dormouse

/note to everybody : anybody could find the core tought in bold if lazy to read the whole post/

I can agree with one thing what others mentioned :

It's the designers intention or not, players clearly don't like if there is only one or two decks are really competitive in a card game... and, regardless what the developers want, it's the players who play the money.

- First a tournament with 2 or 3 different decks is boring
- Second if even those decks using the same cards in 40% it's even more dull
- It makes the fans of the other factions annoyed (in this case at least 2/3 of the player base)
- Even HE fan's in our area not really happy with BT as the "HE deck" as it's really don't feel elvish for sure (even more annoyed players)
- As I see even players who play BT says it's broken, and need a fix...

In MtG in example there are valid competitive cards which appear in at least multicolored decks for all colors. If even 1 color get regulary shafted whining (rightfully) started at the player community, as for example when black was almost unusable (except 2 cards, one of them not really "feeling" black) for some time. Now, W:I has 3 out of 6 "colors" which are uncompetive, and it's already promised by the developers that the already strong factions gets more support in the next 4 month !!! Ridicolous.

When BU faeries was highly dominant in MtG (about 60% in Worlds, and in local tournament too if my memory is not mistaken) for a time I remember everybody was happy when it was rotated out of Standard. Why ? Because even competitive players wanted something more intuitive than a single deck dominated metagame with 2 out of 3 mach as a mirrormatch.

Currently in W:I :

- destruction overall is higly lacking in resource management and effective mass-control
- chaos is extint as a playable race... they only strenght are cards-which-deal-with-units ... in a playing field 50% dominated by a completely unitless deck, and the 50% a deck with better resources, more effective/cheaper units, and almost as good unit removal
- DE has some unit removal, and discard... but discard not as strong if your opponent draw 2-3 cards if he place a development, and could speed up a good quest zone / kingdom zone far before you
- orcs have control elements, but many of them are highly costed (compare Snotling Saboteur to Rodirck's Raiders)
- HE units are not used even in a deck with HE capital... none of them yet. Even for casual they are almost unused.

I would not call this a base for healthy metagame.

First, it was a game with small inbalances, then it become something more (skavens), and now we have 2 over the top decks and a whole unplayable faction. Maybe it's not the direction of development what many of us waited for when we purchased our firts Core Sets.

Locally, we had a tournament in every month in the beggining... now we hadn't for quite a long time, and we don't even plan one. Simply speaking, it wouldn't be enjoyable at all.

In the old days when I opened a new BP it was a great feeling... I was rushed with ideas for at least 3-4 out of 6 factions based on the cards. Now ? I look at the cards if there is anything to help destro decks... and then I turn to adjust my dwarwes even more. It was fun for 2-3 month, but it's getting really boring. If I'm lucky maybe I adjust some casual deck too, like DE or Orc control.

Curator said:

I never said to release every race in Warhammer as a standalone. But if they are releasing a major expansion as pushing Lizardmen and Undead, then they probably should have had a capital board. Skaven as well should have had their own as that would have solved a lot of the overpoweredness of them in the beginning. (You should also stay away from analogies. If your argument isn't strong enough to not use an analogy, then there is a problem with your argument. Warhammer is not Lord of the Rings.)

The argument that if there were say 10 capital boards instead of the current 6 that the races would not get enough support is a bit off. Most don't get support as it is. If every 6 months they released a box with 10 starter decks, each a different solo race deck with 17-25 new cards, and maybe some reprints of old cards that didn't get a full 3x originally, each race would get more support than they do now. On top of that, it would allow those players that play only their pet race an opportunity to save a lot of money, or new players a perfect entry point into the game.

dormouse said:

It's called being out of touch. When one player's reaction is to be put off by pacing or some other design decision then it is probably safe to say that that player shouldn't pursue the game. When a large number of players are put off > it's the game's fault. Designer's vision doesn't count for anything if people aren't interested in playing their game. Marketing campaigns are changed constantly to try to appeal to a bigger/different audience.

The fact that W:I is selling as well as it is pretty much disproves all the points being brought up as they are being applied.

What the complaints boil down to me are that the competitive scene is skewed greatly (and I agree), that there are three deck types (you really need to include dedicated rush) that hold the top rungs in the food chain is a problem for those who are dedicated to one particular race AND want to play competitively.

Lets examine the difference between a true competitive player of W:I and serious fan of W:I. A true competitive player doesn't really care what race they play, or even what deck they play. They want the most degenerate and exploitive build, the greater an NPE it creates then the more assured they are of sweeping the field. Now some of them also play for fun, and like variety, and bucking the meta with their own flavor, but in the end winning is more important to them than the illusion of loyalty to a single faction or alignment.

A serious fan of W:I has an alignment or even a race or two they really, really like and always go to that side/faction. They'll play other stuff, but would rather splash into that race rather than play outside of it, and would rather do mono-race if at all possible. They want to win, but they do not approach the game in a fashion that will allow for them to win consistently unless their faction is on top at the moment.

The thing that should be remembered at all times is both of these make up less than an estimated 5% of this games main buyers.

The majority of this games buyers are casual players who will never play in a tournament unless they get roped into it by friends. Who may be completionists, buying enough to have a full play set or one-of's buying a single set/box/pack of the product as they become available.

The game is designed and marketed with their play experience in mind. The way the card distribution of the Core Set is done, and the switch to x3 of all supplements bears this out as does the fact that our most competitive players who harp the most on something being broken/OP have praised the balance of the "limited format." The game is a fast paced blood-bath by design. It is how it is marketed. It is selling extremely well as it is. Expecting or demanding for the game to change for a fraction of its buyers pleasure is not logical.

FFG however does care about and listen to the serious fans and the ultra-competitive players, and we know this because it is we who force the creation and growth of the FAQ. It is we who do the play testing, and it is we who have the most direct interaction with James and other employees of FFG, and it is from us that they get their volunteers to run demo's and the like at tournaments, as well as provide a solid presence at events like Gencon to show-off the popularity of the game.

The very nature of the LCG means there will always be a couple of deck types or races that will be on top of the heap. But just like every race was more or less equal at first release of the CS, and Orcs jumped out with the first battle pack, and then Orc/Skaven, then DElf/Skaven, then BT, then Dwarfs, they too will fall aside. I'm going to tell you now, even as I knew the Dwarf deck was going to be the deck to beat when everyone else was complaining about BT, it is no longer what I'm focused on. There is something else out there on the horizon. The design cycle is 3-6 months ahead of release, and release is generally two months minimum ahead of players' decks.

There is an old saying about the weather in San Francisco, if you don't like the weather walk a couple of blocks. If you don't like the environment wait for a new pack or two. It'll change, and the more open you are to acknowledging this change the easier it is to find the new hotness while it is still new and hot. We make the environment as surely as James does. If everyone decided that Orc/Skaven were no longer their best chance but BT and Dwarfs were then rather than seeing the flux of Orc/Skaven a number of regionals had we saw the numbers skewed in a different way. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that net-decking in this game is actually proving detrimental. A cabal of players have decided that deck X is new hotness and the HDIC and are persuasive enough to convince others and people swarm to that. If they had just posted their decks discussed the hows and whys and let the tournament results speak for themselves, I think we would have seen FAR more diversity in what showed up at Gencon. That diversity may have actually caused a different result. Someone may have come up with a deck that caught people by surprise, or one which was not strong enough to beat a diverse field but was the BT-kryptonite, giving one or two of them a loss that would have allowed for another deck type to have been present in the final cut.

*shrug*

Hard to say for sure, but I doubt all those players who showed up with BT and Dwarf variants didn't just stumble on them in the last month when Orc/Skaven was what was heavily over-shadowing the regionals.

Let's see what the rest of the Enemy Cycle does to the environment and see if BT and Dwarfs are still choking the environment when Marched becomes generally available. With Worlds put to bed James will no doubt be incorporating what he saw into his design plans as well as taking at look at the current environment to see if there are some tweaks to the game that can be done by way of the FAQ but keeping in mind what he has coming down the pike already for us. He is a wicked smart guy, I have faith that if the current environment is not to his liking, and he does not feel the Enemy Cycle and Marched address this enough, that he will take appropriate steps by way of FAQ or the next set to adjust it.

darkdeal said:

My mistake. I misread your post. The thing to keep in mind is that Warhammer has as main armies: Dwarves, Empire, Highelves, Chaos, Orcs, Dark Elves, Skaven, Vampire Counts, Lizardmen, Tomb Kings, Ogres, Woodelves, and Bretonnians. So only four more factions are left I don't think too many more box sets are required after then next 2. And I didn't say anything about not getting support, other people did. What I said is that Skaven having a capital would make no sense when they are just joining as allies. Fine no more analogies.

It is my theory that when you design a game you want to keep it simple. Giving each race or at least Skaven a capital just adds to the count of things the developers have to consider when making future cards. Also, allowing players to save money is good for players bad for company and the game life. So FFG should spend more resources on capital boards to help players that don't want to have to spend as much as they currently do? Just making sure I am reading you right.

I like your ideas, and had the game's theme been open war it would make sense, but I am afraid the game wouldn't last long if it saves players money at the expense of FFG's resources. I am not 100% sure about my theory. What happens to the casual players that already purchased 3 of everything? What about the players that only wanted the cards, but now hav eto pay extra for a capital board? What about players that feel they are getting nickle and dimed because Skaven need a new layout to make them a core faction so old cards need to be replaced...how is that any different than what GW did to the table top game? Remember a ton of players play the card game as an escape from the money hog Table Top.

dormouse said:

Agreed, and supported, but this has nothing to do with a troll demanding capital boards as a thread.

AYE! this topic, started by a troll...has turned us on each other! We must stop. I will go first. This thread started with a guy demanding Capital boards for each race. Then it turned into a casual vs hardcore debate, now it is at the same level that Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3rd was at (FFG sucks vs Fanboys). This is getting to be too much for me. And I really don't want to lose it and say something I didn't mean to say or that I shouldn't have said (probably already did). I'm dipping out of this thread to cool off.

Many of you are on my friendslist...I want to keep it that way. Later.

Curator, I think you may be reading my responses with an aggressive tone that I am not using. I actually thought this was a constructive debate with some good points.

Also, the second part of my post wasn't responding so much to you as it is to everyone in general. I have heard the lack of support argument a lot and just wanted to acknowledge it.

About the profitability. The company already changed from the 1x to a 3x format that actually makes them less money theoretically. The long term thought here is though, that if it is easier to invest, you will draw more customers in. In my example of something they could do, the preconstructed decks, it would be the same theory. The company would possibly make less money from any given individual currently playing, but could open up a whole new player base. There are also the completists like myself that have no pet race that would want to buy all of the decks, making the profit for FFG far greater.

I also didn't think W:I was selling "all that well" comparatively speaking. I am pretty sure there are a lot of other card games that sell more, but maybe that is just the nature of the LCG format when I come from a CCG world.

Curator said:

Absolutely agree and sorry about the derailing of the thread... but to be honest the OP was so far out in left field and ignoring reality that it was just painful to address his original post.

I'm torn on what to think about the current health of this game's gameplay environment for both casual or hardcore tournament players. On the one hand, it's true that certain decks will rise and fall, on a regular basis - people should realize that by now and just be prepared for that. Sometimes I think we all want some magically perfect game (we all probably do!) but it's just super unlikely in this game genre (with so many disparate elements to consider during game design).

On the other hand, it is dangerous to let one deck be pretty overwhelming - I was a HUGE doubter of the Bolt-Thrower deck until I played a superb player using it at GenCon (ShubFan76), then I realized how consistently overwhelming it was in the current environment (though I was able to beat it using, surprise, surprise, a Dwarf deck but even that was a pretty close game and could've gone either way). Though I'll say this much, up until about the 4th or 5th battlepack of the first cycle, it was NOT remotely what it is now and was very, very beatable and very over-rated (despite what some may claim in these forums - the proof is in checking out what cards were released in each pack, you can see that the most clever and potent cards for this deck came along a bit later). I was also disappointed during the GenCon tournament that I ended up playing 4 straight Dwarf decks in a row, though the games and the tournament situation was exciting and fun, the deck variety was pretty blah.

I'm content to see what the designers do going forward, I'm sure they're very much aware of where the current gameplay environment is at right now. And I agree with Dormouse that James is sharp as a tack, he'll keep things working in a balanced fashion going forward.

As far as the (very interesting) topic about whether games should focus on the designer's plans or the players' desires, it's a tough call. Again, I find myself tight-roping down either side of the debate. On the one hand - and I feel this is probably the stronger point by just a bit - without interested, content customers and players, a designer can put all the work he wants into his craft, it'll end up all for naught as the game will inevitably be canceled if players/customers become too disenfranchised or disgruntled. On the other hand, designers should be able to create something without being hamstrung by a constantly moving target that (in all likelihood) is probably impossible to achive - that of the mythological "perfectly balanced card game."

Good points have been made in several older posts here by Dormouse and UnifiedShoe (very good post by Unified a few back). Since I'm not a designer, really, I tend to side with the customer's perspective here - I'd prefer they tried to at least somewhat cater to the fanbase, in certain regards. That being said, I'm also a realist and realize that the reality showcases the fact that there's probably no real consensus among even the hardcore players, about what should be done with the game.

The LCG format is selling incredibly well. I mean incredibly well. Some printings are selling out in multiple games in multiple countries within months. Nothing is going to hit the level of the big three, but outside of them, it is easily comparable. That is not to say they are doing the same per unit sales, but with the LCG format they can stay as profitable with a smaller overall printing and sale. You'd be amazed at how much money the randomized nature of the CCG adds to the game.

The problem is that W:I is an LCG, not a CCG, and far from a miniatures game. Miniatures war gamers have a certain expectation about their armies being supported in cycles and when new pieces and army books are released. CCG players expect relatively equal support for each faction, though the power level of each faction will ebb and flow. The LCG model is much closer to this, but still almost as far away. Each supplement pack needs to have close to the same number of cards for each faction to keep things balanced number wise, the boxed expansions will allow for surges in card numbers (though W:I seems to be taking a slightly different approach to expansions than Thrones so there is definitely room for variation).and predictably this will affect power balance to some amount.

Producing more than seven stand-alone factions is going to require a revamping of the distribution/production of the LCG format. Producing new factions in starter deck style including a capital board outside of the regular BP format is certainly doable... the question then comes to how do you continue to support that faction... because its players will want it supported an equal amount as the main six, without shorting the main six races that the game was absed around? Do you include cards in the BP? Do increase the amount of BP's available in a month? All of these are doable, but they have their own problems... many which involve an increased monetary investment on FFG's part with predictable diminishing returns.

The fact is the game works as it is. By taking a hard-line about how they will handle the other factions they have managed players expectations. People know what they are going to get and can choose how involved they want to be with the game. If someone will only play if the Tomb Kings will be a stand alone faction then they know this is not the game for them. If someone is thinking about getting in with hopes of the Wood Elves or Ogers eventually becoming a playable faction then they know ahead of time that this is extremely unlikely to happen, but perhaps they can pick up the Core Set or Companion Set and play with a minimal commitment.

Wytefang said:

I should also point out I don't fundamentally disagree with what US has said. I am a player first and I want my games to be of a certain kind... but some games just aren't for me and that is not the designers fault, and it is not mine. Just like my last girlfriend. Totally hot, smart, funny, etc. etc. but we just weren't a good match. Sometimes that is the way of it.

Now if the thing that would have made that relationship work so we were both happy was a small change in my expectations then it is in our best interest to make it. If it is a small change on her part then it is in our best interest to make it.

I'm not saying that the designer should ignore their player base. I'm saying that we on this forum are only the smallest fraction of this games player base and not even a good representation of it (in regards to having the same focus and level of dedication). That if we want something thatis counter to the purposeful design of the game, and the game is successfully meeting the needs of the greater player base, then it is our expectations that need to change. If the game is not currently working the way it was designed (a distinct possibility on one level or another) and the player base small or large is not satisfied then the game must change.

Think of my recent posts as challenging some of the assumptions about how skewed the game is, what the best ways of fixing it are, if the fixes might not already be in place, and what our role in the skewed environment might be. I don't mind one race being dominant. I don't mind a couple of deck types showing far more success than others in tournament play. What I mind is it being so skewed in reality or perception that no one tries to play the other decks and races. We have yet to have a deck type/race that is so dominant that it has curtailed the development of the game for an extended period of time (this game came out a year ago and we've had a different deck type complained about as OP about every two months since the release of the first BP. When we have a deck so dominant that six months go by and everyone is playing that deck or teching against that deck and only that deck then I will absolutely agree.

Given the nature of he LCG format I've found that a "wait and see" approach has always shown a solution to the problems that crop up. If Dwaves and Throwers are still the decks to beat in the environment two months after Marched is widely available, I'll add my voices to yours.

dormouse

First I tought that I will answer you in detail, because there are many-many things where we don't agree. (especially the sales are going well, so there is no problem part) But my second tought that it would be pointless, I guess I already made my points, and more importantly my decisions.

All in all, if things keep going in this direction I will sadly, but surely leave W:I behind before this year ends.

And yes, I'm aware that it's don't matter to FFG "because sales are good, and we want a game which is broken, but gets broken a different way in every 3 months". But that's almost sounds like GW development. (8th edition Steam Tank anyone ?) /sarcasm intended/

Cain

With the exception of perhaps Classic Battletech (usually) I've never encountered a gamesystem where players did not unleash huge whinefests on the fora.
Something one shoukd keep in mind, dozens of 'vocal' people here complaining doesn't mean they'll represent the majority.

I do agree though that WH:I does need more balancing. But that's I believe partially the problem of the LCG system. (and a sacrifice that's worth making given the fact I wouldn't have bothered playing a new CCG). It mostly seems a problem spawned from the newness of the game and hence a lack of cards. It'll take probably one or 2 more cycles before we'll see differentiation and options lead to far more interesting decks and playability for all factions.

I don't believe absolute balance is truly possible though. Games will always be broken regretfully. Competitive players are like that...

What I would like is perhaps better wording on the cards. I'm starting to believe my brother had a point when he said the synthax needs far more work and standardization.

dormouse said:

Very well said. Good point.

dormouse said:

Well my problem right now is that Chaos never really did, in all fairness, ever rule the roost and it still doesn't. If anything, it seems to be falling further and further behind the curve - despite the addition of many cool new "corrupt this" cards. I wouldn't say that the environment is ruined for everything but at this moment (and for the past several months) it HAS been ruined for Chaos, imho. If they can get Chaos a bit more functional, I'll be super pleased. Even if they don't, I'm confident things will skew eventually for them (even if it's a year down the road or something), I mean it has to, right? Yeesh!

dormouse said:

I was lucky enough to snap my copies of March of the Damned at GenCon and to be honest, I'm not seeing much in there that will changes things against the Bolt-Thrower deck or Dwarves (though in all fairness, they didn't get a really huge boost, at all, in that set, so that was good at least). However, to support what Dormouse has said, I just created a new deck that does not use the March of the Damned expansion at all (it uses current cards) and early testing has it beating both Dwarves and BT fairly consistently. I want to test it some more to be sure as it stumbled a bit vs. Orc/Skaven but I've since refined it further and suspect that it'll now whup that deck too. So that does seem to support what Dormouse is saying here, to some extent. (I'll post it once I feel confident that I've done enough research on its success ratios vs. other top decks. At the moment, I'm cautiously optimistic that we have a new player in the field.)