Jump to content

Balance Thought Experiment


Recommended Posts

Overall, Malifaux is a decently balanced game, especially since it is so asymmetric.  But, there are a few issues, particularly with over the curve models.  Of course, OP models are inevitable, but the fixes are less apparent.

If you nerf a keyword model, you may solve the “always take OOK” issue, but then you might hurt what was otherwise a mediocre keyword.  If you nerf a versatile, it may just never see play.

Model adjustments are necessary, but they are also difficult because there are so many interactions in Malifaux.  Ultimately, as this is a game with a defined structure, it can be mathed out to a certain extent, and we might get to a point where 3E resembles 2E.  All the best models have been identified, there’s only a small range of masters, and they mostly run superfriends.  IMO, that would be bad for the game.

My suggestion would be to create a special Master upgrade for each keyword, that you get for free if every model in your crew shares a keyword with your leader.  There’s no other way to get this upgrade.

Now, removing master upgrades was a good change from 2E to 3E.  So why would I want to reintroduce them?  Three reasons:

1.        These upgrades can be used to “balance” the keywords without changing a whole host of models and requiring new cards.  Stronger keywords with a lot of synergy can get weaker upgrades, and weaker keywords can get stronger ones.

2.       The need to nerf overtuned versatiles/OOK is decreased if the opportunity cost of hiring one is not getting the free master upgrade.

3.       If the master upgrade is over/under tuned, it can be fixed singularly, which is a lot easier than redoing a whole keyword.

Of course, there’s virtually no chance this would happen.  But I offer this thought experiment as one possible way to address “always take” models that we tend to see very often, even OOK (looking at you Brin).

I’ve included some sample upgrades for every keyword.  Dual faction keywords got different upgrades depending on the faction you declare.  I won’t pretend these are good ideas or balanced, they’re just what popped into my head.

arcanist.txt bayou.txt guild.txt Neverborn.txt outcasts.txt ressers.txt TT.txt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, thatlatinspeakingguy said:

that's an interesting idea. it reminds me of Themes in Bushido (basically: bonuses for your crew if you follow certain hiring restrictions).

Yeah, this isn't an original mechanic by any stretch of the imagination.  Warmahordes has extra theme points too.

One issue I did encounter concerns stronger keywords.

People like Som'er I tried to give much less impressive upgrades.  Makes sense at first.  But then the opportunity cost for them to hire OOK/Versatiles is much less.

Of course, my goal isn't to eliminate OOK/Versatile hiring.  But rather, it's to try and fight against "always take" type models, or to provide a thematic alternative to super friends lists.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LeperColony said:

Yeah, this isn't an original mechanic by any stretch of the imagination.  Warmahordes has extra theme points too.

One issue I did encounter concerns stronger keywords.

People like Som'er I tried to give much less impressive upgrades.  Makes sense at first.  But then the opportunity cost for them to hire OOK/Versatiles is much less.

Of course, my goal isn't to eliminate OOK/Versatile hiring.  But rather, it's to try and fight against "always take" type models, or to provide a thematic alternative to super friends lists.

Idk this feels a lot like simply a clunkier version of what we already have, unless I supposed these new upgrade would be perfectly instituted and never need to be errated themselves. It would mean that keywords with one overperforming model would have all their models nerfed, or weak crews with one strong model would result in that model getting stronger. It feels inelegant, where the solution should simply be to buff one model, or nerf one, or take from one to give to another. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One issue with binary solutions like this is that they really incentivise the extremes. You'd either see crews that would avoid taking anything non-keyword stuff (including versatiles), or crews that have no penalty after the first model so can take as many OOK models as they want.

The tax seems much better, as it scales with number of  models (although has a larger relative penalty for cheaper models). I think the focus on balancing crews over time is probably better. I quite like when crew synergies are so strong they outweight other options (like Forgotten and Tormented).

EDIT: The other thing is you just don't want to take bad models. It is going to make for some pretty wonky crews if you take a whole bunch of terrible Redchapel models just to unlock a massive buff on Seamus (who is already insanely strong).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, solkan said:

A crew upgrade makes the assumption that all of the models in a keyword should get the same abilities.

Flat text is going to give this question an inflection I do not intend, so please understand absolutely no stark is meant. 

But did you actually read any of the attached text files?  I'm asking not because the specific abilities are important (they're not), but because if you did, you'd see they are master upgrades in a somewhat similar sense to 2E.  Yes, some of them have abilities that have wider applications, but in the main, they aren't meant to simply make every model in a keyword better in the same way.

14 hours ago, solkan said:

It’s trying to fix a problem by changing everything but the problem area.

I think rather it's a recognition that the problem area is not solvable in the commonly understood manner.  Absolute balance is impossible, there will always be overtuned models.  And when 3E reaches a point of sufficient meta maturity that those models and masters are known, we may end up in the same boat as 2nd, where a small range of masters dominate with super friend crews.

So instead, it attempts to complicate the calculation by adding an opportunity cost to going OOK/Versatile.  If the OOK/Versatile model is still better, you'd likely still see it instead of the master upgrade.  As I mentioned, this is particularly likely among the strongest keywords, for which the proposed master upgrades are weakest (and so the opportunity cost is lowest).

13 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

You'd either see crews that would avoid taking anything non-keyword stuff (including versatiles), or crews that have no penalty after the first model so can take as many OOK models as they want.

The first part of your analysis is correct, and in fact arguably the point.  It adds an opportunity cost to choosing the "always take" model, which may make it not always take.  Isn't that a good thing?

The second part of your analysis is not correct, or at least if it is correct, it's not a consequence of this concept, but on model curves generally.  Since Malifaux, like almost any game, operates on what is fundamentally a mathematical framework, there probably is one (or a small subset) of ideal crews for a given faction in a given pool.  But since people are not really capable calculation to that degree, what we really see is in the main, keyword-centric crews with a few corner case models or known "always take" type highly overtuned pieces.  Or, in the other alternative, crews with a smaller core of keyword models and more Versatile/OOKs.

In other words, right now there's no cost to taking as many OOK as you want, and yet we don't see many crews of entirely OOK models.  And those crews that do pick a lot of versatiles/OOKs are only likely to look at more keyword models as an option if either the keyword models improve, the OOKs/Versatiles are nerfed, or there's some other benefit to keyword hires.  So even if the dichotomy you describe existed, and even if it were entirely the fault of a concept like proposed in the original post, it would likely not change hiring practices much in this regard.

16 hours ago, Mycellanious said:

It would mean that keywords with one overperforming model would have all their models nerfed, or weak crews with one strong model would result in that model getting stronger. It feels inelegant, where the solution should simply be to buff one model, or nerf one, or take from one to give to another. 

Again, I ask this with no snark.  Did you actually read any of the files?  They're not crew-wide buffs, they are master upgrades.  Some of which may have wider implications, most don't.

16 hours ago, Mycellanious said:

Idk this feels a lot like simply a clunkier version of what we already have, unless I supposed these new upgrade would be perfectly instituted and never need to be errated themselves.

Why would we assume this?  They could be nerfed or buffed like anything else.  But what they have, that other things we can balance don't, is a built in opportunity cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think @LeperColony has some good ideas here.  Im of a similar mindset in that I prefer to see/reward playing in-keyword for aesthetic purposes.  I think model errata should still be on a case-by-case basis.  I also don't know if OOK / versatile spam is a huge problem right now, with a few exceptions (the prevalence of Guild Steward and Pale Rider in Guild; the Ten Thunders superfriends or the Bash Bros in Ressurectionists).

 I know it's still an issue, for example, for Redchapel or Revenant where a whole keyword is seen as weaker than other options for a master.

Other games have used theme force bonuses to provide a "carrot" to the OOK tax's "Stick" before.  Heck, look at the allegiance abilities in The Other Side.  So having the option in our 'Bag of Tools' (pardon the pun) seems good to me.

I also wonder if some of the changes could be rolled into the Title mechanic for new versions of characters.  The rules include future-proofing for new versions of models.  What if, for example,  a new version of Seamus came out that provided benefits to playing with Redchapel?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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...

Important Information