Introducing... The BalanceFaux format!

[muraki]

51 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

What they mind is playing 100-200 games where those masters are part of the meta without receiving some adjustments.

 

45 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Overall I imagine the errata cycle works fine for most of the player base, though.

There'll be many players who buy a new crew and only play it 10-30 times before it gets errata-ed, which can also feel quite fast.

There's variety in the player base, so there should be variety in the competitive space to match different needs.

Yep.  I know I play a order of magnitude more than people in my meta, and theres people who outstrip me by 2x at least, so there's definitely a lot there.  Which is why I'm surprised 'fan variants / variants in general' haven't become more prevalent in this game.  As I know once I hit that 'when is gg3 coming out stage' earlier this year I was chomping at anything that would make things feel different, hence dipping into GG All pretty heavily once it came out (and just other GGs before that).

Similarly its why even now we're (locally) trying different variant rules for events, had a bans event when GG3 dropped, and are finishing a 'All in key with max 1 versatile' league and have a upcoming tourney at the end of Oct with the same rule set.  It requires being able to handle a bit of 'i think you should do this instead' pressure from TO's from other metas, but people will always have a gripe or 2, so no biggie.

And (lets be honest) 'classic' servers from MMO's have been around for ages, the concept of 'classic' malifaux as a format isn't far fetched (unless it means m2e or m1e, in that case, go to heck).  I do think timing for some things could be a bit of a headache as wyrd doesnt really release things in a set fashion, so remembering when erratas / new books dropped / what was 'valid' for each of those would be a bit hard, as would things that break the mold (like is mcmourning2 legal as he jumped the queue and was errated without the usual year+ wait?) same thing are erratas also subject to a cool down? (like is raspy1/wong1 playable in that format?)

Obviously thats stuff you can work out when you build your rules doc tho.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Yeah, I think rather than saying all of Wyrds balance cycle should be dedicated to players like me, some experimentation in formats makes sense.

For me personally, my last three or four tournaments have been dominated by either Nexkids or Damian.

And while I REALLY enjoyed my tinkering to beat Nexus (and Damian), it gets tedious to just pick other overpowered titles to play against them.

The most fun tournament games I've had recently were mostly with original titles and masters like Molly 2 (and Lucius 2, but he's secretly super strong).

It'd be really nice to have some formats where original titles can keep up with the top stuff of the format.

[Yore Huckleberry]

2 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Yeah, I think rather than saying all of Wyrds balance cycle should be dedicated to players like me, some experimentation in formats makes sense.

For me personally, my last four tournaments have been dominated by either Nexkids or Damian.

And while I REALLY enjoyed my tinkering to beat Nexus (and Damian), it gets tedious to just pick other overpowered titles to play against them.

The most fun tournament games I've had recently were mostly with original titles and masters like Molly 2 (and Lucius 2, but he's secretly super strong).

It'd be really nice to have some formats where original titles can keep up with the top stuff of the format.

Wyrd players in GENERAL are pretty good about not "yucking someone else's yum," but I can't guarantee you won't get the occasional "-flip" react for inviting people to opt in and try something different. Good luck, sir!

[muraki]

16 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Yeah, I think rather than saying all of Wyrds balance cycle should be dedicated to players like me, some experimentation in formats makes sense.

For me personally, my last four tournaments have been dominated by either Nexkids or Damian.

And while I REALLY enjoyed my tinkering to beat Nexus (and Damian), it gets tedious to just pick other overpowered titles to play against them.

The most fun tournament games I've had recently were mostly with original titles and masters like Molly 2 (and Lucius 2, but he's secretly super strong).

It'd be really nice to have some formats where original titles can keep up with the top stuff of the format.

Yep, hence a 'classic' format (could do something like 'currently everything up to explorers book + all erratas) would be relatively simple for people to understand by just having it be by book.  But if you want to do it, go forth and do it (prolly just odd tone over text but feels more 'heres a proposal what do you think' rather than 'fyi im going to run with this and see how it is!' ha.... tho i guess the official announcement gives you a date to start reps from if you want to really sell the concept for a official GG add).

I do think my biggest issue with this format (provided it doesnt sweep the nation) is that I'm sure there'll be new boogiemen to dominate the meta... which may not as bad as damian / nexkids (as if they were really egregious wyrd would of tapped em down).  Unless the format is 'different enough' that people don't try and powergame it with the strongest in their faction (which I know I see more when the format changes radically, there's a lot more 'let me try out X for a bit and see how he does!' than 'oh wait, i remember x was a monster, back to him i guess!')

FYI tho, I'd wordsmith the name a bit, as I don't like the way 'balanced' reads, as it makes me think it should be the dominant format, or that the core is a 'in testing/ in dev' ruleset.  Something like 'Classic' or 'Errata Eligible' or 'Book (X)' would help make it feel like something I could see in the official packet without confusing people.

[Adran]

2 hours ago, Insomniakwulf said:

So something I think alot of people are missing is that @Maniacal_cackle isn't suggesting this takes over as THE format to play, rather that this format is something that people can use for more casual events and games. If you are in a gt or similar ultra competitive event then you aren't gonna use this format, want a casual pickup game and don't want to be curbstomped by nexkids for the 3rd time in a row, or want an event where simply having fun and flipping cards is more important than this format is great as an every now and then.

Except in his intro he did talk about competitive play.  Since he has agreed with you  I probably misunderstood the original intention.  

I think I was thinking of it as being used as a VWS event,  and potentially as a regular format ( since it was talked about how it would change in 18 months). 

As a format for trying to avoid the latest hype because you are always facing it , it may work. I'm not sure how much it is just the newest thing that is the problem people are having in facing the same things, but,  it's not my problem so I'lltrust your judgement.  Its a bit arbitrary in timing, not helped by insanitary  not fitting your timing assumptions, and cuts a lot away to remove a few problems,  but for your target audience that's probably not much of an issue. 

Ultimately if you can find someone else prepared to try the same thing, just about any format is valid. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

7 minutes ago, muraki said:

Yep, hence a 'classic' format (could do something like 'currently everything up to explorers book + all erratas) would be relatively simple for people to understand by just having it be by book.  But if you want to do it, go forth and do it (prolly just odd tone over text but feels more 'heres a proposal what do you think' rather than 'fyi im going to run with this and see how it is!' ha.... tho i guess the official announcement gives you a date to start reps from if you want to really sell the concept for a official GG add).

I do think my biggest issue with this format (provided it doesnt sweep the nation) is that I'm sure there'll be new boogiemen to dominate the meta... which may not as bad as damian / nexkids (as if they were really egregious wyrd would of tapped em down).  Unless the format is 'different enough' that people don't try and powergame it with the strongest in their faction (which I know I see more when the format changes radically, there's a lot more 'let me try out X for a bit and see how he does!' than 'oh wait, i remember x was a monster, back to him i guess!')

FYI tho, I'd wordsmith the name a bit, as I don't like the way 'balanced' reads, as it makes me think it should be the dominant format, or that the core is a 'in testing/ in dev' ruleset.  Something like 'Classic' or 'Errata Eligible' or 'Book (X)' would help make it feel like something I could see in the official packet without confusing people.

Well, the post includes the philosophy and rules,  so when tournament packs start including the format people can reference it. That's the main idea of the post. So to some degree, it's a combination of "hey this is something people are playing now", and for some readers a "hey this is a format happening in your meta". I'll be referring some players in my meta to it.

I kinda like Classic Faux, but that doesn't really capture the essence of the format (all new releases are part of the format eventually).

The formats core principle is that anything that has been eligible for balancing errata is legal in the format (with some adjustments to address outliers like McMourning). So I think Balance Faux captures that nicely. "Errata eligible" kinda captures it, but is the wrong tense and is super clunky.

BalanceFaux has a nice ring to it, and I think it's accurate. Presumably errata has the aim of making the errata models more balanced.

1 minute ago, Adran said:

Except in his intro he did talk about competitive play.  Since he has agreed with you  I probably misunderstood the original intention.  

I think I was thinking of it as being used as a VWS event,  and potentially as a regular format ( since it was talked about how it would change in 18 months). 

As a format for trying to avoid the latest hype because you are always facing it , it may work. I'm not sure how much it is just the newest thing that is the problem people are having in facing the same things, but,  it's not my problem so I'lltrust your judgement.  Its a bit arbitrary in timing, not helped by insanitary  not fitting your timing assumptions, and cuts a lot away to remove a few problems,  but for your target audience that's probably not much of an issue. 

 

The world series isn't my only meta, but there is a lot of overlap.

It is likely the World Series will give it a go in an event sometime soon, but the top 16 will definitely not use this format.

[doubleW]

Not a comp player - but what if you are just allowed to ban one master (incl title) after each player chose faction... 

If you think damian is broken - ban him.... if not - leave him open to play 
Not sure if people think there are more than one "broken" master in some factions though

Noobs input here  

[Kharnage]

2 hours ago, doubleW said:

Not a comp player - but what if you are just allowed to ban one master (incl title) after each player chose faction... 

While this is a fine approach in Vassal, in meatspace Malifaux, there are plenty of dedicated one-trickers (such as myself) for which you could ban the one keyword they brought on the plane and thusly disqualify them from being able to play the game. While there are plenty of things that are unavoidably unique to the Vassal format (uniform maps for all matches, massive lead time for each match, everyone has their whole faction all the time, etc.) striving for a format that makes sense regardless of medium would be the approach I'd strive for. So if you're, say, a Nekima stan, but want to play into things that have been through an errata cycle, BalanceFaux is the most appealing solution, IMO.

[Yore Huckleberry]

57 minutes ago, Kharnage said:

 So if you're, say, a Nekima stan, but want to play into things that have been through an errata cycle, BalanceFaux is the most appealing solution, IMO.

Metallurgically speaking.

[Maniacal_cackle]

6 hours ago, doubleW said:

Not a comp player - but what if you are just allowed to ban one master (incl title) after each player chose faction... 

If you think damian is broken - ban him.... if not - leave him open to play 
Not sure if people think there are more than one "broken" master in some factions though

Noobs input here  

In addition to what Kharnage said, I think this'll still be unfair.  Any factions with a must ban master will have an advantage.

Bans are more interesting from a counterplay perspective IMO.

EDIT: another consideration is moving forward we don't know what will release every year.  It's entirely possible factions will have two busted things sometimes. This format is well future proofed as it operates on a simple principle (though has awkwardness until the first title errata xD)

[Maniacal_cackle]

Long story short, about 4 different formats were proposed, but they all end up really messy.

Except this one.

This one is clean and crisp (with the downside of collateral damage).

But it's a bit like being a PC gamer that plays things a few years after release. You get to play the same things, it just takes a little while.

[SEV]

So will this be the new MWS format?

[Alcathous]

14 minutes ago, SEV said:

So will this be the new MWS format?

It is a format that MWS might use from time to time. No one is saying it's anything more than another tool in the tool belt. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 hour ago, SEV said:

So will this be the new MWS format?

The only thing currently confirmed and committed is the top 16 will NOT use this format.

But I'll definitely be using it somewhere if the MWS doesn't.

[Math Mathonwy]

But in all seriousness, I like the format. I've had a ton of discussions locally about how the Faux release/errata schedule makes some problems when the new stuff inevitably includes power-level outliers. Especially as we were of the opinion that the latest errata really evened out the top end for the old stuff.

And yet we've also acknowledged that too frequent errata is also a thing that causes consternation especially among people who play less often. In a different system a friend of mine had a mini errataed four times in between him buying it and getting it painted  

So this BalanceFaux as an alternate format sounds good to me. I would personally just limit it by books but I can see the reasoning behind allowing the Enforcers and starter models from Burns. There are quite a few autopicks there but OTOH some make a real difference in competitiveness for a couple of the weaker keywords and I don't think that any cause real power level problems with the original Masters.

[Maniacal_cackle]

9 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

But in all seriousness, I like the format. I've had a ton of discussions locally about how the Faux release/errata schedule makes some problems when the new stuff inevitably includes power-level outliers. Especially as we were of the opinion that the latest errata really evened out the top end for the old stuff.

Yeah, for me, it was the realization that this will be a permanent state of the game if the cycles don't change. I like the new stuff... Just not if we're in a continual state of new stuff and no periods of errata-ed games. This format lets you mix and match.

9 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

So this BalanceFaux as an alternate format sounds good to me. I would personally just limit it by books but I can see the reasoning behind allowing the Enforcers and starter models from Burns. There are quite a few autopicks there but OTOH some make a real difference in competitiveness for a couple of the weaker keywords and I don't think that any cause real power level problems with the original Masters.

Yeah, the initial plan was to do it by books, but it just has so much collateral damage (like Kaltgeists for Rasputina, Curator for McCabe, White Rabbit for Som'er, etc). So this is a bit of a compromise.

Yannic is the only model I'm really concerned about, but we'll see how it goes.

In ~6-8 months when the next errata comes out, all of Malifaux Burns will rotate into the format. So will be interesting to see how it develops (if it even gets off the ground).

[Cats Laughing]

Banning Asami Shintaku is a take, but I get why you're taking the easy route of banning new masters.  It does feel weird that you're allowing potentially broken enforcer/minions, though, but again I suppose category bans/allows is easier than agreeing on specific models. 

 

Another option presented was specific bans by an opponent. Obviously people have some concerns about allowing opponents to ban specific masters.  It would suck if a Nekima solo player ran into someone who banned Nekima.  I would hate it (and look sideways at my opponent as if they were an idiot) if my opponent banned Shintaku. Wyrd already has a ban format, though, that doesn't cause this issue as you do bans after the initial master is declared.  Wyrd's existing format allows a solo-master player to always use their master so there are no bad feels concerns there.  I wonder if a better solution would be to allow a single model ban (after master selection) as a potential fix.  This would allow solo master players to still play their master but would allow their opponents a chance to deny potentially broken combos.  This single model would be instead of Wyrd's existing keyword ban (as an alternative target option), so you could ban a single model in the declared keyword or an OOK keyword.

 

I think this idea would work better than an overall new release ban, as many issues are a combination of models that can usually be stopped/mitigated by removing one of the models.  In the case where an overpowered combo doesn't rely completely on one model, removal of a key model can still bring the overpowered combo down to just being powerful. At the same time removal of the one model shouldn't keep that same keyword from being able to make an effective but not overpowered crew.  This option would allow players the chance to use their new purchases in games while avoiding the biggest issues.

 

[Alcathous]

12 minutes ago, Cats Laughing said:

At the same time removal of the one model shouldn't keep that same keyword from being able to make an effective but not overpowered crew. 

There are quite a few crews that have 1 or 2 lynchpin models that would be rendered effectively unplayable without them. I don't think this creates a more diverse meta, and has as much or more collateral damage as a blanket ban does.

[Yore Huckleberry]

3 hours ago, Cats Laughing said:

 I wonder if a better solution would be to allow a single model ban (after master selection) as a potential fix.  This would allow solo master players to still play their master but would allow their opponents a chance to deny potentially broken combos.  This single model would be instead of Wyrd's existing keyword ban (as an alternative target option), so you could ban a single model in the declared keyword or an OOK keyword.

 

 

The question of how to balance (outside of Wyrd's own activity) an asymmetrical game is going to involve trade-offs for any given approach. I'd suggest that the right language here is that the formats are all just "different solutions," and each of them is going to have a set of impacts, predictable and unpredictable.

I do think categorical bans have some basic virtues:

- they're simple to understand

- although they fall asymmetrically, they fall by symmetrical principles that are transparent

- the system can only be "gamed" by analyzing it, which is the gaming allowed by asymmetrical skirmishing generally

 

As a Guild player, I'm decently curious whether BalanceFaux creates conditions for testing whether Guild's scoring issues pre-Burns were resolved via: masters, enforcers/Guild Mage, or GG changes, though I imagine I'll remain most attracted to Bans (1) Malifaux tourneys, howling about Damian and Nexkids along the way, where, eg, we got the below gem today from Nova champion Longtin in a high-tables round 3 stomping of *checks notes* known weak master Yan Lo 2 🤷‍♂️:

 

[Yore Huckleberry]

One last thought as the BalanceFaux notion grows on me:

It's aspirational. It takes it as a given that the release schedule represents an emergent game that deserves refinement, and -- even while that refinement will always be incomplete -- it sets aside particular conditions by which we expect things to have been improved. As a community interaction, that's a "positive crisis" presented to Wyrd: we trust them to keep an eye on game balance and will organize part of our gaming around that expectation -- which is a standard they've lived up to very well in the past.

[Maniacal_cackle]

One interesting effect is tha the format appears to be growing on people xD

There's been very few people who were keen when they first heard about it, but then over time find it more and more appealing.

But the real test will be an actual event and then to see if people enjoyed it...

[Alcathous]

On 9/28/2022 at 7:30 AM, aquenaton said:

Beware that, if this format becomes the "new way", we may stop seeing the new releases on the table, making quite difficult to spot what needs an errata from the new models.

That's fair; but if this format becomes so popular that it's supplanting standard play. I think that would be a strong message for Wyrd to rethink their release/errata cycle, and I'm certain they'd listen--at which point there might be a lesser need for it the format and it would probably die off.

Implicit in the BalanceFaux idea is a belief that the best state of the game is after Wyrd has had a chance to tune their creations. It's just carving out a space for the polished game to sit on a pedestal.

[Maniacal_cackle]

In case I didn't make it clear before, my idea of 'wild success' for this format would be to have a mixture of BalanceFaux and RegularFaux.

The competitive community identifies stuff very quickly (probably annoyingly quickly for Wyrd). So we'll still be identifying broken stuff long before it gets errata-ed I suspect... But then there'll just be an alternative for when we don't feel like doing that.

Although who knows, the format may flop at the first event and never be seen again. Or it may be so popular people refuse to play anything else. No way to know until we try it.

[Adran]

3 hours ago, Cats Laughing said:

 

I think this idea would work better than an overall new release ban, as many issues are a combination of models that can usually be stopped/mitigated by removing one of the models.  In the case where an overpowered combo doesn't rely completely on one model, removal of a key model can still bring the overpowered combo down to just being powerful. At the same time removal of the one model shouldn't keep that same keyword from being able to make an effective but not overpowered crew.  This option would allow players the chance to use their new purchases in games while avoiding the biggest issues.

 

I don't think this suggestion really deals with the issue that Maniacal_cackle is trying to solve, and does also have a chance to hit someone using an entirely erratad crew already. 

As far as I can see the wyrd ban format,  and others that try and emulate it isn't a practical way to remove over powered masters, since it doesn't kick in before masters are selected. You need something that comes into affect before crew selection, and to consider the consequences on players,  as it one thing signing an event where you know X is banned at the whole event,  and another when you may be able to use it or not.

The way they are going for is one of only 2 ways I can think of that achieves the aim, and the other way involves a lot more work for someone as it is making up a ban list before the event, and if you got 50 players to make up what they think should be erratad and therefore banned in this format you would probably end up with over 40 different lists.

Time is a clear guide, and sort of universal. Its not got favourites  ( even if it does affect so crews/factions/Keywords more than others). You might have to fudge things a little,  as Madness does probably contain somewhere between 1 and 4 starter boxes, which you might want to treat like the non masters in Burns. In fact it might be easier to state that you are banning masters in those books, as I don't think witness without Damien is as much a problem.  But perhaps it's better to wait until we actually know what's in madness before trying to come up with a rule thats consistent . 

( and hope Damien isn't erratad  in the 2023 errata and that some titles are...)

[Yore Huckleberry]

6 minutes ago, Adran said:

I don't think this suggestion really deals with the issue that Maniacal_cackle is trying to solve, and does also have a chance to hit someone using an entirely erratad crew already. 

As far as I can see the wyrd ban format,  and others that try and emulate it isn't a practical way to remove over powered masters, since it doesn't kick in before masters are selected. You need something that comes into affect before crew selection, and to consider the consequences on players,  as it one thing signing an event where you know X is banned at the whole event,  and another when you may be able to use it or not.

The way they are going for is one of only 2 ways I can think of that achieves the aim, and the other way involves a lot more work for someone as it is making up a ban list before the event, and if you got 50 players to make up what they think should be erratad and therefore banned in this format you would probably end up with over 40 different lists.

Time is a clear guide, and sort of universal. Its not got favourites  ( even if it does affect so crews/factions/Keywords more than others). You might have to fudge things a little,  as Madness does probably contain somewhere between 1 and 4 starter boxes, which you might want to treat like the non masters in Burns. In fact it might be easier to state that you are banning masters in those books, as I don't think witness without Damien is as much a problem.  But perhaps it's better to wait until we actually know what's in madness before trying to come up with a rule thats consistent . 

( and hope Damien isn't erratad  in the 2023 errata and that some titles are...)

Bans DOES solve a particular problem, which is that there are unique challenges of balancing multiple masters and hidden combinations that appear from out of keyword in emergent post-release play. It's a great format that has specific and limited impacts. If crews, keywords, or whole factions depend on particular ook selections not being banned, that's a design issue that hopefully gets illuminated. But meanwhile it stops shenanigans like hiring Kirai "oh and hey Ikiryo is coming too" or commanding construct masters like Hoffman 2.

You're also on point that Cackle's after a different problem.