Does competitiveness ruin AoS?

[Lavy]

Competitive play does not ruin AoS. Listen to @Auticus, he speaks wisdom.

[Galas]

24 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Competitive play baseline is fine.

Over competitive play can ruin AOS... if you want to play AOS in a way that is not overly competitive.  

IE: people should play people that have the same mindset as them.  And they should avoid playing people that have differing mindsets as them or else they are going to have a bad time.

QTF.

Theres no wrong way to play the game. But is wrong to play with people that want to play the game a different way that you. Normally, competitive people want to play with other competitive people, and if you play with a fluffy list they aren't gonna have fun, because they are just gonna destroy your army.

Is as bad for a narrative player to enter a competitive tournament and start whinning about how everyone is a WAAC etc... as is for a competitive player to enter a narrative campaing with the most powerfull list, totally unfluffy, and start  destroying everyone.

In the other hand, If someone is the kind of people that loves to destroy noobies to the game what didn't know how to play, thats a different matter. Thats the kind of guys that are toxic no matter how you try to justify them. 

[chord]

3 hours ago, DantePQ said:

I think SCGT and GH and move towards Competitive saved AoS or maybe enabled AoS to flourish. 

I get both sides of argument but if AoS was home game to enjoy with friends it may stay that way and from my experience it's always quite easy to find other people and play with them that way. 

 

I hear this all the time but don't believe it.   Where is the evidence of this. We had more new Warhammer players in our area up until points come out , then the ultra competitive people started playing and driven the new players away.

[wayniac]

In my opinion: Yes and no.  The mindset of competitiveness can and does ruin many games; by this I mean the idea that you should solely play the game to win, and that there is zero reason to ever not take the most optimal choices to maximize your chance of winning, and that doing anything else is "purposely playing badly" and the like.  The attitude of many competitive players (usually boiling down to "git gud" for any perceived question or issue someone faces) can also be toxic.  Competitiveness in and of itself does not ruin a game, when both players approach the game the same way or are willing to compromise.  The issue I see far too often is that the competitive player is the one in the best position to compromise (i.e. by not always playing the most optimal list) but is also the one most likely to refuse to do so and insist the non-competitive player compromise instead (i.e. by playing the most optimal list) and that's often where the disconnect happens, because the competitive-minded people are the ones who seemingly have zero restraint to not eke out any advantage possible.

Open/Narrative AOS is a perfect example.  It is perfectly possible to have two players use Open play with armies that can abuse it, and decide not to abuse it.  But, for some reason, a competitive player in Open Play will immediately try to abuse summoning/spells/etc. simply because there is nothing holding them back; the idea of not doing it is somehow an anathema to them, because it's "less competitive" than abusing it.  I find it an interesting social dichotomy even taken well beyond wargaming, the idea that without limits people will naturally try to take advantage of the system, simply because nothing holds them back from doing so and a social agreement isn't enough of a deterrent (the best example, taken to the extreme of course, being that without laws against theft people would steal everything simply because there would be no reason to pay for something if they could just take it for free)

[Mayple]

I think that there is a misconception that 'competitive' means 'breaking the game' (looking for broken combos, underpriced units, etc) - which is not entirely the case. One can play competetively without breaking the game, and break the game without playing competetively. It's not neccesarily a package deal.

Personally, I value tactical maneuvers over hardcore listbuilding, and would never bring a clearly broken list against any opponent in the hopes that it would earn me a victory I'd be satisfied with. A fluffy thematic list full of dirty tricks, sure, but nothing on the level of 'rocks fall, everyone dies' (And I wouldn't regard that trade-off as conceding my chances of winning against spammy lists, as my belief in maneuvering>lists goes against that)

 

That being said, I find the process of trying to break the game very enjoyable. A sort of mental excercise if you will. I even think it is important for the health of the game that people think of ways to do that - but there is a big difference between inventing the nuclear bomb, and using it

[BloodTithe]

2 hours ago, AlphaKennyThing said:

I wouldn't say competitiveness is ruining AoS, as has been alluded to it's definitely the player you're facing who determines whether or not you have a good game. If they've built a list that is very strong, get it out and stick it on the table literally inhaling the cheddar as they line up their 15 Kurnoth Hunters with a big sh*t-eating grin on their face, you know you're about to have a game where he or she is going to argue with every decision, and do things in such a way that you're questioning if they're outright cheating when they roll dice quicker than you can really keep track of what is attacking what.

Other times, someone will pull out a strong list, they'll be wanting to put it to the test against the full might of their opponent, and they'll be the kind of guy or gal who will let you roll that attack you missed in the last combat, or use the ability you forgot in your hero phase, and you'll have a good laugh even if your army is absolutely spanked.

That said, the most fun I've had has definitely been in narrative games, or 'friendly' matched play games that were pick up and play with whatever army we had.

I've also found if you like competitive games but don't like too much cheese, 1,000pts is a good place to look.

Excellent words of wisdom. But how many kurnoth hunters can you fit in 1000 pts ? 12 ?

[Sleboda]

6 hours ago, BloodTithe said:

 I kinda just wish that people weren't so obsessed with competitiveness. And this applies across the board, not just to skaven.

...

It means people overlook some super cool models with really fun rules ... it would be fun to play against people with a similar non-competitive mindset.

...

It's just a shame when AoS has some particularly beautiful models begging to be used. There are even whole factions that aren't very popular based purely on their lack of competitive power.

Agree with above bits.  PreGHb, games were a lot more fun and varied. You just put out your coolest most favorite-est stuff and let it fly.  I actually used Stalkers and Bone Giants! ?

Not anymore.  Gotta squeeze the points. Gotta leave stuff off the table.  Gotta compete.

AoS is not "ruined" by the currently popular mindset, but it is diminished.

[BloodTithe]

1 hour ago, Galas said:

QTF.

Theres no wrong way to play the game. But is wrong to play with people that want to play the game a different way that you. Normally, competitive people want to play with other competitive people, and if you play with a fluffy list they aren't gonna have fun, because they are just gonna destroy your army.

Is as bad for a narrative player to enter a competitive tournament and start whinning about how everyone is a WAAC etc... as is for a competitive player to enter a narrative campaing with the most powerfull list, totally unfluffy, and start  destroying everyone.

In the other hand, If someone is the kind of people that loves to destroy noobies to the game what didn't know how to play, thats a different matter. Thats the kind of guys that are toxic no matter how you try to justify them. 

I think GW basically need to get on top of people making cheese lists and add limits. Bring back "rare" units where u can only have so many of them. Like kurnoth hunters. Im coming to the conclusion that this can only be fixed truly by better rules 

[BloodTithe]

1 hour ago, Mayple said:

I think that there is a misconception that 'competitive' means 'breaking the game' (looking for broken combos, underpriced units, etc) - which is not entirely the case. One can play competetively without breaking the game, and break the game without playing competetively. It's not neccesarily a package deal.

Personally, I value tactical maneuvers over hardcore listbuilding, and would never bring a clearly broken list against any opponent in the hopes that it would earn me a victory I'd be satisfied with. A fluffy thematic list full of dirty tricks, sure, but nothing on the level of 'rocks fall, everyone dies' (And I wouldn't regard that trade-off as conceding my chances of winning against spammy lists, as my belief in maneuvering>lists goes against that)

 

That being said, I find the process of trying to break the game very enjoyable. A sort of mental excercise if you will. I even think it is important for the health of the game that people think of ways to do that - but there is a big difference between inventing the nuclear bomb, and using it

Yup. I've clarified that I love competitiveness without the extremes. 

 

Everything you said is all good and true. But many people do bring the nukes. And then how are we all supposed to draw the line? I can make a nuke list as easy as anyone else. How do I build an army that is competitive without bringing the nukes? Basically GW needs better rules or more frequent FAQs and ammendments to fix stuff 

[chord]

5 minutes ago, BloodTithe said:

Everything you said is all good and true. But many people do bring the nukes. And then how are we all supposed to draw the line?

"I'm sorry I really don't think the way our armies are built will be enjoyable. Maybe we can tweak them to make it more enjoyable?"

"No?  Well no problem, I think I'll just play against somebody else, thanks for the offer"

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, BloodTithe said:

"let's limit kurnoth hunters and other cheese units." 

I just wanted to mention that this is at the other end of the problem.  "Cheese" is a loaded,  judgmental term that puts social-first gamers in the same negative light as competition-first gamers who look down their noses at "chumps" (for instance).

[Spiky Norman]

I have no problem with competitiveness, in sports or gaming or whatever. I do feel though, that miniature wargaming is a particularly poor platform for competitive competitions.

Which is also why I don't care much for competitive miniature wargaming, but enjoy the hobby for its many better qualities.

 

[Sleboda]

23 minutes ago, BloodTithe said:

Im coming to the conclusion that this can only be fixed truly by better rules 

Yep. The New GW (tm) is freakin awesome, but one mistake they continue to make is to place too much faith in mankind/ignore human nature.

[chord]

7 minutes ago, Spiky Norman said:

I have no problem with competitiveness, in sports or gaming or whatever. I do feel though, that miniature wargaming is a particularly poor platform for competitive competitions.

Which is also why I don't care much for competitive miniature wargaming, but enjoy the hobby for its many better qualities.

 

Agree 100%!!  It can never be good for competition because the rules are not the same for everyone (unless each player took the same exact list, etc). 

 

[BloodTithe]

35 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I just wanted to mention that this is at the other end of the problem.  "Cheese" is a loaded,  judgmental term that puts social-first gamers in the same negative light as competition-first gamers who look down their noses at "chumps" (for instance).

Eh? I'm confused. I love the social gamer thing ? what does that have to do with thinking certain units are too cheap in points and over powered without limit?

[BloodTithe]

26 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Yep. The New GW (tm) is freakin awesome, but one mistake they continue to make is to place too much faith in mankind/ignore human nature.

What is this "new GW" thing about? Was the old company bought out by new owners? ? I'm quite newly returned to the hobby 

[Zeratan]

So essentially we're dealing with 2 issues: imbalanced armies and ultracompetative mindsets. The first one can be solved only by GW and the latter... Well, I have no clue how to fix it but let's hope it won't get as bad as in the last days of WHFB or we might face similar playerbase crisis.

[BloodTithe]

3 hours ago, chord said:

"I'm sorry I really don't think the way our armies are built will be enjoyable. Maybe we can tweak them to make it more enjoyable?"

"No?  Well no problem, I think I'll just play against somebody else, thanks for the offer"

Haha yeah. Well I meant how are we meant to draw the line with building our own lists. At what point do we say it's "too powerful" or "just right"?

[BloodTithe]

55 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Its already as bad as it was in the last days oF WHFB with the current point system and certain builds being way undercost for what they do.

We're you a fan of WHFB (issues aside)? 

Which builds do you think are currently undercost? I'd be interested to compile a list of balance issues the game faces at the moment. Then perhaps we can review the new generals handbook to see what it fixes.

First mention:

- Kurnoth hunters (I know I mention these a lot but I am also a sylvaneth player and I see the issue here )

- maybe the destruction command abilities that allow extreme movement in the command phase.

- the imbalance of mobility in general actually. Stormcast can teleport into battle but khorne are too slow 

- the fact that certain weapon options vastly range in power but are costed the same ( 3 rattling canons vs 3 warpfire canons on stormfiends for example )

- certain weapons and units need to be limited 

[chord]

12 minutes ago, BloodTithe said:

Haha yeah. Well I meant how are we meant to draw the line with building our own lists. At what point do we say it's "too powerful" or "just right"?

Well just have a variety of models you can use that you can adjust on the fly?  That's what I do.   Or if we're playing and maybe the opposing player is getting trounced, they can get a unit of re-enforcements just so the match goes longer, could make for a epic story.

[wayniac]

3 hours ago, chord said:

"I'm sorry I really don't think the way our armies are built will be enjoyable. Maybe we can tweak them to make it more enjoyable?"

"No?  Well no problem, I think I'll just play against somebody else, thanks for the offer"

The main issue with this approach, however right it is, is the feeling of a waste of time if you turn up for a game and the only person there to play is someone with a non-compatible playstyle.  I've seen some times where only a handful of people show up so if you don't play whoever asks for a game, you aren't getting one at all that day.

[BloodTithe]

14 minutes ago, wayniac said:

The main issue with this approach, however right it is, is the feeling of a waste of time if you turn up for a game and the only person there to play is someone with a non-compatible playstyle.  I've seen some times where only a handful of people show up so if you don't play whoever asks for a game, you aren't getting one at all that day.

Yer that can be a real issue too. I have a group of mates I'm getting into sigmar and I want those to be the main people I play. If they go super competitive I guess we don't play 

[Trout]

The only annoying thing about competitiveness is that when I play Beastclaw Raiders people assume I'm a power gamer who picked up some kind of netlist. The truth is I just fell in love with their icy looks and picked up an Icewind Assault box.

[BloodTithe]

19 minutes ago, chord said:

Well just have a variety of models you can use that you can adjust on the fly?  That's what I do.   Or if we're playing and maybe the opposing player is getting trounced, they can get a unit of re-enforcements just so the match goes longer, could make for a epic story.

I love the idea, but doesn't that show how unbalanced the game is, if you have to give the opponent a unit of free reinforcements because they are being beaten that badly? Then it isn't matched play it's more narrative/open play. In an ideal world, a 100 pts unit should stack up to a different 100 pts unit. But this simply isn't the case. You can make a balanced list that can be almost impossible to win with against a highly competitive list 

[CJPT]

I don't think competitiveness ruins games necessarily, but mismatched attitudes between players (or parts of a local community) does. Thing is, there's not much you can reasonably do to change people's attitudes, so in the first instance the best solution is to curate your own group of players who play like you do.

The issue with this is that like-minded groups of friends rarely set the tone for the entire community - the most competitive players do, because they necessarily dominate the biggest events. That attitude then trickles down into local/store communities, and people feel pushed out - or, at least, pushed back to their private friends-only groups.

Thing is, this is only an issue if the difference between a 'fun' list and a 'competitive list' is extremely pronounced - as it is in AoS. The best thing GW could do to make the game more welcoming is to issue more regular FAQ/GH updates to create more movement at the top of the meta. If they established a more regular rate of metagame change, investing big in the latest cheese list becomes less attractive - it won't put off everybody, but it would make the division between fun and competitive a little fuzzier by encouraging the best players to build more 'traditional' armies, rather than pouring everything into a flavour-of-the-moment cheese.