Dead Scribe
-
Posts
1,024 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Dead Scribe
-
-
I guess balance means a lot of things to a lot of people. There is a guy on dakka for example that seems to always pop up regularly complaining about balance and everyone basically shouts him down everytime. I think his idea of balance is every army has an equal chance of winning. It is obvious that no one really wants that. Others ideas of balance are that overall if you play 100 different people you'll have an ok time overall and have to stomach being tabled a few times but thats ok.
I think the more balanced the game is, the less successful it becomes. All of the games that are supposed to be really balanced have very little if any players.
-
The question is "is unbalance fun or not fun". It seems to me the answer is a solid "unbalance is very fun".
Or - do we dig deeper. And is the answer "unbalance is not fun, but our community so large that that makes up for everything else". Meaning if a competing game had the same population as AOS, would that make up for it?
-
I've seen people do statistical analysis on AOS and it never ends well for them. They get ridden out of the room on a flaming broom lol
-
1
-
2
-
-
I can get behind that.
-
The flaw with the honest wargamer stats is that they don't show you the context. They don't show you the skill level of the players involved, and they are heavily weighted and influenced by volume of games played by people bringing what the meta considers OP.
The honest wargamer stats contextually show what people are bringing to events, and overall how that faction does. It highlights inferred imbalance. It definitely points at trends of what the community feels is very weak and what is very strong.
-
2
-
-
I guess I've seen that tweet or versions of that tweet so regularly that I'm numb to it. A lot of the people complaining and tweeting like that have been doing so for literally years now and are still hanging around spending money on the game and playing it.
-
I think in many cases the actual problems are easy to point out by simply reading the army book, and even then GW doesn't really fix it until they feel like. So I'd have to wonder what this tool would do other than provide official stats? I don't know that they'd rush to fix things with it because in many cases I feel they already know what the problems are.
-
I think you answered that question then. You know people can't have both, and you know the GW fanbase is willing to sacrifice balance on the altar of diversity. If players really wanted that level of balance, Infinity would be at the level 40k is, and 40k and AOS would be struggling to have visible players.
If GW fanbase WANTED that level of balance, really wanted it, they would find other games to play.
-
I also don't think the majority of GW's fanbase really wants that level of balance.
-
1
-
-
I don't think its accidental either. They know exactly what they are releasing when they release it.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
I'd say that it is a very different mentality yes. I know people that do both, but they have to have two different armies basically.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, RuneBrush said:
Out of curiosity, do you know what those two people's drive is? Is it that they're hoping to play competitive events, enjoy the more brutal cut and thrust of that style of gaming or something else?
They are both solid 100% tournament players. Most of my group is and most of my group regularly sells off their armies to buy whatever is currently mathematically considered superior by the rules (stats, points efficiency etc).
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Laststand said:
One thing GW is great at is fueling the chase for the new hotness.
Hey it definitely works and sells! We have a guy thats already selling his army off to buy this one, despite the warnings of an FAQ. We have another waiting to see if the faq doesn't hurt them and then will be following suit.
-
Quote
My big problem with Changehost Flamer Spam is that it has a very low Skill Floor. Go first 90% of the time, teleport within 18 inches of whatever you want dead and delete it. Very hard to mess up.
Thats a feature not a bug. This is a game marketed at the masses. It has been said by many that one of the things that kept the masses away from WHFB was that there was a rules and difficulty curve you had to master. AOS gets rid of both. Unsurprisingly, AOS sells a whole lot better than WHFB because of it.
QuoteUntil GW is held to account for their own rules, nothing is going to change.
Very true. There is no reason for GW to change. They are making money hand over fist.
QuoteNo one is asking for perfect balance, or for a tournament first approach to the game and hobby.
There are actually a lot of us asking for a tournament-first approach to the game. And that only benefits those not playing tournaments with better rules.
The problem ultimately is that there are some people that not only want great models, they want great balanced rules. I don't think you get to have both. I look at games many consider great and notice how no one or very few people play them. I don't see a market in great balanced rules to be honest. While a part of me would love balanced rules, the other part of me also realizes that easy builds are better for my wallet because I don't make mistakes messing up and getting a weaker build because the strong builds really scream that they are strong right out of the book.
-
1
-
-
Or this is intended and this will dominate for a little while and people will buy tzeentch to play this and win with it until the next set of changes this summer with GHB 2020.
-
11 hours ago, Overread said:
MODERATOR NOTICE
Because of the very polarized nature of the Doubleturn can we please move discussion of it into one of the other threads (there's at least one recent one) or start a fresh thread relating to it. I'm not saying its wrong to have wanted to include it in this thread, just that I feel this thread is already looking and discussing other things and when the double turn comes into a topic it tends to dominate and leave little space for others.
So because its such a big thing for so many people its better that it takes its own thread rather than dominates this one.
I'm not really interested in talking about that forbidden topic because no one's mind will change, but I don't see any topics on that either
where did it move to?
-
I would think by now if rules quality mattered that GW would have long gone out of business. I don't think rules quality really matters to the masses. And anytime rules discussions come up on balance or rules quality or the rules in general, its always torn between a small but very vocal group of people that hate the rules, a group of people like me that realize the rules aren't very good but simply don't care as much and know how to take advantage of the bad rules to our advantage for competitive play, and a larger pool of people that either don't play or play very casually where their group rule is to take care of itself and expel people from the group that take advantage of the poor rules.
There are just too many people that ultimately don't care about the rules quality enough where you will see any change by GW to put good rules out. If you want good rules there are other games that focus on rules first. Also note, that those games either have no one playing them or its very niche, whereas GW with all of its "bad rules" dominates almost every market.
That has to say something to most people.
-
Quote
But with the double turn there is always the lifeline of if I get the double then maybeeee. Just my experience and two cents.
Yeah as I noted above, it means anyone can win a game and thats why people like it. Because at any point if you get the double turn, chances are you are going to win the game. I can see why people like that.
Quoteyou really have to plan for it not going in your favor.
How do you plan for getting double-turned? What do you do to prevent the double turn from making you lose the game? You're probably going to say screens. What happens if your screens have been hit and its turn 3 or 4 and you get double turned? What else do you do to plan for it?
I know one of my strategies is, and maybe its stupid to share my strategies but I think its an obvious one, is to guarantee me picking who goes first to control double turn and then trying to hold it until the screens are gone (if they have any) and then double turn because they have no defense and its almost always a win for me.
-
48 minutes ago, Overread said:
It depends actually. I've seen many people leave from burn=out when their army got ignored for long periods. Sisters of Battle, Dark Eldar, a huge portion of the Old World players - heck you can bet many Tombkings players have gone.
Sure GW producing good quality models keeps customers coming back; however if an army remains with poor quality rules for long enough it will die off. Even the most die-hard players who support an army can find it hard when the rules mean that they will lose more matches than win through no fault of their own. When the game is stacked against them from the outset; or when the game is stacked heavily in favour of another army.
Some might switch armies which can mask the issue for a time. However that means people who would be supporting army A are now supporting army B. Given enough time you hit the Tombkings problem whereby army A no longer has enough customers to be viable and you're left with having to consider major investment to bring them back.
From a business perspective though do you think that keeping things how they are now vs changing things will bring MORE people in? I don't think honestly it would. I do get people leaving from burn out but for every person that leaves from burn out or gets annoyed at the game and leaves from the game, three or four more step up to fill their spot.
-
This forum software is sometime very deficient. It won't let me edit the quote above and it is ignoring end quote block. So I'm retyping my post here without Overread's quote.
Here's my counter question for you - and for everyone I have read that defends the notion that imbalance in the game is bad for the game and drives people away from the game (which I believe to a point because I have seen it but on the flip side we gain far more people than we lost because of the huge community)
If GW doesn't change the imbalance - which they have operated for as I understand it over 20 or 30 years, will you reach a point where you stop playing and buying it? Or will you keep on playing anyway and defend the game despite that?
For my money I know where I would bet most of the people who complain about the bad balance and the double turn will be in a year from now. Still here playing the game and largely defending it.
-
Quote
Out of interest what is their reasoning behind their stance. So far we've only your reasoning - which is mostly that it makes it much easier to just buy the best and use it. So the only real reason for the game to have wide imbalances is so that purchasing "to win" is very simple. This essentially means that you are actually arguing the exact same point that people who have invested in a weaker army are arguing for a more even balance field.
I can't speak for them. They would have to provide their own input.
In the end it seems that both groups are arguing for the same thing - defence of their financial investment. The downside of the current state is that GW makes it much easier for one group over the other - the argument thus is that GW could do more to level the playing field. This defends the investments of a greater portion of the playerbase. That means better profits for GW because now everyone has reason to invest more into their own army; it means greater return on investment for a greater number of players since the maths is more even and investment into gaming and learning can result in an increased win and competitive rate for the players.
With such a viewpoint the only group that loses out are those who are not as highly skilled (nor care to invest time into being so); but who bought a powerful army for the easy win. That group loses out because they will meet increased opponent skill as a greater factor rather than army choice. This is basically a null point for competitive environments because such a player will typically not place well in the competitive environments (because everyone is already bringing high performance armies so player skill comes back as the core deciding factor)
Here's my counter question for you - and for everyone I have read that defends the notion that imbalance in the game is bad for the game and drives people away from the game (which i believe to a point because i have seen it but on the flip side we gain far m,ore people than we lose because of the huge community)
If GW doesn't change the imbalance - which they have operated for as I understand it over twenty - maybe thirty years - will you reach a point where you will stop buying and playing? Or will you keep on playing anyway and defend the game despite that?
For my money I know where I would bet most of the people who complain about the bad balance and the double turn will be in a year from now. Still here playing the game and largely defending it.
-
11 hours ago, Phasteon said:
1) Except that „I dont like that style of play and in my opinion its sad to only care for maximum efficiency, not giving a damn about the background“ is not offensive in any way - just my opinion, so you better deal with it. You ca answer to that and say why you disagree but you cant blame me for being offensive when its just my view on the matter in a thread where people say what they wanted GW to improve.
And again, I want them to further improve list building that goes hand in hand with the background. List diversity is a good thing, but imo if you get punished by sticking to the background sometimes people just dont do it.
Btw. its a very small issue that shows how perfectly fine AoS is imo. Maybe I should have made that clear.
2) 100% agree with that.
Whats your take on Initiative roll-off then? Just curious.
Because I think even if it is a random dice roll that decides who has priority it makes people playing around the fact that the opponent might have a doubleturn at some point, which I think is great, as it allows for more dynamic gameplay as its not always the best thing to take the turn and fully commit as it can backfire.
My issue with the double turn is that there really is no way to defend against it. Yes knowing it is going to happen or could happen provides tension - I get that. And that makes people happy, the tension, and also makes people feel that you have to be tactical and play around it.
But here's the thing - there really is no good defense against it short of massive misplay by your opponent. There are so many things in this game that can devastate you in turn 1, from either ranged or charging / melee attacks, that there just is no way to castle against a double turn short of "screens", and "screens" only do so much. Not getting too close to your opponent because he may double turn you doesn't really matter when they could have just charged you turn 1 anyway with their special rules and long movement bonus rules.
The double turn has in my case been an indicator of winner 4 out of 5 games roughly for the past two years. I don't find the double turn very tactical or strategic. I find it a heavy bludgeon that wins games for people without requiring a lot of effort, which honestly is why I think its so popular. I find it one of the least rewarding and tactical things about AOS.
That being said, I won't disparage someone using the double turn for what it was engineered to do - win games for people. Thats why I guarantee my list keeps minimal drops to win the ability to choose to go second and control who gets the double turn.
Now is double turn fun? Well winning is fun. So if I can win an easy game because I got to double turn you then sure. Double turn is fun.
-
3
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Phasteon said:
Now who is shaming another person? You even quoted me saying „There is nothing wrong with your style of play“
Pls read the whole post before making accusations.
This thread is about criticism and ideas how to improve the game and I think making it a bit more hand in hand with the actual narrative* would be a good thing.
*Some armies already do that perfectly, its just some armies require very weird „builds“ to be considered competitive.
I think thats kind of like saying "no offense... but..." and then saying something offensive lol.
In such case both players have to deploy not knowing if they will go first - much more tactical and much more logical.Thats not tactical, and I don't see how it has anything to do with logic?
Tactical means it provides a decision to be made. Thats what a tactic is, a decision.
Choosing elements in your army to make sure you have low number of drops, for example, is a choice, and therefore closer to tactical.
Depending on the roll of a dice is not tactical. Its random luck. The opposite of tactical.
-
18 hours ago, Phasteon said:
See? You admit its easier to build a list if powerlevel is your only concern, thats basically my point in saying its easymode.
I‘m probably more sad about the fact that competitive play is very narrow–minded, while narrative focused lists are far more creative and still can be played competitively.
Nothing wrong with your way of playing of course, I think it would just not be worth my time, because if I wouldnt care about the narrative I would probably go for online games or sth like that as its not as expensive to be a „flavor of the month“ player there.
I don't see the point of your post other than to try to shame competitive players or players that play different than you. (that its sad and narrow-minded) I think that your post should be saved for a thread that is talking about competitive play vs narrative play pros and cons.
Yes Age of Sigmar's balance is pretty bad and easy to pick out what is powerful and what is not with little effort. I don't see how that pertains to anything though? If you're competitive gaming you need to bring the most powerful list because everyone else is also bringing the most powerful list.
QuoteMy personal disagreement with the stance is only that this isn't a healthy position for the game nor gamers. It means some armies are easy win and some are hard win and some are neverwin
Thats subjective. The tournament players I follow and play against and travel to play against nominally disagree with that stance.
If you don't feel its healthy for the game nor gamers, then take that up with the game designers that keep on leaving it in the game. Obviously I would say they disagree with that stance as well or they wouldn't be releasing the type of game that they do, that we all buy regardless.
where did it move to?
A Suggestion on Balance
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
I'm speaking from my observation. If there was really a desire for balanced armies, GW would be in trouble, they wouldn't be selling so well, and other games that have better balance should be doing a lot better with player population. Additionally, I watch posters get run out of forums for arguing for balance to know that its not a hill worth dying on, and that it doesn't appear to be something a lot of people truly want.