Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

gjnoronh

Members
  • Content Count

    444
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

236 Celestant-Prime

1 Follower

About gjnoronh

  • Rank
    Dracothian Guard

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Agree entirely. US based healthcare provider - if you don't know what 'Flattening the Curve' means - read the following to understand why this is so important. https://www.vox.com/2020/3/15/21180342/coronavirus-covid-19-us-social-distancing
  2. Triumph GT is cancelled due to coronavirus concerns. ------------------------------------------------------------- SAVE THE DATE – the Da Boyz GT will be November 13th-15th 2020 Dear friends of Da Boyz, we’ve locked in a date for the 2020 Da Boyz Grand Tournaments. So you can block your calendars, submit your vacation requests, and start painting your minis! Event registration is not yet open, but we will send out another email when we open registration. This is usually around the first week in July So many new and exciting changes are in store for 2020 Josh Keal is taking over from me as our lead TO for Age of Sigmar. Josh has been our AoS rules judge for the last few years and will raise the event to even greater heights. Dean Bilz is taking over from Josh as lead TO for Warhammer Underworlds and this event will be moved to Saturday. Andrew Weber is taking over from me as our lead TO for Blood Bowl. Blood Bowl will be moving to being a Saturday only event. Blood and Plunder will move to Saturday as well and Drew Saxton will continue to man the helm of this great event. Warcry will be added as a Friday event TO’d by Aaron Piskarowski. We are planning on adding a Kill Team event TO’d by Shane Smith. Date and format to be determined. 8th edition Warhammer Fantasy makes it's return with Kevin Coleman and Rich Salamone in the lead. I will still be involved running the overall event and will be part of the AoS team and supporting Blood Bowl. We will continue our tradition of doubles 40K and AoS on Friday. We will be offering demos of several game systems including Freeblades, and Blood and Plunder. If you’d like to demo another game system or run a side event on Friday let us know. Get ready for Da Boyz by playing at other great events! While you are getting ready for Da Boyz check out our sister regional events: Warmasters AoS Team Tournament - Kitchener Ontario - April 25-26 https://www.facebook.com/events/doubletree-by-hilton-kitchener/warmasters-aos-team-tournament-2020/488084852088910/ Summer Slaughter GT Phoenixville PA July 18/19 2020 http://summerslaughtergt.com/ (40k, AoS) Capital City Blood Bath - Ottawa Ontario - August 14-16 - AoS, 40K, and more http://www.capitalcitybloodbath.com/ Wars on the Shore Erie PA August 22-23 40K http://www.facebook.com/WarsOnTheShore Crossroads Grand Tournament - Horseheads NY - September 26-27 AoS, Blood Bowl, Kings of War http://www.crossroads-gt.com/ Claymore Grand Tournament - Mount Laurel NJ - October 17-18 AoS More details to follow from Martin Orlando at https://twitter.com/CV_Consigliere Gary for the Da Boyz team
  3. Ben glad to hear you are back. I look forward to listening to it. My favorite podcasts will likely always remain Mark/Gareth and you representing three different levels of Warhammer skill on one 'cast. That was very fun podasting.
  4. The terrain still looks great. If that is from a company that sells them I'd be interested. I know you were sorting out quality issues with the commission work before did it settle out?
  5. Can't wait to watch when I get home!
  6. Just a reminder in case you or other readers didn't know some of the playtesters are on this forum including the OP who started this thread topic (and who is also the host of this entire forum.) No one on this forum can say the folks who playtest don't know what players on this forum think. about rules (not that you were saying that just want to make the general point to all of us. )
  7. I know the history Joe from the old Warhammer.org forum and agree generally with you. I think you called it 'Funners' vs something else in the past? However, I think there is also something to be said in a never perfectly balanced rules set for extra respect for the person taking the smaller gun and winning vs the biggest gun and winning. Or taking a list that ticks the visual and thematic boxes but may not be competitive at all particularly in a game system where the lore and story telling and visual aspects are such an important part of making a pleasurable and immersive experience. It's also the case that some complaints may be founded in some cases. There is some kind of behavior that is "WAAC and TFG" including providing a belligerent, rules lawyering, or cheating type experience. That's not because of someone's choice of a tougher list vs a softer list. That's more due generic behavioral stuff about abusing the competitive system as far as it will go. It's very rare in the AoS scene thankfully. That behavior 'costs' the opponents, tournament organizers, and the AOS scene quite a bit as it turns of people from playing the system in general or going to events. Fear of being exposed to that behavior is the most common reason I hear for folks not coming to events. What are the 'costs' potentially from an opponents perspective ignoring behavioral issues? Would a quickly commissioned poorly painted hard as nails list be a cost from an opponents perspective. I think possibly. Same list lovingly painted and converted with a visually immersive theme - that might feel like not a 'cost' I think. I guess the "WAAC" label really begs the question what are 'the costs' who is paying them?
  8. I'm assuming that was in response to me. If not my apologies. There is nothing wrong with 'hard' lists particularly in a setting where both participants know what to expect. Would you have fun "competing" if every game was a series of arguments with a verbally abusive guy who didn't know their rules. Irrespective if you 'competed at a high level event' I'd argue that game would probably not be a lot of fun. Would you have fun 'competing' if you _always_ lost? Say the Magic situation where your opponents have access to far far better cards then you you may be at a premier event against great players but would you enjoy the experience. Maybe maybe not. I'm definitely not calling you out for wanting to play competitively, or wanting to win. I just wonder if the word 'competing' is the right term. There are situations I've been in 'competition' (and non competition) that fundamentally weren't fun including finals at the top table of tournaments. I think that may be true for most people in those settings. There may be some people who value 'competing' against an unpleasant opponent but I think that's fairly rare. On the same note we're aware on this forum that there are people who have suggested they should subvert event rules, use weighted dice or dice tricks or practice rules lawyering to win events. That's probably more finding 'winning is fun' then it is a enjoying ' competing' at least as most people would define 'competing.' Note that sentiment is probably okay as well (who doesn't like to win!) but it's really not enjoying 'competing.' I love a close fought and intellectually stimulating game with hard or soft lists, I don't know that I particularly enjoy a mismatched game whether I was winning or losing.
  9. I think people play games with toy soldiers to have fun. Competition may add some excitement to playing with toy soldiers and is a great excuse to meet new people and play some games. But fundamentally this is a hobby we do for entertainment - because it's fun. If it's not fun i don't really understand why anyone would do this particular hobby. The racing engineer crafting parts is most likely doing it for a job, a job where winning and losing may be the difference in them having a job or not in the future. That's intrinsically a very different situation then someone spending money on toy soldiers they can build and paint and play games with. The motivation to push your own limits to do better may be universal and absolutely a part of a hobby. But if the only reason you are playing with toy soldiers is to compete and not to have fun it might be worth carefully considering what gives a player joy in life. Worth a read https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/02/hobbies-hustle-era-leisure-time-coins.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/opinion/sunday/in-praise-of-mediocrity.html
  10. Are you saying the data you have available shows that all Infinity factions are perfectly balanced in head to head match ups as your post I quoted seems to suggest? Because the data I believe we've been shown is about Infinity overall win rates in the systems current meta. The data would be much more complicated presentation then what we've seen so far to show us two players of equal skill with equally well selected forces would always have an equal win rate irrespective of faction chosen. For example Blood Bowl has the most complicated in depth data analysis and deepest data sets for miniatures I'm aware of here's an example of how you could look at head to head match ups between different teams and different skill levels (the <150 number indicates a player with a low win rate with that team, the >200 is someone with a very high win rate with that team that's the ELO system used by chess) It's worth noting how win rates in any given match up change at different levels of player skill - that gets at the question of what level player are we trying to balance for. There is also a pull down for different formats (which in the AoS world would be different scenarios almost) which pulls separate and possibly quite different results. The data set in this analysis is only one of three large data sets out there for the system and because of some differences in game play I would expect the results to differ somewhat (NAF data is all swiss pairings tournament based as opposed to random matchups or matchups based on similar 'team strength' in the progressive growth system that is Blood Bowl league play.) https://public.tableau.com/profile/mike.sann0638.davies#!/vizhome/NAFMatchupChecker/Matchup It's a much more complicated data analysis then a simple table of win rates which we saw earlier in the thread. For example for blood bowl a simple win loss table looks like this and is more similar to the structure of the Infinity data set we saw earlier: (note Blood Bowl's design philosophy is to intentionally have some teams be harder to play then others as well as the intrinisicRock Paper Scissors match up issues): https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=statistics There are game systems where the factions aren't too dissimilar including miniature games I discussed in my previous posts that's absolutely a fun way to design games. It is the case that for similar large scale army games that was poorly received by some sections of of largely one time warhammer players. Doesn't mean it's bad design philosophy - just wasn't well enough received. I don't know Infinity well enough to know if the factions are fairly similar in strengths and weaknesses if they are it's easier to get to your stated goal of a 50% head to head win rate for any faction vs faction matchup that's the checkers example. But it's clear AoS factions are very different from each other in strengths that's much harder to balance head to head win rates - often the internet consensus best build for a faction is the most RPS type (FEC is a good example.) In a system with an RPS underpinning could tweak to get the overall win rates to be similar to each other in a specific or evolving meta but head to head is very hard. In other words you can get an RPS system to have a 50% win rate per faction (if it's exactly 1/3rd rocks, 1/3rd paper and 1/3rd scissors) but it's a lot harder for the that type of system to have a 50% win rate for every match up.
  11. Read the other thread if we are trying to define balance long discussion there. Checkers is head to head perfect balance with no army differences, Chess has only very slight differences with a detectable variance in win rates (White has first move) and something like Rock Paper Scissors has huge 'faction' differences but presumably equivalent win rates for all factions across a large enough data set. Warhammer is intentionally built with a bit of a Rock Paper Scissors type system and that's not unusual in this type of design model with widely different factions with very different strengths and weaknesses. Some of those are hard counters to other factions. That's fairly common in many miniature systems GW or otherwise. This is an oversimplification but for example : an army reliant on heroes does poorly against an army that can snipe the heroes fairly easily. An army with with a few behemoths does worse against an army with an ability to put out a lot of mortal wounds to a limited number of targets. Warhammer is designed with a lot of between faction differences and internal to a faction a lot of flexibility in how you build an army. The internet may have determined the conensus optimal build for each faction (rightly or wrongly) but there is room to go counter to type or to build more of an all comers force vs one more specialized to win certain match ups (and likely lose others.) There are systems where the per faction special rules or design differences are minimal (Battletech at 3025 tech levels) but most larger scale miniature games tend to push that way. One of the complaints about early 9th Age and KoW 2.0 was the fact the factions felt very similar and to some players 'boring.' Because of the RPS design nature of Warhammer - you won't easily get a consistent 50% win rates for any two factions against each other. At best you get a 50% win rate against the total field of 'the meta.' But that meta keeps shifting with each book - the optimal army list for even a long since released Battle tome may be different now then it was 1 year ago because of that ongoing shifting of the potential pool of opponents. Shooting got better when Slaanesh were released however as it tend to be a fairly hard counter. The more Slaanesh there was in 'the meta' the better shooting was - Cities with a lot of shooting was about the end of Slaanesh's dominance (roughly speaking. )
  12. Vakarian I'd suggest your first and second paragraphs really don't make sense when taken together. If their focus isn't tournament gamers (and I agree with that assumption) and we know (as you have asserted above) the tournament results data set isn't particularly relevant for that focus, and that _no_ data set is going to be particularly helpful for that focus how do we get to a conclusion of use the data to make the game better. Is the most useful data from their standpoint sales? They could balance the game based on what kits are selling well and not selling well and possibly get to the answers that matter to them most. I understand and agree "perfect is the enemy of the good." But are we applying it correctly? Do we have 'good' now in Warhammer , is shooting for 'perfect' going to get in that way? I think if we ignore another maxim early programming and math modeling GIGO (Garbage in Garbage out) you might indeed have 'shooting for perfect get in the way of good' Will an analysis focusing on tournament results potentially make the game better for top of the GT balance and worse for the core sales focus of basement gamers? Does that meet GW or the player base's needs (very few members of the player base are serious tournament goers.) I'm not arguing we can't shoot for better balance - i'm saying math (no matter how intricate) based on faulty underlying data sets won't get you there any faster then a gestalt of the data. Could an experienced tournament player give you their sense of what's good and what's bad that would match the results of a 10,000 tournament game simple win loss analysis ? Almost certainly. Would either player impression or data set review pick up on 'this book has synergies or value in the emerging meta the majority of the players haven't recognized?' Probably not but the experienced tournament player would be much more likely to identify that then a highly lumped retrospective data set. Would either sources of balance analysis give you the best data to guide balance choices that would make the game better for the average player? Possibly not.
  13. Note it's not a sample size and P value type issue - that's really the least concern. It's depth and breadth of data and consensus on the underlying assumptions to do good quality of math you really want. What's the right assumption of player skill for determining balance? Should we balance for the average player (where the vast majority of the games are played and very very few get into any data set), the average GT level tournament player (significantly higher skill then the average player), or the top of the largest GTs tournament player (very very small group of players/games but the results that get the most internet commenting player attention.) What level player are you balancing for? Some books (Idoneth for example) perform much better in a very skilled players hands then an average players hands. Other books (I won't name one) might be 'easier cars to drive' so a good player vs an average player will have a smaller win rate differential.
  14. I'm willing to bet you are right as well What I'm saying is you don't have enough data in the available data set to have math get you there in an objective fashion. Your gut instinct is probably at least as right as math using a poor quality data set with missing core elements. Read the other thread - lots of discussion of the math and what we'd need to do good quality math. For example I'm willing to bet most games of AoS internationally aren't playing with the full rules as written in terms of mysterious terrain and GW specific terrain war scrolls. It's also probably the case that a good chunk of tournaments don't use them in full either. I'd also guess Ghyran as a Realm of Battle shows up less often at tournaments then it should if we were really randomly determining the Realm of Battle. The playtesters however are playing with those intended core rules. (and GW has said in their guidance of TO's for tournaments balance works better if we do use the rules as written.) Should we balance the game with the rules most convenient for TO's to use that avoid meta shifting random elements or should we balance the game and armies as intended? The rules writers are likely playtesting against armies that aren't released yet do we balance based on what won the last tournament or the meta as it will exist until AoS 3.0? Slaanesh, and Ossiarch looked pretty unbeatable until the next army book came out.
  15. MOM!!! Great stuff man. I wonder if there is a way to use it for an in store campaign. I've got Slaves to Darkness my original copy around the house someplace.
×
×
  • Create New...