Jump to content

Welcome to The Bolter and Chainsword
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Metawatch Warhammer 40,000

Warhammer Community

  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#51
Black Blow Fly

Black Blow Fly

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 14,802 posts
  • Location:Unto realms immortal...
  • Faction: TODESKOMPANIE

I think Nick’s intent is in regards to the new missions since that’s what we are all playing now.


=][= fortis Fortuna adiuvat . =][=
my 40k FB Page:
https://m.facebook.com/Terminus6Est
Terminus Est
Blood and Honor!

#52
WrathOfTheLion

WrathOfTheLion

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,399 posts
  • Location:South Carolina, USA
  • Faction: Dark Angels, WB & SW

I think he was trying to say that the missions do not have an appreciable impact. Which I didn't find compelling compared to a detailed break down analysis showing otherwise, but it's a minutiae.


sml_gallery_48988_16308_4210.png


#53
Dark Shepherd

Dark Shepherd

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,028 posts

I do agree that it has quite a bit of content and isn't necessarily a bad thing.

However, I would like to note that it does seem to contain a half-hearted refutation of the article Goonhammer did a bit over a week ago, where based on their analysis, certain core missions have a tendency to favor going first. In this, they basically try to pass it off as just the players being wrong, which I do not think is compelling.

Nick states,
"The player going second deploys very aggressively, hoping to get first turn but loses the dice roll. This is far more common, I find. Again though, this was an issue with the player’s ability to mitigate risk, not the mission itself."

However, missions were not mentioned in the context of that question, so I can only infer it is referring to the previous analysis done on the win-rate statistics of each of the Eternal War missions.

I find the points made are valid however, especially with the changes made in 9E, but that did catch my eye.


To be fair that article did say theres not a huge amount of data due to size/number of tournaments and the edition still has to settle. Plus thered been no codexes yet and a lot of things especially marines have now been toned down

That said, and I agree with them, Goonhammer did say theres a problem with alternating deployment of units which would be helped by switching back to deploying both armies after you know who goes when. Which did help massively when that was brought in

#54
Shield-Captain

Shield-Captain

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 102 posts
  • Faction: Adeptus Custodes
Nobody is going to acknowledge the graphic at the top of the article? Looks like something they'd put on the television during a timeout in a football game. I snorted pretty hard when I saw it. No offense to Nick. He seems like a cool guy. But that graphic took me totally out of it
  • Volt and Lord Marshal like this

23.jpg


#55
Charlo

Charlo

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 21,064 posts

Nobody is going to acknowledge the graphic at the top of the article? Looks like something they'd put on the television during a timeout in a football game. I snorted pretty hard when I saw it. No offense to Nick. He seems like a cool guy. But that graphic took me totally out of it

 

It's a little jarring (especially the stats) but it's cool! Warhammer doesn't really talk about the PLAYERS often. It's nice to see it.


  • Shield-Captain and Dark Shepherd like this

#56
Volt

Volt

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,091 posts
  • Location:CA, USA
  • Faction: Anges de Vindication

 

 

Curious as to why people think GW  are taking an e-sports route with this? Last time I checked models were physical things on a table.

 

A better comparison surely, would be the MTG tournament circuit, which seems to do ok, despite being just as broken/unfair/unbalanced with as high an high entry cost, if not higher than GW armies. 

The problem is that it encourages a cancerous comp mindset that'll spread through the entirety of the playerbase if it actually takes off and bring down the game. Especially when GW themselves don't really care about serious comp and thus never balance any edition worth a damn.

 

 

I honestly think you're overreacting to this. I read the article and didn't get the urge to go out and make an ultra competitive army, or enter a tournament. I'm sure plenty of others didn't respond that way - did you?

 

Players have optimised armies forever. There's literally multiple sections of this forum solely for the purpose of tweaking and optimising army lists. I don't see the outcome that you're worried about. 

 

It's about the kind of community a company pushes with its media that influences the minds and collective of players over time. It'll obviously not happen with a single article - that's strawmanning my point. What it could do over time however is that a media focus on competitive play and competitive lists would tilt the fanbase into following down the road of the MTG fanbase - one of absolute cancer that ruins the game. A company needs to be careful with the culture it cultivates for a game, especially one as horribly imbalanced and busted as 40k.


  • Black Blow Fly and byrd9999 like this

+Quod vult valde vult+


#57
SkimaskMohawk

SkimaskMohawk

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 4,528 posts
  • Location:Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • Faction: Raven Guard and VIII Legion
Yes, we should really be sticking with the culture that refers to competitive mindsets as cancer.

The thing everyone misses when talking about competitive minded players is they assume that they like imbalanced armies and mechanics. That's not true; a competition is only fun when there's a challenge.
  • Ktan and MegaVolt87 like this

#58
tvih

tvih

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 4,319 posts
  • Location:Finland
  • Faction: CF/BT/Orks/SoB/IG

Yes, we should really be sticking with the culture that refers to competitive mindsets as cancer.

The thing everyone misses when talking about competitive minded players is they assume that they like imbalanced armies and mechanics. That's not true; a competition is only fun when there's a challenge.

 

Well I it's that the "WAAC" segment of the player base that gives all of the perceived competitive culture a bad name, for some people. Of course, in reality you can be WAAC without ever setting foot to an actual competitive tournament. But like when playing friendly games, you can have WAAC players employing netlists from top tournaments etc to completely demolish the opponent who just wanted a casual game - as the name implies WAAC players literally only care about winning, no matter the means, including cheating. And also this is why they might not join tournaments because there's less chance of facing easy targets or getting away with dubious rules interpretations etc.

 

Of course next time the casual player can just decline the game against such an opponent, but it's still a bit of a sour experience, more so if you're only just starting. Luckily personally I haven't really had much of that, mostly one guy stands out that back in 6th ed kept bringing three flyers against my army who had zero flyers or air defense in general. But as his army wasn't exactly top tier either (nor was mine though) I ended up putting up with it.

 

But in the end, the "problem" with this new article is of course that a "metawatch" shouldn't optimally even be needed, as far as the armies and units in them go (mission specific analysis and general game tactics etc are always useful, of course). Every unit should be viable. Sad truth is it's of course not so - and while I appreciate that a game with so many factions and units and other factors is very difficult to balance, many of the imbalances in 40k are so egregious that even a non-hardcore player can't but wonder how such things ever got into print as anything else than marketing ploy to push something. And as we know, these imbalances are what end up shaping the meta because the competitive players lean heavily into them and a lot of technically non-competitive players follow their lead/advice..


  • McElMcNinja likes this

#59
SkimaskMohawk

SkimaskMohawk

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 4,528 posts
  • Location:Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • Faction: Raven Guard and VIII Legion
There's definitely something to be said about every unit being viable, but even then there's always going to be something that works slightly better in a given role. There's always going to be an "optimal" set of units for accomplishing an army's goals and then an "optimal" set of units in another army that does well against those.
  • Scribe and Dark Shepherd like this

#60
WarriorFish

WarriorFish

    ++ PRÆFECT SOCIORUM ++

  • +++ADMINISTRATUM+++
  • 22,688 posts
  • Location:Blighty
  • Faction: Hunter Legion

Please use appropriate language, calling things "cancer" is a bit silly and only devalues the point you're looking to make. I'm sure the same point can be made in a far better manner that is conducive to productive discussion. Thanks!


  • Ktan, GreenScorpion and Dark Shepherd like this

gallery_48988_15465_8206.pnggallery_30308_9518_1551.pnggallery_30308_3239_3185.pnggallery_30308_9518_17558.pnggallery_30308_3239_193.pnggallery_30308_3239_17729.png
Painting Oaths Completed:
gallery_30308_3239_28.gifgallery_30308_3239_28.gifgallery_30308_3239_102.gifgallery_30308_3239_84.gifgallery_30308_3239_42.gifgallery_30308_3239_102.gifgallery_30308_3239_102.gifgallery_30308_3239_102.gifgallery_30308_3239_102.gifgallery_30308_3239_42.gifgallery_30308_3239_28.gifgallery_30308_3239_102.gifgallery_30308_3239_42.gifgallery_30308_3239_102.gifgallery_30308_3239_102.gif
gallery_30308_3239_42.gifgallery_30308_3239_102.gifgallery_30308_3239_42.gif
In the grim predictability of online 40k, there can be only Sun Tzu quotes

SM Ironclad | IG Stormies | =][= Stormies | AM Armigers

CSM Terminators | TSons Rubrics | Daemons Daemonettes

DE Warriors | Tyranids Genestealers


#61
GreenScorpion

GreenScorpion

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 255 posts

There is competitive people and people that do everything to win, there is a big difference!
One thing I have noticed whenever competitive talks arise somewhere is that there will be a number of anti-competitive extremists and that is honestly as bad as competitive extremists.
If everyone refrained from reaching either extreme, the community would be far healthier.

The issue you might face with a competitive mindset is the same you see with computer games, which is not trying to win in itself, but rather doing everything to win, like the many people who exploit game features to their advantage.
Healthy competition should not be seen as an issue and those with that healthy mind set shouldn't be chasen away because of the bad apples. As with all things, it is about balance.

With all that said, I was never particularly competitive in either games or anything else. It should all be about having fun, otherwise it is not a hobby :)


  • Black Blow Fly and Dark Shepherd like this

#62
BladeOfVengeance

BladeOfVengeance

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 217 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Faction: Dark Angels
I feel like there’s a lot of “this is bad” “cancerous player base next” or “GW are just copying other sites who do it better” all seems like a massive over reaction to me

they've pushed the 3 ways to play forever and the Competitive player base finally got an article, so what if other sites has done something similar surly more content is always better? And this article seems pretty good at a first glance to me. The list mostly just troops (so nothing crazy) and mentions some advantages/Disadvantages about the turns which is something most players could do with knowing if they don’t

It’s not really a thing to get worked up over surely? I’d say the negative reactions to everything GW puts out is way worse for the community overall then an article of comp list building or Meta
  • Dark Shepherd and Kain Mor like this

#63
Black Blow Fly

Black Blow Fly

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 14,802 posts
  • Location:Unto realms immortal...
  • Faction: TODESKOMPANIE

I think it could be healthy discussing which units and builds are successful and why... plus I enjoyed what Nick had to say about using going second to your advantage - it was good advice.


  • Dark Shepherd likes this
=][= fortis Fortuna adiuvat . =][=
my 40k FB Page:
https://m.facebook.com/Terminus6Est
Terminus Est
Blood and Honor!

#64
Ishagu

Ishagu

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 17,448 posts
  • Location:Britannia, Holy Terra
  • Faction: Ultramarines
I have no problem with GW doing this. I'm still bitter about the missions used in matched play, and I feel that the competitive side is the least fun it has been in many years (I really hate the admin heavy, artifical feeling ITC/Nova style missions).

However the core rules are rock solid, and GW should cater to all styles of hobbyists.

On the subject of 40k as a competitive game for viewing:
This is 100% possible but it requires a massive investment in presentation. Camera angles, close ups, witty dialogue, highlights of banter, lore about units as they are played, etc etc
  • Azekai likes this

-~Ishagu~-


#65
Scribe

Scribe

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 6,828 posts
  • Faction: Khorne

 

On the subject of 40k as a competitive game for viewing:
This is 100% possible but it requires a massive investment in presentation. Camera angles, close ups, witty dialogue, highlights of banter, lore about units as they are played, etc etc

 

Games take way too long no? For online (esport-esque) viewing? You are right, the investment would need to be huge.


DISOBEY

 

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻


#66
Ishagu

Ishagu

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 17,448 posts
  • Location:Britannia, Holy Terra
  • Faction: Ultramarines
A 2 hour limit is perfectly fine for a game, provides it's very well presented.

We can't have these long down times where players are setting up, or deploying, or simply not interacting.

The battles need to be presented with lots of close ups on models, music, voice overs, lore tidbits, etc.
It can be done but right now the cost would be far greater than the benefit.

The channel 40k in 40 miniutes does a great job, and that would be entertaining over a full two hours, but we all know full well just how much time it takes to create one of those videos.

-~Ishagu~-


#67
BladeOfVengeance

BladeOfVengeance

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 217 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Faction: Dark Angels
I personally really don’t see them ever trying to do any sort of Esport, It’s a miniature game and the article for me gives no indication of them trying too

If they made an incredible MOBA in the next few years it’s possible but it’ll never happen with the table top game and I honestly don’t believe they’d try

#68
bigtrouble

bigtrouble

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 156 posts
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA
  • Faction: Dark Angels
I think it’s good that GW are recognizing the competitive player, but this is marketing to them, not really helping them. It’s a way to get new players interested in it, which can help GWs bottom line.

#69
Dark Shepherd

Dark Shepherd

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,028 posts
Todays metawatch was on AOS, but it is pretty long and in depth, good sign for the series going forward





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Warhammer Community

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users