40k fix at the meta level? - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
General 40k This is the place to talk about everything related to Warhammer 40k.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 24 (permalink) Old 02-02-16, 08:45 AM Thread Starter
jin
Senior Member
 
jin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 205
Reputation: 8
Default 40k fix at the meta level?

I laughed reading on BOLS about a wulfen meet DA list combo.
Someone speculated that the game may "spontaneously explode" if it got any more broken.
So true.

But, I think that there is a fix for this sort of thing at a community level, such as with the ITC.

One is to put up a "rarity" coefficient in front of points costs for units that are over-underpowered.
Note that this rarity value can be assigned as part of a running narrative,
or drawn from scenario cards randomly,
so this is easily addable as a second layer of the game once the value system is in place.

Basically, the idea is that the best units get tapped more often,
run through a hot period with a wave of excellent recruits, or better equipment,
and so become more expensive to field both because they are likely taking losses on a number of fronts
and are also under greater demand -
I mean, GW can make infinite wulfen, but that ain't how it is in the game.
So, OP cheez like wraithknights and scatbikes and d-scythes will be weighted heavily, and cost more.
Plus, taking more than one or two of something should end up costing more, depending on scarcity and so on...

On the other hand, less powerful "fluffier" stuff might get a coefficient less than one
so that taking storm guardians might be encouraged
while too many wave serps are also discouraged due to scarcity multipliers.

These values can be voted on, tested regionally and adjusted over a period of time.
Narratives/campaigns can be constructed with these multipliers implicated.
And, this way, tournament organizers can design events with greater control...
we might imagine global narrative driven events in this way really,
all computer tracked with for example
the west fielding on the one hand and then losing on the other hand (2 dimensions)
more of unit type X than Y,
so the scarcity modifier is higher for X than Y.
Scarcity multipliers will be different for different regions as different areas play different styles.
this thing could be super huge.
in fact, i want to run it.
if itc called me i would take the job.
guaranteed epic...

Anyways, am I way off base here?
Couldn't something like this work?
I mean, the ITC already does something like this, as is...
jin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 24 (permalink) Old 02-02-16, 09:10 AM
Entropy Fetishist
 
Mossy Toes's Avatar
Mossy Toes's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Eš
Posts: 4,249
Reputation: 117
Default

Since, after all, in the fluff Mutilators are the most common foot soldier of the Chaos forces.

Honestly: it sounds like an incredible amount of bookkeeping for an asymmetrical fix that in many cases won't help. An Eldar Jetbike list... look, it's running entirely common units, just every single model happens to have a scatter laser! Or wave serpents, in the last Eldar codex, before they were tuned down and every single other unit in that book was tuned up to as powerful as they used to be.

Some folks run a comp system that is.. difficult to balance. In the end it becomes a matter of who can balance not only the explicit limitations of the ruleset, points, and formation options, but also metagaming the metagame to recognize the under-comped units, and so on. It adds a recursive rabbit hole of scheming while making everyone's day rougher.

That's not to say it doesn't make some broken cheese-spam more palatable--it totally does, in many cases, even as GW moves further closer to releasing broken cheese-spam for every single army (seriously, have you seen those Wulfen rules?). I just think that a comp system for competitive balance is complex enough that you shouldn't try to rationalize it on the competitive side of things with a fluffy explanation, as that way lies, erm, inefficient and ineffective sorting rationale.

CSM Plog, Tactica

What sphinx of plascrete and adamantium bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination? Imperator! Imperator!

Last edited by Mossy Toes; 02-02-16 at 09:13 AM.
Mossy Toes is offline  
post #3 of 24 (permalink) Old 02-02-16, 10:43 AM
DA GOLDEN WAAAGH
 
Battman's Avatar
Battman's Flag is: Australia
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 1,285
Reputation: 14
Default

Certainly agree with the sentiments, this game that we all love, does need ballencing to make it "fare" but thats just part of this game its not well ballenced, the points system isn't even ballence within single books let alone between them. But thats just how it is. If all we cared about was balenced rules and units we would play chess or checkers.

This idea sounds like many before it, a community run "COMP" yes if implementation is correct; 100% perfect actually it would work, but even with testing and more testing and more testing. Imbalances will be found, new power units will be found and maybe even the "OP" units may be what was originally the weakest mutilators , assualt centurions or even emperor forbid mandrakes.

These kind of ideas can and are great, certain things can help ballence things but in the end do we really need it? If its just you and a buddy playing in the basement have a chat, if one army is much more "powerful" ask them to scale it back. If its for competition? You may have to select one of the "Top Tier armies" to be on a level playing feild.

Only two ideas apart from this I'll suggest, though each has its own flaws:

● High lander 40k (There only may be one); only one selection for a section of the force org may be take untill all other options are exhausted eg if I'm building an ork list i must have one BOYS squad and a GRETCHIN squad before i can take another BOYS squad. The main flaw with this is that the problems involving spamming units is sometimes even limited to certain codexes armies such as a SEER STAR don't particularly care if the other units are removed the deathstar itself functions quite well on its own. With this case the problem isn't removed just a new power is set.

● Handicapping in points; armies or codexes would be handicapped depending on their apparent strenght, i was thinking in increments of 50 points if there are 5 teirs of armies the top teir or strongest armies would have a 250 point handicap. But yet again this just shifts the scale.



Da Golden Waaagh!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlestix View Post
Dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka BATORK!!!
Battman is offline  
 
post #4 of 24 (permalink) Old 02-02-16, 12:05 PM
Critique for da CriticGod
 
Kreuger's Avatar
Kreuger's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Posts: 3,349
Reputation: 43
Default

Here's a revolutionary alternative, GW could use a real balance system when devising the unit rules where each attribute has a points value attached.

The designers could then use statistical analysis AND play testing to arrive at final adjustments.
@jin I don't know when you started playing GW games but in the early days of 40k and fantasy battle army selection was based on percentages. E.g. >25% of troops, <50% characters, <25% heavy support, <25% allies, etc. It wasn't perfect especially because some points values were still very suspect but it did enforce a level of reason when building army lists. There was "abuse" of the army lists but nothing quite like what we've seen in the last few editions.

Chaos Army Showcase with photos (Updated 2013/12/02)
"To endure one's self is perhaps the hardest task in the universe." Frank Herbert, 'Dune Messiah'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dethklokk
"CHEESE!" is the battlecry of the ill-prepared.

Originally Posted by Deathscythe4722
Could someone please call the police on this guy? I can hear the English Language screaming in pain. This has to be illegal somewhere.
Kreuger is offline  
post #5 of 24 (permalink) Old 02-02-16, 01:42 PM Thread Starter
jin
Senior Member
 
jin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 205
Reputation: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mossy Toes View Post
Since, after all, in the fluff Mutilators are the most common foot soldier of the Chaos forces.
Maybe you misunderstood the proposition.

The idea is that - when people in a given gaming community get together on the broken stuff - they can fix it by putting up for a vote a certain adjustment to a given unit/weapon/equipment/character/vehicle/ally.

I mean seriously, eldar with wraithguard in dark eldar transports SHOULD cost more because it is ridiculous.

once, a long time ago, i knew a guy who spent like 30,000 to break his car. it was so outrageously modified, it basically started destroying itself as soon as he turned it on... some people play games that way too i guess.


Anyways, the ITC already uses votes, and with computers and online real-time social networking potential here, this is a cool platform actually. for example, members could log in and every morning vote on adjustments based on public demand, and do it all on their phones... would be so cool. and easy enough to build.

Quote:

Honestly: it sounds like an incredible amount of bookkeeping for an asymmetrical fix that in many cases won't help. An Eldar Jetbike list... look, it's running entirely common units, just every single model happens to have a scatter laser! Or wave serpents, in the last Eldar codex, before they were tuned down and every single other unit in that book was tuned up to as powerful as they used to be.

Some folks run a comp system that is.. difficult to balance. In the end it becomes a matter of who can balance not only the explicit limitations of the ruleset, points, and formation options, but also metagaming the metagame to recognize the under-comped units, and so on. It adds a recursive rabbit hole of scheming while making everyone's day rougher.
yeah, but ... not with tek-now-ledgy and some forward thinking proactive smart people ...

Quote:

That's not to say it doesn't make some broken cheese-spam more palatable--it totally does, in many cases, even as GW moves further closer to releasing broken cheese-spam for every single army (seriously, have you seen those Wulfen rules?). I just think that a comp system for competitive balance is complex enough that you shouldn't try to rationalize it on the competitive side of things with a fluffy explanation, as that way lies, erm, inefficient and ineffective sorting rationale.
the point here is that such a scarcity coefficient can also be used to reinforce narratives in campaign and tournament settings, and opens up new ways to design events around themes, and finally, i do expect there to be an electronically bound social networked global 40k/30k/and??? community with the sort of integration afforded that makes the sort of direct democracy that i am talking about here an everyday occurrence.
jin is offline  
post #6 of 24 (permalink) Old 02-02-16, 01:47 PM Thread Starter
jin
Senior Member
 
jin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 205
Reputation: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreuger View Post
Here's a revolutionary alternative, GW could use a real balance system when devising the unit rules where each attribute has a points value attached.

The designers could then use statistical analysis AND play testing to arrive at final adjustments.
@jin I don't know when you started playing GW games but in the early days of 40k and fantasy battle army selection was based on percentages. E.g. >25% of troops, <50% characters, <25% heavy support, <25% allies, etc. It wasn't perfect especially because some points values were still very suspect but it did enforce a level of reason when building army lists. There was "abuse" of the army lists but nothing quite like what we've seen in the last few editions.
yeah. that was the best simplest way. loved it.

still, i like this technology enabled smart phone app direct democracy networking thing.
jin is offline  
post #7 of 24 (permalink) Old 02-02-16, 03:35 PM
ZOMGZOR CUSTOM USER TITLE
 
scscofield's Avatar
scscofield's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Finger Lakes Region of NY
Posts: 6,195
Reputation: 56
Default

::shrugs::

I think this is more of a 'competition' issue than not. My local group is very casual and we have no real issues with the 'imbalance' of the game. If something seems over the top broken we tend to just laugh and then either tailor lists to compete against that broken thing or more often than not the guy with the broken list shelves it because its boring to play.

http://i.imgur.com/aPfHUHy.gif?1




scscofield is offline  
post #8 of 24 (permalink) Old 02-02-16, 04:50 PM
Senior Member
 
ntaw's Avatar
ntaw's Flag is: Canada
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mississauga, Canada
Posts: 6,323
Reputation: 99
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jin View Post
Someone speculated that the game may "spontaneously explode" if it got any more broken.
So true.
Gamers break the game by exploiting things like this. Stop playing with those people and it might not seem like much of an issue to you.

Unless you're all about the tournament scene. Then good luck.

Unfortunately Canada got rid of the penny and now my two cents rounds down to zero, so...take it for what you will.

40k Army Projects

Industrial Table WIP
ntaw is offline  
post #9 of 24 (permalink) Old 02-02-16, 06:17 PM
Senior Member
 
Squire's Avatar
Squire's Flag is: Soth Korea
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: South Korea
Posts: 533
Reputation: 8
Default

I think it sounds like a good idea

That said my favourite system I know of is composition scores. So if you play 6 tournament games you rank your opponents' lists 1-6, with 6 being the fluffiest/most fun list and 1 being the furthest from fluff. You have to rank your opponents, so you can't just give the highest score to everybody. That way if you turn up with five wraithknights you might win all of your games but if everyone is giving your list a composition score of 1 you won't actually win the event

That system isn't going to work outside of a tournament but for casual games if your opponent isn't considering your enjoyment and trying to make it fun for both people, just don't play with them again

www.communitycomp.org/

^ Balanced 40k!
Squire is offline  
post #10 of 24 (permalink) Old 02-02-16, 06:31 PM
Thordis
 
Haskanael's Avatar
Haskanael's Flag is: Netherlands
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,438
Reputation: 20
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntaw View Post
Gamers break the game by exploiting things like this. Stop playing with those people and it might not seem like much of an issue to you.

Unless you're all about the tournament scene. Then good luck.
Isn't that basically called the "Don't be a douche" system?
Haskanael is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > Warhammer 40K > General 40k

Tags
40k , broken , itc , rules

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome