Balancing issues in Malifaux - a general discussion

[Tris]

Hello fellow Malifaux players,

I want to get the discussion started about the seemingly increasing number of people concerned with this games balance.

 

First of all, I find it very difficult to get the right words here, so to make it clear, all stated below is just my personal opinion, I don`t want to offend anyoneand if something is not clear, feel free to just ask - and let`s keep this the most excellent and awesome forum ever by being kind to each other

It`s also important that, as I said, I want a discussion, so please just type what`s on your mind

 

So, to get the whole thing started:

To me, it seems that for some people the recent erratas started sort of a "cuddle everything I struggle playing against" attitude, and I don`t think that`s for the best of the game.

People are shouting for erratas instead of trying to actually win a game, or even without reading through the models stat cards properly...
(there are many threads where someone states he`s struggling against this and that, and then I keep on reading and it`s just wrong play on both sides which could`ve been avoided by reading the stat cards thoroughly)
There`s also the old tale of struggling with the terrain, where certain crews naturally seem stronger than "normal", but that´s a problem as old as miniatures gaming itself^^

And sometimes, there actually might occur situations where you can`t do something against certain models, but that just means that you have to try your best and play around it, and everyone loses, but players should try to get better by practicing and playing, and not by building themselves a ruleset that just seems more comfortable.
(and what happens when eventually everything got cuddled, will there still interesting games to be had?)

That`s it for now, that`s my personal opinion, what about your`s?
I´m curious

[Fetid Strumpet]

I think the problem is that outside of games data, which we in the public only have limited access to, balance is very subjective. I posted a thread awhile ago asking essentially if we can get a feeling for what is OP and UP when isn't there any consensus on what is just P. Here's a link:

Another thread started asking for Night Terrors to get Cuddled. The issue is that whenever people claim something is OP they are usually, but not always, looking at the micro balance and not macro balance. And the Macro Balance is more important in my opinion. We are never going to get perfect balance, especially if we can't even as a consensus agree on what is just powered instead of over or under. Every faction has imbalance in it's ranks, the question is always does Faction A's imbalances and Faction B's imbalances sort of equalize out so that they have similar win rates when played by similarly skilled players? If you are trying to micro balance you are going to be doomed to futility because there is no set standard for what every faction's 4 ss, 5ss, 6ss, 7ss, 8ss and so ons models should be. And let's not forget that we all also generally look for synergy to make those costs better than what we pay, so if you are trying to micro balance you need to take into account the maximum effectiveness a model can be used at and cost it as such. Here is a post I made in that thread asking for Night Terrors to be Cuddled:

Quote

In my personal opinion, the question for when an errata is required isn't: "Is this model too good for it's cost". If that is your criterion a large number of models in the game are going to require redoing, and once that is done it will reset the what the common wisdom of what a particular SS cost is worth, which will start the whole thing over again. We all take it as accepted that you cannot perfectly balance a game, that no matter how hard you try some options are just going to be better either through the rules of the game (Notice how the worth of particular models changes when the schemes and starts are changed) or through model to model interactions (Is Nekima as good in a faction that does't have access to the doppleganger, who can not only copy her ridiculous weapon, but also helps remove once of Nekima's only weaknesses?).

Balance in games is a spectrum. It is not a 5 SS is always worth 5 SS to everyone and everything. It is not possible to balance that finely unless you give everyone exactly the same options, which Malifaux doesn't do. The question is, when you look at the aggregate data, are all the masters and factions relatively competitive against each other. If a master/faction/playstyle of such is regularly winning against similarly experienced players then you might have an issue, but even then determining what the issue actually is is somewhat tricky. At the moment, at least according to the best publicly available data (and to be clear I'm not arguing this point, only pointing out that it is the best data we have at the moment), there is a bigger potential issue with both Outcasts and NB than other factions at the moment. 

There are a lot of models in the game that are too good for their cost, and remember cost is relative. If I can give a Canine remains 1 extra AP once a game, is that worth 1 SS? Is giving that extra AP to Izamu once per game worth exactly the same as it is to the Canine Remains? obviously no, and yet Oath Keeper and Imbued Energies both are costed at 1 SS, even though they are more valuable on certain models than others (Yes I'm aware you can't give the upgrade to a canine Remains, but there is still a vast array of difference of effectiveness in the models you can give the upgrade to). If the static balance argument were accurate then those upgrades should only ever have the same effectiveness no matter who it is on, or it should have a sliding cost, costing more or less depending on the exact model that is carrying it.

We all have our own prejudices and experiences based on how we play and who we play. For my money I think Jakob AND the Hungering Darkness, Nekima, Kirai, TT Brothers, Illuminated, and many others are vastly too good for their cost, or are not fairly balanced by other masters. The question isn't how do we change them to bring them back into what we personally perceive as in line, the question is, are the factions and masters that are potentially too good winning too often because of such, and if so is it better for the game to adjust such, or are they balancing out at the intended SS level of the game when the opposing player themselves bring their crew with models that are too good for the cost? 

My personal inclination in answer to the OP's point, is that it is somewhat irrelevant if the Night Terrors are too good for their cost if that imbalance isn't actually translating into repeated and unfair Resser wins. If a player brings Night Terrors to the game, and an Arcanist player brings the Mechanical Rider to a game, or the Myranda Cat Bomb + 4 cards trick, and it's a close game, does anything need to be changed? Conversely if they ARE translating into unfair resser wins, a further question needs to be asked, is it the model's fault, or a particular interaction with that model, and what hard evidence are you bringing to the table to back up your assertion? That's one of the reasons why I felt a good analysis of balance, regardless of whether you argued or agreed with the author's ultimate point, was the Adepticon thread that started discussion on the Ratjoy topic. It was very well written and reasoned, had a good if not conclusive bit of hard evidence to back it up, as well as an analysis of the repercussions of changing the model, not in a vacuum, but how it applies to various masters and crews that had the option to take the Malifaux Rat.

Please don't take that as an attack, or an appeal that nothing should ever change, as I am a very firm believer in errata, and always have been. I just feel it should only be used when it NEEDS to be, not every single time someone identifies a model they think is unfairly costed. At the moment I don't see the need to change Night Terrors, as I've never gotten great use out of them myself, or even had the slightest issue in dealing with them when an opponent used them. That isn't to say I'm right, or that the OP is wrong, just that we have a difference of opinion.

 

To me is is of greater concern is a particular master is under or over the curve, because it is usually the masters that spark peoples imaginations and are the greatest draw to the game. If someone gets into the game LOVING the idea of Lucius, and then is disappointed because Lucius himself is behind the curve of other masters, that is going to be a big negative strike against continuing playing the game. The game tracking systems we do have, from my perspective show a pretty well balanced game on the macro level, though there, at least in the UK seems to be a slightly higher percentage of NB and Outcast wins, they don't seem that far out of line. The issue is that a stated goal of M2E was to make the game balanced master to master, and we currently don't have a method of tracking that, as which masters used for which round of a game currently isn't tracked. A fact for which I wish there was some method of doing so so we could get a better sense of which masters are being used all the time, and which aren't. 

[koronuslight]

The latest wave of masters and models is unbalanced. Df/Wp 6 is the new Df/Wp 5. No, I don't have to justify anything I claim, as they are my opinions. 

[LunarSol]

2 hours ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

To me is is of greater concern is a particular master is under or over the curve, because it is usually the masters that spark peoples imaginations and are the greatest draw to the game.

Balance is a pretty relative concept.  Personally, to me the important measure is that every faction is viable at a competitive level.  If ever one drops off the radar completely, there's a real problem.  After that, the Avatar concept generally comes next (Master, Caster, Captain, Commander, whatever) and that's the point where you're really probably playing the game of expanding to try and get the maximum competitive variety.

It's kind of a half full/half empty kind of debate.  Do you focus on building the largest collection of competitively viable options possible or do you ensure every option is viable?  Is a game with 3 perfectly balanced options better than one with 15 but only a third of which are viable?  Certainly the former has fewer unbalanced options, but it also has less competitive variety.  The drawback of course, is that the more non-viable options you have, the more likely you're going to draw in players who find their allure disappointing.

In terms of buff and cuddles, to me it really depends on the state of the meta.  If you have an option that actually homogenizes the game at large, its probably in need of a cuddle.  Otherwise, I consider a game pretty healthy when each faction is viable and roughly a quarter of the options total make up the viable meta.  At that point its probably better to look to improve the underperforming options than cuddle the top performers, as you've got a fairly large and stable environment to work with.

One of the traps I've personally fallen into is the idea the that the majority of the game would be playable if it wasn't for the top 10% or so.  In reality, these options just get lumped into a "not viable" category, but if the top is shaved off and that category is put under greater scrutiny, you'll quickly find the best among them.  When you take the top off, generally you create a new unknown that has to settle again before you have a good idea of what the new standard has become.

Instead, a healthy, varied meta is easier to design into than one in flux.  It's easier to take Lucius and say; "ok, what do we need to do to make him playable into Levi/Sonnia/Colette/Som'er/Kirai/Lynch/Dreamer?"  I think that's why people are generally quite happy with the new masters and why they're perceived as "above average".  The average that exists on the table is higher than the theoretical one that exists across the entire game when you include models that simply do not see play.

[tmod]

3 hours ago, koronuslight said:

The latest wave of masters and models is unbalanced. Df/Wp 6 is the new Df/Wp 5. No, I don't have to justify anything I claim, as they are my opinions. 

 No, they are not...

[lusciousmccabe]

4 hours ago, Tris said:

To me, it seems that for some people the recent erratas started sort of a "cuddle everything I struggle playing against" attitude, and I don`t think that`s for the best of the game.

People are shouting for erratas instead of trying to actually win a game, or even without reading through the models stat cards properly...

I haven't experienced a huge amount of this, or any I would describe like you have to be honest. I can see why people might look at the Levi/Rat change and expect more, but I think they'll likely be disappointed. Leveticus was complained about constantly for years and was eventually, reluctantly changed in light of apparent proof that he was indeed a bit too much. The rat combo seemed more like a snap-decision but that's likely because it was tied in with the tournament results that informed the Levi decision and (in my opinion) the game had very little to lose by locking it off as a potential exploit.

There did seem to be something of a "what's next on the chopping board" mentality right after the update, but unless Wyrd drastically change their stance on errata that should peter out from lack of attention, or at least return to a baseline level of online grumbling. 

[Fetid Strumpet]

The bigger question in regards to how errata is going to be carried out in the future  is how is Aaron going to handle things. Justin said the ultimate decider was himself, and since Justin is no longer working at Wyrd, I assume it will fall to Aaron's discretion. I wonder if that's why so many of these threads are popping up now? New management is coming in and people are seeing if he is more amenable to changing things consistently, or if he had been disagreeing with Justin behind the scenes about balance of certain models, and now can adjust things more to his liking, and people are seeing if they can influence that?

To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying or suggesting any of that is true, just that I wonder if that *might* be what is driving some of these discussions at the moment.

[lusciousmccabe]

10 minutes ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

The bigger question in regards to how errata is going to be carried out in the future  is how is Aaron going to handle things. Justin said the ultimate decider was himself, and since Justin is no longer working at Wyrd, I assume it will fall to Aaron's discretion. I wonder if that's why so many of these threads are popping up now? New management is coming in and people are seeing if he is more amenable to changing things consistently, or if he had been disagreeing with Justin behind the scenes about balance of certain models, and now can adjust things more to his liking, and people are seeing if they can influence that?

To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying or suggesting any of that is true, just that I wonder if that *might* be what is driving some of these discussions at the moment.

I'd be surprised if people had thought into it that much. 

[Tris]

24 minutes ago, lusciousmccabe said:

I haven't experienced a huge amount of this, or any I would describe like you have to be honest. I can see why people might look at the Levi/Rat change and expect more, but I think they'll likely be disappointed. Leveticus was complained about constantly for years and was eventually, reluctantly changed in light of apparent proof that he was indeed a bit too much. The rat combo seemed more like a snap-decision but that's likely because it was tied in with the tournament results that informed the Levi decision and (in my opinion) the game had very little to lose by locking it off as a potential exploit.

There did seem to be something of a "what's next on the chopping board" mentality right after the update, but unless Wyrd drastically change their stance on errata that should peter out from lack of attention, or at least return to a baseline level of online grumbling. 

It´s a good thing if you didn`t experienced this, so maybe it`s me^^

But the most recent threads I can think of are the "Night Terrors, in need of a cuddle" one @ the ressurs place, someone stated that Sonnias/Raspis Pillars need to get nerved, around May there was this one thread @ the outcasts forum stating that the whole faction is op, and of course there are all the threads about the infamous "Belle Bomb" .... so, at least I´m under the impression that it`s getting more and more

(but fortunately, the Malifaux community is still a good one, if not the best I´ve experienced so far, so it´s no big thing yet)

[Ludvig]

I'd be inclined to think it's about the new wave putting things into a new perspective or a big influx of new players rather than some sneaky attempt to test Aaron.

[Bengt]

46 minutes ago, lusciousmccabe said:

There did seem to be something of a "what's next on the chopping board" mentality right after the update, but unless Wyrd drastically change their stance on errata that should peter out from lack of attention, or at least return to a baseline level of online grumbling. 

What makes our lives interesting is that the Levi and Rat changes was in the currently most recent update (July) so we can't tell if it's the beginning of something or not.  

[lusciousmccabe]

10 minutes ago, Bengt said:

What makes our lives interesting is that the Levi and Rat changes was in the currently most recent update (July) so we can't tell if it's the beginning of something or not.  

What are you talking about? Extrapolating from a single datapoint is what internet forums are all about!

I project that Levi will have been errata'd not less than 9 times by the years end!

[Rob Lo]

42 minutes ago, lusciousmccabe said:

I'd be surprised if people had thought into it that much. 

Many people thought that the Levi change was a signal that perhaps change could happen more often going forward, such as all the talk to fix Lucius. Of course that lasted the day or two until Justin came out and basically said "don't expect more". Certainly my local group talked about changes then, and again on Justin's news of departure. Personally I'd think it more odd if at least some things weren't done differently, now that they're being done by a different person. Unless Justin and Aaron are just Changeling clones, I suppose.

 

As to the bigger balance question, I think a side note that has to be considered in any similar discussion is what rules clarifications could be made. If they decide to tackle Elevation, for example, in a 2.5 or even 2.1 kind of document, that alone is going to shift whatever balance we're discussing. Further clarifying and codifying trigger and event timing could be huge for specific models while not affecting others at all.

 

Beyond that, I always take cries of imbalance with a grain of salt, especially from any particular US meta. In any one club, master X might be considered the best of the best, and simply because of a lack of ability to inter-mingle, the guys in the next city over look at that same master and laugh. But if one of those guys gets on the forum and cries foul, and gets support from two other people in two other places, and they do it in a reasonably well spoken manner and are decently well known names on the forums, well then internet wisdom will pick up that idea and run it to death. That's just the way the internet works.

Given the fluff in the new book, I'm fully expecting new versions of at least some masters/models in our future. Whether that takes the new limited/restricted upgrade route ("Path of the Beyond" Yan Lo Oni limited upgrade), whole new cards ("Lucius Unmasked", "Mecha-Schill"), or some other mechanic is anyone's guess. If it were me, my guide would be 'perception is reality, different is good'. Collectively we've been saying Lucius is low tier since we saw him. Doesn't mean it's factual, but it means that for everyone except a few die-hard rebels, it might as well be true, so he gets a new card, new abilities. Collectively we're tired of seeing Papa Box, or Doppelganger/Primordial Magic, so depending on how they would make changes, perhaps a new Sonnia card/upgrade that is good, useful, and has no need or use for Papa, or NB upgrade that makes taking Primordial much less attractive by making unique totems more attractive, or just simply maybe their cards get changed and old cards invalidated. And all of this without even having played with or against any of the book 4 models, which will certainly change the perception of things. It's a constantly moving target that frankly, I think Wyrd gets closer to the bullseye more often than most.

[LunarSol]

The more recent threads are very much a "blood in the water"/"the squeaky wheel got the grease" sort of reaction.  You see it any time there's a major errata in any game I've played.

[Tris]

Thank you all for your participation, I´m glad that there are some great comments already

 

So, you think the latest wave of cries for cuddles will fade?

 

Therefore, business as usual, just try to explain in every thread how to beat model x, and why model y isn`t as strong as they think it is?

Because, to be honest, that`s the point I´m struggling - I would really like to offer my help, but sometimes it seems that players just don`t read their cards, or are playing on a completely open field, without any los blockers (and I can`t just look at the tables they use), and the urge to say "just play more games" is so strong, but I fear it might sound like a standard "l2p, noob", and I don`t want that....

 

So, it seems like that`s a big thank you to all the guys here helping everyone out and being kind while doing it

 

 

Personally, I really liked the way GG2016 changed the meta without any further erratas, new models or whatever, that was one fine trick Wyrd did there, way more flexible and easier to distribute than actual card changes^^

[lusciousmccabe]

 

Many people thought that the Levi change was a signal that perhaps change could happen more often going forward, such as all the talk to fix Lucius.

If I recall correctly that actually started (and for the most part ended) before the errata came out.

 

[Omenbringer]

Calls of imbalance have been around a lot longer than the recent Levi Errata.

Though you could argue the "Blood in the Water" defense, I think that it is because you are seeing more and more unfluffy "net lists" posting consistent event results from only a handful of models. When you have this many models to choose from, and more and more that entirely replace previous models (do the same things better, cheaper, and/ or more efficiently), it is somewhat inevitable.

Additionally, several models from the first book have had calls for re-balancing since almost near the start; Rotten Belles and Guild Austringers being the most repeated.

While I agree some of it is tied to either using the models incorrectly, misunderstandings of the rules, or utilization of less than the recommended amounts of terrain (the higher value from the 2-player Starter), not all of it is. There are plenty of valid "balance complaints" about models and interactions which are not due to these factors.

[LunarSol]

I'll post something more useful shortly, but I'd just like to mention how much joy the tags for this thread have brought me.

Competitive Cuddle Tournament Discussion 

[Wolfpact]

In many games I dislike cuddles to much of anything, because of the exact sort of thing discussed - one happens and then every person with a pet grievance thinks now it's their time to shine and have their hated archenemy model/power/class/etc. punished for offending them.

 

I'm way too new to state any real crunchy thoughts on the game's balance, but seeing a company take a slow, measured approach to balance and only cuddle when things make it seem an absolute necessity is one more of the reasons I've become so fond of this game and company.

[Math Mathonwy]

Since I'm responsible for about half of this recent unrelenting avalanche of threads calling for the weakening of models (having posted one such thread) I would like to note that I have considered Rasputina's and Sonnia's pillars problematic for a very long time now. I dislike that I have to consider those two Masters every time I lay out a table. If you use little terrain (or are inept at using the Pillars) they of course aren't a problem. And seeing that all three expansion books have included similar abilities but with the crucial difference that they end at the end of the round it very much looks to me that the design philosophy has changed from the first book regarding these sorts of abilities. So no, it wasn't because I sensed weakness in the upper echelons of Wyrd design team now with Justin gone and Aaron taking the helm.

But let's all hope that this veritable monsoon of cries for weakening will soon abate  

[Ludvig]

I can see the point of Math AKA "Half of this everything". When the game changes designs like blocking terrain created by models never being allowed to stick around through turns because it's extremely unenjoyable to face it isn't that weird to feel that the old models that have such horrible rules worthy to warrant a design change in all future models could need a bit of toning down to make similar abilities work in a unified way.

It's like how both the Loco-box and the Frank-box came out of wave 1 and were percieved to be an exploit so most future models have been designed in a way that disallows similar exploits. There is of course a slight problem when the following betas to balance later releases were actually relying on some of the former "exploits" to balance the new ones so if you changed those up you would likely be lowering the competativeness of certain crews and combos that were percieved to be in a good place which opens up a huge can of worms all over everything.

A game where everything is in constant flux is not that fun to play so it would seem wise to be conservative about errata. It's also largely impossible to determine what is completely OP since different play group have different hated models that they feel can't be countered. You'd have to go on some sort of percieved unenjoyable-ness.

I hate belles but think austringers are ok. Sure I mainly play guild but I have come up against double austringers numerous times without them being that much of a problem or influencing my game plan since most models can do their thing and shrug off the damage from austringers. Trying to score a positioning scheme against a couple of belles however... Because of that, my subjective opinion is that belles mess with your game plan a lot more than austringers while also being cheaper and more durable and therefore are in a bigger need of a cuddle. At the same time my regular resser opponent slaps me around something silly without a single bell quite frequently so it can't be just the models themselves that make me hate them but rather how a good player completely out-foxed me with them in a certain amount of games. It's going to be hard to find a concensus about most stuff, even the rat engine was said to not be a problem by some players.

[Math Mathonwy]

Well said, Ludvig.

As an aside, my main problem with Austringers is that they can one-shot Slop Haulers!  

But I do agree that there are lots of models that "OP". Francois, Roosters, Belles, Nurses, Austringers, and so on (including, apparently, every damn thing from book 4, weirdly enough ). But I'm not hoping for their weakening (I wouldn't be vehemently opposed to it but I'm not calling out for it) and balancing them might imbalance their factions. Ressers have been balanced around Belles and Nurses in that all their betas have included them and they are an important part of the faction.

But I don't think that Wyrd is weakening models based on their individual power. They are more weakening them due to them breaking stuff. Metal Gamin were weakened due to Mech Rider summoning them but now we got a Gamin summoning Master who would've probably looked very different had the Metal Gamin been as they were (see Lucius and his Austringer restrictions). Similarly the Rat Engine was doing something that it really shouldn't have and altering the game in a weird way.

And I argue that the pillars are similarly problematic in that they profoundly affect the way you can set up tables. Because you have to account for the situation where one player gets to choose their deployment zone and takes double pillars and what it means to the other player from their deployment zone considering the Schemes and Strats available.

[Ludvig]

Yup, if someone says setting up first sucks or argues you on your assessment of Sonnia you should build a "Pillar's paradise board" and volunteer to pick deployment zones first. I've seen boards where turf war would have been more or less impossible to score against Sonnia  

[Omenbringer]

 

A game where everything is in constant flux is not that fun to play so it would seem wise to be conservative about errata. It's also largely impossible to determine what is completely OP since different play group have different hated models that they feel can't be countered. You'd have to go on some sort of percieved unenjoyable-ness.

While I agree with a lot of this, particularly in regards to constant flux (one of the things that turned me off to Dark Age), un-enjoyable-ness is a big consideration.

Take for example 1st edition Hamelin, was he beatable? Sure he was, even for Gremlin's it was possible; however, it required near perfect play on the part of one player while the other had to just show up. Another example from another system was the old Warmachine Haley Turtle, which was definitely beatable but a completely un-enjoyable game to play (ever watch two turtels mate?).

For the health of the game these things can not be allowed to exist if you expect it to survive. Everyone wants to feel like they have a decent chance of winning and that they are in control of their fate. Take these away and the game begins to die.

In regards to the Guild Austringers, have you noticed that newer models that can ignore LOS don't seem to be ignoring Cover anymore? they are an issue because they have a High acting Value, combined with a long range, ignore LOS and the one reliable defense against Ranged Attacks. This definitely influenced Lucius design, just like the Pigapult influenced the Stuffed Piglets.

While I don't think anyone is calling for a witch hunt, many of the models that are being called for re-balancing have been issues for a very long time. In regards to the Rotten Belles even Wyrd employees have stated that their are issues. Consensus is the key, if many communities are experiencing the same issues and collectively the communities can't posit a reliable/ reasonable counter or reason to field the model, then it should be seriously looked at for re-balancing.

[Twg]

I find some of the so called cuddles strange. I didn't think either Iggy for Neverborn or The Slate Ridge Mauler for the Arcanists were that bad they needed a helping hand. Also sometimes by fixing a model you make it too good, which in my opinion, the mauler has gone from par to very good and I now see them a lot. The extra movement (including the push ability) and melee really makes it a good choice in the 8ss slot (Ml7 on the hug is nasty).  

As for balance. I think it becomes increasingly difficult to keep everything balanced as you introduce more and more meodels amd masters. Overall, I think Wyrd have done a decent job with a few slips (Lucius)

On a side note I'm not a big fan of the (0) upgrades. It just makes the table untidt and very difficult to keep a track of. I would prefer a new print card in the packs (and online)....they did it for Barbaros, albeit for base size.