Wishlist for Gaining Ground 2?

[LeperColony]

I'd like to see some schemes that make use of keywords.  Like a version of breakthrough based on having two or more keyworded minions in your opponent's deployment zone.

[RisingPhoenix]

1 minute ago, Adran said:

I'm not sure this is true, based on the last 10 years. What ever the schemes are like there is a group of players who kill first and score later. If I can score a couple of points while you are killing me, that you can't get back after you've killed me, then the schemes approach can work regardless of the difficulty.

 

Of course there is, but I bolded the important part.  To do a Runic Binding, you need to drop three scheme markers within 10" of each other around 2 or more models.  That means you have to be at least 10" of those models, probably more like 6". 

Do you ever take that scheme against Leveticus?  Even if you can drop scheme markers at range?  That better be quite the range, because as you know getting that close to Levi and Alyce is a fatal price for any model to pay, especially a schemy one. 

And that's the point.  You need the schemes to be sufficiently easy that you can score them while you're dying.  Especially since M3E made it so you can only score 1 point off schemes if you die.  It used to be you could score 6 points of schemes even if you got tabled, now you can score 2.  That's a huge change that favors kill-focused crews enormously.  If the schemes also get hard to score the first point on and you can't even count on scoring those two points while your models are dying, you just can't play something like Nellie into Leveticus (which is already a bad idea). 

[Adran]

2 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

Of course there is, but I bolded the important part.  To do a Runic Binding, you need to drop three scheme markers within 10" of each other around 2 or more models.  That means you have to be at least 10" of those models, probably more like 6". 

Do you ever take that scheme against Leveticus?  Even if you can drop scheme markers at range?  That better be quite the range, because as you know getting that close to Levi and Alyce is a fatal price for any model to pay, especially a schemy one. 

And that's the point.  You need the schemes to be sufficiently easy that you can score them while you're dying.  Especially since M3E made it so you can only score 1 point off schemes if you die.  It used to be you could score 6 points of schemes even if you got tabled, now you can score 2.  That's a huge change that favors kill-focused crews enormously.  If the schemes also get hard to score the first point on and you can't even count on scoring those two points while your models are dying, you just can't play something like Nellie into Leveticus (which is already a bad idea). 

It's naturally self balancing. If you both take crews to kill the other then you end up with a 0-0 draw. You have to make sure that you have some way to score even while you are killing. Kill them all and then score only works if you kill them quickly enough to then score more points than they scored whilst you were killing them. 

[Mycellanious]

14 hours ago, Jesy Blue said:

There's two things I loved that I know we'll never get back from 2nd edition, but I'm gonna mention them anyways:

1. The static scheme that was in every scenario.  There used to be 4 random schemes plus a Scheme that was in every game. I'd want to make it a stupid hard one to pull off though, so you could always go for it, but it was super hard to get both points for it.
2. Faction Specific Schemes, they were schemes that were available to be put in the pool only if you were playing that faction. I say this as the Outcast player who had the worst/best faction scheme (when you declared the scheme you gained 3 soul stones but you could not gain points from the scheme.... obviously it was called "Money First").

Hard disagree. This would simply reinforce certain masters as best in Faction because they just always score the Faction scheme. A similar problem would arise, where for example rn you take Hoff/Ironsides for Recover if the schemes are center focused, but Mei if they are spread out. If the Static scheme favored one type of playstyle (which it would) then it would push out masters who like the strat, but not the static scheme. Anything that reduces diversity on the table is problematic I think

[MrPieChee]

3 hours ago, Mycellanious said:

Hard disagree. This would simply reinforce certain masters as best in Faction because they just always score the Faction scheme. A similar problem would arise, where for example rn you take Hoff/Ironsides for Recover if the schemes are center focused, but Mei if they are spread out. If the Static scheme favored one type of playstyle (which it would) then it would push out masters who like the strat, but not the static scheme. Anything that reduces diversity on the table is problematic I think

You can balance the schemes.

Faction specific schemes can be balanced based on the strength of the faction in the current set of strategies and random schemes.

The static scheme could be balanced against a strategy it's paired with such that masters that are bad at that strategy could be good at the static scheme.

If you ask me, it would make it easier to balance the game. At the moment you have the issue that the game could get balanced for a given gaining grounds, but then the next one throws that out the window. Having these extra 'known' schemes means you have more fixed points to balance against.

[Harlekin]

1 hour ago, MrPieChee said:

You can balance the schemes.

In a game as complex as Malifaux which offers so many variables and interactions, you simply can't. It's just not possible. 

[MrPieChee]

34 minutes ago, Harlekin said:

In a game as complex as Malifaux which offers so many variables and interactions, you simply can't. It's just not possible. 

If you read the rest of the post, I explain how. You don't try and balance for all, you pick your target keywords/masters and you balance for them (by making it easy for them, hard for others).

If you've got a few known schemes, you have less to worry about when trying to balance everything else. Balancing with completely random schemes and strategies is hard. But:

- if you know every strategy has a scheme that's easy to score with the type of crew that is bad at that strategy

- and you know that every bottom tier master from each faction has a scheme that's easy to score for their normal play style.

Then it becomes much easier to balance the game as a whole.

I know that for the most part every master isn't balanced for every strategy, but sometimes a player wants to learn a master and stand a chance in any match up, or they want to solo master a tournament.

[Harlekin]

I appreciate your effort but it still doesn't work. There are just too many factors to consider. Offering a fixed Scheme for every faction for competitive play will just increase the "Bring best-of" crew building thing. It might push some models a bit but it won't help with the things we are trying to address. 

For casual/campaign gaming I absolutely like your idea as it can help tell a story while gaming.

[RisingPhoenix]

On 3/12/2021 at 4:52 PM, ooshawn said:

I think community schemes for a set league or tournament would be amazing. maybe even a community errata. especially since wyrd seems shy to pull the trigger on anything

Oh god no.  If the community "balances" shit it'd be 100% a fuckfest where the loudest people in each faction would argue that their particular flavor of brokenness is just friggin fine.  Or even needs a buff.

Trust me, community balancing is around the last thing you want.  50% of the community are morons, 25% are flat contrarians, and the other 25% are powergamers who got attached to broken models.

No friggin way.  It'd probably end up with something like Colette getting nerfed into the dirt and Kirai being buffed to get her closer in line with the other summoners.  Community balancing is a disaster on wheels.

[ooshawn]

The thing is most people that I have met, that are power gamers like myself. Openly acknowledge when something is too strong. I don't even play the dreamer because of that. I played themed lucius usually and complain about it 

[MrPieChee]

12 hours ago, Harlekin said:

I appreciate your effort but it still doesn't work. There are just too many factors to consider. Offering a fixed Scheme for every faction for competitive play will just increase the "Bring best-of" crew building thing. It might push some models a bit but it won't help with the things we are trying to address. 

For casual/campaign gaming I absolutely like your idea as it can help tell a story while gaming.

Oh, I wasn't trying to say use it to balance all the current issues. Someone suggested it as something they'd like to see in the new GG and someone else said there is no way it could ever work because it could only help already powerful masters. I was simply trying to say it would actually make it easier to balance those masters (but other errata would still be needed).

[RisingPhoenix]

On 3/13/2021 at 7:26 PM, ooshawn said:

The thing is most people that I have met, that are power gamers like myself. Openly acknowledge when something is too strong. I don't even play the dreamer because of that. I played themed lucius usually and complain about it 

Playing a bad crew and complaining about it is being a hipster, not a power gamer. 

Anyway, the problem is this:

- Many supremely strong players are not actually good at writing forum posts.  Maybe they don't even speak English that well.  Some of the best players who break the game the best don't want a voice here

- Hard to play masters are harder to break.  That doesn't make them less broken.  I don't think it's an accident that the most broken masters at GG0 launch were things like Collette, Tara, Dreamer, Sandeep, So'mer, etc.  Crews that aren't easy to play.  While crews that have straightforward power like Ironsides, Hoffman, Nekima, etc. are more balanced.  Playtesters didn't have time to really learn the complex crews, especially with the playtest constantly shifting.

- The community has a large population of contrarians.  Go check out everyone saying Cadmus is probably balanced. Cadmus.  Friggin Cadmus.  I don't think there's been an OP model or crew in Wyrd's history without a host of defenders saying "that's fine."  Somewhere back in the day there's a defense of 0/1/12 damage Leveticus saying "he doesn't always flip severes!"

- We really don't want balance in the hands of the forum.

 

 

 

[Adran]

4 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

- The community has a large population of contrarians.  Go check out everyone saying Cadmus is probably balanced. Cadmus.  Friggin Cadmus.  I don't think there's been an OP model or crew in Wyrd's history without a host of defenders saying "that's fine."  Somewhere back in the day there's a defense of 0/1/12 damage Leveticus saying "he doesn't always flip severes!"

 

A lot of your post rings true.

I'm probably one of the biggest Contrarians on the forum, although that is partially a defence against the large number of posts that seem to come in "I lost to model X, it must be broken."

I've played a lot of Malifaux games over the years, against a lot of very good players, and I stick with the view that it doesn't matter too much what list you give the good player, they are still likely to win the game. I've faced a lot of the "most broken" crews in games, sometimes with horrible crews to face them, and I enjoy the challenge of working out what I can do. I have never gone into a game knowing I've lost the game because of Crew selection. I know when I have uphill battles, and need luck to make my plan work, but that's not entirely the same thing. So my default view when I face something that seems too strong is "what do I need to learn to do better to handle it". It isn't always the case that I can handle it, but its certainly true more often than not. 

So even if Cadmus is broken (I've yet to be convinced, but I probably also have a higher requirement than most for something to count as broken) a lot of players should still be able to beat it in games when they know how it works, and what they need to do when they are better players than their opponents.  Too many people seem to give up without facing it, or make bad choices because they haven't fully read the crew and understood it. (Such as the recent report put up, when they discovered that Rogue necromancy doesn't mass spread distracted and injured as easily as they thought). 

But I think we've headed way off topic...

[RisingPhoenix]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

A lot of your post rings true.

I'm probably one of the biggest Contrarians on the forum, although that is partially a defence against the large number of posts that seem to come in "I lost to model X, it must be broken."

I've played a lot of Malifaux games over the years, against a lot of very good players, and I stick with the view that it doesn't matter too much what list you give the good player, they are still likely to win the game. I've faced a lot of the "most broken" crews in games, sometimes with horrible crews to face them, and I enjoy the challenge of working out what I can do. I have never gone into a game knowing I've lost the game because of Crew selection. I know when I have uphill battles, and need luck to make my plan work, but that's not entirely the same thing. So my default view when I face something that seems too strong is "what do I need to learn to do better to handle it". It isn't always the case that I can handle it, but its certainly true more often than not.

Certainly it's a truism that good players tend to play good crews.  They're good players, they know what good crews are, they pick good models, don't waste soulstones on dreck that'll never contribute a point, and play what's good over what isn't. 

I think you're vastly underestimating how important balance is though.  Balance is even more important at the mid-tier stages, and that's for diversity.  Mid-tier players tend to fit a mold - they learn to play their own crew well, they don't learn to play the enemy's crew.  Right now, if you truly learn Dreamer or Colette, it's rewarding (VERY, VERY rewarding).  And the same mid-tier players who know their own crew are not going to learn her weaknesses (such as they are) and beat her.  And you can say 'git gud' but why is Colette so damn good anyway?  Does she have to be?  Could we tap a few things down and have an A-tier Colette or a B-tier Colette who didn't have multiple ridiculous things? 

Like you have this view where it's only a problem at the Ivory tower, but I assure you it ranges far from there.  I've seen it often enough in many, many games.  I have watched and listened to frustrated friends when they're mid-table players, and heard plenty of venting.  In all honesty, for the health of the game, things affecting the mid-tier are much more important than things affecting the highest tier only. "If you learn the crew it turns into a flying blender" is a problem that has legs. 

So if someone runs in and goes "Youko's crew is OP she beat me 7-2!" maybe point out to them that Youko's crew is very squishy and has key models that can die and maybe talk it through.  But if multiple people are telling you something then maybe sit down and go "I wonder if they have a point."  It'd give us a vague feeling you have some respect for our thoughts.   Yes, someone is going to always blame balance, but you don't need to be a top table player to watch the Corphyee duet activate three times in a turn and think "this is kinda bs-ish"

[Drunken Monkey]

I was thinking on a different approach for balancing in GGs. Balancing power levels of models and crews is more a question for erratas imho and not something that can be done with a GG document probably.

But GG could give an other kind of tool for balancing the game. There could be some limitations for combinations of strategies and schemes. A strategy could exclude certain schemes from being chosen along with them. Or even schemes could have an exclusion for certain schemes that cannot be scored in the same game.

I came to think of this after two frustrating games with Bayou crews against Yan Lo. One game was Public Enemy, the other Recover Evidence, both games had Claim Jump and one even paired with Leave your Mark. Of course I had good schemes to play around the center, but I had almost no chance to interfere in the center and deny any points.

If strategies focus on killing, there could be an exclusion for schemes that need control of the center of the board for example. Like that, crews would perhaps need more models with different kind of specialisations. Like that if there is something like the best Master or the best crew for a certain strategy, they should not be able to choose their best fitting schemes along with the strategy.

Or instead of excluding stuff, there might be extra points given. For example there could be bonus if you score Take Prisoner along with a kill based Strategy like Public Enemy.

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 hour ago, Drunken Monkey said:

I was thinking on a different approach for balancing in GGs. Balancing power levels of models and crews is more a question for erratas imho and not something that can be done with a GG document probably.

But GG could give an other kind of tool for balancing the game. There could be some limitations for combinations of strategies and schemes. A strategy could exclude certain schemes from being chosen along with them. Or even schemes could have an exclusion for certain schemes that cannot be scored in the same game.

I came to think of this after two frustrating games with Bayou crews against Yan Lo. One game was Public Enemy, the other Recover Evidence, both games had Claim Jump and one even paired with Leave your Mark. Of course I had good schemes to play around the center, but I had almost no chance to interfere in the center and deny any points.

If strategies focus on killing, there could be an exclusion for schemes that need control of the center of the board for example. Like that, crews would perhaps need more models with different kind of specialisations. Like that if there is something like the best Master or the best crew for a certain strategy, they should not be able to choose their best fitting schemes along with the strategy.

Or instead of excluding stuff, there might be extra points given. For example there could be bonus if you score Take Prisoner along with a kill based Strategy like Public Enemy.

I think rather than excluding them, they also could just not overdesign it. Having Claim Jump and Reckoning in GG0 was completely fine.

Having Claim Jump + Leave Your Mark + Public Enemies + Recover Evidence is quite ridiculous xD

[Drunken Monkey]

On 3/10/2021 at 7:41 PM, ooshawn said:

my wish, make cheap models worth something.

Like others have pointed out, I am not sure if this can be done by Schemes and Strategies...
I have a game in a couple of hours that made me think about the whole thing about pass tokens. One of the main advantages of cheap minions is, that especially in the 1st and 2nd turn you could have your opponent make his monsters activate, before you had to make your real move. With pass tokens, its the opposite, now it's the week spot of cheap models since you have to move your small guys and the big ones can wait until their prey is where they want it to be.

One way to make low coast models more attractive could be that in the first turn pass tokens are only gained, if you opponent summons and not at the beginning of the turn. This would make an noteworthy advantage in turn 1 for crews that outnumber the opposing one and perhaps more cheap models would be played to do that...

Just a thought that I had while preparing for today😅 

[Mycellanious]

4 hours ago, Drunken Monkey said:

Like others have pointed out, I am not sure if this can be done by Schemes and Strategies...
I have a game in a couple of hours that made me think about the whole thing about pass tokens. One of the main advantages of cheap minions is, that especially in the 1st and 2nd turn you could have your opponent make his monsters activate, before you had to make your real move. With pass tokens, its the opposite, now it's the week spot of cheap models since you have to move your small guys and the big ones can wait until their prey is where they want it to be.

One way to make low coast models more attractive could be that in the first turn pass tokens are only gained, if you opponent summons and not at the beginning of the turn. This would make an noteworthy advantage in turn 1 for crews that outnumber the opposing one and perhaps more cheap models would be played to do that...

Just a thought that I had while preparing for today😅 

I think that if you lose initiative Turn 1 you just play a very different Turn 1. There really isn't any reason you need to rush models up the board Turn 1, especially cheap models. You can't score Turn 1, you don't need to score Turn 2 because you have 3 and 4 to score your Schemes, and if you play defensive and forgo strat Turn 2 then your opponent probably isn't scoring it either so you are on an even playing field, at least for this GG. It's totally acceptable to durtle for a turn and wait for a better opportunity.

[Alex Chesterfield]

In no particular order:

Replace Runic Binding.

Replace or change Public Enemies because getting 4 points from it is nearly impossible.

Stop hating on Tara.

[Thatguy]

I's really like to see more stuff like Frame for Murder where the goal is to get your model killed.

That and stuff where you can get tabled and still score. 

I know it gives schemey crews an advantage, but to me a big draw of Malifaux was that killing is just one way to try and accomplish your objectives. 

[korgal]

hello, no news on GG2 and errata ?

[Adran]

6 minutes ago, korgal said:

hello, no news on GG2 and errata ?

We have news. The news is that it hasn't been released yet, and we don't have a release date for it. (Although soon was mentioned, but that can mean many things to many people). 

[korgal]

Thank you for your quick reply

[Jesy Blue]

Much like Half Life 3.... every time some one asks, it gets pushed back.

[Morgan Vening]

6 hours ago, Jesy Blue said:

Much like Half Life 3.... every time some one asks, it gets pushed back.

Are we there yet?

I don't mind if it gets pushed back, due to Covid restrictions, combined with work being a PITA, and not really liking Vassal (as I prefer the much more social interaction of in-person), I haven't played as much as I've wanted, and there's still some broken models I was hoping to abuse before the likely errata-bat comes a swinging.