TT's dominance in UK's Tournament

[Jesy Blue]

26 minutes ago, Hanna said:

Toss? 10" Push without a TN 

Granted, Toss is on 5 models between 3 factions.

[katadder]

22 hours ago, mythicFOX said:

That's a misleading way of cutting the tournament results (at best).

Of the 20 UK M3e tournaments on Malifaux Rankings (http://malifaux-rankings.com), plus this weekend's Nationals;

• Ten Thunders:  6
• Arcanists:  6
• Outcasts:  3
• Ressers:  2
• Bayou:  2
• Guild:  1
• Neverborn:  1

If you look at the podium places of the four Grand Tournaments which have been held, which are the well attended competitive two day events, it's as follows;

• Thunders:  5
• Arcanists: 3
• Outcasts: 2
• Ressers: 2

Or if you want to exclude the Welsh GT from the beta period it's;  TT 4, Outc 2, Arc 2, Res 1.

UK Nationals (7 rounds, >80 players) top 10 were;  4 Thunders, 4 Outcasts, 1 Arcanist, 1 Resser.

Now we can argue about the right way to count events, and if we should count from a time when the beta was still tinkering around the edges or not, but I really don't think it's honest to present a narrative that TT aren't doing really well at both local and national levels in the UK.

James the reason I did it from release is before then alot less people were playing or they were messing around with other things as it was still beta so it's not misleading in the slightest as I do put from release in my post. Also alot of those prior TT wins were dave laing at 8 round scottish events, so if anything your posts are more misleading.

Tbh you try this misleading all the time as protection for arcanists who cant seem to play without their 2 crutches. Even going by your numbers for TT most of those are dave or alyx, neither of whom use everyone's favourite problem child, compared to every arcanist in your numbers (and mine) will have had at least 1 or 2 ss miners and/or 1 or 2 spider swarms. It also means arcanists start with a cache of 1 or 2 and it's not an issue for them as the miners are running schemes easy as well as providing stones for no card flip, which gives the arcanists a leg up over their opponents. I am yet to see you play without these crutches and you even admit in a deep dive it's what you do (it's what I do too unless playing ironsides, and looking at your EGT crews everyone has ss miners and 3 also had arachnids, is that not a problem?).

I'm actually fairly unbiased as my faction choices this year spread over 3 factions so far (2 thunders, 2 outcasts, 2 neverborn) with me playing guild this weekend coming. I know shenlong needs tweaked and inhave suggested fixes which people think goes too far but so also do the arcanist crutches as playing against arcanists is already getting stale.

So is thunders dominating? Not at all, but there are some tweaks needed.

[DuBlanck]

I don't think there's any need to get quite that personal. A hard preference for your faction does not mean you are incapable of rational thought, nor is it grounds for accusations of dishonesty.

I agree with @mythicFOX that podium results, rather than 1sts, are a more useful metric - the margins are extremely slim to take the win, but cream rising to the top is easier to spot.

I do also agree that the Miners and Arachnid Swarms could do with a look - nearly every opponent at the Nationals was aghast that I wasn't running either of them in my Colette/Mei/Rasputina. I don't know that they are broken themselves, necessarily, but they are good enough and point'n'click enough that they are too damn prevalent and it is boring to see.

[katadder]

Wasnt personal but it gets annoying when I post some stats anywhere with the caveat that I have posted in everything from release of 3rd that I get followed and basically say I'm slanting things. When it is also being slanted another way.

As said I am unbiased as I play multiple factions and I know shenlong needs tweaking, but so does some arcanist stuff and I am sure stuff in my other factions (stitched, although I dont hire them, just summon sometimes)

 

For completeness then to go with my post, podiums since 3e release

Arcanists 7
Thunders 11
Outcasts 12
Neverborn 4
Bayou 3
Explorers 1
Ressers 3
Guild 1

So 3 factions are consistently in the top 3. Does it mean anything is dominating as yet or is that just what people are playing the most? I mean thunders was most represented at uk nationals but also at least 2 fixed shenlong players were mid 60s for position.

Guild are certainly least represented with their only podium being a win. Alyx and dave probably represent the majority of those thunders results, james and matt Lewin probably represent the majority of the arcanists, with radek doing the outcasts. Thing is they are all good players and matt for example had the guild right near the top for quite some time in 2e. So is it factions or players?

[Myyrä]

41 minutes ago, katadder said:

As said I am unbiased as I play multiple factions

That's hardly proof that you are unbiased, not saying you are, but that doesn't prove it.

41 minutes ago, katadder said:

Thing is they are all good players and matt for example had the guild right near the top for quite some time in 2e. So is it factions or players?

It's both and player skill isn't independent of their faction choice. List building is quite a big part of miniature wargames and good players often play with good lists. The power of the master or the faction isn't the only thing that dictates what the top players play, aesthetics and fluff also play a role, but it certainly has an effect on those choices. Furthermore, like you say yourself, guild was doing quite okay in the 2nd edition, so it's not like all the good players just hate the theme. You can't just say that a faction isn't doing well because top players aren't choosing it, when part of the reason they are not choosing it is that it isn't doing well.

[katadder]

Well maybe because I suggest fixes to some of the most "broken" models in every faction I play 😁

Shenlong - lose the irreducible trigger from normal attack and lose the 6" move off fermented. If he wasnt so fast he wouldn't surprise people and without irreducible 2/3/5 even always on plus flips wouldn't be bad.

ss miners - insignificant the turn they unbury. Allows some counterplay to outflank etc as at the moment there is none.

Spider swarms - lose built in onslaught, maybe put carried away in a different trigger and build that in. Stat 5 attack as pseudo stat 7 anyway.

Stitched - lower df to 5. Make gamble an attack? 2nd one not so sure but they need something

[Ogid]

It's hard to differentiate the faction from the players that's true; some very good player consistently wining with one faction could be easily be doing the same with a different one; that's a very good point. 

I agree some models need little tweaks; I'd add to that list Archie and the Riders (especialy the Pale rider) as model to keep an eye on them.

Stitched are very good, these are their pros and cons: 

• Its strongest points are the df6 plus the fiendish gamble. That let them have an out of the jail card if the player removed a high card before (but that's a card that won't go to cheat a gamble or a weak card not removed from the deck), paired with the armor make them sturdy. And they also are an scary area denial tool for something not armored or H2W (ending less than 6'' from an stitched is very risky for those models)
• Its weak point however is the gamble range is bad, 6'' make that everything that's not a mele attack will outrange them and 12'' guns may attack them at max range with no fear; its mele attack is pretty mediocre too. The gamble is almost guaranteed damage once per activation removing high cards, but it's hard (short range) and riskier to ramp up damage so they are more sustained damage dealers. Gamble is bad versus some targets (Damage reduction and Armor). And they can damage themselves.
• Making gamble your life an attack would be too much imo; having to pass an attack flip to damage yourself is non-sense and it also remove the niche of that ability (target Serene countereance, manipulative, incorporeal...); Nightmare has a lot of good "standard" attacks in their enforcers, they don't need another one.

But If they were too good, some possible tweaks:

• Making them less survivable but more threatening (-1df +2range gamble).
• A possible straight up nerf would be change the fiendish gamble to once per turn to force stitcheds to choose between ofense and defense.
• Maybe Gamble your life could be reworked into something still good versus the targets it's good now, but that feels less NPE. This is harder to do without messing that hard with it...

A way to change Gamble into something less NPE would be making that the model who fails the gamble has to make a TN 15 X, being X the stitched choice between Df, Wp and Mv to avoid the damage. This gives the other player some counterplay (he can flip/cheat a severe to avoid the damage) and is still fluffy because the stitched is again tweaking the odds (he can choose the worst stat for this foe and the best for him). Maybe also increasing a bit the range (6->8) in this case to compensate the loss guaranteed damage.

However it's worth noting that Stitcheds are only played in keyword, it's a very rare OOK pick.

[Jinn]

3 hours ago, katadder said:

Well maybe because I suggest fixes to some of the most "broken" models in every faction I play 😁

Didn't you vehemently oppose nerfing Hinamatsu during the beta when she had 7 Df, a 2/4/5 damage track and Finesse? You may be unbiased, but you can definitely be wrong about stuff.

Your metrics for balance being just podium placements since release are going to have big problems with a game that has a meta. If Shen dominated the next four (moderately sized) tournaments and grabbed all podiums, but then came dead last in the next two tournaments it would indicate people had figured out a counter to him, but by your metrics he would be first in line for nerfs.

Older tournaments should, by default, have less weight than more recent tournaments when it comes to determining balance.

I don't think anyone is seriously expecting Wyrd to nerf Shenlong based on the outcome of two tournaments this early into the meta. When people say he is broken they're just predicting that he will continue to dominate tournaments, and should that come to pass he should be nerfed. I also highly doubt that anyone wants just Shen to be nerfed. It is obvious that balance is off in Arcanists given the prevalence of Soulstone Miners and SA Swarms in people's lists, same as Ressers with Archie or Bayou with BBB.

I personally hope Errata are frequent, and comes with buffs and nerfs to plenty of models.

[Ogid]

2 hours ago, Jinn said:

I personally hope Errata are frequent, and comes with buffs and nerfs to plenty of models.

I'd also like that... but in a game where the stats of the models are in printed cards, that's very unlikely (and cumbersome).

[Nikodemus]

While I disagreed with some occasional individual changes (or lack of), in general I was a big fan of 2e's twice a year errata. I certainly hope Wyrd keeps at it.

 

[frumpypigskin]

What about changing Shen Long's irriducible trigger to ignores armour instead?

[SerZaka]

6 hours ago, Jinn said:

she had 7 Df, a 2/4/5 damage track and Finesse

What the ... XD really?

[katadder]

I don't remember her being that good. But I didnt do the play test for long. 

[Da Git]

2 hours ago, katadder said:

I don't remember her being that good. But I didnt do the play test for long. 

She was, and while testing the Qi & Gong, it was GLORIOUS!!

I then one of the many advocates for the nerf bat post game!

[Ogid]

Hahaha, did she had Flurry, to duel, Onslaught and Armor+2 too?

She is outstanding with her df5 and 2/3/4 damage track; I can't imagine facing her with those stats XDD.

[Jinn]

1 minute ago, Ogid said:

Hahaha, did she had Flurry, to duel, Onslaught and Armor+2 too?

Yep. I never managed to win another Youko game after she got nerfed.

Oh yeah, Leverage gaveto all duels per enemy revealed scheme back then as well. Fun times.

[Rugh Z'ull]

Before saying that any faction is OP or weak depending on the tournament results try to answer - how skilled the Players were? Would they win if they played other faction? Would they loose? Would their opponets win if they switched their lists with each other? As for me - not a tool (faction or master) wins the game, but mind and skill of a PLAYER.

In our community nothing changed since 2nd edition. Strong players still wins, weak loose. No matter of their faction. For example in Moscow you won't find any TT in the ranking tops. There are still Neverborns, Arcanists and Guild just as before, as their players didn't loose any skill when we came to M3E.

[Cursed25]

48 minutes ago, Rugh Z'ull said:

Before saying that any faction is OP or weak depending on the tournament results try to answer - how skilled the Players were? Would they win if they played other faction? Would they loose? Would their opponets win if they switched their lists with each other? As for me - not a tool (faction or master) wins the game, but mind and skill of a PLAYER.

In our community nothing changed since 2nd edition. Strong players still wins, weak loose. No matter of their faction. For example in Moscow you won't find any TT in the ranking tops. There are still Neverborns, Arcanists and Guild just as before, as their players didn't loose any skill when we came to M3E.

this is in part true! Strong players will always be strong no matter the faction they choose! But in a big tournament (with lots of player like in the UK Nat), when you start looking at top tables, they should all be top players! They all play well and do less mistakes than casual players. So strong players will choose what they think is the strongest to win!

 

Extremely competitive and good players will play the most broken stuff no matter if it's not what they like look or lore wise. So when you look at the best Malifaux players in big tournaments, the choice of their faction is often dictated by the fact they think it's a strong faction that can win against other good and strong players.  This is the reason you see a lot of TT, Arcanist and Outcast at top tables of event because right now they are stronger and give more consistent wins when played against good players.

[Fog]

If you want a look at strong performers then looking only at wins or podium finishes is the wrong way to go.  What you want to do is look at all of the x-1 finishes (or x-2 in particularly large events) or better.  In a large event the difference between second and sixteenth can be as little as the order in which you played your opponents.  You can be playing for first at the final table, lose, and drop to tenth.  Anyone making their way through a five round tournament with a single loss is a strong showing and should be accounted for even if they miss out on a medal.  

[katadder]

2 hours ago, Fog said:

If you want a look at strong performers then looking only at wins or podium finishes is the wrong way to go.  What you want to do is look at all of the x-1 finishes (or x-2 in particularly large events) or better.  In a large event the difference between second and sixteenth can be as little as the order in which you played your opponents.  You can be playing for first at the final table, lose, and drop to tenth.  Anyone making their way through a five round tournament with a single loss is a strong showing and should be accounted for even if they miss out on a medal.  

That's the thing with nationals. The difference between 5th and 31st was 1 game lost.

So massive variance in possibilities

[Ogid]

3 hours ago, Fog said:

If you want a look at strong performers then looking only at wins or podium finishes is the wrong way to go.  What you want to do is look at all of the x-1 finishes (or x-2 in particularly large events) or better.  In a large event the difference between second and sixteenth can be as little as the order in which you played your opponents.  You can be playing for first at the final table, lose, and drop to tenth.  Anyone making their way through a five round tournament with a single loss is a strong showing and should be accounted for even if they miss out on a medal.  

Very thoroughful. I agree jumping into conclusions too quickly is dangerous. Probably more data should be gathered in tournaments; not only faction and player, but also the list used in each game; that's the only way to see the outliers in the long run. And as said above, it's also important consider how good the player is (which it isn't that easy btw and requires a Elo/MMR kind of way to rate players)

Or complain in the forum! That's another way to balance the game, check the tearometer! /s

[Mikes]

On 11/12/2019 at 4:21 PM, TheJoyInGaming said:

Your boy Shen is gonna get nerfed so hard that he’ll even make M2E Lucius look good.

The birth Malifaux's Yo Mama jokes....

[Jesy Blue]

Your momma so ugly, your daddy left her for Trixibelle!

[Math Mathonwy]

On 11/14/2019 at 2:26 PM, Rugh Z'ull said:

Before saying that any faction is OP or weak depending on the tournament results try to answer - how skilled the Players were? Would they win if they played other faction? Would they loose? Would their opponets win if they switched their lists with each other? As for me - not a tool (faction or master) wins the game, but mind and skill of a PLAYER.

In our community nothing changed since 2nd edition. Strong players still wins, weak loose. No matter of their faction. For example in Moscow you won't find any TT in the ranking tops. There are still Neverborns, Arcanists and Guild just as before, as their players didn't loose any skill when we came to M3E.

I don't think that anyone is denying the importance of player skill - no one suggested that a noob could take Shenlong and win UK nationals with ease. But even though player skill matters, it's still possible (in fact, I would argue, super likely) that the factions are not perfectly balanced. Balancing hundreds of profiles for a very complex game getting a new edition is an insanely tough task.

Adjusting for balance will happen.

[Linar]

In my opinion the only problem that exists is irreducible damage, it is a mechanic that should not come out.
Both my list and Tim were based on master of irreducible damage.
Already in the second edition the Thallarian made Hoffman's list the most absurd in the game for that reason, but now you also ignore SS.