Should Balance be done Mechanically, Numerically, with New Answers, or not at all?

[Kael Hate]

Should Balance be done Mechanically, Numerically, with New Answers, or not at all?

An extension to an earlier thread questioning whether handicapping should be done officially in a numerical way based on tournament data.

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?p=354810#post354810

Personally I think that the closer a game can become to being in balance with differenent functions the better the game is.

For MalifauX there can be the following options.

1. Numerical Adjustment

Increase or Decrease the cost of a unit so it becomes closer to its actual play value. This is the easiest on the game because it does not change any character or any intent put into the original creation. It just alters whether or not its worth playing. It cannot however fix a broken mechanic where the value of something is infinite or simply assured.

2. Mechanical Adjustment

Change how something works so that it is no longer at the strength it was. This is hard to test against making new problems and also has the side effect of changing the character of the unit. Changing how something fights might mean its not the same unit anymore. This may lead to bad player feelings because the purchaces made may not have the same merit.

3. New Answers

Create a new unit to counter the problem. This often comes with the term "Power Creep" where the solution to a big stick is carrying a bigger stick. Sometimes this can work but more often than not its not a solution to the balance issue but rather another tray to weigh.

4. Do Nothing

Simplest choice but leaves the game unbalanced. Will a player pick up the game if they know that one option is better than all others? Will they take that option creating further imbalance?

[ukrocky]

Isn't this thread exactly the same but with options for those who said yes...?

[Kael Hate]

Isn't this thread exactly the same but with options for those who said yes...?

Not really.

The other thread focussed on a version of Numerical adjustment based on tournament results. This thread questions how you would see any balance made.

Under the assumption that everything is broken and you need to make an adjustment to make it less broken, what do you do?

[Todd]

This is actually a much better thread. I think it will encourage more productive discussion. The other one was probably just going to get nasty.

I actually wanted to say "no" to the first thread (didn't vote instead), but felt like I needed more options.

[Wolfgar]

This needs to be a multiple choice poll.

Generally if there is an imbalance worthy of addressing it will be because a given mechanic needs fixing. if you can't point to a specific mechanic or set of mechanics causing the problem with a given model, it's likely not imbalanced.

[brdparker]

EDIT: As I was typing this thing out, there were four responses! Anyway, I agree, the "imbalances" should be dealt with case by case.

I like the 3rd answer the best, but only if it is implemented correctly.

It requires a recognition of which aspects of the game (in this case, models) are considered underpowered, too situational, etc. and targeting those models directly with buffs. For example, one I hear all too often is that Bishop is never worth his pointsn (too slow, not a good enough damage spread, not a large enough melee Rg, etc.):

Create a pet or sidekick (pun intended) for Bishop that makes up for his fault(s) along with some way to mitigate the overcost of the unit. For example:

Craignor, Bishop's Mutant Dachshund

3 SS

6/9 Wk/Cg

Ht 4

3 Wds

Passive Ability

Thanks for Takin' Care of Mah' Dog - When this model is healed by a friendly character, gain a soulstone. Friendly models may not target this model, and it immune to damage that would be caused by friendly models.

Actions

(0) Watch Dog - Until the end closing phase, when another model moves or is pushed to within 4" of this model, Bishop may be pushed up to 3" closer to this model.

(1) Shield Master - Target model with Melee Expert within 3" gains the trigger: Df (:rams:rams) After being hit with a strike or spell, but before damage is flipped or the effects occur, redirect the effect to Craignor. Any damage flip receives

(1) Bite into It's Flesh - This turn, when a friendly Bishop hits with a strike against a model within melee range of Craignor, Bishop may discard a card to use 2 triggers for the strike. This effect ends when Bishop hits with a strike.

It's a pure utility piece that may give you something to make up for its master's cost. It gives Bishop a little more mobility, a little more survivability, and what I think everyone wants from the guy: the ability to use multiple triggers, given that he has so fricking many of them. And yes, it says Ht. 4. You think Bishop would be subtle in his pet choice?

Anyway, just some thoughts. And the model needs-not be so specific or one-tract, but you could include other models that have little benefits scattered throughout the model choices for specific under-appreciated models.

[Undisclosed]

A combination of those methods would be better. If something mechanically works as it should but is very strong, maybe an increase in SS. If something doesn't work very well then a mechanical adjustment can be used.

IMO, this should be a last resort type method and i wouldn't like to see regular changes to card stats (Nekima and Alps change was good for the game, but having that multiple times will make the game cluttered with FAQs and Erratas)

[nachtnebel]

Balance is important, but none of the answers above is the right way to deal with imbalance, there is no bog-standard way to solve balancing issues (unless they appear due to a lack in the mathematical system behind the game).

[Todd]

I think the method used will have to be determined on a case by case basis.

Numerical Adjustment.

This one is tricky. It can only be used when the imbalance is isolated. If Model A + Model B is broken, lowering point values could have a negative effect on Models C,D,E,F, etc (where there was previously no balance issue). Conversely, take a model like Bishop (not particularly good with anyone). Simply lowering his SS cost will make him a more attractive choice, and isn't likely to create any overpowered combos.

Mechanical Adjustment:

Last resort.

New Answers:

I think this is being/will be done, Wyrd just hasn't gotten that far with it yet. This game is relatively new.

Do Nothing:

I think this approach should be taken as long as possible. If players are given a significant amount of time to counter/adapt to an "imbalance" and just aren't able to, then it should be considered.

[BlueStar86]

Why can't the balance be done in all of those ways? Slight tweaks here and there are the best way to fix game balance. Balancing a system is like safe-cracking, or being god: it takes a very light touch.

[Todd]

Balancing a system is like safe-cracking, or being god: it takes a very light touch.

You must mean "New Testament" game balancing. Now, "Old Testament" game balancing, we could lose a whole faction or two.

[dsmiles]

Do Nothing:

I think this approach should be taken as long as possible. If players are given a significant amount of time to counter/adapt to an "imbalance" and just aren't able to, then it should be considered.

This.

[Wolfgar]

If an imbalance can be countered or adapted to by the player base, it's not an imbalance. That's my take on it.

[Ratty]

Why is there no option for balance should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

[Todd]

If an imbalance can be countered or adapted to by the player base, it's not an imbalance. That's my take on it.

That's why you wait as long as you can. Imbalance can be easily perceived, only time will tell whether its reality. We're not talking about questions where that is the case.

[Todd]

That's why you wait as long as you can. Imbalance can be easily perceived, only time will tell whether its reality. We're not talking about questions where that is the case.

Wait, yes we are (we just shouldn't do anything about them)!

[Wolfgar]

Yeah. Doing nothing about a noted, well-known imbalance seems kinda...stupid.

[Todd]

I really wish the poll included an option for multiple or case by case methods.

I wonder how many people voted for "Nothing at all" because there wasn't a more inclusive choice?

Otherwise, do you really think there's no room for improvement? There isn't much I'd like to see cuddled, but there are quite a few models I'd buy/play if they were made just a little better/cheaper.

[Sybaris]

In my opinion, past rules must be revisited after an expansion to the game, because playtesting can only give so much imput. Mistakes and goofs are bound to happen, but a dynamic approach to problems that arise is my pick. It's not what we're used to from the industry, though.

Doing nothing is the GW recipe: it leads to power creep, flavor of the year (given their release rate) and constant recycling of models, so you always have to re-buy your army to get a fair game. They are infamous for never fixing up whatever they screw. The result of that method is me being here, playing malifaux

Another good example of "doing nothing" is what card games do with past releases. The new expansion is the game, whoever bring older cards are not going to have all the tools.

---

With the stat cards containing most if not all rules regarding a model, it's much easier to fix stuff. v3 cards can be released at any time. Other companies have to deal with increasingly long FAQs, or simply wait for another book.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Sybaris

[magicpockets]

Why is there no option for balance should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

This +1

Look at how they handled Nekima and Alps (bar the insignificant which I'm still unsure about). Or the change to Rat Catchers between the book and the card. Or the change to Marionnettes between the book and the card. Or the change to Hamelin once he was released and played openly...

Changes do happen, but they take time to work out and test. This game is massively susceptible to the proverbial "butterfly effect" caused by changes so it's not as easy as I think we assume. Also, "broken" is a matter of perspective, summed up by one of my favourite posts on here -

Dear Wyrd,

Rock is broken, please cuddle. Paper is just fine.

Kindest Regards,

Scissors

[naiatoc]

When I think of game balance I usually don't think of certain things being overpowered.

If an imbalance can be countered or adapted to by the player base, it's not an imbalance. That's my take on it.

But, I am concerned about other things being underpowered.

Things that people complain a lot about such as the Alp bomb, Hamelin, and Pandora don't worry me. I care about Bishop and Marcus being loved, but never played.

Game balance will always come in cycles. Some factions more competitive at times than others. What bothers me are the factions (or masters) that never get their 15 minutes.

Ultimately my vote was for option 3. New characters and units will be coming out all the time. Why not use that as an opportunity to even the playing field a little.

It's not about modifying the stats or point costs to debuff certain characters, it's about knowing what is needed and filling in the holes in the environment.

[Wolfgar]

I feel overly fearing the butterfly effect is honestly a little silly. The assumption that we should never try to fix anything because it will just make something else worse is just needlessly pessimistic.

[(TV)]

Unless they do faction books, only (3) would be a workable option as it doens't require retroactive balancing changes which would mean re-releasing. Usually for other games I like doing numerical adjustments, but because the currency cost for most units is low (1-10 instead of 10ish to 50) this would be more difficult.

This really does seem like a less troll version of the other thread...

Regards,

TV

[BlueStar86]

Unless they do faction books, only (3) would be a workable option as it doens't require retroactive balancing changes which would mean re-releasing. Usually for other games I like doing numerical adjustments, but because the currency cost for most units is low (1-10 instead of 10ish to 50) this would be more difficult.

This really does seem like a less troll version of the other thread...

Regards,

TV

They've already done changes like that, look at the V2 cards.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Both seem like troll threads, especially since choices are limited and data of imbalance in tourney play is lacking. Both posts seem to stress an urgency for change, especially since op is not a tournament player.

As for concern of outside observer debating coming in, the concern should be more toward the community he/she is debating joining. If the group is a bunch of power gamers and all around super competitive, they are more likely to be the factor of determining who decides to pick up game.

Also these posts imply changes are not frequent or changes are not being addressed properly. Having been part of the community for a while I have seen a lot of updates and most spot on decisions, they seem to be thought out. Action in rules section can be slow, and confusing, but most points seem to be rare what if situations that may have larger implications later if not addressed. There are a few that have big implications that we are still waiting.

Last point, there has been a lot acknowledgment by creators, that balance is not suppose to be master to master. Not all masters are suppose to be viable in all scenarios. Some are known to be weaker, but not unplayable, as ukrocky has proven. Some are a bit better I'm almost every scenario, like magic and calm have pointed out. Changes have been made and some.more in the works will probably cone, as they have shown they handle.things case by case. And the changes goals are not for balance, but to ensure playability is viable.

It's hard to not view these two posts as weighted, and slightly trollish. Suggestion to make it seen less is to open an objective question. Lose the multiple choice or offer a none of the above.