Pinned The 2021 WDG Discussion Thread

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • jirga wrote:

    Happy Aspid wrote:

    how do you even identify those who are scared of trying different lists?
    Everyone complaining here of course.
    And how exactly did you come up with that conclusion? Are you able to say which units I've tried over the last year - year and a half? Do you keep records for the players who write here? I'd love to see that.
    Yes, they drink blood. Yes, some of them have been known to command armies of the damned. But at least they're not Elves.
    - Niles Valera, Agitator
  • Altao wrote:

    But can you tell that this way it is fair for WDG?
    Maybe not 100% but unfreezing the WDG would be unfair towards all books that didn't get LAB yet. Lesser evil.

    teclis2000 wrote:

    I agree in principle, but what happens if price for chief/wizard master/doomlord on behemoth is really low already and still unused?
    We still got some wiggle room, I never expected the balancing algorithm to work 100% in the first few years. I can wait.
  • saint_barbara wrote:

    Altao wrote:

    But can you tell that this way it is fair for WDG?
    Maybe not 100% but unfreezing the WDG would be unfair towards all books that didn't get LAB yet. Lesser evil.We still got some wiggle room, I never expected the balancing algorithm to work 100% in the first few years. I can wait.
    CL on Wasted Dragon went down by 20 points since the release while being totally unused. We'll all be too old to play this game when the price will get in a right place for him with this pace.
  • Exalted Champion wrote:

    Clangeddin Silverbeard wrote:

    It'd be a true gift if someone could process some of the post-patch data.

    I see A LOT of posts on how behemoth sucks, how WDG internal balance is off, how the army is useless in various ways. This sub-forum is flooded with it. But I practically never see any of it backed up by actual data or even just the outcomes of some event. It's all super-duper anecdotal. Yet people keep posting it like it is factual information.

    Regarding the behemoth: Maybe it does suck. Maybe it doesn't: Gym shorts won a small event with a sorcerer on behemoth last year. Maybe it wasn't because of the behemoth, maybe he's a good player, who knows, but at least now we've got some sort of indication that it can actually work under the right circumstances.

    It would be so nice with some data so we could say: Data says otherwise. Computer says no. Perhaps you should try changing the way you play or the way you build your lists. OR we could say: That's a fair point. Data supports your statement. Perhaps we do need to make some adjustments.
    If we are talking about Data already, behemoth not taken in most tournament lists is also data right?
    Or can you show me data, that behemoth can be found in 50% of tournament lists or even close that area?
    You know that I can't. But I did just give you an example of behemoth appearing in an event-winning list. While that doesn't prove that it's good, it does kinda prove that it can work under certain circumstances in the right list. And I also wrote that it would be a gift with MORE data. Do we really disagree here - we both want reliable, updated data. Right?

    The funny thing is that I don't think behemoth is in a great place either. I can see it work as a mount for a cheap sorcerer in monster mash lists with target saturation, but I'd never put a doomlord on top of it, and I think barb chief is better on a chaser, chimera or chariot. I fully believe it can be fixed with points, but until further discounts, I'm not gonna use behemoth in my competitive lists. I just get so tired when people post stuff like "behemoth is awful, herald is overcosted, favours are useless and single model spam is the only viable WDG strategy" like these are proven facts. Because they aren't.
  • saint_barbara wrote:

    Altao wrote:

    But can you tell that this way it is fair for WDG?
    Maybe not 100% but unfreezing the WDG would be unfair towards all books that didn't get LAB yet. Lesser evil.
    Also, with this approach, staff shouldn't be surprised by negativity on this forum. WDG were sacrificed for the sake of other armies, why should players invested in WDG like you after that or appreciate what you do?
  • Kaitin wrote:

    Also, with this approach, staff shouldn't be surprised by negativity on this forum. WDG were sacrificed for the sake of other armies, why should players invested in WDG like you after that or appreciate what you do?
    This only applies to the fraction of users who do not recognize that:
    a) One army has to be the first one.
    b) DL and WDG had to be the first ones for legal reasons.
    c) Having the first LAB while others had to wait also has advantages. Only now that they are less apparent it starts to feel like a liability.

    So the amount of negativity probably depends on the collective awareness of the constraints and pressures that the project decision makers face.
  • maemon wrote:

    With a data system entered by hand and rendered in an unreadable Excel, it is unusable.


    You need a system with a database, a simple entry screen that allows everyone to enter information (so we would only have tournament data but all the games to play) and a search screen. simple allowing anyone to search for the data they are interested in.

    This is the only way to have an uncontroversial system unlike the current one.


    so everyone can check the data they want and we will really see the internal and external balancing and what needs to be changed.


    and that will avoid different opinions because based on the same data (like last year the top third WDGs while the latest tournament data indicated that no).

    Proposals were made, with a team of 2-3 people knowing certain technologies (mongoDB, angularJS and nodeJS) we can get something in a few weeks.
    Can you please repeat that proposal you speak about to me in a pm?

    Advisery Board Member

    Click to apply to staff. I Organise: TA, TS and ACS. My Perspective on T9A on Youtube: T9A in Bayern - YouTube and T9A in Bavaria - YouTube
  • Just_Flo wrote:

    maemon wrote:

    With a data system entered by hand and rendered in an unreadable Excel, it is unusable.


    You need a system with a database, a simple entry screen that allows everyone to enter information (so we would only have tournament data but all the games to play) and a search screen. simple allowing anyone to search for the data they are interested in.

    This is the only way to have an uncontroversial system unlike the current one.


    so everyone can check the data they want and we will really see the internal and external balancing and what needs to be changed.


    and that will avoid different opinions because based on the same data (like last year the top third WDGs while the latest tournament data indicated that no).

    Proposals were made, with a team of 2-3 people knowing certain technologies (mongoDB, angularJS and nodeJS) we can get something in a few weeks.
    Can you please repeat that proposal you speak about to me in a pm?
    Please join me in, as I was thinking about same thing for many months ;)
  • Complaints mostly died out after some time - that is until new LABs came out and people saw what could be done with LAB book. Compared to ID or DE, WDG looks very constrained and dull. That does not mean uncompetitive, just unispired.

    That being said, I still would not reopen it for the same reason @saint_barbara mentioned:

    saint_barbara wrote:

    unfreezing the WDG would be unfair towards all books that didn't get LAB yet. Lesser evil.
  • subspace wrote:

    Kaitin wrote:

    Also, with this approach, staff shouldn't be surprised by negativity on this forum. WDG were sacrificed for the sake of other armies, why should players invested in WDG like you after that or appreciate what you do?
    This only applies to the fraction of users who do not recognize that:a) One army has to be the first one.
    b) DL and WDG had to be the first ones for legal reasons.
    c) Having the first LAB while others had to wait also has advantages. Only now that they are less apparent it starts to feel like a liability.

    So the amount of negativity probably depends on the collective awareness of the constraints and pressures that the project decision makers face.
    A and B points are fine. C is not. You think that right now there is a lot of negativity? There was a literal shitstorm when the armybook was first released. It only gets smaller with time.
    Being the first LAB never was an advantage for this aarmybook. Mostly because of how rigid this project was that time. We had like two major design updates to the armybook with many changes, and other were very small and cautious. First it was "guys, don't be so negative, you are too conservative, give this armybook a chance". Then it was "we are collecting data, please, wait and we'll fix everything". Later it was "we can't make major changes anymore, only small adjustments". And now it is 'the armybook is gold, we can't adjust anything" and "This is how system works" which we were hearing since the beginning.
    So, some issues were never recognised, not speaking about fixing them. It was always too early or too late for changes. And I don't think it is fine. You expect me to be aware of project constraints? I am also aware that this project made a lot of mistakes and never tried to fix them. And that's very disappointing.
  • I totally agree, the lab should not be reopened...

    Not without a change of approach, like allowing 1 direct suggestion per lab per year (together with the point review) that would then need to be assessed.

    But no exception for WDG, either no reopening of LABs, or allowing some limited change to those (all of them) on a rare but regular base.

    DL / WDG Community Support

    Playtester

  • Rothulf wrote:

    I totally agree, the lab should not be reopened...

    Not without a change of approach, like allowing 1 direct suggestion per lab per year (together with the point review) that would then need to be assessed.

    But no exception for WDG, either no reopening of LABs, or allowing some limited change to those (all of them) on a rare but regular base.
    The project could be more open to changing things that can be changed for this army though. Just because of how it treated this armybook in the past. We had a great opportunity to do it this year, but it was mostly wasted.
  • Kaitin wrote:

    Also, with this approach, staff shouldn't be surprised by negativity on this forum. WDG were sacrificed for the sake of other armies, why should players invested in WDG like you after that or appreciate what you do?
    There are players that are negative and those that are positive. It's natural that you conceive "your group" (whichever that would be) as bigger or "righter". And the truth is, you will never know, since the forum is just a fraction of the community and out of my group (~20 players) only me and Kołata sometimes write here, while our Discord has ~30 posts/day.

    Besides, I don't think staff is surprised. Me myself, when I was still part of the team, regularly pushed for discarding the community feedback and owning our product. I wasn't very popular with my approach, but I hope some echoes of it still linger out there. It's nigh impossible to make everyone happy and negative attention is only slightly worse than a positive one in terms of online marketing.

    WastelandWarrior wrote:

    We are stuck with bland entries (even the names are bland) or entries with over priced underwhelming favours.
    I was the author of warriors -> warrior knights -> warrior chariot, chosen -> chosen chariot -> chosen knights. I even wanted something very similar for Fallen -> Forsworn -> Forsaken Ones, but got voted down. I love it today just as much as I have loved it when I first thought of it. It's elegant and simple, for me it's our privilege we are "the pure WARRIORS" while everyone else needs to add something to distinguish them from the boring rest. Wasteland Rageslashers of Cibaresh sound ridiculous to me.

    Note: I only did book layouts and some names, never any rules.