Archaon (at least it feels like based on the recent TTS tournaments), 35% Flamer/Changehost and 5% Control, but still. All of these are piled together to determine "Tzeentch win percentage" despite the 3 lists essentially being 3 entirely different armies and Archaon Tzeentch has absolutely zero indication of how the other 2 are doing as a whole. They play completely different and prey on different armies and have different weaknessess.

Armies play and operate differently depending on skill level. Some armies are pretty bad if the skill level of the players are low, but suddenly become good as the skill increases. I have 2 gaming clubs - One is rather casual and armies that are easy to pilot and do a lot of front loaded damage are often the winners - Where as the other is highly competitive and armies that generally have a lot of options dominate. Another example is models like Teclis and Be'lakor. Your average Joe is not gonna squeeze out the value of the 380 pts Be'lakor costs now. Messing with your opponent for 1 turn alone is not the same value for your average Joe as it is for someone competing at masters where they have their game plan build around this one trick.

This also means lumping all the stats of the Tzeentch faction together from a single event is a little meaingless to me. When you have a tournament of 50 players, half of them are there just to have a good time and are messing around while the other half are kinda "try harding" because they want to get a podium/win the whole thing. I dont have any stats or exact % on this but it is purely based on personal experience. In fact some tournaments that I have attended to are actually made up of a lot more "Average Joes" than the high skilled players. Regardless there is no doubt that there is a significant skill disparity between the participants, so if there are 7 Tzeentch lists, 4 might be piloted by good players where as the 3 are not. Hence "poluting" the overall data.

 

I dont know if Im completely in the wrong here but I simply cant help but to find all the stat-talk a little abstract. Been watching a lot of HonestWargamer recently and Rob have had an increased focus on stats/win percentages and some of it just seems so meaingless to me. I have deep respect for the work being put in, but I just find it people are boiling it down to something seemingly so simple despite Warhammer simply not being that way.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having bad players pilot a "top list" is not polluting anything, it is just the nature of the game and its community. Any balancing exercise should account for how the game is actually being played.

The problem I have is different and it is related to how balance is assessed by listbot.

I think we will all agree that having accurate balance statistics is good and helpful, and it allows us to move beyond "in my experience" sort of comments, or biased personal evaluations regarding how armies should perform.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

The point is not whether there are good or bad players, or good or bad factions. It is obvious that the answer is an unambiguous yes to both.

What we are trying to find out is the weight of lists / factions in the odds of "winning", as a roundabout way to assess whether factions are properly balanced or not.

I am just explaining how the current metric is flawed. Maybe I was right, and the very top players are mostly choosing top factions. Or maybe the data says otherwise. But the flaw that I pointed out remains, which means that this is not a good metric. It cannot ascertain correctly the "power boost" for players that stick to factions of a similar "power level". It is a flawed estimator of the power of a faction.

I focused on the results for the very top players because they were very flashy and attracted lots of attention. However, the exact same problems takes place among the bottom players, for which JP reports a similar result. If bottom players are people mostly sticking to flavor outdated armies (or other "low power" armies), listbot will incorrectly assume they are "bad players". Because they perform poorly across armies, but those armies are mostly "bad" armies.

Is he around? Of course, I appreciate his effort to bring data to the matter and I am sure we could come up with a better measure of skill. I insist, the current one is, in my opinion, flawed.

He is around on Twitter I think, not here afaik. Contact should be in the video of WW. 

I understand what you want to point out, but have a look at the results. Its not that tournaments are always won by obvious strong factions (and not only a few exception in the top three for example). So you'd have to verify your underlying assumptions (which generally also make sense to me, but that doesn't mean they are true). The same is true for the bottom players, even more so, because the player pool is much larger, and you'd have to show that most of them stick to outdated list and flavorful armies, which in the larger tournaments that the bot is tracking is probably not the case for the majority of the players. 

I think generally there is a problem how much a tool like that can show in a game as varied as AoS, and I don't think the bot is perfect by any means. There are so many variables, but I think it likely can help point into directions (including the skill).

I think though he'd appreciate the input - and maybe even wholly agrees with you : ) 

11 hours ago, Kasper said:

I dont know if Im completely in the wrong here but I simply cant help but to find all the stat-talk a little abstract. Been watching a lot of HonestWargamer recently and Rob have had an increased focus on stats/win percentages and some of it just seems so meaingless to me. I have deep respect for the work being put in, but I just find it people are boiling it down to something seemingly so simple despite Warhammer simply not being that way.

Talking about THW. In the latest analysis he is doing - they have a new tool which can show results by list, subfaction, battle plan etc. They still haven't got enough data yet to make it meaningful, but I think this is a good direction. 

Of course you still would have the issue how relevant all that data is for your normal local game, but it would be still better than just - I heard on the internet faction A is OP and my friends agree. It might also help GW to make better changes in case something is really OP/UP. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Kasper said:

I dont know if Im completely in the wrong here but I simply cant help but to find all the stat-talk a little abstract. Been watching a lot of HonestWargamer recently and Rob have had an increased focus on stats/win percentages and some of it just seems so meaingless to me. I have deep respect for the work being put in, but I just find it people are boiling it down to something seemingly so simple despite Warhammer simply not being that way.

Stats are incredibly useful in the hands of the designers themselves. Quite necessary, even.

However, I also think the obsession with stats is poison to the wider player community. The knowledge is given with the intent to do good; but in reality, it's only ever used as a vehicle for senseless outrage and vitriol. You have players complaining about lists that don't really exist outside of tournament top tables, about armies they never play against, and about scenarios that have been literally concocted in a statistical laboratory.

It's all meaningless to the average dude or dudette playing games at the local store--except as an excuse to carp about things they heard on the internet.

Edited by Mutton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don‘t know what tournament statistics have to do with „balance“ of the game. 

The tournament statistics we get just show absolute data about win %. 

It does not show WHY the army won (better player, favorable mission, decisive double turn?) and it does not show against which armies it won. 

Rock Paper Scissors will always exist aka Kroaknado is very strong against elite armies where those mortal wounds can bring down all the important stuff, but against armies with lots of wounds and/or mortal wound saves it just falls off hard. 

Are those high wound / MW save armies played though, or are they the rock to Kroaks scissors in a „meta“ where mostly paper is played? 

 

You guys are discussing about so called „facts“ nobody 100% understands, coming to the conclusion that game balance is flawed because there are 3–4 armies (more likely lists) that perform above the curve at the moment.

The meta is a self–fulfilling prophecy, where a „strong“ list is mathed out by the internet as „the army to beat“ and everyone and their mom just brings exactly that list or tries to counter it. 

 

If you really want to win a game you have to focus on list building. Thats how its always been and always will be. And thats fine. If you could bring whatever you want and have a realistic chance of winning against everything why even bother with points and matched play? 

 

My point is that you absolutely can win against every list / army out there. 

Even with Blades of Khorne, Beasts of Chaos, Sylvaneth against [insert op army of the month]. 

But if your list gets countered by the mechanics of the other list, win chances might be low. 

And even if you have a 50 / 50 win chance, it still can be that you lose 10 out of 10. 

Thats no indication for bad balance, thats just how games work. 

I also have like a 90% winrate against Khorne, but I never got the feeling the games were easy or auto win. Actually I felt outmatched a lot of the time and got the feeling that it came down to decisive dice rolls most of the time. 

 

Anyway, we can absolutely discuss balance for ages, in the end GW either will change up things fundamentally or they wont. This discussion has no impact on the game – its just an opportunity for frustrated players to blow some steam ;–) 

Its fun though, thats what forums are for, no? 

Stay healthy and enjoy the games you are able to play, cheers! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Kasper said:

An issue I have with all this balance-talk and talk about faction win percentages etc. is that it feels like factions are being reduced to little more than thier alligiance name. As an example you have Tzeentch - Tzeentch consists of Archaon Tzeentch, Flamer/Changehost Tzeentch and "Control" Tzeentch. There are other army lists as well but these are the 3 primary ones that are being played - To be honest it is probably like 60% Archaon (at least it feels like based on the recent TTS tournaments), 35% Flamer/Changehost and 5% Control, but still. All of these are piled together to determine "Tzeentch win percentage" despite the 3 lists essentially being 3 entirely different armies and Archaon Tzeentch has absolutely zero indication of how the other 2 are doing as a whole. They play completely different and prey on different armies and have different weaknessess.

Armies play and operate differently depending on skill level. Some armies are pretty bad if the skill level of the players are low, but suddenly become good as the skill increases. I have 2 gaming clubs - One is rather casual and armies that are easy to pilot and do a lot of front loaded damage are often the winners - Where as the other is highly competitive and armies that generally have a lot of options dominate. Another example is models like Teclis and Be'lakor. Your average Joe is not gonna squeeze out the value of the 380 pts Be'lakor costs now. Messing with your opponent for 1 turn alone is not the same value for your average Joe as it is for someone competing at masters where they have their game plan build around this one trick.

This also means lumping all the stats of the Tzeentch faction together from a single event is a little meaingless to me. When you have a tournament of 50 players, half of them are there just to have a good time and are messing around while the other half are kinda "try harding" because they want to get a podium/win the whole thing. I dont have any stats or exact % on this but it is purely based on personal experience. In fact some tournaments that I have attended to are actually made up of a lot more "Average Joes" than the high skilled players. Regardless there is no doubt that there is a significant skill disparity between the participants, so if there are 7 Tzeentch lists, 4 might be piloted by good players where as the 3 are not. Hence "poluting" the overall data.

 

I dont know if Im completely in the wrong here but I simply cant help but to find all the stat-talk a little abstract. Been watching a lot of HonestWargamer recently and Rob have had an increased focus on stats/win percentages and some of it just seems so meaingless to me. I have deep respect for the work being put in, but I just find it people are boiling it down to something seemingly so simple despite Warhammer simply not being that way.

I agree, win % can be very misleading. However, when we factor in tournaments placings and popularity we can make educated guesses and find trends. For example, it is unlikely that all great players suddenly decide to pick Seraphon or that so many of Seraphon player just got good overnight. I think most people are aware that there are certain lists and sub-factions which drive the meta and that's why it gets simplified into talking about each faction (see point in reply to Mutton).

I think it is a bit of a fallacy to say that we don't have any meaningful data. Even if we don't have everything down to a tee we can make very educated guesses since normal rules of probability are not suspended. We can make assumptions with the knowledge they're not perfect but the overall trends are there. For example, if we see Y army win way more than other and the majority of the wins are made using X sub-faction we can deduce a high probability the high number of top placings are with Y army using X sub-faction. I am also dead certain playtesters and TO are acutely aware of the goings on in their tournaments. 

What I'm hoping/wish for is simply that they do their point adjustments more often (even twice a year would be good enough) so even if all armies can win it makes the experience more enjoyable for the players whose armies haven't seen a new update of BT in awhile.

4 hours ago, Mutton said:

Stats are incredibly useful in the hands of the designers themselves. Quite necessary, even.

However, I also think the obsession with stats is poison to the wider player community. The knowledge is given with the intent to do good; but in reality, it's only ever used as a vehicle for senseless outrage and vitriol. You have players complaining about lists that don't really exist outside of tournament top tables, about armies they never play against, and about scenarios that have been literally concocted in a statistical laboratory.

It's all meaningless to the average dude or dudette playing games at the local store--except as an excuse to carp about things they heard on the internet.

The community has never been closer, more informed, had access to as much data as it has now. Going from 40k to AoS was incredibly easy and I had a wealth of knowledge on both tournament and casual lists. Tons of videos online, talks with tournament winners, army list reviews, battle reports, forums, and discord chats gave me a solid idea how to craft a tournament list and what to look out for.

Point is, word spreads fast and inevitably bleeds down into even local clubs. Local meta is still a thing but I think you're underestimating the average player. Most of the groups I've been playing in have been very competitive even if the majority of us doesn't really care about tournaments. Friendly/casual doesn't mean you don't care about winning or can't have fun competing.

That said, I'm sure there some who likes to ride the drama llama.

12 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

Anyway, we can absolutely discuss balance for ages, in the end GW either will change up things fundamentally or they wont. This discussion has no impact on the game – its just an opportunity for frustrated players to blow some steam ;–) 

Its fun though, thats what forums are for, no? 

Stay healthy and enjoy the games you are able to play, cheers! 

Yeah, and when it comes down to it you're always playing a player and I'd never start groaning or being a poor sport face to face. If I play you, I'm going to make sure we both are having fun regardless of how the game goes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mutton said:

It's all meaningless to the average dude or dudette playing games at the local store--except as an excuse to carp about things they heard on the internet.

Not always.  It has been proven time and time again that what happens at the top tables will trickle down to the lower tables, and eventually to the casual ones as well.  People see X army is winning, and will play that army.  They hear "all these units suck, only these three are good and you should spam them" and they do it.  In a casual environment all it takes is one guy showing up to the game night with some top tier netlist and crushing someone playing a casual list, and the entire scene can be turned on its head nearly overnight to nothing but comp netlists as people scramble to play "good" armies so its not them getting curbstomped (this is not a joke I have literally seen this happen several times over the years).  It's not just a top table problem, it can and does affect the entire game due to the monkey see, monkey do attitude that comes from trying to make games competitive.

Edited by wayniac
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wayniac said:

Not always.  It has been proven time and time again that what happens at the top tables will trickle down to the lower tables, and eventually to the casual ones as well.  People see X army is winning, and will play that army.  They hear "all these units suck, only these three are good and you should spam them" and they do it.  In a casual environment all it takes is one guy showing up to the game night with some top tier netlist and crushing someone playing a casual list, and the entire scene can be turned on its head nearly overnight to nothing but comp netlists as people scramble to play "good" armies so its not them getting curbstomped (this is not a joke I have literally seen this happen several times over the years).  It's not just a top table problem, it can and does affect the entire game due to the monkey see, monkey do attitude that comes from trying to make games competitive.

I encountered the same thing in many gaming groups, but to be fair - more often than not that one guy bringing the top list tends to be the only „competitive“ player in that group - thats why people are losing to his netlist. 

When I build a new army I buy and build what I think is the best. Sure I‘ll do some reading on what other people think is best, if it matches my perception - nice - if it doesnt and its just about an artifact or a battalion I consider changing it. 

But I‘d never do a 180 just because the internet says List X is the absolute best. 

That being said I rarely get stomped by some random netlist because I‘m prepared. 

 

Most people I watched getting stomped by those netlists were players that dont even know their own rules most of the time... 

When Fyreslayers got their new tome I did exactly that. Looked what was good, fielded it and got my rules 100%. 

Played against a Stormcast Player who charged my fully buffed Hearthguard with his 10 Evocators without even asking what the Hearthguard is capable of. 

After losing 1 Model to his attacks (2+ save rr) and wiping his whole squad (-2 rend rune + 2x pile in and fight) he raged about how op that tome was and that he will bring 20 Evocators next time to defeat that unit. 

1) that was just a moment of frustration and I realize (also i warned him about taking the turn and charging in but he went for it anyway

2) Thats where my experience about „bad balance“ discussions comes from. 

Its mostly people not knowing something, losing to stuff because they arent prepared and then directly blame the balance instead of thinking how to overcome. 

Edited by Phasteon
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

Played against a Stormcast Player who charged my fully buffed Hearthguard with his 10 Evocators without even asking what the Hearthguard is capable of. 

After losing 1 Model to his attacks (2+ save rr) and wiping his whole squad (-2 rend rune + 2x pile in and fight) he raged about how op that tome was and that he will bring 20 Evocators next time to defeat that unit. 

1) that was just a moment of frustration and I realize (also i warned him about taking the turn and charging in but he went for it anyway

2) Thats where my experience about „bad balance“ discussions comes from. 

Its mostly people not knowing something, losing to stuff because they arent prepared and then directly blame the balance instead of thinking how to overcome. 

I get what you're saying, and you're 100% right that the SC player made a poor play due to not understanding the conflict and didn't seem to learn from it. But on the other hand, maybe the discussion of balance could also be framed as "regardless of player skill, is it okay for a unit to have a 2+rr/4++ save, strike first, with a double pile in, -2 rend and 2 damage?" 

Some would argue yes, because you can avoid and screen the unit. They're slow and can't fly, and the rune is only one round.

Others would argue no, because while you can get around them, the fact that the only way to deal with the unit is by doing everything in your power to not engage the unit suggests there's an issue. 

If we take a ridiculous example of a model with 1000 attacks, 1/1/-6/100, a 1+ save and 2++ ward, costs 300 pts, but only 1" movement, no teleport, no fly, and no run and charge, we can look at this in a vacuum. I use this silly exaggeration as it very clearly shows the 'super powerful if left to have free reign but weak when dealt with correctly' in an inarguable form, and so there's no extras (like calling out a specific model that may have other rules I'm not aware of, or any feelings attached to it). In the case of this model, either the opponent will know how to deal with it and screen or zone the model into uselessness, killing tiny amounts of points in the game, or the opponent won't know how to deal with it and will lose a lot as soon as the model gets a charge off. Ignoring the terrible design, would you consider it balanced? It will beat anything in a fight, but nearly any opponent (sorry SoB) will be able to stop it charging so it'd be a waste of 300 pts against a good opponent. 

I think it's this sort of rocket tag that invokes discussions of balance. It's not that some units can't be played around, it's if they're not played around or a mistake is made, you take heavy losses and possibly lose the game if the mistake was big enough. On top of that, many armies don't have the capability to provide this threat in return, and so the opponent needs to be less defensive. In the case of SC vs FS, I can't imagine fully buffed Hearthgaurd have anything to fear from a SC unit and so for them the tactic is keeping within buffs and picking the best target.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...