Discussing the quality of rules in AoS

[Greybeard86]

Clothing companies design their products with specific demographics in mind, as do car manufacturers and many other companies / industries.

I think that it is obvious that GW, a relatively large corporation, also has a department that carefully studies such options (and we know they do indeed have it).

All those stories about "rushing products" and "mistakes" and happy/unhappy coincidences seem are, IMO, not well-aligned with how companies of this size operate. That is why I linked the MTG design explanations. Obviously the products are not identical, but it does give you a hint of how these companies approach product design.

Some of you insist in calling such "product design" considerations "intentional malfeasance", when the truth is that this is common place among corporations of all types. They do not see it as manipulation, they think of it as conducting business.

[PJetski]

5 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

Clothing companies design their products with specific demographics in mind, as do car manufacturers and many other companies / industries.

I think that it is obvious that GW, a relatively large corporation, also has a department that carefully studies such options (and we know they do indeed have it).

All those stories about "rushing products" and "mistakes" and happy/unhappy coincidences seem are, IMO, not well-aligned with how companies of this size operate. That is why I linked the MTG design explanations. Obviously the products are not identical, but it does give you a hint of how these companies approach product design.

Some of you insist in calling such "product design" considerations "intentional malfeasance", when the truth is that this is common place among corporations of all types. They do not see it as manipulation, they think of it as conducting business.

Obviously there are mistakes, just look at the amount of errata they have to release with every single printed book.

I don't see how anyone can believe GW is some kind of 4d chess mastermind that is making all these terrible and unpopular decisions that their customers don't like on purpose because it might be increasing profits.

Companies are run by people and people make mistakes

[Greybeard86]

1 minute ago, PJetski said:

Obviously there are mistakes, just look at the amount of errata they have to release with every single printed book.

I don't see how anyone can believe GW is some kind of 4d chess mastermind that is making all these terrible and unpopular decisions that their customers don't like on purpose because it might be increasing profits.

Companies are run by people and people make mistakes

All "bad rules" and units are not by design, but they aren't all "mistakes" either. You call it 4d chess, this is the reality of current product development / marketing, in many areas of our lives. But if J haven't convinced you with direct examples from another company of a related industry, I feel there is not much left for me to say. Still, thanks for the friendly discussion, and happy to move back to actual rules.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

If we’re back to talking business I’ll make what I think is the key point from a business perspective.  GW has access to two of the most powerful tools in retail for demographic targeting- price discrimination & branding differentiation.  With two decades plus of business analysis including extensive periods covering retail which involved getting to pick the brains of some of the best in the business I can tell you these are the things retailers seek after most because they have proven so effective in marketing.

GW is clearly incredibly effective at targeting different demographics using branding via 40k, AoS, Necromunda, BloodBowl, Underworlds, Kill Team, War Cry and various one offs such as Blackstone Fortress or Cursed City.  GW is equally effective at offering products across a wide variety of prices from a $15 Savage Big Boss or Necromancer to a $5,000+ Titan.  Finally, GW is also skilled at using the intersection of pricing and branding to target products demographically.

In comparison to price discrimination paired with branding differentiation, targeting demographics via WS or rules is orders of magnitude less potent and its impact marginal at best.  

 

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

18 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

if J haven't convinced you with direct examples from another company of a related industry, I feel there is not much left for me to say.

I love the insight from MtG but while the industries may be related they have fundamentally different business models.  MtG lacks both the pricing discrimination GW possesses and only has the branding differentiation if you take into account the larger parent company.  Again, from experience covering the retail business I won’t say there is nothing to be learned in contrasting a mid-market specialty store with a luxury goods company (and let’s be clear GW operates much closer to that of a luxury goods manufacturer) but you certainly wouldn’t want to simply transplant the business model from one to the other.

[PJetski]

1 hour ago, Greybeard86 said:

All "bad rules" and units are not by design, but they aren't all "mistakes" either. You call it 4d chess, this is the reality of current product development / marketing, in many areas of our lives. But if J haven't convinced you with direct examples from another company of a related industry, I feel there is not much left for me to say. Still, thanks for the friendly discussion, and happy to move back to actual rules.

Using Wizards as an example is questionable because they make mistakes all the time and they acknowledge them as mistakes. They constantly have to ban cards from play because of some unforeseen interaction or just for being too powerful. 

They do make some weak cards on purpose but those cards are the minority and usually meant to be "pack fillers" for use in other formats like sealed/draft play. Age of Sigmar does not have a direct equivalent to a side format using the same models and warscrolls but with different rules - maybe something like WarCry or Underworlds, but they have their own rules for each model so it's not the same.

Unlike MTG you can errata Warhammer rules without completely invalidating the physical product that was purchased. If a rule changes in warhammer then a printed book may be invalidated, but the models are not banned from play when you increase point costs or change a special rule. This distinction between the models and their warscroll rules does not exist in MTG, since the cards (model) that are used to play the game have the rules (warscroll) printed on them. If a card is banned then the customer is annoyed - even if they understand it is for the betterment of the game as a whole, they do not like having their purchase invalidated.

What is "common practice" between these two product lines is that designers are limited and flawed. They are incapable of the mass-scale playtesting required to have a flawless product and they're limited in how much time they can spent on design because they have to eventually move on to the next product to keep the release schedule flowing smoothly (they have investors that expect a certain amount of revenue/profit). In addition to schedule constraints, sometimes the designers lack the passion needed to drive a product line to its full potential, or they may lack the manpower to fine tune the rules to their standards. 

The key difference is that GW makes embarrassing mistakes like typos and not understanding their own ruleset... and they do it constantly. Every single book has to be errata'd immediately because of things that should be caught by basic quality assurance. I don't know if it's a lack of manpower, or a lack of passion, or just incompetence, or something else going, but we can't chock up typos as some kind of masterful business strategy. This doesn't make anyone at GW a bad person but it does make the company worthy of criticism because they are failing at delivering a product to their customers expectations. It's okay to criticize a company that makes products that you purchase. I think a lot of people would cut them much more slack if they would just communicate with their customers and say "yeah we missed the ball on this one, sorry about that" so we don't have people driven away by the complete lack of consistency.

This is a lot more than I intended to write on the subject and I hope my tone came off respectful. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk

Edited June 3, 2021 by PJetski

[stratigo]

7 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

Clothing companies design their products with specific demographics in mind, as do car manufacturers and many other companies / industries.

I think that it is obvious that GW, a relatively large corporation, also has a department that carefully studies such options (and we know they do indeed have it).

All those stories about "rushing products" and "mistakes" and happy/unhappy coincidences seem are, IMO, not well-aligned with how companies of this size operate. That is why I linked the MTG design explanations. Obviously the products are not identical, but it does give you a hint of how these companies approach product design.

Some of you insist in calling such "product design" considerations "intentional malfeasance", when the truth is that this is common place among corporations of all types. They do not see it as manipulation, they think of it as conducting business.

What? No companies mega rush products all the time and often to the detriment of that product. Have you seen video games.

 

 

Or, heck,, talked to former gw rules writers who are quite clear the time pressure they are under. 

 

Rules are second fiddle to models and get much less time or love.

 

 

[zilberfrid]

5 hours ago, stratigo said:

What? No companies mega rush products all the time and often to the detriment of that product. Have you seen video games.

Or, heck,, talked to former gw rules writers who are quite clear the time pressure they are under. 

Rules are second fiddle to models and get much less time or love.

As I unravel my current project, I see the same.

Lack of time on business end (one design meeting in the first month, which was half the total project time) made the product poorly fit for purpose, lack of testing made it just bad in general.

[Chikout]

I do think GW is worthy of criticism, but the idea that big businesses don't work like this is nonsense. Look at Cyberpunk or Samsung's first attempt at a dual screen phone, or Toyota's break problems, on Sony's exploding laptop batteries, or Microsoft Windows game store or a hundred other examples of companies with revenue literally hundreds of times more than gw putting out rushed, poorly tested products. 

In a case like this I'm 90% sure that a lot of the errors we see are due to poor oversight and tight deadlines rather than the inability of any particular writer to produce goods rules. 

[Greybeard86]

18 hours ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

In comparison to price discrimination paired with branding differentiation, targeting demographics via WS or rules is orders of magnitude less potent and its impact marginal at best. 

While obviously MTG relies more on rules (inherently less value of card per se than model), GW also makes heavy use of rules in their business model. New editions, campaign books, army books, assorted supplements are an integral part of how GW conducts business.

16 hours ago, PJetski said:

Using Wizards as an example is questionable because they make mistakes all the time and they acknowledge them as mistakes. They constantly have to ban cards from play because of some unforeseen interaction or just for being too powerful. [...]

This is a lot more than I intended to write on the subject and I hope my tone came off respectful. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk

All good, thanks for checking though.

10 hours ago, stratigo said:

What? No companies mega rush products all the time and often to the detriment of that product. Have you seen video games.

 

3 hours ago, Chikout said:

I do think GW is worthy of criticism, but the idea that big businesses don't work like this is nonsense.

Mistakes happen, but they do not invalidate the efforts of the companies in designing targetted products.

Video games have bugs, some are unplayable, yet they put massive efforts into things like monetization and gameplay loops.

Folks, I think you underestimate companies.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

1 minute ago, Greybeard86 said:

Folks, I think you underestimate companies.

20+ years of successful analysis and the cash flows from it I accrued would suggest otherwise 😉

What I am trying to push against, instead, is the persistent narrative that companies always engage in certain “questionable” tactics.  Are these tactics built into some business models?  Yes.  But maximizing sales doesn’t always require them and more often than not alignment is better than “manipulation”.

That said I have seen how easily mistakes can creep into business models when trying to target demographics.  In the Global Financial Crisis, for example, I was talking with a major furniture company with sales orders of magnitude larger than GW.  With the consumer struggling they were trying to introduce an offering at a discount to their line up.  The designers and CEO were bragging to me how they’d designed a table that most customers couldn’t tell the difference with the higher priced offering so they expected it to sell like hot cakes.

I asked them how many if those sales were going to simply cannibalize sales of the higher priced table? They looked confused and tried to insist all the sales would be new sales.  Everybody who previously would’ve paid up for the more expensive table would still pay up.  I pushed that certainly at least some people, if they truly were trying to tell me this new table was so hard to tell apart, who begrudgingly would have paid up in the past would now be happy to save 20%+ and buy the good enough table.

I happened to look at the CFO as the designers and CEO tried to keep up the argument and he looked as aghast as I was at the zero cannibalization argument.  He finally interjected that obviously there would be cannibalization and he’d follow up with me on it later.  That conversation had made it clear that they’d gotten so wrapped up in this new customer targeting that they were ignoring what their own data was telling them.  They were so happy they’d hit the KPI of consumers struggling to differentiate this new product from their own higher priced offering that they’d (willfully?) ignored that as a result 10-35% of the customers who had previously bought the higher priced table would now trade down.

I also know that very large companies can be wrong about who their customers are.  Before the GFC I was speaking with the CEO of a major restaurant chain.  The CEO perceived his business as serving the higher end of clientele.  They only opened restaurants in grade A locations in the areas with higher incomes.  So when I asked what the impact of growing consumer pressures would be on the company the CEO insisted they’d be negligible because these high end customers would be insulated.

I asked how they’d verified customer demographics?  For example, did they use credit card data?  The CEO kept insisting they didn’t need to verify anything because they had lines waiting for tables in the best neighborhoods in the country.  When I suggested there is an inverse correlation between willingness to wait in line and income, time being money, he literally started leaning across the table and shouting at me about how I didn’t know their business (he was a founder so emotionally attached).

Again it was a CFO who stepped in.  Reigned him back in.  In the hallway after he acknowledged that I was probably right about the actual customer graphics (the CEO just didn’t want to hear the business he built wasn’t as high end as he perceived it) and sure enough, when those economic pressures increased those lines disappeared…

So I definitely don’t underestimate companies.  I just recognize they are run by humans…

[Feii]

4 minutes ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

20+ years of successful analysis and the cash flows from it I accrued would suggest otherwise 😉

What I am trying to push against, instead, is the persistent narrative that companies always engage in certain “questionable” tactics.  Are these tactics built into some business models?  Yes.  But maximizing sales doesn’t always require them and more often than not alignment is better than “manipulation”.

That said I have seen how easily mistakes can creep into business models when trying to target demographics.  In the Global Financial Crisis, for example, I was talking with a major furniture company with sales orders of magnitude larger than GW.  With the consumer struggling they were trying to introduce an offering at a discount to their line up.  The designers and CEO were bragging to me how they’d designed a table that most customers couldn’t tell the difference with the higher priced offering so they expected it to sell like hot cakes.

I asked them how many if those sales were going to simply cannibalize sales of the higher priced table? They looked confused and tried to insist all the sales would be new sales.  Everybody who previously would’ve paid up for the more expensive table would still pay up.  I pushed that certainly at least some people, if they truly were trying to tell me this new table was so hard to tell apart, who begrudgingly would have paid up in the past would now be happy to save 20%+ and buy the good enough table.

I happened to look at the CFO as the designers and CEO tried to keep up the argument and he looked as aghast as I was at the zero cannibalization argument.  He finally interjected that obviously there would be cannibalization and he’d follow up with me on it later.  That conversation had made it clear that they’d gotten so wrapped up in this new customer targeting that they were ignoring what their own data was telling them.  They were so happy they’d hit the KPI of consumers struggling to differentiate this new product from their own higher priced offering that they’d (willfully?) ignored that as a result 10-35% of the customers who had previously bought the higher priced table would now trade down.

I also know that very large companies can be wrong about who their customers are.  Before the GFC I was speaking with the CEO of a major restaurant chain.  The CEO perceived his business as serving the higher end of clientele.  They only opened restaurants in grade A locations in the areas with higher incomes.  So when I asked what the impact of growing consumer pressures would be on the company the CEO insisted they’d be negligible because these high end customers would be insulated.

I asked how they’d verified customer demographics?  For example, did they use credit card data?  The CEO kept insisting they didn’t need to verify anything because they had lines waiting for tables in the best neighborhoods in the country.  When I suggested there is an inverse correlation between willingness to wait in line and income, time being money, he literally started leaning across the table and shouting at me about how I didn’t know their business (he was a founder so emotionally attached).

Again it was a CFO who stepped in.  Reigned him back in.  In the hallway after he acknowledged that I was probably right about the actual customer graphics (the CEO just didn’t want to hear the business he built wasn’t as high end as he perceived it) and sure enough, when those economic pressures increased those lines disappeared…

So I definitely don’t underestimate companies.  I just recognize they are run by humans…

But are you sure the second CEO didn't cause the financial crisis of 2008 in order to trim the less wealthy consumers from his high end restaurant chain and show you!? /s

[Greybeard86]

Quote

What I am trying to push against, instead, is the persistent narrative that companies always engage in certain “questionable” tactics.  Are these tactics built into some business models?  Yes.  But maximizing sales doesn’t always require them and more often than not alignment is better than “manipulation”.

What questionable practices? I am sorprised that, given your experience, you call them questionable practices.

They do not think it is questionable to design according to the "rewarding system mastery" paradigm. I gave you a quote of a company admitting to it publicly in a Q&A. They do not think it constitutes any wrongdoing!

 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

9 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

What questionable practices? I am sorprised that, given your experience, you call them questionable practices.

They do not think it is questionable to design according to the "rewarding system mastery" paradigm. I gave you a quote of a company admitting to it publicly in a Q&A. They do not think it constitutes any wrongdoing!

 

On a recent Warhammer Weekly one of the designers of Silver Tower (and I believe other GW games? unsure what he was involved in designing exactly) also talked about imbalance providing a payoff for certain players by rewarding them for figuring out the "best" units.

Which I don't think is a bad way to design games at all. I think nobody wants a game where a random list is as good as a carefully constructed one, which has to mean that some units are better at winning you games than others. Hopefully though, this takes the shape of "better in a certain role", instead of just simply "better".

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

2 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

What questionable practices? I am sorprised that, given your experience, you call them questionable practices.

They do not think it is questionable to design according to the "rewarding system mastery" paradigm. I gave you a quote of a company admitting to it publicly in a Q&A. They do not think it constitutes any wrongdoing!

 

It is questionable because of one of the great truths of microeconomics: There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

In other words there is a definite trade off to these practices.  In some cases the net is positive.  MtG’ business model evolved out of the collectible card model.  Because this largely originated out of sports and everybody implicitly understand that regardless of the sport, there will be a few truly great athletes (whose cards everybody will want), a vast majority of average athletes (whose cards team fans will want), and a few bad athletes (whose cards only their family members and completionists will want) and that every pack sold would have an uncertain mix of these cards MtG is operating under one set of norms.   If MtG violated those norms by regularly importing GW’s norms by say, only selling the best cards in each new release individually for $160 they would presumably infuriate their customer base who has been conditioned to believe that part of the bargain they’ve made with the company is that every pack they buy gives them a chance at the best cards.

When you switch from a blind buy dynamic to a known purchase a different set of norms apply and using blind buy principles would violate them.  For example, Warner Brothers does not intentionally release crappy movies to drive up ticket sales of other movies.  Joss Whedon’s Justice League wasn’t deliberately $#@+ to drive up ticket sales of Joker… But despite being a large company with lots of passionate people trying as hard as they can bad movies get made.  

[Greybeard86]

2 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

On a recent Warhammer Weekly one of the designers of Silver Tower (and I believe other GW games? unsure what he was involved in designing exactly) also talked about imbalance providing a payoff for certain players by rewarding them for figuring out the "best" units.

Which I don't think is a bad way to design games at all. I think nobody wants a game where a random list is as good as a carefully constructed one, which has to mean that some units are better at winning you games than others. Hopefully though, this takes the shape of "better in a certain role", instead of just simply "better".

Thank Grungi! This is just common practice in the industry.

I think it ends up being just better, as one can easily spot in codexes / battletomes which units stand out, and those the underperform. Didn't we just have a discussion about it regarding black knights?

[Greybeard86]

3 minutes ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

It is questionable because of one of the great truths of microeconomics: There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

In other words there is a definite trade off to these practices.  In some cases the net is positive.  MtG’ business model evolved out of the collectible card model.  Because this largely originated out of sports and everybody implicitly understand that regardless of the sport, there will be a few truly great athletes (whose cards everybody will want), a vast majority of average athletes (whose cards team fans will want), and a few bad athletes (whose cards only their family members and completionists will want) and that every pack sold would have an uncertain mix of these cards MtG is operating under one set of norms.   If MtG violated those norms by regularly importing GW’s norms by say, only selling the best cards in each new release individually for $160 they would presumably infuriate their customer base who has been conditioned to believe that part of the bargain they’ve made with the company is that every pack they buy gives them a chance at the best cards.

When you switch from a blind buy dynamic to a known purchase a different set of norms apply and using blind buy principles would violate them.  For example, Warner Brothers does not intentionally release crappy movies to drive up ticket sales of other movies.  Joss Whedon’s Justice League wasn’t deliberately $#@+ to drive up ticket sales of Joker… But despite being a large company with lots of passionate people trying as hard as they can bad movies get made.  

Read the post above. GW absolutely designs to reward system mastery.

Quote

On a recent Warhammer Weekly one of the designers of Silver Tower (and I believe other GW games? unsure what he was involved in designing exactly) also talked about imbalance providing a payoff for certain players by rewarding them for figuring out the "best" units.

I rest my case.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

Just now, Greybeard86 said:

Thank Grungi! This is just common practice in the industry.

I think it ends up being just better, as one can easily spot in codexes / battletomes which units stand out, and those the underperform. Didn't we just have a discussion about it regarding black knights?

I'm sure we did in some thread. Although I stand by the point that by and large, nearly all Gravelords units have a role. Black Knights and Wight Kings are the outliers in that tome, and in this case I would put it down to a mistake rather than designing for mechanically focussed people.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

6 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

On a recent Warhammer Weekly one of the designers of Silver Tower (and I believe other GW games? unsure what he was involved in designing exactly) also talked about imbalance providing a payoff for certain players by rewarding them for figuring out the "best" units.

Which I don't think is a bad way to design games at all. I think nobody wants a game where a random list is as good as a carefully constructed one, which has to mean that some units are better at winning you games than others. Hopefully though, this takes the shape of "better in a certain role", instead of just simply "better".

Good, better, best is common practice and that hasn’t been what I’ve objected to if that wasn’t clear.  It is the concept of making intentional trash WS that I have objected to.  Trash WS unfortunate product of any creative process. 

Edited June 4, 2021 by Beer & Pretzels Gamer

[Feii]

5 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I'm sure we did in some thread. Although I stand by the point that by and large, nearly all Gravelords units have a role. Black Knights and Wight Kings are the outliers in that tome, and in this case I would put it down to a mistake rather than designing for mechanically focussed people.

the new with king on the steed and his ability doesn't even work RAW it doesn't do anything. I really wouldn't count it as a masterplan strategy to make your new sculpt unplayable.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

3 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I'm sure we did in some thread. Although I stand by the point that by and large, nearly all Gravelords units have a role. Black Knights and Wight Kings are the outliers in that tome, and in this case I would put it down to a mistake rather than designing for mechanically focussed people.

The Slaangor another example that has come up.  The contention that GW put the time & money into designing, producing and inventorying this model only to deliberately sabotage it to boost sales of other Slaanesh units is what I object to.  Similarly, as I’ve posted in other threads I don’t think they intentionally sacrificed Black Knights to sell more Blood Knights.  I just think when things settled down Blood Knights ended up with the better WS and points combo.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

Even just look at the differences in production process to understand how the sacrifice business model has very different economics in AoS vs MtG.  Trading cards are produced in massive sheets with a large number of different cards on each sheet.  Given this the cost to MtG of including trash cards in their productions is negligible.

GW has highlighted the cost of new molds repeatedly.  Actual production has large direct and indirect costs.  Let’s think about the fact that at a time when GW is losing sales to out of stocks are they really going to take up valuable production time to make models they’ve intentionally sabotaged.  And then pay to ship these sabotaged models to stores?  And deal with the inventory costs?

Again, none of this is smart business.  

[pnkdth]

On 5/31/2021 at 10:18 PM, Frowny said:

One of my frustrations is how obvious some of the balance stuff is. For example, the new sylbaneth revenant is a good warscroll but it is horrifically overcoated. 275 points for just 2 casts is an absolutely horrible deal.

Some comparisons:

belladonna Volga, released recently, has +1 save, +2 wounds, +2mv, +2 bravery, same damage output, a second unbind and a command ability. And she is 75 points LESS.

A skaven grey seer is 140 pts. 2 casts and unbinds, casts on a 3d6. Less sturdy, sure, but you can get 2 of them for the same price, easily equalizing the durability difference. And stand next to a warp hole for even better casting. 

Or to a slaan, who has quite similar base stats but is a 3cast/3 unbind wizard, also has a useful command ability, and generates 2 CPS on a 4+. And costs 15 pts LESS.

Or to a contorted epitome. 2c/2d, a useful fights last aura, and 65 pts less.

All of the above also have something equal to or similar to the +1 to cast, and all just blow this out of the water. Even within the battletome itself you could get 3 branchwriaths instead, for 3 casts and unbinds. 

it's true I picked some strong playable options as my comparison point, and things need to be balanced within a battletome. But at the same time, sylvaneth are clearly a weak battletome already and all of these comparisons are just so far ahead of her it's not even close. At 275 she is a hard pass in any serious list in an already weak book.

What's frustrating is that I didn't even have to try very hard for figure out this was hopelessly overcosted. I'd have hoped better from a multimillion dollar company tasked solely with making and designing a game.

I realise Sylvaneth is in a rough spot but taking a more positive look at the revenant it also has a 4+ shrug (making more tanky than most other units of a similar role), solid melee profile (3" reach means you can do some tricky stuff), potential MW bomb (you just gotta be within 9" not wholly within which can cover quite a lot of enemy units), and a decent aura to disrupt the opponent and keep you from failing battleshock. M8" and fly makes it nimble too.

Might not be the best thing ever but I think it has some play, even so.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

I get that a normal quality distribution is “boring”.  Yet if we took every WS currently in play and surveyed a representative sample of players and ranked them we would likely discover that AoS WS exhibit they same quality distribution that competitive dynamics almost always produce; a small tail group of excellent WS, a fat middle of quality and even situationally great WS, and then another small tail of trash WS.

Again, this is exactly what you see in competitive sports no matter whether you’re looking at soccer, basketball, ballroom dancing, golf, poker, etc.  

It is the same thing you find when you look at businesses for that matter.

In other words in a competitive environment this sorting is a natural effect. 

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

To switch away from business and back to rules it has been interesting to see how GW handles changes vs other areas.  GW seems to get criticized for doing both too little and too much (fair enough in different areas).  In recent news though you have seen how difficult to change other dynamics can be.

We have Simone Biles achieving something no one else ever has and the people in control of Gymnastics capping the score at what lesser acts achieve despite the scoring scale explicitly supposed to be based on difficulty.  Or you have tennis losing the number 2 player in the world because they feel the interviews after are as/more important than the games on the court.  You can go back to when Tiger first started playing and golf courses lengthened their holes to push back against his longer drives only for a new generation to adapt to longer drives.  In baseball they seem to keep changing the ball behind the scenes to alter scoring.

I think between a regular update cycle and FAQs GW striking an okay balance relative to other examples but I’d be curious how people more involved with the other examples, or who can think of different ones, think GW’s adjustment pace impacts rule quality?