Most fun Masters - for both players

[Ressummon]

9 minutes ago, Adran said:

i will say that masters power perceptions will change as you and you opponents get used to their tricks and style. So whilst Masters Like Rasputina and Viks are very very good at the kill everything game, there is a lot more to Malifaux than killing everything, and I have played games where I have lost my whole crew, my opponent has ended up with more than he started with, and I have still won the game thanks to the VPs I scored. 

Rasputina for example is relatively easy to shut down from her killing spree, and not very good normally when you need to cross the half way line to score. But I have also had her kill half my crew on the first turn when I made a mistake in deployment. So Rasputina might easily go through a play phase where you opponent starts off finding her unfun (because they lost their entire crew before they did anything) and ending where they don't have any issues, and you are finding her no fun because she can't actually do anything. 

And Myrra is completely right. Its a play style. If you don't like playing against a hyper aggressive crew, it doesn't matter which of the 20+ masters can lead the hyper aggressive crew, you won't like it. But a different opponent would use exactly the same crew in a control manner and you might really enjoy the experience

Thanks both, I understand

 

14 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

I'm not sure that is as much a master issue as it is meta and/or playstyle issue. Malifaux is a game where about 90% of your success is determined by your skill. That's why no single master or even master matchup is going to guarantee interesting and exciting game against all opponents. It takes a few games to determine the skill level and the list building style of your opponent to be able to build lists that make for really exciting games.

I understand and hear what you are both saying - maybe a conversation for a different thread (or multiple already raised I am sure). I agree it is down to skill and yes Adran, mostly my kill sprees are shut down turn two to a better opponent and I kind of watch the game drift away. You are right Myyra, it is down to skill and I will lack that at the start but a game should always be fun - no matter the skill set of the individuals playing. That's not a dig at you in any way but if this wasn't fun - why would anyone continue? Thanks for your responses, much appreciated. :-) 

[Myyrä]

2 hours ago, Ressummon said:

I understand and hear what you are both saying - maybe a conversation for a different thread (or multiple already raised I am sure). I agree it is down to skill and yes Adran, mostly my kill sprees are shut down turn two to a better opponent and I kind of watch the game drift away. You are right Myyra, it is down to skill and I will lack that at the start but a game should always be fun - no matter the skill set of the individuals playing. That's not a dig at you in any way but if this wasn't fun - why would anyone continue? Thanks for your responses, much appreciated. :-) 

Oh, I wasn't trying in any way to imply that you shouldn't be having fun. What I was saying was that choosing the right master probably won't be enough to fix the problem alone. You should have a discussion with your opponent instead.

[Ressummon]

50 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

Oh, I wasn't trying in any way to imply that you shouldn't be having fun. What I was saying was that choosing the right master probably won't be enough to fix the problem alone. You should have a discussion with your opponent instead.

That's fine - I didn't mean to sound picky - so hard to convey exact thoughts when typing - this is such a friendly forum with people giving up their time to help that I would never mean anything to sound out of line. I am genuinely thankful for your response - mostly because you are right! :-)

[decker_cky]

On 06/07/2016 at 8:07 AM, D_acolyte said:

Hmm this is a hard one, I find my fun is more based on my enemy player then there master. For instance I played Mason Hamelin and had a blast but vs someone's Kaeres I could not wait for it to end. I feel that NPE based on masters is forgetting that half the experience is the human element.

 

I'm trying to imagine how you could make Kaeris a NPE and honestly can't think of how you would. 

[D_acolyte]

5 hours ago, decker_cky said:

 

I'm trying to imagine how you could make Kaeris a NPE and honestly can't think of how you would. 

By complaining that your going to lose constantly, it really makes the game no fun because win or lose you better be in the game and play it but with that mentality it does nothing but makes me angry. There is a lot more to the experience then the models in the game.

[Sklertic]

What does that have to do with Kaeris though? Sounds like it's all on the player, not the model.

[Bengt]

I guess that if the same player is boisterous when playing Ramos, "I'm going to trample you under masses of tiny feet, muhahahahaha!", and depressed when playing Kaeris it might feel like it's Kaeris fault even though it's really the player. I don't see why though, Kaeris might not be the most OP Master, but she is still totally awesome and it makes me so happy when she drops someone to their doom!

[D_acolyte]

On 7/13/2016 at 7:36 PM, Sklertic said:

What does that have to do with Kaeris though? Sounds like it's all on the player, not the model.

Nothing other then it was what they where playing. In fact if you notice my entire thing is that this is to focused on the idea the master makes a non positive experience. The master is just a tool. You will always have those that sit down and figure out how to take tools and use them in various ways. Is it the tools fault, no it is those that do so.

I do not tend to gripe or complain about models or masters often but I will to people especially to the persons face and almost never behind there backs. I am an honest, bull headed, and blunt person. I have had games where I get almost shut out and still had fun and I have had games where I shut someone out and wish never to play them again. I am also willing to say that I feel threads like this does more harm to the community then the perceived help it brings.

[Sklertic]

Same here. I do think that certain masters tend to nudge players towards that gaping chasm called despair a bit easier than others though

[LordZombie]

I wonder if the master is what makes the game fun, or the opponent. I completely hate the Viks, but I actually played a game last Monday that was fun. The first time in forever. So I feel the master alone might not be the cause of the fun, but more the opponent and the crew.

[SoylentRobot]

Not technically a master, but my friend and I have great fun with the Crossroads Seven

[Rekthaur]

Most of the time, the fun comes from the game matching your expectations on that particular game, not on the masters themselves. Fun is such a subjective thing, that trying to nail it into a list is impossible. 

[yipiyip]

I don't think any master is fun or non-fun. Neither do I think a model is fun, master or not. Some people think opponents can be fun, but I doubt even that.

I like story. I'm a fluff gamer, through and through. What I find fun is playing a game where both crews are thematically cool and fitting. I don't care if one person wins every time because they're more skilled with Ressers than I with Guild, but I will always love the idea of Lady J vs Seamus.

I don't like how Austringers look, so I don't have them, or take them even with proxies. It may have been useful to have in a game, but I'd rather like my visuals than mechanics.

Now, take everything I just said I like, and you have a list of what my brother hates. He's all about mechanics, and fluff easily bores him.

The point?

TL;DR Fun depends on BOTH players, and how they sync up, not on masters or anything else. A good gaming group beats all.

[Math Mathonwy]

On ‎7‎.‎8‎.‎2016 at 6:18 AM, yipiyip said:

TL;DR Fun depends on BOTH players, and how they sync up, not on masters or anything else. A good gaming group beats all.

I have played lots against this one dude. When he plays Viks, the games suck. When he plays Von Schill, it's always a fun game. And, here's the shocker, there's this other guy who I enjoy playing when he goes with Schill but dislike the games when facing Viks! And I have won and lost against both using both.

[yipiyip]

5 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

I have played lots against this one dude. When he plays Viks, the games suck. When he plays Von Schill, it's always a fun game. And, here's the shocker, there's this other guy who I enjoy playing when he goes with Schill but dislike the games when facing Viks! And I have won and lost against both using both.

But, there is probably someone out there who can play you, using Viks, and make you enjoy it. Other people have stated this part before on this thread, and I agree with that. I also agree with you - just because you like playing someone while they use one play style, doesn't mean you'll enjoy playing them when they use another play style.

However, in my opinion this actually just proves my point. It's not the Viks fault, as others have expressed joy in playing against them in the past. It's not your opponent's fault, as you just said you like playing them at other times. It's not your fault, certainly, for having an opinion on your own gaming experience. So where does the fault lie? No where. Not with the people OR the masters. It was simply a match-up that you, personally, did not enjoy.

As others have stated on this thread, I also think it could be toxic to imply that certain masters are no fun. Having played other games in tourneys, I can attest that sometimes you'll bring something you enjoy playing (ex. Viks) and you pull it onto the table, then your opponent (who has never played you, maybe never played your Viks list, or possibly not even played Viks) groans, because she's "heard" about players like you.

I'm not saying that this topic is poison, mind you, only that many, MANY more things need to be taken into account before categorizing what makes something fun. As stated before on this and many other threads, It depends on more than a master. Lists, terrain, and especially the skill level and general preferences of the players have IMMENSE repercussions on how much fun is had.

But then again, that's just my two scrip, and people could think I'm not fun for thinking it!

[Math Mathonwy]

17 hours ago, yipiyip said:

But, there is probably someone out there who can play you, using Viks, and make you enjoy it. Other people have stated this part before on this thread, and I agree with that. I also agree with you - just because you like playing someone while they use one play style, doesn't mean you'll enjoy playing them when they use another play style.

However, in my opinion this actually just proves my point. It's not the Viks fault, as others have expressed joy in playing against them in the past. It's not your opponent's fault, as you just said you like playing them at other times. It's not your fault, certainly, for having an opinion on your own gaming experience. So where does the fault lie? No where. Not with the people OR the masters. It was simply a match-up that you, personally, did not enjoy.

I don't understand how it can not be the Viks' fault? They lead to a certain playstyle that I find unappealing. Of course that's their fault. Unless your point is that Viks can be played in a different style which, while certainly true, is kinda neither here nor there as this sort of discussion is naturally about the "normal" or expected style as opposed to some weird off-the-wall thing like a Marcus Piglet list or whatever.

17 hours ago, yipiyip said:

As others have stated on this thread, I also think it could be toxic to imply that certain masters are no fun. Having played other games in tourneys, I can attest that sometimes you'll bring something you enjoy playing (ex. Viks) and you pull it onto the table, then your opponent (who has never played you, maybe never played your Viks list, or possibly not even played Viks) groans, because she's "heard" about players like you.

But that's a completely different point. I, nor anyone else here that I can see, is advocating forming opinions based on the predilections of others. But that doesn't invalidate that some people might find certain playstyles unappealing no matter how lovely an opponent is there employing that playstyle. And furthermore, there certainly exists a possibility (and I posit that this indeed is the case) that some Masters are more likely to induce this negative experience in players than others. I also think that it likely would be possible to devise a Master that would always result in a negative play experience - it would even be quite simple. A trivial example would be, I dunno, a Master like Perdita but with 100 AP. Would for sure be a bad experience every time. So if that is possible, it would be really weird if all the Masters happened to be on exactly equal footing when it comes to the likelyhood of a random person enjoying their playstyle.

[Rekthaur]

Because it's not the fault of the viks that you dislike the playstyle. It's nobodies fault. I dislike tofu hamburgers, but i don't pretend to think it's tofus fault (with the negative connotations it implies), i just don't like tofu. The wording is important, since you are directly or indirectly saying there is a negative trait on the vik's playstyle instead of the most neutral stance which would be that you just don't like the playstyle, because even you are saying it is subjective. 

And the second quote, the point is not different, because how people perceive masters, and how they pass that information to others is what leads to those situations. It's completely connected, and something that i had seen over and over in a myriad of games. I tend to ignore people saying that playing against X is boring because Z. It's just blocking yourself, and ussually wrong, subjective or both.

[yipiyip]

Thank you for the summary, @Rekthaur, couldn't have phrased it better.

[Math Mathonwy]

12 hours ago, Rekthaur said:

Because it's not the fault of the viks that you dislike the playstyle. It's nobodies fault. I dislike tofu hamburgers, but i don't pretend to think it's tofus fault (with the negative connotations it implies), i just don't like tofu. The wording is important, since you are directly or indirectly saying there is a negative trait on the vik's playstyle instead of the most neutral stance which would be that you just don't like the playstyle, because even you are saying it is subjective. 

It's the fault of the Viks that they result in that particulat playstyle. That is happens to be a playstyle that I dislike is naturally no one's fault. And of course the word "fault" here is used in a somewhat silly way as I wasn't aware that this is such a serious topic. But if your main point of contention here is about semantics, fair enough, I guess. Mea culpa and all that.

My main point wasn't semantics but rather that Master definitely has an important role in whether I end up enjoying a game or not. This is a fact. Now, it can also be that a Master doesn't have any effect in whether you (Rekthaur) end up enjoying a game or not. Not making that claim. But, and here we come to the actual gist of this conversation as far as I'm concerned, I posit that for many (maybe most!) people a Master has an effect and, furthermore, that some Masters are more likely to have a negative effect while others are more likely to have a positive effect. This is something that can be discussed as it is not an obvious fact.

Quote

And the second quote, the point is not different, because how people perceive masters, and how they pass that information to others is what leads to those situations. It's completely connected, and something that i had seen over and over in a myriad of games.

If someone groans at Viks because "Math Mathonwy on the Internet doesn't like their playstyle" then I must say that I don't feel bad. Sorry. Might make me a horrible person.  

Quote

I tend to ignore people saying that playing against X is boring because Z. It's just blocking yourself, and ussually wrong, subjective or both.

You do realize that "subjective and wrong" implies that it's possible to have a wrong taste? That I am wrong in disliking games that I don't like. Good to know!  

[Rekthaur]

Oh cmon. The only fact is that it is purely subjective. You are still ignoring it after the chain of posts politely telling you. And as subjective, your opinion, is an opinion, not a fact. And the traits that you might project into a master, are your own  opinion, and it will have its own set of flaws and biases.

For example the last point. Yes, it's perfectly possible. I am sure you can find examples where it is possible to have wrong taste by yourself where i don't need to spell it out (thanks for the wink tho). And being wrong about disliking games that you don't like is not what i said, because if instead you unite both paragraphs you will have the context to understand that i am speaking about how the way information about masters (armys, decks, weapons, etc, etc)  tends to be distributed between gaming groups/contexts, which then tends to block YOU if you listen to that kind of people, and that's why i find this kind of threads completely pointless and damaging, since you will find yourself what you enjoy and what you don't enjoy better, withouth the need to be spoonfed feedback which is not inherently factual, it will just bias you towards those masters, and it is very likely that your own personal taste and experience will differ. Which also answers your second quote obviously. It doesn't make you a bad person, just a person who is currently doing a poor contribution which might missled or turn into bias for people with less experience which might read it. It's obviously not a crime, but i am completely free to criticize it for what it is.

[Math Mathonwy]

5 hours ago, Rekthaur said:

Oh cmon. The only fact is that it is purely subjective. You are still ignoring it after the chain of posts politely telling you. And as subjective, your opinion, is an opinion, not a fact. And the traits that you might project into a master, are your own  opinion, and it will have its own set of flaws and biases.

It is a fact that I dislike Viks' playstyle. I don't understand how you can claim otherwise. Unless you purport to know what I'm thinking and accuse me of lying (which would, you know, be nuts).

Ergo, there's at least one person on this earth who likes certain playstyles while disliking others. You are free to claim that I am an absolutely unique snowflake in this sense but it seems rather dubious to say the least  

5 hours ago, Rekthaur said:

For example the last point. Yes, it's perfectly possible. I am sure you can find examples where it is possible to have wrong taste by yourself where i don't need to spell it out (thanks for the wink tho). And being wrong about disliking games that you don't like is not what i said, because if instead you unite both paragraphs you will have the context to understand that i am speaking about how the way information about masters (armys, decks, weapons, etc, etc)  tends to be distributed between gaming groups/contexts, which then tends to block YOU if you listen to that kind of people, and that's why i find this kind of threads completely pointless and damaging, since you will find yourself what you enjoy and what you don't enjoy better, withouth the need to be spoonfed feedback which is not inherently factual, it will just bias you towards those masters, and it is very likely that your own personal taste and experience will differ. Which also answers your second quote obviously. It doesn't make you a bad person, just a person who is currently doing a poor contribution which might missled or turn into bias for people with less experience which might read it. It's obviously not a crime, but i am completely free to criticize it for what it is.

Fun that you took this as the most important thing to reply to and ignored my main point  

But you do understand that by your logic all reviews and criticisms are bad, right? For example, one should never read (or, God forbid, post) a review of a movie or an album or a book or whatever since it taints one's expectations. And discussing things that one dislikes is absolutely verboten since it might lead others to dislike the thing as well. Surely you understand how crazy that sounds?

Also, I would really be interested in you spelling out examples of wrong taste. I mean, unless you mean something actively harmful like arson or meth or whatever, I'm really having a difficult time coming up with a wrong taste. Well, obviously liking Justin Bieber is wrong but other than that  

[solkan]

While I'm sure if you're Math Mathonwy, the data point "Which masters does Math Mathonwy enjoy playing against?" is an incredibly important data point, but it's somewhat less important for everyone else.  And we're sort of having problems establishing whether that opinion should be important to anyone else.

You've clearly and emphatically established that to the degree that a person is equivalent in consideration to Math Mathonwy, that person should dislike playing against the Victorias.  What you haven't established, and where it's getting really distracting and counter productive, is establishing whether Math Mathonwy's opinion is an aberration is whether there exist players who share Math Mathonwy's opinion concerning the Viktorias.

So, in order to determine how likely that opinion is or should be shared by other players, it would useful if Math Mathonwy could explain what makes the Viktorias not fun.  And your basis for that opinion so far seems to be "They result in a certain playstyle that I don't like when used by one player, and don't result in a play style that I don't like when used by another player."

 

[Kadeton]

This conversation is getting bogged down in semantics, to the point of derailing the thread and upsetting participants. Can we take it as read that some players will find some Masters more or less enjoyable to play against based on a host of factors, including but not limited to play style, opponents' behaviour, personal history, the phase of the moon, etc, and that there isn't any factor which can be considered the universal root cause of that reaction? Also that if people disagree with your opinion, it doesn't mean they're wrong, they just have a different opinion.

If you especially enjoy (or don't enjoy) playing against a certain Master, talk about the experiences you've had that helped form that opinion!

Personally, I've always enjoyed playing as and against Mei Feng, because she really levels out the pace of the game. There are very few big spikes of damage in either direction, plenty of opportunities for recovery, and Mei herself ignores the main anti-fun Conditions. Plus she's got a great tactical-positioning game, and it's fun to watch her bounce around like a pinball.

[Math Mathonwy]

48 minutes ago, solkan said:

While I'm sure if you're Math Mathonwy, the data point "Which masters does Math Mathonwy enjoy playing against?" is an incredibly important data point, but it's somewhat less important for everyone else.  And we're sort of having problems establishing whether that opinion should be important to anyone else.

It should be just as important as anyone else's. Similar to random poster saying that they like Titania's boxed set, for example.

But to be fair, others here were disputing the idea that a Master might have an effect on whether someone likes or doesn't like a given gaming experience which was the claim I was objecting to using myself as a trivial example.

48 minutes ago, solkan said:

You've clearly and emphatically established that to the degree that a person is equivalent in consideration to Math Mathonwy, that person should dislike playing against the Victorias.

I do not understand that sentence. It doesn't seem to make sense.

48 minutes ago, solkan said:

  What you haven't established, and where it's getting really distracting and counter productive, is establishing whether Math Mathonwy's opinion is an aberration is whether there exist players who share Math Mathonwy's opinion concerning the Viktorias.

It's true that I haven't established that. I find it somewhat unlikely that I am unique with this opinion (in fact, I know at least one other person who really dislikes playing against Viks) but I suppose you can argue that if you want. Do you, Solkan?

48 minutes ago, solkan said:

So, in order to determine how likely that opinion is or should be shared by other players, it would useful if Math Mathonwy could explain what makes the Viktorias not fun.  And your basis for that opinion so far seems to be "They result in a certain playstyle that I don't like when used by one player, and don't result in a play style that I don't like when used by another player."

I suggest you read again what I said because that is not at all what I wrote. I said that there's two people who I enjoy playing most of the time with them playing Viks forming a notable exception.

I dislike the fact that Viks games are often decided on the second or third turn. You can go to the battle reports forum and see this in action. Against most other Masters games are decided on turn three to five. I also dislike how easy the slingshot is to execute and how difficult it is to counter.

[Ampers&nd]

the mei Feng comment resonates with me, I find masters/crews fun where they do 'level out the pace of the game' as was said, a phrase I'd never considered before but definitely matches my experience.

I love playing ironsides as she has no real 'gotchas' that I'd feel bad hitting someone with, at the same time her toolbox allows her a good shot vs most opponents.

 

the opponents I prefer fighting are similar, justice, mah, Lilith, Schill, Seamus, Shen long. They all have a lot of utility but aren't going to end my game early, or prevent me having fun. This doesn't mean I never had fun vs other masters, but often I find myself using these as demo crews rather than crews with one shtick like Ramos or the viks.