Is the game balanced around single or double Masters?

[Math Mathonwy]

As per topic. Is the game more or less balanced with single vs double Masters allowed? There seem to exist a couple of schools of thought on this and some places seem to default to one or the other in tournaments.

Now, "more balanced" is naturally super nebulous. So let's break it down to two components:

1) Are the top choices more balanced in each Faction against one another?

2) Are more Masters viable to be used in the top tables?

Those are IMO sorta fine starting points for "more balanced" but definitely feel free to suggest other viewpoints as well!

Other possible questions to help with the pondering: How many Masters are viable picks as secondary Masters? Are they no-brainers in many strats?

[Jesy Blue]

Captain Zipp is the greatest second master in either of his factions, with or without his totem. You get a fast, flying, independent, area denial, debuffing, repositioning, damage dealer that mostly targets Sz which no one has resistance triggers for.

In my opinion, Viktoria is the worst second/third master to hire. You're either spending 12 stones on a beater with a quarter of her card useless, or your paying 24 stones for "a master & totem".

There are certain combos that synergize really well (Dreamer/Zoraida, Asami/McCabe, Kirai/Molly, Zipp/Von Schill, Lilith/Nekima).

I personally think master costs should be higher, because the benefits currently outweigh the cost slightly. If masters were 19 stones, making ook costs 20 stones (then put Dreamer/Lynch/Viktoria/Anya at 14 costing 15), we would be fine.

[ooshawn]

i haven't seen anyone play double masters yet, or heard of anyone doing that outside of maybe a single game or two. it's fairly thematic I think as well. Seems okay to me. can you point out any examples of this being abused?  Is Zipp a problem?

[Scoffer]

I think the game is balanced around double masters. And second (third etc) master is a special tool for a special situation, not a magic "press me to win" button.

A year ago I've posted some analysis after a big tournament in Russia (which happened to be the biggest in Europe in 2020 because of covid) trying to find out whether double masters are broken or not. This year we had a big new year tournament again and I'm still working with the data (a lot of other work to do slows me down). But I already have some shocking numbers that can be treated as a proof for my initial statement.

In meta that has been very pro- double master play since open beta:

- in 2020 players picked 2+ masters 72 times out of 186 (in 93 games) - 38,7% of lists were multimaster. Top-3 players used 2+ masters 7 times.

- in 2021 players picked 2+ masters 26 times out of 206 (in 103 games) - 12,6% of lists were multimaster. Top-3 players used 2+ masters 3 times.

Multimaster lists became 3 times less popular. It looks like a significant change to me. I think Serena Bowman (Mech Rider, Guild Lawyer, insert any other top-tier non-master model) is hired in much more than 12,6% of it's factions' lists.

26 minutes ago, Jesy Blue said:

I personally think master costs should be higher, because the benefits currently outweigh the cost slightly. If masters were 19 stones, making ook costs 20 stones (then put Dreamer/Lynch/Viktoria/Anya at 14 costing 15), we would be fine.

Most masters are not worth 16 stones - they don't have enough synergy outside of keyword or their most powerful stuff is leader-only. Absolutely no master in game is worth 20 stones. For 20 stones I can have two finest henchmen with a total of 4 actions, 2 bonus actions and all the flurries, rapid fires and hit-him-again triggers.

[dannydb]

I think it's less to do with 2nd master being powerful, more to do with certain multiple masters are so op it's stupid and some are balanced 

 

Generally it's masters who don't need there keyword or much off there keyword to function, or require counter tech and them being taken is hidden 

 

So for example colette who requires none of her keyword and can just presto Chano 1 model at a time in to her bubble 

 

Or seamus who's big gun will require some answers to his big gun but you won't see coming cos your opponent announced kirai or vonsctook 

 

Plus you can get some barmy combos like vonsctook, kirai with wisper, seamus with wisper and vally with intent on summoning 3 further models turn 1 on top of the 4 premium models you have already 

[DuBlanck]

I expect this to end up with "two or three specific Masters are a problem when hired in/paired with a specific second Master" rather than a broad problem with the concept of it balance-wise. C.f. @Scoffer's remark about Serena/Mech/etc.

It's generally true they are over-costed (between slightly and seriously), limited by Leader-Only kit, and therefore not really a balance problem.

It is specifically a problem that Zipp and Colette can roll solo in any crew, or Zoraida+Dreamer is NPE (is that still a thing?).

@Scoffer is there data about which Masters were getting Hired, and which Leader-Masters most often hired them?

[touchdown]

2 hours ago, Jesy Blue said:

Captain Zipp is the greatest second master in either of his factions, with or without his totem. You get a fast, flying, independent, area denial, debuffing, repositioning, damage dealer that mostly targets Sz which no one has resistance triggers for.

In my opinion, Viktoria is the worst second/third master to hire. You're either spending 12 stones on a beater with a quarter of her card useless, or your paying 24 stones for "a master & totem".

There are certain combos that synergize really well (Dreamer/Zoraida, Asami/McCabe, Kirai/Molly, Zipp/Von Schill, Lilith/Nekima).

I personally think master costs should be higher, because the benefits currently outweigh the cost slightly. If masters were 19 stones, making ook costs 20 stones (then put Dreamer/Lynch/Viktoria/Anya at 14 costing 15), we would be fine.

You just said a Vik isn't worth 12 stones but you want one to cost 15?

[Scoffer]

1 hour ago, DuBlanck said:

@Scoffer is there data about which Masters were getting Hired, and which Leader-Masters most often hired them?

Of course.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AybmFiUyDeIk9rXVHyg2s4LW8zyBU7WccIHr5Yo_KCU/edit?usp=sharing

The data you need is at the "Games" list

Don't look at the "Masters" list - it's currently broken, will repair it in a couple of days.

 

[Jesy Blue]

2 hours ago, touchdown said:

You just said a Vik isn't worth 12 stones but you want one to cost 15?

I don't want one how cost 15, they need to cost 15 for game balance sake.

[Maniacal_cackle]

There's two questions there:

What does the game design/play testing crew playtest around? If they playtest double masters, you can't have complete balance discussions about single master play (for example, the Cadmus discussion hasn't tested against second masters yet).

What tournament mode results in more balanced play? I think second masters give more tech options, but also deprive you of knowledge of what you need to tech against. This probably works out because it should become easy to predict double master combos - very few actually work together. But some can show up anywhere and require tech (Zoraida).

I certainly like single masters more and I wish that game balance decisions were made around single masters. But they (presumably) aren't, so that leaves tricky questions.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Anecdotally, I have a MUCH better chance of winning against Arcanists with double masters, but that may be because my three main crews are bad against Arcanists without anti-armor tech (McMourning or Kirai as second masters).

EDIT: although for Ressers at least, the only way to get two sources of irreducible damage is Molly & Kirai. This matters against Arcanists, Cadmus, and likely heaps of others. So it is hard to tech if Ressers can't double master.

[muraki]

9 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Anecdotally, I have a MUCH better chance of winning against Arcanists with double masters, but that may be because my three main crews are bad against Arcanists without anti-armor tech (McMourning or Kirai as second masters).

Yeah, one of my gaming buddies plays Guild and feels the same way, the option to dual master helps bring in some counter tech for certain crew/faction match ups.  So it's far less 'let me bring the OP combo' and more 'oh man i need armor ignore'

13 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

What does the game design/play testing crew playtest around? If they playtest double masters, you can't have complete balance discussions about single master play (for example, the Cadmus discussion hasn't tested against second masters yet).

What tournament mode results in more balanced play? I think second masters give more tech options, but also deprive you of knowledge of what you need to tech against. This probably works out because it should become easy to predict double master combos - very few actually work together. But some can show up anywhere and require tech (Zoraida).

These are good questions.  I'm mostly interested in the first one, as if everyone is only testing against single master lists, then of course single will be a bit more balanced than double (same could be said about 50 stone being more balanced than 35 stone games or HH/Double Rush).  Does that mean that if devs mostly test single master lists that double masters are inherently broken?  I don't think so, as the game has good bones beneath it. I do worry that dual master issues may not be on the top of the errata pile as more single master games are played than double master ones (tho I could be wrong).

Tournament balance is a tricksy beast.  There's a lot of factors to factor in, and with as many models / factions as we have, I doubt any 1 game mode would be truely balanced for every master / faction (I mean heck, I assume there's masters who already don't show up in the tourney scene or others that show up all the time).  Like is a dual master list that much worse than a single master list full of pre-errataed models?  Again, not quite sure.

For me the big part of any of this is fun.  Are dual master lists fun to play / play into?  For me, its complicated.  As I usually play single master lists, when someone drops 2 across from me I usually get a bit of a sinking feeling in my stomach.  Is it because I know I'm going to lose?  Not really... if anything its something between FOMO and wondering if I hobbled myself by never thinking I could bring a second master.  As for playing them myself.  I've had fun, but the combos I've played felt like something is off (like the synergy is almost there but not quite).  Course most of the dual combos I played have leader only abilities on one / both of the masters.  Which is (in my opinion) the best way to balance dual master lists.  Instead of flat cost hikes, having a master lose a little efficiency / power when hired in as a second is nice.  Course it's hard to do that across the board with shared actions/abilities/etc.

[Maniacal_cackle]

4 minutes ago, muraki said:

For me the big part of any of this is fun.

This is a big factor. It is why the NZ meta settled on single masters (even though our tournament with doubles was fine-ish).

But then for Vassal I advocate for double masters since that is the default rules and I take games on Vassal a bit more seriously.  Well, sometimes xD

[Maniacal_cackle]

6 minutes ago, muraki said:

 Course most of the dual combos I played have leader only abilities on one / both of the masters.  Which is (in my opinion) the best way to balance dual master lists.  Instead of flat cost hikes, having a master lose a little efficiency / power when hired in as a second is nice.  Course it's hard to do that across the board with shared actions/abilities/etc.

For Zoraida before her nerf, I said her hand cycling should be leader only.

For Ikiryo, summoning her should have the once per turn limit (unless Kirai is the leader).

So those are two super strong second masters that could be significantly altered by a leader-only change.

[touchdown]

1 hour ago, Jesy Blue said:

I don't want one how cost 15, they need to cost 15 for game balance sake.

I don't understand. Who's breaking the game by hiring a Vik for 12 stones?

[dannydb]

A vic for 12 stones is pritty meh considering a vick I'd prob only worth 10 stones 

 

Both vicks for 12 stones is silly 

[Maniacal_cackle]

8 hours ago, dannydb said:

A vic for 12 stones is pritty meh considering a vick I'd prob only worth 10 stones 

 

Both vicks for 12 stones is silly 

Really it is pretty irrelevant what they cost unless it is extreme, right? You're always going to declare them the leaders so you get two masters for free?

[touchdown]

16 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Really it is pretty irrelevant what they cost unless it is extreme, right? You're always going to declare them the leaders so you get two masters for free?

I thought we're talking about whether hired masters break the game or not. Which I think the Viks most certainly don't. I could see more of an argument their cost should be reduced 1 so it's viable to hire a Vik than an increase.

[Maniacal_cackle]

2 minutes ago, touchdown said:

I thought we're talking about whether hired masters break the game or not. Which I think the Viks most certainly don't. I could see more of an argument their cost should be reduced 1 so it's viable to hire a Vik than an increase.

My point was more that if you get a crew with Viktorias and another master, a Victoria is probably the leader, right? Same reason you don't take Kirai as the leader and you do take Dreamer as a leader - getting more stones out of your totem.

[touchdown]

11 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

My point was more that if you get a crew with Viktorias and another master, a Victoria is probably the leader, right? Same reason you don't take Kirai as the leader and you do take Dreamer as a leader - getting more stones out of your totem.

Well yes with the rules and stone costs they are now, but that's my point. No one is breaking the game by hiring a Vik. I don't think a single player thinks hiring a Vik is worth the stones. In an ideal world, every model would have situation where it makes sense to hire them right?

[Maniacal_cackle]

Just now, touchdown said:

Well yes with the rules and stone costs they are now, but that's my point. No one is breaking the game by hiring a Vik. I don't think a single player thinks hiring a Vik is worth the stones. In an ideal world, every model would have situation where it makes sense to hire them right?

Yes, mostly, but I'm not sure there is a balanced point for the Viks. Like would people pay 10 stones for one? And then possibly it still doesn't make sense.

And you still do hire them, just not as seconds.

[touchdown]

2 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Yes, mostly, but I'm not sure there is a balanced point for the Viks. Like would people pay 10 stones for one? And then possibly it still doesn't make sense.

And you still do hire them, just not as seconds.

I feel like we've gone into a strange discussion from the base which is that I don't think a Vik at 12 stones is a balance problem on the side of too good.

[Azahul]

8 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Yes, mostly, but I'm not sure there is a balanced point for the Viks. Like would people pay 10 stones for one? And then possibly it still doesn't make sense.

And you still do hire them, just not as seconds.

I actually experimented with list building for a while making a three-four Master list I liked and found something interesting... hiring two Viks doesn't actually cost much more than a Master and their Totem. I ended up wanting Tara to be able to summon chaff in the list, and given that I then rather wanted Karina anyway and that Tara only gets her second activation as a leader it's notable that making the switch only cost me two stones.