Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

NDC Step 1 vote results are in!

 Post subject: Re: NDC Step 1 vote results are in!
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 8:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 5:25 pm
Posts: 67
Location: Baltimore, MD
Kyrt wrote:
I don't mean to single your post out, but can we please stop pretending that battle reports can ever constitute "data"? As you say yourself, there is so much randomness in a game that they are worthless statistically. All we're really doing is trying out some stuff and seeing if it feels wrong or not.

At the end of the day people are only going to playtest the changes that they are interested in (ones they either like or want to stop). Frankly everyone has always been able to playtest any changes they want, and this is no different - just a bunch of people getting together to find some things they collectively are interested to test, and then doing it. It makes no difference if you personally think the changes are not the ones that should be implemented. If the community doesn't like the changes in the end they they won't make it into NetEA lists - no harm no foul.

Relax people :)

You're preaching to the choir here. Unless battle reports are pushing the limits of a change to test some edge case, I do think they're pretty much worthless. Even the "does it feel ok" aspect of most batreps isn't helpful. Most changes we're discussing are small enough that they get lost in the noise of your average game, so it "feels" no different.

I only brought all this up to point out how absurd it is to keep harping on batreps like they're some panacea, especially when we're facing a tsumani of simultaneous rules changes.

Discussion and maybe some supporting math are way more useful here and that's what we should be doing.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NDC Step 1 vote results are in!
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:14 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4311
GrimDarkBits wrote:
Kyrt wrote:
I don't mean to single your post out, but can we please stop pretending that battle reports can ever constitute "data"? As you say yourself, there is so much randomness in a game that they are worthless statistically. All we're really doing is trying out some stuff and seeing if it feels wrong or not.

At the end of the day people are only going to playtest the changes that they are interested in (ones they either like or want to stop). Frankly everyone has always been able to playtest any changes they want, and this is no different - just a bunch of people getting together to find some things they collectively are interested to test, and then doing it. It makes no difference if you personally think the changes are not the ones that should be implemented. If the community doesn't like the changes in the end they they won't make it into NetEA lists - no harm no foul.

Relax people :)

You're preaching to the choir here. Unless battle reports are pushing the limits of a change to test some edge case, I do think they're pretty much worthless. Even the "does it feel ok" aspect of most batreps isn't helpful. Most changes we're discussing are small enough that they get lost in the noise of your average game, so it "feels" no different.

I only brought all this up to point out how absurd it is to keep harping on batreps like they're some panacea, especially when we're facing a tsumani of simultaneous rules changes.

Discussion and maybe some supporting math are way more useful here and that's what we should be doing.

Personally I think batreps are the most important final stage in development and list tweaking after they have been properly setup and guided by reasoned discussion and an element of maths. Maths as the be all and end all is relatively worthless IMO as their are so many factors that a straight spread/graph don't take into account.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NDC Step 1 vote results are in!
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 3338
Location: Norrköping, Sweden.
So testing out ideas in actual games is not a part of any game development process? I'm pretty sure games are developed by actually trying them out, not only by comparing spreadsheets and discussing theories. The "feel" for a unit is as importantas it's statistical value in a mathematical equation.
Or else there would be no beta-test of games being done before releasing them.

So I would say battle reports play an important rule in changing stats around because it gives the players the chance to actually experience the ideas being thrown around and it lets others not participating to read how it went.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NDC Step 1 vote results are in!
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5588
Location: Bristol
Dave wrote:
My intention with the suggestion is to make a mechanized warhost a more viable option, rather than delivering them via webway or Vampire. It's not meant to replace the 8 strong formation, it's in addition to it.

I understood it was proposed as an addition not a replacement and strongly objected to it on that basis. The key character of Biel-tan is that they have loads of aspect warriors and this is displayed in epic by their larger than normal aspect formations. By letting them take 6 strong aspect formations just like any other Eldar craftworld this proposal dilutes their core list theme.

It’s also a question of relative balance - 8 aspects with Wave Serpents is expensive and it limits activations a little more compared to other Eldar lists, but the Biel-tan list has a free Court of the Young King MW attack and sole access to the best of the Eldar superheavies – they need this limitation to balance these out a bit.

Maybe Aspects with Wave Serpents just aren’t getting used much in your local meta? I looked through the Biel-tan lists used at Epic-UK tournaments and they’ve included 40 instances of formations of Aspect Warriors with one or more Wave Serpents (I didn’t bother counting the numbers of them each formation took). Sure, they’re even more commonly used in Vampires, but being used in 40 formations worth is a reasonable number and suggests they’re fine as is to me.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NDC Step 1 vote results are in!
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 11:07 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:18 pm
Posts: 300
All my Eldar lists are based around mechanised Guardians and Aspects, they're extremely powerful when engaging en masse using Commander, Farsight, and Hit & Run in concert to roll many many dice!

To see EUK lists that have been built around Wave Serpents and how they've done look at Mark William's, and Matthew Arnold's Lists:

http://epic-uk.co.uk/ukepicachampionship/pvp.php


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NDC Step 1 vote results are in!
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:05 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 8:01 pm
Posts: 1501
So, this list of changes seems to be both what I hoped the NDC would do and what I was worried it would do. Regarding changes to 2 lists I know well (Krieg & BT).

Krieg, the changes look very sensible, and depower a list that is currently too strong. Great.

However, gotta say I am not loving these proposed changes to BT. What is the issue that the group are trying to resolve with these? Do they think BT is overpowered? I’m pretty sure the consensus after last year’s BT outcry was that they aren’t overpowered so the price hike for Void Spinners is difficult to justify from that perspective.

Do they think BT has too little variation in builds? For me it is one of the most flexible lists in terms of builds. Also, like last year’s proposed changes to the support ration this will more than remove some of the weaker Biel Tann builds and mean much more homogeneity in the lists run (personally I’d have to change my single void spinner list and would most likely adopt a double void spinner list like Steve54’s standard list but with 4 strong scout units).

Also agree with the comments about a 6 strong mech aspect being unnecessary. The 8 strong aspect units mech up well, and as mentioned earlier you can always throw a couple of hawks or spears in to reduce cost.

Overall, I find it rather surprising that the suggested changes are to the 2 iconic BT units (void spinners and 8 strong aspects) and that I don’t understand what the issue with the list you are trying to solve with these changes is?

My worry is that of course, you can playtest 300 point void spinners and they’ll be viable - they’re a good unit in a good army. I don’t personally think they’re worth 300 points (are we really saying they’re more valuable to the list than Deathwheels or single warhounds?) The bigger issue than the actual cost, is the change in points restricts the range of builds available to BT and will drive people (at least at tournament level) towards far more standardisation of lists. This was covered in some depth, in what I see as a good piece of work by netea as part of the big eldar debate last year.

Personally, I’d rather the NDC had looked at ways of boosting weaker options (as they have with the cobra - nice one) eg Banshees to provide more variation rather than less.

Apologies that the BT comments are rather lengthy. My view is probably best summarised as this is a decent start for the NDC (Krieg good, BT not so good) but, it looks like, more thought needs to be given to what is the primary issue you are actually seeking to resolve with these changes rather than just making changes to units people have strong views about. Please do keep up the good work though!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NDC Step 1 vote results are in!
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 1:58 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 5:25 pm
Posts: 67
Location: Baltimore, MD
Steve54 wrote:
Personally I think batreps are the most important final stage in development and list tweaking after they have been properly setup and guided by reasoned discussion and an element of maths. Maths as the be all and end all is relatively worthless IMO as their are so many factors that a straight spread/graph don't take into account.

mordoten wrote:
So testing out ideas in actual games is not a part of any game development process? I'm pretty sure games are developed by actually trying them out, not only by comparing spreadsheets and discussing theories. The "feel" for a unit is as importantas it's statistical value in a mathematical equation.
Or else there would be no beta-test of games being done before releasing them.

So I would say battle reports play an important rule in changing stats around because it gives the players the chance to actually experience the ideas being thrown around and it lets others not participating to read how it went.

I don't really agree with this, and I'll explain why.

Play testing is great to get a sense of the "feel" of a formation or rule if you've never tried it before. It's also very important in game development as a way to try to "break" the game by testing for edge cases and exploits. Play testing should be done systematically by a large group of people to try to get some kind of useful data. There is definitely a place for play testing. You can't write rules in a vacuum or based on math. They have to be enjoyable when they hit the table and that means people need to try them.

However, what we're doing here isn't professional or scientific, it's play testing for fun. We're doing a handful of battles for each proposed change, the people playing vary greatly in skill level, and they're voluntarily testing these changes because they probably already like or hate them. The performance of the formations in question could swing all over the place based on dice and poor decisions. If the change is small (and almost everything being proposed is a small change), then the formation will probably not "feel" any different. Or else it will feel however the play tester wants it to feel.

For small changes like we're making, discussion and list building and math are usually more critical than games to evaluate the impact of what you're changing. If you change a weapon's strength or a unit's armor by a pip, if you change the cost by 25 points, how does it compare mathematically to similar units? We can remove the variability of dice and see if we've accidentally created a monster or a dud. Does our points cost make list building too restrictive? Does it open it up to abuse? We can sit and make a dozen army lists and see whether anything looks off before any models hit the table. From experience, just looking at it and talking, did we make some mistake? Many sets of eyes can help find something we missed when we proposed the change.

Play testing the way we do it here is still a good thing. It has merit, especially when you want to test a radical change or when you suspect you have created a loophole that can be exploited. But what we're talking about here is more like a popularity contest where the barrier for entry is writing a little bit about a game you played using the formation. That is a good thing on its own. It shows the community is invested and they like the change. Consider it icing on the cake once consensus has basically been reached on your proposed rules. But it isn't performance data.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NDC Step 1 vote results are in!
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:26 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:06 pm
Posts: 308
Location: Wisconsin, USA
GrimDarkBits wrote:
{lots of true things about playtesting and batreps}


Pretty much agree with GrimDarkBits' stance above. Playtesting and batreps are great, but they're definitely not the only or even best thing to look at for the sorts of changes that are being proposed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NDC Step 1 vote results are in!
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:14 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4311
In my opinion playing the game and playtesting are the only way to discover problems, when issues are discovered then discussion of possible fixes and element of statistics is needed. When fixes have been settled upon list building can be used to make/break some of them (thawk to air 1/3 for example) but then playtesting against used lists taking into account player ability/experience is the most important tool.

IMO a lot of the statistical models, graphs etc ignore so many variables (terrain, list construction etc. etc) and the actual way the game plays as to basically be worthless.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NDC Step 1 vote results are in!
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:25 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 8:01 pm
Posts: 1501
Play testing is obviously important. I hadn't clocked quite how good netea krieg were until playing them at the EEC last year and getting a single warhound on the blitz in all 5 games. You only know how units operate and more importantly interact by playing them!

However, I think people need to be really clear what and why they're play testing (see my point about biel tann in the previous post).

_________________
Image


Last edited by StevekCole on Mon Mar 19, 2018 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NDC Step 1 vote results are in!
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:16 am
Posts: 1064
Location: London
Playtesting is definitely important, although it's value can vary (as can to me the value of opinion) based on a number of factors based on who's doing it and what they're using.

I do think that ideally the 'core' lists (i.e. vanilla marines, guard, eldar and orks) should ideally be used for the opposing armies for the majority of testing as they offer a reasonably broad style of play and aren't too niche or offer a base level of skew (such as some of the armoured or horde lists out there). Not saying you can't test against other armies, but the focus of testing and balance should be really against these lists imo.

Also it might sound a bit harsh, but i also personally put more value (specifically on the issue of list changes) on both the opinions and playtest results of very experienced players. To have a good idea of the implications of small changes you really do need extensive experience in a competitive setting both with the game and with the list in general.
When looking at new lists however I think that having input from a mix of both tournament and casual players can be really important as for instance imo a successful list is one that isn't just 'tournament balanced' but also one that's fun to play, thematic, and brings something new and interesting to the game.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NDC Step 1 vote results are in!
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:10 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: UK
As with most things in life it's a middle ground. Nobody is saying playests aren't important, only that they are not data or proof of anything when it comes to a small change - either it breaks the list, makes you play it differently (ie changes how the unit feels to you as a player) or you will think of it exactly what you thought going into the game. All of those conclusions would be reached qualitatively though, not quantitatively.

On the BT changes, I don't think there really was a consensus on it not being overpowered, in certain areas for sure but some obviously disagree and still think some token nerfs would be a good thing. I personally don't think many changes are needed (aside from cobra I suggested) but have to respect others' differing opinions. I get the logic in the aspect proposal too - nobody is stopping you taking a full mounted formation, and the jury is out on whether it results in fewer or more aspects on the table. It's like the white scars - i want the option to take fewer of them so that I can have more formations of them. I do love serpent builds but flexibility in points options can help make them fit in more builds. The nerf to exarchs is again because some people think they are overly good and let's face it everyone always takes two. But I personally don't think it's needed, people often compare exarchs to chaplains but forget they are also double leaders with ATSKNF, a macro attack and invulnerable save. Whereas commissars are free. Exarchs are auto includes because they synergise with the purpose of the formation, and this won't change if you remove the attacks, so the fact they are auto includes also is not evidence that they are OP.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NDC Step 1 vote results are in!
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:16 am
Posts: 1064
Location: London
Talking of white scars, wouldn't the easiest solution have been to give them crusader variants so they only needed 2? That would have brought the cost down significantly. Bit late now though I guess...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NDC Step 1 vote results are in!
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:23 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: UK
RichardL wrote:
Talking of white scars, wouldn't the easiest solution have been to give them crusader variants so they only needed 2? That would have brought the cost down significantly. Bit late now though I guess...
It was discussed yes. However there's been significant resistance here to any unit additions at the moment. There are loads of options that really should be on the table for white scars. For example land speeder storms, tempests, attack bike variants. But some want rule additions, structure changes and the crusader change does invalidate collections for a core GW list which otherwise all have official models. So yeah, I think it's harder to reach consensus on where the line is and arguably it's then into 'reboot list' territory which is best done on the forum anyway. I am really hoping there's appetite to go further in the future though.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net