Jump to content
tmod

[Errata and balance] "Current discource" or "me sticking my neck out despite knowing better"

Recommended Posts

Listen, I happen to suffer from a salt deficiency, and those salt threads are the only thing that are keeping me going.  Please don't try to deny me that good good salt

  • Haha 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 4thstringer said:

Listen, I happen to suffer from a salt deficiency, and those salt threads are the only thing that are keeping me going.  Please don't try to deny me that good good salt

Absolutely not my intention, sodium deficiency is (deadly) serious business. Let me know if you can find an alternate source, otherwise I might have to delete this thread... 😉

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your place i would ignore those whining posts cause when u read them u find out that mostly it's all about - *My opponent won against me, lets nerf him!* / *It's defenetly not mine mistakes or weak play it's his fault i'm loosing! Nerf him !*

Sometimes it makes me curious how far tolerant moderators are.... Those themes could be easy answered and closed or even better deleted, but no, most of them keep being alive and by now have nothing to do with theme it started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tmod said:

NONE of these complaints have merit. But I have the impression that an increasing rate of errata the last two years have led to more cries from further erratas.

From memory, the last few months have seen the following bold statements (not saying anyone in particular said this exactly, but I feel these are reasonably summaries of statements given in different threads):

Sandeep (with mages) is virtually unbeatable, no other crew have any answers to this, and the only reason to play anything else is attatchment to already painted models/crews.

Nicodem (with Asura and Kentauroi) is virtually unbeatable, no other crew have any answers to this, and the only reason to play anything else is attatchment to already painted models/crews.

Gremlins cannot win against any competitive opponents anymore (despite winning UK Masters).

Gremlins (in general) are OP, and should get banned/nerfed out of existence (and they're not a real faction anyway).

Somer (with Warpigs) is virtually unbeatable, no other crew have any answers to this, and the only reason to play anything else is attatchment to already painted models/crews.

Hamelin is OP, and should be banned.

Thunders are useless, Guild is useless, Outcasts are useless, Neverborn are useless (or OP!), Arcanists outside of Sandeep are useless.😕

 

Your topic is too broad, it dilutes the real issue at hand.

There is clear indication of power creep from book to book, for Wyrd to exist its a natural thing ( they need to sell models).

Any balance needs to be handles per faction/ per faction forum.

 

Example: Outcries of nerfe should be done per faction/by that faction in order to bring other models in line with it. Some models that are more present in meta are not always there because they are broken but rather a necessity for the faction to function correctly. (nerfing/increasing SS cost can destroy internal ecosystem of a faction)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

In our local meta of about 10 players (no ressers), Sandeep, Shen long and Pandora are dominating and the Guild in general is getting trashed every time, getting draws on best matchs.
For Pandora, she's got a lot of wins but most of them are against newish players or people who never faced her before, so I'm not sure her dominant position is relevent so far.
We don't have any real resser player yet, so I can't tell about resser balance.

What we feel is broken, just the point of view from a small meta:

-The steamfitter is really too good for it's cost. Gives you a high card from the discard pile, armor 1 on your master and immunity to max damage in addition to be ok in melee, have a squeel and a lot of HP for his cost. We feel like it's abilities should have been split between two models. It has been an auto include in every arcanist team so far. 

-3 Oxfordian mages (1 alone is ok). 15 SS for the pack , 5+2 Wd, arcane shield, super Ca attacks with build in super triggers and they buff your henchmen/master with really nice abilities. The warding runes are what makes them over the top. The immunity to conditions from ennemies seems to be too much.

-Sandeep. Go check the posts about Sandeep, I won't tell more here. Everybody always feel like they've been counterpicked when playing against Sandeep.

-Miranda with her item, or mostly the item to get 4 cards.

-Shadow emissary. Too good for it's cost, it just needs to be a bit more expensive.

-Recall training. This item is always a game changer.

-Zipp, with his attack against Ht. There's nothing you can do/bring to avoid it.

  • Respectfully Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed something of an upsurge in "X model is OP" type threads since I was last active back in Wave 3. 

What I think is more of an issue is the way the discussions tend to be posed. Often there's a lot of speculation and less discussion based on actual game-experience. These conversations tend to be unproductive as they involve one or more people telling each other something is/isn't problematic without much in the way of evidence that might persuade the other to agree. 

From what I recall Wyrd have said that they are far more likely to consider making changes to the game based on battle-reports, tournament results and other concrete pieces of information, rather than the odd anecdote and a bunch of theoryfaux. The big changes to Leveticus and rats came right after a detailed report from a tournament that showed how broadly effective and difficult to deal with the crew was. There had been plenty of assertions that they were broken before that, but it wasn't until the evidence was there that anything happened.

If people think some combo, Master or whatever genuinely needs to be changed for the good of the game they would do well to document some games and post them. People who think otherwise can do the same and have something to discuss that isn't just opinion. 

If you just want to wishlist for nerfs and buffs, that can be a nice light topic dealing with changes you might like to see but are non-essential. If something really needs a change then that's a much more serious conversation and deserves a bit of work to back it up. Good thing the "work" involved means playing a game we all enjoy. :)

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, PolishSausage said:

 

Your topic is too broad, it dilutes the real issue at hand.

There is clear indication of power creep from book to book, for Wyrd to exist its a natural thing ( they need to sell models).

Any balance needs to be handles per faction/ per faction forum.

 

Example: Outcries of nerfe should be done per faction/by that faction in order to bring other models in line with it. Some models that are more present in meta are not always there because they are broken but rather a necessity for the faction to function correctly. (nerfing/increasing SS cost can destroy internal ecosystem of a faction)

 

58 minutes ago, PolishSausage said:

 

Your topic is too broad, it dilutes the real issue at hand.

There is clear indication of power creep from book to book, for Wyrd to exist its a natural thing ( they need to sell models).

Any balance needs to be handles per faction/ per faction forum.

 

Example: Outcries of nerfe should be done per faction/by that faction in order to bring other models in line with it. Some models that are more present in meta are not always there because they are broken but rather a necessity for the faction to function correctly. (nerfing/increasing SS cost can destroy internal ecosystem of a faction)

I would say on the contrary, and your post happens to Illustrate my point:

If there is a "clear indication of power creep" from book to book it should NOT be handled separately. Furthermore, ask gremlin players about wave 5 power creep, see what they say...

Besides, this thread is NOT meant to be a discussion of what needs nerfing/buffing. It's addressing how we as a community reacts to powerful combos. Words matter, and if a lot of people complain a lot it makes a difference, whether they are right or not. If the forum degenerates into a shouting match where everyone is trying to make other factions get nerfed, and their own faction buffed, the game will suffer overall (either this noise gets ignored by Wyrd, and real information is lost at the same time, or they listen to too many complaints and wrong models get buffed/nerfed).

Finally, and with all due respect, I reserve the right when I post a topic to determine myself what is the "real issue at hand" with regards to my own topic. If you don't find the topic useful, feel free to say that here or elsewhere, or just ignore me. But the real issue at hand here in THIS specific topic is exactly what I introduced in the op; is the whining on the increase? How do we get a meaningful and constructive discussion about preceived balance issues...

13 minutes ago, Le gob said:

Hi,

In our local meta of about 10 players (no ressers), Sandeep, Shen long and Pandora are dominating and the Guild in general is getting trashed every time, getting draws on best matchs.
For Pandora, she's got a lot of wins but most of them are against newish players or people who never faced her before, so I'm not sure her dominant position is relevent so far.
We don't have any real resser player yet, so I can't tell about resser balance.

What we feel is broken, just the point of view from a small meta:

-The steamfitter is really too good for it's cost. Gives you a high card from the discard pile, armor 1 on your master and immunity to max damage in addition to be ok in melee, have a squeel and a lot of HP for his cost. We feel like it's abilities should have been split between two models. It has been an auto include in every arcanist team so far. 

-3 Oxfordian mages (1 alone is ok). 15 SS for the pack , 5+2 Wd, arcane shield, super Ca attacks with build in super triggers and they buff your henchmen/master with really nice abilities. The warding runes are what makes them over the top. The immunity to conditions from ennemies seems to be too much.

-Sandeep. Go check the posts about Sandeep, I won't tell more here. Everybody always feel like they've been counterpicked when playing against Sandeep.

-Miranda with her item, or mostly the item to get 4 cards.

-Shadow emissary. Too good for it's cost, it just needs to be a bit more expensive.

-Recall training. This item is always a game changer.

-Zipp, with his attack against Ht. There's nothing you can do/bring to avoid it.

I'm not going to argue either way in this thread. My whole purpose of this thread was to discuss the process of giving feedback Wyrd, not to list grievances...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rillan said:

In your place i would ignore those whining posts cause when u read them u find out that mostly it's all about - *My opponent won against me, lets nerf him!* / *It's defenetly not mine mistakes or weak play it's his fault i'm loosing! Nerf him !*

Sometimes it makes me curious how far tolerant moderators are.... Those themes could be easy answered and closed or even better deleted, but no, most of them keep being alive and by now have nothing to do with theme it started.

I think this is very close to the truth in many instances. I think however that it can be useful to get feedback on what is above the curve. I just wish more would be based on repeated observations and an acceptance that it could possibly NOT be a case of "OMG this is clearly massively OP, anyone disagreeing obviously have no knowledge of the game"...

41 minutes ago, lusciousmccabe said:

I've noticed something of an upsurge in "X model is OP" type threads since I was last active back in Wave 3. 

What I think is more of an issue is the way the discussions tend to be posed. Often there's a lot of speculation and less discussion based on actual game-experience. These conversations tend to be unproductive as they involve one or more people telling each other something is/isn't problematic without much in the way of evidence that might persuade the other to agree. 

From what I recall Wyrd have said that they are far more likely to consider making changes to the game based on battle-reports, tournament results and other concrete pieces of information, rather than the odd anecdote and a bunch of theoryfaux. The big changes to Leveticus and rats came right after a detailed report from a tournament that showed how broadly effective and difficult to deal with the crew was. There had been plenty of assertions that they were broken before that, but it wasn't until the evidence was there that anything happened.

If people think some combo, Master or whatever genuinely needs to be changed for the good of the game they would do well to document some games and post them. People who think otherwise can do the same and have something to discuss that isn't just opinion. 

If you just want to wishlist for nerfs and buffs, that can be a nice light topic dealing with changes you might like to see but are non-essential. If something really needs a change then that's a much more serious conversation and deserves a bit of work to back it up. Good thing the "work" involved means playing a game we all enjoy. :)

This is very similar to what I've noticed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whining is on the increase.(or never really left)

We cannot balance entire game with one topic.

Each overachievers and underachievers need to be revised per faction/faction topic.

We need M3E sooner than later. We need more restrictive hiring pools per master to avoid excessive list optimization/broken interactions.

 

PS:

Gremlins are the M2e faction and never got all the testing needed due to lack of models for testing - reason for biggest model hiring swings/ overall voiced faction community.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PolishSausage said:

The whining is on the increase.(or never really left)

We cannot balance entire game with one topic.

Each overachievers and underachievers need to be revised per faction/faction topic.

We need M3E sooner than later. We need more restrictive hiring pools per master to avoid excessive list optimization/broken interactions.

 

PS:

Gremlins are the M2e faction and never got all the testing needed due to lack of models for testing - reason for biggest model hiring swings/ overall voiced faction community.

It does indeed seem to me that the whining has steadily been increasing over the last few years or so, but I might be mistaken. I read every post (except some rules threads and the community events subforum), but it's easy to misread trends. If you (and others) have the same impression (that it's increasing) we might have an observstion here, and might want to discuss whether we as a conmunity wish to do something about it.

I also think it would be useful to "recalibrate" expentations for models. It seems like some people on here expect an extremely tight balance across hundreds of models. Justin Gibbs said several times that it was never a design goal that all x soulstone models should be equally viable. As long as every model was useful sometimes that would be good enough. Also, a model being over/undercosted by a soulstone or two was specifically called out as NOT being reason for errata; models being cheap enough to be auto-includes, or expensive enough to never to be taken, was valid reason for errata. I think these were good benchmarks, but it seems like expectations amongst the player base have moved...

Not trying to balance anything with this thread either, except possibly the language and tone of feedback given elsewhere... I completely agree though, listing grievances, especially across factions, is too wide a topic to get us anywhere. Especially under the current discourse where it seems many are out for themselves/their own faction.

I don't know about M3e, with some cleanup to the rules for height/vantage points I think the main rules are fine. This would be the socalled M2,5e solution. On the other hand the massive hiring pools in each faction is bound to be problematic at some point, whether we believe we're closing in on that point now or reached it a few waves ago. I'm curious about splitting up factions/increasing hiring restrictions as more factions means more to split the models amongst (in fact I posted a topic suggesting this last week), but worried about the transition process; given the large model pool I think the process will be much rougher, and I don't think it can be done like in M1.5e => M2e.

But anyway this is kinda beside the point for this topic though. Whether M2e will be further errataed or M3e is in the works there will need to be a process for giving feedback, and this feedback will need to meet certain standards. This topic is about what we as a conmunity feel these standards should be...

Ps. Thanks for the interest! 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, tmod said:

On the other hand the massive hiring pools in each faction is bound to be problematic at some point, whether we believe we're closing in on that point now or reached it a few waves ago. I'm curious about splitting up factions/increasing hiring restrictions as more factions means more to split the models amongst (in fact I posted a topic suggesting this last week), but worried about the transition process; given the large model pool I think the process will be much rougher, and I don't think it can be done like in M1.5e => M2e.🙂

The hiring pools have been out of hand for a long while and I would say they are the largest issue. It is impossible to play test this many models even if you limit testers to specific factions.

The transition from M1.5 to M2e was problematic for several reasons but the model counts didn't help. Hopefully, Wyrd has learned somethings from the last edition release. I would hate to see the company have to repeat its past mistakes or have to rebuild communities again.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Omenbringer said:

The hiring pools have been out of hand for a long while and I would say they are the largest issue. It is impossible to play test this many models even if you limit testers to specific factions.

The transition from M1.5 to M2e was problematic for several reasons but the model counts didn't help. Hopefully, Wyrd has learned somethings from the last edition release. I would hate to see the company have to repeat its past mistakes or have to rebuild communities again.

Yeah, this is why I'm scheptical about trusting an edition change will solve everything. If they split everything up in waves with open betas like last time it will be years until all M2e models will have M3e profiles. It's going to be much harder to do now because if the higher model pool. I'm highly uncertain if it's at all doable at this from a risk perspective (maybe if TOS gets traction...). The other option for M3e that I can see is to keep the old profiles, and gradually upgrade some with each new book. But this doesn't even adress the balancing issues at all. (On a more optimistic note, maybe Hoffmann can get back his "unexplained connection" in M3e and be able to hire Coppelius again. That was my favourite easter egg in the first edition...) 

But feedback would still be neccessary/relevant, so another topic really (but a very interesting one!).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, lusciousmccabe said:

I've noticed something of an upsurge in "X model is OP" type threads since I was last active back in Wave 3. 

What I think is more of an issue is the way the discussions tend to be posed. Often there's a lot of speculation and less discussion based on actual game-experience. These conversations tend to be unproductive as they involve one or more people telling each other something is/isn't problematic without much in the way of evidence that might persuade the other to agree. 

From what I recall Wyrd have said that they are far more likely to consider making changes to the game based on battle-reports, tournament results and other concrete pieces of information, rather than the odd anecdote and a bunch of theoryfaux. The big changes to Leveticus and rats came right after a detailed report from a tournament that showed how broadly effective and difficult to deal with the crew was. There had been plenty of assertions that they were broken before that, but it wasn't until the evidence was there that anything happened.

If people think some combo, Master or whatever genuinely needs to be changed for the good of the game they would do well to document some games and post them. People who think otherwise can do the same and have something to discuss that isn't just opinion. 

If you just want to wishlist for nerfs and buffs, that can be a nice light topic dealing with changes you might like to see but are non-essential. If something really needs a change then that's a much more serious conversation and deserves a bit of work to back it up. Good thing the "work" involved means playing a game we all enjoy. :)

I find this, the best advice of whole discussion, and i fully agree.

[off-topic] although i am convinced that leveticus should not been nerfed so much, game dynamic of rat-joy was entirely wrong.. not even close with last warpig alpha strike..

but..isn't it strange that all these unnecessary complaints were made before June, month dedicated to erratas??[end off-topic]

anyway, it would be a good idea make some battlereports better if with some pictures (or video) to clarify issues with specific master or model.

sorry for my english

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×