Jump to content
Kyle

M3E OPEN BETA!

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Franchute said:

how do you simulate movement tricks or sinergies from other models? Those things are not easy to get ex ante without playing a proper game. Am I wrong?

It's not that difficult. Most of the synergies are just stat changes or positive flips or something, and it's very easy to simulate those. Simulating the movement of models is not awfully useful, but it could definitely be done. The reason it isn't, is that you would just find out that a faster model is better (who would have guessed).

16 minutes ago, trikk said:

AFAIR M2E has around 420 models. Testing them in isolation and in combination with other faction models (and considering huge hiring pools in M2E with other factions) is mathematically impossible without modeling/simulation, especially if you add in upgrades, schemes, etc.

Assuming the models are about equally divided into 7 factions, that's about 500 000 000 000 crew combinations, give or take a power of 10. Would take about 60 million years of malifaux testing to test each of them only once.

  • Thanks 2
  • Agree 1
  • Respectfully Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

It's not that difficult. Most of the synergies are just stat changes or positive flips or something, and it's very easy to simulate those. Simulating the movement of models is not awfully useful, but it could definitely be done. The reason it isn't, is that you would just find out that a faster model is better (who would have guessed).

my point is that these things mostly depend on context. How you position your models, how you interact with terrain, how effective your auras and other triggers are depending on the former: these things cannot be assessed with ten thousand draws in fortran or whichever software you're using.

I'll always remember you were the first to look at terrain before deciding to include Nino in your crew. I'm sure you didnt run one thousand draws to take that decision.

That being said, I agree that for basic combat mechanics, simulations can surely be used. And they definitely should be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Franchute said:

I'll always remember you were the first to look at terrain before deciding to include Nino in your crew. I'm sure you didnt run one thousand draws to take that decision.

OTOH you don`t have to play 10 games to realize that a model with Spotter and long range will be good on a specific table ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Franchute said:

my point is that these things mostly depend on context. How you position your models, how you interact with terrain, how effective your auras and other triggers are depending on the former: these things cannot be assessed with ten thousand draws in fortran or whichever software you're using.

I'll always remember you were the first to look at terrain before deciding to include Nino in your crew. I'm sure you didnt run one thousand draws to take that decision.

That being said, I agree that for basic combat mechanics, simulations can surely be used. And they definitely should be used.

It's very easy to estimate or simulate Nino's combat usefulness on different tables. If the terrain is open enough, Nino will be attacking something every turn until killed, and if it isn't, he will be doing nothing.

Humans have a built in ability to simulate events they haven't experienced. It's called imagination. You don't have to make and taste liver ice cream to figure out, it's probably not a good idea. Not all simulation needs to be done with computers, and the imagination of an experienced gamer gives probably more accurate estimates about model's usefulness than a playtest by a complete beginner.

  • Thanks 3
  • Agree 1
  • Respectfully Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, trikk said:

No opinion is entirely and 100% accurate, but I can tell you there are situations where you don`t need a batrep to test it out. You usually need a baseline (which is a lot harder in a new edition compared to a new book)

I'll agree on the poorly explained, but I have seen many people class models always hire or never hire and be wrong in practise . Maybe because they missed an interaction with another model, or didn't correctly judge the value of an action, or allow for the game requirements for its power.  You can look at the debates over Fingers where some players think he is amazing and others think he is a total waste of points and should never be hired. And both those opinions are drawn from use as well as theory.  (Bizarrely though both sides could actually be right for their style of play in that case).

 

1 hour ago, Myyrä said:

Theorycrafting, or as it is called in real world, modeling and simulation let's us test the rules in a much more time efficient way. It's not just a yelling competition without any foundation in reality. Many theorycrafters use actual mathematics as foundation for their theories. Miniature wargames are also extremely easy to simulate because the rules and interactions are very transparent and the underlying probabilities readily available. It's much easier than modeling real warfare, and even that is being done quite successfully.

While one should be careful about drawing definite conclusions based on theoretical analysis alone, it is an extremely powerful tool for finding the potentially under or overperforming models that deserve more playtesting attention.

I doubt most malifaux theorycraft is based on modeling and simulation. I know a lot of mine isn't always backed up with that much detail and is more reliant on extrapolation, and certainly reading others makes me feel I put more effort into mine that a lot others do.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Adran said:

I'll agree on the poorly explained, but I have seen many people class models always hire or never hire and be wrong in practise . Maybe because they missed an interaction with another model, or didn't correctly judge the value of an action, or allow for the game requirements for its power.  You can look at the debates over Fingers where some players think he is amazing and others think he is a total waste of points and should never be hired. And both those opinions are drawn from use as well as theory.  (Bizarrely though both sides could actually be right for their style of play in that case).

I agree. But it all is a byproduct of your game experience and skill of you and your opponent. And battle reports often don`t change that because your use of the model is limited by a players understanding of the game/synergies/objectives/enemy crew. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Adran said:

I doubt most malifaux theorycraft is based on modeling and simulation. I know a lot of mine isn't always backed up with that much detail and is more reliant on extrapolation, and certainly reading others makes me feel I put more effort into mine that a lot others do.

Both theorycrafting and testing can be done with very different levels of expertise and effort. I have also seen numerous game reports that got some important rules wrong, didn't include key synergies for models and used models very inefficiently.

Not all theoretical analysis needs to be based on mathematics, but mine often is, at least partially.

  • Agree 2
  • Respectfully Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pretty much agree with @Adran. It happened to me that I thought that model x was crap and then after playing it some games there were intetactions I hadnt anticipate that made me think the model wasnt as bad as I thought. It's even worse than that: I was still convinced it was crap after playing it and it's only after reading again my reports that my opinion changed.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theoryfaux is pretty useful once you try the system a lot. At that point you are more capable of predicting interactions based on a long history of similar interactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Myyrä said:

Assuming the models are about equally divided into 7 factions, that's about 500 000 000 000 crew combinations, give or take a power of 10. Would take about 60 million years of malifaux testing to test each of them only once.

I hope M3e is going to be released a bit sooner;P

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*at the heat death of the universe*

"Good news everyone!  We perfectly tested and balanced every combination of models against each other!  ...guys?"

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2019 at 8:19 PM, Saduhem said:

 I expect people to dabble in multiple factions instead of feeling like they "have to" own everything in a single one to stay competitive. And not having to paint models you don't like? Oh yeah. That's a thing now.

Honestly, with the move to more keyword focus, I'm hoping for less single faction restricted tournaments.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MetaphoricDragn said:

Honestly, with the move to more keyword focus, I'm hoping for less single faction restricted tournaments.  

I doubt that will be the case.  Anything vs Anything would be a huge change to the game thematically.  Why have factions at all at that point?

  • Respectfully Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jesy Blue said:

I doubt that will be the case.  Anything vs Anything would be a huge change to the game thematically.  Why have factions at all at that point?

I mean, the keyword shift has definitely made faction less important in m3e

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jesy Blue said:

I doubt that will be the case.  Anything vs Anything would be a huge change to the game thematically.  Why have factions at all at that point?

Why do the developers continue, edition upon edition, to include rules that the players insist on skipping over and making irrelevant?

Rulebook:  Choose your faction, leader, and hire your crew after you know what the table, schemes and strategy are.

Players:  Lets have single faction, single master fixed list tournaments.  And then complain about situational models.

🎊

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 5
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, solkan said:

Why do the developers continue, edition upon edition, to include rules that the players insist on skipping over and making irrelevant?

Rulebook:  Choose your faction, leader, and hire your crew after you know what the table, schemes and strategy are.

Players:  Lets have single faction, single master fixed list tournaments.  And then complain about situational models.

🎊

You're leaving out the bit where the official tournament doc adds a layer of rules that limit players to a single declared faction in a tournament. That's how it was done in M2E, I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar in M3E as well.

I think that not having players locked into a single faction for the duration of a tournament has the potential to reduce the number of leaders that are seen getting play at  higher levels of competitive play and could result in a much higher number of mirror matches. 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

may i ask the people who worked on the close beta to show their models. this is not required but i just want to seen the new stuff as soon as possible :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Watokala said:

may i ask the people who worked on the close beta to show their models. this is not required but i just want to seen the new stuff as soon as possible :)

That would not be permissible per Wyrd:

On 1/8/2019 at 11:24 AM, matt said:

Any playtest materials that have been provided to you still fall under Wyrd's copyright and should not be distributed. 

That being said, you will get new materials to work with next week and some changes to come with those materials, so anything you currently have could be out of date once the Open Beta starts.

You are welcome to discuss anything you would like, but posting our playtest documents is a no-no.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, the open beta starting this coming week means you shouldn't have to wait long to take a look, even if it's not the final product :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Watokala said:

may i ask the people who worked on the close beta to show their models. this is not required but i just want to seen the new stuff as soon as possible :)

Unless I have missed something huge, the beta testers didn't receive new models, either the completely new releases in M3E or new sculpts of previous edition models. I presume they just did the playtesting with proxy models where required. E.g. using a Ramos miniature to stand in for Von Schtook, or a Shikome to represent the future Marcus' Chimera Order Initiate.

I think we will all just have to keep an eye on the gradual revealing of new miniatures and sculpts in pre-view, such as just occurred with the Dreamer crew.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Watokala said:

may i ask the people who worked on the close beta to show their models. this is not required but i just want to seen the new stuff as soon as possible :)

Beta testers only see the new rules and proxy new models with old ones, the beta cards don't even have artwork on them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

Beta testers only see the new rules and proxy new models with old ones, the beta cards don't even have artwork on them. 

And thank god. Printing cards with artwork every week or two would be a Nytemare....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, trikk said:

And thank god. Printing cards with artwork every week or two would be a Nytemare....

If they sent me all new models for free a full year before release I'd print pretty much anything and be happy. ;)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

If they sent me all new models for free a full year before release I'd print pretty much anything and be happy. ;)

I dunno. I'd probably already have drowned in plastic by that time 😕 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×