3 things I dislike about this season of Malifaux.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Gaining Grounds 2 has been feeling a bit off to me, and after thinking about it I thought I'd list out some of the reasons as feedback. This is just personal opinion, of course. I'm sure some people will think the exact opposite.

Thing #1: The game is too awesome.

What the heck is up with Malifaux?? It is way too fun. There's so many great games on the market, but do I want to try any of them? No, I just want to play Malifaux all day. I'm missing out on all the other good stuff because I'm too busy with the best game on the market.

Okay, now that it is clear I still love the game...

Thing #2: the schemes are too oriented towards the enemy crew.

This is probably the biggest one for me.

In the past two seasons, there were 6 schemes that could be scored positionally - you could score them without going near the enemy crew (although the enemy crew could go to the locations where you could score and still stop you).

In those two seasons, there were 7 schemes that involved scoring around the enemy crew. The game was slightly skewed towards brawl-oriented crews.

In this season, the ratio is 5:8. There are 5 positional schemes and 8 schemes that can be scored from your opponents crew. This is a massive change (now 60% more crew-oriented schemes compared to positional schemes, instead of ~17%).

As a result, control and denial strategies are much harder to capitalise on. There are a lot of crews that thrive on dancing around the opponent and securing victory without direct confrontation.

Now for the majority of generated scheme pools, I feel like that playstyle is just not an option. My impression of the current season after dozens of games is that bubble crews are at an all time high in terms of strength. Centre brawls are very difficult to avoid (and this coming from someone who thought that the centre wasn't that big a deal in Gaining Grounds 1)!

The strategies generally accentuate this problem as well (since strategies flip the issue - position based ones encourage crews engaging each other, while kill-based ones can reward avoiding each other). And this season there's at least 3 strategies that force this kind of gameplay (symbols still rewards the highly mobile, control playstyles).

Now you can argue all day whether this is good or not. Personally I never felt like control-denial was ever overpowered and needed toning down, but it feels massively toned down this season. But I'm of course biased as a control-denial player.

Thing #3: speed of release vs errata balance.

This is just a minor issue at this point, as it is a worry and speculation about a future problem.

Now I know that there are varying opinions on whether or not Explorer's Society is a problem in terms of power level/game balance. Leaving that aside...

It looks like second titles are going to likely release before any errata is released for Explorer's Society. I don't know if this is the case, but if it is... Then it means that content is releasing faster than it can receive balancing errata (if necessary). This can lead to power-creep on a pretty large scale. It would also make me wonder what's next after the second titles - will there be a third release before second titles are errata-ed?

When I hear about the game balance of previous editions, it makes me hope M3E won't become that out of balance. Currently the game balance is insanely good, and I hope that it stays that way. The well-balanced nature of the game is a prime recruitment tool - the new players keep commenting on how well balanced the game is.

[Azahul]

Haha, as a bubble player I feel like I've had a very different experience. The changes to summons and the emphasis on strategies that require interact actions all over the board have left me feeling stretched thin basically every game, especially since in Outcasts our only real go-to for scheme running copped a massive durability nerf and there's hardly anything in faction that can keep up to support him or do his job once he goes down. I get the argument that strategies that require you to spread out implicitly encourage players to fight by chanelling them into the same spaces, but bubble crews as a rule still don't do that effectively. It doesn't feel like a nerf to control/denial gameplay, but rather competition for the same overall strategy fuelling those encounters.

 

I have similar concerns with size of the upcoming wave of releases too though. The fact additional models are being released like Lady Yume beyond the Titles makes the scale of this next wave even larger than I originally assumed (I figured 50+ new Masters would be enough of a release wave on its own). I take some comfort in the fact that balance in Malifaux tends to feel more resilient to outliers than other games I've played, thanks to the combination of how hiring and scoring works, and that the devs have been aggressive in keeping balance in check through the erratas. There might be some hiccups in the short term, but hopefully those will be smoothed out.

[Maniacal_cackle]

2 minutes ago, Azahul said:

Haha, as a bubble player I feel like I've had a very different experience. The changes to summons and the emphasis on strategies that require interact actions all over the board have left me feeling stretched thin basically every game, especially since in Outcasts our only real go-to for scheme running copped a massive durability nerf and there's hardly anything in faction that can keep up to support him or do his job once he goes down. I get the argument that strategies that require you to spread out implicitly encourage players to fight by chanelling them into the same spaces, but bubble crews as a rule still don't do that effectively. It doesn't feel like a nerf to control/denial gameplay, but rather competition for the same overall strategy fuelling those encounters.

I guess maybe instead of bubble crews, I should be thinking of them as really brawl-oriented crews.

Like I know this season is a dream come true for Nekima. Seamus also feels incredibly powerful this season.

3 minutes ago, Azahul said:

I have similar concerns with size of the upcoming wave of releases too though. The fact additional models are being released like Lady Yume beyond the Titles makes the scale of this next wave even larger than I originally assumed (I figured 50+ new Masters would be enough of a release wave on its own). I take some comfort in the fact that balance in Malifaux tends to feel more resilient to outliers than other games I've played, thanks to the combination of how hiring and scoring works, and that the devs have been aggressive in keeping balance in check through the erratas. There might be some hiccups in the short term, but hopefully those will be smoothed out.

Yeah, my worry is that if releases start to happen faster than the errata smoothing, the game will be in a perpetual state of unbalance.

Agree that it is still pretty good overall, though.

[Azahul]

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I guess maybe instead of bubble crews, I should be thinking of them as really brawl-oriented crews.

Like I know this season is a dream come true for Nekima. Seamus also feels incredibly powerful this season.

Ah, yes, that is definitely a better narrowing in on the archetype favoured here. Fast and killy crews that would have had a hard time overcoming the sort of overlapping auras they had to contend with in GG1 centre brawls now get to do that same fighting out on the flanks away from obnoxious counter tech. The Viktorias and Marcus are another two examples my meta has found to have gained a lot in this GG.

[Maniacal_cackle]

12 minutes ago, Azahul said:

Ah, yes, that is definitely a better narrowing in on the archetype favoured here. Fast and killy crews that would have had a hard time overcoming the sort of overlapping auras they had to contend with in GG1 centre brawls now get to do that same fighting out on the flanks away from obnoxious counter tech. The Viktorias and Marcus are another two examples my meta has found to have gained a lot in this GG.

Maybe I'm just doing mobility wrong. Molly feels off this season (as does Marcus, but I'm new with him). My meta has been playing extremely brawl-centric crews, so mobility is at a reduced premium compared to killing power and durability.

[Trample]

Hmmm, gonna have to think about that. I haven't done the analysis you have on scheme types, but at first blush your impressions differ from mine. I see more scheming required in pools than brawling versus GG1. I see more movement, scheme markers, and positioning required here than before. I played in a tournament recently and ran Zipp twice and Von Schill once in the three rounds, so I gravitated more toward the scheme & movement types. The former because mobility and scheming/anti-scheming was so valuable.

I agree that Viks, Nekima, and Marcus have improved, but I believe that's because movement is more beneficial in this GG. 

The power creep concern shouldn't be a worry yet. Malifaux has been a very balanced game and we have only the vassal games as feedback on explorers at this stage. We may still be concerned about their power in 3-4 months, but I think it's worth waiting for some in-person tournaments to see how they fare. Many players, like me, don't have any interest in vassal and I'm not sure it's a great representation of the game (I'm also not sure it's not). The errata delay on them is, IMHO, a good move. 

That's just a knee jerk reaction to the post, mind you. I haven't done any analysis on either the success of explorers or the specifics of the pools we see in GG2. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

30 minutes ago, Trample said:

Hmmm, gonna have to think about that. I haven't done the analysis you have on scheme types, but at first blush your impressions differ from mine. I see more scheming required in pools than brawling versus GG1. I see more movement, scheme markers, and positioning required here than before. I played in a tournament recently and ran Zipp twice and Von Schill once in the three rounds, so I gravitated more toward the scheme & movement types. The former because mobility and scheming/anti-scheming was so valuable.

I agree that Viks, Nekima, and Marcus have improved, but I believe that's because movement is more beneficial in this GG. 

The power creep concern shouldn't be a worry yet. Malifaux has been a very balanced game and we have only the vassal games as feedback on explorers at this stage. We may still be concerned about their power in 3-4 months, but I think it's worth waiting for some in-person tournaments to see how they fare. Many players, like me, don't have any interest in vassal and I'm not sure it's a great representation of the game (I'm also not sure it's not). The errata delay on them is, IMHO, a good move. 

That's just a knee jerk reaction to the post, mind you. I haven't done any analysis on either the success of explorers or the specifics of the pools we see in GG2. 

I think overall ES are only dominating by a few percentage points, even on Vassal. Also they were really brought in line with the summoning changes.

That said... I'm more concerned that there doesn't appear to be a period of time to review ES. So even if Wyrd's data is clearly illustrating something is broken, they don't seem to have a time to address that.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Another thought that occurs is that the scheme-marker schemes have been getting less efficient over time (compare search the ruins to spread them out, for example).

So when you look at the VWS pools this month, for example...

• Wedge Break the Line
• Detonate Charges
• Assassinate
• Claim Jump
• Research Mission
• Spread Them Out

Not only does this pool scream the ability to score 8 points by staying pretty close to the centre, scoring away from the centre is pretty inefficient.

• Standard Corrupted Ley Lines
• Vendetta
• Death Beds
• Let Them Bleed
• Outflank
• Bait and Switch

Outflank is the only way to draw an opponent away from the strategy in this pool, and it is hugely inefficient compared to previous forms (and possibly more importantly, it is very strongly telegraphed).

• Corner Symbols of Authority
• Vendetta
• Claim Jump
• Catch and Release
• Let Them Bleed
• Research Mission

So this one is probably the one with the most options, as expected for a symbols pool. But even then, all the scheme options can be scored in the centre with ease.

• Flank Turf War 
• Breakthrough
• Death Beds
• Hidden Martyrs
• Spread Them Out
• Bait and Switch

Here this one has two options, but it is so much AP to score both (as say compared to outflank + power ritual in older pools).

The overall effect in my view is that scoring away from your opponent is getting less and less efficient, while scoring where your opponent is has gotten more efficient, driving a push towards the brawl-oriented crews.

Just my take, though.

Also I acknowledge the effect that I've gotten into more competitive of games, which naturally results in the more brawl oriented crews as well since they're popular in competitive play.

[Azahul]

This drive could be simply be because uninteractive schemes are a really delicate line to walk. One great thing about this game is you can lose the fight but win the game as a valid play style, which I love. But push that too far and you get situations where a player physically can't prevent their opponent from scoring points, and now we're starting to creep into negative play experiences and broken combos. A GG0 Soulstone Miner could be the gold standard for this experience. A lot of the changes from GG0 to GG1 was driven by this experience, where the goal in most pools was to build a list that could score 8 without ever going near the opponent. I actually feel like GG2 walked back a bit of the centre-focus that GG1 had, but most of that feels like it's been in the Strategies rather than the schemes.

 

New Outflank is definitely less efficient and more telegraphed than it used to be. Unfortunately old Outflank kinda had a rep for being near possible to stop. If you go into a game planning for a centre brawl and your opponent goes for Outflank, you need to be playing a specific style of crew to be able to respond even if you see it coming a turn in advance. The board edges are a long way away for most crews in the game, even if the Strategy shift and strategies like Break the Line in particular encourage the use of those crews who can make that trip.

 

Also am I the only one finding that Break the Line games are more often won on the flanks than in the centre? I feel like I'm playing it wrong, I'd love to be able to focus down the middle of the table. Or do you just mean the centreline?

[Maniacal_cackle]

24 minutes ago, Azahul said:

This drive could be simply be because uninteractive schemes are a really delicate line to walk. One great thing about this game is you can lose the fight but win the game as a valid play style, which I love. But push that too far and you get situations where a player physically can't prevent their opponent from scoring points, and now we're starting to creep into negative play experiences and broken combos. A GG0 Soulstone Miner could be the gold standard for this experience. A lot of the changes from GG0 to GG1 was driven by this experience, where the goal in most pools was to build a list that could score 8 without ever going near the opponent. I actually feel like GG2 walked back a bit of the centre-focus that GG1 had, but most of that feels like it's been in the Strategies rather than the schemes.

Yeah, it is a tricky balance for sure.

I think GG2 increased it, though.

Break the line and turf war are way more centre-oriented than recover evidence/public enemies IMO (since you can just run away in those pools, forcing your opponent to scheme).

25 minutes ago, Azahul said:

New Outflank is definitely less efficient and more telegraphed than it used to be. Unfortunately old Outflank kinda had a rep for being near possible to stop. If you go into a game planning for a centre brawl and your opponent goes for Outflank, you need to be playing a specific style of crew to be able to respond even if you see it coming a turn in advance. The board edges are a long way away for most crews in the game, even if the Strategy shift and strategies like Break the Line in particular encourage the use of those crews who can make that trip.

I found old Outflank still took some serious work (because you had to claim one side to deny vs two to score), but it was probably a bit to easy.

Still, four scheme markers instead of zero is just such a huge difference.

Honestly, all of this may be down to the changes in Outflank xD

26 minutes ago, Azahul said:

Also am I the only one finding that Break the Line games are more often won on the flanks than in the centre? I feel like I'm playing it wrong, I'd love to be able to focus down the middle of the table. Or do you just mean the centreline?

Break the line doesn't have to be centre oriented if both players don't play that way, but if one player wants to force a centre brawl for control of two markers, it is a lot easier for them to do.

It can vary, though - if the opponent doesn't have don't mind me, then the flanks matter a lot more.

[Trample]

6 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

 

Break the line and turf war are way more centre-oriented than recover evidence/public enemies IMO (since you can just run away in those pools, forcing your opponent to scheme).

I can see why you say that. Recover Evidence was one that did require you to go to where your enemy was to get the marker at least. You could certainly eliminate them from a distance, but I see that strategy as very brawl-oriented. 

BTL is one that I've been playing similar to how I would approach Plant Explosives, which is focus on overwhelming with the markers early, defend and prevent from that point. So with BTL I try to get all of them moved into my opponent's half on turn one and again on turn 2. There are folks who approach this as kill first, move the markers and score later but I plan to have invested so much in the strategy by that point that they won't catch up. So to me it's more of a movement-based strat than a brawl-based strat. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

3 minutes ago, Trample said:

I can see why you say that. Recover Evidence was one that did require you to go to where your enemy was to get the marker at least. You could certainly eliminate them from a distance, but I see that strategy as very brawl-oriented. 

BTL is one that I've been playing similar to how I would approach Plant Explosives, which is focus on overwhelming with the markers early, defend and prevent from that point. So with BTL I try to get all of them moved into my opponent's half on turn one and again on turn 2. There are folks who approach this as kill first, move the markers and score later but I plan to have invested so much in the strategy by that point that they won't catch up. So to me it's more of a movement-based strat than a brawl-based strat. 

Interesting. Do you usually play it on the diagonal or a straight line?

I find that on corner or flank, there is tons of distance to work with (51 inches or so), but standard and wedge the distance is too small to pull off those shenanigans (36 inches).

[Trample]

Definitely the diagonal has more room, but even in standard or wedge you can take the same approach. In fact in standard or wedge you have an easier time getting them deep into the table half if they're on the edges. A speedy crew can get to all of them and move them on turn one and be in a position to do the same on round two. Consider a crews like the Viks and how easy that is in standard deployment to move all 4 markers on the first turn, forcing your opponent to choose how they invest their AP. A crew like that can then be positioned to move them all again, at least once, in round 2. 

I approached it that way with Zipp in a tournament game in Des Moines last month and by the end of the game I didn't have much on the table but won 6-1 (should have been 7 one but I completely forgot to count the second point of Bait & Switch). My opponent didn't score any for the strategy because I poured so much AP into getting them back far enough that he didn't have enough to kick them back. That was in wedge deployment. 

I like (on paper, I've only used Outcasts for GG2 so far) crews like Swampfiend, Nephilim, Forgotten, Frontier, and Chimera for this one using that approach. 

[Adran]

What I want from a new Gaining Grounds document is that people can't just expect to play the lists that they played in the last gaining grounds and automatically do well. Although this edition I think Gaining Grounds is changing less each iteration than previous editons where we started off with complete switches of strategies or schemes . This will mean that there should be a degree of Flux in what is good and what isn't good, and in our perception of what is and isn't good. 

Changing the scheme focus from 6:7 to 5:8 seems a relatively minor change to me, but you describe it as a major change.  I want some degree of interaction between the 2 crews, so I'm not sure that I would want games played where people never have opposed duels. So I wouldn't want too many games to exist where it is a case that the majority of the points could be obtained whilst not needing to get near the opponent (of course even if all points could be scored without interaction, there will still be interaction as you need to deny points to win). 

 

Errata Process

I don't know what the Wyrd plans are, but the nature of the game is that power levels of the game are going to be in permanent flux, with new releases and changes to Gaining grounds. The game has been released for 2 years now and has received 2 Errata cycles and 1 new release cycle (as well as 3 gaining grounds). The second new release will be soon. Wyrd have almost always done the yearly release at Gencon. I think there have been 7 rules products that weren't launched at a gen con, although that does end up including everything from M3. (The release was about 6 weeks before Gencon, and thanks to last year, the explorers were released after gencon, apart from that its the 2 player starter set, the 2 mixed faction story boxes in M2,  Aionius, and Transmortis, which ended up releasing for M2 before M2 was released is a bizarre circumstance)

I don't believe that the rate of release compared to errata automatically makes power creep more likely. I assume you're following the "next release needs to be better than the last release" mentality to generate that power creep, and so if the last release hasn't yet been bought down then the next release has to be even better, but that sort of relies on the designers to want power creep. If they don't want power creep, and test new stuff against all the existing stuff, then it doesn't have to hold as true. 

[trikk]

What I dislike:

• I dislike a lot of schemes centered on non-scheme markers but it's a faction-specific thing. With no easy access to any markers except schemes and killing models playing thing like Research Mission is very hard IMHO unless the oppontn will help you. Title Sonnia looks like she will bring some help for that.
• I also dislike that CLL and Turf War are kind of similar  compared to how different BTL and Symbols are.
• I wish the errata was like 1.5 it's current size.

 

What I like:

• Summon changes - both tokens and strat changes
• BTL as a new strategy
• Nerfed Midnight Stalker  

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

11 hours ago, Trample said:

Definitely the diagonal has more room, but even in standard or wedge you can take the same approach. In fact in standard or wedge you have an easier time getting them deep into the table half if they're on the edges. A speedy crew can get to all of them and move them on turn one and be in a position to do the same on round two. Consider a crews like the Viks and how easy that is in standard deployment to move all 4 markers on the first turn, forcing your opponent to choose how they invest their AP. A crew like that can then be positioned to move them all again, at least once, in round 2. 

I approached it that way with Zipp in a tournament game in Des Moines last month and by the end of the game I didn't have much on the table but won 6-1 (should have been 7 one but I completely forgot to count the second point of Bait & Switch). My opponent didn't score any for the strategy because I poured so much AP into getting them back far enough that he didn't have enough to kick them back. That was in wedge deployment. 

I like (on paper, I've only used Outcasts for GG2 so far) crews like Swampfiend, Nephilim, Forgotten, Frontier, and Chimera for this one using that approach. 

This is true, and to be honest when I win Break The Lines I often employ this strategy. However, a lot of the time you're also against a crew like Nephilim, who can move AND dominate combat. I find the hyper-mobile beaters is getting even more accentuated here. In BTL, if you don't have super mobile beaters, you risk losing the fight at every marker.

10 hours ago, Adran said:

What I want from a new Gaining Grounds document is that people can't just expect to play the lists that they played in the last gaining grounds and automatically do well. Although this edition I think Gaining Grounds is changing less each iteration than previous editons where we started off with complete switches of strategies or schemes . This will mean that there should be a degree of Flux in what is good and what isn't good, and in our perception of what is and isn't good. 

Yeah, agree 100%. Although I personally don't feel control/denial was overbearing to begin with, that's a personal opinion. Stagnation would be far worse for the game than change for sure!

10 hours ago, Adran said:

Changing the scheme focus from 6:7 to 5:8 seems a relatively minor change to me, but you describe it as a major change.

Hmmm... If you're in a randomly generated pool meta (rather than a curated meta), and play 100 games this season compared to 100 games last season. You'll have this many games with the number of schemes that don't require the enemy...

• 5 schemes: 0 / 0
• 4 schemes: 3 / 8 
• 3 schemes: 22 / 33
• 2 schemes: 44 / 41
• 1 schemes: 27 / 16
• 0 schemes: 4 / 2

With the left being this season and the right being previous seasons... So you're going to play 75 games with 2 or less this season, vs 59. To me that's a substantial difference, although I can also see an argument that it isn't THAT big a difference.

And as above, I think part of what is making me think of this is how difficult the schemes are to score compared to previous seasons, so is a compounding effect.

10 hours ago, Adran said:

I want some degree of interaction between the 2 crews, so I'm not sure that I would want games played where people never have opposed duels. So I wouldn't want too many games to exist where it is a case that the majority of the points could be obtained whilst not needing to get near the opponent (of course even if all points could be scored without interaction, there will still be interaction as you need to deny points to win). 

Agree this is super important for the game. Like imagine if there were 8 schemes that didn't require the enemy, and 5 that did? That'd be such a rough season, everyone would hate it.

Still, I like it to be an option on the table. The question is how often should it be on the table/how effective should it be. And we'll all fall on different spots there.

10 hours ago, Adran said:

Errata Process

I don't know what the Wyrd plans are, but the nature of the game is that power levels of the game are going to be in permanent flux, with new releases and changes to Gaining grounds. The game has been released for 2 years now and has received 2 Errata cycles and 1 new release cycle (as well as 3 gaining grounds). The second new release will be soon. Wyrd have almost always done the yearly release at Gencon. I think there have been 7 rules products that weren't launched at a gen con, although that does end up including everything from M3. (The release was about 6 weeks before Gencon, and thanks to last year, the explorers were released after gencon, apart from that its the 2 player starter set, the 2 mixed faction story boxes in M2,  Aionius, and Transmortis, which ended up releasing for M2 before M2 was released is a bizarre circumstance)

I don't believe that the rate of release compared to errata automatically makes power creep more likely. I assume you're following the "next release needs to be better than the last release" mentality to generate that power creep, and so if the last release hasn't yet been bought down then the next release has to be even better, but that sort of relies on the designers to want power creep. If they don't want power creep, and test new stuff against all the existing stuff, then it doesn't have to hold as true. 

I don't think you have to aim for power creep for this to happen.

If your goal is to make playable models, then the target to hit that isn't THAT big. Some models will overshoot and some will undershoot. So it is quite natural that even when you aim for balanced gameplay, you'll accidentally make overpowered stuff.

Without balancing errata, competitive play will skew pretty hard to overpowered/overtuned stuff over time.

That said - Wyrd has an excellent balancing track record so far this edition, so I am mostly happy to give them the benefit of the doubt until the game actually starts breaking.

9 hours ago, trikk said:

What I dislike:

• I dislike a lot of schemes centered on non-scheme markers but it's a faction-specific thing. With no easy access to any markers except schemes and killing models playing thing like Research Mission is very hard IMHO unless the oppontn will help you. Title Sonnia looks like she will bring some help for that.
• I also dislike that CLL and Turf War are kind of similar  compared to how different BTL and Symbols are.
• I wish the errata was like 1.5 it's current size.

 

What I like:

• Summon changes - both tokens and strat changes
• BTL as a new strategy
• Nerfed Midnight Stalker  

 

OMGoose, how good are the summoning changes? Such a fantastic change!!!

And agree all the schemes being based on markers feels really weird to me. They presumably did it because every strategy gives you strategy markers, but using the strategy markers often feels super clunky/telegraphed to me.

Although I personally think CLL and Turf War are incredibly different. One is a slow, claim territory matchup. The other is a fast-paced war for markers that are constantly flipping.

[Maniacal_cackle]

As a followup to what I mean, consider this pool from round 1 of the championships:

• Corner Break the Line
  • Breakthrough, 
  • Outflank, 
  • spread them out, 
  • Vendetta,
  • Catch and release

SIX of the winners took Vendetta & catch and release. One winner took Catch & Breakthrough (1 point). One winner took vendetta & brekathrough (1 point). The losers took a wider variety.

Trying to win via the scheme marker schemes has gotten a LOT harder this season I feel. Although 2 more rounds with the full 16 to go, so we'll see what sort of variety we get for schemes in those pools.

I probably just need to get better at the brawl styles games, though 😜

[Math Mathonwy]

Vendetta is almost an autotake, unfortunately.

[SEV]

I think this why we see a lot more free scheme markers placement on the new title cards. Righ now the scheme involving multiple interact action are not efficient in comparison too the other scheme.

Also, there was an article on the third floor war website about scheme pool. Basically their argument is that randomly generated scheme pool (or poorly selected one) are horrible. I tend to agree.

Look at this scenario from R1 of the teams cup :

Corner - Break the line

Research Mission 

Hidden Martyrs 

Vendetta 

Breakthrough 

Detonate Charges

...

Who will take Breakthrough here? Who won't take Researh ?Even detonate is way less likely to be taken than the other passive scheme (vendetta or hidden).

[santaclaws01]

6 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

As a followup to what I mean, consider this pool from round 1 of the championships:

• Corner Break the Line
  • Breakthrough, 
  • Outflank, 
  • spread them out, 
  • Vendetta,
  • Catch and release

SIX of the winners took Vendetta & catch and release. One winner took Catch & Breakthrough (1 point). One winner took vendetta & brekathrough (1 point). The losers took a wider variety.

Trying to win via the scheme marker schemes has gotten a LOT harder this season I feel. Although 2 more rounds with the full 16 to go, so we'll see what sort of variety we get for schemes in those pools.

I probably just need to get better at the brawl styles games, though 😜

One thing to consider is that corner already makes interact heavy schemes harder, because you have to spend more time just getting into a position where you can score them, and then breakthrough becomes uniquely difficult in corner because of the small size of the deployment zone and the high likely hood that the enemy will still be pretty near their deployment zone to be able to pivot and go back to deny. 

Add to that there were only 4 schemes to choose from and options become a lot more limited.