|
TheCosmicMuffet posted:
I was going to join in the discussion but, uh, I'm think I'm good now. I guess I'll just say death to GW, stocks for the stock god, dividends for his throne and what not. Free Gratis fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jul 30, 2014 |
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:31
|
|
Welcome on this beautiful summer's day once more to the SA forums; Even in death, we still post. It's truly an exciting day, bobby.
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
Can we have a thread that's just for TCM to post in?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
I want to frame that loving post and put it on my wall. I am rock hard!
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
TheCosmicMuffet posted:
You managed to pull through again, Muffet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
I don't know anything about whether that was a good post, but it was a fun read.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
I don't know what to say, really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
That's a whole lot of words for somebody trying to look like they care less about things than somebody else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Film critics: insufferable spergs who should just loving tell me if the movie was fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
You guys are spergs! You're sperging out! *writes 10,000 word fanfiction about other posters*
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
TheCosmicMuffet posted:
 Never stop posting
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
That post was longer than a loving turn in Warhammer 40k and had a fraction of the fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:You guys are spergs! You're sperging out! *writes 10,000 word fanfiction about other posters* Text can be hard to interpret sometimes. So let me be perfectly clear. I know we are all spergs, and I care way too much about it because I really enjoy it. And also I really like you and if you want we can trade desserts during lunch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
I do find it funny that the only thing about me is that I write a blog 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
 In a move to increase sales, GW will ramp up the power creep in each new codex, and update each army every month, with exciting new powerhouses like "Killmurderer Greenblob" and "Axeviolence Spruecorner the Floorfound". Which the actual final codex was will be debated for years, between 'Extra-super-ultramarines' and the so-called 'pale codex', which was bound in the skin of laid-off staff and consisted of the words "bleed for me" repeated several thousand times in different fonts. Photos of upcoming models were featured as normal in the Pale Codex, but were all vertically flipped and printed in negative. Sadly, despite the intriguing new aesthetic of the new army, lack of model support prevented any serious attempt to field them. e: 
petrol blue fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:That's a whole lot of words for somebody trying to look like they care less about things than somebody else. Suddenly I understand why you don't think fun is something worth talking about regarding games.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Asymmetrikon posted:That post was longer than a loving turn in Warhammer 40k and had a fraction of the fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Xlorp posted:Look how wrong you are. That's the most fun I've ever had in context of 40k. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
You think something that can be recognised as a codex will still exist when GW is still scrabbling for every last penny? In the dying days it will be individual data slates for each character, unit or whatever! I am predicting the last one will be a Squat Champion as GW starts mining IP for whatever it can, this will be the first and only Squat release and GWs subsequent death will be met with wailing and gnashing of yellowed rotting teeth (possibly mine).
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
I'm very disappointed in you for not taking the opportunity to use Hellshit Murderpost somewhere 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Well, guess I can stop reading this thread now. Oh, I didn't actually place a bet yet. My prediction: GW WILL NEVER DIE. LONG LIVE THE NEW FLESH OF FINELY DETAILED CAST RESIN.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:the standard is much higher to the point where a person can't recommend it in good faith anymore Broken Loose posted:it is unacceptable to buy a game Oh look, Broken Loose is again literally telling posters what they may and may not purchase or recommend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
I still like Games Workshop and buy their plastic dolls, I just want the company to fail and then be bought by someone who will do a better job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
As do we all, Hollismason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Oh look, Broken Loose is again literally telling posters what they may and may not purchase or recommend. only if you ignore all context and intentionally misread what he wrote
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
S.J. posted:ignore all text and what he wrote That is what the Quote button is for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
S.J. posted:only if you ignore all context and intentionally misread what he wrote No, he literally said you can enjoy whatever game you want but, if you suggest another person try it, your suggestion is necessarily in bad faith because better designed games exist that you can and should be suggesting instead. I cannot fathom how you can read anything else into that; that is the actual text of what he wrote.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Saying someone "literally" said something "in the text" and then not actually showing where they said that is pretty much self refuting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
There's no reason to put 'literally' in quotes, it's a thing he said. Broken Loose posted:The whole concept of this conversation is that, to make game recommendations, we dissect and find out what the game contains. Sometimes we find things that have been improved upon since that game was made, so we say "this mechanic or rule could be improved in X way." Nobody has the time or money to meaningfully attempt every game recommended by every living human being, so we have to have some sort of comparative baseline.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
counterspin posted:Saying someone "literally" said something "in the text" and then not actually showing where they said that is pretty much self refuting. It's cool that you post this rather than click on the link provided in the quote of my original post. Broken Loose posted:We live in an age where I can play a game that is rewarding to my competitive mindset, does not frustrate my sister's casual mindset, takes only half an hour to play, has a well-written rulebook, can be taught over a single play, and evokes a really cool idea or narrative while doing all of these. If you're still enjoying Munchkin/40k/Monopoly/flying planes into the Twin Towers, that's okay, but the standard is much higher to the point where a person can't recommend it in good faith anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I loved Necromunda but it could really benefit from a similar streamlining. GW did that already, except it was called Legends of the Old West. It's ridiculously hard to find for less than $texas, since it was Warhammer Historicals and it's long out of print.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Here's a helpful example about how to better utilize randomness and I can't loving believe I have to pull it from Battletech because Battletech has some of the most egregious uses of randomness in any boardgame loving ever. Now, most rolls in Battletech are resolved on a 2D6 roll. On 2D6, the most likely sum is a 7. The designers are well aware of this and so every table you consult is weighted around the value of 7. When you fire an unaimed shot, you roll 2D6 to see where the shot landed. Assuming you're firing at the front of a mech, the biggest part of that mech is going to be the center torso. The game assigns the random value of 7 to this location. You could still hit the right or left torsos, either arm or leg, or the head. But there's a reasonable chance that the center torso will be hit. This changes if you are firing into the right or left arc of the target. If you are firing at the right side, you have a much better chance of hitting the right torso, and so it gets assigned the value of 7. The tables also take into account that 2 an 12 are the most difficult results to achieve since they can both only be produced by one roll (ie: a 3 can be produced by a 2 and a 1 or a 1 and a 2, but a 2 can only be produced by a 1 and a 1 and a 12 can only be produced by a 6 and a 6). Therefore, the game assigns special unlikely results to these rolls (getting a critical hit and striking the head respectively). In Necromunda, the end of the game has several random rolls on a table. You roll for injuries and this is done on a D66 roll. Except as far as I can tell, you have an equal chance of rolling an 11 as you do a 66 since the two dice are rolled independently of one another. Unlike a 2D6 roll, every result on a D66 roll is equally unique. The bad results are on the low end and the good results are on the high end. There's nothing that influences these rolls. If your character lives or dies depends entirely on "how well you roll". The game is literally asking you to "roll better". This is a convention that is as old as dice based games, but that doesn't make it a good one. It is entirely possible to come out of a victorious game of Necromunda and be worse off than the team that lost through a series of unlikely but completely uncontrollable dice rolls. Sure, it forges a narrative, we all have a good laugh about the lessons a Pyrrhic victory teaches us, but often the results are completely nonsensical. The heavy who got punched in the face by an unarmed recruit with S3 now has terrifying scars? The guy who got blasted by a flamethrower broke his leg? The leader who got pummeled by a powerfist some how ended up becoming a champion pitfighter? You can come up with some crazy, Rube Goldberg-esque story about how each of these things came out of the events of the game, but the fact is they don't represent the actual events of the game and the events of the game weren't at all taken into consideration when those rolls were made. That is what I feel is bad game design.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Sweet God you guys aren't encouraging people to play 40k, Monopoly, or Munchkin are you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
counterspin posted:Sweet God you guys aren't encouraging people to play 40k, Monopoly, or Munchkin are you? Oh gently caress no, but I've recently started encouraging my friends to try Blood Bowl, since I picked it up recently and am really enjoying it, despite its flaws and outdated design. In fact, to a certain extent the randomness is what drew me in; it forces me to consider backup plans and react to developing situations, rather than simply play a tried-and-true strategy. That's not to say I don't have my criticisms of Blood Bowl, but I feel that it has plenty to recommend it anyway. My point is that you shouldn't demand that a game equally cater to serious and casual players, be playable in half an hour, be learn-able in a single session, have a well copy-editted rulebook, and all those other things Broken Loose said in order to consider it worthwhile, a reasonable purchase, or recommendable. All those things may make a game better in general terms, but they may mean that the game doesn't fulfill the particular niche you want to play. If I want to play a heist game, for example, I reach for Shadowrun. Shadowrun is a badly flawed game in a number of ways, but I nevertheless prefer it for fans of the game call 'Mirror Shades' play because it has a level of granularity that rewards careful planning, has an interesting hacking system that is more interactive than a simple skill test, yet fast enough to not impose on the other players, and most importantly is, despite the poorly edited book, deceptively simple; easily taught by a a more experienced player. Besides, I like the setting. That said I would never recommend it for less serious, more run-and-gun play, because I consider that sort of play better suited to a more narrative system. e: tl;dr: The existence of better games does not necessarily invalidate worse ones; it can, but does not always. Many criteria of quality are subjective, and subject to change based on what a person wants from a game. fool of sound fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
I encourage anyone to play Warhammer Quest. I still love that game. Of course it hasn't been out for like 14 years or something ,but still it's awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Blood Bowl is very good in part because the randomness captures the feel of a sporting event. The main skill in the game is trying to reduce how many rolls you need to make/how lucky you need to get, and maximize how many rolls your opponent needs to. But when someone tries a ridiculous low percentage play and pulls it off, it feels much like the fluky plays that occur in real life sports. The full court buzzer beater in basketball, the hail mary pass, etc. People try these in actual sports because they do occasionally work, and the game reflects that. I haven't played Necromunda in ages, but I also liked the randomness in gang progression. It forces you to work with what you get, instead of just going for what you think is the "best" build. Because of the randomness you end up with a gang that is much more uniquely yours after a few games, instead of a carbon copy of everyone else playing the same faction. This does enhance the role playing feel. I also find it weird that people want to decry the randomness in GW games, but admit that poker is a good game. While the better players will win money eventually in poker, the luck involved can be absolutely brutal. One of the toughest skills for a poker player to master is avoiding tilt, dealing with the psychological impact of losing badly to a worse player because he got lucky. It's not unusual for professional poker players to go on downswings where they lose money steadily for weeks, even if they're playing well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Can't we just agree that we have a terrible hobby?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Xlorp posted:Can't we just agree that we have a terrible hobby? Nah that's too easy, lemme explain it to you in my six-part dissertation as to why this hobby is so bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Two monks were returning to the monastery in the evening. It had rained and there were puddles of water on the road sides. At one place a beautiful young woman was standing unable to walk across because of a puddle of water. The elder of the two monks went up to a her lifted her and left her on the other side of the road, and continued his way to the monastery. In the evening the younger monk came to the elder monk and asked; “Sir, as monks, we cannot touch a woman?” The elder monk answered; "Yes, brother”. Then the younger monk asks again; “But then Sir, how is that you lifted that woman on the roadside?” The elder monk smiled at him and told him; ”I left her on the other side of the road, but you are still carrying her.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
Arrion posted:Blood Bowl is very good in part because the randomness captures the feel of a sporting event. The main skill in the game is trying to reduce how many rolls you need to make/how lucky you need to get, and maximize how many rolls your opponent needs to. But when someone tries a ridiculous low percentage play and pulls it off, it feels much like the fluky plays that occur in real life sports. The full court buzzer beater in basketball, the hail mary pass, etc. People try these in actual sports because they do occasionally work, and the game reflects that. I agree with this. Blood Bowl really is about knowing when and when not to take a risk and how to stack odds in your favor. It also doesn't use the standard roll to hit roll to wound roll armor saves mechanic that every other GW game uses. Funny how that works. There's a large amount of randomness, but at least it feels thematic. quote:I haven't played Necromunda in ages, but I also liked the randomness in gang progression. It forces you to work with what you get, instead of just going for what you think is the "best" build. Because of the randomness you end up with a gang that is much more uniquely yours after a few games, instead of a carbon copy of everyone else playing the same faction. This does enhance the role playing feel. This I don't agree with. Sure, the gang is uniquely yours, but only in that the gang is unique and is unlikely to ever be rolled in that way again. The progress is way too arbitrary though. The way your characters grow and develop has nothing at all to do with how you played the game. Getting an increased (WS), (S), or (I) on my Heavy doesn't reward my intelligent use of him in battle. It's either wasted progression or I have to re-equip him to take advantage of his new ability, and even then he may never actually be as good at close combat as a character who is designed for it. quote:I also find it weird that people want to decry the randomness in GW games, but admit that poker is a good game. While the better players will win money eventually in poker, the luck involved can be absolutely brutal. One of the toughest skills for a poker player to master is avoiding tilt, dealing with the psychological impact of losing badly to a worse player because he got lucky. It's not unusual for professional poker players to go on downswings where they lose money steadily for weeks, even if they're playing well. I can't believe people still don't see the difference here. In poker, you never make a decision and then are faced with a completely random outcome that is independent of all other random events prior to it. The most random occurrence is when you go all in pre-flop and have to face five unknown cards in a row. However, even that can be an informed decision based on what cards you have and how your opponents responded to your betting. And those cards aren't completely random. They are dependent on what cards have already been dealt, even if you don't have direct access to that knowledge. The draw is still directly affected by prior events. The only time you would ever be facing the kind of randomness you do in a GW game is if you went all in pre-deal. Also, I don't see how poker players going on skids even when playing well is different than athletes in any other sport going on skids while still nominally making the right decisions in every game. Sports and sports psychology are complicated things, but saying that poker is somehow unique in this regard because of the nature of luck is silly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
Hollismason posted:I encourage anyone to play Warhammer Quest. I still love that game. Of course it hasn't been out for like 14 years or something ,but still it's awesome. Psst: IOS:    PS Someone sell me Advanced Heroquest for like 45 US shipped TIA. Oh yeah. This is the best 100 dollars in hobby wargames:    If you want a taste:    :metal: Oh yeah. Also unsure if Muffet's post is funny or one of the worst goddamned posts on SA. Must investigate further hurm. (By investigate further put together tons of Hordes Trollymans for next week and forget the stupid post and the third or so of it I tried to actually read before I skimmed it.) Captain Rufus fucked around with this message at 10:21 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 08:06
|
|
