Ciaran Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 Mali SHOULD NOT be played competatively. At least not in the way most competative formats are set up. Hopefully Wyrd works that out. It is an outright mistake to play Mali by just throwing down sans Strategy/Schemes/Random events. That is part of what makes the game so different and workable. Any game I have played without Schemes and Strategies I have regretted. It's just not balanced to work out that way. Further, my limited experience with Mali tournies is that it takes too damned long. Perhaps a more experienced player-field will help that, but I find that doubtful. Keeping games to a reasonable time-limit results in a fairly low-size game. Of course, that in itself might be a good thing, as seeing another game scale up again would be kinda crappy. I was running a Malifaux tournament when I posted my earlier comment. I'm only addressing that issue. Tournaments ARE supposed to be Strategy and Scheme based. Gaining Ground is very clear on that. I'm not sure why anyone would would play any game without clear objectives in general, Malifaux being designed for it really helps this in my opinion. As far as time: I'm not sure how long the rounds were in your experience. We had no problems with hour and a half games, with the majority of them being finished well before that mark. I have to admit, I don't see how thaose things could have been negatives, maybe some things were a bit rough at the start of the tournament scene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ciaran Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 The game is "character driven", right? You have compelling characters, linked stories in the fluff, brewing drama, tension, but this isn't necessarily captured on the tabletop. The game isn't anymore story driven than any other system. Why not have events or tournament formats where consequences are felt throughout the event? Where every player cares what took place on the other tables? Where the consequences of one round dictate the flow and set-up of the next round and present new asymmetries and obstacles for those characters to oversome? Why does a tournament have to have a single winner? Why a winner at all? Why continue the zero-sum game of competition? This is where Malifaux IMO could seriously separate itself from the pack and you have the seeds to do that. You said some things I liked, and some I don't agree with at all. I don't see this being similar to WM/H really at all. I think it outdoes the PP stuff hands down, including in a tournament setting. I'm fresh from running one though, so I'm a bit biased. I also don't think standard competition in these sorts of tournaments is sum zero. If people walk away having gotten womped every game, and had a ton of fun, they came out a ahead. Malifaux seems to be a lot better about THAT than most games I've played (with the possible, POSSIBLE exception of the CR 3.0 stuff, ATZ particularly). I'm not looking to start a peeing contest with you, just letting you know my position. The part I quoted, I have to admit, I liked. This sort of format could be a ton of fun. You're right, it wouldn't work out well in the standard format we as competitive gamers would recognize. That doesn't invalidate the older form though. Also, whose to say we as a community aren't already pushing the game development into those sorts of directions? It seems that what you're talking about is a story driven league play, done in one day, much like a bunch of the old 40K games (that I realize you hate) done by GW a decade and more ago. I'll definitely be working it into League Play this next month, and possibly even into our next Tournament, whilst picking the brains of anyone who will talk with me about how to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soundwave Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 I'm not sure if Whfb, wh40k, infinity or even blood bowl should be played "competatively" either... In fact, I'm pretty sure none of the tabletop games should be considered balanced. Neither should mmorpg's with different factions, or Starcraft or whatnot, but still, it happens, a lot. Point is, anyone can go "Hamelin/Horde/Zerg/PanO/Goblins/Latest codex/Latest army book is OP." and from one reality tunnel I am sure that's true. From another, it's perfectly balanced, and from a third, it's not Hamelin, it's that godawful Lady Justice that breaks the game. It's all about where you want to draw the line - should even soccer be played competitively where the richest club gets the best players? That was a stupid allegory since soccer shouldn't be played at all, but hey. In my own, very warm and fuzzy reality tunnel, I sail on a sea of stars and enjoy the thought of Malifaux tournaments. Reason I enjoy tournaments is that it's a reason for everyone and their mate in the club to gather up and have a good time. And well, comparisons can be as crude or intricate as one prefers. Infinity is just like Malifaux anyway, with its tiny little toy soldiers and home made terrain and blokes on the Internet arguing about it. I think I had a punchline somewhere but it got lost in the euphoria of typing all this up. tl;dr Zombie hookers are actually pretty hot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Math Mathonwy Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 As a friend of magnos we have discussed this before. I didn't read his thread on the infinity forums but in all honesty, and nothing against wyrd because I love malifaux , but infinity is probably the most balanced game system I've ever played, and I've played just about all of them. Eden? Alkemy? Freebooter's Fate? Mercs? Nemesis? Sphere Wars? Anima Tactics? Urban War? Pulp City? AE WWII? Nuclear Renaissance? And these just a small sample of the mainstream ones with their own minis lines. So yeah, if you really have played just about all of them, my hat's off to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentat_Canis Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 < I still stand by my opinion that Malifaux and Warmachine are very similar. If the competitive tourney format is still pushed, then the similarities and fan attitude only strengthens those similarities. If you pooled all the fantasy skirmish games into a room, these two would be like fraternal twins. I'll challenge anyone to debate this. Could they be more different. Yes, very much so. Really Mango I don't disagree with you that everything is not balanced and I have not played Infinity to know how balanced a game it really is. I have to say tournaments are a great time to get many games in, but I have to say I think the game is better relaxed. If you could make it more story driven for those of us who don't write the story in our heads as we play would be great. I do have to say you seem a bit defensive so you should lighten up a little bit to the best of my knowledge no one is going to lynch you. My only problem is as someone who love Malifaux and WM/H and has a just fine 40k army I personally disagree with you that Mali and WM/H are that similar. Your Points -Both have a powerful leader -Both have Combo's that are game breaking -Both have resources to be spent. I think those were your big ones. Rebuttal -Every Game I have seen has powerful leaders because its fun to have someone over the top be that your HQ's in 40k to Casters to Masters, Also the compared power level and game deciding factor that Casters have makes them feel very different to Masters, that and if they die you lose. have one more powerful guy/girl leading a force makes similar games then everything I have seen is the same. -I don't know how much WM/H you have played but the combo's make that game if you can't think of a good one you lose in malifaux the combo's are very subtle and not direct but just pieces that work well to compliment and maybe buff a little bit. It is such a different combo system because of the differences in turn sequence that I don't seem them being the same at all. -Having Resources to spend is what we do in these games, Focus/Fury, To Soulstones and a card hand, to Power dice, to what unit you can use as a roadblock are all just resources every game that I know has them. Yes Focus and Soulstones are a bit closer for what they do boost you killing power for your leader but one is finite and one is every turn, I would say of all your arguments on similarity this is closest to me believing. This is my personal opinion and reading through your posts on the infinity forum makes me want to get 3-5 demo games of Infinity in just to see how the game works. I think your biggest problem on any game forum is the die hard fans who don't want to see anyone's opinions or acknowledge someone's game might be better then yours, I have always said play what you find fun and don't put other games down which I don't think you have I just think you are wrong in some things, but I may be too. Well happy gaming I just wanted to put in my 2 cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magno Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 How about that both games have distillation of list building. (also common in a lot of other games), but very pronounced in both Malifaux and WM. Avatars coming out. "Epic" masters anyone? Are these design elements that are hard to avoid? Maybe. Does this mean that Malifaux should limit itself that same path. No. If the new book comes out and has more game breaking masters that shift the scene, more of the same tourney formats, then its same old, same old with a different skin. I'm not feeling lynched or defensive, I just can't tolerate the die-hard, blindly devoted-lacking-any-real rebuttal responses that are 80% of a thread. Yours not included. This feels like a discussion. Mmmmm-satisfying. And challenges me to learn and think about my own comments. If you think I'm defensive or a hard ass here, come over to the Infinity forums. I do a lot of drop-kicking of ass-holery commentary there too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cerealkiller195 Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 You have to find a neutral forum to host discussions, because there are die hards on both sides. Being on the Wyrd forums of course you are going to come across Malifaux fanatics. Conversely if you were on the CB forums you would come across Infinity fanatics. I actually PLAYED both games today and I enjoyed both they are two totally different games with their downfalls AND merits. They appeal to two different crowds yet both have players that play both systems. I do like the fact that in infinity there is ALWAYS that 5% chance to do something with a "critical". In malifaux there are points where you absolutely no matter how good your cards are you cannot do a thing! At the same time "cheating fate" is a great mechanic that i do like about malifaux. In both games i have felt some great cinematic game moments, ill admit that i've had more memorable infinity game moments than malifaux but maybe that's because I play so many malifaux games.The list goes on and on... They are two different genres so I can't compare them, when i feel i want a more Doomlands feel i go malifaux, heros/villians pulp city, post apoc dark age, pulp wwII AE WWII is the game, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 The game is "character driven", right? You have compelling characters, linked stories in the fluff, brewing drama, tension, but this isn't necessarily captured on the tabletop. The game isn't anymore story driven than any other system. Why not have events or tournament formats where consequences are felt throughout the event? Where every player cares what took place on the other tables? Where the consequences of one round dictate the flow and set-up of the next round and present new asymmetries and obstacles for those characters to oversome? Why does a tournament have to have a single winner? Why a winner at all? Why continue the zero-sum game of competition? I'm not a fan of miniatures games in a competitive format for a lot of reasons, the inherent asymmetry of a system in which every model has a different rules set is just one issue (time being another big one). But, point being, on the whole I'm not a big fan of competitive play myself for any miniatures game, 40k, Malifaux, or whatever. Just not my thing. And I have to say, if there were some sort of official rule set for continuous league play, or L5R style tournaments that affected story out come, I would eat that up so fast... So, ignoring everything else, I would just like to weigh in that some sort of league or campaign rules would be a fantastic addition to the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigmike Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 @Mango --- First of all, sorry its a long ones--- Ok, time to jump into this commentary now that you are here defending yourself and commenting more. Let me say that i do have respect for you because you came over to the forums to talk about it, with what appears to be an open mind willing to debate and hear out others sides. To be honest we are looking at a lot of points to reach here so i will attempt to not bore you while i get to them. First i would like to say that this whole thing i think started from not that you had something negative to say but that upon reading your post most of us found some of your statements to be actively false. As an example I will refer to the Warcaster/Master kill= Game over. While you are facing an uphill fight this is most certainly not true. I for one have been wiped off the board to the model and still won. I would like to jump to the competitive comments. I agree with your rebuttal to the comment posted, what was said was a logical fallacy. Winning does not mean a game is competitive. I wont even argue that there are balance issues. Just search the word hamlin and you will see us fighting that point. However to get a true idea of if it is competitive i think someone needs to lay down what makes a game competitive. Is 40k? I agree that the story driven part is not presented well in most games. Most people throw down the minis, have fun and call it at that. Some of us make the game into something more. With that in mind this year at gen con there is a story encounter tournament.(we will see how that works) I had to stop at "Why does a tournament have to have a single winner? Why a winner at all?" I think i understand what you were going towards, but in a tournament(one with prizes at least)(especially if people payed) you need to have a clearly defined winner that can come out of the game where other people wont argue and fight that they should be the winner. Win vs Loss is the easy way to do it. I cant fight you that this game and Warmachine are so close of games that it is scary. They do have their differences however and those differences make this game unique enough in my opinion that i don't feel when im playing one that i might as well be playing the other. In a world of give and take, i have to say that i will take a similar game that i think is awesome.( my opinion, not one im trying to push on you) As for the avatar form vs epic casters. The looks so far have made it seem like they use a mechanic that puts them in the same game as the base form. Some thing happens in the game. (something that makes it more story oriented?) Where as( you seem like you would know but...) In warmachine you CANNOT use an epic caster with his normal form. I think you jumped the gun a little fast on this one, but i understand where you were coming from. While there is a chance that the next book will have game breaking stuff, I have to look at it like this. Its got a great story, and awesome minis(IMO). They work on fixing game break issues the come up and are supportive on the forums and very much so at the tournaments that they run(cant wait for gencon last was awesome). Its not like im playing GW where the codex creep has become a codex run. Anyway its late but i look forward to any responses you may have. I very much enjoy discussions and debates about games, rules, ect... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nerdelemental Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 ~Magno: Glad you're here, buddy! You're a consummate gamer with a shrewd and analytical mind. I, too, harbor no ill will nor resentment and will continue to consider you a friend, despite the distance (we'll have to devolve into Facebook chats or something to keep up!). I don't EVER hold it against you to have a differing opinion regarding any game you play. It's easy to admit that I've even picked your brain on occasion for some thoughts regarding this, that, or the other (and invited you into my playtest group once upon a time!). The only thing I combat is a declaration of "they don't playtest well and develop models in a vaccuum of meta, this model in Chicago, this model in Detroit," like we're all renegade. From day one they were created under the full supervision of EricJ, in one place, and disseminated entirely to everyone at once to test. Now, it's even more open. Doing otherwise, as you'd certainly agree, would be devastating. Do I take issue with your stance regarding tournament play and it's form? Not at all. I'd love to continue developing new and alternative methods of organized play. Campaign? Organized casual play (if possible?). Tournaments that aren't tournaments? Hell - this is the sort of innovation I hope we can continue to work out now that our three-year-plan is finally realized. Where to go next? Where no man has gone before? (as most players here know, though, this isn't directly under my umbrella - it's Wyrdsketch, Keltheos, and/or Zee that would likely lead this charge). The Gaining Grounds we have now should represent a stable platform that we endeavored to get out. It's streamlined and provides a very common tournament expectation that can garner a single winner. We have a whole pile of events at Gencon that sold out quickly to support the notion that players want that. If I wasn't so tied to the Wyrd booth, would I play in those events? Probably not. I might, though. But I'd rather play Marcus or So'mer or a themed/fluffy list than a "I'm going to win this thing" list. The Gaining Ground does still push for strategy and scheme and provides several alternative methods for winning as well as ranking players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ciaran Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 So, ignoring everything else, I would just like to weigh in that some sort of league or campaign rules would be a fantastic addition to the game. Yeah, we've been after that for about a year. I think it'll happen, just not right now.... *sigh* Or now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ciaran Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 Do I take issue with your stance regarding tournament play and it's form? Not at all. I'd love to continue developing new and alternative methods of organized play. Campaign? Organized casual play (if possible?). Tournaments that aren't tournaments? Hell - this is the sort of innovation I hope we can continue to work out now that our three-year-plan is finally realized. Where to go next? Where no man has gone before? (as most players here know, though, this isn't directly under my umbrella - it's Wyrdsketch, Keltheos, and/or Zee that would likely lead this charge). Consider this G+ +1'd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paradox Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 I read it, and I read otherwise. He states the game's design and playtest methodology as fact which is very erroneous. Again, if you take what he is asserting as an absolute fact, then I agree. If you read it as his belief, based upon his experiences, he is asserting a belief, which to him is a fact, but is unproved by anything other than his own word. Clearly, a number of people here do not agree with his assertions regarding game design and playtest methods. You believe he is wrong, however, having actually been in the playtest, and continued involvement with Wyrd tend to give your view a little more objective weight. However he portrayed the methods, the main message was that he believed that Wyrd could do better, and thus gain a better-balanced game. That would tend to be a rather subjective assertion, not able of being proved true or false. 'Dox, you also reference different elements of the game in an earlier post but I think you have some facts mis-aligned as well. The last (and only?) event I remember you participating in for Mali was the big Pandy event which took place literally within the first month this game was released! Thus I noted my admitted limited experience. However, I also obsevred the tables, play, and spoke with the players at Gen Con last year. It was not much different in the overall from my own play experience. But you and I have had alot of discussion over HOW Mali could approach competative play better, and there is no need to rehash it here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchethead Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 Cheers to Magno for stepping up, clarifying his position and keepin' it classy. Much respect. I still take issue with some of the things posted on the CB forum, but with several individuals already expressing similar viewpoints, I see no need to expound for the sake of my own two cents. I'm pleasantly surprised to see this thread on track, avoiding the usual posturing and venom so common to the interwebs. Concise opinions, eloquence and mutual respect. I love this forum! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magno Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) @Mango --- First of all, sorry its a long ones--- I had to stop at "Why does a tournament have to have a single winner? Why a winner at all?" I think i understand what you were going towards, but in a tournament(one with prizes at least)(especially if people payed) you need to have a clearly defined winner that can come out of the game where other people wont argue and fight that they should be the winner. Win vs Loss is the easy way to do it. This is the mentality I challenge. Imagine a format folks pay into and in return they walk away with no sour tastes, a feeling of accomplishment at something created or achieved in unison. Not necessarily cooperative, but maybe simply overcoming the balance issues. @Nerd, I'll be at GenCon, so I'll be there to apologize to you info. I'll stand here corrected and start scrubbing the poo off the walls. But how do you know players "want" the tournies? Have you tried other events? The larger turnout for your events are because folks just like Malifaux. You have only tournaments listed for Malifaux. Think about your statement, if you weren't at the booth, you probably wouldn't play in the tournaments. Why not? Not your thing? Not mine either and not a lot of other people's. GenCon is a place to run unique events, especially since much of it is sign-up. After a few tournaments at GEnCOn and Pande, I really wanted to play Malifaux last year at GEnCon but couldn't stomach devoting hours of precious event time to something that is simply a bigger version of the same old same old with the intensity of competition heightened. I did however play a lot of pick-up games with the new crews. Also, why hold tournaments with just released stats and units? "Hey everybody, new units, new models, no go WIN!" That is another mixed message of trying to have fun. You'll have half the people wanting simply to casually explore the new stuff and the other half bloodthirsty to dominate with it. Setting up tournaments like that only provides a vehicle for the competitive players to do their thing. Example of a story event: 20 players 5 factions 4 players per faction, each wielding a different master, so you have essentially four player teams. Event is 4-5 rounds. Round#1: you pit one master from each faction against one of the other factions. The scenarios/locations are pre-set. Each scenario has consequences that lead into the next round based on how players performed. In subsequent rounds, players rotate to play a different faction, that way they each play one of the other factions. But, scoring isn't just a summation of each factions performance, maybe each faction is trying to accomplish a communal goal of some kind (like a "Choose your own adventure book"), something linked to the fluff or a future story line. Something that also affords cross-faction collaboration to deny another faction its goal. Each round of scenarios are catered/driven by the results of the previous round adjusting the asymmetry with the location events or objectives. Something so that end of the event, all the players are slapping each other on the back and reminiscing about the story they all just created. You could have prizes, medals for the best faction if need be, but players that didn't fare well by the standard tourney format, still have a level of accomplishment. Some of the "weaker" players would be more than satisfied that they have something to contribute and don't feel pressured to perform or give up after loosing the first round. This would be monumental to set-up but would be epic and something truly to remember and something that could be done only at a venue like GenCon. Edited July 24, 2011 by Magno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireTrollJake Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 I am one that wants the tournies (whether I flake half the time or not), but I can appreciate your ideas towards alternatives. However, I don't see them as a replacement, but just that, an alternative. When I travel to a game shop venu, I fully expect a wide range of players, ranging from hardcore rules lawyering, to the little brother who just got a box. In the end, I typically had a fun time, last place or first. The idea of a campaign setting that you suggest is very...D&D'ish. But at the same time, you are expecting for a turnout of diverse faction/master representation to evolve the matches, where the truth is, every tourney will have 3-4 people playing the same master and a handful of masters not seeing daylight. This would be much more suitable for basement dwellings and pre-planned gaming days with a group that knows the goal ahead of time. One thing I am fully on board with for Malifaux is leagues. PP does it now, with territories and factions are a team (globally), but Malifaux doesn't exactly fit that bill, but I am sure something could be arranged. I've seen a flyer floating around to run achievement based leagues for Malifaux where you have goals like "Play a game with all of your factions masters". "Paint a box set" "Play a game with each scheme/scenario" etc, and that may be a middle ground for Magno's idea and a competitive setup, without leaving people feeling unaccomplished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magno Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 @Godspeed, D&D-ish? Ok. No need to expect a diverse turnout if it's sign-up and at a place like GenCon the Malifaux population is large enough to fill that sign-up. "every tourney will have 3-4 people playing the same master and a handful of masters not seeing daylight." --Ever more reason to have an alternative. "This would be much more suitable for basement dwellings and pre-planned gaming days with a group that knows the goal ahead of time." --Why suitable for a basement? Has this ever been attempted? I'm a crusader!! I will walk this land challenging the establishment!! ATTICA, ATTICA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireTrollJake Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 Well, at an event like gencon, yeh, sure, you could run this as an alternative, with a mass signup ahead of time. Your response of "Even more of a reason" doesn't fit well with standard, non 'con locations. You will end up with a VERY low turnout if you have newbies, or just blue moon players who own one or two masters, and someone who owns 12 decides to play that one that day. Again, gencon good, friendly gatherings good, local venues, not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hookers Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) It's all about where you want to draw the line - should even soccer be played competitively where the richest club gets the best players? That was a stupid allegory since soccer shouldn't be played at all, but hey. tl;dr Zombie hookers are actually pretty hot. +1 internets to you sir! Example of a story event: 20 players 5 factions 4 players per faction, each wielding a different master, so you have essentially four player teams. Event is 4-5 rounds. Round#1: you pit one master from each faction against one of the other factions. The scenarios/locations are pre-set. Each scenario has consequences that lead into the next round based on how players performed. In subsequent rounds, players rotate to play a different faction, that way they each play one of the other factions. But, scoring isn't just a summation of each factions performance, maybe each faction is trying to accomplish a communal goal of some kind (like a "Choose your own adventure book"), something linked to the fluff or a future story line. Something that also affords cross-faction collaboration to deny another faction its goal. Each round of scenarios are catered/driven by the results of the previous round adjusting the asymmetry with the location events or objectives. Something so that end of the event, all the players are slapping each other on the back and reminiscing about the story they all just created. You could have prizes, medals for the best faction if need be, but players that didn't fare well by the standard tourney format, still have a level of accomplishment. Some of the "weaker" players would be more than satisfied that they have something to contribute and don't feel pressured to perform or give up after loosing the first round. This would be monumental to set-up but would be epic and something truly to remember and something that could be done only at a venue like GenCon. man that's a really good idea... http://gigabitescafe.com/forum/index.php?topic=2346.0 I believe story encounters are also already in the ruleset, and there will be some story encounter events being run at gencon even. I'm not sure anyone is saying that the game (or any game) is perfectly balanced. They spent a good deal of effort re-balancing the first book to very good effect. Will they continue to do that? Did they view that as a one time investment? I have no idea, but I think all the effort put into the v2 stat cards and the rules manual made a big difference to a lot of players who might not have stuck around otherwise. They've already tried to nip some issues in the bud and changed the stat cards for some models in book 2 before they were released, but there are some other issues that still exist in my opinion. You can play any game as competitively as you want. I enjoy both aspects of Malifaux. I think its nearly impossible to make an "unfluffy" list in Malifaux with how the fluff is written. I mean, isn't PanO OP? I heard that somewhere.... what about the HMG? 32" range burst 4 damage 15 pretty much breaks the game right? I think both games will come down to the skill of the player ultimately, and therefore will do just fine in a competitive environment. Dota and HoN players think that LoL can't be played competitively because it is more forgiving and easily accessible (a similar comparison in my mind) yet League had 300k viewers for their tournament, and I don't even know if a HoN has been aired. League isn't perfectly balanced, some champions are better than others, but everyone has access to them and they are chosen right before the match based on what your opponent is doing (another similar comparison). Things don't need to be perfectly balanced to be able to be played competitively. Their might be a top tier of things that competitive players will use, but when everyone has those options available the match will still be decided by skill which is all you are asking for in competition. I am very curious to see what happens at gencon though Edited July 24, 2011 by Hookers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necromorph Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 +1 Magno Setups like that would do wonders for dispelling the feelings of helplessness in competitive play when someone comes up against their total nemisis master (I.e. gremlins and hamelin) or their worst strategy because they know that they're not losing themselves or their team the event and they can just have fun with it and do their best. @Math Stop quoting me dude, you're embarrassing yourself. Have I played all of those games, no. I have, however been playing ttg's for 12 years and have played enough games, including a few of the ones you listed, to be able to form my own opinions. Next time you quote me to try and take a shot at my argument, how about you quote some information that's actually relevant to the discussion. Thanks, bro! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolomyte Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 I will firstly say that I have never played infinity. I personally did not like any of the miniature lines enough to want to buy an army to paint, and I do not have a LGS who stocks it to even just mess around. That being said, I've been to competetive gaming tournaments and conventions for Games Workshop, Flames of War, Malifaux, Warmachine, and even federation commander (I know). None of those games is perfectly balanced, all of them were still fun in a competetive environment. Games workshop is the least balanced (Chaos demons was ugh, and by rule of thumb, the newer codexs always prosper), Privateer and Malifaux are more balanced, but there is a power differential between masters. What malifaux does better then privateer, is the fact that caster kill is not a win condition. I have won games where my master was dead on the second turn because I simply completed my strategy and schemes. You also are not locked into a single list, your actively encouraged to build your list for the strategy you draw and or are assigned. If your arguement is I'm more competetive because I own all the models for a faction them someone who does not, thats a limitation of someones free time (to paint the models he buys) or money (to buy the models). Its not a limitation of the game. As for Avatars reminding you of epics, I was curious and kind of under that impression as well, but in the other thread I started about avatars people clarified that they are something that can occur in game when certain conditions are met. which is not at all like epic warcasters (technically you could say its like monsterpocalypse, but I think we know that would just be factitious) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolomyte Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 +1 Magno Setups like that would do wonders for dispelling the feelings of helplessness in competitive play when someone comes up against their total nemisis master (I.e. gremlins and hamelin) or their worst strategy because they know that they're not losing themselves or their team the event and they can just have fun with it and do their best. @Math Stop quoting me dude, you're embarrassing yourself. Have I played all of those games, no. I have, however been playing ttg's for 12 years and have played enough games, including a few of the ones you listed, to be able to form my own opinions. Next time you quote me to try and take a shot at my argument, how about you quote some information that's actually relevant to the discussion. Thanks, bro! I'll take a shot, play in events that follow the gaining ground guidelines. when you find out what your strategy is, the gremlin player should build his list to win that strategy and completely ignore hamelin. They can not kill hamelin, so ignore him. If you draw contain power and you know the other player is playing outcasts, I would probably take the victorias or levi or von schill, the gremlins match up bad against most of the other outcast masters. If you take losing an event for yourself or your team personally, to the point that playing in in them and fighting a $$$$$$$$ty matchup would affect you that much, you honestly should not play in competetive events for ANY game system. I do however agree that more places need to ALSO run story type events and campaigns as malifaux is really awesome for that type of thing, but just because its good at that does not mean its not also really fun and competetive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necromorph Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) @D You're right, I was simply agreeing with the idea in the context ofwhat had been said about players "feeling pressure" or "quitting round 1". Not to derail the thread, by the hamelin gremlins matchup was just a reference to how the design of the game can work wildly against you in a competitive environment. Is it possible for gremlins to beat hamelin? Yes. Will the stars align and the gremlin player flips an awesome strategy while hamelin flips a poor one, yes its possible...but very rarely. Not going to give this topic any more discussion here, but matchups like that are one of the main reasons for this threads existance and if anyone thinks that matchups like that are fair and balanced then you're kidding yourself. Again, all the more reason why I like Magno's idea. Edited July 24, 2011 by Necromorph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magno Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 You can play any game as competitively as you want. I enjoy both aspects of Malifaux. I think its nearly impossible to make an "unfluffy" list in Malifaux with how the fluff is written. I mean, isn't PanO OP? I heard that somewhere.... what about the HMG? 32" range burst 4 damage 15 pretty much breaks the game right? I think both games will come down to the skill of the player ultimately, and therefore will do just fine in a competitive environment. PanO is the easiest army to use for beginners if all they want to do is shoot. OP? No, because they will get owned by experienced players with almost any list. HMGs do not break the game. You can simply avoid the HMG nests and force that opponent to move to another position if he wants to put that HMG to use, setting traps along the way or catching him at an inopportune time. Cordinated orders, camo, AD troops, hackers, smoke, infiltrators, template weapons, fireteams, suppression fire, parabolic fire, snipers, and simple critical hits are all equally affective against an HMG. Terrain does make a difference in the game, its essential to the balance. That is one of the biggest drawbacks of Infinity because it makes it resource intensive to get a game fired up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolomyte Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 I dont think its fair or balanced, I agree with you, but I dont think it should be. It's kind of a douche saying, but when I worked for GW we would always joke about the new codex being this months tournament winner, the manager always would say "if you want perfect equality you should go play chess or checkers." The competetive aspect of the game is to create bad matchups, If I'm fighting ressers I tend to use lists that attack willpower or have bonuses to damage flips or have a high minimum damage. Raspy does not like fighting von schill, pandora hates it when perdita or lady J's entire army shoot her in the face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.