Need Help Writin Articles

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Need Help Writin Articles

Post  CKO on Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:24 pm

AArdvark085 wrote:Chad, Great article however I think you should tweek the format just a bit. Instead of attempting to highlight Reese's comments just present your argument. I think it will make for a much better article. Great content! Keep them coming!

Guys I would like to contribute more to South Mississippi Gamers by writing articles but, I have one problem sometimes my articles come off the wrong way. You guys know me I am a little bit arrogant (ok I am arrogant)  pirat and I know that is the problem and whats worse I cannot tell when I am being arrogant.  No With that being said I need you guys to be an editor of sorts and tell me what parts is detrimental to the article. Thank you Karl for pointing out the Reese thing Patrick also feels I should take it out so thats what I am going to do. Basically what I am saying is I will write an article on the forum as a rough draft you guys give me some feedback I make changes and hopefully it can be put on the blog if not I can make some changes until it is ready. I made some changes to the article on the word balance and I believe it is better I just want to get everyones opinion please do not hold back I have tough skin.

"Balance" One Word That Is Killing 40k

Hi, my name is Chad Knight (aka CKO aka Kenpachi) and I am a member of South Mississippi Gamers although I am the crazy relative that they reluctantly have to claim. (lol) I am writing this article to give my opinion on this topic called “balance” as it comes up alot. I believe that Tournament Organizers (TO) cannot balance the game only GW can, TOs job is to make the game more enjoyable for everyone with restrictions. In this article it is easy to believe that I am anti-TO or Reecius which is not the case I am anti using the word balance because when we say the game is unbalance it pushes away all players from the game as it creates an illusion that the game rules are flawed, which they are not. GW is making it possible to make insanely powerful units they are doing this by design so how can it be considered a flaw?

Balance is a political term in 40k that is used alot by TOs, it makes it seem as if tournament games are different from regular games all very promising but, in reality the use of the word is harmful to 40k. I guess the majority of players believe that by restricting a few things that will bring balance but, to me balance means that every army has the same power level cap. If that is the case, what can a TO do to make sure the game is balanced for Ork players? I understand why they say we are balancing the game as it is more attractive than saying we are restricting the really powerful combos and it attracts people to tournaments but, that implys all non-tournament games are imbalance and if I lose or dont have a good time I can blame the game for being imbalance. How many games before that players quits due to the continue misuse of the word balance. Just to let everyone know I am pro TO's and their decisions but against the word balance the goal of the article is to reveal how harmful the word balance is to 40k. I like restrictions adds a little flavor, I simply want to compete and win I know that makes me a bad guy but thats what I enjoy about 40k.

First right off the bat regardless of restrictions people are going to make list that will steamrolled their opponent, and if balance means giving everyone a fighting chance, balance will never be achieved. Tournament organizers spend alot of time trying to figure out ways to balance the game, because supposedly GW has a flaw in their gaming system that they are unaware of. “Balancing” gives the tournament organizers and inexperienced players this false hope that they will control the overall power of the net lists. The net list players in response to changes go out and buy new units to dominate the new tournament rules. (GWs marketing strategy is considered a flaw but, it makes power gamers buy new stuff and the casual players buy the new cool looking stuff) In actuality “balancing” creates more variables which are harder on newer players because your competitive players will constantly be changing.

In order to fix something you must first identify the problem and, I don’t see the problem I turned to this article for help. article http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/04/40k-meta-watch-post-adepticon.html Reecius is a tournament organizer and good player, I figure his concerns and issues with “balancing” represents a large portion of our community so I will be quoting this article a lot.

I don’t understand why the metagame at Adepticon was consider stale? At any competitive setting certain things are going to be used more because you have a better chance of winning, Typically 3-5 decks dominate card game’s tournament there is no difference with 40k. I think Space Marines, Tau, and Eldar dominated the top tables and that made it seem as if there were more of them.

I remember reading that article Reecius did call it, but I don’t think inquisitors are unbalanced. They give their allies access to divination, servo skulls, and grenades for a very cheap price nothing game breaking. What army cannot get re-rolls if they want them? (Orks) Whenever someone says balance I immediately replace it with power, powerful, or to powerful. So when I hear “the imbalance in the game is at an all time high” I see ‘the power in the game is at an all time high”, which to me is a good thing.

Do you the reader think it is possible to rid the game of unit combinations that are so powerful due to allies? These units will be created regardless of restrictions. As long as allies exist there will always be hyper point efficient units. Rule changes make you buy new stuff to dominate, which is a good thing everyone enjoys fresh air. Restrictions are really helpful in regional or local tournaments because new units are winning instead of the same old thing. The restrictions do not balance the game because in order to obtain balance everyone has to have equal opportunity to hyper point efficient units and that will never happen, so why use this political word called balance?

In the article it mentions variety not being as good as it should be but I thought the variety in the 2014 Adepticon was good. The top 16 at Adepticon is the main reason why I am going to start attending Grand Tournaments again I mean a freaking drop pod list made it, that’s great, even Tau drop down a bit.

The word imbalance creates this false illusion that there is a flaw or a mistake which is false. Remember balance equals power so when someone says that unit is imbalance they are saying that unit is powerful. Don’t you think Tau should have way more powerful shooting attacks? The Riptide squad which is mention in the article will be facing things like the beaststar unit? Riptides vs Beaststar who would win that fight, it can be determined by tactics or a tournament organizer. Either the TO makes it to where we don’t get to see this battle unfold because they make it impossible with their rule changes or one unit gets dominated because somebody gets the subjective nerf stick from the tournament organizer but, we are to view the decision as something that was done in the name of balance!

These units will be facing off against other monstrosities such as Riptides, beaststars, and other 2+ rerolling save units, bring your cheese to counter their cheese. **** just got real after escalation, the destructive capabilities and defensive capabilities of our units are crazy powerful but that’s the direction GW is going in. We can give the stiff arm to the escalation book but, there is nothing we can do to stop the constant barrage of powerful units. Players use the words balance and imbalance because it doesn’t sound like they are complaining, but that’s what he/she is doing.

The competitive player is going to steamroll the casual player regardless of what restrictions are made. I have to put this in bold letters, THE NICK NANAVATI’s OF THE WORLD ARE GOING TO STEAMROLL CASUAL PLAYERS REGARDLESS OF TOURNAMENT ORGANIZER’S RESTRICTIONS. I understand your concern about the decreasing 40k players as I was one of them. I left the game because they threw everything at us including the kitchen sink with this edition and it was too much change to quickly and I couldn’t handle all this balance talk. It is ironic that the same thing that pushed me away is drawing me back; I now look at 40k differently. I am going to face crazy super powerful units but I have access to crazy super powerful units, it’s a trade off.

One sentence stands out in the article and that is, “You have to make choices instead of just taking the best of everything”. This sentence proves my main point that restrictions create false hope. Do you the reader think this will prevent the competitive player from taking the best of everything? The answer is no they will always take the best of everything that is available and steamroll inferior list.

Reecius is a TO so I agree with his decisions as I agree with all TOs decision I just want to compete. My concern is things like Reecius opinion on Deathstars he clearly doesn’t like Deathstars so he wants to nerf them or get rid of them completely. There are alot of players out there that enjoy playing deathstars, and there are alot of players that wants to beat deathstars, so what about them? The decision to balance the game just isolated a player and made him not come, now the burden of balance is place completely on the TOs shoulder and their decisions has a large impact on the turnout of events. TOs are incousiouly putting a burden on their shoulders that is to heavy to hold, try as they might by using the word balance we can see what units they dont like and its a subjective issue regardless of the words that are used.

Competitive players are always under attack because of their desire to win whenever they voice their opinion and thats not fair. It makes it seem as if these players are vile because of their list which is a clear indication of their desire to win. It is not their fault that they have this mentality, our culture makes winning the most important thing not the player so we need to as a community stop pointing fingers at competitive players like they are the problem with tournaments. If they are playing in a casual game and they bring that list against a new player its different but for a Grand tournament its different, I mean you play to win the game! lol



Star list are auto wins but in the article Reecius admits that even with changes those non top players will be demolished anyways, so what is the point? Even if changes are made new units will rise to be just as deadly, so what is the point? The point is that, TO’s make rule changes not because it “balances” the game but because it makes the game more enjoyable for casual players.

To sum it all up balance is controlled by GW because balance means every army has equal power cap limits. TOs decisions has nothing to do with balance its all about restricting certain list the word balance is just a political word that justifys their decisions and makes it seem as if it is not a subjective issue. The word balance is damaging 40k it would be better if tournament organizers do what reecius did and just say it I dislike deathstars than this mental disease would fade away. Balance is a myth, TOs makes tournaments fun for everyone despite those net list.
avatar
CKO

Posts : 341
Join date : 2011-06-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum