Buffing vs. Nerfing

[sharpobjects]

With the Belle thread and recent Mech Rider thread I was wondering about the logic of cuddle a model=wait a year or longer and buff a model=as soon as possible. When ever a discussion comes up that something is too strong the main points against it are that there has not been enough time for the model to have been on the table or not enough meta's or tournaments accross multiple continents to show if in fact its too strong. But when a model is too weak and needs a buff these arguements dont apply. The example is the Samurai.

 

 

I did a search for threads concerning this model and only found this one discussing its post Wave 1 release;

 

http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/98318-the-samurai/?hl=samurai#entry694936

 

The thread didnt really have any outrage in it. It even had several posts staing the model was good as is. The actual model has not been released yet and unless you have been proxying it I very highly doubt its seen much play time since Wave 1 release. Yet for Wave 2 we are already making not 1, not 2, not 3 but 4 different 0SS upgrades to give the model a buff in order to give people a reason to spend 8SS on it. 

 

Now the model went through both closed and open beta. I am sure it went through some internal testing as well during both stages. Yet somehow the model got through "under powered" for its cost. I am guessing under powered for its cost based on the Wave 2 upgrades it is receiving. I was unable to spend anytime with the model during testing so how the model is perceived is news to me.

 

Would logic not dicate since humans are involved in the play testing process that models could emerge from play testing "over powered" for their cost? Yet I dont see anyone saying hey lets wait until the Samurai model has actually been released and wait a year to see if either anyone hires the model or if the model is hired lets wait and analyze multiple tournaments accross the world before we say its ok to buff the model up. 

 

Is it just human nature for people to defend possibly too strong models because they have a stake in a model in question? The model is from the faction that they play so it would benefit them to apply the arguements of wait and see and or not enough data yet to prove anything? When the opposite occurrs I dont see any outrage that a model should not be buffed and apply the same reasoning that was used to prevent a cuddle. 

 

Other than using my eyes and reading the Samurai card and applying my long experience in this game and coming to the conclusion that I probably would not hire the model for 8SS where is the actual data to show this model needs 4 zero stone upgrade choices? Why can we agree to a point that a model is over costed and needs some kind of adjustment and that adjustment is made quickly but when a model is argued under costed we have to wait until there is a new president in office in order for a change to occur?

 

The one thread on the Samurai didnt seem to me the model was all that bad. Several people found uses for it in their games. I say the process that is touted for models perceived to be over powered should be used for models perceived to be under powered. Wait a year and compile the world wide data. 

 

I didnt want to derail the Mech Rider thread so I posted my observations and opinions here. 

[decker_cky]

Well, there's been three cases of buffing post release (university of transmortis stuff, samurai and archers) and two cases of Cuddling (Ophelia and Nexus of Power), so it's not like there's a huge difference in what's been done. The university stuff only got internal playtesting and came together before anything else in M2E was finalized, so it deserves an asterix on this. But roughly an equal amount. 

 

But the big difference is playtime. Things that are underpowered on the surface won't get much playtime, so waiting a year won't change anything. At a glance, both the archers and the samurai were super low on the survivability for cost scale, ignoring the fact that the samurai are prone to blowing themselves up. Archers had reasons to take one here or there, but aren't something you'd ever take 3 of without the upgrade. 

 

Overpowered stuff will get playtime, but to a point, you need to see if and just how overpowered it is. This goes to my meta comment, as you have to see how people actively counter the overpowered stuff. 

 

The fact of the matter is that Wyrd aren't going to put out a monthly balance patch. You should absolutely comment if something is over or underpowered, but don't expect Justin to ride in on a white horse and fix every perceived wrong. Gamers are a bunch of pretty smart cookies as a whole, and tend to be good problem solvers. Figure out how to beat overpowered stuff. If the stuff is overpowered over a prolonged time, I'm sure it will get addressed, but it will take a lot more data than one tournament, or a few weeks of dominance at the local scene.

[pandasauce]

I'm sorry but that makes little to no sense Decker... Why should players who are having to face overpowered models often be responsible to find a workaround to said models? The underlying idea is that the model is overpowered and should be toned down to fit the power balance of the game. Why should players be punished because a model got through with either little testing, or groundless continued complaints from people who fake battle reports and or complain about models without even fielding them but instead theory crafting? Completely agree with sharpobjects here. Models should be cuddled and buffed with the same release stipulations and testing requirements. Not whatever they feel like for each individual case.

[E.T.A. Hoffman]

I agree with Sharps assessment. It does seem like models indeed a buffs get the buffs much faster and easier than cuddles. I can imagine this scenario being true: Wyrds has two models needing attention. One is selling very well cause it’s too good. The other is not selling at all cause its not very good. The weak one gets first notice to fix it. That’s just business. Though in these cases the models are not actually for sale yet, really. So instead, we have one model that won't actually get any play testing. I also think it’s an easier think to fix. If everyone says, "nah this model sucks. Why would I hire it?" Then there is no way people will test it out to see if actually sucks. The biggest issue I have with this Buff/cuddle debate is the idea that errata's should be held on high like some rare element. I mean, do we really need more than a year of real world testing to prove a model is too good or too bad? In the case of Bells, is Ca8 ruining the game? Are players unable to play a satisfying game with a reasonably equal chance of winning? No, but is it clearly too high a stat for a model with that cost? Yes, I believe. How long are we expected to wait? Two years? Three years? One errata every equinox? I appreciate the need to wait and make sure we know what the right change is for a model, if it needs one, but I feel like there is this irreproachable attitude floating around. Or at least that's how I feel. I think the community and Wyrd, and the Mods especially, need to have an open mind when a model is called out for being too [anything].

[Justin]

It seems your post is mostly about how people argue, which is fine, I leave that to you guys.

 

But when it comes to making changes, it comes down to one big question: do I agree with the change?

 

Not that I'm always right, or the best Malifaux player or anything. But I spend 8 hours a day doing this and someone has to make the call. You'll notice the change to Nexus came pretty quick (literally as soon as possible with the first FAQ update) and that was making something less powerful. So buffing does not always happen faster than nerfing (although, again, I understand that your point is just about how people argue).

 

The Samurai is a similar case. The point was raised, I playtested them myself, and I think they didn't receive nearly enough testing in wave 1, so I'm attempting to fix it.

 

In the case of Belle spam, well, I frankly just disagree. I playtested it in wave 1, tested it when the point was raised, and just don't think a nerf is necessary. Now, don't get me wrong, if evidence is produced to the contrary I will gladly change my mind, but that's where we are right now. Are Belles great models? Absolutely. But, balance is never perfect, and I just don't think they're anywhere near errata territory.

 

As for the Mech Rider, the point was raised relatively recently, and I haven't tested it myself yet (other than during the wave 2 test). So I will try it again, and come to my conclusions then. My initial hypothesis is that it's fine. But models at a higher stone level always have more swingy effects on a game, so I am moderately more concerned about it than I was about Belles.

 

So, all argument aside, that's where these things sit, officially.

[decker_cky]

They should be responsible for finding workarounds because they want to keep playing and winning. It sort of goes with the territory of every miniature game that has ever existed since the beginning of time. 

 

The same won't happen with underpowered models that will just never be taken. 

 

For that reason, dealing with over and underpowered models isn't the same thing, and never will be. 

 

There won't be monthly patches because we've been told that. Balance erratas will be rare, and you have to learn to deal with the wrinkles of the system until that happened. So you deal with it as best as you can, and learning to do so makes you a better player.

 

----------

Further, I think the entire premise is being exaggerated. What models/rules have actually been changed? The university of transmortis ones, and the few cuddles. Samurai and archers haven't changed, they're getting bolt-on patches that were a design feature of the game. It's much harder to do a bolt-on cuddle, since players wouldn't willingly take them. 

[pandasauce]

Then please tell me how any Ramos player can ever beat a Lilith player with the upgrade to ignore armor and defensive triggers. That is a matchup that can almost never be won. This is a case where a single model ruins an entire crew. That's balanced? I'm supposed to just find a way around an upgrade that removes everything defensive about a crew and master specifically? Do you mean to say that this is intended balance? How would I overcome this? Is it not better for the game to cuddle things like that instead of spend hours and hours to find a potential workaround instead of confronting a balance issue?

I mean do you even see the issue? A balance issue should never put a player at a clear disadvantage and force them to play an uphill battle. Both players should have a relatively similar chance at beating their opponent. Overpowered models tend too make this margin of opportunity much larger between the players.

With underpowered models, is easy. Just bring something else. When the company realizes nobody buys that model, upgrades etc can make it worthwhile again.

With overpowered models its much different. It can sometimes be true that there is no good way to deal with said model which therefore skews the idea of a relatively equal opportunity for both players to win.

[Ratty]

But that is not true in either the case of the Belles or the Mech Rider, it's not that there is no way to fight them, it's that people are not willing to change how they play to deal with them. There are plenty of us that have never had an issue dealing with Belles. There are also members of the community that have never have had an issue with the Mech-Rider.

 

Every crew has something that is hard to deal with, should they all be removed from the game because people are not willing to adapt to them. Because if you remove everything in Malifaux that you have to think about to counter then you will not be playing Malifaux.

[Justin]

Then please tell me how any Ramos player can ever beat a Lilith player with the upgrade to ignore armor and defensive triggers. That is a matchup that can almost never be won.

 

That is still in beta. If you're worried about this, feedback in the beta forum is the perfect place. As that can and will change.

[pandasauce]

Was just to drive discussion I suppose it was a poor example since it is still in beta but my point still remains valid

[Omenbringer]

Was just to drive discussion I suppose it was a poor example since it is still in beta but my point still remains valid

 

Gremlin's facing Devour probably would have been a bit more poignant example though it's "fix" is almost thru play testing.

 

 

... it's not that there is no way to fight them, it's that people are not willing to change how they play to deal with them. There are plenty of us that have never had an issue dealing with Belles. There are also members of the community that have never have had an issue with the Mech-Rider.

 

Every crew has something that is hard to deal with...

 

Though I agree for the most part there is a bit of Deja Vu to all this.

[Justin]

Was just to drive discussion I suppose it was a poor example since it is still in beta but my point still remains valid

 

Well, to an extent.

 

Your point was that if there is a match up which can't be won, then a change needs to be made. This is a point I wholeheartedly agree with.

 

The disagreement comes that I don't see any examples of this with the current, printed models. (Although as I said, I will test the rider more). If I find such an example, I'll fix it. I just don't think I've found one yet. I'm not waiting to change Belles. I don't think they're an issue.

 

[pandasauce]

But that is not true in either the case of the Belles or the Mech Rider, it's not that there is no way to fight them, it's that people are not willing to change how they play to deal with them. There are plenty of us that have never had an issue dealing with Belles. There are also members of the community that have never have had an issue with the Mech-Rider.

Every crew has something that is hard to deal with, should they all be removed from the game because people are not willing to adapt to them. Because if you remove everything in Malifaux that you have to think about to counter then you will not be playing Malifaux.

How many Belles have you had to deal with at once? 2? Lol

[Mister Shine]

I have clumped all 5 of my belles together, I am INVINCIBLE!

 

/blast blast blast

[Dolomyte]

Rotten Belle's? or is there something I'm missing. Who has issue with these?

[Mister Shine]

There's an ongoing debate if they are broken due to their high Ca for Lure, combined with pounce

[Dolomyte]

Can I get a link to that debate? I have gotten in quite a few games with and against belle's in M2e. and I've yet to ever find them to be a disruptive problem (I have found people not using enough terrain on the table to be a disruptive problem, but that's neither here nor there)

 

To the initial discussion. I think Malifaux is a very hard game to make adjustments on, and there are not too many cut and dry problems (Alps in 1.0). I've found playing it that a lot of people tend to play it like warmahordes / Warhammers. Focusing on destroying their opponents force and ignoring the strategy and scenario aspect of the game, or assuming they can complete them when they wipe out the force. I also find a good deal of people who tend to get box-lock (Not trademarked yet, but it's mine). Where they will buy Rasputina, maybe another themed element. and then only want to play that single force no matter the strategy, which is an incredibly severe disadvantage versus someone who is going to use the entire option of their faction.

 

the opinion on what is overpowered and underpowered from the above playstyles would be wildly divergent from someone who played the game the way I think it's balanced to be played (Faction Vs Faction, Lists built based on flipped Strategy)

 

 

Then please tell me how any Ramos player can ever beat a Lilith player with the upgrade to ignore armor and defensive triggers. That is a matchup that can almost never be won.

 

See the above comment. If the game was a fight to the death, I would say Lilith has an advantage (Although Han's could pop upgrades, or the Ramos player could just dedicate resources into killing Lilith). But depending on the strategy, you should be able to build around it.

 

If people see a trend of a model being a problem, by all means start bat repping it and posting feedback constructively, but I don't think we should expect swift change unless it's a monstrous oversight (Alps in M1E, aMarcus's Sculpt =p)

[Mister Shine]

http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/99755-rotten-belles-a-happier-redux/

[brdparker]

I think that people tend to cry OP when a combo/ability genuinely is very powerful (not  a bad thing at all) in conjunction with it leading to an unfun play experience. In the case of a very powerful unit or ability, typically you can say "wow, that's powerful. I'll have to avoid that next turn or remember that for future games" and the issue people are having with the (for example) belles are "wow, that's powerful... and I can't think of a single way to counter it. It's the first turn of the game, and I don't feel like I stand a chance because he/she can do that next turn too."

 

That said, there are ways around it if you search for threads that help. The question that should be asked IF AND WHEN there is a modification is "Does this model/combo unravel a player's plans before they can start or does it make them feel feel like they have to base their entire list around countering a single engine, rather than creating their own?" I would imagine a similar question was posed for the Dreamer in 1.5. Let's be honest, creating an engine is much more fun and engaging than countering one.

[Ratty]

 

That said, there are ways around it IF you search for threads that help. The players start to feel despair when their plans are unraveled before they can start or they feel like they have to base their entire list around countering a single engine, rather than creating their own. It's the same thing that happened with the Dreamer in 1.5. Let's be honest, creating an engine is much more fun and engaging than countering one.

 

I must be weird then, but I think the most fun I've had has been trying to counter Pandora or Hamelin in 1.5 ... I know me an one of the local had this running feud, where I would lose horribly to some trick, then work out how to deal with it and then he would have to work out a counter to my counter.

 

Building your list and going this combos with this so I win, I find quite boring. It feels a very GW way of playing where you build your list and then stick to the plan no matter what. Whereas trying to win against all odd by wit and guile I find much more interesting... And yes occasionally I will go "You What?!" as Sonnia does something I wasn't expecting but then I adapt and try not to get caught again... Malifaux has a really cool shifting Meta (and by shifting Meta, I mean naturally shifting as things appear that do Bad Things and then counters appear and then people work out new things... Rather than we have released a new Codex, better buy the new army or you will lose).

[brdparker]

I reworded some things, as I didn't want to come off a confrontational, and I truly don't believe that there is need for a cuddle/buff at any point in the near future. And you make some good points, Ratty. For myself, I like to find those weird background combos, and that's more fun than finding hard counters, but to each, etc...

[Ratty]

To be honest I enjoy that too. Silly combos are fun. But I have found over time that almost all things can be dealt with, and a lot of the fun of the game is working out how to do this.

[Daysleeper]

I think in this thread there a lot of realy good posts that explain exactly what it is that makes malifaux a unique wargaming experience and at the same time show why all-to frequent changes and patches would ruin part of that.
 

I know from own experience that there sometimes comes a point in a game where your opponents forces seem unbeatable. At this point, i found, NEVER quit/surrender a game. Keep on playing the objectives (as you always should) and you will win more often than you think from an seemingly lost position.

 

What i'm trying to say: Deal with it, it almost always can be done! (and it makes you a better player)

[Dracomax]

Honestly, I usually feel like I can't possibly win in round 3. Then by round 5, I pull ahead. just saying. If you keep on working at it and don't give up, focusing on schemes, even powerful abilities and models can be overcome.

[Ratty]

I think in this thread there a lot of realy good posts that explain exactly what it is that makes malifaux a unique wargaming experience and at the same time show why all-to frequent changes and patches would ruin part of that.

 

I know from own experience that there sometimes comes a point in a game where your opponents forces seem unbeatable. At this point, i found, NEVER quit/surrender a game. Keep on playing the objectives (as you always should) and you will win more often than you think from an seemingly lost position.

 

What i'm trying to say: Deal with it, it almost always can be done! (and it makes you a better player)

 

 

Ask Gozer about that.. I was playing him on Vassal. It was the first time I had played against Tara, and a fast Killjoy, rampaged through my crew wiping out 17SS of models on turn 2 in a 40ss game.... At that point most people would have went "I can't possibly win this", and then moan about Killjoy and Tara being OP... I decided to fight on... Paralysed Killjoy, Tara ran into save him.. I tied her down, took her apart then when Killjoy reappeared Paralysed him again. Even though I had taken a huge beating the Schemes I had dropped turn 1 and turn 2, Jack Daw's speed and knowing my crews tricks well allowed me to adapt and pull out a win....