How is 40k 7th edition "less competitive" than 40k 5th edition

[daboarder]

except we are not rolling equal dice. some races have more dice/dif types of dice effects and this further makes it impossible imo for it to ever be taken seriously. i think people would enjoy the game more (again i think this) trying to win with a NEW list. i always derive the most enjoyment being theunderdog and outthinking rather than doing the same thing better. the problem is with some codex, there just are not any good options

Its still fairly trivial to plot the statistical variance of a system that inherently relies of the numbers 1-10 and the roll of 6 sided dice.

Especially in this day and age with our computing power

[40kGamer]

Its still fairly trivial to plot the statistical variance of a system that inherently relies of the numbers 1-10 and the roll of 6 sided dice.

Especially in this day and age with our computing power

Absolutely. If the mathematical and statistical models were properly built into the game they would be transparent. (Meaning that none of us would notice that they were even there because they were so well done.) The problem with the current situation is the mathematical modeling behind the game is so poorly conceived (unbalanced) that even the lay gamer can work out mathematically optimal builds. Leading to the fact that most games are won in the list building phase and the actual tabletop spectacle is a sideshow instead of the main event. Would it be easy to map all the math and statistics behind all of the probable matchups and situations... Nope. Is it possible? Sure.

- - - Updated - - -

I dont know specifics, but based on Kirby's statements then yes I think its entirely based on upper management. In fact from the sounds of it GW suffers drastically from over fiddly upper management who could really learn how to delegate and not sweat the small stuff (like eddy)

Ah well... Feelings override analytics in most small to medium sized companies and a lot of owner-managers in these sized firms micromanage staff and processes. It's one reason so many businesses ultimately fail or stagnate.

[eosgreen]

Its still fairly trivial to plot the statistical variance of a system that inherently relies of the numbers 1-10 and the roll of 6 sided dice.

Especially in this day and age with our computing power

this doesnt change the fact that you can do everything right and still lose to a dice roll. doesnt matter if 10 other games go in your favor. rng/calculated risk, a game where both armys are not at all equal in any way shape or form should not be taken seriously.

does a tennis player score a point but then someone rolls a 6 so it doesnt count? does a football team say well this play should work but then they roll a 1 and instead of a touchdown its an interception? no, its a point if he earns it with hard work and talent ALONE and its a touchdown if someone displays more skill than the other team. on a warhammer board you can get bad terrain since both sides have no symmetry for your style army, bad dice rolls to determine when units arrive and all of these things can be calculated until the one time they fail. "what are the chances of them hitting that.... oh ****" and then you are REALLY behind or lose.

too much luck. tabletop games should be for fun only and its frankly sickening to see people take this and games like magic cards seriously

[Charon]

this doesnt change the fact that you can do everything right and still lose to a dice roll.

If this happens, you made a whole lot of mistakes on the way. You will never ever lose because of "one dice roll". This is in fact the only thing they did right. Players can always blame the dice so they do not have to admit that they made lots of mistakes.

does a tennis player score a point but then someone rolls a 6 so it doesnt count? does a football team say well this play should work but then they roll a 1 and instead of a touchdown its an interception? no, its a point if he earns it with hard work and talent ALONE and its a touchdown if someone displays more skill than the other team.

According to your logic no sport should ever be taken serious as there is a chance of rain, slipping, injury,... just like... a dice roll...

too much luck. tabletop games should be for fun only and its frankly sickening to see people take this and games like magic cards seriously

thats why people try to minimize "bad luck" by moving smart, targeting smart and setting up the game in a smart way. If you can't do that you can call it luck all day but it is the same people who end up in top spots. Lucky every time?
I think its more sickening seeing people wanting to dictatace other people how they should have fun.

[daboarder]

this doesnt change the fact that you can do everything right and still lose to a dice roll. doesnt matter if 10 other games go in your favor. rng/calculated risk, a game where both armys are not at all equal in any way shape or form should not be taken seriously.

does a tennis player score a point but then someone rolls a 6 so it doesnt count? does a football team say well this play should work but then they roll a 1 and instead of a touchdown its an interception? no, its a point if he earns it with hard work and talent ALONE and its a touchdown if someone displays more skill than the other team. on a warhammer board you can get bad terrain since both sides have no symmetry for your style army, bad dice rolls to determine when units arrive and all of these things can be calculated until the one time they fail. "what are the chances of them hitting that.... oh ****" and then you are REALLY behind or lose.

too much luck. tabletop games should be for fun only and its frankly sickening to see people take this and games like magic cards seriously

Im not sure you under the point of statistics.

Sure you can roll 12 ones with 12 dice. But you'll only do that every million or more rolls....thats the point. The skill and competitive edge as a player is to minimize the variance in outcomes through your tactical choices. The thing that makes GW poorly designed is that the units you take often dominates this variance over the actions you take. Or the statistical variance is boorked.

[40kGamer]

Im not sure you under the point of statistics.

Sure you can roll 12 ones with 12 dice. But you'll only do that every million or more rolls....thats the point. The skill and competitive edge as a player is to minimize the variance in outcomes through your tactical choices. The thing that makes GW poorly designed is that the units you take often dominates this variance over the actions you take. Or the statistical variance is boorked.

Indeed. The comparative values of units is a complete crap shot rather than a calculated value. That's why you can't have functional pick up games or events and why I have relegated 40k to a beer in the basement devil may care game.

[eosgreen]

both players are playing with the same rain. both players dont have symmetrical or even reverse symmetrical terrain features. add in the fact that the objectives are randomized, some armys are better than others at securing them just by design.

also the same players are winning with the same lists but i know for a fact far far inferior players have knocked out top players from tournys. this just doesnt happen in sports nearly as often and why is that? rng. i can beat 2 of my friends in basketball because i played it my entire life. i worked out with a trainer and had better coordination. i can win 100/100 games 2v1. that cant be done in warhammer even 1v1 because you are going to get bad luck in many of the games and lets not even talk about teams who enter tournys with guys who run armys to DENY you points rofl.

im not saying people cant have fun being competitive but taking a game like warhammer seriously is funny because you are pigeonholed into choosing a predetermined style. show me someone running eldar without wave serpents winning tournys (not local crappy ones)

thats just 40k have any of you rolled 5 turns of HORRIBLE winds of magic in fantasy when you are heavily reliant on magic and then MISSCAST the only decent turn you got? sorry but that kinda bad luck completely happens and illegitimizes any competitive drive a pureist could have

skill shouldnt be about playing well, moving well, making good decisions and then hoping the dice rolls support your decisionmaking.

300 thousand people watch hearthstone a card game online which awards 100thousand dollars to the winner and numerous smaller tournys during the year. ITS VERY SIMPLE and the decisionmaking process is very very easy but its considered an "esport". i equate warhammer and all tabletop games to this cardgame in that its competitive because people are competitive not because its worthy of competition.

TLDR

- both sides need identical deployment zones
- the game could only be competitive if it was balanced around ONE mission so certain armys dont have an adv and book balance can have a goal to shoot for

without at LEAST these two features there is no way warhammer should be ever taken seriously. (again we are talking taking it seriously not just enjoying competition. im talking the guys who REALLY care about the win and the win only)

[40kGamer]

both players are playing with the same rain. both players dont have symmetrical or even reverse symmetrical terrain features. add in the fact that the objectives are randomized, some armys are better than others at securing them just by design. )

Balanced game design does not depend on symmetry. You can have asymmetrical game play while maintaining reasonably fair probability distributions for the outcomes.

im not saying people cant have fun being competitive but taking a game like warhammer seriously is funny because you are pigeonholed into choosing a predetermined style. show me someone running eldar without wave serpents winning tournys (not local crappy ones)

*This* is exactly the problem I am referring to with the game design. It is a direct result of a spitball approach to point values. An Eldar player feeling compelled to take Serpent spam to be ‘competitive’ is a glaring flaw in the game design as a foot army should have an equal probability of success.

Skill shouldnt be about playing well, moving well, making good decisions and then hoping the dice rolls support your decisionmaking.

The dice insert the random event factor. The skill is in min/maxing your probability of success through your decisions. However those decisions should be on the table decisions NOT list building decisions. The fact that the game is easily decided in the list building phase is a direct result of nonrepresentative point values.

- both sides need identical deployment zones
- the game could only be competitive if it was balanced around ONE mission so certain armys dont have an adv and book balance can have a goal to shoot for

without at LEAST these two features there is no way warhammer should be ever taken seriously. (again we are talking taking it seriously not just enjoying competition. im talking the guys who REALLY care about the win and the win only)

Nope and nope. To be mathematically balanced both sides would need an equal distribution of similar (not exact) terrain features as that assumption would factor into the comparative points values algorithm. Variable missions could also be factored into the algorithm as well.

Also no one should confuse the complexity of a comparative point value algorithm with its impossibility. The math very much exists, it is just not being utilized.

[eosgreen]

Balanced game design does not depend on symmetry. You can have asymmetrical game play while maintaining reasonably fair probability distributions for the outcomes.



*This* is exactly the problem I am referring to with the game design. It is a direct result of a spitball approach to point values. An Eldar player feeling compelled to take Serpent spam to be ‘competitive’ is a glaring flaw in the game design as a foot army should have an equal probability of success.



The dice insert the random event factor. The skill is in min/maxing your probability of success through your decisions. However those decisions should be on the table decisions NOT list building decisions. The fact that the game is easily decided in the list building phase is a direct result of nonrepresentative point values.



Nope and nope. To be mathematically balanced both sides would need an equal distribution of similar (not exact) terrain features as that assumption would factor into the comparative points values algorithm. Variable missions could also be factored into the algorithm as well.

Also no one should confuse the complexity of a comparative point value algorithm with its impossibility. The math very much exists, it is just not being utilized.

so you are saying a game with 10+ armies can have an even battle when one side is a shooty army and the other side is a combat army but the terrain heavily favors one side? oh ok

im aware it doesnt have to all be the same for there to be balance. im very competitive with sc2 and each race (at one point...) was strong early late and mid game and it is "balanced" the dif is warhammer has nothing to make up for the flaws. in sc2 a terran player of a low level is garbage compared to a protoss because of the requirement in speed. assuming you made good decisions nothing can makeup for the fact that you got screwed over with terran or missions lol

[40kGamer]

so you are saying a game with 10+ armies can have an even battle when one side is a shooty army and the other side is a combat army but the terrain heavily favors one side? oh ok

Absolutely, if the PV of the models were created from a systematic, comparable probability model. Also if you follow the terrain setup from the rules there is no reason the terrain should favor either army. Terrain should be one of the more neutral aspects of the game.