Spilleres vurdering af kvaliteter ved div. Fantasy Tabletop Games - spørgeskema

[Windelov]

Hej,

Der er en heftig debat på 9th age forumet om hvilke kvaliteter 9th fantasy battles are sammenlignet med andre fantasy tabletop spil (AoS, WHFB, KoW og tidligere udgaver af FB:9th age).

Vi har lavet et spørgeskema for at spørge spillere om deres vurdering og derved identificere styrker og svagheder for spillet.

Det ville være super hvis I har tid til at udfylde den (kun en gang per mand/kvinde). undersøgelsen tager cirka 2-3 minuter at fuldfører og er anonym.

LINK: https://goo.gl/forms/lcHOo2J8zl0VGOfG2

Tak,
Nis

[rosenaa]

Der er flere som jeg aldrig er gået i gang med - simpelthen fordi jeg foretrækker WHFB V5. fremfor alt andet

Det er i min mening stadigvæk det bedste udover WHFB v1 Naturligvis   

Og det mangler jeg i hvert fald at have med som mulighed, at vælge andet WH fremfor den nye 

[Windelov]

Tak for feedback,

Det må jeg indrømme at vi ikke tænkte på.

Hvor stor tilslutning tror du der er til de forskellige pre-8 editions ?

[rosenaa]

Svært at sige, men dem som efterlyser de gamle bøger har meget svært ved at kunne komme til at købe dem . den kunne tyde på at 1. Folk som har dem ikke vil af med dem fordi de stadigvæk bruger dem og 2. at de som søger ikke gider spille de nye udgaver 

[Zephyr]

Svært at sige, men dem som efterlyser de gamle bøger har meget svært ved at kunne komme til at købe dem . den kunne tyde på at 1. Folk som har dem ikke vil af med dem fordi de stadigvæk bruger dem og 2. at de som søger ikke gider spille de nye udgaver 

Eller 3: folk som glider ud af hobbyen gider ikke bruge tiden på at sætte gamle (og ofte billige) bøger til salg.

eller 4: folk syntes det er fedt at have et helt sæt 4/5 eller 8 bøger stånede i reolen fordi de stadigvæk repræsentere nogle positive minder (har selv hele 4/5 edition stående selvom jeg reelt kun nåede en 10-20 spil med en af bøgerne for 15 år siden).


Omkring spørgeskemaet - har selv prøvet lidt forskelligt men jeg syntes det virker lidt unfair hvis jeg på basis af 6-7 spil AOS dengang det var nyt skal vurdere spillet som det ser ud idag. Det samme gælder KOW 1ed / 2ed.   

• Immersion - The feeling of being part of story of fantastic battles, feeling connected to the characters and units.
Er det i forhold til det officielle fluff eller om jeg personligt er i stand til at finde på historier til mine figurer?
Spiller meget T9A men kobler mine spil / figurer på gammel GW fantasy lore. Er det immersed eller ej?     

[Windelov]

Omkring spørgeskemaet - har selv prøvet lidt forskelligt men jeg syntes det virker lidt unfair hvis jeg på basis af 6-7 spil AOS dengang det var nyt skal vurdere spillet som det ser ud idag. Det samme gælder KOW 1ed / 2ed.   

• Immersion - The feeling of being part of story of fantastic battles, feeling connected to the characters and units.
Er det i forhold til det officielle fluff eller om jeg personligt er i stand til at finde på historier til mine figurer?
Spiller meget T9A men kobler mine spil / figurer på gammel GW fantasy lore. Er det immersed eller ej?   

Jeg tænker også stadig på WHFB lore når jeg spiller (og er igang med at læse "The Sundering" hvilket også hjælper på motivation for at male highborn elfs). For mig er det fint.  Nogle digter deres helt egne historier, men tager bare udgangspunkt i reglerne, og det er netop i hvor høj grad disse understøtter "immersion" hjulpet af alt mulig fluff herunder også det fra 9th age.

Vi afblinder resultaterne når vi når 200 svar. Husk ikke at dobbelt poste :-)

[kpl.blutch]

Vi afblinder resultaterne når vi når 200 svar.

Mener du 200 danske svar ?

[Windelov]

Nej 200 svar i alt. 

Vi er på 120 nu, tusind tak! Og så det er nu hvis men ikke allerede har udfyldt 

[Windelov]

Purpose and methods:

The fantasy tabletop gaming scene has diversified over the last 4 years since the discontinuation of Warhammer Fantasy Battles (WHFB) as a tabletop game by Games Workshop. The purpose of this survey is to evaluate some of the major qualities and preference for the game design and rules of the 4 major games incl. the discontinued WHFB in its latest edition, Age of Sigmar, 9thage (first edition, current official edition, and beta edition), 9thage Quickstarter and Kings of War.

[spoiler]
Logistical factors such as cost, number of models required, number of players, duration of the games, randomness, the use of terrain and visual appearance of the tabletop will not be covered specifically.

A survey was started on June 22 with an expected duration  of 7-14 days. The survey can be downloaded as a pdf on XXX. No changes to the questions or options were made after the first participant had started the survey.

No formal sample size was calculated as there was no data, including measures of variation, to build assumptions on. No minimal relevant difference was established as the survey was not validated (although this should be done for future use of the survey). A sample of 200 responders was deemed adequate. Unblinded data was visible only to @Windelov​ . Data was presented blinded in updates during collection missing one gaming system at random to avoid confounding participating and results.

There were no restriction on having to be a member of a specific forum to gain as broad feedback as possible. Likewise, there were requirement of having played all the games in the survey but to gain information representing some level of experience, the responders had to have played 5 games to provide feedback on the qualities of the game.

To ensure proper data quality, double posts were identified by degree of variation in answers given over a short period. Likewise, replies with the same value given to several games (e.g. assigning 0 or 5 to ALL qualities for several game systems) were excluded.

Inference testing will be done with paired t-tests (i.e. only testing responders who played both the games evaluated) for data following an approximate Gaussian distribution, a non-paired t-testwill be used as a sensitivity analysis (due to the many players only playing one or a few of the games). There will not be correction for multiple testing. Significance will be claimed for p<0.05, and p-values will be truncated to the third decimal.


Results:

A total of 200 people participated during the first 8 day where after the survey was closed. A total of 7 responders were excluded as obvious double posts. Furthermore, some entries for one or more games were deleted e.g. as stating "0" for all but a single game (obviously mistaken 0 for not having played the games). Excluding them did not affect the overall results. All numbers are presented in table 1.



*"fake posts" denote entries where values are given without variation, often all values stated as either 5 or 1. This happened mostly in conjunction with double posts (same results given within a short time period often <1 min).

Most responders were linked to the survey from the-ninth-age.com, 40%, but with a substantial portion of responders linked from other 9th age sites and tabletop sites, 25% each, with the remaining part being from referred by friends or others, note that only slightly more than half completed this part as not mandatory.



The preference for games by how fun they are to play (so not related to the community, availability of players, clubs, etc) can be seen in figure 1 (bars indicate mean values and whisker denote 95% confidence intervals).



When considering the preference by time of when the different systems were launched, WHFB was replaced by AoS which was significant less preferred by responders (p<0.001) both when considering players who played both systems (paired test) and if considering the replies independently (unpaired). The existing alternative KoW was preferred to AoS (p=0.03, paired) but was slightly less preferred than the existing WHFB although this was not significant (p=0.68).

The first version of the 9th age (v.1.0 -1.1) was significantly more preferred than WHFB among those that played both system and when considering all players (p=0.03, paired; p=0.01 unpaired). It was significantly more preferred than AoS (p<0.001 for both paired and unpaired) and KoW (p<0.001 for both paired and unpaired).

With the update to the current official version 1.3 the preference as compared to the first version dropped significantly (p<0.001 paired and unpaired) and the 9th age v.1.3 was not significantly preferred compared to WHFB (p=0.28, favor of WHFB) and AoS (p=0.18, favor of 9th Age), although still preferred to KoW (p=0.04, paired).

The Beta of 9th age covered the ground lost with the v1.3 and was equally preferred to the v1.0-1.1 (p=0.55in favor of beta edition). The beta edition was not significantly preferred to WHFB in the paired analysis (p=0.05) but was significantly more preferred when comparing all responders (p<0.01 unpaired), the difference was presumably due to a larger group responders having played both WHFB and the V1.0 of FB:9th age than the Beta edition. ). The beta was significantly more preferred than AoS and KoW (p<0.001 for all, paired and unpaired).

Gaming qualities:

Responders were asked to rate 6 game qualities:

Diversity - The number of options /lack of restrictions in units and their equipment/abilities that you can bring to the table
Easy to learn and remember - The time spent learning and maintaining knowledge of the game to play at a competitive level (spending a lot of time gives a low score)
Efficient game play - The proportion of game time engaged in interesting actions of the game .
Balance - Internal and external balance of the armies to ensure that the majority of units are viable and that you fight other armies on equal terms.
Robust rules - The lack of ambiguity and need to discuss or consult FAQs for answer to rules
Immersion - The feeling of being part of story of fantastic battles, feeling connected to the characters and units.
Each quality was assessed by a score of 0-5, with "0" being none at all; 1 being very little/barely any; 3 being moderate/average; and 5 being very high/perfect.



When considering the gaming scene after the discontinuation of WHFB with only the v1 of the 9th age being available, it was clear that none of the successors could claim the same level of immersion as WHFB, with AoS > 9th Age > KoW.

While AoS and KoW score vastly higher (and similar) on easy to learn but lost on Diversity where 9th age preserved the score of WHFB. All three successor games were more efficient in terms of gameplay, but KoW most so. For Balance and Robust Rules ]9th ageand KoW distanced themselves from both games (former and current) of Games Workshop.




When then considering the updates of FB:9th age, there was a significant loss from the v1 to the current official v1.3 of immersion, diversity, rules robustness (all p<0.001, paired) and a significant loss in "easy to learn" and "efficient game play" (p<0.05 both paired) balance did not change (p=0.17).



With the introduction of beta, the "Diversity" and "Immersion" loss was somewhat restored while the "easy to learn" deteriorated even more (p<0.001). Balance was even more improved (p<0.001) now to the level of KoW.



As the Quickstarter is intended as bridge to the FB:]9th age, it is not to compete with it but with other games. When comparing Quickstarter to KoW and AoS, there is a marked loss of "diversity" to both games while also less "easy to learn". Quickstarter is inferior to AoS on immersion and inferior to KoW on balance. The Quickstarter does not score highest on any parameters.

KoW seems superior to AoS, efficicent game play, balance and rules robustness while AoS is superior to KoW on Diversity and Immersion with not difference on "easy to learn".





Full histograms and measures of variation will be added for qualities. A subgroup analysis will be conducted to evaluate if results were different for responders who were linked from the the-ninth-age.com vs other 9th age sites vs other table top sites.

[Windelov]

As some focus is (understandably) on the comparison of WHFBto the versions of 9th age, I thought it better to do a bar chart illustrating just this. I added Standard deviations to illustrate the variation in results. To those not familiar with this type of presentation, the bars inidicate the means, and the whiskers (lines) indicate the range of which slightly more than 2/3 of the responses where within.

The obvious points (and perhaps the only ones that can we can claim with a good degree of certainty) is that the immersion drop and the balance increase was marked going from WHFB to 9th age. Any changes to diversity and efficicent gameplay are neglieble and although some of the changes might be statistical significant, they dont hold much value. Easy to learn is perhaps relevant as there is a consistent slide towards the worse and the same (but in a positive direction) could be said for the rules.



Below are the mean score for immersion grouped by where people entered the survey. The answers seems to pretty consistent.













Another way of looking at the immersion thing is to look at it by whether people overall prefer The beta edition over WHFB.

Below are responders who played both WHFB and Beta. Orange being those that prefer Beta. Blue are those that prefer WHFB or rate them equally. Whiskers (lines) are here the 95% confidence interval range of the mean (indicating that the mean with 95% percent probability is somewhere within that range).

So people who prefer Beta seemed to have the approx same evaluation of immersion on WHFB 8th and V1.0 and both agreed that there was a drop. However, the interesting part is that the ones who preferred Beta saw no further drop (on average) after 1.1 while those who prefer WHFB saw it further declining with the more streamlined version 1.3. Both groups so no change in immersion from 1.3 to beta.


Qualities for those preferring [lexicon]WHFB[/lexicon] over Beta but has played both (n=40).


And the opposite, those who played both beta and [lexicon]WHFB[/lexicon] but prefers Beta (n=62)

And finally, those who find the two systems equally good (n= 15)


Results are pretty consistent.

Beta dominates on balance and WHFB on immersion even by those preferring the other game.

The three bottom ones are are good for Beta whereas the three top ones are good for WHFB with minor fluctuations.

Consider the different discussions in the forum of people shouting from one camp to the other, and then look at the above. We have markedly different views on the qualities of the same two games. I dont think this is different from any other thing in life but important to remember doing those very black and white discussions with each part claiming that THEY know and truly understands the game. The game being several different things, 6 examples of those in the diagrams above.

And below the evaluation of 9th age Beta  by those preference of either WHFB or BETA


And the same for WHFB

[rosenaa]

Og det gav bare "SÅ" meget mening...