Theory for debate

[swingjunkie]

I pose a theory: MOST (not all) of the "imbalance" of Malifaux lies in people making fluffier lists instead of exploring all of their options. Discuss.

To cite: Archanists, the generally accepted "weakest faction" also has some of the fluffiest lists, while Neverborn, the most "overpowered faction" can field almost any model in any list. Even in games amongst weaker players, it is not uncommon to see Lelu, Teddy, or Terror Tots in almost any Neverborn crew. However, how often does one see Student of Conflict in a Marcus crew or Joss in a Raspy Crew, at least among newer players? They are both fine models and not terrible choices at all, they just don't seem to fit with those masters.

Within Ressers, Kirai is seen as Teir 1, Seamus as teir 1.5 and McMourning is usually ranked even lower. If you look at the "fluffy" models, you see that Kirai with spirits is great, Seamus with Belles is good, and most people people turn their nurses into paperweights quickly. But when one turns to other models for McMourning, or puts some muscle in a Seamus list, buisness picks up. Heck, I can't count how often I've seen Killjoy in a rezzer list.

Anyways, just food for thought, please put your own unput in.

Edited September 13, 2011 by swingjunkie

[Dolomyte]

I disagree with your theory for a few reasons.

firstly, the best arcanist master is considered to be colette, who works best with a bunch of showgirls, its not fluffy that makes them good. It's synergy.

the best outcast master is probably hamelin, who is incredibly synergistic with his crew (also fluffy)

the best resser master is kirai, who works very well with her spirits, fluffy and synergy.

The neverborn are imbalanced because of some broken interactions, specifically the nekima lelitu interaction, and alps with the dreamer. If those issues were fixed I would consider neverborn only minutely better then other factions.

The imbalance lies in tournament results.

[swingjunkie]

See, it may be that those are considered the best crews because they are so easy to figure out what to play with and make it work well. It's not instinctive to put Steamborg in with Marcus or maybe let Night Terrors acts as objective-grabbers for Seamus. I think the people that know and excercise all of their options perform better, even with supposedly weaker masters.

I guess I'm kind of saying that truly tailoring your crew to the strategy first and to each other second may be overlooked.

[Justin]

I think the perception of imbalance comes from the fact that there is imbalance.

But I would also argue, all miniatures games are just as imbalanced.

I would only disagree with the degree of imbalance which is generally portrayed, which I would chalk up to the fact that we are communicating on the internet. And typing makes people angry.

[Cornelious1424]

To me, imbalance lies in people striving to turn a simple game that is intended for fun into an uber competitive situation. I'm not saying that competition is a bad thing, because I my self enjoy friendly competition and the banter/smack talk that comes with it...that is why I play these games. However, people tend to only take the "auto-win" lists because winning is primary and enjoying a good game is secondary. This is not a bash, just my opinion of things. I prefer to play fun, fluffy lists than the lists that will bring me closer to victory. I've never used Jack Daw, I don't play the Dreamer, and I prefer my Seamus lists with Molly and lots of Belles. This does not put my on on higher moral ground than any other player. People complain about Neverborn being broken, I tell them to try playing in a group where Guild is the primary faction, they would soon change their opinion. I think knowing when to and when not to take certain models is the key to "unbreaking" the game.

[Math Mathonwy]

But I would also argue, all miniatures games are just as imbalanced.

That's a very defeatist attitude, though. Even if we accept that minis games, by their very nature, contain imbalance (and I'm fully willing to accept that, mind) it doesn't follow that they all contain the same amount of imbalance or that by fixing imbalance, the level of imbalance in a game doesn't change.

To take a blatant example, consider Meliador + Storm of Light in Confrontation 2nd edition. There was a combo that let you just sit on a rock and everything died if you managed to roll even semi-well. It was hideously powerful and utterly boring and most likely to worst imbalance I've seen in a minis game. Fixing it, made Confrontation 2nd a lot better game and a lot more balanced game, even though there naturally remained all sorts of questionable stuff, still.

So yeah, fixing the Dreamer down a notch may mean that there rises another Master that people think of as the best, but they will be best by a smaller margin than Dreamer is currently (not wishing to debate the exact case of the Dreamer here, just taking it as an example of an imbalance that is relatively widely accepted as needing some looking into).

Now, how to fix is of course tricky, so Wyrd taking their time is all fine and dandy in my book, since if they change something, changing it back and forth is very undesireable so getting it right the first time would be awesome.

[Justin]

That's a very defeatist attitude, though. Even if we accept that minis games, by their very nature, contain imbalance (and I'm fully willing to accept that, mind) it doesn't follow that they all contain the same amount of imbalance or that by fixing imbalance, the level of imbalance in a game doesn't change.

To take a blatant example, consider Meliador + Storm of Light in Confrontation 2nd edition. There was a combo that let you just sit on a rock and everything died if you managed to roll even semi-well. It was hideously powerful and utterly boring and most likely to worst imbalance I've seen in a minis game. Fixing it, made Confrontation 2nd a lot better game and a lot more balanced game, even though there naturally remained all sorts of questionable stuff, still.

So yeah, fixing the Dreamer down a notch may mean that there rises another Master that people think of as the best, but they will be best by a smaller margin than Dreamer is currently (not wishing to debate the exact case of the Dreamer here, just taking it as an example of an imbalance that is relatively widely accepted as needing some looking into).

Now, how to fix is of course tricky, so Wyrd taking their time is all fine and dandy in my book, since if they change something, changing it back and forth is very undesireable so getting it right the first time would be awesome.

I'm not trying to dodge your examples, but I haven't played confrontation and I'm tired of the dreamer.

But I do think that whatever comes up will be fairly on par with the previous top tier list. In part simply because it frees up all of those competitive tournament players to start thinking of new lists to hone to perfection. And, even if whatever comes up isn't on par with the previous version, it will still be portrayed as such, because such things are generally portrayed in a very sensational way. So it's very hard to tell where the truth lies if you're just going off of community feedback, and not your own results. And we are just talking about community feedback in this thread. (I think)

Now, I'm not saying nothing should ever be fixed. Not at all. I just don't see the hurry, because it's all just a race to the next debate.

[Q'iq'el]

That there may be another issue that captures the community's attention is a terrible reason to delay tackling the current one.

That's not the point of Lalochezia's argument though, is it?

The point is that competitive players inevitably introduce broken combos.

And there are two things happening once the designers develop a knee-jerk reaction to claims of imbalance:

- Models and combos which are perfectly OK for an average Joe gammer, because he can't use them to the extreme or fields them in sub-obptimal configurations suddenly become unplayable and he is unhappy. This is essentially the argument GW build their game around (i.e "we're not making it for you tournament crazies so go comp your excesses on your own"). And despite all the negative press from the tournament goers, and the rising competition, they still hold pretty strong, don't they?

- The tournament circle moves to the next thing, which is *exactly* as broken as the previous (Lalo's argument).

Even internet games made for e-sports with real money involved suffer from that effect. And just consider how much easier it is to balance things when the players are sending you exact battle report from every game they play (with every movement to the pixel and all the 0-100 rolls listed) and you can up and down the chances by percent points, distributing the change to the entire community with one press of a button (exaggerating, I know, but still errata and rulings are far less thorough and efficient than that).

[Dolomyte]

That's not the point of Lalochezia's argument though, is it?

The point is that competitive players inevitably introduce broken combos.

And there are two things happening once the designers develop a knee-jerk reaction to claims of imbalance:

- Models and combos which are perfectly OK for an average Joe gammer, because he can't use them to the extreme or fields them in sub-obptimal configurations suddenly become unplayable and he is unhappy. This is essentially the argument GW build their game around (i.e "we're not making it for you tournament crazies so go comp your excesses on your own"). And despite all the negative press from the tournament goers, and the rising competition, they still hold pretty strong, don't they?

- The tournament circle moves to the next thing, which is *exactly* as broken as the previous (Lalo's argument).

Even internet games made for e-sports with real money involved suffer from that effect. And just consider how much easier it is to balance things when the players are sending you exact battle report from every game they play (with every movement to the pixel and all the 0-100 rolls listed) and you can up and down the chances by percent points, distributing the change to the entire community with one press of a button (exaggerating, I know, but still errata and rulings are far less thorough and efficient than that).

GW uses a codex / army book system. They intentionally make the most recent codex / army book slightly more powerful then the last released codex / army book. They occasionally reset with a new edition. This drives the competetive players to buy a new book and new models if they wish to win, and it encourages older players to buy different models then what were powerful in the last go round. It's a ruthlessly brilliant business model.

(For interest of disclosure: I worked for games workshop, and not as a cashier at a hobby center)

[Dolomyte]

See, it may be that those are considered the best crews because they are so easy to figure out what to play with and make it work well. It's not instinctive to put Steamborg in with Marcus or maybe let Night Terrors acts as objective-grabbers for Seamus. I think the people that know and excercise all of their options perform better, even with supposedly weaker masters.

I guess I'm kind of saying that truly tailoring your crew to the strategy first and to each other second may be overlooked.

I'm pretty sure that the reason they are considered better is because they are better. I don't feel they are unbeatable, but typically they do better then the other masters of their faction, for a multitude of reasons.

Speed is very important in malifaux, especially with a large number of the strategies speed and manueverability based. Most of the book 2 masters have speed in spades.

[Justin]

That there may be another issue that captures the community's attention is a terrible reason to delay tackling the current one.

But we're not tackling the current one.

We're bitching about it.

Now I know, I know, Wyrd won't doing anything if issues aren't raised, sure. But they have been. We're starting to border on the sensational, which just doesn't get you listened to.

And as to the issues themselves. I've seen worse.

[Justin]

And who would seriously claim that addressing the Alp Bomb issue at this point would be knee-jerk?

That depends entirely on how it's addressed.

[Justin]

It's not a contest.

It can be.

Mew-Two, I choose you!

(Seriously, that bastard was broken)

[Q'iq'el]

GW uses a codex / army book system. They intentionally make the most recent codex / army book slightly more powerful then the last released codex / army book. They occasionally reset with a new edition. This drives the competetive players to buy a new book and new models if they wish to win, and it encourages older players to buy different models then what were powerful in the last go round. It's a ruthlessly brilliant business model.

(For interest of disclosure: I worked for games workshop, and not as a cashier at a hobby center)

This is sort of post, I'm sorry, one gets on the internet. Precisely kind of thing that misses the reality by huge margin and often doesn't help at all. Sorry to say that straight out, but this is simply true.

Neither you nor I know what drives GW sales, but both of us can relatively easily check that power level of the books depends mostly on the author's experience. Some of the most balanced books are created by experienced designers.

As far as marketing strategy goes, Wyrd isn't all that different to GW - monthly appearance of new models to keep people excited and to make regular players see new things on the table every couple of months. That keeps people excited, buying new stuff and thus it works for everyone. You don't need any sinister plots to add to this.

And as for the buying power of competitive players, I suppose there is some truth in theory that dedicated players spent more money on the system, but I find it very highly improbable there's enough of them to drive the company of GW's size.

The only real difference is that for GW top tournament players used to be sort of vermin chewing on cables and breaking the game, while younger companies have learned how to tame the element and use it for sort of external testing ground. Nowadays even that distinction isn't very true I think (as GW's ability to fix their system has improved greatly).

But in the end, no matter how you process the feedback and fix the models, you have to realize the change always comes too late for the competitive players - they have already moved on by the time things got tested and fixed. You can't help that.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Dolomyte]

But we're not tackling the current one.

We're bitching about it.

Now I know, I know, Wyrd won't doing anything if issues aren't raised, sure. But they have been. We're starting to border on the sensational, which just doesn't get you listened to.

And as to the issues themselves. I've seen worse.

Wyrd reads our discussions, we've raised alot of good ideas for potential solutions, and alot of valuable information in general about these topics. So us talking about it might give them something to work with.

Speaking for myself and myself alone, it agitates the hell out of me that people are blindly coming in and denying there is a problem with certain interactions (You know the 2), and shouting for MOAR data. So when I get agitated I tend to lash out in an unproductive manner. I'm pretty sure my tombstone will read "He'll burn that bridge when he crosses it"

I'm aware of genocide, but that does not make me think that killing a single person is any less of an evil act. Bad is Bad, the degree should not dissuade us from discouraging it.

[Q'iq'el]

*Godwin bomb detected, impact imminent*

[Dolomyte]

This is sort of post, I'm sorry, one gets from fanboys or detractors on the internet. Precisely kind of thing that misses the reality by huge margin and often doesn't help at all. Sorry to say that straight out, but this is simply true.

Neither you nor I know what drives GW sales, but both of us can relatively easily check that power level of the books depends mostly on the author's experience. Some of the most balanced books are created by experienced designers.

As far as marketing strategy goes, Wyrd isn't all that different to GW - monthly appearance of new models to keep people excited and to make regular players see new things on the table every couple of months. That keeps people excited, buying new stuff and thus it works for everyone. You don't need any sinister plots to add to this.

And as for the buying power of competitive players, I suppose there is some truth in theory that dedicated players spent more money on the system, but I find it very highly improbable there's enough of them to drive the company of GW's size.

The only real difference is that for GW top tournament players used to be sort of vermin chewing on cables and breaking the game, while younger companies have learned how to tame the element and use it for sort of external testing ground. Nowadays even that distinction isn't very true I think (as GW's ability to fix their system has improved greatly).

But in the end, no matter how you process the feedback and fix the models, you have to realize the change always comes too late for the competitive players - they have already moved on by the time things got tested and fixed. You can't help that.

I'm sorry for saying this, but you don't a single expletive thing about me and what I do or do not know. Your just a name on the internet. You insult large swathes of people while chiding others for making similar or even less offensive comments. Just because your a casual player does not mean you should attack tournament players.

[Q'iq'el]

Oh let's not start claiming Godwins in lieu of discussion.

Genocide's already in the thread. I've merely noticed the thread's heading.

[Dolomyte]

Genocide's already in the thread. I've merely noticed the thread's heading.

Genocide is the most heinous example of murder. I could have used Gang rape and Rape, but I feel that is more offensive then Genocide and murder. Either proves my example.

[Math Mathonwy]

I'm not trying to dodge your examples, but I haven't played confrontation and I'm tired of the dreamer.

I thought that my description of Meliador + SoL was adequate. You had a model standing, doing nothing but casting Storm of Light and every enemy model dies if you don't roll exceedingly abysmally the whole game. There was nothing they could do. It was an unfortunate interplay of different mechanics that made the combo completely insanely powerful with no counters other than bad luck on Meliador player's part.

But if these aren't obvious enough, let's take a ridiculous example which should make things crystal clear. If Nekima was non-unique and costed 1SS, the game would be insanely imbalanced. A Lilith crew with 35 Nekimas would rule the tournaments. Eliminating that imbalance would surely make the game better and saying that it shouldn't be done since people would find another broken combo (say, Alp bomb) is crazy. Now, naturally the game isn't imbalanced that severely, but I made the example purposefully ridiculous so as to make sure that no one would address my position through it.

But the exact example are not my point. They are there to illustrate my point, which is that imbalance isn't a magical status quo that can't be lowered.

But I do think that whatever comes up will be fairly on par with the previous top tier list. In part simply because it frees up all of those competitive tournament players to start thinking of new lists to hone to perfection.

This kind of view sorta invalidates all the balancing that Wyrd has done and is, IMO, a bit insulting towards them and their rules makers and playtesters.

And, even if whatever comes up isn't on par with the previous version, it will still be portrayed as such, because such things are generally portrayed in a very sensational way.

This is probably the weakest defense for retaining the status quo I've seen. "People whine no matter what so nothing should even be done. Zimbabwe or Canada, no matter."

Edit: upon review, that sounded harsher than I meant. I respect you and your opinions. I just here disagree with them strongly, but I still think that you're all sorts of awesome

[Q'iq'el]

I'm sorry for saying this, but you don't a single expletive thing about me and what I do or do not know. Your just a name on the internet. You insult large swathes of people while chiding others for making similar or even less offensive comments. Just because your a casual player does not mean you should attack tournament players.

I don't try to insult you nor anyone else. I do not attack tournament players - perhaps I should advise more reading comprehension? I'm commenting on the influence of the competitive play on any game system - from computer games to oldest tabletop games out there. You could probably find it affecting how chess were played thorough the ages, so it is nothing new nor surprising.

My GW comment was merely a side-note to illustrate the phenomenon which is well observed in the older games and which does need to be addressed in any discussion about rapid changes to the rules and balance.

Lilitu may be broken in Pandora list and Alp Bomb may be broken if someone brings 9 or 12 Alps, but how many players do that? And why should they affect how Lilitu plays in a Lilith list or how 3 Alps' bomb works?!? Do you really think competitive arena is of such a huge importance that only the opinion and experience of the players involved in it should count?

I'm not saying it shouldn't. I merely said it is a call developers need to make and pointed at GW as an example of going exactly against that. Sorry for having to explain the point again.

Instead, you attack the side note with a unsupported and hostile comment about different game and different company. This is dismissive of my argument how? What does this illustrate? How does it relate to that argument?

And why do you point fingers on others when it is you who attempts to gain internet creed with far reaching claims (Tournaments attest to Neverborn dominance? All of them? Seriously! And do I need to point it out directly to stop you from attacking the side issues?).

[Q'iq'el]

With a cheap internet trick that is far past any meaning.

Yup, shouldn't stoop to the levels I aspire to avoid. Very sorry for that.

[Q'iq'el]

The thing that's really killing me is that we're even at each other's throats.

Qi, Lalo, there's no animosity between us, and yet we're verge of squabbling over an attempt to improve Malifaux. Something everyone in this thread no doubt wants.

I guess I'm adapting poorly to the certain tone of the argument on the forums these days.

We used to have threads about mechanics and tactics, with moderate amount of whinning to keep in check.

We now have people expecting Wyrd to change our models because "every single tournament shows the total breakage of things".

Lalo is completely right - it's not that the game doesn't require tweaks. It's that the issue is so horribly exaggerated you cannot post about it anymore.

Imagine that Wyrd comes with minor tweaks (which are probably needed). They make Lilitu Rare 1 for example, not fixing the chain lure but cutting amount of AP available for that by half. How will the forum react, when the lynching mob has already decided ability to chain lure must go out altogether?

For an entire year I've been thinking I had to take a WP test for every alp in range and I kept on dying to the 3 Alp bomb with no way to counter it (not that I played the Dreamer more than few times).

Now I learned it is only one test... as far as I'm concerned that basically fixes the bomb for me (never saw more than 3 Alps anyway). Perhaps if it turns out Fast protects from Smother/Feed on Dreams, I'll be perfectly happy with it.

But do you think the self-proclaimed competitive players would agree with such a minor fix?

Edited September 13, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Q'iq'el]

Genocide is the most heinous example of murder. I could have used Gang rape and Rape, but I feel that is more offensive then Genocide and murder. Either proves my example.

Either proves the emotions are at play, not the reason.

I prescribe Ockham's Razor. Real one, not the mutilated pop-culture atrocity about simplicity of arguments or something.

[Q'iq'el]

I invite everyone to Terraclips discussion. The terrain has some incredible balancing potential and is available right here right now (unlike Wyrd's fixes). It's far more productive, IMHO, than discussing balance.

My first table designed with gameplay in mind (not just looks) has been posted in the Terraclips forums yesterday).