40k The Balancing Act

[stuciferthemighty]

I'm really surprised to find that GW doesn't playtest new rules as much within the community. That's a given when crafting a game system. I think Warmachine is going to run into the same problem further down the line, since it becomes harder to balance once you start adding new factions (something they've mitigated somewhat by also updating each faction with a model or two when they release a new army).

I think true balance is not quite possible, since the meta with always get bent to favor certain builds. It happens MUCH quicker now because of copy-paste lists. I think it's not a bad thing to work towards though.

[DarkLink]

Warmachine has as much stuff as 40k does already. If you don't count Space Marines as multiple factions, which you really shouldn't even though they do play slightly differently, Warmahordes only has like two fewer factions than 40k, and each faction actually has more units, characters, and solos than any 40k codex. The games are of similar scale in that regard, yet Warmahordes, while not perfect, is far better balanced than 40k is. Point is, it doen't matter if "true balance" is possible, because regardless of that, GW can do a much, much better job balancing the game than it currently does.

[Denzark]

All that would be acceptable if it at least looked like GW was trying. But they're not therefore it is not.

When you say trying, do you mean trying at all, or trying to find balance? The former I would say they do. The latter isn't as clear - but are you more worried about what they look like they are trying to do, ie the amount of smoke being blown up our respective posteriors because we are the almighty customer and should be listened to, or the end result?

I'm really surprised to find that GW doesn't playtest new rules as much within the community. That's a given when crafting a game system. I think Warmachine is going to run into the same problem further down the line, since it becomes harder to balance once you start adding new factions (something they've mitigated somewhat by also updating each faction with a model or two when they release a new army).

I think true balance is not quite possible, since the meta with always get bent to favor certain builds. It happens MUCH quicker now because of copy-paste lists. I think it's not a bad thing to work towards though.

Stucifer - Why would you be surprised that GW doesn't playtest in the community? It would only allow third party leeches a la CHS to start their rip-offs early. Also, why do you say it is a 'given' when crafting a gaming system if GW - hardly virgins in this area - don't do it?

[DarkLink]

Because if you want to make balanced rules, you must playtest. Most of the balance issues in 40k come from the fact that GW doesn't do much playtesting. They're not concerned, they don't feel balanced rules are very important as they think that players either don't take the game very seriously and just play beer and pretzels, or they just collect minis and don't even play at all.

[Denzark]

Ah, they do playtest though. But internally. To stop disclosure far out. There is a direct cause and effect with CHS and their IP theft here.

You are right about not being concerned, because what they are concerned about is the bottom line and that is not causing them worry. We're going round in circles on several threads here. They have had nothing that concerns them that their business model is failing and needs changing. There is no evidence 'balancing' the rules any better will punt more models. You only need 2 rulebooks minimum to play the game - your army's codex and the BRB. Once you have those, rules are almost nugatory, and no one has given any evidence that better rules shifts more models. Probably the bloody opposite - under-costed over powered rule shift models!

[DarkLink]

Even internally they don't playtest very much, as I understand. But, yes, their current strategy only requires rules to exist, not to be balanced, and it is profitable. That said, I'm pretty confident in saying they have a lot of growth opportunity if they put a little more energy in that direction.

[Wolfshade]

I'm really surprised to find that GW doesn't playtest new rules as much within the community. That's a given when crafting a game system. I think Warmachine is going to run into the same problem further down the line, since it becomes harder to balance once you start adding new factions (something they've mitigated somewhat by also updating each faction with a model or two when they release a new army).

I think true balance is not quite possible, since the meta with always get bent to favor certain builds. It happens MUCH quicker now because of copy-paste lists. I think it's not a bad thing to work towards though.

In another thread this was touched upon. The old GW intranet used to have the results of the latest playtesting and GW managers being fans would share the results with those in the shops and so people would respond to the latest rules and buy stuff, then when the actual rules came out it wasn't like the rumour so people would be mighty annoyed. That and it allows competition to get stuff to market first.

[daboarder]

In another thread this was touched upon. The old GW intranet used to have the results of the latest playtesting and GW managers being fans would share the results with those in the shops and so people would respond to the latest rules and buy stuff, then when the actual rules came out it wasn't like the rumour so people would be mighty annoyed. That and it allows competition to get stuff to market first.

It also blew up in there face when WD had a pitcure of the Witch hunter playtest being done with only 20 or so games......yeah solid.

Speaking of "balance" this idea of changing things on facebook, my god thats going to be a mess. How hard is it to host a PDF of that same text on a god damned website thats not social media, this is getting ridiculous.

[GrauGeist]

You forgot to mention you are working within the constraints of a single d6 result as well in most cases, which while the predominant medium of dice rolling for war-games and tabletops minis originally, they largely constricts balance options artificially that could be expanded with d8, d10 or d12 for example, in what is a fairly mechanics heavy game.

With d3s, re-rolls and Thorpian 6s, it's really not bad. Especially as there are typically 2 or 3 rounds of die-rolling.

[GrauGeist]

I hadn't considered the effect of the D6, but I shall give it some thought:

Outside of this discussion of balance, I personally, prefer the D6/D3 mechanism better than the old D3, D4, D6, D8, D10, D12, D24 etc. mechanism. I think it is far simpler, though a more simplistic approach can sacrifice balance and the ability to fine tune.

D3 and D6 mechanics, with re-rolls, forces the designer to make real choices, versus fudging with a d8 or d4 . Or d100/d1000 tables. Ugh. Generally, when I see other than 6-siders being used, I often have to wonder just how hard the designer worked, because those non-standard dice allow for a lot of kitchen sinking, vs cutting the fat to get to the core of the simulation.