View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:16 am




Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
The "casual" player 
Author Message
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 2827
Location: Madison, WI
UndergroundWarren wrote:
Web,
want to comment then on what seems to be BFs intention to make FoW a more casual game? Also, perhaps you'd comment on what characteristics make a game more casual than tournament.

To me, I just don't expect players to spend the kind of time and money that BF wants for a casual game as I would describe one.

Certainly, casual games can be big hits, but how many people spend over a couple hundred bucks on one? It seems a very small potential market.

Since you asked...

And this is just my opinion...

They see it as a way to get more $. Simples. We can agree or disagree, but that is the plan.

As for a casual game, well... I have had casual games at tournaments! I have also witnessed a casual game turn into a Turkish Prison Rules game! It all comes down to the opponent (IMO). I could write a ton on the subject (I did and deleted a lot of it here), but it really comes down to the opponent.

_________________
Follow me at:
http://fowarmymen.blogspot.com


Wed May 03, 2017 3:36 pm
Profile WWW
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 790
I'm not sure the tournament vs casual dichotomy you are discussing is what I'm discussing nor the one BF is thinking of.

It seems when BF aims at the market, they are now aiming for guys who don't go to tournaments. It's not just about attitude when playing.

That's the problem. I'm really lost on the concept, and I think they are as well.

What percent of Magic or XWing players go to tournaments? Would they not benefit from making their game less tournament focused (whatever that means)? Why don't they? Is Bolt Action a tournament game? It's got bigger events than we do now. They have many more competitors selling models into their space, some with better quality.

I think the bottom line is that we want BF to get more serious about keeping the games tournament worthy. It seems to me the games will whither if it does not. If we can't even come up with the words and concepts to discuss it, it's not going to improve.


Wed May 03, 2017 4:38 pm
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:42 pm
Posts: 2211
Location: Oak Hill, VA
I don't think the NZ team is really interested in competitive tournament experiences. They just don't get it. A more likely candidate is a community based approach to come up with "season" rules similar to how the Euro team tournament has done in the past and get BF US to buy off and run their tournaments with the same package.


Wed May 03, 2017 5:00 pm
Profile
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 790
That's not going to fix stuff that is now baked into the game. Also, I can't see such a group coming to consensus on things like changing unit costs.


Wed May 03, 2017 7:04 pm
Profile
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4042
Location: Fortress Knox
The Bolt Action community largely pulled it off.


Wed May 03, 2017 7:25 pm
Profile WWW
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 2827
Location: Madison, WI
UndergroundWarren wrote:
I'm not sure the tournament vs casual dichotomy you are discussing is what I'm discussing nor the one BF is thinking of.

It seems when BF aims at the market, they are now aiming for guys who don't go to tournaments. It's not just about attitude when playing.

That's the problem. I'm really lost on the concept, and I think they are as well.




I think I understand where you are coming from. I just think that at its core, there really is no difference from a game perspective. We all want the same things - a balanced game and a fun game. In this case (IMO), BF is using the notion of casual games to rationalize the changes. We see this with the statements around "optional" cards and even some of the rules interpretations that have already been put out there. Another example would be cards. There is a card that you can play with negates a hit to an armored vehicle (German card). In the past, these types of special rules were in the context of something historical(ish) like Poole, Rat, etc. Now you just play a card. So the feeling goes if this is a casual game, you just say "hey, want to use the cards?" but in a tournament game, are you really going to ask game by game? That is the difference here...

So in addition to the whole tournament thingy, there is also a move away from historical basis. I think those changes are absolutely directed at new players, younger players and "casual" players.

_________________
Follow me at:
http://fowarmymen.blogspot.com


Wed May 03, 2017 9:19 pm
Profile WWW
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:42 pm
Posts: 2211
Location: Oak Hill, VA
webgriffin wrote:
UndergroundWarren wrote:
I'm not sure the tournament vs casual dichotomy you are discussing is what I'm discussing nor the one BF is thinking of.

It seems when BF aims at the market, they are now aiming for guys who don't go to tournaments. It's not just about attitude when playing.

That's the problem. I'm really lost on the concept, and I think they are as well.




I think I understand where you are coming from. I just think that at its core, there really is no difference from a game perspective. We all want the same things - a balanced game and a fun game. In this case (IMO), BF is using the notion of casual games to rationalize the changes. We see this with the statements around "optional" cards and even some of the rules interpretations that have already been put out there. Another example would be cards. There is a card that you can play with negates a hit to an armored vehicle (German card). In the past, these types of special rules were in the context of something historical(ish) like Poole, Rat, etc. Now you just play a card. So the feeling goes if this is a casual game, you just say "hey, want to use the cards?" but in a tournament game, are you really going to ask game by game? That is the difference here...

So in addition to the whole tournament thingy, there is also a move away from historical basis. I think those changes are absolutely directed at new players, younger players and "casual" players.



Right. It's totally headed down towards the "abstract" end of the game continuum. Let's not forget we are discussing a game where you put basically a Battalion's worth of stuff on a table scaled for a platoon.


Wed May 03, 2017 10:32 pm
Profile
Technical Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:15 pm
Posts: 1048
Location: Auckland, NZ
Play casual. But don't look like you're playing casual.

_________________
Image
Image
Cheers,
Mike

My blog!
http://www.scarybiscuitsstudios.com
-.-- --- ..- / -.-. .- -. - / ... - --- .--. / - .... . / ... .. --. -. .- .-.. .-.-.-


Thu May 11, 2017 3:58 am
Profile WWW
Corporal

Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:05 pm
Posts: 153
Location: West Los Angeles, California
Perhaps I've missed something somewhere?

What is the context of "casual player" being a bad term? Was it used by a BF employee to criticize or to justify something in how they're treating players under V4?


Fri May 19, 2017 3:02 pm
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:42 pm
Posts: 2211
Location: Oak Hill, VA
Troy wrote:
Perhaps I've missed something somewhere?

What is the context of "casual player" being a bad term? Was it used by a BF employee to criticize or to justify something in how they're treating players under V4?



It comes from players complaining on the forum something is broken/unbalanced/unworkable/etc. from a tournament standpoint and other players pointing out they can work around it with reasonable players or roll a dice or something. Some players play competitively for fun and others just play for fun. When you play competitively for fun you like clear, concise, reasonable rules and apply them consistent with the rule as written in the book, no matter how "unrealistic" it makes something. For others, more "casual" players, they would, I guess, try to interpret the "feel" of the rules when questions come up to make a more balanced game.

The latter is what Phil (and most rule writers I see) stresses, but it's disadvantage is when you have players from across the country (or world) trying to play in a tournament and one guys idea of reasonable is on a whole different planet from another. Anyway, I mainly see it in the context of the "reasonable" players critiquing the "competitive" players for asking Phil to make a ruling, which they see as unnecessary for some reason. I understand the competitive players, but personally, I don't know why the "casual" players stress out over completive players pointing out exploits in the rules to get them fixed. Anyway, that's how I see it for what it's worth. cheers.


Fri May 19, 2017 4:42 pm
Profile
Corporal

Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:05 pm
Posts: 153
Location: West Los Angeles, California
Thanks.

The battle between writing Clearly, and writing Concisely is waged on pages every day.

The worst conflict between those two ideals I've seen have always occurred in game rules. The new FOW ver 4 rules are prime example of being too concise, on top of the normal issues arising from the first printing of any rules set.


Fri May 19, 2017 10:39 pm
Profile
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 790
There is now growing a reactionary disdain for the casual player. It's not guy's who are chill about rules, don't care too much about outcome, and just like to watch a game of toy soldiers develop as if they were a spectator rather than a player. They are not a problem, all is good with them.

No, the problem is the guy who feels some need to make fun of "turney" players. He must complain about any dissatisfaction with the lack of clarity or balance or anything in the game that might create issues for competitive players. He acts like every tournament goer is that hammerhead that we'd all like to get rid of, but whom we put up with because we are too nice. It's unknown how many of these guys are the type that love to beat up on any new player they can find, or use rule ambiguities to take advantage, or are the very embodiment of the guys they claim are typical tournament players in every way except skill.

On what forum does anyone ever get taken to task for insulting tournament players and blaming them for every dissatisfaction they have in gaming? I've gotten tired of it. I now push back.

The bottom line is that some guys like to pose as casual players, but in reality, they are anything but. None of these guys you see on forums are the casual player they want you to think they are or THEY WOULDN'T CARE SO MUCH TO ARGUE!

As was noted here earlier, the majority of players actually want rules clarity and balance just
Ike tournament players do. I've seen discussions over the table with two guys who are going to feel bad if the other guy can't do what he wants in the rules because they want him to have fun. It's still disappointing and a hassle for rules to be ambiguous no matter what your attitude. Guys who don't get this love to make fun of guys trying to get the game right and accuse them of having personality issues. The reality is they are showing their own problems the minute they start typing.

The latest blow up has been over comments from BF about their perception of the size of the tournament vs casual market. I've heard the statement didn't reflect their actual viewpoint, but the problem is that rules and other books and comments reinforce a disregard for the tournament scene in spite of financial and marketing support for events.


Sat May 20, 2017 1:19 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

35,726,345 Views Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y