Jump to content

New FAQs (January 2019)


Ish

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

What are yoy expecting them? To each customer to have their own individual representative? 

1) I don't understand how yoy say next to nothing. This makes no since to me because they have more interaction and work than most other companies. Even Wendy's would be hard pressed to beat them. 

2) that's because they resolve things in these dedicated documents that come out what, once a year and have basic explanations and fixes within what 2 weeks? 3? Stop creating an expectation that is impossible to appease. They have to see an issue and see it often to be fixed otherwise it's a knee jerk reaction that could be fixed by the community finding ways around them. 

Remember, things like chapter approved are finalized months in advance, the Big FAQ takes lots of data to get from various sources. 

3) Silly comment as most Tau players have tons of suits any ways. Especially with the start collecting boxes. 

1: What questions do you have for Wendy's that you can't get answered from the people at the bottom selling you the food? I've not been to Wendy's in years, maybe decades, so I'm not sure what sort of communication you'd need from them. 

For GW, I think that each product should list it's contents on the box. That seems like a very basic level reasonability. I'd also think a forum/techsupport section which could answer questions about the game in an official capacity seems pretty reasonable. They used to have a phone service that just randomly answered rules questions, now they feature one that says,"we'll pass that along to the design team" and never really resolves questions.

2) FAQs should resolve issues that arise in list creation and in your first game. I don't expect them to resolve tournament issues, as those should really be handled by the event organizer. 

As for testing, it's not that hard. If they release a codex, they should have tested each subfaction in the codex with each unit in the codex, each stratagem tested on each unit that can used it. They don't even need an opponent to test these, just run through the basics of deployment and the turn phases. That seems like a reasonable bare minimum BEFORE you release the codex. I run into things where I question if they even tested it once in that combination.  

3) I don't think GW is marketing entirely to players with existing collections. Think substancial point reductions are about selling models, not making the game more balanced. Starting the game with higher point costs makes getting into an army more reasonable and easy. The lower things cost, the more models you need to (and can) buy and field in a normal game. It seems entirely reasonable for a competent company, like GW, to have designed periods where the game's point costs are reduce to promote sales. It's like planned obsolescence.

I think GW purposely creates an unbalanced ruleset, which encourages tourament players to buy the unbalanced units, then they reel them in with a "nerf bat" and reap the rewards. And it very much works. Look at balanced rulesets in other games, they tend not sell as well. If my army is entirely balanced with all the other armies, why would I buy new models? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

For GW, I think that each product should list it's contents on the box. That seems like a very basic level reasonability

They do this now.

As for testing, it's not that hard. If they release a codex, they should have tested each subfaction in the codex with each unit in the codex.

They do this now. But there’s no way that a couple dozen play-testers playing with things for a few months can ever replicate tens of thousands of people playing it for only a weekend. Let’s say 24 people play two games a day, five days a week, for two months: That’s 960 games. That’s a drop in the bucket. That how many games get played in one day at AdeptiCon... and AdeptiCon is in no way attended by a majority of the fan base. Probably not even 1%.

I don't think GW is marketing entirely to players with existing collections.

No business on Earth exists only to sell to an existing customer base. If you don’t expand, you die. 

 think GW purposely creates an unbalanced ruleset, which encourages tourament players to buy the unbalanced units, then they reel them in with a "nerf bat" and reap the rewards.

I think you are attributing to conspiracy what is better explained as cock-up. Wargames have a lot of “moving parts,” there’s only so much you can do. Any tweak to one element of the game will have dozens of foreseeable effects on other elements of the game and will inevitably have several unforeseen effects on others.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Ish said:

I think you are attributing to conspiracy what is better explained as cock-up. Wargames have a lot of “moving parts,” there’s only so much you can do. Any tweak to one element of the game will have dozens of foreseeable effects on other elements of the game and will inevitably have several unforeseen effects on others.

Orks have fixed much of the knight and Eldar heavy meta alone. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, paxmiles said:

I'd also think a forum/techsupport section which could answer questions about the game in an official capacity seems pretty reasonable. They used to have a phone service that just randomly answered rules questions, now they feature one that says,"we'll pass that along to the design team" and never really resolves questions.

That's the Facebook team now. They are a support team and they answer what they can but as a business with competition they can only do so much. A forum is nice but then it has to be managed. Some companies have the resources to do that. 40k would have issues because there are LONG STANDING forums already in place such as dakka dakka and those like it. 

 

1 hour ago, paxmiles said:

2) FAQs should resolve issues that arise in list creation and in your first game. I don't expect them to resolve tournament issues, as those should really be handled by the event organizer. 

With GW focusing more on the tournament scene how can they not have a hand? Tournament organizers have immediate impact on a rule GW has the final Overarching view that is the end all be all. They are taking that seriously and waiting to see how things turn out before making stupid day one fixes. 

Remember, anything released today was finalized MONTHS ago 

 

1 hour ago, paxmiles said:

As for testing, it's not that hard. If they release a codex, they should have tested each subfaction in the codex with each unit in the codex, each stratagem tested on each unit that can used it. They don't even need an opponent to test these, just run through the basics of deployment and the turn phases. That seems like a reasonable bare minimum BEFORE you release the codex. I run into things where I question if they even tested it once in that combination.  

So, you are saying that two dozen people will figure out every single interaction, every single combination, and every single flaw in a few months while also having their own personal life, work, business, etc? I think your expectations are severely exceeding reality. 

 

1 hour ago, paxmiles said:

3) I don't think GW is marketing entirely to players with existing collections. Think substancial point reductions are about selling models, not making the game more balanced. 

There is no reason to adjust points beyond a competitive side. Casual players will play with what they think is fun and cool. Not what is competitive. 

1 hour ago, paxmiles said:

I think GW purposely creates an unbalanced ruleset, which encourages tourament players to buy the unbalanced units, then they reel them in with a "nerf bat" and reap the rewards. And it very much works. Look at balanced rulesets in other games, they tend not sell as well. If my army is entirely balanced with all the other armies, why would I buy new models? 

What game has a balanced ruleset? Please, I am curious 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lyraeus said:

So, you are saying that two dozen people will figure out every single interaction, every single combination, and every single flaw in a few months while also having their own personal life, work, business, etc? I think your expectations are severely exceeding reality. 

2 dozen people playing 40k in their free time? That's what you think of when you think "product testing"?

My expectations don't exceed reality, but apparently they exceed your concept of professionalism. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ish said:

I think you are attributing to conspiracy what is better explained as cock-up. Wargames have a lot of “moving parts,” there’s only so much you can do. Any tweak to one element of the game will have dozens of foreseeable effects on other elements of the game and will inevitably have several unforeseen effects on others.

Conspiracy is usually better explained as a cock-up. That said, when a company consistly makes "cock-ups" that result in a successfully growing company, "cocking up" again and again, always getting to be a bigger company, at a certain point you realize they aren't "cock-ups". https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/gmwkf/financials 

That is a business strategy, not a "cock-up."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

Fluxx is a balanced game. Uno is balanced.

 

Uno is not balanced because no one reads the rules and plays properly. 

Fluxx is not balanced. Fluxx is a counter balance game. You mess the rules up to shift the balance. 

 

23 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

2 dozen people playing 40k in their free time? That's what you think of when you think "product testing"?

My expectations don't exceed reality, but apparently they exceed your concept of professionalism. 

 

It is still not possible to do 100% testing for every product on the list for testing. 

Why do you think the Sisters Of Battle codex is a beta codex? It's so the players can find everything broken and what works best and allow for people to figure the beta dex out. 

 

Top tier players still haven't solved every codex so how do you expect play testers to do the same? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

Uno is not balanced because no one reads the rules and plays properly. 

Fluxx is not balanced. Fluxx is a counter balance game. You mess the rules up to shift the balance. 

Can you give an example of game balance being ignored in uno? You are the first I've heard question the game mechanics on that one. You could certainly be right, I have no idea.

In fluxx, are you following the printed rules on the cards? If so, are following the rules as written. You can definitely unbalance fluxx by removing certain cards from the deck and reach a point where no one can win. There's a few cards that could use FAQing, but they've got it pretty well handled. That game is balanced in the respect that each player playing has an equal chance to win.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

Conspiracy is usually better explained as a cock-up. That said, when a company consistly makes "cock-ups" that result in a successfully growing company, "cocking up" again and again, always getting to be a bigger company, at a certain point you realize they aren't "cock-ups". https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/gmwkf/financials 

That is a business strategy, not a "cock-up."

You mean like selling bundles at a HUGE mark down from individual kit prices? 

You mean at improving their competitive coverage? 

You mean by hyping, boosting, sending out each codex and supplement early to youtubers, or companies like Miniwargaming and Beasts of war even if it means people leaking them days in advance? 

You mean articles that tease and taunt us with fun and interesting content. 

You mean a twitch channel that plays their content and such? 

 

I am sorry @paxmiles but you have a noticeable bias here from editions were you likely feel burned. Right now, there are few wargames with this level of content. FFG doesn't do half of this, Privateers Press does not, Wyrd does not, Corvus Beli barely does close to this.

 

GW's success is all in the lap of the new ceo who took the game from failing to X-Wing and tossing it back to the top. He made smart decisions as small losses and now allowed the company to exponentially expand into far more markets

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

Can you give an example of game balance being ignored in uno? You are the first I've heard question the game mechanics on that one. You could certainly be right, I have no idea.

In fluxx, are you following the printed rules on the cards? If so, are following the rules as written. You can definitely unbalance fluxx by removing certain cards from the deck and reach a point where no one can win. There's a few cards that could use FAQing, but they've got it pretty well handled. That game is balanced in the respect that each player playing has an equal chance to win.  

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.simplemost.com/how-to-play-uno-because-youve-probably-been-playing-it-wrong-this-whole-time-2016-2/amp/

 

Printed rules does not make balance. We play printed rules, magic the gathering plays printed rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

Huh, never played like that. Never seen anyone else play like that. Downright unpleasant way to play. I wonder if the issue is that Mattel can't copyright it the way people actually play it...?

Definitely withdraw that as an example of balance in a game. I still like fluxx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a game is ever actually balanced, that would make it a solved game: one whose outcome (win, lose or draw) could be correctly predicted from any position, any point of play, any state, assuming that both players play perfectly.

Connect 4 is a solved game, checkers is a solved game, tic-tac-toe is a solved game...

...and solved games are boring as hell.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

Huh, never played like that. Never seen anyone else play like that. Downright unpleasant way to play. I wonder if the issue is that Mattel can't copyright it the way people actually play it...?

Definitely withdraw that as an example of balance in a game. I still like fluxx.

Fluxx is unbalanced because it's meant to be. It is inherently meant to be in balanced. Fluxx is a great game but that imbalance is fun

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

Fluxx is unbalanced because it's meant to be. It is inherently meant to be in balanced. Fluxx is a great game but that imbalance is fun

I tend to think the winner of fluxx is, more or less, random. Isn't random balanced?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lyraeus said:

GW's success is all in the lap of the new ceo who took the game from failing to X-Wing and tossing it back to the top. He made smart decisions as small losses and now allowed the company to exponentially expand into far more markets

For clarity, the "new CEO" has been working as a non-CEO GW employee since 1998. He was CFO by 2008. Managing Global Services by 2011. And the "new" CEO as of 2015.

Regarding more social presence, in the 2015 Annual General meeting, GW told it's shareholders that they don't do research on who buys their stuff, despite also stating percentages of the people that buy their stuff. This caused multiple angry web articles, and in response to this, GW is now more social. I think Tom Kirby would have done exactly the same thing.

I think Tom Kirby laid the groundwork for another CEO to look really good. I think he's been training his Protege to take his place, and that man is Kevin Rountree. I don't think this is conspiracy, I think it's smart business that thinks longterm about profit. Tom Kirby did a lot of things that made him unpopular, but they were things that were needed to make Kevin Rountree look really good.

Anyway, my point is that the company hasn't changed. They are still a model company focused on profit in the long term. The 2015 GW and the current 2019 GW are the same thing. They have improved how others view them, but they are still the same profit focused company. And that's true to the GW mission statement:

Quote

We make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them globally at a profit and we intend to do this forever.

https://investor.games-workshop.com/our-business-model/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

*Many good points*

Sorry, I am done with this discussion. Now matter what I say, prove or show it means nothing if you are not willing to have an open mind. Especially since you are beholden to your past ideology of GW

So I will leave you with this. 

Show me a few wargame companies that have better internet presence/community presence than GW as they stand now. 4

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

Sorry, I am done with this discussion. Now matter what I say, prove or show it means nothing if you are not willing to have an open mind. Especially since you are beholden to your past ideology of GW

That goes both ways you know. I, also, can't change your closed mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

OK, as a Navy veteran what's your point? They are not a wargame company that has next to any community interaction beyond some visits to schools. Next please. 

 

6 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

That goes both ways you know. I, also, can't change your closed mind.

You can't change it because you don't have a good argument. 

Your argument is "they are still abusive", ok, compared to who? On what basis are we talking here? What's the standard this is from? 

You don't have a standard, you don't have a comparison, you don't have an argument other than your feelings. 

Give me an actual argument and I will keep an open mind. So far there is none of that. Just your expectations of what they should be, but nothing to help that or show what thst could be. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, my point is that Hasbro hasn't changed. They are still a toy company focused on profit in the long term. The 1989 Hasbro and the current 2019 Hasbro are the same thing. They have improved how others view them, but they are still the same profit focused company. And that's true to their mission statement:

Hasbro's mission is to create the world's best play experiences. The best play experiences stand apart from anyone elses and deliver joy, creativity and connection around the world and across generations.

Yeah, I mean, I’m totally shocked to learn that the people who make the toys I liked to play with as a child – and that my children like to play with today — have the unmitigated gall to want to be paid for their work. How gauche.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lyraeus said:

You can't change it because you don't have a good argument. 

You don't understand my arguement, and likewise, I don't understand your's. The impasse we've reached is based on this inability to understand the other.

If I understood you better, I could make a good argument. If you understood me better, you could make a good one. As it stands, I agree, we should drop the idea of trying to change the opinion of the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, paxmiles said:

You don't understand my arguement, and likewise, I don't understand your's. The impasse we've reached is based on this inability to understand the other.

If I understood you better, I could make a good argument. If you understood me better, you could make a good one. As it stands, I agree, we should drop the idea of trying to change the opinion of the other.

What is there to understand. You think GW is the abusive boyfriend of the relationship saying "I love you" or "I didn't mean it" every time we try to leave. 

You still haven't even answered my last question. You tried with the military but that didn't even come close to what I asked.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lyraeus said:

What is there to understand.

Yeah, I'm going to stop here. If that's your understanding of my argument after 2 pages, clearly you can't (or don't want to) understand and there's no point. Have a good day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...