Is this game well balanced?

[Buhallin]

If you can't base a models effectiveness on raw stats, then you can't balance them between each other. 1 SS should equal a set value. If a model costs 4 SS, it should earn the set value x 4. If a model cost 9 SS, it should earn the set value x 9, regardless of anything else.

Why? You're never going to play a game completely independent of raw stats. How much is a point of Mv worth on an open board? How much is it worth on a heavy-terrain board? You shouldn't be playing games without Strategies and Schemes - how much is a point of Mv worth in Treasure Hunt? Escape and Survive?

And that's before you get anywhere near special abilities. How much is a Waldgeist's ability to move a forest worth? What if there aren't any forests on the board? How can you judge that effectively?

If you can not establish a system where you have tangible evidence of a models universal worth, you can't have balance. The rules can be balanced. The objectives can be balanced. But the individual models will not be balanced.

Nobody has ever claimed the individual models are balanced. The question is whether or not THE GAME is balanced. And it is very possible for the game as a whole to be balanced even if individual models are not.

Even assuming your goal for "balance" is meaningful (which I disagree with), the problem you claim is the same for any tabletop wargame I know of. What's a magical banner or power scroll worth? What's the point value for Amphibious on a lizardman saurus? You cannot measure any of that in isolation, because it will never - CAN never - exist in isolation.

[Necromorph]

The past couple pages have made me support an idea I've been tossing around even more.

The game is not balanced master to master....and can't be. What about the people that only have 1-2 crews and can't afford more? If their local meta, crew, faction, playstyle, etc sees them lose more often than not, its bound to get old after a while.

This is why I'm all for an indirect form of organizing events. People who play the weaker masters are never going to win tournaments or leagues, but if they had a team to work with, or tertiary goals outside of the standard game format to boost their performance and say "well, I got railed, but I got a bunch of points for x cause," then it might make some masters feel more viable.

This argument of balance will NEVER be concluded, because everyone has diffeent opinions on what makes a game balanced, and those opinions are based on personal preference that no one is going to change . I think finding a way to make the weaker masters "useful," maybe not competitive, but useful to a greater cause will solve some issues.

$$$$$$$$...I'm going around in circles with this, and I've prolly had a drink too many tonight. WTF...where are you magno...just interpret my argument and make it look prettier hahahahaha.

[Math Mathonwy]

What is this "factions are balanced" based on? Simply on there being so many variables in the form of models and schemes and terrains and such that they've somehow just got to be balanced? It's a pretty bold claim, you know.

It's a bit like claiming that shooty dwarves in WHFB are balanced since if there's a deep gorge between the armies they win but if there's a thick forest right in front of both deployment zones they lose. Or if the scenario is about keeping the enemy from reaching your deployment zone (win!) vs trying to reach the enemy's deployment (lose!).

Now, I really, really don't agree with ispep's views of balance but I'm somewhat skeptical of the off-the-bat acceptance of "factions are balanced". Not saying that they aren't, mind you, just that claiming it is pretty bold.

[Math Mathonwy]

The past couple pages have made me support an idea I've been tossing around even more.

The game is not balanced master to master....and can't be. What about the people that only have 1-2 crews and can't afford more? If their local meta, crew, faction, playstyle, etc sees them lose more often than not, its bound to get old after a while.

This is why I'm all for an indirect form of organizing events. People who play the weaker masters are never going to win tournaments or leagues, but if they had a team to work with, or tertiary goals outside of the standard game format to boost their performance and say "well, I got railed, but I got a bunch of points for x cause," then it might make some masters feel more viable.

The thing I liked the most in the UK rankings system suggestion was the rankings for individual Masters. "Who is the best at playing Marcus?" is an interesting goal for the non-tier 1 Masters as well and works nicely even when the game is played as it should be (i.e. taking the best Master for the task even if it means that one is playing Colette 90% of the time and Marcus 1% of the time (balance!)).

And interesting thread might be "here's the opponent's faction, here's the strategies - which Master will you go with and why?" Taking the board layout into account would be a tad hard so maybe a generic board could be agreed upon (a forest and a house in the middle and a river going across length-wise).

[Odin1981]

What is this "factions are balanced" based on? Simply on there being so many variables in the form of models and schemes and terrains and such that they've somehow just got to be balanced? It's a pretty bold claim, you know.

It's a bit like claiming that shooty dwarves in WHFB are balanced since if there's a deep gorge between the armies they win but if there's a thick forest right in front of both deployment zones they lose. Or if the scenario is about keeping the enemy from reaching your deployment zone (win!) vs trying to reach the enemy's deployment (lose!).

Now, I really, really don't agree with ispep's views of balance but I'm somewhat skeptical of the off-the-bat acceptance of "factions are balanced". Not saying that they aren't, mind you, just that claiming it is pretty bold.

Posts made here from people on the development side of Wyrd as well as interviews on podcasts have explicitly said that the game was not designed around master on master. It was in fact based around faction on faction basis.

[Math Mathonwy]

Posts made here from people on the development side of Wyrd as well as interviews on podcasts have explicitly said that the game was not designed around master on master. It was in fact based around faction on faction basis.

That... doesn't seem to have anything to do with what you quoted and seems, all in all, a very random thing to say (though certainly true).

Edit: ah, I just realized. You read "what this is based on" as asking who said it. No, I meant, how is it provable. The designers naturally say that things are balanced but that is true of every game. I mean, surely GW designers aim for a balanced game as well. That doesn't prove balance one way or another, though.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Math Mathonwy

[ispep]

Straight up fight in a game is no different to straight up race through terrain or straight up survivability - it is a factor only when the objective is to fight, reach the goal first or survive for the game duration. It isn't a factor when the objectives are complex or winning the fight is merely one of the tools to achieve these objectives.

You are trying to argue that a measure of balance in one and one objective only is superior to measure of balance in all the other objectives. It is not true on fundamental level. Everything you build on top of that is build on fundamental error, so it doesn't hold very well.

Obviously balance in the game like Malifaux is difficult to measure, but the game does not need perfect balance to be competitive or fun. It needs to measure skill for competition and it needs to provide narrative and imaginative elements, as well as measure of skill, for casual entertainment.

Asymmetric and slightly unbalanced game only helps in that, especially if it actually takes skill to build and run a crew which tilts the balance in one's favor (say what you want, but there are no auto-win crews in Malifaux. At the very least you need to learn how to use your combos properly and then you need to know how to shield them from interference).

If you can not balance things in a vacuum, you can not balance them outside of a vacuum. You mentioned MMOs earlier. Most MMOs use an Item Level for items. It assigns a budget for that items stats and powers. A point of strength is worth x iLvls, a point of stamina is worth less, a random proc that increases DPS with a reliable trigger is worth more than a clicky DPS boost with a long cooldown. If they just threw stats on items and said "well its really good in this situation, and less optimal in this other situation, so its balanced!" nobody would agree.Even the best itemization is subject to RNG and encounter mechanics, but if you simulate things near infinite times under perfect conditions, you can establish that something is worth its iLvl or not.

For a miniature game or RPG or whatever, you need to establish that one point is worth that one point, whether that one point gets you more offensive ability or defensive. Is +1 Cb the same as +1 Df? Should one of them be weighted higher? Is a 5 SS model with Cb 4 and Df 1 as good as a 5 SS model with Cb 1 and 4 Df?

[Ratty]

If you can not balance things in a vacuum, you can not balance them outside of a vacuum. You mentioned MMOs earlier. Most MMOs use an Item Level for items. It assigns a budget for that items stats and powers. A point of strength is worth x iLvls, a point of stamina is worth less, a random proc that increases DPS with a reliable trigger is worth more than a clicky DPS boost with a long cooldown. If they just threw stats on items and said "well its really good in this situation, and less optimal in this other situation, so its balanced!" nobody would agree.Even the best itemization is subject to RNG and encounter mechanics, but if you simulate things near infinite times under perfect conditions, you can establish that something is worth its iLvl or not.

For a miniature game or RPG or whatever, you need to establish that one point is worth that one point, whether that one point gets you more offensive ability or defensive. Is +1 Cb the same as +1 Df? Should one of them be weighted higher? Is a 5 SS model with Cb 4 and Df 1 as good as a 5 SS model with Cb 1 and 4 Df?

You say this but it's just not true... What you see is games like League of Legends where they have a metric like you say is thay they throw it out the window as soon as the item hits actual play, possibly even before.

IE. A point of Armor Penetration is worth X a point of Movement is worth Y... therefore an item with 20 points of Armour Penetration and 40 points of Movement should be worth 20X + 40Y.... But that is never the case. People might not need Armour Penetration with Movement as much as they need Attack Speed with Movement... so they won't take the item. So what do they do they lower the points of the item.. it's no longer 20X + 40Y it's 20X + 40Y - Z.

Stats can't be taken in isolation. You have to look at the rest of the faction before you can stat a model. A model could be amazingly good with one faction as they have other models that synergize with it, and rubbish in another faction.

Anyone ever played with any of 40k's vehicle builders down the years will know this. They put points on every aspect of a tank, If you built a Rhino it would be the same points as a Rhino, if you built a Land Raider it would be the same points as a Land Raider. If you chose the abilities you wanted you ended up with an Uber Tank of Doom that destroyed everything in the game.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Ratty

[gru6y]

If you can not balance things in a vacuum, you can not balance them outside of a vacuum. You mentioned MMOs earlier. Most MMOs use an Item Level for items. It assigns a budget for that items stats and powers. A point of strength is worth x iLvls, a point of stamina is worth less, a random proc that increases DPS with a reliable trigger is worth more than a clicky DPS boost with a long cooldown. If they just threw stats on items and said "well its really good in this situation, and less optimal in this other situation, so its balanced!" nobody would agree.Even the best itemization is subject to RNG and encounter mechanics, but if you simulate things near infinite times under perfect conditions, you can establish that something is worth its iLvl or not.

For a miniature game or RPG or whatever, you need to establish that one point is worth that one point, whether that one point gets you more offensive ability or defensive. Is +1 Cb the same as +1 Df? Should one of them be weighted higher? Is a 5 SS model with Cb 4 and Df 1 as good as a 5 SS model with Cb 1 and 4 Df?

Right, so how do you know, Wyrd does not have a massive spreadsheet with all the abilities denominated in fractions of Soul Stones? Maybe they do have it. But did they get all of it right? Probably not, but how you cannot be sure any game designer gets it right.

Ispep, I can't help but feel, you are arguing just for the sake of argue and you are looking for 0-1 solutions in a system with infinite complexity.

[Justin]

If you chose the abilities you wanted you ended up with an Uber Tank of Doom that destroyed everything in the game.

Which was...AWESOME!

Don't be talking bad about my armor 9 open topped vehicles with battle canons for 30 points.

[Sliver Chocobo]

Simply put the Alp bomb isn't blanced

The Lady Justice, Lucius and peacekeeper combo isn't blanced, although I hear it's getting fixed

But the vast majority played how it was intend to be played is

[Bigkid]

Had a good read through this thread (almost thought I'd stumbled into the Warhammer Forum for a second...) and, to be honest, I couldn't give a flying toss that the game isn't perfectly balanced. Compared to every other game I've played in my 24 year little men 'phase' (one day I'll grow up...) it is by far the most rewarding tactically.

With all the interaction that occurs between characters, stats and abilities I have to question whether the games designers are the luckiest people on Earth or the Einsteins of the genre!

Every game ever designed has had the question 'Is it balanced' aimed at it and the answer, almost without exception, is no.

How could it be??

The question that should be asked is 'Is the game playable? Can the objectives be achieved by every player/faction in play?

In respect to Malifaux, the answer to these two questions is undoubtedly...YES!!

(unless you're using Gremlins...'cos they're broken...)

[SteamHammer]

The only way to have a balanced game is to make both sides play with identical armies. And where is the fun in that.

[Fulgrima]

I don't think there is any point talking about balance until the end of the week when we will have all new minions and avatar forms that will more than likely be game changers.

[Math Mathonwy]

I don't think there is any point talking about balance until the end of the week when we will have all new minions and avatar forms that will more than likely be game changers.

And then we need to wait for a year to get them all released

But yeah, agreed.

[Fulgrima]

And then we need to wait for a year to get them all released

But yeah, agreed.

Haha yea im still waiting for my necromancy just need a standin for the time being. I think alot of people will be doing that with avatar forms.

[Buhallin]

Edit: ah, I just realized. You read "what this is based on" as asking who said it. No, I meant, how is it provable. The designers naturally say that things are balanced but that is true of every game. I mean, surely GW designers aim for a balanced game as well. That doesn't prove balance one way or another, though.

Well, it's not provable any more than any concept of "balance" is in such a complex game.

But we don't really have anything to DISprove it. At least some people have a feeling that the Neverborn are a bit more powerful than the other factions, but that's it. We don't really have massive waves of "That's just unbeatable!" and we don't have reports of a single faction dominating the tournaments or games going on.

So in this case, we have word from the designers that they intended things to be balanced based on faction; we don't have any indication that the factions AREN'T balanced, so at least in practical terms, they are.

And that's what matters to me, anyway. Even if ispep produces the absolute perfect quantization of model ability, in a spreadsheet that would take up my entire wall were I to print it, it doesn't mean squat to me - what matters is whether my players can go into a tournament and feel like they've got a shot when the guy across from them says he's playing (Guild/Rezzers/Arcanists/Neverborn/Outcasts), and it's not a "I'll spend more time pulling models out than I will pushing them around the board" situation.

[LoboStele]

Well, it's not provable any more than any concept of "balance" is in such a complex game.

But we don't really have anything to DISprove it. At least some people have a feeling that the Neverborn are a bit more powerful than the other factions, but that's it. We don't really have massive waves of "That's just unbeatable!" and we don't have reports of a single faction dominating the tournaments or games going on.

So in this case, we have word from the designers that they intended things to be balanced based on faction; we don't have any indication that the factions AREN'T balanced, so at least in practical terms, they are.

And that's what matters to me, anyway. Even if ispep produces the absolute perfect quantization of model ability, in a spreadsheet that would take up my entire wall were I to print it, it doesn't mean squat to me - what matters is whether my players can go into a tournament and feel like they've got a shot when the guy across from them says he's playing (Guild/Rezzers/Arcanists/Neverborn/Outcasts), and it's not a "I'll spend more time pulling models out than I will pushing them around the board" situation.

+1!

FWIW, I remember having discussions with a game designer who used to work for WOTC, and he told us that they DID have a system of sorts, for assigning points to a model based on the stats and abilities it had. But with EVERY model, there was always a fudge factor. There's always a little give or take to make things fit just the right way. If the Spreadsheet says that these 5 models should add up to 36 points, but you, as the designer, really want them to be 35 points so they will fit properly in a crew, then you have to make that call. You might not want to drop an ability, or change a stat. Sometimes you just fudge it here or there, and depend on your playtesting to prove whether it is an unbalanced change or not.

In addition, I think Malifaux does a good job of avoiding this, as someone pointed out earlier, but this game designer told me that pieces were designed with a 'power level' in mind. Something like a scale of 1 to 10. Now, I think Malifaux doesn't quite do this, but the idea would be that a Level 10 miniature would be aggressively costed from the very start. Sometimes this has to be done if something is already out of balance and the designers are trying to bring them back to heel. Sometimes you make something a Level 2 character because it's more fluff based, and more for fun. As stated by someone earlier in the thread, I think EVERY piece in Malifaux has some utility or another, but sometimes that utility is more narrow with some pieces than with others.

Anyways....these things don't necessarily apply directly to Malifaux, but it was an interesting perspective on how game design was handled for a different system, and really helped me to understand just how difficult it can be to design something that truly is balanced. Also because you have to constantly be introducing new models as well, in order to keep the company growing, so it's a constant battle between the ideas of balance, powercreep, etc.

The only way for a game to be truly balanced is if you're playing chess. Frankly, if that's what I wanted, there are chess clubs I could join. Malifaux is plenty balanced for my tastes. Do I have sorely unbalanced games sometimes? Heck yeah. Sonnia vs. Leveticus REALLY hurts when you're playing Levi. But that's when the real fun begins, and I now have the challenge of trying to win an uphill battle. It might not be balanced, per se, but it is still fun, and ultimately, that's what it's really all about. Right?

[mythicFOX]

+1 to the last two posts.

[Hookers]

The game is not balanced master to master....and can't be. What about the people that only have 1-2 crews and can't afford more? If their local meta, crew, faction, playstyle, etc sees them lose more often than not, its bound to get old after a while.

All you need are two crews. The benefit you get from having more than that decreases exponentially.

You might be right that the balance discussion won't be concluded, but that is because those with the opinion echoing yours are simply not playing the game like the rules and gaining ground tell you to.

The more I read Mango's posts the more it seems like he lost to Pandora, wasn't able to be immediately successful in Malifaux, is better at playing Infinity, and therefore Malifaux is imbalanced and Infinity is perfect.

Not trying to be rude, that is just the impression that I get.

Like I said there are certainly unbalanced aspects of the game. As mentioned above, alp bombs are problematic. It would be a relatively easy balance fix in my opinion: either make them a point more or take a random ability off their card. Why a 3 point model needs an ability like tarnkappe I will never know. Nekima giving everyone a mask is borderline game breaking for multiple reasons. If it were up to me I would redesign Hamelin from the ground up. Great concept, great model, great fluff, everyone loves him, but no one loves playing with or against him. Some of the new gremlins should probably cost a point more, but that might have been trying to compensate them for their previous lack of raw firepower. Regardless, those examples slightly tip the balance in some areas, but they aren't autowins, don't complete any objectives any easier, and can be overcome with experience. Most of the skill in the game comes from knowing what your opponent is capable of, likely to do, and how to be a step ahead and that comes mainly with experience.

Edit: also chess and checkers aren't balanced and never can be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess

Edited August 2, 2011 by Hookers

[paradox]

The point is: It doesn't even apply! The premise is thus false. It applies only to one kind of war-games and not to all miniature games or games in general.

Some miniature games are war-games. They are originally designed around pitted battles. Warhammer franchise is the best example of this.

Not all miniature games are war games. Malifaux in particular is not a wargame, but rather a faction based miniature RPG where factions strive to gain fictional advantage in fictional universe by realizing certain simplified objectives. It is a power game. It's closer to Risk, as a genre, than to Warhammer (ok, exaggerating a bit, but I'm thinking chiefly about the game philosophy).

It is not the point of the game to kill the enemy - it never was. Players who want pitted battle project their experience with other miniature games on Malifaux and take it for a game it is not.

So why must there be a tournament format again? If what you say is true, Then by logic, Mali does not lend itself well to tournament play, which is all about a race to the top, winining games by killing enemy models.

Clearly, by your logic, it lends itslf better to some other format that is not about pitting 1 player vs another, master on master, crew on crew, every round.

[Ratty]

So why must there be a tournament format again? If what you say is true, Then by logic, Mali does not lend itself well to tournament play, which is all about a race to the top, winining games by killing enemy models.

Clearly, by your logic, it lends itslf better to some other format that is not about pitting 1 player vs another, master on master, crew on crew, every round.

Though there is no need to kill the opponent, there is still a VP format. Which means there is a winner of a match up, if there is a result then tournaments are possible.

Malifaux has a clear scoring system, you get a margin of Victory. It's designed to be played on the faction level, and so far all the tournament results I've seen show it to be fairly balanced in that regard.

Also you see that the same names come high on lists no matter which faction they play, which suggests that results are more to do with skill than luck or imbalances.

I think your fixating on other system when Killing is the only way to win. Malifaux is a strategy based system. It's about choosing the right tools to succeed in your strategy and stop the opponent succeeding in theirs.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Ratty

[Fetid Strumpet]

Just to toss it into the mix, would the format the tournament is being run in benefit from examination in the discussions on this topic. I've been running a 5 week league over the course of the summer, but I've been running it as a accumulation style format, which initially I didn't think I'd care for, but have been very surprised at how much I've enjoyed it. It has forced the players into trying to think about how to play even more tactically because winning a game 3-1 doesn't really help you very much in the long run.

The reason I bring this up is that even Masters that it seems the community at large regards as very strong can be brought more into line in this format. It doesn't matter if the Dreamer wins every game he plays if he is only managing 4-2 or 3-1 victories. It really places a huge emphasis on completing as many of your schemes and strategies as you can, and denying your opponent theirs.

[LoboStele]

So why must there be a tournament format again? If what you say is true, Then by logic, Mali does not lend itself well to tournament play, which is all about a race to the top, winining games by killing enemy models.

Clearly, by your logic, it lends itslf better to some other format that is not about pitting 1 player vs another, master on master, crew on crew, every round.

Hmm...that's because it's NOT about pitting Master on Master, crew on crew. It's about pitting Faction on Faction. THAT is what lends to the story and fluff behind Malifaux. That's why the basic rules for the game said that if two people took the same Unique model, that they both had to drop it from their crews. Obviously, that can't carry over to tournament play because it just gets goofy, but you can see the idea there behind the game design.

Eric and the team are focused on creating a story. However, as Gamers, we demand something that is fun to play, and gives us something to compete with. You are almost never going to find a game that is successful long-term, without having some sort of competitive side to it. It just isn't going to happen. But even with the way the game is designed, to balance factions against each other, and test a player's strategy, as well as their playing skill, it is all to serve the greater purpose of creating a narrative as well.

[Buhallin]

So why must there be a tournament format again? If what you say is true, Then by logic, Mali does not lend itself well to tournament play, which is all about a race to the top, winining games by killing enemy models.

Well, for the "why?" Because the players want it.

Your last sentence is flawed. Tournaments still use strategies; you don't just win games by killing models. Only one strategy is all about killing; while some others rely on model count, they're far more about positioning, board control, and numbers. Characterizing it as "winning games by killing enemy models" isn't really correct.

Clearly, by your logic, it lends itslf better to some other format that is not about pitting 1 player vs another, master on master, crew on crew, every round.

The point of Malifaux's balance being faction-based is that you choose crews suited for the strategy each time. Will it always come down to master v. master for each game? Sure. But the goal is not just "can my master smash your master", which a lot of people seem to consider "balance". The goal is "Can I get to this objective faster?" or "Can I keep more models alive around this point?"

Because you have the ability to choose master and crew based on the objective, "Can Marcus kill the Dreamer?" is irrelevant... But so many people are accustomed to defining "balance" based on that question (or variations of it) that it keeps getting dragged in here.