View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:55 am




Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
The "casual" player 
Author Message
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 834
First, let me state that the casual player vs tournament player is really a false choice. No one ever really seems to define "casual". If I'm at a tournament and accept any rule interpretation from opponents with, "cool, we can do it that way", am I not casual? OTOH, if my one and only opponent I ever play is clearly not paying attention to some rules, am I somehow overly concerned with winning if I point it out?

The idea that 10% of players are tournament players seems totally off, but even if that's correct, that tells us nothing about the other 90% except they don't go to tournaments.

I've really only ever played FoW and Warmachine in more than one tournament as far as I can remember. I've played a few other things in single events. If I've never played Muskets and Tomahawks in a tournament, am I a casual M&T player, or still a tournament player?

What I'm really wondering about, since I've been told I'm incorrect, is if "casual" players don't desire balanced games and clear rules? I'm think that trying to figure out how to play only to find one faction or one side in a scenario has an advantage isn't a great way to have fun. Maybe I'm nuts?

What is it that the dispicable, WAAC tournament player desires in a game that a so called casual player does not?


Tue May 02, 2017 7:11 am
Profile
First Sergeant

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:04 pm
Posts: 2198
Location: NoVa
A tourney player who plays practice games is a casual player.

I do not think that a casual player who never plays in a tournament don't desire balanced games and clear rules? But then again what is a balanced game? Can a list that is inferior and can never take the objective per tournament standard missions be unbalanced? If the win conditions are changed for that list, you can have a balanced game as the victory is not your traditional tourney objective.

I have played in games that a traditional tourney would be unbalanced. Basically a 2,000 point list vs a 1,000 point list. The game was balanced because the victory conditions were based on turns played, not on a physical marker. How many turns the 2000 point list took to reach a point on the table was time based. it was assumed that the larger force, would reach that point. Could that fly in a tournament? Probably not. Was it balanced yes.

Before v4, Open MW Tournaments could pit a eastern front list against a western desert list. That was not a balanced game. Yet that is considered OK. Balance is allowing either opponent a chance to walk away as the victor. Open tournaments do not allow for a balanced game.


Tue May 02, 2017 12:55 pm
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:42 pm
Posts: 2261
Location: Oak Hill, VA
If an open tournament does not allow all lists to have an equal opportunity to win then it is either 1) a failure of BF to properly balance lists/points or 2) a failure of BF to properly balance missions with rules.

I have no idea what a casual player is either. Play in tournaments? Play not to win? Play only scenario games? Play only with buddies/group? Play pickup games at the FLGS? Where's Allen when you need him. :)


Tue May 02, 2017 2:42 pm
Profile
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 834
SEC,
Asymmetric games are not necessarily unbalanced. As you point out, victory objectives bring the balance.

In FOW, if you wish to create a historical scenario with asymmetrical forces, one of the best aids you can have is accurate points cost which reflect the game values properly. Those wanting to recreate battles get value from proper balance even when not using DYO forces.

Also, if you want to play your 1675 list against my 1500 list, then those ratios help understand the outcome. Casual gamers SHOULD desire this accuracy. Do they?


Tue May 02, 2017 4:04 pm
Profile
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 834
Mark,
Yeah, it's a classic verbal exploit waiting to happen. Do casual speakers object to defining the term? Lol


Tue May 02, 2017 4:06 pm
Profile
First Sergeant

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:04 pm
Posts: 2198
Location: NoVa
"If an open tournament does not allow all lists to have an equal opportunity to win then it is either 1) a failure of BF to properly balance lists/points or 2) a failure of BF to properly balance missions with rules. "


A historical MW Aussie DivCav list does not have any guns higher than AT7. How does that compare to those heavy tanks on the eastern front?

Same as a June 1942 Panzer list or Armoured list. Both are very short of high AT assets to deal with those heavy tanks.

Most Italian lists are the same way.

Open tournaments are not very balanced. Niche tournaments that fit a certain time & location are more balanced.


Tue May 02, 2017 6:18 pm
Profile
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 834
Certainly, we don't really want to insist that BF not put out non competitive lists that tournament players won't use. Ideally you could balance them all, but I'm not really going to ask BF to do that at this point.

OTOH, I think that all the major powers should have an infantry and an armor list that is highly competitive in any given meta. If not, some maintenance is called for to get things back in balance. Presumably, you could change the online resources and tournament players could use the updated armies while casual players could choose to just stick with what they have.

Would this not keep everyone happy with less reprints of Normandy books as infinitum?


Tue May 02, 2017 7:07 pm
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 2838
Location: Madison, WI
Mark wrote:
If an open tournament does not allow all lists to have an equal opportunity to win then it is either 1) a failure of BF to properly balance lists/points or 2) a failure of BF to properly balance missions with rules.

I have no idea what a casual player is either. Play in tournaments? Play not to win? Play only scenario games? Play only with buddies/group? Play pickup games at the FLGS? Where's Allen when you need him. :)

I define casual gamer as someone not wearing a suit and tie...

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


Tue May 02, 2017 8:06 pm
Profile WWW
Technical Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:57 am
Posts: 1593
Location: Fort Collins, CO
UndergroundWarren wrote:
Certainly, we don't really want to insist that BF not put out non competitive lists that tournament players won't use. Ideally you could balance them all, but I'm not really going to ask BF to do that at this point.

OTOH, I think that all the major powers should have an infantry and an armor list that is highly competitive in any given meta. If not, some maintenance is called for to get things back in balance. Presumably, you could change the online resources and tournament players could use the updated armies while casual players could choose to just stick with what they have.

Would this not keep everyone happy with less reprints of Normandy books as infinitum?


I don't fully understand this. I thought FoW was a historical wargame. Life ain't fair and neither is war.

_________________
http://moveshootassault.blogspot.com/
https://sites.google.com/site/miniaturemachinations/


Tue May 02, 2017 9:24 pm
Profile WWW
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 2838
Location: Madison, WI
Ok. To really weigh in here...

I am not a fan of "casual gamer" and "tournament player." There are tournament games and there are casual games. Players may play one or both types of games.

When I really started to play tournaments in 2012, I thought there would be such a difference. And in fact, the two types of games and the people that play them are so very similar.

For example, one of the best forms of sportsmanship I ever experienced was at a tournament. And many, many times I have reminded my opponents in both environments about forgetting to storm-trooper and other aspects of the game. Casual or tournament, I want an enjoyable game.

The mistake (IMO) is that people apply those tags to a-hole players. You might know someone who is an a-hole when they play, so you say something like "oh, he is a tournament player." But the reality is that they are a-holes at tournaments and at local / casual games.

I joke with my friends about playing a game or playing a game with "Turkish Prison Rules." You want to measure to the millimeter - okay... and expect it in return. You want to be the player that won't remind me of something on the table - got it, just expect the same in return. You want to yell at me for asking a question about the rules - then expect total silence.

I have seen a-holes. Some of them know they are and some have no clue. But the fact is that they are a-holes in life. The game merely brings out what is naturally there.

Now, to the actual OP:

All gamers want balance. Yes, you can create situations and scenarios that may require different point levels, but you make those adjustments for balance. Having tested, I assure you that these two factors were always considered by me and the crew: fun and balance. I do not want to play a game - any game - where one side will always win or one list always wins. What's the fun and what is the point? If I want to always lose at something, I will just start an argument with my wife!

I do believe we all want the same things - fun over the table, laugh with friends, enjoy a game that requires keen thinking and feel like you played your heart out - win or lose. If that is FoW, I am all in! If that is something else, I am all in!

But do not discount or inflate my comments because I am a tournament player or a casual player...

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


Tue May 02, 2017 10:01 pm
Profile WWW
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:42 pm
Posts: 2261
Location: Oak Hill, VA
SECfootball wrote:
"If an open tournament does not allow all lists to have an equal opportunity to win then it is either 1) a failure of BF to properly balance lists/points or 2) a failure of BF to properly balance missions with rules. "


A historical MW Aussie DivCav list does not have any guns higher than AT7. How does that compare to those heavy tanks on the eastern front?

Same as a June 1942 Panzer list or Armoured list. Both are very short of high AT assets to deal with those heavy tanks.

Most Italian lists are the same way.

Open tournaments are not very balanced. Niche tournaments that fit a certain time & location are more balanced.



I did not make MW 1942 and 1943 - BF did. While it may look like the points for AT7 and AT14 vs FA 9 are right, if you cannot fight a 1942 vs a 1943 lists in a tournament, then the points values are wrong. If that's not the case, then #2 clearly applies. Therefore, if the company that sponsors open tournaments insist that that is the period involved, then they have failed at either of the above listed two points.


Tue May 02, 2017 10:18 pm
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:42 pm
Posts: 2261
Location: Oak Hill, VA
webgriffin wrote:
Ok. To really weigh in here...

I am not a fan of "casual gamer" and "tournament player." There are tournament games and there are casual games. Players may play one or both types of games.

When I really started to play tournaments in 2012, I thought there would be such a difference. And in fact, the two types of games and the people that play them are so very similar.

For example, one of the best forms of sportsmanship I ever experienced was at a tournament. And many, many times I have reminded my opponents in both environments about forgetting to storm-trooper and other aspects of the game. Casual or tournament, I want an enjoyable game.

The mistake (IMO) is that people apply those tags to a-hole players. You might know someone who is an a-hole when they play, so you say something like "oh, he is a tournament player." But the reality is that they are a-holes at tournaments and at local / casual games.

I joke with my friends about playing a game or playing a game with "Turkish Prison Rules." You want to measure to the millimeter - okay... and expect it in return. You want to be the player that won't remind me of something on the table - got it, just expect the same in return. You want to yell at me for asking a question about the rules - then expect total silence.

I have seen a-holes. Some of them know they are and some have no clue. But the fact is that they are a-holes in life. The game merely brings out what is naturally there.

Now, to the actual OP:

All gamers want balance. Yes, you can create situations and scenarios that may require different point levels, but you make those adjustments for balance. Having tested, I assure you that these two factors were always considered by me and the crew: fun and balance. I do not want to play a game - any game - where one side will always win or one list always wins. What's the fun and what is the point? If I want to always lose at something, I will just start an argument with my wife!

I do believe we all want the same things - fun over the table, laugh with friends, enjoy a game that requires keen thinking and feel like you played your heart out - win or lose. If that is FoW, I am all in! If that is something else, I am all in!

But do not discount or inflate my comments because I am a tournament player or a casual player...


Allen just gets me. :lol:


Tue May 02, 2017 10:19 pm
Profile
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 834
PrivateSnafu wrote:
UndergroundWarren wrote:
Certainly, we don't really want to insist that BF not put out non competitive lists that tournament players won't use. Ideally you could balance them all, but I'm not really going to ask BF to do that at this point.

OTOH, I think that all the major powers should have an infantry and an armor list that is highly competitive in any given meta. If not, some maintenance is called for to get things back in balance. Presumably, you could change the online resources and tournament players could use the updated armies while casual players could choose to just stick with what they have.

Would this not keep everyone happy with less reprints of Normandy books as infinitum?


I don't fully understand this. I thought FoW was a historical wargame. Life ain't fair and neither is war.


Games are not life, or why play? If I want unfair, I don't need BF, and I won't be expecting friendship. I'll play at business or government or war and make money rather than pay it.

At a more trivial level, I certainly don't need an inaccurate points system.


Tue May 02, 2017 10:52 pm
Profile
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 834
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.


Tue May 02, 2017 10:58 pm
Profile
Technical Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:57 am
Posts: 1593
Location: Fort Collins, CO
UndergroundWarren wrote:
I think that all the major powers should have an infantry and an armor list that is highly competitive in any given meta. If not, some maintenance is called for to get things back in balance.


This is not compatible with a historical wargaming. I don't know where you are going with this. Space Marines fight well enough they don't need a bump.

_________________
http://moveshootassault.blogspot.com/
https://sites.google.com/site/miniaturemachinations/


Tue May 02, 2017 11:01 pm
Profile WWW
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 834
I think your idea is incompatible with a successful game. However, I'm really confused on why you would think this at all? Perhaps you missed the fecal downpour when a BF manager put out a statement that the Germans losing in LLW was simply realistic?

In a points based game, less capable forces are pointed less so you get more of them. Otherwise, you will find few people interested in playing.


Tue May 02, 2017 11:21 pm
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:42 pm
Posts: 2261
Location: Oak Hill, VA
I have spent well > $800 collecting a Nappie army this year. There is no tournament scene. I play with my friends. It has a point system, but we also play historical battles too. I assume this is a "casual" game. Also I don't wear a coat and tie to play it.


Tue May 02, 2017 11:48 pm
Profile
Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:50 am
Posts: 268
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
I think what they're getting at is that casual players don't care if they win or if they lose, they want to roll a lot of dice and watch everything blow up.

While I have huge issues with WAAC players, I also have issues with people who don't take the game seriously and just roll over. That's no fun for anyone. Like people who throw in the towel a turn or two in...


Wed May 03, 2017 12:59 am
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:01 pm
Posts: 1653
Mark, I think you define your description of Napoleonics above as "Business Casual" :lol: :lol: :lol:


Wed May 03, 2017 1:01 am
Profile
Technical Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:57 am
Posts: 1593
Location: Fort Collins, CO
UndergroundWarren wrote:
Perhaps you missed the fecal downpour when a BF manager put out a statement that the Germans losing in LLW was simply realistic?


Absolutely, haven't bothered with BF forum in ages.

UndergroundWarren wrote:
In a points based game, less capable forces are pointed less so you get more of them. Otherwise, you will find few people interested in playing.


Sure, I get that. It's just that there has never been any rage or call for Dutch LW lists to be competitive. Nothing based in history is that perfectly balanced. Even Sci-Fi and Fantasy struggles with that.

I don't need to debate any more. You can win, I was just making some casual comments and observations.

_________________
http://moveshootassault.blogspot.com/
https://sites.google.com/site/miniaturemachinations/


Wed May 03, 2017 1:12 am
Profile WWW
Technical Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:26 am
Posts: 818
Well it is obvious to me that anyone not playing like this is casual
Image
and what happened to playing in ties AND cardies?
Image


Wed May 03, 2017 2:20 am
Profile
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4169
Location: Fortress Knox
"Battle Gamers!" I really like that term. We do usually play "battles" more so than whole "wars" on our table tops with miniatures. Thanks for sharing TT!


Wed May 03, 2017 2:39 am
Profile WWW
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 834
PrivateSnafu wrote:
UndergroundWarren wrote:
Perhaps you missed the fecal downpour when a BF manager put out a statement that the Germans losing in LLW was simply realistic?


Absolutely, haven't bothered with BF forum in ages.

UndergroundWarren wrote:
In a points based game, less capable forces are pointed less so you get more of them. Otherwise, you will find few people interested in playing.


Sure, I get that. It's just that there has never been any rage or call for Dutch LW lists to be competitive. Nothing based in history is that perfectly balanced. Even Sci-Fi and Fantasy struggles with that.

I don't need to debate any more. You can win, I was just making some casual comments and observations.


This is in no way about winning and losing. I'm trying to figure out what the reality is, and what people genuinely think. The Dutch lists are precisely my point. They aren't a major faction. I'm not going to hold BF accountable for the Dutch having a chance. At the same time, some players may want to play them. I'm not going to say BF shouldn't support their interest. I've played Belgians and had fun.

At the same time, there really should be at least one competitive list from each major in both armor and infantry. It's smart business if nothing else.


Wed May 03, 2017 3:46 am
Profile
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 834
Mark wrote:
I have spent well > $800 collecting a Nappie army this year. There is no tournament scene. I play with my friends. It has a point system, but we also play historical battles too. I assume this is a "casual" game. Also I don't wear a coat and tie to play it.


What's the system? What's the reason there are no tournaments? Are the rules a mess? Not balanced? Not enough fans? How many armies is that?

Tell us more! :)


Wed May 03, 2017 3:51 am
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:42 pm
Posts: 2261
Location: Oak Hill, VA
UndergroundWarren wrote:
Mark wrote:
I have spent well > $800 collecting a Nappie army this year. There is no tournament scene. I play with my friends. It has a point system, but we also play historical battles too. I assume this is a "casual" game. Also I don't wear a coat and tie to play it.


What's the system? What's the reason there are no tournaments? Are the rules a mess? Not balanced? Not enough fans? How many armies is that?

Tell us more! :)


Grand Battles Napoleon. No one to run them (yet). Rules are good. Rulebook not very organized though. So far that we can tell, very balanced. It's new, so not sure how many fans are there yet. In my case, just Russians. I have more than I need though to just play some games though. You can build a base force for about $200 I think. I may have gone overboard since I have not been buying WW2 for quite a while.


Wed May 03, 2017 1:42 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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:  

37,283,557 Views Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y