So who are those “s-tier” masters?

[Harlekin]

5 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

Cornelius Basse prior to the rest of the Explorers faction releasing

lol. But no. Basse never was F-Tier. 

[Math Mathonwy]

18 hours ago, SEV said:

With 53 masters each tier should be around 18 masters 

This isn't how tiers are normally used. The usual approach is to define tiers based on power and then place the things into tiers as opposed to spreading things into tiers and then find the power level distinctions from that.

Also, I think that it is important to note that Malifaux has a unique advantage when compared to most minis games in that the raw generalist take-all-comers power level isn't the only way to gauge Masters but rather if they excel in their niche they can be very good even if they are kinda lackluster when taken into all possible pools and match-ups. And I get the feeling that some people are doing the tiering based on general effectiveness while others consider the specific niche effectiveness thus leading to a certain disparity that cannot be avoided unless approaches are homogenized. 

It's also worth noting that if a given Master wins 90% of the time in a certain strategy while their overall win rate is close to 50% the Master should arguably be adjusted (or the strat!). There are also many Master that cannot be played against certain Factions as they nearly auto-lose certain match-ups.

[Maogrim]

6 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

This isn't how tiers are normally used. The usual approach is to define tiers based on power and then place the things into tiers as opposed to spreading things into tiers and then find the power level distinctions from that.

Also, I think that it is important to note that Malifaux has a unique advantage when compared to most minis games in that the raw generalist take-all-comers power level isn't the only way to gauge Masters but rather if they excel in their niche they can be very good even if they are kinda lackluster when taken into all possible pools and match-ups. And I get the feeling that some people are doing the tiering based on general effectiveness while others consider the specific niche effectiveness thus leading to a certain disparity that cannot be avoided unless approaches are homogenized. 

It's also worth noting that if a given Master wins 90% of the time in a certain strategy while their overall win rate is close to 50% the Master should arguably be adjusted (or the strat!). There are also many Master that cannot be played against certain Factions as they nearly auto-lose certain match-ups.

Agreed, and I find that somewhat problematic for new players, as many seem to be drawn into the game by being fascinated not by a faction but by a certain Master or keyword. And if they then find out that their particular master or theme of choice is incredibly weak and auto-loses against certain other masters or is damn near useless in certain strategies (Youko) and their only way of enjoying a little success is to get other Masters/ keywords from the same faction that they might not find visually appealing (Asami) ... don't know. I find that very frustrating. 

[Harlekin]

5 minutes ago, Maogrim said:

Agreed, and I find that somewhat problematic for new players, as many seem to be drawn into the game by being fascinated not by a faction but by a certain Master or keyword. And if they then find out that their particular master or theme of choice is incredibly weak and auto-loses against certain other masters or is damn near useless in certain strategies (Youko) and their only way of enjoying a little success is to get other Masters/ keywords from the same faction that they might not find visually appealing (Asami) ... don't know. I find that very frustrating. 

On the other hand, in most miniature games you just pick a faction and not this one list. The fact that you need some detailed knowledge about the game to make a sensible decision about which Master to choose to get into the game definitely is a bit of a problem; good point.

[RisingPhoenix]

The S-F tier thing can be used almost universally in any game that lets you make variable selections of archtype (even board games like Twilight Imperium) and it's a very good way to look at balance.  Yes, I'm shamelessly stealing from the FGC.  Apologies if Basse had something viable pre-explorers and was just D by the way, we had him lumped around the bottom of a bad faction pre XP released.

A/B/C is really the sweet spot because it accepts that perfect balance is impossible while trying for a situation where nothing is 'take all comers'.  A C-tier has a small window, but if you can live in that window you can be godlike.  It's just that for something like Jack Daw there's things you can't do, like "drop him against Gremlins".  It's weird to have a master that scoops to an entire faction, but then you run him into Hoffman or something and suddenly Hoffman has a real game on his hands.  

B-Tiers are usually along the lines of narrower A-Tiers.  Strong at what they do, but more weaknesses and less flexibility usually.  It's easy to think of them as 'slightly worse As' (and some are) but mostly they're just things with a playstyle that's not quite as universally applicable, but is stronger at certain things.

A-Tiers should be... well, Hoffman.  Yeah he has bad matchups, but the stompy bots demand respect (Yes, Hoffman is kind of my A tier example, he's just so universally acknowledged as good without anyone thinking he's truly OP like Sandeep or Dreamer)