Thursday 13 August 2009

WTF???

My comment on BoLS is awaiting approval by a moderator. So, fuck that shit, here it is.

First, BlackSly's bollocks:
"Again, it sounds like bollocks to you because you haven't the brain to comprehend that
1) a game designer has to balance points
2) even if you consider several balancing features, such as defensive ability (points lost per enemy point shooting at you), offensive ability (points removed from the enemy in a shooting phase per point spent on the unit), mobility, transport available, etc... you still calculate each feature separately. Only a fool designer would balance units based ONLY on a defense-vs-S4-weapons calculations, but it would be a stupid one who gave that calculation no weight at all.
3) I didn't say that Immortals were better than Terminators as a unit. If I were to do that, I'd have to run calculation on defense vs all types of weapons (BTW, I have), in and out of cover. And I'd have to do a separate analysis for melee, because in melee you can lose the entire unit if you lose 3 to 0. And I'd have to run offensive calculation vs AV10 to AV14 units, plus infantry units of T3 and T4, and armor saves of 3+ to 5+. And I'd have to factor in their movement (similar), and their movement options (Land Raiders and Deep Strikes vs Monoliths). And if we were comparing other units, I'd have to mention different ranges. Which is why I specifically said only that, as an example, vs S4 weapons, they compare as such, rather than saying "Immortals are tougher than Terminators in all cases, and here is an single example of a situation to show how they are tougher".

All in all, comparing units in all their abilities with just calculations is a ridiculously complex task, which is why I doubt any designer does it. However, failing to use ANY calculations when considering units is just stupid, and I'm sure no professional designer suffers abject design fail by saying "talking about points lost per shot/kill is worthless".

Is points lost, or points killed the only barometer of a unit's worth? Obviously not, if you can have one unit of Troops that performs 10% worse than an Elite unit in all the categories... but most players would prefer to field the Troops since it can capture objectives. But it's just downright ignorant to ignore a unit's killiness, or resistance to being killed, just because one single measure point cannot completely measure a unit's true worth."


And, my response - what I can recall of it, anyway.

You make me LOL, retard.

The Games Designers are inherently lazy with their points values - if you don't believe me, pick up a copy of the 2nd, 3rd, and current Eldar Codicies, and see for yourself how few points costs have significantly changed. Is it possible that Rick Priestly got them so perfectly balanced first time around that they are perfect across 3 Editions of the game? Fuck off.

Trying to compare an ancient Codex with today's 5th Ed ones is too stupid for words. The Necron Codex was written for a completely different ruleset, when Foot Armies were competitive, and C'Tan were cool. Thinking that the points have any realistic bearing on what they would be were the Codex written a year ago is so fucking stupid, I wonder if people have to remind you to breathe.

We all are painfully aware that points values are only internally balanced at all, with no regard to the other Codexes in production, or already in print. We also, except you somehow, are aware that units are deliberaltely undercosted in order to promote sales of that particular product. It's a marketing ploy, that is far more important than any pathetic notions of creating a balanced game you seem to have engendered.

Attempting to calculate points lost from an enemy by your shooting is literally the stupidest calculation I've ever heard of. Pythagoras has more fucking relevance to real life. Literally, working that out for every unit in the game...If you've done that, you need a fucking life.

I love the way you ignore Chaos Theory too. LOL.

Anyway, while you sit in your mom's basement, playing with your numbers, and your penis, I'm off to enjoy the sunshine.

Moron.

(Admittedly, that's longer, because I had to type it from scratch.)

8 comments:

Dictator said...

"Anyway, while you sit in your mom's basement, playing with your numbers, and your penis, I'm off to enjoy the sunshine.

Moron."

I LOL'd

I agree with all your points. In the end were you defending the price and effectiveness of immortals? If so, I completely agree.

0range said...

I love how you're got a seperate 'idiots' category for that kind of post

Stelek said...

Idiots category. lol

How's that y-t-t-h dot com censorship coming along over there on bols forum? lol

Btw, that whole text crit from blacksly made my eyes explode. I mean, I am the king of run on sentences on occasion but I try to say something meaningful!

Here's the real skinny on Immortals: They need a res orb just like Warriors when shot by anti-tank weapons. They can fire on the move. They cost 10 points more for T5 and that assault gun, which makes them marginally better for taking light infantry fire and dealing out wounds to other infantry. Still suck though. If they had power weapons, they'd still suck. Give every Necron rending, and they still suck. Give them poisoned weapons, and glance vehicles on a 6 in CC--and Necrons still suck.

TheKing Elessar said...

What if they all have Assault Grenades? And FnP? ;)

In fairness, I created idiots category specially for him...but I'm glad I did.

Immortals are one of the better, nay, one of the best, Necron options.

It's a shame they have to wait until the 3rd quarter of next year to be playable in any capacity.

Necrons + Mobility = win. Only flaw could be that I haven't seen how the new Living Metal rule works yet...could be what maeks the Dex...or consigns it to the scrapheap again.

Jezlad said...

Funny shit mate. I love the way you slate them, makes my day.

TheKing Elessar said...

Thank you. :D

Unknown said...

lol I've got to come on here more often!

Some people do just ask for it, what a load of bollocks. First says he'll have to work numbers out (why?) and then says he wouldn't - wtf!?

What is the original debat? Immortals better than Terminators?

TheKing Elessar said...

LOL, yeah, he said Immortals were better than Termies, and they gave away fewer points per shot or some shit.

Disclaimer.

Primarily, a blog to discuss the Games Workshop system Warhammer 40k, though not exclusively so. All GW IP used without permission, no challenge intended.

Pretty much everything here is my opinion. If you don't like my opinion, you are welcomed to say so. If you don't like me, but like my opinion, feel free to say so. If you don't like me or my opinion, I don't need to hear it. Why even visit?