Is broken now broken?

[Undisclosed]

'Broken' is thrown out by too many people too often. Usually they mean 'Strong' or 'I just lost to these, and rather than look at how i went wrong i can just blame it on someone else'.r

[Todd]

Ok, ok, we all like Malifaux, otherwise we probably wouldn't be here wasting our time talking about it.

I don't see how this is even a thing.

Have all these players who were supposedly swayed by the alleged abundance of negativity here on the forum never visited a miniature game forum before coming here? Are they new to gaming in general? This forum really isn't much different in tone to most gaming company's (Warmachine/Hordes, Infinity, MTG). There's always going to be this type of talk, even with the most balanced of games. It's just the nature of the hobby (when any kind of competitive play is involved at least). Is there a gaming forum where people don't talk about stuff being broken/needing fixing all the time?

GW, probably the most deserving of this type of reputation, attempts to avoid negativity by refusing to even host an official forum, yet the negativity thrives in fan communities. I've never heard of a potential 40k player being swayed by this.

People are here for honest discussion, and that doesn't always translate to positive. Don't blame those people because some gamers who weren't into the models/background/community enough to start playing the first place, surprise, didn't start playing Malifaux.

Some people just aren't ready to give the game a chance. I know there are a dozen games out there that I would love if I just gave them a go. However, I make up excuses, maybe fixate on the perceived negatives or whatever, and I just don't. The truth is I can only focus on so many, and just don't have drive to pick up some of them even though I'm sure my excuses would be proven wrong. If someone actually has the motivation to give the game more than a cursory glance, they will discover that themselves.

"That game's fluff/imagery/models are really awesome, I'd get into it if there weren't perceived balance issues being discussed occasionally on their forum."

No. This is not a real issue.

Whatever, resume the love fest.

[Hatchethead]

I don't see how this is even a thing.

And yet ... it's a thing.

I've had "The Balance Talk" numerous time in the past and I reckon I'll be having it again as the game continues to gain in popularity. As new skirmish games arrive on the market, the more choices people have, the more discerning they tend to be before making that initial purchase.

Most of these players are veteran war gamers who care deeply about the competitive aspect of any game they play; they couldn't give a wit whether the fluff is nice, the mechanics are unique or the models are cool, they just want a fair fight. They either "hear from a guy" or they visit the forum, witness the hyperbole, then come to me to cut through the BS. They know perfectly well that all gaming forums are filled with negativity and they want a clear picture from someone who plays. I do my best to set them straight.

In fact, it's less about what they read on the forum and more about how the forum tends to muddy the hivemind of the local player base. "Man, I really want to play Seamus but I've heard he's garbage, so ...", as spoken by a player who has never visited the forum.

Beyond that: Malifaux, at least in my experience, tends to attract non-gamer types, the un-hardcore. Whereas 40k requires a considerable commitment in terms of time and financial investment, not so much with Malifaux. These people are less "in-the-know" and are more likely to be swayed by an atmosphere of negativity. The funny thing is, they usually don't care so much about balance, they just want to play; but being told their favorite master is "useless" because of XYZ is enough to put the kibosh on their enthusiasm.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Hatchethead

[sinistercats]

And yet ... it's a thing.

...they just want a fair fight.

Beyond that: Malifaux, at least in my experience, tends to attract non-gamer types, the un-hardcore.

+1 on the "bringing new people into the fold" aspect of Malifaux. The game group I play most with has two guys that have NEVER played a miniatures game before in their life. They liked the look of the figs and jumped in. To me this is a huge strength of the game right there.

The other side of the coin always amuses me too. Most "historical" battles were anything BUT a fair fight. The hardcore historical guys think nothing at all about throwing down a 3 to 1 disadvantage scenario and having a ball.

To me- it's the guys in the middle that are the topic. Malifaux has gotten big enough to attract their attention and judgment. To me that's a good sign...

[rancor709]

Great thread and yes Virginia Malifaux is great game that will provide you many many many hours of enjoyment and tactical depth. All wargames suffer from some form of inequities be they real or imagined. Malifaux as system as a whole is the most eligante and balanced with the power level it achieves. What I'm saying is every single master in the game if you just read there cards and a basic understanding of the ruleset looks like one of the most powerful characters in the game and people will miss use words.

Also this game truly rewards player experience level, that is to say give an experienced malifaux player and a non experienced player the same crew same build, same terrain and the same strategy and schemes to achieve and the Experienced player will barring the occasional horrific card hands and untimely flips win the game. When player skill level is dicating winning more than faction or master selection and I would say that it is, you have achieved what can be termed game balance.

As to the question of the forums, People will use the term Broken for all variety of reason and sadly with no way to show vocal inflections in posts its hard to assertain there exact meaning. Nothing in malifaux is truly broken because everything in malifaux is extremely powerful.

I can speculate and say a lot of the issue maybe people reading things in isolation, misinterpretting rules or simply giving up without finding ways they can combat the issue or exploit the strengths of their own crews. Or simply having a bad game and coming to vent. But malifaux is far more balanced in its approached than 40k could ever dream to be. Again a lot of the balance comes from the strength of using a deck of cards over using dice.

Player skill determines winners and losers in this game, and maybe a lucky red joker from time to time, but for the most part the more skilled player who is knowledge and focused on scoring VP's through strategy and schemes will win the game. Its not about killing models or even losing models its about trading your models for Vps. And that system helps to balance the game out and really makes it a joy to play. For other wargamers malifaux VP system may not seem intuitive but that because you can table your opponent and not win the game. Killing only matters if it helps your strategy and your scheme, coming from 40k that is a lesson that takes a fair bit of time to learn.

Overall malifaux is a very balanced game that people should give a try to, and perhaps we should all choice our words more carefully when we refrence bad games or the crazy strong abilities and combos we find or have used on us. Remember in Malifaux bad things happen.

Edited February 21, 2012 by rancor709

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Have all these players who were supposedly swayed by the alleged abundance of negativity here on the forum never visited a miniature game forum before coming here? Are they new to gaming in general? This forum really isn't much different in tone to most gaming company's (Warmachine/Hordes, Infinity, MTG). There's always going to be this type of talk, even with the most balanced of games. It's just the nature of the hobby (when any kind of competitive play is involved at least). Is there a gaming forum where people don't talk about stuff being broken/needing fixing all the time?

Todd brings up a good point of human psychology. Negative experience is far easier to remember than positive, and participants are more likely to express negative over positive. This is basic customer service knowledge. This basic theory is why negative expression is more commonly reiterated. Though we see far more positive posts, it is the negative that catch the eye. If you are like me you before buying something on amazon, you will look at a small handful of 5 review comments, but you will comb through the 1-3s more closely.

Beyond that: Malifaux, at least in my experience, tends to attract non-gamer types, the un-hardcore. Whereas 40k requires a considerable commitment in terms of time and financial investment, not so much with Malifaux. These people are less "in-the-know" and are more likely to be swayed by an atmosphere of negativity. The funny thing is, they usually don't care so much about balance, they just want to play; but being told their favorite master is "useless" because of XYZ is enough to put the kibosh on their enthusiasm.

This is the basic fear of all gamers who want to expand, unfortunately this is a very expensive hobby, even cheap ones like malifaux and mercs. Hatchet states this well. When competing with the top 3 game companies out there, it is extremely intimidating to jump into. Also for those of the other 2 companies balance was a known issue for when they were a new player, but it is not easy to see this and want to go through the losing honeymoon phase most people face.

Player skill determines winners and losers in this game, and maybe a lucky red joker from time to time, but for the most part the more skilled player who is knowledge and focused on scoring VP's through strategy and schemes will win the game. Its not about killing models or even losing models its about trading your models for Vps. And that system helps to balance the game out and really makes it a joy to play. For other wargamers malifaux VP system may not seem intuitive but that because you can table your opponent and not win the game. Killing only matters if it helps your strategy and your scheme, coming from 40k that is a lesson that takes a fair bit of time to learn.

Which is exactly what Rancor points out that honeymoon phase we all face when starting with an established game. This game is pretty complex and for most gamers it will take a couple of games to get warmed up and be competitive.

Lets quantify with "guesstamtions," how long it takes to get proficient. We all know starting a new game usually means we take double the time veterans take to play (90 min tourney rounds, casual games I see most posts indicating 2 hours). That is about 3-4 hours per game (rounding to 3). Now by warmahordes standards I see the most common posts indicating it takes 25-50 games to become proficient. I don't think Malifaux is that complex, so lets say 25 on the long end. First 10 games taking 3 hours to get the rules down. The other 15 taking 2 hours at a good friendly pace. That is roughly 60 hours. Most game nights I go to, you get enough time for 1 3 hour game or 2 2 hour games a night. That is about 17 game nights. Most players I know go to a game night any where from 1-4 times a month (I'm lucky to get more than 1 now). That is 4 months to about a year and a half to get proficient. **** DISCLAIMER: Now this was me just pulling numbers out my #2 hole.

Anyone who needs to invest even 4 months of time into something is really making a commitment (it took me only a month of dating before I moved in with my wife).

Side not I do think warmahordes is more complex, because, each caster is so extremely different and it is hard to remember each casters the 5 step combo she needs to get a caster kill. This game as Rancor points out is more complex for most veteran gamers because it revolves around vp not killing.

Keep in mind there are more than the "broken" barrier you are trying to break down when introducing this game to new gamers. There is also the learning curve (or time frame) expected of them to get proficient at a new game. That learning curve to me is the hardest part to overcome, and is usually guised by the "broken" statement. Telling some it will take 25 games to find out how balanced this game is, is asking a lot of a person.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Mr. Bigglesworth

[Omenbringer]

Think about it, how many Masters have had the label 'Broken' attached to them? Pandora, Dreamer, Hamelin, Zoraida, Perdita, McMourning, Kirai, Rasputina, Hoffman, Colette now S'omer. Even Henchman aren't safe with Ophelia, Collodi and Von Schill all getting tarred with the same brush.

You forgot of course Lilith way back before book 2. To be fair though several of those masters that are mentioned are pretty tough to face with a normal list vice a tourney style list.

Now I'm not suggesting that there aren't a few changes that could/should be made to a few rules/abilities that would improve the overall Malifaux experience but imagine you're a new player looking at getting into Malifaux and you decide to visit the official forum for a few pointers only to be faced with a torrent of negativity.

Though I agree with some of this, I would add that a lot of good information (and positive changes) has also come out of the negativity found in the "So and So is Broken" threads.

As someone that is looking at several other skirmish level games at the moment, I am glad to read about the power combos and so called brokenness before buying into them and having them crush my soul in play.

I would also add that ultra competitve players (you know the ones that define themselves by their win record in a game) are just as much to blame as the forums for turning off new players. Yes I do occasionally want to play against the uber competitive lists when preping for a tourney however, I play these games to have fun (not define my existance and self worth by them). I have had way more fun losing fluffy fun games (with back and forth trash talk and witty banter) than ever by winning or playing in a competition. Just my thoughts though.

[Dustcrusher]

Though I agree with some of this, I would add that a lot of good information (and positive changes) has also come out of the negativity found in the "So and So is Broken" threads.

This. This right the $#@^ here. Sometimes people get really frustrated with a master or tactic or combo and need help, and maybe they bitch and moan but oftentimes good ends up coming out of it. I started a thread like that not too long ago- my ranting about how I felt like I wasn't learning anything turned into (IMO) a good general advice thread for how to learn to play tabletop games.

As someone that is looking at several other skirmish level games at the moment, I am glad to read about the power combos and so called brokenness before buying into them and having them crush my soul in play.

I also find it useful to know what might be coming at me soon- my local meta is more competition and less just-for-kicks play in anything more complex than Settlers of Catan.

And for the record, this bad player finds that sometimes the people who complain about the attitudes of the overcompetitive are actually more condescending than the overcompetitive folks themselves.

[rancor709]

... I also find it useful to know what might be coming at me soon- my local meta is more competition and less just-for-kicks play in anything more complex than Settlers of Catan.QUOTE]

We stopped playing Settlers in my old group in texas cause we had people that would literally refuse to trade to even get the game started, oh that was hyper competitive bunch with everything.

[Omenbringer]

And for the record, this bad player finds that sometimes the people who complain about the attitudes of the overcompetitive are actually more condescending than the overcompetitive folks themselves.

Ya, asses exist at both ends of the spectrum. I dont mind the over competitive player when it is expected (at tournaments, Leagues with big prizes, etc) I do mind when it is done during posted "beginer" friendly leagues and demo games.

[Valcurdra]

In before Calmdown comes in and says your all wrong and the rest of the community agrees with him.

But really, I love the balance of Mali and the fresh mechanics it uses.

LOL, I was thinking the same as I read this. ^^

I have to +1 this post too.

There is way too much of a tendancy for players to bitch and moan about balance on the forums and I'm sure it drives new players off. Its especially dissapointing when most of it is baseless or at least highly exaggerated.

People need to keep in perspective that no game will ever be totally balanced and that malifuax is about as well balanced as you can get in these types of games.

[magicpockets]

I would also add that ultra competitve players (you know the ones that define themselves by their win record in a game) are just as much to blame as the forums for turning off new players. Yes I do occasionally want to play against the uber competitive lists when preping for a tourney however, I play these games to have fun (not define my existance and self worth by them). I have had way more fun losing fluffy fun games (with back and forth trash talk and witty banter) than ever by winning or playing in a competition. Just my thoughts though.

Ya, asses exist at both ends of the spectrum. I dont mind the over competitive player when it is expected (at tournaments, Leagues with big prizes, etc) I do mind when it is done during posted "beginer" friendly leagues and demo games.

This is important for me and I think needs to be remembered when people are "breaking" crews - there's a difference between being good enough to "break" a crew and constantly playing a "broken" crew because it makes you feel good through constantly winning.

I pride myself on finding combinations and opportunities which strengthen models and their crews (aka "breaking" them), but don't play them outside of testing and serious competition. In fact, that's one of the reasons I'm ranked so low in the UK (4th I think?) - I'd much rather go to tournaments outside of the big GTs/Masters with a fun crew, often which I've never played before, than roll in with Hamelin every time just for first place (last fun tourny last year was with a Guild crew I've never used before the day of the event)

[Wolfgar]

I come from an RPG background first and foremost. For me "game balance" is about as mythical as Bigfoot.

[Lucidicide]

I'm beginning to suspect this thread of being broken. Bigkid found out all ultimate combo for "Thanks" and exploited it. Pretty soon everyone will be making threads like this and getting "Thanks." The question is whether Wyrd will errata it so posts like this can't be made, or change the "Thanks" ability.

But they've got to change something, because this is ridiculous. No one even stands a chance of competing!

[Gruesome]

Not really interested in arguing about it, but I believe there is a small set of masters, like Chompy, that if you do not know exactly how to combat them in very specific ways, you are very likely to lose.

Now, maybe some people want to say that's not the same thing as them being imbalanced, which is their prerogative.

But, there are plenty of masters that can be beaten with little knowledge of their details if you know your list and capabilities.

To be honest, sometimes it feels a little bit like some people want to dismiss any claims of master imbalance to re-validate their past successes with said masters.

I do think a word like "broken" is tough to swallow though. Its such a subjective word in terms of its degree.

If, like I take it, it means that there is a master that cannot be beaten, then I do not believe there is a single master in this game that is "broken".

But, as happens so often here, this discussion seems to have turned more into a balance-debate and many of the usual suspects have turned out...

Anyway... I am bringing some home-brewed beer and several bottles of Powers 12-year old irish whiskey to Adepticon for anyone interested in relaxing and talking about alcoho--- I mean Malifaux...

SEE YOU THERE!

P.S. My son is about a foot taller this year and starting to get the puberty temper stuff going, so beat him at your own risk :Powerful_Puppet:

Edited February 22, 2012 by Gruesome

[Nephalumps]

As someone who has eased into playing Malifaux over the past few years, I can say that if there is an air of "busted" surrounding Malifaux, it is well deserved.

I like the game, and I've had my fair share of fun times playing it, but it is not a game I would recommend lightly to anyone. A great deal of what makes Malifaxu tick is learning the core mechanics of the game, and then finding every way possible to circumvent those mechanics.

And I don't mean via exploits (a la the current Bury mechanic)! I mean that 90% of Malifaux is learning and using the special rules available to you to make it so that you can circumvent the basic rules as much as possible. Crews that can do that do very well; crews that are "basic" do not.

Does that make for a fun game? When you figure it out, yes. However, it's a rough journey getting there, especially if you have other players figuring out nasty stuff before you do. Its doubly hard when you have models that are as stratified as some of Malifaux's models are (not that this is unavoidable, but I think the gulf could be a lot smaller,) because in some cases you may be hamstrung before the game even starts.

I think the issue is not that Malifaux is busted, but that it isn't uniformly busted enough. *wink* If everything were the same levels of crazy, there'd be a nice relative balance, while still preserving that wonderful insanity that makes Malifaux so compelling.

[fishtank]

I listened with great interest to the latest episode of "the gamers' lounge", wherein both Magicpockets and Clamdown talked on pretty much this subject at great lengths.

With my admittedly far lesser experience, I agreed with much of what was said.

I think that there are very few things in Malifaux that are outright busted. There are however some unfortunate interactions that were missed in testing that leas to some stuff being plain too good. The major offender is - as we should all be able to accept - the Dreamer. This is first and foremost - IMO at least - a problem with the bury/unbury mechanic as much as it is with the model(s) themself. You don't play vs a Dreamer player who knows what he's doing...you run damage control and pray for some beneficial flips.

Is Malifaux Broken? no. Many things are deeply frustrating, and initially can be seen as broken (Zoraida, I'm looking at you), because they're really annoying before you know how to handle them. Certainly in no way as bad as Warmahordes was when it was at this age (Ladies and Gentlemen, we give you the Deathjack). However, some stuff is a bit bent and needs a bit of work to straighten out. Primarily I'm looking at certain book 2 Neverborn models. I'm also thinking of certain schemes (Sabotage being the number 1 suspect) and the aforementioned Bury mechanics.

If you're intelligent enough to ignore the stuff that is overpowered and play the INTERESTING stuff, you'll have a lot more fun and maybe find a new ridiculous combo...becuase the vast majority of stuff in the game atm is absolutely fine and this game is freaking awesome.

Edited February 22, 2012 by fishtank

[wrabbit37]

I dunno - I like that there are masters that come at you differently and you have to puzzle through how to beat them. Once you figure them out, they're not appreciably more difficult to face than others. Perdita was a pain to deal with when I first started. I couldn't figure out how to face down an entire crew that could activate before me. But after a half dozen games against her, I learned some tricks and now she's falling into the middle of the pack against me. Pandora's a tricky one too, coming at you sideways.

Then we had the likes of Kirai, Colette and Dreamer, etc. coming in, all of whom needed different tactics. So while I got beat by them early, I've learned how to handle a lot of their tricks.

Next up for me is to figure out how to crack aSonnia and aRamos as they're pretty popular in my playgroup. I have a bit more experience with aSonnia, so no surprise that I'm better against her.

I guess the point I'm making here is that yeah, when you face a master for the first time, you're not going to have an even chance to beat them. Why would you? You don't know what they're capable of doing and your opponent does. Every master can pull out tricks that you didn't see coming. But play against them and soon enough you'll figure them out and they won't be "broken."

I think "broken" is tossed around too much for "I haven't figured out how to beat it yet".

[JisaacT]

what people dont realize when they are looking in on the game is that since there are so few units to this game they are ALL POWERFUL. All units do something useful (for the most part) and when they see a master do something crazy it's labeled as "broken". They are used to having 20 little dudes who can only be a pea shooter or soemtihng

[Gruesome]

what people dont realize when they are looking in on the game is that since there are so few units to this game they are ALL POWERFUL. All units do something useful (for the most part) and when they see a master do something crazy it's labeled as "broken". They are used to having 20 little dudes who can only be a pea shooter or soemtihng

That feels like such a generalization and marginalization of the arguments of people that feel like there are legitimate balance issues.

I do like where some of the discussion has gone here and elsewhere in COUNTLESS balance threads about certain MECHANICS being core to the question of balance though.

So, to say a master is proportionally too powerful across too many of the game-types is perhaps not the best way of framing the issue. But rather that Master X's ability to "break" ability Y might lead to more fruitful conversation than the standard template of:

"Dreamer is broken"

"No he isn't, you just suck"

[Buhallin]

the standard template of:

"Dreamer is broken"

"No he isn't, you just suck"

To be fair, both sides are guilty of this. The other side usually goes like this:

"Dreamer is broken"

"No he isn't, I handle him regularly, you just have to learn to deal with him"

"Yes he is, all your opponents just suck"

I find this is common from the more hardcore competitive players - because nobody's local group could be as hard as THEIRS, so your players just haven't figured out how to make him broken (or, alternately, how to exploit a weakness, so if you're doing well with something they think is a handicap it's because your opponents suck).

I tend to think the vast majority of gamers are simply incapable of separating their personal performance with/against models from an evaluation of its capability. Few are self-aware enough to acknowledge that certain tricky bits caught them off guard, and they played poorly. I had one of these episodes the first time I played Collodi - caught me completely off guard, and I came out of the game thinking he was utterly broken. A bit of reflection and evaluation, and I realized I had the tools to deal with him. Powerful? Certainly. Broken? Nah. But in a game with as many tricks and traps as Malifaux, and as much stuff to learn, these experiences are very common.

[Dustcrusher]

So, to say a master is proportionally too powerful across too many of the game-types is perhaps not the best way of framing the issue. But rather that Master X's ability to "break" ability Y might lead to more fruitful conversation than the standard template of:

"Dreamer is broken"

"No he isn't, you just suck"

You forgot "that's what you get for not playing Awesome Marine Knights, n00b!" *wink*, as though some new player deserves to be punished for picking fluff over competitiveness.

Sure, some Masters will be better than others. Fact of life. But when some masters can win running on auto-pilot most of the time, and others require precision gameplay to get past breaking even, balance needs to be looked at more closely.

[magicpockets]

I find this is common from the more hardcore competitive players - because nobody's local group could be as hard as THEIRS

Don't forget that in the UK our competitive scene is spread over hundreds of miles in four directions - we have clubs but me, Calmdown, MythicFox, ukrocky, CunningStunt, Stryder etc all travel hours to play in different events so this isn't a "local meta" issue.

And these events are very regular - in the past four weeks we've had three events hundreds of miles apart which many of the same people have attended.

[Magno]

"Broken" is often thrown out by folks who can't handle certain asymmetries.

"My style of play is this, you're not adhering to it, so obviously your crew is broken."

"Broken" should be reserved for a mechanics loop-hole that spins the game off balance in any mode. Like an infinite-loop mechanic or an auto-hit/ auto-defend.

"Broken" should also be reserved for occurrences where you can isolate out the probability of the cards and the decision making of the opponent and still accomplish whatever it is you are looking to do.

Because Malifaux is a competitive/interactive game with a limited set probability (as opposed to infinite set randomness of dice) and more importantly a battle of decisions vs another human brain, if a combo or synergy still has a chance of being countered by said probability and opposed decisions/timing, then its not broken. Then it's a matter of balance.

The original post talks about folks claiming they've read of balance issues.

Malifaux is not balanced. Its extremely asymmetric and this can be very inviting to more advanced gamers, because you can set-up scenarios and matches to accommodate differences in players skills; i.e., how folks handle risk-reward decision making, time actions, etc.. Such a set-up takes skill itself for an equally rewarding experience for the two parties.

Malifaux is NOT balanced. Just because you extend the paper-scissors-rock chain out to 11 masters or more, doesn't mean it makes the game balanced. I think folks who promote the game should replace the word "unbalanced" with "asymmetric" when they here it. Its not a euphemism, its the nature of the game. Other games are more symmetric but the stat-lines are out of proportion, thus those games are truly imbalanced.

Asymmetry should be a selling point for this game.

[Foton]

I've heard the same thing, it's stopped a lot of people I know from playing. And it's sad, there are POWERFUL masters, but there's nothing that can't be beaten. And flavorfully it makes sense that some of the masters are really reliant on minions and support those minions than being individually powerful.