PDA

View Full Version : When the Carrots and Sticks don't work...



Vet.Sister
11-07-2015, 18:22
An interesting view point...
http://www.corehammer.com/self-reflection-in-the-age-of-sigmar-brinton-williams/

tl;dr

more notably; paragraph 2, last sentence

Age of Sigmar challenges the player to consider a much wider range of social and competitive engagement, and in doing so, has fulfilled a design direction that GW has been pushing towards for years (and some could argue since the beginning).

and paragraph 7, last 2 sentences

If someone was smart enough to find combinations or loop holes, they could hide behind this veneer of rules based balance while ruining folks hobby. Age of Sigmar forces players to take responsibility for their part in a shared narrative battle experience, and choose their opponents a little more carefully for best results.

So the reboot IMO has an awful lot to do with getting rid of the Carrot approach (ie. rewarding players for playing the game how GW thinks it ought to be played) and turning the Stick approach straight up to ELEVEN! MathHammer isn't so useful when they kill off points values, sure you can still do some math but it isn't important anymore... just take what seems cool.
It would seem they have succeeded quite well in transforming WHFB from a game into a social activity. Trouble is, not everyone is going to appreciate this transformation!

Mawduce
11-07-2015, 18:28
the stick is nothing without the carrot.

Ghachii
11-07-2015, 18:29
Taking it back to its roots you might say.

Hoffa
11-07-2015, 18:36
Sorry they must be joking. The only way to get AoS to work is to design your own point system for it which is math hammer turned up to 11.

TheFang
11-07-2015, 18:45
It's not a narrative game, except in the sense of "cowboys and indians" from childhood. Force selection and victory are comical. The greatest swordsman alive gets hit with the same ease as a brain dead zombie but everyone gets to shoot into combat like Legolas. Terrain is a nonsense and so on. It needs so many house rules and negotiated compromises to play you might as well write your own game.

Like most stick approaches it doesn't work on the majority and won't do GW any favours. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. AoS is pure acetic acid.

Hoffa
11-07-2015, 18:52
Especially since they tell us we should adapt the system according to what we want to get out of it but do not give any hints how to actually do that. If I want to play a desperate game were my force is half the strength of the opponents. How would I go ahead and set that up? The rules does not give any clue as there is no way to quantify the strength of the forces. All the talk about how AoS is about agreeing with your opponent is glossing over the fact that after two persons have agreed on what they want to get out of the game there is nothing to actually help them create that experience.

Avian
11-07-2015, 18:58
the stick is nothing without the carrot.
Indeed. Which one would you pick: the game with a medium-sized stick and a medium-sized carrot, or the one with a king-sized stick and no carrot?

willowdark
11-07-2015, 19:02
It never really took a smart person to find those loopholes or cheesy combos. They were usually right out in the open. That's why everyone hated them, because everyone knew about them and everyone knew that guy who thought he was smart for taking it.

I want to like this system, mostly because it offers the freedom to play a mixed force and build exactly the kind of army I want. But I don't buy the simplicity of the rules as a reason to like this game. GW erred on the side of cheese for years as a tool for pushing each new line of models. None of those loopholes were accidents.

Scribe of Khorne
11-07-2015, 19:13
"GW is allowing you to ruin eachothers games, so dont."

Absolutely **** logic. 100% utter ****. There are no further words for it.

mightymconeshot
11-07-2015, 19:16
And for those of us who don't get to choose our opponents or have a really big selection to choose from?and rely on pick up games? Basically just well sucks to be you and hopefully you get a good game?

Scribe of Khorne
11-07-2015, 19:21
Exactly. This is nothing but the amplification of the issues in 7th 40K. These are the same issues and arguments, only now, its completely off the rails, riding the shark, pants on head as there is NO system out of the box to balance, and its ALL up to the players.

Asinine.

Malagor
11-07-2015, 19:23
So not only is it the players fault that fantasy didn't sell well enough but it was also the players fault that there were loopholes in the rules and imbalances in some of the armybooks.
Good to know.

Mateobard
11-07-2015, 19:24
Yet another "these really badly designed rules are actually secretly pure genius that will revolutionize and fix everything about the people I don't like who game" argument. It's crap.

The rules are bad. The game is badly, badly broken and the community should move on to a better game company that's worthy of their business, passion, and time.

Reinholt
11-07-2015, 19:25
I believe the core problem is that nobody is compelled to play AoS, therefore dialing the "stick up to eleven", to paraphrase the OP, is most likely to cause people to just not play.

GW is not a monopoly; using the "stick" approach with customers is an excellent way to turn them into ex-customers.

McNs
11-07-2015, 19:43
That website is bad and it should feel bad.

To articulate: it's one thing to have a social contract amongst friends not bring an unbalanced list. Many players are used to and are fine negotiating that (as in "Hey, could you bring the most broken combination of daemons possible? It's not fun to play against."). Many players, myself included, thought GW could have done a better job balancing the game. I would understand if the game was unbalanced in way that delivered on the core power fantasy of models - e.g. - Blood Thirsters were unkillable combat monsters (a'la 2nd edition 40K), but often the worst offenders of balance were simply the models that GW wanted to sell the most of. Many players, myself included, understood this but were annoyed by this.

Fast forward to Age of Sigmar. We've now moved from having a balancing mechanic (i.e. - points and army role [core, special, etc]) to having no balancing mechanic and no guidance. This is OK for groups of friends, though its non-ideal. My friends and I had quite a few unbalanced games that initially looked balanced in trying to figure out what worked for "even" armies. We enjoyed are games, but would have enjoyed them more if we didn't have to do guess-work GW previously gave us a helping hand with. The community will probably come up with some socially accepted "comp" system, but until then I really don't know how I would arrange a pick-up game with a stranger. Or rather, I do, but I don't want to go through 30 minutes of negotiating terms of how we're going to play our game to then play a 60 minute game. That's stupid.

Let's face it: unless GW has held back army construction rules, the community is going to have to come up with a solution for this. As a blog that's striving to be "PFR", I'm surprised that Corehammer is so excited that a corporation is essentially off-loading work it used to do onto free volunteers in order to realize profit.

skorczeny
11-07-2015, 19:45
I believe the core problem is that nobody is compelled to play AoS, therefore dialing the "stick up to eleven", to paraphrase the OP, is most likely to cause people to just not play.

GW is not a monopoly; using the "stick" approach with customers is an excellent way to turn them into ex-customers.

Maybe GW just wants fewer customers, and wants to do less business overall - you know, a planned decrease of the company. Because this is too crazy to actually gain them market share.

bad dice
11-07-2015, 20:22
Man i am starting to think that the ppl that embrace AOS are the once that don't embrace logic.

The logic of the game is so broken that you have to work to balance it out, so there for it is more balance is such bs.

I have played 10 games of AOS now and none of them have been balanced in fact if 9 of the where once sided affairs.

And how the **** does mathhammer no longer work if there is no points.
Mathhammer just got a whole lote easier. Cause apart from the save enemy models have no influence on the expected out come.

For instance you can predict that it will take 15 phoenix guard 3 combatturns to defeat 15 blackgaurd. And that by the end of it they will have 10 models left. (if they go first)
Because the large amount of dice trown it follows that bell curve pretty nicely ( ok i have to admit sometimes i don't things to do in my spare-time and run that kind of simulations)

Now you could say that tactics have more influence on the game then pure math. But combat is pretty non lethal. Meaning that tactics are hard to do without the game bogging down in a large melee. Where it is simply the best models that will do the most damage and win

Cause there are no "points" in the game but there is a models "cost" Elites are the way to go.
In fact during the 10 test games i found out that the game is the most fun whit smaller elite armies. IF you can hit hard enough you can destroy units before "help" turns up preventing a large melee And bring some maneuver back into the game.

In that regard the boxed set makes a much better game then the war scrolls of the older armies. Cause they are much more lethal then the older armies.

But on a whole it's really much more a game about rolling dice then about tactics.

I had fun 10 times. But that was mostly because i have fun friends not because it was such a good game. And if this is supposed to be a social experience. Then i can think of social experiences that are A) more social B) more of a experience c) cost less money and D) do not involve me painting little man on my own for hours.

Vet.Sister
11-07-2015, 20:37
I believe the core problem is that nobody is compelled to play AoS, therefore dialing the "stick up to eleven", to paraphrase the OP, is most likely to cause people to just not play.

GW is not a monopoly; using the "stick" approach with customers is an excellent way to turn them into ex-customers.

Precisely!
When people join their mates to watch Manchester United and drink some ale... that's a social activity, but it isn't like TableTop Wargaming. They're compelled by team spirit and such.
When people go to dance clubs to drink, dance and meet someone... that's a social activity, but it isn't like TableTop Wargaming. They're compelled by drinking, dancing and dating.
When people join a book club and discuss certain works over a glass of Merlot... that's a social activity, but... well, you get the idea right?

As Reinholt suggests, why would anyone be compelled to play this? Especially when they don't like it! They could do other social activities that gets them far, FAR more enjoyment.

ie a TableTop Wargame built (almost) solely for social interaction above all else, and is hyper expensive as well... WHY?

EDIT;
bad dice's last sentence said it better than I did...

silveralen
11-07-2015, 20:38
Sorry they must be joking. The only way to get AoS to work is to design your own point system for it which is math hammer turned up to 11.

The wounds seem to be a decent estimate, i played a game earlier using some rules a GW store posted unofficially. https://twitter.com/Lady_Atia/status/619556741374734336

It's a ballpark estimate to be sure, elves have a fair number of 1 wound units which break the curve, but I'll reserve judgment till we see the new armies/units and how they are balanced, the older stuff was a bit thrown together it seems.

theunwantedbeing
11-07-2015, 20:43
It would seem they have succeeded quite well in transforming WHFB from a game into a social activity. Trouble is, not everyone is going to appreciate this transformation!

It's no more or less social than it used to be though.
The only difference is the rules are much much simpler and much less difficult to learn, so we'll get more gamers playing as before the game was beyond them.

Powergamers?
They can still power-game....it's even easier now.
Cheaters?
No need, just power-game.
Fluff players?
Keep being fluffy, the power gamers and cheats are still going to stomp you like they did before.
More social?
Well we didn't boot out the power gamers or cheats before, why are we going to start now?


Free rules does have one massive benefit though.
Increased traffic to GW's website, seeing as you can get them there legally and free.
Some people might even be tempted to buy stuff, if not they'll likely Google it to see if they can get it cheaper and that's just more hits for GW.

LTERALUS
11-07-2015, 21:40
I actually welcomed the change in the points systems. The only thing that was disenchantizing about 8th was the over-powered munchkin characters (I'm talking about you 1+/3+/eyeoftzeentch). The first time I threw down AoS I enjoyed deploying units I like to play in a fair manner with my opponent. The article Vet.Sister posted commends this change.
However.......
What it fails to mention is the flawed rule set that makes the movement and combat of troops arduous and chaotic. I had no issues creating a balanced list with my opponent, but once it got to measuring distances model-to-model, pile-ins and moving 30+ models one at a time, the game lost all its flair.
I feel people are wasting their time trying to come up with point-based algorithms to make AoS competitive again. What's the point when the SAME PEOPLE also complain how the game is unplayable. We need to get past the topic of points since it's excavation is a true waste of time.

Voss
11-07-2015, 22:37
An interesting view point...
http://www.corehammer.com/self-reflection-in-the-age-of-sigmar-brinton-williams/

tl;dr

more notably; paragraph 2, last sentence

Age of Sigmar challenges the player to consider a much wider range of social and competitive engagement, and in doing so, has fulfilled a design direction that GW has been pushing towards for years (and some could argue since the beginning).

and paragraph 7, last 2 sentences

If someone was smart enough to find combinations or loop holes, they could hide behind this veneer of rules based balance while ruining folks hobby. Age of Sigmar forces players to take responsibility for their part in a shared narrative battle experience, and choose their opponents a little more carefully for best results.

So the reboot IMO has an awful lot to do with getting rid of the Carrot approach (ie. rewarding players for playing the game how GW thinks it ought to be played) and turning the Stick approach straight up to ELEVEN! MathHammer isn't so useful when they kill off points values, sure you can still do some math but it isn't important anymore... just take what seems cool.
It would seem they have succeeded quite well in transforming WHFB from a game into a social activity. Trouble is, not everyone is going to appreciate this transformation!
Drivel. It has always been a social activity. The author is just justifying driving players away by proclaiming that anyone who leaves was an inherently horrible person anyway, so isn't any loss.

But I do find it amusing that his victory (going by what you have quoted) is in GW making all the smart people leave.


I can't see in any narrative in AoS. There was a BBC (America) special on the other day about Waterloo, which kept cutting to wargamers enthusing about history, and key engagements during the battle they particularly liked to recreate, particularly the fighting around the gates of Hougoumont. I can easily see that translated into early warhammer (particularly Heinreich Kemmler and the battles of Maisontaal abbey). With AoS? You're fighting around a random benefit to some sort of meaningless chicanery. There isn't anything there just models and dice rolls, and trying to get scenery benefits.



I actually welcomed the change in the points systems. The only thing that was disenchantizing about 8th was the over-powered munchkin characters (I'm talking about you 1+/3+/eyeoftzeentch). The first time I threw down AoS I enjoyed deploying units I like to play in a fair manner with my opponent. The article Vet.Sister posted commends this change.
There is no change here. Nothing stopped you from deploying units you both like in a fair manner with your opponent any edition to date. Nor does ANYTHING at all in AOS stop you or your opponent from breaking out the crazy broken stuff in the face of 'fair' stuff. For whatever random definition of 'fair' you care to make up.

de Selby
11-07-2015, 23:39
I still don't know if I'm looking at the Nintendo Wii, or Windows 8. Neither were popular with the existing user base, but the Wii was a big success because it was just... so... accessible, to people who'd never played before. There are anecdotes aplenty on the web about new people trying Age of Sigmar, but we'll have to wait and see how many.

heavyheart
12-07-2015, 00:31
I still don't know if I'm looking at the Nintendo Wii, or Windows 8. Neither were popular with the existing user base, but the Wii was a big success because it was just... so... accessible, to people who'd never played before. There are anecdotes aplenty on the web about new people trying Age of Sigmar, but we'll have to wait and see how many.

It's important to note that even though casuals bought the hard ware they didn't buy alot of software, hardcore gamers felt rejected and went Microsoft making the 360 a massive success despite red ring issues.

In much the same way casuals will buy the core set but never invest the same as a real gamer they'll play a few games then move on.

silveralen
12-07-2015, 04:14
It's important to note that even though casuals bought the hard ware they didn't buy alot of software, hardcore gamers felt rejected and went Microsoft making the 360 a massive success despite red ring issues.

In much the same way casuals will buy the core set but never invest the same as a real gamer they'll play a few games then move on.

That's not even slightly accurate to history. The 360 barely managed to overtake the wii in total software sold by the time the wii u launched despite having a year head start. http://gamesetwatch.com/console-software-sales-not-launch-aligned-2012.png

Even casual purchasers are likely to make eventual follow up purchases, if they enjoyed the original product.

scruffyryan
12-07-2015, 05:06
I like how Gav Thorpe chimed in there.

zoggin-eck
12-07-2015, 05:12
I quite enjoy the Corehammer blog, music aside. I enjoyed this article, too. I guess I agree with most of it, but you need to remember that it's intentionally a blog "about a group of dudes within that scene, within that community". Anyone who responds with "but I play random people in a shop" aren't at all the kind of people they are talking to.

That said, even if I agree with the blog poster's opinion, AoS is at the moment hardly a story-diven game, with little background, a setting they haven't given us a reason to care about and rules that don't seem to have an original "hook" or point of difference.

What bugs me though:


"These two changes, regardless of your opinion on the design teams skill in implementing them, signal such a massive shift in how wargames must be played, and therefore how wargamers must treat each other, the changes must be talked about in depth."

Nope, it signals a massive shift in how WHFB is played (not just GW games, don't forget Inquisitor). Not even that, it's a return to how it was originally played.


I like how Gav Thorpe chimed in there.

Haha, and then someone just had to reply to him while missing the point entirely :)

scruffyryan
12-07-2015, 05:17
I quite enjoy the Corehammer blog, music aside. I enjoyed this article, too. I guess I agree with most of it, but you need to remember that it's intentionally a blog "about a group of dudes within that scene, within that community". Anyone who responds with "but I play random people in a shop" aren't at all the kind of people they are talking to.

That said, even if I agree with the blog poster's opinion, AoS is at the moment hardly a story-diven game, with little background, a setting they haven't given us a reason to care about and rules that don't seem to have an original "hook" or point of difference.

What bugs me though:



Nope, it signals a massive shift in how WHFB is played (not just GW games, don't forget Inquisitor). Not even that, it's a return to how it was originally played.

It doesn't even signify that. Local metas will create their standards and it will remain a small enough hobby that the people they talk about "just not playing against" will make lists that people within that group don't like but they'll continue to play against them because at the end of the day the local wargaming community isn't that large outside of multiple gaming groups getting together for tournaments.

GW WAS the juggernaut who set the tone for wargaming, they ceded that position when they stopped being a games company and became a model company.

Scribe of Khorne
12-07-2015, 05:39
If someone could do me a favour, please post to Gav on that site that he needs to put a bug in GW's ear to NOT, I repeat NOT **** up 40K in the same way?

That would be just great.

scruffyryan
12-07-2015, 05:41
gav is super happy with AoS

Scribe of Khorne
12-07-2015, 06:01
Guy was part of the team that gave us CSM 4th Edition, so I would take any props sent to AoS as a further sign I want nothing to do with it.

mhsellwood
12-07-2015, 06:19
The Wii is a great example of what can happen when you go against the accepted wisdom as to what the market wanted - still number one in hardware sales (from memory) and huge sales of software.

The post itself is well written, and I completely agree with the central thesis - that without 'official' support and validation for being a jerk you are now responsible for your own decisions. Want to win the game turn one with a two model combo? You can do that. But you do not need to do that, and if you decide to do it you are announcing to the world just how important you think the other person's enjoyment of the game is. To get a good game you need a collaborative approach, and a mutual agreement as to what the game is going to be and what you both want to get out of it. Scary thought.

Scribe of Khorne
12-07-2015, 06:33
The wii is also the only kid friendly system out there, in that it offers many G rated titles.

This is why I have purchased a Wii and Wii U (and 3ds) for my son, and will not be getting him an Xbox or PS3 anytime soon.

I also disagree with the thesis.

8th (or 7th 40K) - The points system allows for it, so its fair.
AoS - There is no points, if you can fit it on the table, its fair.

There is no 'jerk' threshold here. If there is, please feel free to define it. Unfortunate is it not that it would be YOUR definition only?

Mawduce
12-07-2015, 06:59
The Wii is a great example of what can happen when you go against the accepted wisdom as to what the market wanted - still number one in hardware sales (from memory) and huge sales of software.

The post itself is well written, and I completely agree with the central thesis - that without 'official' support and validation for being a jerk you are now responsible for your own decisions. Want to win the game turn one with a two model combo? You can do that. But you do not need to do that, and if you decide to do it you are announcing to the world just how important you think the other person's enjoyment of the game is. To get a good game you need a collaborative approach, and a mutual agreement as to what the game is going to be and what you both want to get out of it. Scary thought.

1. PS2 is still best selling console of all time.
2. The Wii did sell, but no one made anything for it and it crumbled.
3. The Wii sold on a gimmick that went out the door as fast as it came in.
4. Nintendo is almost the same as GW because it wants to death grip its IP's and control everything on it's console. They are losing money hand over fist and won't be around in 10 years at best estimates 5 at worst.

Bad comparison... or good depending on you look at it.

mhsellwood
12-07-2015, 07:08
1. PS2 is still best selling console of all time.
2. The Wii did sell, but no one made anything for it and it crumbled.
3. The Wii sold on a gimmick that went out the door as fast as it came in.
4. Nintendo is almost the same as GW because it wants to death grip its IP's and control everything on it's console. They are losing money hand over fist and won't be around in 10 years at best estimates 5 at worst.

Bad comparison... or good depending on you look at it.

The great thing about making absolute statements is they are either true and prove something, or they are wrong and they prove you don't know what you are talking about. The most recent financials for Nintendo are below. Please read them and then report back how Nintendo is losing money hand over fist and will be gone in 10 years.

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2015/150507e.pdf

Gorbad Ironclaw
12-07-2015, 07:16
While I don't really disagree with the points the blog makes per say, I'm not really sure it's that different from how it used to be. If you have the luxury of a larger gaming group there are probably already people you would rather not play against. And each gaming group tends to develop some sort of convention for how the game is played and what is used. AoS just mandates you do all of that before you can get to playing and it also means that the people who you might not quite see eye to eye with about how the game is supposed to be played becomes even more difficult to play with.

There are people at my club I can play a points based game with, even if I might rather play someone else. But a game where we have to negotiate this much before the game just goes out the window, I wouldn't want to do that at all because we will not agree and whatever we agreed on will become a point of argument later.

I do think it will be a perfectly fine game for small group of friends who wants and play the same kind of game. I'm not sure it will be very good for other types of groups.

Vet.Sister
12-07-2015, 21:38
While I don't really disagree with the points the blog makes per say, I'm not really sure it's that different from how it used to be. If you have the luxury of a larger gaming group there are probably already people you would rather not play against. And each gaming group tends to develop some sort of convention for how the game is played and what is used. AoS just mandates you do all of that before you can get to playing and it also means that the people who you might not quite see eye to eye with about how the game is supposed to be played becomes even more difficult to play with.

There are people at my club I can play a points based game with, even if I might rather play someone else. But a game where we have to negotiate this much before the game just goes out the window, I wouldn't want to do that at all because we will not agree and whatever we agreed on will become a point of argument later.

I do think it will be a perfectly fine game for small group of friends who wants and play the same kind of game. I'm not sure it will be very good for other types of groups.


By extension, one could also argue that 'intentional gamesmanship' is less concealable by legalistic minutiae. ie. Hiding behind 'the rules allow it, so it is fair!'
With 'no more point values' and 'just field what you like'... I agree with your premise Gorbad, having to negotiate a bunch of stuff at the beginning that will only be the cause of later arguements does indeed defeat the entire purpose of playing the game.

Scribe of Khorne
12-07-2015, 21:53
Yeah I mentioned this in another thread, but there is literally 2 people I would play this with in my group, the rest will bitch to no end, argue over 'balance' and generally make it a **** show.

AngryAngel
12-07-2015, 22:08
That's not even slightly accurate to history. The 360 barely managed to overtake the wii in total software sold by the time the wii u launched despite having a year head start. http://gamesetwatch.com/console-software-sales-not-launch-aligned-2012.png

Even casual purchasers are likely to make eventual follow up purchases, if they enjoyed the original product.

It is a bit un true, very casual gamers, which bought the Wii, tend to not do many follow up buys as it doesn't matter to them. I think it only is more apparent with a product like AoS. There are many boardgames for the casual gamer and only someone pitched a bit more to the hardcore side is going to get many if any models you need to put together as well as paint, base and then set up games.



The Wii is a great example of what can happen when you go against the accepted wisdom as to what the market wanted - still number one in hardware sales (from memory) and huge sales of software.

The post itself is well written, and I completely agree with the central thesis - that without 'official' support and validation for being a jerk you are now responsible for your own decisions. Want to win the game turn one with a two model combo? You can do that. But you do not need to do that, and if you decide to do it you are announcing to the world just how important you think the other person's enjoyment of the game is. To get a good game you need a collaborative approach, and a mutual agreement as to what the game is going to be and what you both want to get out of it. Scary thought.

What systems are out selling each other tend to fluctuate and I don't keep up with them all. However I will say that Nintendo had a some what lack luster showing at the E3 this year and past the first bit of hype for the Wii I haven't heard much about it, they are selling to the absolute casual market, and living off of handheld sales, however unlike GW, they have a trusted market name and do actually tend to give their loyal customers what they want sooner or later.