Constructive Malifaux Feedback

[Calmdown]

While I appreciate there are differences in the geographic spread of the UK tournament scene, the "Meta" of the UK scene is very consistent in thier view on the game, and fairly different from the 3 areas within the US I mentioned. The 3 areas I mentioned in the US I mentioned are as different from each-other as they are form the UK scene.

Meta does not really make a difference to the true power level of a model in a vacuum. Any good player can read a model and see that, meta independent, it is good/bad/average/whatever. Is there a meta where Hoarcat Pride spam is a good tactic? Sure. Does that mean that the model is fine? No way!

To use another example; Nilus once told me he'd beat my pre-cuddle Dreamer with Nicodem. Is Nicodem going to be better if I'm in Chicago? No, he's going to be exactly the same as he is in the UK. Winning with something in your meta does not make it viable when taking a balanced view.

Edit: Or what Ravenborne said

[ravenborne]

Meta just means you don't have all the data.

[bashamer]

Meta just means you don't have all the data.

No.

Meta is 25% game, 75% stuff;

where stuff includes store terrain availability, player transportation and what they will lug around, player preference in factions, player disposition towards w/l, etiquette (don't play a master you won with) , frequency of play, size of player base, custom scenarios, preference of the TO that sets up the terrain.

Assumptions of uniformity are often invalid. If there is no uniformity then differnet samples will result in different statistics; aka Meta.

[Guy in Suit]

Aside from the obvious gremlin-hate and resser-love I just don't care for the style of many of your changes.

Why the increase in Defense more or less across the board for the large based models? And lower defense on mosquitos et al? Physically large models have always had a lower than average defense and vice versa - it's a fundamental design concept of the stat.

It'd be like if GW tried to rebalance 40k (Heresy, I know) and said - "Marines are too good! Lets give them a 4+ save!"

"But sir, it is a completely enclosed suit of armour, made of thick ceramite plates."

"Stuff it! BALANCE!"

It seems you are shrinking the tails of the bell curve in order to make things 'balanced' but are really just making things less interesting.

[nix]

I do not disagree with Ravenborne's (and the similar comment by Calmdown) analysis at all. I interpreted Ratty's comment regarding meta to point to the changes recommended not being representative of any hard data, but pointing instead to being very Meta based.

In a vacuum I am sure you can apply a value to all the abilities within Malifaux. I have yet to see that data. Is Ranged Expert equal to Melee Expert equal to Nimble? Are they still equal based on the theme and strength/weakness goals built into specific factions? Are they still equal when combined with other models in the game.

In a vaccum, Dreamer's ability to bury and unbury nightmares is useless. There are no other nightmares availabe in that vaccum. That ability becomes much better when combined with a crew to bury. Its becomes even better based on his ability to move around the board. His bury/unbury would not be as useful is Dreamer could only move 3 inches per turn. Its those combinations that make the game. Further, I believe its those combinations that swing the "mathematical analysis and value" to Dreamers abilities.

Would Nicodem be different in Chicago than in the UK? No, he is the same model with the same abilities. Is Nicodem balanced against all the current models in the game? Yes, and this has been proven by Nicodem players who see the proper combo's and get them to work. Can Calmdown (as an example.. could be Nix or anyone else) see those combo's? Apparently not, because Calmdown (or nix... etc) sees Nicodem as weaker than other masters and in need of changes to balance him.

In the absence of a published and proven value set for every ability and ability combination in the game, only testing across multiple meta's could be used to prove out relative game balance. This is what Wyrd currently does with play testing new rules and errata they release.

[Gruesome]

Is Nicodem balanced against all the current models in the game? Yes, and this has been proven by Nicodem players who see the proper combo's and get them to work.

Picture or it didn't happen...

[Calmdown]

I do not disagree with Ravenborne's (and the similar comment by Calmdown) analysis at all. I interpreted Ratty's comment regarding meta to point to the changes recommended not being representative of any hard data, but pointing instead to being very Meta based.

In a vacuum I am sure you can apply a value to all the abilities within Malifaux. I have yet to see that data. Is Ranged Expert equal to Melee Expert equal to Nimble? Are they still equal based on the theme and strength/weakness goals built into specific factions? Are they still equal when combined with other models in the game.

Now now. We know that you cannot apply numerical values to these abilities and we know that if you apply them in a total vacuum many things make no sense. But you also understand the term 'in a vacuum' and what it means.

The top and bottom of it is: it is totally possible to balance models independent of meta. Meta can alter the value of given model, but the initial 'value' is set by the stats itself. There is no meta in which a Malifaux Child would be a better totem choice than a primordial magic

[UberGruber]

In the absence of a published and proven value set for every ability and ability combination in the game, only testing across multiple meta's could be used to prove out relative game balance

Quite.

Furthermore even extensive testing across various metas is unlikely to get a blanace that even a majority of 'competitive' players are happy with.

the essential problem is as you say, that you can have a character with a given combination of stats, abilities, etc and for them to be superficially fine when compared to another character with different stats at a 'soulstone to soulstone cost comparison level'.

Yet Malifaux is in fact extraordinarily complicated. It has a greater wealth of units available to any faction than most wargames. There is a greater difference between units (because of the wealth of options a model may have) than most other wargames. there is a far greater number (and mix) of victory conditions -- Strategies, Schemes -- than most other games. In fact I think whilst it may not be the wargame with the most variety in each category, it almost certainly is the one that beats all others in any given category (and usually in two categories, quite often all three).

The only simple thing about the game is that relatively few models are fielded.

Then of course there's the fact that (models permitting) one can choose the force that best suits the overall objectives and terrain and, to an extent, likely opponent.

And that's before you begin to consider the local 'meta'.

Now I'm not saying one cannot achieve a better balance than at the moment where there are certainly some combinations available that are better than others in most circumstances and some models that are just poor in almost all circumstances.

And then of course every time something new is introduced, the more combinations will be thrown up and anticicpating them all will be beyond practical playtesting prior to release. Errata is fine and to be expected. But it shouldn't be even a annual event.

[nix]

Now now. We know that you cannot apply numerical values to these abilities and we know that if you apply them in a total vacuum many things make no sense. But you also understand the term 'in a vacuum' and what it means.

The top and bottom of it is: it is totally possible to balance models independent of meta. Meta can alter the value of given model, but the initial 'value' is set by the stats itself. There is no meta in which a Malifaux Child would be a better totem choice than a primordial magic

I am likely replying with too much inside info here. I am fairly certain Ravenborne actually feels there are numerical values that can be applied but that not enough testing in enough scenarios has been performed to apply those values yet. Ravenborne, please correct me if I am wrong.

I do agree in some places with the changes you recommend for some stats. Where I find I disagree most is where abilities are adjusted, added, or dropped. These are the areas where testing across Meta becomes important. I think my point was missed in my previous comment. What I was trying to get to was this:

While the abilities may not change, different players will pick out different combinations that balance the overall models in the game. For the majority of models in Malifaux, I believe this is the case. Meta provides a form of blinders in specific play groups to seeing these combo's. This is where testing across multiple meta's becomes important, as all testers (and players by proxy) do not see the same things.

With that said, I agree there are models that are clearly on the deep end of Fail. The Malifaux child is one of these models. There are other models that may not appear in certain areas but do appear in others. I point to the Crooked Man conversation and the Shikome conversation on the recent Gamers Lounge podcast. Here are two players who rate both those models very differently. Specifically to the Shikome, it came down to how the players were using the model that made one feel it was a relatively weak model and one feel its one of the best models available to the faction. Thats an example of where Meta impacts and skews perceived game balance. Another great example is more personal and comes from comments both you (Calmdown) and I have made. I never viewed the Dreamer slingshot as the most powerful ability of the Dreamer, but you did. Likewise, you did not view the Unlimited Lure as a problem in the game, while I did. Both pieces of feedback were taken by Wyrd and the changes to the came fall in the middle, where both were seen as issues and not working as intended.

Edited June 28, 2012 by nix

[ravenborne]

No.

Meta is 25% game, 75% stuff;

where stuff includes store terrain availability, player transportation and what they will lug around, player preference in factions, player disposition towards w/l, etiquette (don't play a master you won with) , frequency of play, size of player base, custom scenarios, preference of the TO that sets up the terrain.

Assumptions of uniformity are often invalid. If there is no uniformity then differnet samples will result in different statistics; aka Meta.

In other words, lack of uniformity means you don't have all the circumstances necessary to test under all conditions. You lack the full data and experience with that data to make a complete assessment of the game's balance.

I get that you might play your local game differently because of your local meta, but you certainly ought not be making balance decisions based upon it.

[Sandwich]

Balance is such a fickle thing.

Just as an aside note, I think there are ways outside of specific model tweaks that could balance a lot of the problems that I perceive.

For example, if I were given free reign to 'Fix' the Ressurectionists, I wouldn't necessarily pick a part every model and give them individual changes (Except the Crooligan. And the Guild Autopsy.)

Things I'd look into doing,

1.) Making everything but Constructs (And Undead ;D)susceptible to Terrifying. This would bolster the faction as a whole and make ALL of the Spirits (Who I have oft complained about) incredibly powerful choices, and negating the whole "Low Synergy hoohah."

A counter argument I can see is the buff this would give to Neverborn as well, meaning that any progress made would be irrelevant, but I don't think that's necessarily true either.

It'd make Shikome a very powerful model, on par Ryle in true power. (Wicked + Scary to practically everyone? Yuuuup!)

It'd also shift the focus of A.Seamus from Anathema to his Mark of Dread, which would frankly be a welcome change, as it'd drastically reduce the reliance players have on increasing his personal Terrifying -> #, or a very, very high relevence on proper placement.

2.) Make almost everything drop Corpse Counters.

It'd discourage this stupid "Kill-Dogs for 2 turns, then start playing the game" meta that causes a LOT of players to lose games because they need Corpse Counters, but they don't get them from anything but their own models, so they spend the first few turns stocking up, and the rest of the game trying to catch back up.

3.) Actually, if you did the two prior, McMourning wouldn't need any changes at all.

Not that he really does now.

As for the Guild Autopsy,

1.) I'd remove its Soul Stone cost entirely, make it exclusively a summon.

IF you expand the amount of models that drop Corpse Counters, you don't need to allow Nicodem to bolster its Cb, but if that isn't done, I'd like Nicodem to be able to Bolster them.

2.) Remove the Corpse Counter limitation on them. This way, if McMourning loses them, he's only out a single BPC which isn't all too detrimental, and Nicodem will have them far more available than before.

As for the Crooligan,

1.) That's just a whole lot of typy bits I'll do later when I have the card in front of me.

But to summary,

I think there might be more thematic mechanics that'll fix a broad number of perceived issues with a much lower amount of effort, instead of going in knee deep and tweaking each and every model to perform better under such circumstances.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Sandwich

[ravenborne]

I am likely replying with too much inside info here. I am fairly certain Ravenborne actually feels there are numerical values that can be applied but that not enough testing in enough scenarios has been performed to apply those values yet. Ravenborne, please correct me if I am wrong.

A fair assessment.

[Mordread]

PLEASE NO PRE-Meassuring!!!! Nooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Undisclosed]

Out of curiosity, why no pre-measuring?

[nilus]

To use another example; Nilus once told me he'd beat my pre-cuddle Dreamer with Nicodem.

Did I? What the heck was I smoking that day?

[nix]

Did I? What the heck was I smoking that day?

I wasn't going to say anything, but now that Nilus responded... I have seen him play. There is no way he claimed to beat anything without it being a bit of an exaggeration. Did he also offer to sell you a bridge?

*grin*

[Cunning]

I dont think it was Nilus. It was an american player but I couldn't for the life of me tell you who.

[Calmdown]

Is Nicodem balanced against all the current models in the game? Yes, and this has been proven by Nicodem players who see the proper combo's and get them to work. Can Calmdown (as an example.. could be Nix or anyone else) see those combo's? Apparently not, because Calmdown (or nix... etc) sees Nicodem as weaker than other masters and in need of changes to balance him.

I'm really really sorry, but how can you say that with a straight face? Nicodem is balanced against all of the other masters in the game?

Are we, as a community, really this blind and have so much raw faith in 'someone will make it work' to not be able to see that a broken model is broken? There are no hidden combos, no undiscovered depths. He does not work. Saying that he does because some guys in some (likely uncompetitive) metas made him work does not make it so. Hell, I almost won a tournament with him and ended up coming second because of a horrible game of flips out of which I managed a draw; that doesn't mean he has any less issues. Luck and circumstance aren't a substitute for balance!

Also sorry Nilus, must be getting you confused with somebody else

[nix]

Picture or it didn't happen...

LOL,

Nicodem Player Zephir says: Women love a man who wins with Nicodem:

And yeah, he named the picture Dan - Awesome. Read the humor in that.

[nix]

I'm really really sorry, but how can you say that with a straight face? Nicodem is balanced against all of the other masters in the game?

Are we, as a community, really this blind and have so much raw faith in 'someone will make it work' to not be able to see that a broken model is broken? There are no hidden combos, no undiscovered depths. He does not work. Saying that he does because some guys in some (likely uncompetitive) metas made him work does not make it so. Hell, I almost won a tournament with him and ended up coming second because of a horrible game of flips out of which I managed a draw; that doesn't mean he has any less issues. Luck and circumstance aren't a substitute for balance!

Also sorry Nilus, must be getting you confused with somebody else

Actually, I think this goes heavily to my point. For you, Nicodem seems to have a host of issues. For other players (Zephir in particular) he has no balance issues. I would not say Zephir plays in non-competitive Meta's at all.

[nilus]

This is especially so when I look at players from SoCal Malifaux (Sothern California), the Chicago area (Nilus and crew), and the NOVA (my group) and NYC (Guy in Suit/Warmongers). areas. The Warmongers and NOVA are very similar in how we play and view the game, which is fairly different from the Chicago group, the SoCal Group, and the UK Players. While there is some overlap, it is not that much.

Well yeah, we play the game right

In all honesty I think local Metas exist but I think as a world wide community the differences are getting smaller. My local players have seen a huge Outcast and especially Gremlin resurgence in the last few months which I think it influenced both by what they saw at Adepticon and what they read here the UK scene is doing.

I think we influence each other but we all are all distinct

-----------

Back to Calmdown's original post

Premeasuring - Meh. Would it make the game more skill based, probably not. Would it reduce a large amount of rules disputes...probably

Jokers - I have always fought for the red joker not working on a negative flip. Black joker not working on a positive doesn't concern me as much but I can see why people want it

Most the rest of the rules. Like Nix said. I see things I agree with, I see things I don't agree with, I see things I hate and I see things I love.

Edited June 28, 2012 by nilus

[Calmdown]

Actually, I think this goes heavily to my point. For you, Nicodem seems to have a host of issues. For other players (Zephir in particular) he has no balance issues. I would not say Zephir plays in non-competitive Meta's at all.

This is not really a point about Nicodem, but a point about metas and competitive players.

I cannot fathom, in any way, a meta where Nicodem could be consistently competitive. It simply does not exist within this game, because he does not have the numbers nor the abilities nor the model selections to be constantly competitive. If he is constantly competitive, it means that his meta is at a low level - either people play lower level masters a lot, or Zephir outskills his opponents to make up for the lack of competitiveness of the model. Either way, the fact that you point at it as an example of why Nicodem is fine, worries me. As the 'main' playtester for Malifaux, the fact that you do not grasp that his meta/playskill making the model work is not the same as the model itself being fine is worrying too.

[Oshova]

I cannot fathom, in any way, a meta where Nicodem could be consistently competitive. It simply does not exist within this game, because he does not have the numbers nor the abilities nor the model selections to be constantly competitive. If he is constantly competitive, it means that his meta is at a low level - either people play lower level masters a lot, or Zephir outskills his opponents to make up for the lack of competitiveness of the model.

Like the point about you wanting to boost Nico and McM, and yet you have such good stats for win/loss . . . it's not our fault your better than us. =p

But seriously, there are some good changes in there on the models that I know more about. The ones I know less about I have less to say about (obviously).

Personally I think you are being a little harsh on the Gremlins. Yes they need a massive change, and the changes you've suggested individually are quite good. But together they add up to too much. We don't want another case of the Alps.

Also, I think some models you have suggested changes you haven't gone far enough. Bishop is still not worth his SS, Twins are still the best 7SS models in the game (or 21SS team).

I'm liking the Collodi/Marrionette changes though. It moves them over to more movement antics and taking out lesser models than what they currently do. However, this leaves a Collodi-led crew a bit sparse in certain situations. Such as those where you need to take out lots of big models (see Hoffman etc).

This is a very big step to be made to get this all to work properly. Hopefully Wyrd see the long term benefits of such changes, and make a massive revision next year instead of small changes and more new models. But we will have to see.

[Buhallin]

I cannot fathom, in any way, a meta where Nicodem could be consistently competitive. It simply does not exist within this game, because he does not have the numbers nor the abilities nor the model selections to be constantly competitive. If he is constantly competitive, it means that his meta is at a low level - either people play lower level masters a lot, or Zephir outskills his opponents to make up for the lack of competitiveness of the model. Either way, the fact that you point at it as an example of why Nicodem is fine, worries me. As the 'main' playtester for Malifaux, the fact that you do not grasp that his meta/playskill making the model work is not the same as the model itself being fine is worrying too.

Well, that didn't take long.

[Keltheos]

Kel inserts the "this thread was going so well. Let's try to keep it mellow, folks" post.