Jump to content
Saduhem

Enhancing vs Debilitating - More condition talk

Recommended Posts

On 2/9/2019 at 6:38 PM, Paddywhack said:

 

On 2/9/2019 at 11:46 AM, yool1981 said:

avoid these conditions

Easier said than done against the crews that spam it. And often the debuff is in addition to something else (dmg, etc.) so its a bonus for the attacking model. I also find that it doesn't stop with the debuff - it just makes it far easier for the model to get killed next activation. So it still leads to killing models, just in this case one player feels like he can't do much to stop it. 

 

So your opponent has spent at least 2 activations including probably one from a high value model to kill a single model.

Between the 2 activations the model has had the time to react (or already did what it had to do), albeit less efficiently.

I don’t understand the complaint.

How is it worse than having a model being one shot by another model? In terms of trading Ap this latter situation is far less favourable and we see far less complaint about Killy crews.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
  • Respectfully Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think repeating "spamming conditions is not so bad" will convince anybody anymore. Maybe write some counterplay proposals, to help people fight their NPE?

In M2E when I lost a few times due to my opponent completely shutting down my key models with paralyze or some shenanigans, I started to field many medium-priced models instead of a few expensive ones. It was harder to paralyze 5 models than 3, and it is harder to Stun / Injure +3 all your models, when there are more of them.

Also, if your model is Injured +5 atm, maybe just focus twice instead of "wasting" his actions with stat 1. Maybe next round he won't be Injured so badly, and then this focus will make his attacks stronger. Or maybe you can Obey him or sth, to use that Focus after his activaton ends (and he loses Injured). Or you can just use it for defence.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Angelshard said:

There's Swampfiends thematic ability, which might be too strong or too weak, I'm not sure. Other than that there are 9 models, if you include doppelganger. Most of these are either stat 4 or require a trigger to be applied. 2 of them aren't woes so they would require a tax to be included in a spam crew.

The only model in Neverborn that has more than one way of handing out stunned is Candy, she is built around the condition, it's her whole reason to exist and I would be very sad to see her changed as I love how she works right now. 

Honestly I find it hard to see more than a couple of models reliably being stunned per turn.

Sure, and there are crossovers. Waldgeists are also Fae, Carver is also Nightmare, The Grootslang, Adze, and the wisp are also also beast, Lyssa is also Savage, and so on. Bloated Stench can hand it out multiple times per turn (per Model!), so can corrupted innocence and The Box opens. The Gigant  can give it out on a trigger ignoring Line of Sight. And no, most of these effects are not stat 4.

I've played against all this stuff. It's awful. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloated stench needs to be an aura like they did with scarlet temptation, so it doesn't stack.

Opportunist needs to be negative effect only, and only one instance.  For instance burning 2 goes to burning 1.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

Or should exclusively affect 1 stat

Interesting idea. I wonder what it would look like if Injured was changed to target a specific stat, like Injured (Df), Injured (:ToS-Melee:), etc. Some of the models who specifically traffic in Injured could have Injured (all), but then there'd be more room for all the other models throughout the game to narrow their impact. It would reduce the proliferation of Injured without taking it away from a bunch of things.

Would be more bookkeeping, though, which we don't need. And then there'd be weird stacking cases. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be holy hell to track. 

@Saduhem as I wrote.

Stat 4 or trigger, getting the trigger off on a model that can't use stones isn't that easy. 

I also wrote that bloated stench might be too strong.

Carver in a nightmare crew is a single instance of stunned, please don't tell me that is too much. 

The box opens is a simple duel so you have much more control over who fails it. 

Again. The only crew that can reliably hand out several i instances of stun is woe. And even then you need to focus your crew on it at the cost of other things. There are ways to play around it. 

@mrjasonguy I would be happy to see opportunist changed. I think it should be an entirely different ability though. At the moment you can include a sorrow against any crew that uses conditions on its own models to counter that. On the other hand its all kinds of useless against crews that don't use conditions. Woes simply doesn't throw out enough conditions on their own to justify it. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather have injured effects cap at -2 or -3 to the duel result.
Distracted could be restricted to Distract +2 or +3.

This would not invalidate the mechanics, but it would certainly help surviving and finding solutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jingizu said:

I don't think repeating "spamming conditions is not so bad" will convince anybody anymore. Maybe write some counterplay proposals, to help people fight their NPE?

In M2E when I lost a few times due to my opponent completely shutting down my key models with paralyze or some shenanigans, I started to field many medium-priced models instead of a few expensive ones. It was harder to paralyze 5 models than 3, and it is harder to Stun / Injure +3 all your models, when there are more of them.

Also, if your model is Injured +5 atm, maybe just focus twice instead of "wasting" his actions with stat 1. Maybe next round he won't be Injured so badly, and then this focus will make his attacks stronger. Or maybe you can Obey him or sth, to use that Focus after his activaton ends (and he loses Injured). Or you can just use it for defence.

I agree, though I would add that many mediocre models in M3E doesn't seem as good with pass tokens now being a thing. Though I think that's another discussion.

10 hours ago, yool1981 said:

How is it worse than having a model being one shot by another model? In terms of trading Ap this latter situation is far less favourable and we see far less complaint about Killy crews.

My point exactly :) 

 

While I think stunned is a good and annoying condition, I really don't get why it's so hated... your model still works albeit at reduced effectiveness. I find injured worse, but come on, it's not like you can't function with injured 1 or 2... and if you really get injured 5 or something, then your opponent has probably invested AP equivalent to actually killing the model... so you're probably better off. If not, then models used might have to be rebalanced, and so that example would be great for a battlereport, so the designers kan rebalance the involved crew and figure out whether it was a one time, or "you played into it" due to bad luck/timing or skill...

  • Agree 4
  • Respectfully Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Angelshard said:

Again. The only crew that can reliably hand out several i instances of stun is woe. And even then you need to focus your crew on it at the cost of other things. There are ways to play around it. 

Then you haven't played against Zoraida

 

5 hours ago, Angelshard said:

 

The box opens is a simple duel so you have much more control over who fails it. 

 

A looot of duels, needing 9+ to pass.

 

5 hours ago, Angelshard said:

Stat 4 or trigger, getting the trigger off on a model that can't use stones isn't that easy

Triggers happen. Before the Hanged got attuned, that's where all my 13s went.

 

So many of the reports claim this stuff to be oppressive, just going through the Pdf doesn't really give you the idea. I'm on Vassal at least twice a week. Would you mind an amicable match where I show you what I'm encountering?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, swampfiends theme might be too strong. That said, if your opponent can control wether or not to get stun it isn't reliable. Yes she has the vodoo doll plus wisp trick that is almost guaranteed stun,  but that is only one instance.

Depending on how much you clump around her, she has no engagement range, so you can just walk away.

Triggers happen, but they are neither reliable, nor cheap to guarantee, that is why Oirans weren't good enough in m2e, even though they had a stat 8 lure.

So many of the reports doesn't use condition removal. So many of the reports the one ybeing stunned still win. 

Claiming that I'm just reading from the pdf and doesn't play is honestly more than a little insulting.

I haven't ever tried Vassal, but if the time zones fit, and you don't mind teaching me how vassal works, then sure.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I played against Zorida swampfiends and I didn't get stunned once. Anecdotal, yes, and it was only one battle, but there you go. Swampfiends looks scary because of big scary models, but they honestly felt like they were made of paper (aside from Mctavish) I was playing Reva and burning, Lampads and shield bearers chewed though it ok. I lost a lampad, dragur (who didn't do anything but die), and a shield bearer.

Pandora's box opens is a 6" pulse? on a very squishy caster if you've got any sort of ruthless. (which you should have hired because you knew Pandora was hitting the table.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of you have a MAJOR misconception of a negative play experience....
A negative play experience would be things like the Viktorias killing half your crew before you got to do anything.  Hamelin forcing you to do all your moves then playing a one sided game where you didn't get to respond at all.  Out activation in general was a NPE, because it forced issues with not being able to react at all....    Pandora paralyzing 3 models, and candy doing a 4th was a NPE, not because paralyze was broken, but they gave it out so frequently and easily that it caused issues with your whole crew.   Nicodem drawing 15+ cards a turn was a NPE, because no matter what you did, nothing of yours would land because his cards domination was so ingrained in the crew. 
A NPE is the result of you not being able to influence the game with your models.   Usually not with one model, but multiple.   There is no experience like that currently.  Every model, even when given every condition in the rule book, can still influence the game.

Taking away some abilities from your models with stunned isn't a NPE, it's a tactic.  You may not like that tactic, but it's a valid tactic.   If your crew relies on their fast actions, then utilizing stunned is a valid counter.  You may get upset because you really wanted to do that action, but that's not a Negative Player Experience, you just got out played.

Similarly, "Not Having Fun" isn't what makes a negative player experience.  Most people "don't have fun" after spending two or three hours and losing a game or being completely beaten by a better player.    These should be things that push you to become better.   

The conditions are what they always should have been.  They are SUPPOSED to impact the game.  Not be some by product of your attacks.   McMourning should make you FEAR poison, not because he hurts you, but because POISON hurts you.   Kaeris should make you fear burning.  

You should be planning to bring condition removal.  This is a staple in a lot of games across a lot of platforms...    In MMOs, you usually bring along a healer to remove nasty conditions and heal your party.   In other table top games conditions (or debuffs) are things that some leaders revolve around....

Malifaux should be the same.  It opens new avenues of gameplay aside from "ME SMASH!  hurr hurr hurr".      Coming from a player that wanted to like ressers, but never could, the new versions of these characters is great....  Now you can have a Necromancer that is being charged by Lady Justice start casting spells to debilitate their opponent and when she finally gets her charge, she misses completely or hits like a wet noodle due to her strength fading...

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 5
  • Respectfully Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's plenty of control that doesn't involve peppe

1 hour ago, mrjasonguy said:

I played against Zorida swampfiends and I didn't get stunned once. Anecdotal, yes, and it was only one battle, but there you go. Swampfiends looks scary because of big scary models, but they honestly felt like they were made of paper (aside from Mctavish) I was playing Reva and burning, Lampads and shield bearers chewed though it ok. I lost a lampad, dragur (who didn't do anything but die), and a shield bearer.

Pandora's box opens is a 6" pulse? on a very squishy caster if you've got any sort of ruthless. (which you should have hired because you knew Pandora was hitting the table.)

I put a battle report up with Reva vs that. Stunned everywhere. It's not one model handing it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reign said:

"Not Having Fun" isn't what makes a negative player experience.

Actually it is exactly that. There is no official dictionary definition of NPE and the entire concept is negative player experiences. Your definitions of NPE I could just as easily argue are tactics by your definition. My tactic was to take the gamble that my glass cannon master could successfully get into your board and destroy opposing threats before you could react. It wasn't guaranteed after all, and if I failed that was pretty much game over. Hamelin out activating you was a tactic. You shouldn't have put yourself in a position where Hamlin's known ability to do so would have hurt you.

 

6 minutes ago, Reign said:

Similarly, "Not Having Fun" isn't what makes a negative player experience.  Most people "don't have fun" after spending two or three hours and losing a game or being completely beaten by a better player. 

Umm that's exactly what it is. You know what games like that do, bleed players. If I have to sit through 2 through 3 hours getting stomped on before the game ends and there is no hope of winning, then I guarantee you the vast majority of people are not going to want to play that game.

  • Agree 4
  • Respectfully Disagree 2

Share this post


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

Umm that's exactly what it is. You know what games like that do, bleed players. If I have to sit through 2 through 3 hours getting stomped on before the game ends and there is no hope of winning, then I guarantee you the vast majority of people are not going to want to play that game.

Agreed, no single person gets to decide what an NPE is for everyone.

My regular opponent had been playing for 5 or 6 years. I've been playing for 1.5. While one or the other can get momentarily frustrated (or pissy in my case 😙) when our favorite models get killed or our plans get ripped apart by bad flips, we both still have fun independent of who wins.

NPEs from us are largely a consequence of lack of agency in what happens. This is why we've had so much feedback on Voodoo Doll - when you can incapacitate a model without your opponent getting to flip a single card, that's not very fun. Granted it's only one model per turn so it's not game breaking per se, but it still doesn't feel good.

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with "negative play experiences" being so very subjective is that you cannot design a game that way.  If every little thing that an individual may not like is  removed, you get a shallow game, just to protect someone's feelings.  It is quite easy to dislike something your opponent is doing. Someone may dislike summoning, or using a deck of cards instead of dice. Should those be changed as well?

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually yes you can. Should it be the overall deciding factor, no. But you absolutely can design to maximize player experience. Again case in point, nerfing belles in 2e. Ressers were not dominating in the way the balance discussions here seem to indicate. And yet they were disliked enough by the community at large that they got a nerf even the developers at the time said they didn’t feel was strictly necessary. 

And yes, if enough of the player base disliked the card mechanic Wyrd would be silly not to drop it. Want examples? Enough players disliked how the jokers worked in 1e they changed them in 2e. Enough players felt those changes weren’t enough so they changed again. You might personally dislike that change, and if so you should make sure you’re heard, but change they have, in my opinion for the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you continue to argue, and from what I can tell, people are, for the most part, happy with what is happening right now. 

Yourself and Saduham really dislike conditions now...   we get that...
I, and the majority of random posters in this topic, happen to like the direction Wyrd is going with them....

They actually MATTER for a change....    Just because you restate your opinion over and over and over doesn't make you in the majority....

  • Agree 3
  • Respectfully Disagree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Reign said:

But you continue to argue, and from what I can tell, people are, for the most part, happy with what is happening right now. 

Yourself and Saduham really dislike conditions now...   we get that...
I, and the majority of random posters in this topic, happen to like the direction Wyrd is going with them....

They actually MATTER for a change....    Just because you restate your opinion over and over and over doesn't make you in the majority....

I definitely wouldn't say it's just a few people. The battle reports up right now are openly complaining about conditions making the game, at times, a fight in which everyone is crippled and no one gets to play. Games are already long as it is.

People are openly describing bad experiences against crews that can use conditions the most. It's been happening since Closed Beta.

Not a lot of people are insane enough to post as much as some of us do, and not everyone plays 3 games a week and encounters these situations frequently, but there are tons of agreements with many of the points made so far (Just look at the opening post alone!). And there are disagreements, that's good.

Unfortunately the conversation derailed and it's becoming too heated for its own good, and we're starting to point fingers at each other. I wouldn't be surprised (or sad) if the thread just got locked at this point.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Saduhem said:

People are openly describing bad experiences against crews that can use conditions the most. It's been happening since Closed Beta.

Not a lot of people are insane enough to post as much as some of us do, and not everyone plays 3 games a week and encounters these situations frequently, but there are tons of agreements with many of the points made so far. And disagreements, that's good.

Correct. There are a few very vocal forum members on both sides. That does not make one side or the other better just because one side is 'noiser' than the other. There are points being made by both sides. We disagree on the impact that some of these conditions are having and there are battle reports to 'support' both, though I would argue more that show the problem than don't.

In the end we're all making our opinions known so the devs can take a look at it. They have more info than we do at this point and in the end will decide what direction to go. I'm in the camp that the Conditions are the one thing that can still cause a bad game right now. I don't think they need to be thrown out, but I do think they could be adjusted to avoid some the problems we have seen while still keeping them meaningful and fun for everyone. I'm going to trust Matt and Kyle as I like what's been happening, but if nothing changes then I believe there will be some crews that are perceived like the old Hamelin once the meta settles a bit. 

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Reign said:

But you continue to argue, and from what I can tell, people are, for the most part, happy with what is happening right now. 

Yourself and Saduham really dislike conditions now...   we get that...
I, and the majority of random posters in this topic, happen to like the direction Wyrd is going with them....

They actually MATTER for a change....    Just because you restate your opinion over and over and over doesn't make you in the majority....

I would point out that doesn’t make you the majority either. Conditions have always mattered, so I don’t know why you are using that as an argument for them. They mattered enough in 2e they completely rethought how they went about using them.

For myself I’m looking at these from the stated design goal the change was intended to help, from an accessibility standpoint because a constant influx of new players is absolutely critical to any miniatures game’s survival, and from a place of rules elegance, are the rules clean, intuitive and easy to use. And that’s why I have a problem with the new condition system, because in my experience the current rules fall short on every one of those points.

The current system is far more complicated and hard to remember than the old system was. Burning and poison kinda do the same thing but one can be removed via assist and one can’t, but armor and shield stop both, and they do extra dmg based on a non-intuitive non logically correlated amount you have in you, and not every condition ends at the same time unless expressly called out, now some conditions end at this time and others that time and others another. And the frequency of condition play has increased. I mean those reasons and the creation of the not-a-condition-at-all token system really destroys any factual argument that the new system is doing what it was intended to do.

From an accessibility standpoint it also falls down. One of the best things they did in M2E was to spell out exactly what anything meant on the card itself. Now we have conditions that reference itself but doesn’t spell out exactly what that does. I mean I demo a good amount and most people after the quick demos I do who look into Malifaux tell me they just aren’t interested because it felt too much like studying mathematics. There was just too much they had to memorize from the books and various other places. And all the timing exceptions and tracking and call outs that aren’t on the cards is off putting. 

And as far as elegance goes a good number of the conditions could really be simplified down to their essence so game flow at the table would progress faster.

Now certainly this is just my opinion. Certainly I could be wrong and perhaps there is a larger market than my experiences in games would indicate.

But I’d rather have a faster playing, more intuitive and easy to understand game. I mean you can look at really successful modern games and see what I’m talking about. 

Deadlands really understood rules elegance in their enemy magic section. Do you really need 50 different offensive energy based attack spells where all that happens is the math is tweaked just a little? Why can’t you have a pretty standard dmg range where you just change the description of how it works and add a little more dmg if it’s especially powerful, and some side effects based on what trappings it has?

  • Agree 3

Share this post


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

I would point out that doesn’t make you the majority either. Conditions have always mattered, so I don’t know why you are using that as an argument for them. They mattered enough in 2e they completely rethought how they went about using them.

For myself I’m looking at these from the stated design goal the change was intended to help, from an accessibility standpoint because a constant influx of new players is absolutely critical to any miniatures game’s survival, and from a place of rules elegance, are the rules clean, intuitive and easy to use. And that’s why I have a problem with the new condition system, because in my experience the current rules fall short on every one of those points.

The current system is far more complicated and hard to remember than the old system was. Burning and poison kinda do the same thing but one can be removed via assist and one can’t, but armor and shield stop both, and they do extra dmg based on a non-intuitive non logically correlated amount you have in you, and not every condition ends at the same time unless expressly called out, now some conditions end at this time and others that time and others another. And the frequency of condition play has increased. I mean those reasons and the creation of the not-a-condition-at-all token system really destroys any factual argument that the new system is doing what it was intended to do.

From an accessibility standpoint it also falls down. One of the best things they did in M2E was to spell out exactly what anything meant on the card itself. Now we have conditions that reference itself but doesn’t spell out exactly what that does. I mean I demo a good amount and most people after the quick demos I do who look into Malifaux tell me they just aren’t interested because it felt too much like studying mathematics. There was just too much they had to memorize from the books and various other places. And all the timing exceptions and tracking and call outs that aren’t on the cards is off putting. 

And as far as elegance goes a good number of the conditions could really be simplified down to their essence so game flow at the table would progress faster.

Now certainly this is just my opinion. Certainly I could be wrong and perhaps there is a larger market than my experiences in games would indicate.

But I’d rather have a faster playing, more intuitive and easy to understand game. I mean you can look at really successful modern games and see what I’m talking about. 

Deadlands really understood rules elegance in their enemy magic section. Do you really need 50 different offensive energy based attack spells where all that happens is the math is tweaked just a little? Why can’t you have a pretty standard dmg range where you just change the description of how it works and add a little more dmg if it’s especially powerful, and some side effects based on what trappings it has?

I wonder how much of your confused about the conditions is due to your M2E experience, but that wouldnt be as much of an issue for someone experiencing the game for the first time. I also agree, 50 different spells to memorize is a lot! Good thing there are only 11 conditions

What I will say is that trying to remember which conditions end at what time is definitely  not intuitive, and was probably the thing I had to go back to look up most in the rules book (aside from strats and schemes) and I wish there was a better way to portray the timing for conditions. Maybe color code them?

  • Respectfully Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve demo’d to new players in 3e. They don’t like the condition system either which is why I’m bringing it up. I don’t comment on things I don’t feel I understand well. There are masters and models I *think* are busted. But if I don’t have what I think are solid factual arguments about them I just don’t bring it up.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Mycellanious said:

...What I will say is that trying to remember which conditions end at what time is definitely not intuitive, and was probably the thing I had to go back to look up most in the rules book (aside from strats and schemes) and I wish there was a better way to portray the timing for conditions. Maybe color code them?

Any one in particular is the problem? I finally got the conditions’ durations through my skull once they were rearranged by endpoint in the core rulebook, but we don’t yet have the quick reference card which will be alphabetically organized and maybe that will be what you need. 😕 

But then, I didn’t have trouble with the idea that focus and anti-focus have no endpoint. In fact I want to move burning and poison back under End Phase*, leaving focus and distracted as the only Special conditions.

 

*and tidy up the clunky scaling of their damage but that must wait for far more data of how much it stacks and/or the finalization of Kaeris et alia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it’s worth I think tokens work very well...for statuses which only affect friendly models. Part of the clunkiness of Burning/Poison/Brilliance is that they affect both friendly and enemy and so should be conditions, if for no other reason than trying to play token mancala across the table onto your opponent’s cards is literally quite a stretch.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...