Idea: Doomsayer Academy

[MathPasta]

The point of this part of your post seems to be that all units should be balanced because this is good for the game. I don?t think anybody disagrees with this. You seem to rail against people saying ?it doesn?t matter if units are balanced as long as they are fun to use?. However, nobody has said this as far as I can tell. You seem to be responding to a thread I read on warseer a few weeks ago. We all want all units in the game to be as balanced and competitive as possible.

Im talking about excuses like "The / Jack/ Beast/Warcaster isn't MEANT to be competitive. Hes just for funsies". It just bugs me if they say it like that.

[

I honestly don?t see how you imagine such a mathematical proof for the effectiveness of trenchers to be possible. Are we talking about using computers to crunch numbers on every possible permutation of possible moves and circumstances that can happen in a game of WM involving trenchers, and getting some sort of statistical data that should show that trenchers are in fact effective? And looking at this data should change people?s experiences and perceptions of how effective trenchers are in their own games?

If they take their stats, explain the best strategies to use them, show how it compares to other units, take into account combos, then show its effectiveness in perhaps an examplary battle report (With each side taking thier A+/- game) then that would do it.

It?s interesting to think about, but to me it seems outside of the realm of the possible. Maybe it?s because I?m not a scientist or a statistician.

Its actually really easy. I won't go into the details because i don't have the time but its easy enough that you can do it on a piece of paper using 8th grade maths.

For example, take avarage damage values, defence values, ARM values and use probability to understand who is more likely to take less damage/deal more damage and take it from there.

I?m also quite confident that PP don?t do anything like this, currently at least. Otherwise why would they have asked for testing feedback during the field test, when they could just have crunched the numbers to mathematically prove that everything is balanced?

For the things that cannot be mathematically balanced. Like movement. And finding combos that they didn't notice.

[Wishing]

Sorry for not responding to your other replies, but I think my response to the below will summarise what I'd have to say.

For the things that cannot be mathematically balanced. Like movement. And finding combos that they didn't notice.

I guess that's the key here, really. When you say you can crunch the numbers and mathematically prove a unit's effectiveness, I assume you include all aspects of movement and tactics in there. Which, it seems we agree, is just not easy to do.

Simply comparing stats between different units doesn't prove anything about how effective it is in an actual game, because the game isn't played by just placing the units against each other and rolling dice. The game is all about movement and tactics, and a unit like Trenchers is clearly costed not just based on its stats, but on its ability to, for example, influence the enemy's movement and options by use of its smoke screen. You just can't put a mathematically calculated cost on the effect abilities like that will have on the game.

[MathPasta]

Not everything, but it can help ease some gaps like:

Arm VS Def (How much Arm is worth one defence)

Accuracy VS Damage (How much damage is worth the accuracy)

And most importantly, if there IS a good competitive way to play the unit then lets have PP show how its done competitively and why its priced the way it is (Cough Man O wars Cough). If they can't then they fail at being good game designers and show themselves to be incompetent.

[Wishing]

And most importantly, if there IS a good competitive way to play the unit then lets have PP show how its done competitively and why its priced the way it is (Cough Man O wars Cough). If they can't then they fail at being good game designers and show themselves to be incompetent.

I personally feel that this attitude is slightly misguided in terms of zealousness. PP's job is to make a good game. Their job is not to convince individual dissatisfied fans that the individual parts of their game are well designed. You may feel that your opinion - say, that Manowars are overpriced - is fact, but it is and always will be opinion*. That you feel that way does not make PP incompetent at game design. That we are all here, passionately debating about the game, shows that PP are in fact really good at game design. In my opinion at least.

* You will probably dismiss this as uncompetitive nonsense, but I remember hearing some debate somewhere that all-MOW armies were really hard to beat and considered very cheesy at one point in time. Just for example's sake.

[Jake the Dog]

I find it funny how people take a game and treat it like a blood sport. Why so serious Internet?
And no, I'm not saying you can't be competitive or have tournaments. But in the end, it's a game with glorified toys, I don't see the point of being so serious about it.

[MathPasta]

Before we continue I must say thank for for at the very least not instantly dismissing me and saying "Oh you idiot you just sux0rs. Learn to play game. PP never makes mistakes so shut up"

PP's job is to make a good game.

Agreed, and part of a good competitive (As the point of the game is competition. Casual or not) game is good balance.

MOW are simply statistically a poor option and are literally (Statistically in a faction that takes pride in having slightly higher stats and working without heavy synergy in return for a lack of special effects) a worse option then every other heavy infantry unit in the game.

Subjectively, one can like them, or have difficulty against them but that does not deny that objectively they are a poor unit.

In addition to not covering the Light warjack role by being expensive slow, and low on DEF, heavy infantry was initially a KHADOR ONLY thing in return for not having any Light warjacks.

Not only to give heavy infantry to every other faction but to also make Khadors the Objectively worst is quite frankly insulting.

edit:

And call this tinfoil hat wearing lunacy, but showing MOW as the only heavy infantry in the mkII rulebook made me think that khador was the only one with heavy infantry and was disapointed when I saw how much better bastions where.

If they could show WHY they did this, then that would ease my wounds.

And us debating proves the game is fun. Not that its balanced which would have truly cemented the comapany in my eyes as great.

[katadder]

cygnar doesnt get heavy infantry :-p

[MathPasta]

cygnar doesnt get heavy infantry :-p

And niether does the Retribution. But 8/10 is a far cry from "Unique thing thats supposed to make up for a lack of lights"

[Tyr852]

Granted how much we are bickering over the thought of PP making comments on units , this proves the point we would do a bang up job and be totally civil if they were do do more in depth things I can see them writing up articles as we speak .

I can't think of any company that doesn't have balance issues especially so when you have hundreds of possible interactions and compositions. The fact that I feel that when I field my army that I at least have a 50/50 -/+ 10% chance on the outcome is a pretty good showing that things are for the most part working as intended.

There is also people who god forbid just like playing units because they like them regardless of efficiency.

[MathPasta]

Im not saying thats wrong. I just hate the argument of "this wasnt made to be balanced".

Also. This discusion is very civil. Nobody is namecalling or insulting others.

[Tyr852]

No but saying that everything should be balanced isn't much of a valid argument either as it's damn near impossible to make that happen , aside from symmetrical board games (ie chess) it's a great dream but I've never seen it pulled off in any other format so I'm not going to slight PP for maybe having some underpowered models (or is that that they are costed right and the others are undercosted for what they do?). It's like my friend who plays Cygnar , he really likes trenchers and as I've said they aren't bad units persay there is just other units that do things better but you won't auto lose if you put them on the table.

I look at other similar formats such as CCG's who have a actual competitive tour (where money is involved and not just a couple bucks ) and even they have a cards that never see competitive play but they are aimed at different player base much like some of the units in Warmachine and Hordes. If there is enough units in a faction to be competitive (which there are) then not everything needs to be balanced to a tee as competitive people will naturally gravitate to certain things regardless.

I am sadly in the opposite camp of hating the argument that why can't you wave a magic wand and make everything balanced because clearly it's a simple fix but you are right , we are keeping it civil but we are also just discussing something that hasn't happened. The civil unrest I admit is more of a foreshadowing of things to come if PP did something like this as I look at many of the top MMO people who are active with their fan base and it's a BBQing of them daily , I really don't see how it would be any different here.

[MathPasta]

No but saying that everything should be balanced

As much as possible. And there are plenty of things that could use allot more ironing out. Seriously, game designers for Pen and paper RPGs get allot more very harsh criticism for imbalance, and those games aren't even competitive and contain about a billion times more elements then warmachine does.

If there is enough units in a faction to be competitive (which there are) then not everything needs to be balanced to a tee as competitive people will naturally gravitate to certain things regardless.

Which results in stagnating metas and competitive lists alongside making people that bought certain units based on description feel like suckers.

The civil unrest I admit is more of a foreshadowing of things to come if PP did something like this as I look at many of the top MMO people who are active with their fan base and it's a BBQing of them daily , I really don't see how it would be any different here.

Thats only if they show themselves to be incompetent. And if they are then they deserve it.

[gunslingerpro]

MathPasta, I think you're looking for a magic bullet. In a game where every point choice in an army list can seriously alter the roles of everything else in the list, there isn't really a simple way to do what you're asking.

You want hard math. We can all do the hard math. But it's the essence, or the soul, of a unit you're missing out on. That is difficult to quantify.

It comes down to a play style, not a number.

[MathPasta]

Hmm. Yeah. Still. A large chunk of any unit is hard maths, and that's what playtesting if for. Im still baffled by how they let some very obvious stuff through.

I see many mistakes in the game that I would change (Very core mistakes) If I wanted too create MKIII.

[Wishing]

I see many mistakes in the game that I would change (Very core mistakes) If I wanted too create MKIII.

That sounds good - why don't you write up all the things that you feel are core mistakes made by PP that you would change, and put them in a format so that they function as errata to the current Mk2 rules? Ie. start with the core rules, go through the different sections bit by bit and point out what you would keep and what you would change. Then move on to the model rules and faction by faction explain which models you would tweak and why. Then you would basically have your own homemade Mk3, which you can try to get your friends to playtest with you.

This may sound like I am being sarcastic in a "see if you can do a better job, I didn't think so" way, but it's actually not. I did exactly this for Warhammer 40k myself, ie. wrote a complete new edition with full rules for every army, and I have been playing this version with one of my friends for several years now with great results. I love the fact that when you write your own rules, nothing is set in stone, and if, say, MOWs turn out to feel overcosted, then you just tweak them for next time you play.

[MathPasta]

No offence taken. Im planning on doing so, but Im afraid that the majority of the people on this forum are critical of any criticism of PP (Newb- learn to play better you sux0r).

I really enjoy arguing with you, and you make some really good points that changed some of my opinions on stuff.

Im also a bit worried that I might lack people that are willing to give my unofficial edition a go. But if you where willing to review the stuff I would gladly do it.

Some things I would do is:

Try to balance out Infantry VS WarNouns as even light infantry, with a single buff/Debuff ends up scrapping them in a round due too charge dice whilst WarNouns get swamped because they simply can't put out enough attacks a turn/ buffs help out infantry more then they do WNs.

Address what each factions heart is, and tune them in that direction. I may need some help with this as Im only heavily Proficient with Khador and Piggies.

Try too edit infantry and Nouns that do everything.

And fix the Focus VS Fury rules.

[PG_jamano]

I think alot of what it comes down to is if PP admits some units are poopy, people will ask why they don't do anything about it if they know of the problem, but rather than issue a yearly update or errata or something, PP's design is to rebalance things with new models, which works great for some things, and bad for others(if you make a new solo to buff trenchers, you make an already expensive platform even more expensive, for example). Which takes time as far as books and release schedules. And if they claim some unit is good that everyone knows isn't, it makes them look bad or like they're trying to push models off the shelf at expense of the players. Better to just stay opaque about it.

Fact is that PP isn't perfect, and some of the problems are OUR fault from the field test, some basic stuff is obvious like how much less useful aoe3's are in mkii because of units spreading out. But during the field test many people were still playing the way they used to, making the AoE's more useful than they normally are.

[Tyr852]

Actually if you look in the forums there is a subsection for homebrew rules and units , so it's not that the community isn't welcoming to the idea and that PP is against it. I think we can both agree to disagree though on the matter and I wish the best in making the rules , I've help designed a couple large gaming systems and they are a lot of effort.

[Wishing]

No offence taken. Im planning on doing so, but Im afraid that the majority of the people on this forum are critical of any criticism of PP (Newb- learn to play better you sux0r).

I really enjoy arguing with you, and you make some really good points that changed some of my opinions on stuff.

Im also a bit worried that I might lack people that are willing to give my unofficial edition a go. But if you where willing to review the stuff I would gladly do it.

Some things I would do is:

Try to balance out Infantry VS WarNouns as even light infantry, with a single buff/Debuff ends up scrapping them in a round due too charge dice whilst WarNouns get swamped because they simply can't put out enough attacks a turn/ buffs help out infantry more then they do WNs.

Address what each factions heart is, and tune them in that direction. I may need some help with this as Im only heavily Proficient with Khador and Piggies.

Try too edit infantry and Nouns that do everything.

And fix the Focus VS Fury rules.

You are very kind. From the way you present your list here, it seems like you have a list of things you don't like, but no specific ideas for how to fix them. This is probably a crucial issue, since going from simply pointing out a perceived problem to actually working out a workable solution is not an easy step. Regarding reviewing your ideas, I don't think I'm the right person since I play very rarely, but posting in the house rules forum would hopefully get some people's attention.

However, the point of the thread was to do with whether or not PP should actively engage in replying to the criticism they get about some models being underpowered. It is clear that many forumgoers get frustrated by the fact that they do not, but PG_jamano brings up some excellent reasons above as to why this would could easily be a PR disaster for PP while gaining them very little. Saying (like you did) that they deserve a PR disaster if they cannot make their explanations convincing enough isn't exactly a good argument to actually make them do it.

[MathPasta]

You are very kind. From the way you present your list here, it seems like you have a list of things you don't like, but no specific ideas for how to fix them.

I do mate. But I need some hard maths/balancing in order to make them work. Im working on them. Im not just spitting empty air.

Saying (like you did) that they deserve a PR disaster if they cannot make their explanations convincing enough isn't exactly a good argument to actually make them do it.

Exactly. I wish everybody on this forum argued like you. Pushing your own ideal, yet somehow also encompassing mine as well.

[Kuarnix]

I find it funny how people take a game and treat it like a blood sport. Why so serious Internet?

Hah, yes, I get confused by that and the A-game / casual play idea.....do people throw games on purpose?

[Brandubh]

Hah, yes, I get confused by that and the A-game / casual play idea.....do people throw games on purpose?

It's the difference between saying, "I'll take this list because it will be fun / funny / fluffy" as opposed to "I'll take this list because it will crush my opponent into the ground and I shall feast on the tears of his fatherless children."

[PG_Duckboy]

It's the difference between saying, "I'll take this list because it will be fun / funny / fluffy" as opposed to "I'll take this list because it will crush my opponent into the ground and I shall feast on the tears of his fatherless children."

I guess there could be a 3rd. " i will take this list because he will destroy me off the face of the planet, but he will have fun doing it".

[gunslingerpro]

I wish you luck, MathPasta. But I have to say, do you really think that you, by yourself, can fix perceived issues with a game that went through thousands of playtests and has an entrie staff dedicated to monitoring it? Or that there is not inherently a reason for those perceived 'issues'?

Maybe a bit of stretch, yeah?

[MathPasta]

I wish you luck, MathPasta. But I have to say, do you really think that you, by yourself, can fix perceived issues with a game that went through thousands of playtests and has an entrie staff dedicated to monitoring it? Or that there is not inherently a reason for those perceived 'issues'?

Maybe a bit of stretch, yeah?

Well I have made my own RPG...... And if Wishing Can do it, well then- so can I.

[Wishing]

I still think that the point is that whether something is a mistake or a problem is - not always but often - in the eye of the beholder. There is also a huge difference between making a game (from scratch or a mod) for personal use, and making one for sale and marketing to thousands of people. You don't need to worry about errata when you are writing house rules, and you can be bold and daring when writing rules because you can always tweak them later. When you publish a game for reals, you want to keep stuff like errata to an absolute minimum, because the more the actual game deviates from the printed rulebook, the worse it is for beginning players (who pay your wages). So the preference is to be conservative and "safe" rather than making stuff powerful to make it attractive, but risk power creep and errata in the future.

[MathPasta]

Well they kinda dropped the ball on that.

Most of the "Broken" and unbalancing stuff is from the earlier releases.

[katadder]

well most of the earlier stuff went through the mass field test. some stuff is over/under pointed but mainly because of a designers point of view (see trenchers) or because of the points system where if you double everything in points some stuff would be double +1, some double -1

[Panzeh]

I'd love to hear why PP made certain decisions that they did on many models that are stinkers, but I also don't think any good can come of it. If you look at costing trends, though, I think you can infer what PP designers consider valuable.

Then again, I play Ret, so most of the units are pretty solid, except for Houseguard Rifles, and while they aren't worth it, I can see why PP priced them this way. CRA into melee is a pretty powerful ability but with only one shot at 10 points, it's not really worth it.

[West996]

As has already been said, it is a very cool idea, although as also been said, many people wouldn't be any happier with the explanation then they were with the unit in the first place.

Also, PP does have a formula they use to cost out units, but as I understood it they keep it a secret. And I do think it is their secret to keep. If they released that you would have players going through every unit to make sure that it exactly met the formula, which it would not and probably for good reason.

I think your best bet if you have a unit you feel is under powered or hard to use, is to ask on your faction forums or experiment with it yourself. Having PP tell you what they had in mind when they designed the unit may not help you at all depending your meta and your play style.

[Wishing]

Also, PP does have a formula they use to cost out units, but as I understood it they keep it a secret.

I find this interesting and would like to hear more. If there was such a formula, I'd be quite confused about why the relative points costs changed so differently for different models/units in the Mk2 transition, for example.

[West996]

I find this interesting and would like to hear more. If there was such a formula, I'd be quite confused about why the relative points costs changed so differently for different models/units in the Mk2 transition, for example.

Are you comparing models/units from the same faction? Or from different factions?

It isn't an easy thing to accurately compare why a unit in Menoth costs this many points, and a similar unit in Khador costs more...

Many many things need to be considered here such as what buffs the unit has access to, what synergies that unit can make use of with in its faction, and even what those synergies cost..

Then there are the age old debates like Slayer vs Crusader. They cost the same points right? The simple truth is that a Slayer doesn't do for Cryx what a Crusader does for Menoth and vise versa..

[Wishing]

Are you comparing models/units from the same faction? Or from different factions?

I was asking about how you can state with certainty that they have a formula, as opposed to estimation. If you can state it with certainty, rather than just speculate, someone from PP must have told you about it.

And with regards to differences, I was thinking about how the Idrian Skirmishers, as one example, had lots of abilities and a low cost in Mk1, and few abilities and a high cost in Mk2, when other units stayed with a similar ratio of cost to abilities. Doesn't seem to make sense if units were costed by a strict formula, as opposed to estimation. As I see it at least.