The following is a response to a thread with a poll on the The Witcher forums, regarding two other threads where idiots are complaining at each other about how the idea that TW2 is 'designed with consoles in mind' ie 'for future consideration in regards to a port' is the same as 'ohnoes GoW3 ripoff loololooolol cancelled mah perorduh TW2 dumbed down consoleport'.
What do you mean? I'll have you know that I played console games ever since like 1994-2008 and most of those years were on my own personal playstation/sega/whatevers. Console games aren't inherently terrible and this topic just makes my head spin with how narrowminded the options are.
What is consolisation? Consolification? Is it some tangible process of making a game that can be physically held? I mean are we talking about the differences between a wooden spoon and a steel spoon? Same function, different material and tools used.
If you are, infact, referring to the difference between an item of identical size and shape but of different construction and materials then you might be on to something. To suggest that console games are shallower than PC games isn't quite fair. Matters of story complexity comes down to writing. Matters of control scheme simplicity is an inherent limitation to the system but never ever get to thinking that giving a game like halo a number of controls equal to ARMA2 will ever make it a better game.
I think chap, what you are actually referring to, is a symptom more commonly found in a condition of games hit by "the activision factor" aka "CODolitis". It's an insidious disease that affects games by reducing content to a minimum as an effort to maximise post-counter (after sale) profits via microtransactions. These games are built on tired engines, are limited in scope and are comprised of 'high action' sequences in frequency and are habitually filled with 2-dimensional characters, mostly of the short-brown-haired stubble-face white-guy variety. Even when characters like that are contextually irrelevant or counterintuitive to the setting or medium.
If you've been keeping track of FPS games for the last 2 years or so, you would have seen just about every goddamned one become a COD4 ripoff. My older brother was interested in buying crysis 2.. and then I loaded up youtube with 5 different videos. MW2, BLOPS, Crysis 2, MOH and Killzone 3. Suffice to say he said I had "ruined the next 2 years worth of games for him". Derp. Saved him money is what I did.
Now microtransactions themselves are the root of the problem but that's a story for another time.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Comparing DAO to TW1.
I, for one, couldn't even be bothered playing through DAO to the end.
That being said, I have only 1 completed playthrough of the Witcher as well. I've owned the game since... early 2008 I think.
I will expand on my thoughts now;
1. The differences in the story between DAO and TW1.
DAO; you play as whoever you want (within 6 predefined archetypes). Once you have left your origin, the game follows a strictly pre-defined path as you are given tasks by the Warden. A major event occurs that sees a paradigm-shift in the nature of the game from pre-constructed narrative to a "make your own adventure" novel. The illusion of choice is maintained by offering the player 4 or 5 different locations to begin searching through, with those locations themselves allowing a 'weaving' of interdependent quests [notably the Red village quest with the boy which takes you to the tower which takes you to somewhere else]. While not a fault in itself to offer a pre-set narrative the story is weak for reasons I will detail below.
Prima; The story is weakened by the sudden change in narrative style, from a predetermined path you are on it switches to a multiple-choice map. Instead of having a few choices that are well detailed to propel the character forward we are presented with 4 totally different locations that demand us to disregard all our narrative and plot points to focus on the immediate surroundings. The result here is that the story feels disjointed and schitsophrenic, major events from previous locations are ignored or deemed irrelevant by the game as a result of the developers desire to provide 'choice'. The truth is, you must still visit all these places, still complete their main quests and to the developers I say the only thing I'm lacking in this game is immersion.
Secundo; The story itself revolves around a random individual from a variety of backgrounds and locations and races being selected by another individual to become some sort of demonically possessed undead-hunter/monster-slayer. The premise of the game offers no buildup to the Wardens arrival, no explanation of what he is or why he is here[there?] and expects you to blindly follow a total stranger into war against an army of undead with marginal or ineffective support and drink the blood of a demon. The story concludes with you, the player, the only remaining Warden on the continent, defeating a demon-god in combat with support from your [non-Warden] friends and allies. This suggests that the main character is infact nothing more than a living compass and that the entire game could have been completed by any suitably skilled individual who happened to walk in on the major population centres currently under attack. [If this series of events doesn't strike you, the reader, as totally inane and unbelievable then I wash my hands of you now.]
Tertio; Aside from the main plot of the game [becoming harder to interpret and understand?] there are many minor quests that revolve around helping individuals within the towns you enter, as well as some activities relating to your comrades (though normally only when you meet them). Let's examine some specific examples: in Lothering you are tasked with collect bear hides (or was it spider husks, I forget) from the surrounding wilderness by some person in a tavern. What this person has in relation to the main story is left unexplored. The quest seems to exist only to provide 'xp' and pad out the game length by requiring you to kill a randomly assigned number of specific creatures. [obviously TW1 includes quests like this but we will focus on DAO for right now]. Another quest in Lothering includes exploring the same wilderness for a campsite (or somesuch) to find the occupants. This quest is resolved by finding it infested with spiders and a locked chest. The quest, we can conclude, exists for no reason than to provide 'xp' and equipment. Where companions are concerned the quests they require are predominantly fetch quests. Morrigan wants a book, Alistair is a wanker, OldWoman wants you to find[read:fetch] a friend/tutor in the tower and Lelaina wants you to have awkward conversations and feel scared as she watches you in your sleep [she probably wants some ridiculous religious symbol or "love and acceptance" or some other garbage but once again I never played the game through to completion]. From these points we can see that the nature of DAO has a large "MMO" focus to it. [I will come back to this later]
TW1; TW1 follows the story of a Witcher, a person who typically was found as an orphan or promised to existing Witchers, who undergoes physical tests and biological modifications in order to become a 'professional monster slayer'. These words are important: they brook no further explanation of the characters motivations for his job and do not permit asinine or pretentious reinterpretations of who this man is, or what he does. He kills monsters for money, it's very simple. The characters' simplicity aside, the story of TW1 sees us assume command of the character 'Geralt', as he returns from death to his home Kaer Morhen, introducing us to people from his history and providing us a chance to establish a new identity to play off the canonical old one via Geralts struggle with amnesia. There are still flaws in the execution of TW1 and will be examined now.
Prima; Choice and moral ambuiguity are [advertised on the box, but I digress] key parts of TW1. Geralt makes decisions and must deal with the consequences. This is sometimes handled poorly. Notably right at the start of the game, in chapter 1, when Geralt must decide to allow or not to allow a group of Scoiatel to collect some smuggled weapons. If he does allow them to take the weapons, in chapter 2 we find a character that would have accelerated a quest lying dead in an inn. The problem begins with the story behind the Scoiatel. It is not adequately explored before the decision over the smuggled goods becomes important. Chapter 1 is focussed on dealing with Abigail and the priest, not the Scoiatel and their war. If Geralt had been told bluntly that the Scoiatel were terrorists who murder merchants and peasants then the decision of the weapons would have had more impact, as Geralt would have knowingly been aiding a group of insurgents. What is found however is that the Scoiatel offer to pay Geralt and due to a lack of information we find later that someone important has just been killed. There was no reason to refuse them except for someone who has already played through the game and wanted to avoid that particular result.
Secundo; The story itself is a rigid and linear progression of events that follow directly on from previous events, except for when it doesn't. By this I mean the infamous chapter 2 runes quest, the chapter 4 Dagon quest and the Chapter 4 sun-wraith quest. These quests unfortunately are quite long and are only tangentially related to the main plot. The story drags, forcing players to collect things that feel meaningless and offers no direct recompense to the character beyond 'xp' and potentially gear. The events are weakly held together by, at the end, forcing Geralt to speak about himself to a companion, therefore presumably assigning some measure of allegiance to a philosphical stand-point. The pacing of these quests, the subject matter and the results of them leave the player feeling like they have wasted their time.
Now that the story has been looked at in brief, we can move on to gameplay.
2. Gameplay differences: analysing the combat system, the quest mechanic and the players involvement.
DAO; This game claims to be the 'spiritual successor' of the Baldur's Gate series. As the producers of the games are the same people, that claim just doesn't make any sense. [Had they claimed it to be a literal successor to BG it would have implied some kind of actual balance or quality, so I can see why they didn't do that.] They said this because they wanted to give the impression that DAO had a combat system reminiscent of BG in function. In this at least they weren't lying. Fighters fight, rogues backstab and magi shoot fireballs. Friendly fire is a possibility which helps to encourage micromanagement of the characters and just generally compensate for a lack of well-programmed AI. Amusingly, the balance of the game is similar to BG, with casters being unstoppably powerful in later levels and fighters generally underperforming. Bioware didn't seek to just make a game that tips its hat to BG, they fumbled dumbly into making a clone of that game and tried to cover their tracks. The cooldowns on the narrow selection of abilities is the icing on the cake, screaming "MMO" into the eyes of every player.
The quest mechanic is equally uninspired. I will compare it to WoW's quest log and say no more.
The players involvment is the saddest part. Combat is a chore involving micromanagement of 4 unflexible characters, often resulting in every fight having the same solution (cone of cold, fireball, charge). This is as much to do with enemy variety as anything, to which I will point my finger at the dwarf tunnels and say no more. Overall player involvement in the game truly shines in combat, with most other times the player being a quest recepticle and scapegoat. Actual character interaction is kept to a bare minimum.
TW1; The combat system of this game revolves around a timed series of clicks, feints and spells. The major difference between DAO and TW1 is the lack of cooldowns and the special enhancements provided by potions brewed by the player. Ultimately both games boil down to an attrition model with damage output variably being related to skill selection and play style.
The quest mechanic has a duality to it. On one hand we have the obligations of a pest exterminator, in the killing of and collection from a selection of monsters in varying quantities. On the other hand we observe a traditional RPG staple of talking to people, doing them favours and exploration. Calling this method 'questing' is a derogative term to be used sparingly. Some 'quests' resolve without any benefit to the player and can be safely labeled as plot progression. Others are key checkpoints that when completed grant the player a predetermined benefit. Quests are in essence something that is a side focus and done purely for material benefit. What Geralt is doing, that is to say, the hunt of Salamandra and the return of the Witcher formulae is his quest. It spans the entire game. The game is his 'quest'. Every plot related activity is story progression. The monster killing activities similarly are "quests" in the sense that they provide some quantifiable return on effort.
The players involvement is to assume the identity of Geralt, to shape him down any of 8 specialisations they prefer, to any degree and to not be dependant on one particular strategy at any time. The addition of alchemy which enhances certain abilities while producing another layer of threat to the health of the character is also noteworthy as players must balance a dependancy on alchemy against being good combatants. Where the story is concerned, the player conducts an investigation, an autopsy, makes key decisions about loyalty and whether or not to kill some characters. This requires background research and good reasoning skills.
There is more I could say, but in consideration of the points above I challenge people to think for themselves about what *precisely* makes you feel the way you do. For me? I feel strongly that DAO was an aborted MMO, with a stale Bioware classic plot tacked on [I'm not kidding, someone actually produced a chart showing the similarities in plot for every Bioware game made since BG2. That so many similarities exist to warrent a chart, and then to have that chart actually provide visual assistance to the criticism is worrying] it's no surprise that the community is divided on it. There aren't many neutral people, but plenty of people who either love it or hate it. I would speculate at this point that the people who love it are fans of games that don't encourage independant thought and games that could get confused with a typical newgrounds hentai dating simulator. These players are willingly overlooking the MMO style UI and are quite willing to 'quest' for things. To support my argument I will bring your attention to the DLC for the game. Replacing a permanent subscription model for receiving more 'game time' via microtransactions (at US$11.25/hour for the record) does not make the game any less similar to more well known games that operate on an identical principle. The principle of "pay to play".
I for one will not buy another Bioware game again. They and the publishers have demonstrated a continuing disregard for enduring games that will sell based on the merits of its content and rather than on marketing hype and the push for pre-orders. Games that are assumed to be good based on pre-orders are simply games that are not designed to stand up to the criticism they will face after release.
That being said, I have only 1 completed playthrough of the Witcher as well. I've owned the game since... early 2008 I think.
I will expand on my thoughts now;
1. The differences in the story between DAO and TW1.
DAO; you play as whoever you want (within 6 predefined archetypes). Once you have left your origin, the game follows a strictly pre-defined path as you are given tasks by the Warden. A major event occurs that sees a paradigm-shift in the nature of the game from pre-constructed narrative to a "make your own adventure" novel. The illusion of choice is maintained by offering the player 4 or 5 different locations to begin searching through, with those locations themselves allowing a 'weaving' of interdependent quests [notably the Red village quest with the boy which takes you to the tower which takes you to somewhere else]. While not a fault in itself to offer a pre-set narrative the story is weak for reasons I will detail below.
Prima; The story is weakened by the sudden change in narrative style, from a predetermined path you are on it switches to a multiple-choice map. Instead of having a few choices that are well detailed to propel the character forward we are presented with 4 totally different locations that demand us to disregard all our narrative and plot points to focus on the immediate surroundings. The result here is that the story feels disjointed and schitsophrenic, major events from previous locations are ignored or deemed irrelevant by the game as a result of the developers desire to provide 'choice'. The truth is, you must still visit all these places, still complete their main quests and to the developers I say the only thing I'm lacking in this game is immersion.
Secundo; The story itself revolves around a random individual from a variety of backgrounds and locations and races being selected by another individual to become some sort of demonically possessed undead-hunter/monster-slayer. The premise of the game offers no buildup to the Wardens arrival, no explanation of what he is or why he is here[there?] and expects you to blindly follow a total stranger into war against an army of undead with marginal or ineffective support and drink the blood of a demon. The story concludes with you, the player, the only remaining Warden on the continent, defeating a demon-god in combat with support from your [non-Warden] friends and allies. This suggests that the main character is infact nothing more than a living compass and that the entire game could have been completed by any suitably skilled individual who happened to walk in on the major population centres currently under attack. [If this series of events doesn't strike you, the reader, as totally inane and unbelievable then I wash my hands of you now.]
Tertio; Aside from the main plot of the game [becoming harder to interpret and understand?] there are many minor quests that revolve around helping individuals within the towns you enter, as well as some activities relating to your comrades (though normally only when you meet them). Let's examine some specific examples: in Lothering you are tasked with collect bear hides (or was it spider husks, I forget) from the surrounding wilderness by some person in a tavern. What this person has in relation to the main story is left unexplored. The quest seems to exist only to provide 'xp' and pad out the game length by requiring you to kill a randomly assigned number of specific creatures. [obviously TW1 includes quests like this but we will focus on DAO for right now]. Another quest in Lothering includes exploring the same wilderness for a campsite (or somesuch) to find the occupants. This quest is resolved by finding it infested with spiders and a locked chest. The quest, we can conclude, exists for no reason than to provide 'xp' and equipment. Where companions are concerned the quests they require are predominantly fetch quests. Morrigan wants a book, Alistair is a wanker, OldWoman wants you to find[read:fetch] a friend/tutor in the tower and Lelaina wants you to have awkward conversations and feel scared as she watches you in your sleep [she probably wants some ridiculous religious symbol or "love and acceptance" or some other garbage but once again I never played the game through to completion]. From these points we can see that the nature of DAO has a large "MMO" focus to it. [I will come back to this later]
TW1; TW1 follows the story of a Witcher, a person who typically was found as an orphan or promised to existing Witchers, who undergoes physical tests and biological modifications in order to become a 'professional monster slayer'. These words are important: they brook no further explanation of the characters motivations for his job and do not permit asinine or pretentious reinterpretations of who this man is, or what he does. He kills monsters for money, it's very simple. The characters' simplicity aside, the story of TW1 sees us assume command of the character 'Geralt', as he returns from death to his home Kaer Morhen, introducing us to people from his history and providing us a chance to establish a new identity to play off the canonical old one via Geralts struggle with amnesia. There are still flaws in the execution of TW1 and will be examined now.
Prima; Choice and moral ambuiguity are [advertised on the box, but I digress] key parts of TW1. Geralt makes decisions and must deal with the consequences. This is sometimes handled poorly. Notably right at the start of the game, in chapter 1, when Geralt must decide to allow or not to allow a group of Scoiatel to collect some smuggled weapons. If he does allow them to take the weapons, in chapter 2 we find a character that would have accelerated a quest lying dead in an inn. The problem begins with the story behind the Scoiatel. It is not adequately explored before the decision over the smuggled goods becomes important. Chapter 1 is focussed on dealing with Abigail and the priest, not the Scoiatel and their war. If Geralt had been told bluntly that the Scoiatel were terrorists who murder merchants and peasants then the decision of the weapons would have had more impact, as Geralt would have knowingly been aiding a group of insurgents. What is found however is that the Scoiatel offer to pay Geralt and due to a lack of information we find later that someone important has just been killed. There was no reason to refuse them except for someone who has already played through the game and wanted to avoid that particular result.
Secundo; The story itself is a rigid and linear progression of events that follow directly on from previous events, except for when it doesn't. By this I mean the infamous chapter 2 runes quest, the chapter 4 Dagon quest and the Chapter 4 sun-wraith quest. These quests unfortunately are quite long and are only tangentially related to the main plot. The story drags, forcing players to collect things that feel meaningless and offers no direct recompense to the character beyond 'xp' and potentially gear. The events are weakly held together by, at the end, forcing Geralt to speak about himself to a companion, therefore presumably assigning some measure of allegiance to a philosphical stand-point. The pacing of these quests, the subject matter and the results of them leave the player feeling like they have wasted their time.
Now that the story has been looked at in brief, we can move on to gameplay.
2. Gameplay differences: analysing the combat system, the quest mechanic and the players involvement.
DAO; This game claims to be the 'spiritual successor' of the Baldur's Gate series. As the producers of the games are the same people, that claim just doesn't make any sense. [Had they claimed it to be a literal successor to BG it would have implied some kind of actual balance or quality, so I can see why they didn't do that.] They said this because they wanted to give the impression that DAO had a combat system reminiscent of BG in function. In this at least they weren't lying. Fighters fight, rogues backstab and magi shoot fireballs. Friendly fire is a possibility which helps to encourage micromanagement of the characters and just generally compensate for a lack of well-programmed AI. Amusingly, the balance of the game is similar to BG, with casters being unstoppably powerful in later levels and fighters generally underperforming. Bioware didn't seek to just make a game that tips its hat to BG, they fumbled dumbly into making a clone of that game and tried to cover their tracks. The cooldowns on the narrow selection of abilities is the icing on the cake, screaming "MMO" into the eyes of every player.
The quest mechanic is equally uninspired. I will compare it to WoW's quest log and say no more.
The players involvment is the saddest part. Combat is a chore involving micromanagement of 4 unflexible characters, often resulting in every fight having the same solution (cone of cold, fireball, charge). This is as much to do with enemy variety as anything, to which I will point my finger at the dwarf tunnels and say no more. Overall player involvement in the game truly shines in combat, with most other times the player being a quest recepticle and scapegoat. Actual character interaction is kept to a bare minimum.
TW1; The combat system of this game revolves around a timed series of clicks, feints and spells. The major difference between DAO and TW1 is the lack of cooldowns and the special enhancements provided by potions brewed by the player. Ultimately both games boil down to an attrition model with damage output variably being related to skill selection and play style.
The quest mechanic has a duality to it. On one hand we have the obligations of a pest exterminator, in the killing of and collection from a selection of monsters in varying quantities. On the other hand we observe a traditional RPG staple of talking to people, doing them favours and exploration. Calling this method 'questing' is a derogative term to be used sparingly. Some 'quests' resolve without any benefit to the player and can be safely labeled as plot progression. Others are key checkpoints that when completed grant the player a predetermined benefit. Quests are in essence something that is a side focus and done purely for material benefit. What Geralt is doing, that is to say, the hunt of Salamandra and the return of the Witcher formulae is his quest. It spans the entire game. The game is his 'quest'. Every plot related activity is story progression. The monster killing activities similarly are "quests" in the sense that they provide some quantifiable return on effort.
The players involvement is to assume the identity of Geralt, to shape him down any of 8 specialisations they prefer, to any degree and to not be dependant on one particular strategy at any time. The addition of alchemy which enhances certain abilities while producing another layer of threat to the health of the character is also noteworthy as players must balance a dependancy on alchemy against being good combatants. Where the story is concerned, the player conducts an investigation, an autopsy, makes key decisions about loyalty and whether or not to kill some characters. This requires background research and good reasoning skills.
There is more I could say, but in consideration of the points above I challenge people to think for themselves about what *precisely* makes you feel the way you do. For me? I feel strongly that DAO was an aborted MMO, with a stale Bioware classic plot tacked on [I'm not kidding, someone actually produced a chart showing the similarities in plot for every Bioware game made since BG2. That so many similarities exist to warrent a chart, and then to have that chart actually provide visual assistance to the criticism is worrying] it's no surprise that the community is divided on it. There aren't many neutral people, but plenty of people who either love it or hate it. I would speculate at this point that the people who love it are fans of games that don't encourage independant thought and games that could get confused with a typical newgrounds hentai dating simulator. These players are willingly overlooking the MMO style UI and are quite willing to 'quest' for things. To support my argument I will bring your attention to the DLC for the game. Replacing a permanent subscription model for receiving more 'game time' via microtransactions (at US$11.25/hour for the record) does not make the game any less similar to more well known games that operate on an identical principle. The principle of "pay to play".
I for one will not buy another Bioware game again. They and the publishers have demonstrated a continuing disregard for enduring games that will sell based on the merits of its content and rather than on marketing hype and the push for pre-orders. Games that are assumed to be good based on pre-orders are simply games that are not designed to stand up to the criticism they will face after release.
Regarding RPG games, a break from 40k
From thread; http://tw2.thewitcher.com/forum/index.php?topic=31402.60
Ah, I never realized you disagreed with me in the first place. Your statement didn't oppose anything I said, you simply made a statement that didn't agree with or oppose anything in my post. So nope, I didn't disagree with you simply because you brought a new idea to the table. I disagreed because I don't believe the actions possible determine whether a game is complex or overly simplified. Especially when it comes to an RPG where they've stated the story is the number one priority. Perhaps in an action RPG it'd be relevant because they'd be focusing on combat as a major part of the game and story would be more of a filler that gets you from one fight to the next. TW1 had very simplistic console-like combat, that I agree with. But I didn't play TW1 for the combat, I enjoyed it because of it's complex and mature story, which is not a common feature in consoles. And you'd never be able to tell how good the game's story is by reading the instruction manual.
RPG... it in itself is an overused term. You played TW1 for its storyline? Ok. Take Metal Gear Solid (the original playstation one) and break it down. You play a deep and mature storyline from the perspective of a disgruntled and abused specops soldier. You string melee combos together (admittedly only 3 attacks but that's still a combo) and you have a wide variety of weapons (ie damage types).
So could MGS be considered an RPG? It fits all the catagories, only that you don't get to choose specific conversation outcomes. You are roleplaying David Hayter aka Solid Snake. The storyline is strictly narrative but we see Snake grow and develop as well as become objectively stronger.
Then you get WoW. It's not an RPG. Your character undergoes no development, only advancing through the game and gaining new attributes. There's no story to engage with.
Then you get something like TW1. What was this? Ok so you could use a console controller for the game. That's handy and I've occasionally considered playing it that way (except I get sore hands). More seriously though, you have a character that starts out quite naive and he ends a little jaded and idealistic. Geralt undergoes noticable and tangible character development, which transfers over to his mechanical attributes as well, as he can ingest the werewolf pelt (as an example) or otherwise ends the game a couple of levels higher depending on the number of sidequests he completed. Combat is limited but deeply dependant on underlying stats.
So in effect in TW1 you can manipulate the universe on more than one level depending on your storyline choices as well as how you develop your characters skills and abilities (although they didn't get reflected in conversation or cutscenes, the potential WAS there, and now IS there since you get to do interrupts or whatever).
You say that combat isn't what really defines an RPG. I say it is critical to an RPG. I say so because without the combat mechanics being dependant on player decisions there's no difference between playing Heavy Rain, STALKER or Saints Row 2 and your theoretical game. The three I've just mentioned include combat without reference to player decisions and a storyline (though not of equal significance) without truly being RPGs in and of themselves. Heavy Rain is an interactive movie, STALKER is a survival horror game with rpg-esque elements and Saints Row2 is "like but not" GTA3/4 also with elements derived from pure RPGs.
So from where I'm sitting I can objectively disagree with how you said that combat is "more relevant" to only an action-RPG because having a strong focus on one without the other is like being a one-armed man. The moment you attach the label of "RPG" to a title I personally expect both sides of the equation to be compelling and involving. A lack of development in one area for the sake of focussing on the other leaves one arm underdeveloped or even disfigured for the sake of appearing strong through misdirection.
Remember. R P G.
ROLE: There is a character in a story.
PLAYING: The player participates in the story through a character.
GAME: Typically defined by overcoming challenges with the character.
So when I say that I want an intricate and developed combat system (even if it is conducive to buttonmash spam) as well as an equally developed storyline that revolves around my character (especially in narratives like TW1 where you don't get to generate a character) I think I am both correct and being perfectly reasonable because by definition an ARR PEE GEE involves both of those constituent elements as they are implicit to the design of anything in the genre.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Rangers, the complete edition
From thread; http://www.librarium-online.com/forums/eldar/206545-repairing-our-codex-one-unit-time-part-vii.html
Post 1;
Post 2;
Post 3;
Post 4;
Post 5;
Post 1;
Now I use rangers already and don't consider them to be "that terrible" but a lot of other players I see call them outright worthless.
Why is this? Yea sure they're expensive but let's talk about what would make them worth 19/24pts instead of just demanding they get cheaper. Cheap troops that are useless are are just cheap and useless, not suddenly worthwhile, afterall.
I'm really gonna need other people to kick this off because personally I don't think they're that bad.
Post 2;
If every unit in a game could 'earn its points back through firepower' then I'd wager most games would be over in a 2 turns. It's endemic to the IG codex.. their shit is just too efficient. Most other codeci are bordering towards 50-70% efficiency which is the only way to prolong a game for 6 turns. From what I see anyway.
Post 3;
I've just had a totally crazy thought.
STALKERs. Eldar rangers are stalkers. BS4 GEQs, who are really good at hiding. They have 2 weapons. Ranger longrifle which is a rending weapon that wounds on a 2+, Shuriken UMP which is a pistol with the following profile S5 AP5 6" Assault 2. Rangers have defensive grenades. Pathfinder upgrade gives them Hit&run and they count as relentless.
Post 4;
In addition to testing out the new Spectres unit I have ran two seperate lists that included pathfinders. My results have been skewed by my opponent being a newbie and me taking a lot of time to teach him the game. But pathfinders are pretty much a 'press the big red button' unit so they're relatively easy to talk about.
So first off what I've found is that, simply, they don't provide enough of a net benefit to an army to be worth taking, for reasons I will detail now.
Firstly they're really designed to cover and assist a foot list. These guys are useless for mechdar. Mixed list doesn't have that much of a benefit either but it's better. For a foot list pathfinders primarily provide movement suppression and MC killing. Against tanks they're a waste of time, despite rudimentary transport popping power. The best way to use pathfinders is to get a group of 6-8 and park your farseer in with them, deep centre. From there you have a tough to kill core of psyker powers and a launching platform for starengine tanks to benefit from fortune. I was playing on a 5' x 5' board (roughly) and the main mistake myself and my opponent made were putting our eldrad to the side parked with pathfinders, when eldrads main strength really only gets leveraged from the centre of the table. He's an expensive target, he's in a unit of pathfinders under fortune, he can snipe your commanders and doom your troops. Any tanks near him can receive fortune for that lovely 36" charge into your rear lines ready to disperse hot fiery death.
The pathfinders themselves though.. from the centre of the board they hold a commanding position over skimmers/MC's. If you had 3 moderate sized units placed in a line across your part of the board, they could pretty effectively force your opponent into a detrimental movement methodology. As happened to me with my zilla cluster.
When I landed my DAs near to his pathfinders, and they got within charge range.. because they're in cover a few problems emerge. Obviously even pointblank shooting with bladestorm was mostly ineffective. Charging in afterwards meant he struck first thus reducing my assault power slightly. The second time I attempted this on a different unit of pathfinders, they weren't in range to charge. In his turn he had two choices, pistol me and charge at initiative 1, or sniper me and risk me saving/no pinning. Well as it happened he snipered me, killed only a couple of guys and on my turn I tankshocked 75% of his list off the board. BUT THE POTENTIAL WAS THERE.
IF he had had shuriken UMPs or analogue on his pathfinders then maybe we'd be looking at a very different story. A high strength low AP machine pistol that allows a charge afterwards. In that case, a last ditch attempt to keep his pathfinders alive and score another killpoint would definitely have been more accessable for him and the game might have gone very differently for me then.
I'm contemplating testing out all our 'new rules' in an upcoming game against this same opponent (since he's new it's not like he knows any better) and we'll see how they stack up. Since he and I have agreed to standardise our loadouts via xml comparisons (ie we use identical troops choices with no deviation allowed, preset limits on the other catagories) it will help to balance things out (he will be using eldar too so obviously I won't have a massive advantage over him or anything).
My predictions for eldar after the introduction of my 'codex repairs' will be that eldar may play much more aggressively than it does now.
Post 5;
Alright.. so adapting on your two ideas.. make their UMP 12" range and still a pistol? There's your valid carbine-AR alternative to the longrifles for when things go pear-shaped.
The fundamental weakness of 5e eldar
More of a rant than anything this time. I had a good idea for a post a few days back but never wrote it down so mostly I've been just trying to remember it. If there's one thing that I'm prone to doing, it's over-analysis of unimportant shit. So here goes.
Having played eldar for nearly 2 years now I've come to read and agree with opinions on the web about what things are, how they are and why they are. Three similar but ultimately different states of existence that compound on each other to form the basis of an army that appeals to perfectionists and only disappoints them.
One of the best paraphrases I can make is from LO where one person said something about 'ooh eldar only seem weak, they just need to have a really good player behind them'. This statement is both true and totally wrong on many levels.
A fellow member of LO (niraco I believe) responded to the above post with (paraphrasing!!) 'any army that requires a perfect player to play perfectly is weak'.
Brilliant. Hard to say it better than that. It's very true. Lets break it down for the sake of completion;
1. First of all 40k is luck dependant. You can maneuvre, position perfectly but if you roll 1's the entire game it's game over baby.
2. Like above, your chances of success are a hard-coded statistical probability. How often you fall within the limits of success might be determined by the dice, yes, but getting the most dice as you can requires good judgement.
3. Combining the above two points brings open the third; if to field a 'competitive' force you must not only min-max your list (and preferably tailor it too) but also play extremely well from what you can do without dice interfering, you might just be looking at a weak army.
Summary? If a ball-standard player can play a IG mech list and toast most of his opposition he's very likely going to be regarded as a noob. Some people even refuse to play IG because of the total bullshit they can field. Compare with Tau.. what are you looking at? The best lists generally have crisis suits and pathfinders working together. A manta and maybe a pair of those big ass railgun tanks. There's no room for experimentation left, a couple of bad rolls really puts the hurt on and in reading OSH's preliminary works on introducing new Tau players... there's a very finite procedure to follow. The modus operandi is 'shoot shit, move into the gap'. Not really brain surgery. I pity Tau players, gimped by association thanks to their choice of army. But those things alone don't immediately scream "bad army" do they? So what explicitly about Tau makes them bad?
Following our earlier 3 step program lets see.
1. Shooting dependant. Low BS and fuck all TL weapons from what I know. If you waste a turn of shooting on a target.. that's a massive hit to your game plan. Luck however it out of the players hands..
2. A good shooting phase for Tau depends on the players ability to line up shots and make sure they're in range. Not so hard.. good range on their guns or so I'm told. Most require direct LOS I think except for some missile attack which is handy but I doubt it's a game changer.
3. What have we got? An army with one strength, low/mediocre attributes and a heavy dependancy on gimmick units? Musical wounds is for noobs, but OSH suggests players deliberately add drones to give ablative wounds for suits. Tsk tsk. When the resident master of a race is telling you that... there's a fundamental flaw in how your army works. The above two points combine into this army where if things don't go perfectly for the Tau player, they fight an uphill battle that is very steep indeed.
Such armies aren't good for the hobby. There's a certain 'elitist' attitude held by chaos players that is immediately noticable. Eldar players like myself generally resign to the idea that we have what.. 3 good units? Out of 33? Awesome. Tau I dunno. They power through the mediocrity which I guess deserves some respect but ultimately looks silly. I don't know any GK players personally. WH? 1 guy. Cheater. Necrons? Total bro. DEldar? Quiet, reserved and generally pretty honourable. Orks? A showmans army.
I could go on. And I am ranting.
So what about eldar? Why does this army still get considered good provided we have an excellent general at the helm? Well I wonder. If you took an accomplished eldar/Tau player and gave them an optimised netlist razorspam army or something, how would you expect them to do? I've now arrived at the point where I can consistently put my guys 1/2 inch out of charge range for an enemy melee unit. Hilarious when I shoot them round 1, bladestorm round 2 then charge to finish them off. PW/SS exarch yeyuh.
But that's not really what I'm trying to get across here. What I'm trying to say is: if an army is so bad the only way it can win is by having the best players, then it is NOT OK and it NEEDS improvement. GW try to make out they're "just a model company" but hoo have practices changed just recently with DE and now the FAQs which previously took years to emerge... all in response to competitors gaining players from disenfranchised ex 40k who are tired of no variety and the retarded superiority that comes with blowing a sizable portion of your yearly income on plastic.
Having played eldar for nearly 2 years now I've come to read and agree with opinions on the web about what things are, how they are and why they are. Three similar but ultimately different states of existence that compound on each other to form the basis of an army that appeals to perfectionists and only disappoints them.
One of the best paraphrases I can make is from LO where one person said something about 'ooh eldar only seem weak, they just need to have a really good player behind them'. This statement is both true and totally wrong on many levels.
A fellow member of LO (niraco I believe) responded to the above post with (paraphrasing!!) 'any army that requires a perfect player to play perfectly is weak'.
Brilliant. Hard to say it better than that. It's very true. Lets break it down for the sake of completion;
1. First of all 40k is luck dependant. You can maneuvre, position perfectly but if you roll 1's the entire game it's game over baby.
2. Like above, your chances of success are a hard-coded statistical probability. How often you fall within the limits of success might be determined by the dice, yes, but getting the most dice as you can requires good judgement.
3. Combining the above two points brings open the third; if to field a 'competitive' force you must not only min-max your list (and preferably tailor it too) but also play extremely well from what you can do without dice interfering, you might just be looking at a weak army.
Summary? If a ball-standard player can play a IG mech list and toast most of his opposition he's very likely going to be regarded as a noob. Some people even refuse to play IG because of the total bullshit they can field. Compare with Tau.. what are you looking at? The best lists generally have crisis suits and pathfinders working together. A manta and maybe a pair of those big ass railgun tanks. There's no room for experimentation left, a couple of bad rolls really puts the hurt on and in reading OSH's preliminary works on introducing new Tau players... there's a very finite procedure to follow. The modus operandi is 'shoot shit, move into the gap'. Not really brain surgery. I pity Tau players, gimped by association thanks to their choice of army. But those things alone don't immediately scream "bad army" do they? So what explicitly about Tau makes them bad?
Following our earlier 3 step program lets see.
1. Shooting dependant. Low BS and fuck all TL weapons from what I know. If you waste a turn of shooting on a target.. that's a massive hit to your game plan. Luck however it out of the players hands..
2. A good shooting phase for Tau depends on the players ability to line up shots and make sure they're in range. Not so hard.. good range on their guns or so I'm told. Most require direct LOS I think except for some missile attack which is handy but I doubt it's a game changer.
3. What have we got? An army with one strength, low/mediocre attributes and a heavy dependancy on gimmick units? Musical wounds is for noobs, but OSH suggests players deliberately add drones to give ablative wounds for suits. Tsk tsk. When the resident master of a race is telling you that... there's a fundamental flaw in how your army works. The above two points combine into this army where if things don't go perfectly for the Tau player, they fight an uphill battle that is very steep indeed.
Such armies aren't good for the hobby. There's a certain 'elitist' attitude held by chaos players that is immediately noticable. Eldar players like myself generally resign to the idea that we have what.. 3 good units? Out of 33? Awesome. Tau I dunno. They power through the mediocrity which I guess deserves some respect but ultimately looks silly. I don't know any GK players personally. WH? 1 guy. Cheater. Necrons? Total bro. DEldar? Quiet, reserved and generally pretty honourable. Orks? A showmans army.
I could go on. And I am ranting.
So what about eldar? Why does this army still get considered good provided we have an excellent general at the helm? Well I wonder. If you took an accomplished eldar/Tau player and gave them an optimised netlist razorspam army or something, how would you expect them to do? I've now arrived at the point where I can consistently put my guys 1/2 inch out of charge range for an enemy melee unit. Hilarious when I shoot them round 1, bladestorm round 2 then charge to finish them off. PW/SS exarch yeyuh.
But that's not really what I'm trying to get across here. What I'm trying to say is: if an army is so bad the only way it can win is by having the best players, then it is NOT OK and it NEEDS improvement. GW try to make out they're "just a model company" but hoo have practices changed just recently with DE and now the FAQs which previously took years to emerge... all in response to competitors gaining players from disenfranchised ex 40k who are tired of no variety and the retarded superiority that comes with blowing a sizable portion of your yearly income on plastic.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Using visuals for a competitive advantage.
An interesting idea struck me today while browsing the internet. One word: Zebra.
What is a zebra though? Well sure it's an animal. It's also tangentially related to the horse. It can be ridden like a horse. They taste pretty good too or so I'm told. But that's not what a zebra is.
A zebra... is a walking camo suit. Zoologists on animal planet suggest that the construction and positioning of the lines on a zebra make it hard to determine the orientation of the animal for predators. In the same way that conventional camoflague for humans uses irregular shapes in no particular pattern to break up the outline of the object/soldier, zebras developed this trick naturally over millions of years. Not knowing exactly where to shoot a camo soldier is a potent trick in jungle warfare. Not so good against bombs, but alright for use against troops. Also, just how many camo soldiers are identified may be an issue too. You see one soldier moving but noone else. You can guarantee he's got friends.. but what if he doesn't? What if he's carrying a message/package from one officer to the next? What if he's a distraction? What if he's a vanguard of the main force?
As far as 40k is concerned it theoretically won't be an issue. The whole battlefield is visible at all times, camo makes no difference to your plastic men unless there's a special rule in effect. You can paint your CSM bright pink or pitch black and it makes no difference from a gameplay perspective.
From a gameplay perspective. But let me tell you something about 40k. You're not actually playing a game of dice. Not really. It's involved but there's a whole macro-strategy that must be determined before you even begin the game. Camo on your plastic helps, and here's why.
Camo paint on your troops, breaks up their outline. A casual glance at the unit might produce mental affirmation of 6 models when the real number is 9. A more scrupulous player might know already, but miss their exact location because from 4 feet back, out of the corner of his eye, their exact location isn't simple to determine. Camo can force your opponent to mentally count each model every turn, mentally log their location every turn. Added benefit to you? He's wasting time and diverting valuable attention away from his core strategy. WAAC players will suffer the most from this, as they misinterpret the threat over and over again, and feel pressured by time constraints to act more quickly.. thus generating more mistakes and oversights for him.
Camo is to most people a 'tryhard' thing to paint on your guys. It's not thematically compatable with 40k (which for the record is bright&gaudy with few exclusions) and may help you as your opponent views you as being more amateurish. You know those popular stories about xyz marine player seeing abc opponent and thus playing a totally gimped list in sarcastic retaliation and then losing horribly? It's the same thing, but without the requirement of turning up with GK to a 2500pt tournament.
The most efficient form of attack is one that uses as many vectors as possible simultaneously. Attacking your opponent himself at the mental level is a valuable +1 over what you would otherwise be doing purely on the tabletop. And the best part about camo is? You get all those subtle benefits without any trashtalking, joking around or pokerface. It's implicit to your army, meaning you still have all those other tricks to dispense at leisure in addition to him psychologically being unable to take your plastic army seriously.
Musing on 5e and GW
Below is a direct copy of a post on librarium online made this day;
---------------
All the blogs I am reading.. everything is pointing to a dramatic shift in GW policy regarding the handling of the 'game' part of 40k. Things are getting updated more often, previously abandoned sections of the game are now getting their updates and we may start to see a return of necromunda (which I believe kill teams was a 5e pilot for).
And this shift in policy is good. Previously the game survived on the theory of exclusivity, 40k was a reclusive thing for nerds that got played in the corner of a comic-book store. Now we have movies and big-budget vidya gaems being made for the universe and that has proven at least one thing to the corporate; accessability sells. So where previously you saw.. what.. 12 codeces on a shelf and anyone nearby could tell you that only 4 of them are objectively 'good' with 2 more being 'alright' and the rest being 'crap' and/or 'useless' now you have 12 codeces with some 6 being good, another 2 or 3 in the pipeline for updates and the remainder on the backburner.
So how does that translate to the rules for a nightspinner being posted for download? Well first off it means all those people who bought a nightspinner after june 2010 will now actually be able to use them. Always good to keep those people happy. Secondly it means that GW is now embracing the increased number of players DoW 1/2 have brought in, and let's be honest here, since the release of DoW the population of 40k players has probably at least doubled. Before those videogames were made the only people I saw playing 40k were late 20-somethings, typically of the grognard variety. Now you have a whole pile of wheezing 15-18year olds with skin problems but whatever at least there's more variety.
Let's also compare a couple of things before this drags into tl;dr territory. Within the last year we've seen; BA officially launched, DE (12 years) updated, Necrons (9 years?) rumoured, GK (9-12 years?) confirmed, DA/BT (9 years?) modernised via FAQ, FAQs for the BRB (finally), FAQ for DE (bizarrely fast) and 3 new models for eldar via FW with another aspect still coming not to mention the nightspinner being a codex approved model now via WD 365.
What has been the driving factor for all this? Dark eldar. These guys have sold a metric shitton of models. People are sick of marines and corporate GW has noticed.
[edit] not to mention that if you have 6 marine codeces what's to stop someone from just calling their army whatever the FOTM force? A generic SM player has 6 different flavours to pick. DEldar actually required people to buy new models. Hurrr GW exists to sell products right.. so more marine codeces means only a book gets sold in comparison to several dozen plastic mans..
-----------
I will return to this topic eventually.
---------------
All the blogs I am reading.. everything is pointing to a dramatic shift in GW policy regarding the handling of the 'game' part of 40k. Things are getting updated more often, previously abandoned sections of the game are now getting their updates and we may start to see a return of necromunda (which I believe kill teams was a 5e pilot for).
And this shift in policy is good. Previously the game survived on the theory of exclusivity, 40k was a reclusive thing for nerds that got played in the corner of a comic-book store. Now we have movies and big-budget vidya gaems being made for the universe and that has proven at least one thing to the corporate; accessability sells. So where previously you saw.. what.. 12 codeces on a shelf and anyone nearby could tell you that only 4 of them are objectively 'good' with 2 more being 'alright' and the rest being 'crap' and/or 'useless' now you have 12 codeces with some 6 being good, another 2 or 3 in the pipeline for updates and the remainder on the backburner.
So how does that translate to the rules for a nightspinner being posted for download? Well first off it means all those people who bought a nightspinner after june 2010 will now actually be able to use them. Always good to keep those people happy. Secondly it means that GW is now embracing the increased number of players DoW 1/2 have brought in, and let's be honest here, since the release of DoW the population of 40k players has probably at least doubled. Before those videogames were made the only people I saw playing 40k were late 20-somethings, typically of the grognard variety. Now you have a whole pile of wheezing 15-18year olds with skin problems but whatever at least there's more variety.
Let's also compare a couple of things before this drags into tl;dr territory. Within the last year we've seen; BA officially launched, DE (12 years) updated, Necrons (9 years?) rumoured, GK (9-12 years?) confirmed, DA/BT (9 years?) modernised via FAQ, FAQs for the BRB (finally), FAQ for DE (bizarrely fast) and 3 new models for eldar via FW with another aspect still coming not to mention the nightspinner being a codex approved model now via WD 365.
What has been the driving factor for all this? Dark eldar. These guys have sold a metric shitton of models. People are sick of marines and corporate GW has noticed.
[edit] not to mention that if you have 6 marine codeces what's to stop someone from just calling their army whatever the FOTM force? A generic SM player has 6 different flavours to pick. DEldar actually required people to buy new models. Hurrr GW exists to sell products right.. so more marine codeces means only a book gets sold in comparison to several dozen plastic mans..
-----------
I will return to this topic eventually.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)