The Most Balanced Miniatures Games?

[enderwiggin]

Anyway, the most balanced miniature games I've played would probably be Necromunda or Battlefleet Gothic aside from Malifaux. The old specialist games were great things of fun and even if there was a loss, the next game could reverse your fortunes in an instant.

Necromunda was only balanced among the core gangs (ditto Mordheim) try playing with Spyrers/Scabbies/Arbites/Xeno and the game gets stupid. Battlefleet Gothic remains my favorite minis game when it comes to the actual strategy and aesthetic of play, but Malifaux's flavor is much more fun...

When we play, we use the most up-to-date rules. This means the Xenos (pretty sure Scabies too, but without the stuff in front of me...) were not going to be legally useable. Spyrers I played and honestly late-game it could get ridiculous. Arbites though, not broken at all. I actually have a buddy that plays them religiously and feel bad for everything he misses out on in the campaign trading-wise. Early on they are tough, but in the mid game (where our campaigns tend to last the longest) they are slightly under powered if anything. Late game, for a short while, they go back to being strong when you first get to call both squads out to fight.

 

Mordheim I didn't get to play much, but I'll take your word on it. I never could seem to get a decent gang going there so I blame my playing skills there.

[Astrella]

The old GW specialist games sound interesting, too bad I wasn't financially capable at the time. Thanks for the recommendations and I'll go have a look at these metal/plastic crack.

On x-wing however, purely as an observer  and I may be totally wrong in my views... I can not deny that it looks and sound like a great game; currently 27 on BBG ranking with 11858 voters. What I am skeptical about is the drastic meta-change and/or business model FFG is doing. At first people was fielding 8x ties competitively, then everyone ran dual falcons, now as the company introduce bigger ship this has become the new meta.  I understand as a company that they want to introduce new products, but when you bring a new items and make your past purchases seem worthless does not appeal to me. I'm also interested in Imperial Assault but might just pick it up for the campaign, competitive skirmish looks bleh and they might replicate x-wing's business model.

Since I'm talking about business models I do like what Wyrd is currently doing for Malifaux; you know what you're doing so yeah.

Eh, if anything the meta, even the super competitive one is probably at it's most varied right now. And there aren't really any ships that aren't worth flying. (some options might not be the greatest, but you can still fly them just fine.)

[nep]

The old GW specialist games sound interesting, too bad I wasn't financially capable at the time. Thanks for the recommendations and I'll go have a look at these metal/plastic crack.

On x-wing however, purely as an observer  and I may be totally wrong in my views... I can not deny that it looks and sound like a great game; currently 27 on BBG ranking with 11858 voters. What I am skeptical about is the drastic meta-change and/or business model FFG is doing. At first people was fielding 8x ties competitively, then everyone ran dual falcons, now as the company introduce bigger ship this has become the new meta.  I understand as a company that they want to introduce new products, but when you bring a new items and make your past purchases seem worthless does not appeal to me. I'm also interested in Imperial Assault but might just pick it up for the campaign, competitive skirmish looks bleh and they might replicate x-wing's business model.

Since I'm talking about business models I do like what Wyrd is currently doing for Malifaux; you know what you're doing so yeah.

Eh, if anything the meta, even the super competitive one is probably at it's most varied right now. And there aren't really any ships that aren't worth flying. (some options might not be the greatest, but you can still fly them just fine.)

True there would be more variants as there are more ships available, as I've said these are observer impression of someone who hasn't really played the game and relied more on available material, reviews, comments found on the web that I may have parrot. I didn't take the plunge because I have not found an effective Boba Fett list during my research... and maybe got cranky coz of it.

Here's the video that I watched where they comment about the space skirmish game...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrYh-ar9pBU

 

Other Notes: Is there a way for me to see/edit/work on the forum bbcode when I reply or make a new topic in the forums?

 

[LunarSol]

The old GW specialist games sound interesting, too bad I wasn't financially capable at the time. Thanks for the recommendations and I'll go have a look at these metal/plastic crack.

On x-wing however, purely as an observer  and I may be totally wrong in my views... I can not deny that it looks and sound like a great game; currently 27 on BBG ranking with 11858 voters. What I am skeptical about is the drastic meta-change and/or business model FFG is doing. At first people was fielding 8x ties competitively, then everyone ran dual falcons, now as the company introduce bigger ship this has become the new meta.  I understand as a company that they want to introduce new products, but when you bring a new items and make your past purchases seem worthless does not appeal to me. I'm also interested in Imperial Assault but might just pick it up for the campaign, competitive skirmish looks bleh and they might replicate x-wing's business model.

Since I'm talking about business models I do like what Wyrd is currently doing for Malifaux; you know what you're doing so yeah.

A lot of the meta-change in X-Wing comes from its shaky start.  Initially they way overvalued their special rules compared to the value of base ships.  They've spent a considerable amount of time revitalizing old ships to the point where you're more likely to buy a new expansion to make a ship you already own competitive than for the new ship itself.  There's also odd tournament specific considerations to consider; like how until a recent change to the tournament structure itself, you saw a lot of Falcons and such largely because they had an advantage in tiebreakers when games went to time.

That said, its definitely designed to make everything desirable and there are frustrating situations where an important upgrade is on a ship in another faction for a while.  It would be nice if upgrade cards were sold separately, but obviously there's less to be made in that.  It's not even too bad if its your primary competitive game and as a strictly casual, its a system easy enough to work around.

[LunarSol]

If you want to run Boba Fett I'd probably go for his Scum & Villainy version.  His Imperial version is alright, but one of those early designs that loses out to raw ship power.  It's got some cute tricks, but the Scum version is more aggressive and has a few more options.  Back it up with a couple Y-Wings running Twin Laser Turrets or even another big ship like the Hound's Tooth or Dengar's upcoming Punishing One and he's quite good.

[SpectreEliteGaming]

Clearly, few people in this thread have played Magic. 

No such magical thing exists and you are kidding yourself if you think there is a balanced mini game. Unless you just play chess or checkers you aren't going to find even many balanced games. There are well known strategies that break even super simple board games like Risk, Monopoly, and Catan - so what hope does a ridiculously complicated (srsly) game like Malifaux have?

The only reason games like Malifaux look balanced is because 1: Not enough people play it, 2: Most people who play it do not play it competitively, 3: Small metas over large distances, 4: This game is honestly getting to be way to complicated with a steep uncompromising learning curve so you'll alwas find new things and screw up and make errors etc. ... and blah blah blah.

Thankfully, you can be a really good player and excel at any crew for the time being. Once there starts being a more distinct seperation between the elite and casual players you will start seeing people flocking to the "netdecks/netlists." That's just part of the game and as an individual who has an "optimal or nothing" mindset, I see no problem with this.

When you see the lists that the Chicago crew bring out (Brett in particular) or from Icemyn/Godlyness or even ones that win the UK tournaments its hard not to jump on that bandwagon and try to tweak it to perfection for yourself. Otherwise you can can just sit there and try to be content with your flawed but "unique" list if thats fun for you. And, therefore, through optimization of strengths some masters will just come out on top of others and that's the harsh reality.

So, yeah... I don't really see a problem here. Games are meant to be broken... and then the new edition gets released to sucker us in for more.  

[yool1981]

It is true that a fully balanced game does not exist. Nevertheless it should be in a state that no player of equal level is overly advantaged by his list against the other player (slight advantages will always exist).

At a beginner level, I feel that Malifaux does the job properly. I have never felt powerless in a game like I have sometimes been in Warmachine for example.

As to the state at higher levels, I do not know as the French meta is a fledging one.

One additional thing keeps Malifaux balanced for me. You can see the table, the schemes and the faction your opponent intends to play BEFORE you select your crew. This means that you can select very niche models and expect them to be of some use. If you vary the table enough, you will limit the appearance of pre-built crews.

This is very powerful compared to other systems that work with a more classic fixed list pairing.

The variety of the schemes also helps in playing with the playstyle you favour the most.

[Nathan Caroland]

Nothing is truly outright balanced - the idea is to get damn close to it until you release something else that breaks/plugs it, or some clever bastard comes along and looks at it from another angle and manages to turn everything on it's ear.

The idea is to get close as possible, and stay on top of it as the game evolves as well as the player base, but unless it's chess or checkers - odds are there are going to be bumps and holes to hit and dive through. 

[MR TORGUE]

I have 4 games I really love that I consider quite balanced: Malifaux, Warmachine, X-Wing, and Guild Ball.  I wouldn't say Malifaux is really any more or less balanced than the others.  Honestly, the only reason it doesn't have cookie cutter lists is because it doesn't have lists, period.  If the tournament format rigidly locked you into a set of choices, you'd see a lot more discussion and trending towards separating models you should and shouldn't play, but the open build system means that niche choices can still be taken for their niche.  Even then there are duds.  It's just the way of things.

X-Wing actually has an incredible amount of viable variety right now (it's been terrible in the past, IMO), but it suffers from one of it's big strengths: namely its a pretty low investment game and just a few ships fill up your entire list, that you're locked into for the entire tournament.  It's also an easy game to play follow the leader with for that same low investment benefit, meaning that it's easy to jump on the things that win generally.

Warmachine has excellent faction balance and honestly a pretty wide range of viable casters; its just got over 150 casters at this point and so many options there's just some duds in the mix.  It's also, and this is true of X-Wing, a game that gets a ton of competitive play and competitive discussion that rapidly escalates the optimization of lists among the top tier players, which causes a lot of the cookie cutter effect from players less invested in the game.

So, yeah.  I'd recommend any of these games.  No game, not even Malifaux lives in this magical land where there aren't advantages to building a tuned list.  You can absolutely get run over with a crew not angled towards the strats and schemes your facing.  Even then, people VASTLY over inflate the idea of winning or losing at list selection.  Players act like that comic all the time but its ridiculous.  A game played from a disadvantage isn't lost until you play it out and more often than not, you'll be surprised at how close "bad matchups" can be in any of these games.

you need to invest in some armada if your liking the balance thats finally established in x wing. they've really honed their craft with armada; improved on the gameplay/rules/balance/variety. 
I think to-date theres 4 capital ships for empire and 5 for rebels; this meaning upgrade choice/ strat choice and overall skill dictates games and it avoids the over saturation you mention above. 

Give it a try - I reckon you'll like it. 

But yeah malifaux is an excellent game - personally can't get enough of the fluff and *hint hint* would love there to be a department that churned out novels.

[LunarSol]

It's on my list, but I'm waiting to let it evolve a little more and expand for a greater number of ship options and the like.  It also feels like they need to work out the role of squadrons a little more from what I've seen from the sidelines.  Part of it is that to me, Star Wars is more about the fighters with capital ships fighting in the background.  Epic scale X-Wing scratches that itch for me more at the moment; especially now that the Raider is out.

[Yvarre]

Clearly, few people in this thread have played Magic.

I'm predominantly a limited player myself, but I do follow the modern and Legacy metagames fairly closely, dabbling in each of these formats.  Here, we have select archetypes with only small variances and sideboards that address what the deck expects to see as its biggest challenges in the ever-shifitng meta.  Splinter Twin, Grixis Delver, Tron, etc. in Modern; Miracles, Death and Taxes, Lands, 4 Color Delver, etc. in Legacy- to a magic player, just these titles are evocative of the entire decklist; sideboard; strong match-ups; weak match-ups; general strategies against aggro, control; and midrange.

The only reason games like Malifaux look balanced is because 1: Not enough people play it, 2: Most people who play it do not play it competitively, 3: Small metas over large distances, 4: This game is honestly getting to be way to complicated with a steep uncompromising learning curve so you'll alwas find new things and screw up and make errors etc. ... and blah blah blah.

Thankfully, you can be a really good player and excel at any crew for the time being. Once there starts being a more distinct seperation between the elite and casual players you will start seeing people flocking to the "netdecks/netlists." That's just part of the game and as an individual who has an "optimal or nothing" mindset, I see no problem with this.

From what I've seen in the  2015 competitive circuit in Malifaux, there are certain streamlined strategies that take tournaments-  Duncan Bils won Nova with a particularly Killy Sonnia list that barely changed the whole tourney and also won Gencon in a famous match vs Karai that decisively ended turn 2.  Dean Bils took Connecticon with Leveticus, relying on his versatile hiring pool for the different schemes and strats.  Captaincon was won, I think, by a particularly nasty summoning Molly flurrying with Punk Zombies all day. These were the bigger events I attended.  The UK sees a fair amount of Neverborn with Lilith at the top, from what I understand.  The information is pretty scattered and hard to come by, though, which is also barring the netlist culture.  I am curious also where all the tournament-winning lists might be found.

The sheer variability of the game, however, from strat and schemes to the opponent's crew to terrain makes it really hard for any lists to be completely dominant all the time.  In addition, each faction has masters that can be extremely competitive under the right scheme and strat condtions- all with different lists.  There are also some builds that have quite a bit of inevitability- if Sonnia hits you with Hold this active anywhere near other models in your crew, things tend to die.  Leveticus and Lynch will vaporize things if they come near.  McCabe, Shen Long, Lucius, and Collette will just run over other crews in scheme marker heavy pools.  Building lists with a factor of inevitability is a pretty strong move.  Having core lists with different masters for different strats and schemes and a practiced game plan can win you games.  Putting in the time to learn what everything does and what to expect from different factions for each strat and scheme will give players an edge.  I don't believe, however, that Malifaux will ever approach a metagame where a small handful of netlists will win everything, and the comparison to Magic in this instance is a bit of a stretch for me.  The difference of 20 life points and 60 cards in a deck as the primary resources and wincons and the vastness of all the possible models- their wounds, defense triggers, healing, etc- the strategy, schemes, Control Hand, and terrain leaves just way too many variables.  So, while we will gather more data as the game progresses and see some crew builds emerge as more optimum than others, and newer players will probably copy the lists that emerge as dominant, the game mechanics and sheer variety of good models will keep a one list fits all culture from emerging.  In a way, static lists will open up niches for people who understand the metagame to know what to expect and plan accordingly.  If I play against the same lists all the time, it will be quite easy indeed to disrupt them with some skill.

This all said, I am certainly interested in dialoguing about optimum lists and strategies, as I frequently optimize my own lists, going as far as to map out opening, midgame, and endgame strategies with different lists against others I might expect to see.  This is possibly similar to chess?

[SpectreEliteGaming]

Nothing is truly outright balanced - the idea is to get damn close to it until you release something else that breaks/plugs it, or some clever bastard comes along and looks at it from another angle and manages to turn everything on it's ear.

The idea is to get close as possible, and stay on top of it as the game evolves as well as the player base, but unless it's chess or checkers - odds are there are going to be bumps and holes to hit and dive through. 

This. It's also nice to see sentiments like this come straight from Wyrd, too. It reaffirms a good mindset that both cares about the game but isn't paranoid and nitpicky about little things that more often than not end up amounting to no big deal most of the time anyway. A game being "balanced enough to being playable" is more than enough to ask for. The player base will break any game but who cares? M3E will keep it fresh when shit goes down... and so on.

I couldn't imagine being a game designer racking my brain thinking about all the little loopholes that exist and have people constaintly on your case about little tiny imbalances all the time. Game breaking? - pretty important... A model being +/-1 stone cost - give me a break.

On a side note - fluff wise - there is no way that an Ironsides or Viks crew should be able to be balanced with the likes of badass geezers like Ramos or Levy. In fluff, those guys are important characters whereas most other masters are supporting characters at best. Ramos waves his hand and Colette's contraptions turn tail just like that. Do you really think a bad mofo like that is going to have trouble taking on a gambling junky, crazy doctor, or a ragtag crew of mercs or bruisers. Hey cool ghosts and stuff Kirai - check out my freaking world killing Leviathan I just rolled out the cash for nbd. Levy is literally integral to the fate of Malifaux and I think his in-game incarnation gives you that feel. He'd wipe the floor with just about any master irl (if you could call it "irl"  ) .  Expecting these guys to be balanced with the others would do them an injustice in my mind. In that sense, having master tiers - when they work out appropriately - almost seems legit.

[AverageBoss]

I am just going to add Star Wars Armada to the list. It is fairly well balanced from what I have seen / played. Though the fact that the game is less than a year old probably help.

But who doesn't like evil space triangles?

[Malkyr]

So far Guildball has shown itself to be excellently balanced, though it is very young compared to most of the other big games. When they did see a potential for imbalance they quickly issued an errata to head off problems.

Guildball and Malifaux have easily become my favorite minis games, though I still play more Warmachine because my local shop is so focused on it.

[Kadeton]

On a side note - fluff wise - there is no way that an Ironsides or Viks crew should be able to be balanced with the likes of badass geezers like Ramos or Levy. In fluff, those guys are important characters whereas most other masters are supporting characters at best. Ramos waves his hand and Colette's contraptions turn tail just like that. Do you really think a bad mofo like that is going to have trouble taking on a gambling junky, crazy doctor, or a ragtag crew of mercs or bruisers. Hey cool ghosts and stuff Kirai - check out my freaking world killing Leviathan I just rolled out the cash for nbd. Levy is literally integral to the fate of Malifaux and I think his in-game incarnation gives you that feel. He'd wipe the floor with just about any master irl (if you could call it "irl"  ) .  Expecting these guys to be balanced with the others would do them an injustice in my mind. In that sense, having master tiers - when they work out appropriately - almost seems legit.

I find that view strange - to me, the reason why some people are Masters is nothing to do with the resources or powers they command (though they tend to rise quickly to positions of power as a matter of course) and everything to do with their Fate. All of them are "literally integral to the Fate of Malifaux", and Ironsides has her part to play just as much as Leveticus does.

To put it another way, if Ramos and Colette were to fight (remembering they're essentially on the same side):

Ramos waves his hand and Colette's contraptions turn tail... or do they? One of them seems to wink at him as it goes, though clearly that's impossible. Colette's voice, directly in his ear, says "What's the matter, old man? Mind playing tricks on you again?" He turns just in time to catch her smile before she disappears in a cloud of iridescent butterflies. Was she ever really there? Ramos decides he'd better go and have a lie-down.

They're all important characters, and when they come into conflict, it doesn't matter how much of a "bad mofo" they might be - the outcome is still decided by Fate.

[yool1981]

Nothing is truly outright balanced - the idea is to get damn close to it until you release something else that breaks/plugs it, or some clever bastard comes along and looks at it from another angle and manages to turn everything on it's ear.

The idea is to get close as possible, and stay on top of it as the game evolves as well as the player base, but unless it's chess or checkers - odds are there are going to be bumps and holes to hit and dive through. 

As a player, I am very interested in the way a company reacts to blatant and strong imbalance (meaning, frustrating for the players in one way or another). There are basically 3 ways of dealing with it:

• Not dealing with it (GW style). It will create a lot of frustration, a stalling meta or possibly home rules and at the end, people may leave for better balanced games.
• Dealing with it by introducing hard counters into the game (sometimes PP style). The company introduce models that are immune to or that destroy the overpowered stuff. Obviously, this sells minis and allows a dynamic meta as it is readjusted constantly. It may tire people that have to leave some minis on the shelf and/or that have to constantly buy the new powerful shinies. It will also potentially create new imbalances.
• Dealing with it with errata (sometimes PP style and Wyrd style it seems). The company corrects blatant imbalances to either expand faction choices (Metal Gamin) or correct big frustrations in the game (eDenny in the PP universe). This works especially well with the players if the errata is done soon enough so that not everybody has jumped to buy new stuff to either stick or adapt to the meta (however, the quicker the company reacts, the less overpowered stuff it sells...).

Wyrd also has the possibility to use upgrades, which is a pretty smart design space.

All in all, I like the way Malifaux is managed. As a beginner, my only current worry is with the father of time reducing options for opponents relying on the bury mechanics as it counters it pretty hard on paper. I have not played with or against him yet so I will not worry too much until I have seen what he really does on the table.

[trikk]

A lot of miniature games are well balanced. WH40k is not a good reference, for the reasons you stated. Infinity or WM/H are well-balanced games, for example.

Infinity is balanced faction-wise, but Ariadna is clearly up in the rankings. Model-wise is bad. you have HMG Spetznas, Grunts etc. which kind of give you an uphill struggle. 

Infinity is a love-or-hate game IMO. The ARO and order generation mechanics are weird and while I love the ARO, the order generation could be thrown to trash and I wouldn`t miss it for a second.

I think the biggest advantage of Malifaux over Infinity is mixed-objective. In Infinity its either "Go and click" or "kill". Malifaux can have both in the same game.

[Omenbringer]

As a player, I am very interested in the way a company reacts to blatant and strong imbalance (meaning, frustrating for the players in one way or another). There are basically 3 ways of dealing with it:

• Not dealing with it (GW style). It will create a lot of frustration, a stalling meta or possibly home rules and at the end, people may leave for better balanced games.
• Dealing with it by introducing hard counters into the game (sometimes PP style). The company introduce models that are immune to or that destroy the overpowered stuff. Obviously, this sells minis and allows a dynamic meta as it is readjusted constantly. It may tire people that have to leave some minis on the shelf and/or that have to constantly buy the new powerful shinies. It will also potentially create new imbalances.
• Dealing with it with errata (sometimes PP style and Wyrd style it seems). The company corrects blatant imbalances to either expand faction choices (Metal Gamin) or correct big frustrations in the game (eDenny in the PP universe). This works especially well with the players if the errata is done soon enough so that not everybody has jumped to buy new stuff to either stick or adapt to the meta (however, the quicker the company reacts, the less overpowered stuff it sells...).

Wyrd also has the possibility to use upgrades, which is a pretty smart design space.

All in all, I like the way Malifaux is managed. As a beginner, my only current worry is with the father of time reducing options for opponents relying on the bury mechanics as it counters it pretty hard on paper. I have not played with or against him yet so I will not worry too much until I have seen what he really does on the table.

To be fair, Wyrd has done all three of these over the  course of Malifaux's evolution. Personally, I am not a fan of option one or two. Hamelin from 1st edition Malifaux is a sterling example of how devastating method one can be for the game. Method 2 annoys for the simple fact that it doesn't actually do anything for the actual imbalance, it simply reduces overall options and forces the purchase of the "hard counter" model. Additionally, it irritates because the "Hard Counter" is typically a Mercenary (so everyone can benefit without having to create a dedicated model for each faction) that doesn't usually fit well with the "character" of the rest of the crew. I much prefer the Errata method and see the upgrades (especially 0 costed ones) as a cheeky method of issuing Errata's without actually admitting they are errata's. I am not a fan of using Upgrades to fix models or interactions, as I think they reduce choice more than add to it (if it is an auto include in virtually every situation then it isn't really a choice at all).

I do think though, that you have missed one very effective method of dealing with imbalances. Play Testing. Deep, methodical play testing, not open play testing where the signal is usually drowned out by the noise, but closed, targeted play testing utilizing vetted play testers. Having participated in a number of play tests, it often seems like the majority of the participants are more interested in the "neatness" or "cool" factor than actually balancing anything. Additionally, often times the second and third order effects of those "neat" interactions are never considered. My biggest gripe with Wyrd is the rapidity of play testing cycles and the frenetic pace of development. I would love to see substantially more time devoted to play testing, and a much slower development cycle (one which allows issues to shake out from the current batch before adding more interactions in to the mix). There are many examples of how these two factors have contributed significantly to imbalances within the game. Hopefully this will settle down when/ if Wyrd releases the Otherside, assuming it is a Miniatures game that can remove some of the pressure.

Over all I dont consider Malifaux a particularly well balanced game, especially when played with the Standard Encounter (symmetric Strategies and restricted Scheme Pools with one option always viable). This is particularly true for the player that has access to more options (multiple Masters with large hiring pools), and/ or more experience within the system. That is not to say that I find any other system better in terms of Balance, only that I dont think Malifaux's strength is in the competitive environments where it really matters. For me Malifaux's strength has always been in the story and character of the game, not the competition. Most of my favorite games of Malifaux were low scoring nail biters that resulted in a narrow loss, than games where I had won completely by turn three.

[Omenbringer]

I think the biggest advantage of Malifaux over Infinity is mixed-objective. In Infinity its either "Go and click" or "kill". Malifaux can have both in the same game.

This is why I prefer the Story Encounters more than the Standard Encounter game of Malifaux.

[Red Moon Head]

I'm not even sure if this is reference to balance but I most commonly find that games of Malifaux are won/lost directly after the lines of "Wow I didn't realsie it/they could do that" or similar. 

I don;t really think there are cookie cutter builds per se but certainly are some models that are auto include in some crews and some crews that just work great built certain ways. i.e. you wouldn't really take no constructs with Hoffman and no pigs with Ulix. 

What I do know is I've played a lot of games against 2 people in particular and no two games have ever been the same.

My only issue (which has since vanished) was at the beginning when I played only Gremlins and had only the choice of Ophelia's crew box or Som'ers. So people knew my crews before schemes and strats were even flipped and could easily guess what was coming. If I play someone and I know they only have "The Torch and Blade" box and a Pale Rider they might suffer against certain crews/schemes strats. 

In that scenario story missions are usually better or just agree schemes/strats pool before hand in the open. It's not so much an issue now, as with every player here I've (my wallet) has felt the sting of obsession.....

[enderwiggin]

I would echo that more crews give a greater sense of balance, but that's always going to be an issue with games where you don't have pre-made, symmetrical/mirrored, lists.

Also, Omenbringer has an absolutely right view of the playtesting. It should be done with more time, or in a more precise fashion if the last public playtest schedule was any indication. My main gripe with that playtesting was that not everyone/thing got an even share of attention. Some people stuck with a batch of models and other players may have had different ones, some issues rearing their head now were pointed out before, but were shouted down from the majority.

It's difficult to try balancing most things when (for the best results) you really should only introduce 1-2 variables/new models in a practiced crew to determine the actual impact. This can simply be mitigated by fewer changes, but more time to establish what needs to be done to "fix" said model(s).

Edited December 16, 2015 by enderwiggin
Edited for clarity.

[yool1981]

Playtesting is very important but it is costly and time consuming. Moreover, playtesting does not guarantee that some imbalance / bug will not subsist and be discovered later, when the player base expands.
We would all wish for the perfect game to be made in one go but I don't think it is possible.

Being reactive in providing errata and/or solutions is essential imho to avoid any lasting frustration.

[enderwiggin]

It's not really costly the way Wyrd and PP can do it, it's only "costly" if you think of it as eating into profits from the next edition that weren't gotten to in as quick a time, but I feel that's a flawed view to hold when the game quality is more important (imo) than pumping out the next moneymaker. I think Wyrd feels the same, mostly.

Personally, for the playtesting I did, I have never thought it was exceptionally time consuming either. Because it was so fast-paced, in fact, I stuck to a core group of models I was interested in. I'm not faulting anyone for doing the same under the conditions, I just wish the time had actually allowed some of us to branch out more.

In any case, if playtesting is the mesh you're using to strain a food, sure a colander will get your spaghetti ready fast, but sometimes the recipe calls for a coffee filter to remove the smaller bits that can take away from the entire presentation (I think, I don't drink coffee but grinds sounds nasty in a cuppa joe).

[yool1981]

It's not really costly the way Wyrd and PP can do it, it's only "costly" if you think of it as eating into profits from the next edition that weren't gotten to in as quick a time, but I feel that's a flawed view to hold when the game quality is more important (imo) than pumping out the next moneymaker. I think Wyrd feels the same, mostly.

Personally, for the playtesting I did, I have never thought it was exceptionally time consuming either. Because it was so fast-paced, in fact, I stuck to a core group of models I was interested in. I'm not faulting anyone for doing the same under the conditions, I just wish the time had actually allowed some of us to branch out more.

In any case, if playtesting is the mesh you're using to strain a food, sure a colander will get your spaghetti ready fast, but sometimes the recipe calls for a coffee filter to remove the smaller bits that can take away from the entire presentation (I think, I don't drink coffee but grinds sounds nasty in a cuppa joe).

I think it is costly in several ways:

• Even if you ask for good willed playtesters, you still have to mobilize your internal resources to analyze the data and make the decisions about profile updating. Time is not free in a company.
• Less released models = less sales
• If you have already started to develop the mini itself, you may have already paid some money in order to start the moulds. Delaying the release of the mini thus has a financial cost.

I am not saying that there is a need to remove the playtesting. I think it is very important. However, you cannot do it indefinitely because otherwise, your company will not move forward.

There is always a balance to be made between model balancing and economic issues.

From what I have seen from Wyrd during M2E (I did not play Malifaux before), there has been playtesting + releases in an acceptable schedule + errata when mistakes had been made. Wyrd even had the courage to drop the avatar matter and to delay Leveticus' release schedule (I think he was supposed to belong to the Wave 1) in order to playtest him more extensively. Obviously nothing is perfect but their way of working suits the way I see mini game design.

[LunarSol]

One of the most important factors in maintaining game balance is understanding your core mechanics and in particular, understanding the value of your resource restraints.  A good math model can help you find boundaries to your stats and ensure you have a good starting point when valuing a new design.  Most breaks in games come from failing to recognize the game's primary resource restraint.  Magic is probably most famous for this as a game with an obvious limited resource (mana/lands) but initially failed to recognize how few cards are drawn from the deck and significantly underestimated how valuable card draw was.  Minis games in general tend to underestimate the tactical flexibility of range and the base value of a model by virtue of just adding to and demanding more from attack volume over attack quality.