Jump to content

Malifaux Masters: A Tier List


Calmdown

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 385
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

@Spiku, wait, are you already left handed? I sense a set-up here.....

@Nilus - Thanks for the vote of support. Zephir should be better known as 2nd Generation Awesome Zephir. Just saying.

@thread

So I was not going to read this thread eventually, then I got pulled in by little birdies floating around the forum. Now that I read it I figured I would chime in. I mean, I have to be at least 1/2 as internet famous as Calmdown, right?

*grin*

So with that said, I really cannot agree with Calmdowns initial premise for the thread. First, there was a comment somewhere here where it was said this was an "objective" tier list. Lets be honest, I am not so bright sometimes so I had to go check my dictionary.

ob·jec·tive: Adj. (of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

On reading this, it did not really fit for me. Then I stumbled on this cool wordy....

sub·jec·tive: Adj. Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Yup, thats the one. See, the only way I could really understand the tier list as being Objective is if every master was played by the same player, against an equally skilled player using every master, playing every strategy in the game. Then you would have an objective set of strategies to lay out for an objective comparison on how the masters lined up in a tier list. Oh, and skip schemes and take the extra SS since we are trying to simplify the <<some absurd number>> of games to be played.

Ok, once we have that down we could come up with an objective tier list based on how many games each master won and the margin of victory on those games.

Without that, well I have to say this sounds like a subjective list to me. So, with that said, maybe we have a subjective list based on the Malifaux forums. Maybe its a subjective list based on the UK or US or Aus Malifaux scene. Maybe its a subjective list based on my (or Calmdown's) personal opinion. I suspect it falls somewhere in the middle of all that.

So what is my Tier list for masters based on the number of games I play, Major Tournaments attended, and experience with Malifaux? It basically goes like this, from a competitive standpoint:

Top Tier (Tier 1) - Masters I do well with or Worry about a lot

Colette, Dreamer, Pandora, Levi, Sonnia/aSonnia, Kirai/aKirai

Middle Tier (Tier 2) - Masters I do ok with, or think are below the list above and above the list below.

Lucius, Justice, Nicodem, McMourning, aSeamus, Zoraida/aZoraida, Lilith, aRamos, Viktoria,

Bottom Tier (Tier 3) - Masters I do not do well with at all (for now) and Masters I am confident I can beat regardless of who is playing them

Hoffman, Perdita, Molly, Marcus, Rasputina, Ramos, Kaeris, Collodi, Hamelin, Somer, Ophelia, Von Schill

Now, when you start combining some of those Henchman in as Henchmen and not masters, they shuffle a couple things around.

So there is my 2 cents. Subjective, the word for the day.

**to clarify, apparently <<some absurd number>> is actually 5200. Get to playing Minions!!!

Edited by nix
providing clarification on the maths.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a bitter angry ranty note: Nicodem is a beast, if you can't win with him you seriously need to try again, and I might recommend maybe reading his card for once.

So far he hasn't been a beast for me, other than a possibly disproportionate fear of Paralyze and CB 9 Punk Zombies in my LGS. More of a nuisance, really.

And if you don't think I've been trying, that's most of my blog- recaps and rants on trying and failing :-P

I'll even play left handed ;3

But then if you make it too far, you'll become a special man, and we'll be Spiku's band, but then they'll crush your sweet hands...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am right handed, so I will be faced with all the disadvantages that come from holding cards in my left hand, and extending a measuring tape held in my right!

Hey, an advocate for the sort of tier list I mentioned fighting games use~

You know I have to say I really hate the "margin of victory" thing. It really should be win vs loss. Given higher score differences could simply be that in your first round, you played someone easy. Being subject of brackets really isn't conductive of a good ranking system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leveticus in tier3? After the nuke cuddle of SPA-train and Levi's v3 card? After all of the factions now have sufficient methods to hunt down Waifs? Interesting...

I know this isn't on topic, but how were they cuddled? I didn't know of any relevant rulings on them. I looked, and all I saw was that apparently, since the push is a movement effect and can chain-trigger, you can start a move as an "engine" and end it as a "caboose", adding another two base-widths to the move...

Edit: The above is wrong and possibly the cuddle. They cannot move like that according to the v2 card.

Edited by CRC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it that you all around the counrty have great scenes, and here, in Indianapolis, where Gencon is, people just don't seem to play?

Sounds like Indy needs a Henchman to start running demos and events. That is the easiest way to grow a community.

And you are always welcome to drive up north and come play with us Chi-towners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nix makes an excellent point about the thread thus far being subjective. That being said, it doesn't make it entirely wrong or without merit-- consulting subject matter experts, or expert players has it's value.

What I am an interested in is what sort of data we could use to make a list that explains why experienced players feel certain Masters are higher Tier. We all the "know" Dreamer is very very good but can there be a set of data that explains it?

1) A survey of good players would produce some useful results, which I think is what Calmdown is going for. It is subjective but its subjective data based on a lot of experience.

2) Another way would be, as Nix suggests, to gather tournament data. I know there is a lot tournament data out there, though I don't know how much and exactly where, but gathering it all together would make an interesting study. I doubt there is enough yet to accurately rank all Masters, and in any case it would be so skewed by player skill that's it muddy. For example, my first thought on Tier 1 masters was:

Tier1: Anything played by David Webster

3) A final objective way (although more abstract) would be to look at mathematical data about the abilities of the Masters that could reveal key information about how they play. This is a method game designer use to balance games, and although it can't be relied on completely, it does offer a good starting point.

I actually have some of this analysis that my students came up with and it is very interesting, though not complete; turns out the math behind Malifaux is fairly difficult to nail down since there are so many variables to take into account. Once we have some more complete data, I hope to share it with you all.

Edited by ravenborne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it hard to believe Calmdown that your local meta players suck at playing Perdita. Granted I wholeheartedly admit if your list is nothing but Ortega's she isn't hard to work around due to too range heavy bias. But if people know to use a mix of 60/40 50/50 melee/range and understand outside of watchers/dogs/dita herself not much else can do schemes/strats she can be alot better than you give her credit for.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying she is tier 1 due to a horrid dreamer matchup (I'd say somewhere between 1/4 wins to 2/5 wins percentage wise) but really with her thats the only matchup when I play her that I worry about. Know that being said strictly competitively speaking at a major tournament I wouldn't run her (think over 32 players and 5 rounds) but 32 or under I'd have no problems throwing down with her and maybe Asonnia in an event.

I'd also add that Colette is probably one of two masters of the top of my heads that is tier 1.5 tweener she is not as good as hame/dreamer but she can $$$$$$$$$$ Kirai and every tier 2 master I'd put her with zoraida in 1.5 just cause they are better than 2 but don't have a clear cut advantage against all of 1. However I think it is a good point to bring up that when you look at the top tiers they all revolve around being good against alot but getting hosed by one of the other top tiers in a head to head matchup.

That being said here is how I would rate the masters (not listing them all but naming notables I wouldn't be surprised to see in a tourney at the top 4 tables) also this is purely my humble opinion:

Tier 1 Hamelin, Dreamer

1.5 zoraida either form, Colette

2 Dora, Dita, Kirai, lilith, sonnia (only with guardian without and she is in tier 3), Mcmourning (imho the best book 1 resser), Viks, leve (oh the days when he was complained about as the most broke master oh how he has fallen), ophelia

3 hoffman, seamus, raspy, marcus, ramos(maybe tier 2 have to play him more)

4 lady j, somner, nico

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tier 1 Guild

Tier 2 Neverborn

Tier 3 Outcast

Tier 4 Ressers

Tier 5 Arcanist

This is my objective list! No one can question the objectivity of this list. :Rat_Spy:

Wait... check dictionary please replace about objective with subjective and objectivity with subjectivity.

Ok now for a more serious addition. My above list I believe is more accurate and it comes from list I will share in a moment. First my masters list comes from observing the win lose ratio of masters that my meta plays. This win lose doesn't actually have any hard data is more just me recalling monthly placements in our beerlifaux (beer + Malifaux =:Rat_Heart:) event. This does not take into skill factor because unfortunately, if it did, the win lose would be skewed by a small handful of people's flavor of the week. Our skill level in our meta ranges from a rules marshal to newbs. I also take into account observations of 2 other metas I have been a part of, that have only 2 players who crossover. Each meta is fairly different and isolated. Only master not in list is Hamelin because he never really hits the table, so he would only be in list based mainly on theory and not play. A few people such as myself own him, and feelings in the metas towards him are not really favored. Henchman are not listed, since they are played more as support pieces than actual crews, but ophelia does have a nasty reputation. So that is where my SUBJECTIVE list comes from.

Tier 1

Lady J, Perdita, Dreamer, Pandy

Tier 2

Lilth, Zoradia, Hoff

Tier 3

Sonia, McMourning, Nicodem, Collette, Viks, Levi, Marcus

Tier 4

Kiari, Somer

Tier 5

Seamus, Raspy, Ramos

Making these kinds of Tiers is nothing more than fan boy/girl rants, there is no real hard data out there. For every meta that does keep it, there are 4 others that probably don't.

Skill level is subjective, win-lose streaks are very meta related. Win-lose doesn't is not hard data it is soft and squishy, molded by some many factors. You can make clear theory arguments who is good and who is bad, and you can go off these subjective lists and go oh, a lot people put Sonia mid to top, and that is more likely going to get you closer to the truth then collecting tourney data.

If you polled people to answer for each master which tier that master falls into, I would accept that as the best data you can get, and closest to objective answers as you could get(please I don't want to see 20 threads with this in mind, if you can make one giant poll that would do that, cool).

Tourney data is skewed by faction representation, and flavor of the month. Giant metas like the UK have that same problem. Look at how each tourney is run, single masters is going to give different results than open faction or 3 list tourneys. UK seems to have a wide variety, but I have played each style too. Points brought up about crew selection, are really important. I don't know how you would play a game master vs. master and it be fun.

Masters play with crews and they function at different levels based on the available pool, Ramos rocks with 40ss+ but struggles at less, while, Lady J and Sonia do better in smaller pools. That is a subjective answer that if pooled would likely yield a majority response.

At this point I ranted a lot, so I leave you with these:

:Rat_Drill: + :Robot2: + :fireball: + :Rat_Question: = ? <Hint: special forces>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually have some of this analysis that my students came up with and it is very interesting, though not complete; turns out the math behind Malifaux is fairly difficult to nail down since there are so many variables to take into account. Once we have some more complete data, I hope to share it with you all.

No snark, all sincerity: what data did you use and what type of analysis did they run?

I have been trying to run statistical analysis and I cannot make the data fit. I have been trying to see if I could massage the data into ANOVA but my attempts have been fruitless so far. I cannot come up with a data set that meets the assumptions needed to run a robust analysis.

Another approach that could be taken is to run a Regression analysis, but again I keep running into the problem of not meeting the RSNDP/homoscedasticity assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its amazing how epic a thread gets when people feel insulted by you putting 'their' master in a low tier. There is so much emotion in a lot of the replies that its easy to see why so much judgement is clouded.

I actually find it very interesting that people are unable to detach themselves from their local players and their love of certain models and simply look at models on their own merits. And also interesting that people, feeling that they cannot be objective, believe that no one else can be either.

In regards to Nicodem in particular, let's say that I'm no slouch with him either, but it doesn't mean that I think he's something he's not. Winning with Nicodem is more an exercise in playskill than him being any good. That wouldn't stop me 8-0'ing each and every one of you all day with The Dreamer, no matter how good a Nico player you are.

Interesting thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, this whole tier list is bullsh*t, it all depends in your local metagame. In our LGC (local gaming club) there are a lot of ressers, and they play very good with Nicodem / McM. I'm an experienced Colette player, and they can beat me with Nicodem if the luck is in their side. There are no tiers, just good or average players with small / a lot of experience in their crews.

/Except maybe for Hamelin because the guy with him won the last 2 tourneys here (but he's a really good Malifaux player too) :P/

And experience & tactical skill means a lot. You can be a total noob with the Dreamer and yes, even the Gremlins can beat you if you don't have enough experience with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no tiers, just good or average players with small / a lot of experience in their crews.

Do you really believe that? You think apart from Hamelin all masters are just as good as each other?

I can pretty much guarentee that if both players are the same level of skill Seamus will never beat Dreamer in a month of sundays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really believe that? You think apart from Hamelin all masters are just as good as each other?

I can pretty much guarentee that if both players are the same level of skill Seamus will never beat Dreamer in a month of sundays.

It can, fe. if the strategy is shared claim jump. Seamus and the Belles are resilient, they can camp a place. The Dreamer can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information