Balance/Power Creep in Malifaux

[admiralvorkraft]

Discussion of possible power creep issues began to derail the Titania preview thread and Aaron suggested moving that conversation elsewhere, so I'm moving it here.

Below is a Omenbringer's analyses of stat block evolutions between the two M2E big books and Shifting Loyalties.

Quote

M2e book - Number of models with 6 or higher Df: 18 (13 that are Masters or Henchmen, 8 models with 7+ (2 Masters, 1 Henchman, and 2 extreme outliers from Tara's crew with 8+ though these are dependent upon the control hand)

M2e book - Number of models with 4 or less Df: 49 (2 models at Df 1, models at Df 3- (12), Masters at 4 (5), Masters at 3 (1), not including the Nothing Beast (possibly 3) or Void Wretchs (possibly 2) with their variable Df values)

Shifting Loyalties - Number of models with 6 or higher Df: 20 (1 Enforcer with a 7)

Shifting Loyalties - Number of models with 4 Df: 2 (1 Minion, 1 Enforcer *from the 2 player Starter Box), Shifting Loyalties does not include a model with less than 4 Df

__________________________________________________

M2e book - Number of models with Actions with values below 5: 46 (1 on a Master, 1 on a Henchman)

Shifting Loyalties - Number of models with Actions with values below 5: 3 (all Minions)

__________________________________________________

M2e number of models: 142

Shifting Loyalties number of models: 41

_________________________________________________

M2e book Percentage of models with 6+ Df: 12%

M2e book Percentage of models with 4- Df: 34%

Shifting Loyalties Percentage of models with 6+ Df: 48%

Shifting Loyalties Percentage of models with 4- Df: 4%

M2e Percentage of models with Actions with values below 5: 32%

Shifting Loyalties Percentage of models with Actions with values below 5: 7

Now, I'm not wanting to ring any alarm bells personally. My only complaint with Shifting Loyalties was with the way the Emissaries ended up.

My only contribution to the conversation is to say that, based on my experiences in the Wave 3 public playtest WE are at least partially to blame for a lot of the power creep. The number of times I saw people post some variation on, "It's nice but why would I take it instead of X" was staggering. The playtest landed at a time when the community already had figured out a few top tier choices and we asked Wyrd to give us only models that could compete with those top tier choices. They gave it to us.

I hope that part of the decision to move away from the public beta structure was to limit the weight of voices that were more interested in getting something better than in getting something different. I hope that the expanded design space afforded by the new Masters has allowed Wyrd the liberty to make more models that do things in new ways rather than models that do the old things better.

I'm going to reserve judgment until we see the rules (and honestly, for a while afterwards, I'm still not over how OP the core stuff can feel), but I'm going to go on the record that Titania's heal makes Ramos and McMourning feel very inadequate about their own abilities.

[-Loki-]

To be fair to Titania, we've only seen half of her card and none of her upgrades. She looks very durable, which is unique among Neverborn, but that's all we know.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Gamer input is definitely part of it, but wyrd could have filtered it more, as it's their line. I think there are three reasons why one buys a model:

-it's cool/thematic/other stuff I'd call personal

-it's power creeping and better than something else

-it does something unique well, or does something uniquely well (i.e. has a fairly particular role it does better than anyone else)

The third category (basically, substance) is what I think a few pieces hit- changelings, ice dancers, the forgotten marshal, anna, big jake. But a lot fall short of this, like the scion of the void is certainly unique but not a piece I like; the emissaries all offer their master something special but not necessarily something worth a 10ss model. 

Also regarding responsibility, the other approach could have been changing older pieces until the power differential was smaller. I get that some of this was done indirectly via additions, but I guess that goes against my design philosophy as the way to approach things.

[admiralvorkraft]

My hope is that the new playtest policy allowed for that kind of filtering and that the spike in stat quality in Shifting Loyalties is just a statistical blip.

[Vorschlag]

I don't know if this has been taken into account with the above analysis but shifting loyalties had a higher percentage of Henchmen and enforcers than the 1st book so higher stat-lines are to be expected.

 

[goth]

Cannon fodder often comes out in the first edition/introductory book/starter box set of games... and remains "the cannon fodder" through the life of the game, kind of being a standard.  Anyway, what about WP?

[admiralvorkraft]

It's never high enough on my side of the field

[admiralvorkraft]

Side note, I was disappointed recently when I realized how much of a liability Finish the Job has become in GG2016. At least it's a corner buff for Lucius' Secret Objectives maybe...

[Vorschlag]

7 minutes ago, admiralvorkraft said:

Side note, I was disappointed recently when I realized how much of a liability Finish the Job has become in GG2016. At least it's a corner buff for Lucius' Secret Objectives maybe...

Can you explain how it is a liability, I'm yet to see this in play

[admiralvorkraft]

Both Search the Ruins and Convict Labor require schemes be at least 2" from another friendly scheme so if your scheme runner has finish the job and your opponent kills it, it can invalidate up to 2 other markers (as I've seen in game) and you can't interact to remove your own markers so you're kind of hosed in that section of the table.

It also eliminates one of my favored tactics of killing my own Finish the Job models in the final turns of the game to get markers down.

[Omenbringer]

1 hour ago, admiralvorkraft said:

My only contribution to the conversation is to say that, based on my experiences in the Wave 3 public playtest WE are at least partially to blame for a lot of the power creep. The number of times I saw people post some variation on, "It's nice but why would I take it instead of X" was staggering. The playtest landed at a time when the community already had figured out a few top tier choices and we asked Wyrd to give us only models that could compete with those top tier choices. They gave it to us.

Not to be offensive but this is where play tester quality comes in. Wyrd has a spotty history with that aspect of the play test process, at least from my experiences. This is especially true with the design method Wyrd employ's of starting over the top and then trying to reign models in. Maturity, experience, and detailed after action reports (a very rare thing) can curtail a lot of the power creep, though when it is facing a very vocal opposition that just "wants to see cool things" and doesn't read or understand the potency of the interactions it tends to fail (again my experiences with play testing). The goal of play testing should not be replacing other models in the crew but providing more options for the crew. Instead of "why would I take this instead of that?" the question should be "does this invalidate any other standard options?" The development should be lateral not vertical.

51 minutes ago, admiralvorkraft said:

My hope is that the new playtest policy allowed for that kind of filtering and that the spike in stat quality in Shifting Loyalties is just a statistical blip.

Historically speaking I wouldn't count on it. Having participated in quite a few play tests it gets progressively more difficult to balance things as more is released. Add in a notoriously short play test cycle and the situation only gets exaggerated.

50 minutes ago, Vorschlag said:

I don't know if this has been taken into account with the above analysis but shifting loyalties had a higher percentage of Henchmen and enforcers than the 1st book so higher stat-lines are to be expected.

The analysis does take that into account. M2e has substantially more Henchmen and Enforcers than Shifting Loyalties does, however side by side the Shifting Loyalties Henchmen and Enforcers are head and shoulders Stat wise (and often abilities wise as well) above the vast majority of their M2e peers. Also note that a lot of the M2e Masters fall below the average values of Shifting Loyalties Enforcers.

50 minutes ago, GOTH said:

Cannon fodder often comes out in the first edition/introductory book/starter box set of games... and remains "the cannon fodder" through the life of the game, kind of being a standard.  Anyway, what about WP?

Wp is in a similar state of average value increase (and also Resist value degradation due to higher Acting Values).

Consider that Malifaux is not an Army game (Warhammer), nor even a platoon game (Warmahordes), it is a Skirmish game, there really isn't any thing that is "cannon fodder" (not even the Bayou Gremlin that would likely come closest to that description). Unlike larger scale games, losing 1 model in most crews is a significant reduction in force and potential. Each Master is "themed" (at least mildly) with a specific crew, they should function well within that construct and be competitive with it, an awful lot do not and are not.

On now on to the Soap Box:

My biggest gripe with the power creep is that the game is quickly devolving into a handful of competitive options (and not in every faction). A trip over to Pull My Finger will show that an awful lot of Masters are listed as best with models that aren't really themed with them. I know it isn't a huge design consideration anymore (at least the omission of "Character based" from the description of last edition to this one strongly hints at it) but I have always been attracted to the fact that Malifaux plays more like an RPG than a TTG. Power creep removes this and replaces it with just a collection of disparate models that have no real reason to work together outside of they are the best available in the hiring pool. This may be desirable for the competitive tournament player looking to optimize everything, but I would hazard the guess that for the majority of us "casual players" it just kills the game. From a sales standpoint it also strongly discourages the purchases of less optimal models (or crew boxes bundled with them). A sterling example of this is the Malifaux Child, hire-able by all but I have yet to see a single one purchased or played.

[admiralvorkraft]

I have the opposite issue with the Child. It seems like half the time I see a totem on the table it's the Child...

[edopersichetti]

18 minutes ago, admiralvorkraft said:

I have the opposite issue with the Child. It seems like half the time I see a totem on the table it's the Child...

I honestly struggle to believe this! I have a Child and I really never have the desire to field him (I do have 12 masters, not 1 or 2...)

[Paddywhack]

You're  missing out then. He's not perfect, but for his cost he can add a nice little extra to some masters.

[admiralvorkraft]

It seems like the Child is pretty much a default pick with Sonnia, the Viks, Jack Daw, Kaeris, Hoffman, Ironsides, and a handful of other masters.

But that's probably meta dependent.

[Vorschlag]

38 minutes ago, Omenbringer said:

My biggest gripe with the power creep is that the game is quickly devolving into a handful of competitive options (and not in every faction). A trip over to Pull My Finger will show that an awful lot of Masters are listed as best with models that aren't really themed with them. I know it isn't a huge design consideration anymore (at least the omission of "Character based" from the description of last edition to this one strongly hints at it) but I have always been attracted to the fact that Malifaux plays more like an RPG than a TTG. Power creep removes this and replaces it with just a collection of disparate models that have no real reason to work together outside of they are the best available in the hiring pool. This may be desirable for the competitive tournament player looking to optimize everything, but I would hazard the guess that for the majority of us "casual players" it just kills the game. From a sales standpoint it also strongly discourages the purchases of less optimal models (or crew boxes bundled with them). A sterling example of this is the Malifaux Child, hire-able by all but I have yet to see a single one purchased or played.

Completely agree with the move away for "story based" game and the concept of "story" crews or fluffy crews is definitely what appealed to me in the game.
I've grown to tolerate "thematic" crews but the hodge podge mixed bag approach will always bother me.

With that said I'm probably lucky that in my Meta and even at a National level we don't see too many bs crews that would make me Cringe. 

[Bodiless]

Daw? The child doesn't really do much for him, so far as I can tell. You can't hand out Curses using the child, because the child doesn't have any Curses to give out. 

[admiralvorkraft]

17 minutes ago, Bodiless said:

Daw? The child doesn't really do much for him, so far as I can tell. You can't hand out Curses using the child, because the child doesn't have any Curses to give out. 

He gets you a second model perpetually Tormented off of a single Guilty and he can copy Feel Their Torment off of Daw which lets him copy any (1) action in the crew more or less.

[Kadeton]

1 hour ago, Omenbringer said:

On now on to the Soap Box:

My biggest gripe with the power creep is that the game is quickly devolving into a handful of competitive options (and not in every faction). A trip over to Pull My Finger will show that an awful lot of Masters are listed as best with models that aren't really themed with them.

Are there any combinations that you find particularly egregious? Most of the non-thematic combinations I see are just any old Master with the 'generically strong / high value' models like Austringers and December Acolytes, but it sounds like you're thinking more of strong non-thematic synergies. I've also found most thematic crews work perfectly well in competitive environments.

The aspect that I think this analysis fails to take into account is an overall 'flattening' of model capabilities. In the earlier books, models were often highly specialised into a narrow role, with very good stats in that single strength compensated by weakness in other areas - the epitome of this is the Rotten Belle. Newer books have tended more toward generalists, with less outstanding strengths and acute specialisations, but fewer weaknesses. That doesn't mean that power creep hasn't happened at all (it's a natural process in game development) but I think Wyrd have done more than most to keep it in check.

[Patzer]

First of all, power of a model doesn't simply come from their stats. So I don't really see what the data above tries to prove.

Then I think if there has been a power creep, it is the result of the game expanding, in a the sum being greater than its parts kind of sense. Every faction will by each book get a handful of new options which will interact with previous choices and either make them better or worse off.

 

[solkan]

I'm just confused by the attempt to call the values posted in the original post a analysis, statistical or otherwise.  What's presented there are just possibly interesting statistical facts.  So at the moment it's difficult to distinguish between what was presented and the start of a correlation chain joke, like this one:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4106

In other words, if you're trying to demonstrate power creep, you need to demonstrate things like:

- The average Df rating of 5 point minions increased from last book to this book, without any corresponding decreases in other stats or abilities.

- That the change in Df value percentages from one book to the next wasn't caused by other factors such as:

• The higher Df values are present on higher point value models
• The higher Df values are present on models with less useful abilities or actions
• The higher Df values are compensated for by reducing other stats on the models.

 

[Myyrä]

5 hours ago, admiralvorkraft said:

Both Search the Ruins and Convict Labor require schemes be at least 2" from another friendly scheme so if your scheme runner has finish the job and your opponent kills it, it can invalidate up to 2 other markers (as I've seen in game) and you can't interact to remove your own markers so you're kind of hosed in that section of the table.

It also eliminates one of my favored tactics of killing my own Finish the Job models in the final turns of the game to get markers down.

As placing the marker from Finish The Job is optional, you deserve to lose if you place it in a stupid location.

[admiralvorkraft]

That's what I get for misreading the ability the entire time I've played the game I suppose.

[Ludvig]

Based on my experience I can't say wave 1 stuff looks weak. Gremlins got standard bayous, Ophelia, Som'er Francois, Raphael and slop haulers. Ressers got nurses and belles. In guild Sonnia, Francisco, witchlings and austringers came from wave 1. 

It seems to me that stats were lower but abilities were a lot stronger in wave 1. 

There is a risk involved with open testing. Everyone is going to compare all the new stuff to the best old stuff. People are generally short sighted and the open betas have at times felt like a competition in pushing through the worst possible filth for your own faction to not become the weakest since everyone else was doing the same on their end. I include myself in this generalisation and am not looking to offend anyone. It just takes a very different perspective to be able to see the best thing for the game instead of the best thing for oneself.

The many variations in missions and crews also mean that you would need a dataset of thousands of games to see a trend on anything and then do hundreds of games targeted at one particular percieved imbalance. Wyrd didn't control what strategies were played or force people to play certain models so everything didn't get a fair and thorough testing.

If you have a smaller group of people who are invested in several factions and have a clear guidance in how they are supposed to try and weigh stuff vs each other you get a better result. It's almost as if the closed betas were a concious attempt at doing just this. Hiring actual playtesters is also an option.

It seems to early to talk power creep on the new wave before we know anything about it.

[admiralvorkraft]

6 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

It seems to early to talk power creep on the new wave before we know anything about it.

For sure. I mostly opened the thread so that the discussion wasn't crowding other forums.

I remain concerned about the Emissaries for some of the interactions they unlock, but also because they were absolutely a product of the "we can't have the weakest one," mindset during beta. Other than that, I'm not certain power creep has been bad. I think some actions and abilities in wave 3 are less restrictive than they might have been, like the pillar placement on the Carrion Emissary not specifying "at least 1" from other models and markers" but that's neither here nor there.