Exorcist - one too many anti-resurrectionists?

[Justin]

Yeah, but I'm not advocating up to the minute errata. Just that these issues not be treated with the same shoulder shrugging that I'm afraid you seem to think we should be employing.

Shoulder shrugging by who?

By the players? Pretty clearly not the case.

By Wyrd? I'm sure they know.

So yes, shoulder shrugging is exactly what I'm advocating. As I've said, I'll debate and bitch about rules all day - I enjoy it. But I also understand that these things take time, and only the most major inequalities will probably get an actual errata. In the mean time I will be shrugging my shoulders, and enjoying the game.

[Iamwyrd]

Sooooooooooo..........about that exorcist model.

And this is why threads gets closed, off topic much.

[Jonas Albrecht]

and enjoying the game.

Which works, for you. Not for the people whose enjoyment is hampered by the unaddressed issues.

"I'm having fun so you guys should just deal" is a fine stance until it gets vocalized.

Sooooooooooo..........about that exorcist model.

And this is why threads gets closed, off topic much.

If there was any discussion to be had about the Exorcist left, we'd be having it. Topic drift happens.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Jonas Albrecht

[Justin]

Sooooooooooo..........about that exorcist model.

And this is why threads gets closed, off topic much.

Do not make me turn this into a debate about whether threads should be closed for not being on topic.

Because I will.

A thread is a conversation. As you have a conversation, sometimes you change the topic naturally. This is where this thread went. Clearly, people still have things to say. And they are doing so politely.

[edonil]

I definitely agree that every month is too often. I also agree that waiting is a necessary component of figuring out if something needs to be brought back into balance. But, we're now at one year of seeing Rising Powers out. I think that Wyrd looking into the stuff that's been out to see if they're breaking the game would be appropriate. Alps should be brought back into balance. Hamelin's interaction with Gremlins is another one. Double Take is yet another thing to look at. They aren't huge changes, but they are ones that will improve the game. Anything that removes control of the game from a player is a bad thing. More than three Alps, the potential infinite loop on Double Take and the issue that you mentioned with Hamelin, all of these make situations where only one person is playing, and it's not any fun.

[Jonas Albrecht]

I definitely agree that every month is too often.

Before this gets any legs, no one is advocating it. Not one single person in this thread.

[Justin]

Which works, for you. Not for the people whose enjoyment is hampered by the unaddressed issues.

"I'm having fun so you guys should just deal" is a fine stance until it gets vocalized.

Is that how you read that?

*sigh*

I outlined (I thought, rather well) why it was simply unrealistic to expect any real major errata, particularly at the speed people seem to ask for it. Not why I didn't want it. Not, why Neverborn aren't broken. Simply why it is unrealistic to expect Wyrd, as a company, to do what most people are asking. And that, in the mean time, we may as well have fun.

Ok, I have made all the points I can. Enjoy the rest of the debate.

[edonil]

Before this gets any legs, no one is advocating it. Not one single person in this thread.

Didn't think you were. It was a timeframe that was mentioned, and I was saying my opinion on it.

[Dolomyte]

Do not make me turn this into a debate about whether threads should be closed for not being on topic.

Because I will.

A thread is a conversation. As you have a conversation, sometimes you change the topic naturally. This is where this thread went. Clearly, people still have things to say. And they are doing so politely.

I was going to more say the wyrd forums are like southern california. You have alot of people just minding their own business, but then you have two vocal minorities who come in like the bloods and the crips ready for gang violence.

Edit - I dont want set errata, I dont even require a time and place for us to get together in a big pow wow to discuss what is wrong and what is right. I just would like to see issues discussed thoughtfully and intelligently on the forums, and then perhaps wyrd to say "This thread has some valid points, maybe neverborn is more of an issue then we originally gave credence too, we will look at it internally and perhaps make a few small adjustments."

I really think if wyrd told us that it would be a calmdown effect =p

Edited August 23, 2011 by Dolomyte

[Iamwyrd]

I never said it will get closed, just saying that is why they do. I agree about the off topicness of threads, and how they get there. But its just as easy to make a thread for the off topicness of the thread instead of switching its topic completely.

So have at it, just watching.

[Jonas Albrecht]

Ok, I have made all the points I can. Enjoy the rest of the debate.

Oh lord. Look, I could be wrong, but how should I have interpreted the last post you made?

[Justin]

Oh lord. Look, I could be wrong, but how should I have interpreted the last post you made?

You just keep assuming the worst in me, Jonas!

YOU AND ME ARE THROUGH!

THROUGH!

...

The point of that post was simply, it's going to be a while: we should try to have fun with what we have. Not "I'm having fun, so you can screw off."

[edonil]

You just keep assuming the worst in me, Jonas!

YOU AND ME ARE THROUGH!

THROUGH!

...

The point of that post was simply, it's going to be a while: we should try to have fun with what we have. Not "I'm having fun, so you can screw off."

Heh, you two are funny. Honestly, if this is the worst the Wyrd forums get, it's better than even the mild form of arguments at other forums.

[Jonas Albrecht]

The point of that post was simply, it's going to be a while: we should try to have fun with what we have. Not "I'm having fun, so you can screw off."

A reasonable position, but people endure what they can. I certainly agree that Wyrd should not cater to those who make a fullstop on discovering an issue.

[ProdigalPunk]

I definitely agree that every month is too often. I also agree that waiting is a necessary component of figuring out if something needs to be brought back into balance. But, we're now at one year of seeing Rising Powers out. I think that Wyrd looking into the stuff that's been out to see if they're breaking the game would be appropriate. Alps should be brought back into balance. Hamelin's interaction with Gremlins is another one. Double Take is yet another thing to look at. They aren't huge changes, but they are ones that will improve the game. Anything that removes control of the game from a player is a bad thing. More than three Alps, the potential infinite loop on Double Take and the issue that you mentioned with Hamelin, all of these make situations where only one person is playing, and it's not any fun.

Just to be clear, we have basically live stream errata at the moment. It is called the Rules Forum, and it changes the way the game plays all the time.

[ProdigalPunk]

Sooooooooooo..........about that exorcist model.

And this is why threads gets closed, off topic much.

If you have anything to add then by all means.

Also to be clear, the thread is about the large amount of hosing the Rezzers get from the Wyrd developers, not actually about the Exorcist.

Personally I feel that the Rezzers are the other side of the coin. While I feel that the Neverborn are the Wryd golden child the Rezzers are sort of their bastard sons. (I sort of want to add the guild and arcanists to this metaphor, with one being the middle child and one the youngest, but I can not get it to work as well).

[Calmdown]

Lets be clear about the imbalance here and what it is that we expect.

No one is expecting perfect balance No one is even expecting one faction to not be on top. But it's the degree of imbalance that is the issue here.

If you take Neverborn out of the game right now, you have a fairly balanced game. Sure Kirai will still be awesome, Hamelin will still be the winner of the "worst game design of the year" award, and Collette will still be like playing Solitaire. But at least the imbalance is spread throughout the factions, and that at least is palatable. Guild will still be a bit behind. The problem is that, in the current system, Neverborn win at every level of the metagame. You don't know what list they'll bring, and all of their lists are solid. If you build expecting Pandora and get Lilith, you'll struggle. If you build expecting Lilith and get Dreamer, you'll struggle. Whereas they can build and expect Kirai from a Rezzer, or Collette from an Arcanist, and be relatively sure of being correct, plus to have to worry if they dont see that master because their minions and masters are simply going to be better by some margin than whatever else the player runs instead.

The problem is not a slight imbalance at all. When you throw in on top of this the luck of the draw of the strategy system (not every 'tier 1' master is good at every strategy, only Neverborn have truly viable alternate masters for every scheme), the imbalance is significant. Until it's addressed, tournament Malifaux will continue to be a joke. Is it a joke that people will continue to play? Probably. Is it going to grow the game when new players realise just how much fun it isn't to lose against people just because they get better models than you (in a tournament or otherwise)? No.

We're only really seeing the tip of the iceberg of this problem, with the spreadsheet I posted and the Masters rankings. But it's a problem that's been present in friendly play for as long as I can remember too. The reason it's being brought up with such voracity now is that the evidence is now starting to emerge to prove that it's right, and this is why it's time that something was done about it or at the very least the balance issues are properly acknowledged.

[Hatchethead]

Just to be clear, we have basically live stream errata at the moment. It is called the Rules Forum, and it changes the way the game plays all the time.

I like that this is available.

The vast majority of players cannot be bothered to lurk the rules disussion forum day in and day out, hoping to stay current. They choose to ignore (or are blissfully unaware of) the rulings being made. Instead, they continue to play the RAW until an official FAQ/errata document is released, just as they would with any other mainstream minis game that doesn't offer a similar real-time rules feedback forum. This is perfectly acceptable, and is likely how 99% of individuals approach Malifaux.

That a motivated player can choose to stay on top of rulings day to day is beneficial, in my opinion. You don't have to, but the option is there. I like having a direct line to the developers (or at least, to those who represent them); I for one appreciate it.

[Justin]

Lets be clear about the imbalance here and what it is that we expect.

No one is expecting perfect balance No one is even expecting one faction to not be on top. But it's the degree of imbalance that is the issue here.

If you take Neverborn out of the game right now, you have a fairly balanced game. Sure Kirai will still be awesome, Hamelin will still be the winner of the "worst game design of the year" award, and Collette will still be like playing Solitaire. But at least the imbalance is spread throughout the factions, and that at least is palatable. Guild will still be a bit behind. The problem is that, in the current system, Neverborn win at every level of the metagame. You don't know what list they'll bring, and all of their lists are solid. If you build expecting Pandora and get Lilith, you'll struggle. If you build expecting Lilith and get Dreamer, you'll struggle. Whereas they can build and expect Kirai from a Rezzer, or Collette from an Arcanist, and be relatively sure of being correct, plus to have to worry if they dont see that master because their minions and masters are simply going to be better by some margin than whatever else the player runs instead.

The problem is not a slight imbalance at all. When you throw in on top of this the luck of the draw of the strategy system (not every 'tier 1' master is good at every strategy, only Neverborn have truly viable alternate masters for every scheme), the imbalance is significant. Until it's addressed, tournament Malifaux will continue to be a joke. Is it a joke that people will continue to play? Probably. Is it going to grow the game when new players realise just how much fun it isn't to lose against people just because they get better models than you (in a tournament or otherwise)? No.

We're only really seeing the tip of the iceberg of this problem, with the spreadsheet I posted and the Masters rankings. But it's a problem that's been present in friendly play for as long as I can remember too. The reason it's being brought up with such voracity now is that the evidence is now starting to emerge to prove that it's right, and this is why it's time that something was done about it or at the very least the balance issues are properly acknowledged.

How many other miniatures games do you play at a tournament level?

[Calmdown]

How many other miniatures games do you play at a tournament level?

I play every game I play at tournament level, because that's the level that I enjoy. Is that relevant somehow?

[Justin]

I play every game I play at tournament level, because that's the level that I enjoy. Is that relevant somehow?

The way you are arguing it strikes me that you are more familiar with CCG type tournaments than miniatures. I was curious if my guess was correct.

[Calmdown]

The way you are arguing it strikes me that you are more familiar with CCG type tournaments than miniatures. I was curious if my guess was correct.

In the interests of being honest, yes, I am more familiar with CCG type tournaments then miniatures tournaments. I'm also more familiar with other types of tournaments (sports and e-sports) than miniatures, too. I'd be interested to know what effect you think that has on the discussion.

[Justin]

In the interests of being honest, yes, I am more familiar with CCG type tournaments then miniatures tournaments. I'm also more familiar with other types of tournaments (sports and e-sports) than miniatures, too. I'd be interested to know what effect you think that has on the discussion.

It's just to do with the way the games are balanced.

In a CCG, a company can essentially create "insta-balance" by using errata, or even banning/restricting a card. WOTC just banned two cards from standard for the first time in a good while about a month ago. (Which I assume you're aware of)

And although a CCG company would like to avoid errata/bannings, they will use those tools when they feel the system is unbalanced enough. To use Magic as an example again, Jace was in (I think) 88% of winning decks, so they kind of saw that he was a problem, and got rid of him.

Miniatures have less wiggle room with these sorts of things, and there are two reasons for that. The first is that people can see what they buy before purchasing so, for example, if they decided to ban Alps (I know nobody has asked for that, but it's an example) nobody is going to buy them again. WOTC can still sell Jace, because he comes randomly in a pack. The second reason is that miniatures games are not just an investment of money, but an investment of time and effort. You don't just buy a model and throw it on the table (well, most people don't) you clean it, assemble it, paint it, maybe convert it, etc. Players invest a part of themselves (their time, energy, and creativity) into the model, which is entirely unlike a Magic card, which is nothing except an investment of money. So when those models which they have invested heavily in are "nerfed" (or, more accurately, when the player perceives them to have been nerfed, and although there is a difference, it's irrelevant as the player is just as angry) it's a much bigger deal than a Magic card getting an errata or even being banned.

So, to use a real world example, Wyrd makes Alps Rare 3. This doesn't just annoy people with Alp bombs because their list is less effective, Wyrd has essentially told the player that those fourth, fifth, and sixth Alps were not just a waste of his money, but a waste of his time and effort in painting them. Wyrd will get a much larger backlash than WOTC would, so the decision needs to be made even more carefully. You could argue the player could still use extra alps in brawls, but...almost nobody plays brawls. And, again, this is just an example. Even if the errata is fair, it will be seen as a nerf and the thing about people is...they over react. And they are more likely to do so when they have invested their time and effort.

Another thing to consider is the rate at which new material is printed. CCGs print sets fairly regularly (every few months) where new rules for Malifaux models are really only available once a year. This creates an ever changing environment where new combos and top tier decks pop up and then disappear as they cycle out. Miniatures games don't have that, once something broken gets into the system, it's there. Also players have a lot more time to hone broken lists and pick out the flaws, as models never cycle out. Which seems like a good reason to constantly errata, but we run into the problems above. And the problems I mentioned earlier in the thread about casual players having to wade through pages of errata to actually play the game.

So, although miniatures games are going to be inherently less balanced than CCGs (and I play a good deal of both, and I would say the best balanced miniatures game is still less balanced than the worst CCG) what they sacrifice in balance they make up for with the hobby aspect and theme. Painting and modeling is a big aspect of the hobby, and it can be a lot of fun seeing that crew you invested time and effort into doing well. And, although I'm vaguely aware Magic has fluff, damned if I could tell you any of it, where I know all of the Malifaux fluff. (ok, not done reading book 3, but you get the point) So a lot of it is simply about what you are looking for in a hobby.

Finally, tournaments. The results of miniatures tournaments (particularly a single tournament) are a lot less indicative of which models are top tier (this is, by the way, what made me guess you were a CCG player). Miniatures games rely on terrain, Malifaux in particular needs very heavy terrain to be played "properly" and tournaments, particularly large tournaments, generally don't have enough for the number of games going on. And the set up is inconsistent (and rightfully so, who wants to show up for an event and have every single table look exactly the same?) but this creates further variation in results.

On top of this there are time limits which are more of a concern, as miniatures games generally take longer to play. In a Magic tournament, two player generally play best 2 out of 3 games in a single match. In a miniatures tournament, you only play one game and very frequently games go to time. This does two things. The first is that it limits which crews show up to the tournament in the first place, as crews which take longer to play are less favored by tournament players (Hamelin is a good example of this. Most players would tell you he is the top tier of the top tier, but why isn't he higher in the tournament showings?) The second and, I think, more important thing it does is make the results even less consistent. Obviously, being able to play 2 or 3 games gives you a better idea of which Magic deck is better than 1 game does. 1 game could be the result of a bad hand, with 2 or 3 this is less likely. Same thing with miniatures, but they are always limited to one game per match.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Justin

[mythicFOX]

+1

[Calmdown]

So, to use a real world example, Wyrd makes Alps Rare 3. This doesn't just annoy people with Alp bombs because their list is less effective, Wyrd has essentially told the player that those fourth, fifth, and sixth Alps were not just a waste of his money, but a waste of his time and effort in painting them. Wyrd will get a much larger backlash than WOTC would, so the decision needs to be made even more carefully. You could argue the player could still use extra alps in brawls, but...almost nobody plays brawls. And, again, this is just an example. Even if the errata is fair, it will be seen as a cuddle and the thing about people is...they over react. And they are more likely to do so when they have invested their time and effort.

I'd like to point out that no one has asked for the game to be 'fixed' in a specific way. I think that all anyone wants is for every faction to have a fair number of similar-power models, which is currently not the case, and certainly doesn't seem to have been rectified in book 3 (if anything, potentially it's been made worse).

Another thing to consider is the rate at which new material is printed. CCGs print sets fairly regularly (every few months) where new rules for Malifaux models are really only available once a year. This creates an ever changing environment where new combos and top tier decks pop up and then disappear as they cycle out. Miniatures games don't have that, once something broken gets into the system, it's there. Also players have a lot more time to hone broken lists and pick out the flaws, as models never cycle out. Which seems like a good reason to constantly errata, but we run into the problems above. And the problems I mentioned earlier in the thread about casual players having to wade through pages of errata to actually play the game.

Again, you dont need errata, you just need smart releases. Though it my be unpalatable to some people, if a new book came out with say, 2 great masters for every faction and two sub-par master for Neverborn, as well as some seriously good minions for other factions and less-good ones for Neverborn, that would create balance. The fact is they just released a book and didnt even try to create game balance with it - the best masters got the best Avatars, the worst masters got the worst Avatars (arguable and unsubstantiated with anything but anecdotes from people who I trust that have read the book, granted).

Finally, the results of miniatures tournaments (particularly a single tournament) are a lot less indicative of which models are top tier (this is, by the way, what made me guess you were a CCG player). Miniatures games rely on terrain, Malifaux in particular needs very heavy terrain to be played "properly" and tournaments, particularly large tournaments, generally don't have enough for the number of games going on. And the set up is inconsistent (and rightfully so, who wants to show up for an event and have every single table look exactly the same?) but this creates further variation in results.

That entire paragraph assumes that tournaments are run without proper terrain. Where's your evidence to support that? Otherwise that entire argument can be disregarded.

On top of this there are time limits which are more of a concern, as miniatures games generally take longer to play. In a Magic tournament, two player generally play best 2 out of 3 games in a single match. In a miniatures tournament, you only play one game and very frequently games go to time. This does two things. The first is that it limits which crews show up to the tournament in the first place, as crews which take longer to play are less favored by tournament players (Hamelin is a good example of this. Most players would tell you he is the top tier of the top tier, but why isn't he higher in the tournament showings?) The second and, I think, more important thing it does is make the results even less consistent. Obviously, being able to play 2 or 3 games gives you a better idea of which Magic deck is better than 1 game does. 1 game could be the result of a bad hand, 2 or 3 this is less likely so. Same thing with miniatures, but they are always limited to one game per match.

Hamelin is not played little because of his time to play. He's played little because people didnt think he was any good, and suddenly he was considered cheese so no one wants to buy him and play him (at any level - fun or tournament - and this cant be good for a games company that needs sales to make money, right?). But some people will, nontheless.

In any case, just because miniatures and CCGs/whatever are different, it doesnt mean that the theory doesnt stand. Unbalanced factions are not a good thing. They put off players from picking up a game, they annoy tournament players. Balance can be achieved in any game within the confines of that game; it may not be possible to errata or ban everything like it is in a CCG (a point which I disagree on personally - it is easily possible to ban things in tournament play in a minis game, but that's a different discussion), but it is possible to change the game balance in other ways and that just doesnt seem to be something that Wyrd is interested in doing. If they're not going to, then drop tournament support and accept your game is about fluff and fun. If they want to run tournaments, then do something about it. When the Masters next year is 75% Neverborn we'll have this discussion again and you can tell me again how wrong I am that there's an issue.

The second and, I think, more important thing it does is make the results even less consistent. Obviously, being able to play 2 or 3 games gives you a better idea of which Magic deck is better than 1 game does. 1 game could be the result of a bad hand, with 2 or 3 this is less likely. Same thing with miniatures, but they are always limited to one game per match.

I gave you a spreadsheet with plenty of information in it. A lot more than 2 or 3 games. 6/10 top places and 45% of all top 4 places by Neverborn. That's a good enough sample size to point to a trend.

Though I suppose you'll dismiss that too. Something to think about: when it is obvious from a rules perspective that a faction has advantages, and that is also supported by stats, there's probably an issue no matter how much you want there to not be one.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Calmdown