Buhallin Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 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. I think "local meta" applies in the social network sense a lot more than the geographic one. It doesn't really matter how far apart people are if you're seeing the same players on a regular basis. I'm not denying that any of the people listed are good, even great, players. But such groups are often presented as some form of authority - that if you disagree with them, it's because you're not as good as they are, or your opponents aren't, and if you'd have to face THEM then you'd realize just how broken it was because they're that much better than anyone you play. This often extends to results that don't match up with the conventional wisdom - a major tournament produces surprising results, and it's because the attendees were n00bs, and if YOUR group had been there, it never would have come out that way. It's an incredibly condescending attitude, and it annoys me to no end. It's one thing to question someone about how they play against a model they think is broken - what they've tried, what they haven't... and even if it often comes across very condescending, at the very least you're dealing with a person directly. But when someone insults my entire play group, it's taking it to a level well beyond civilized conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omenbringer Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 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. To be fair the UK isn't the only place like this. Their are several places in the US (and I am sure outside the US as well) that also have this type of competitive scene (the Illinois/ Michigan/ Ohio/ Indiana region, California and New England areas are great examples of this). These aren't small communities either they have very large player bases (and include Rules Marshals and those involved heavily with the games design). Also, if many of the same people are attending these regular events (regardless of geographic location) then isn't it still essentially a "Local Meta" issue (just spread over a larger area)? Keep in mind I am not saying you all aren't good or have one of the more competitive scenes (I definately think highly of a lot of the UK gaming community), just that it isn't the only location where this is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetid Strumpet Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 But such groups are often presented as some form of authority - that if you disagree with them, it's because you're not as good as they are, or your opponents aren't, and if you'd have to face THEM then you'd realize just how broken it was because they're that much better than anyone you play. The reverse can be said of those who say something isn't broken, or that something isn't weak. That that person has not found any of the critical feedback, positive or negative, to be the case when THEY play. If the person mentioning the issue could just learn to play they wouldn't have any issues. It is equally incredibly condescending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msgfree Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 My problem with the abuse of "broken" can best be described with an analogy: "Broken" is like Oxygen (O2), I swear this will make sense if you read the whole thing. People going onto the forums and proclaiming some model or interaction as "broken" is indeed necessary, as many have previously pointed out. Wyrd is a small company and problems will undoubtedly slip through the cracks when play testing. It is impossible to catch every problem during play testing especially given the limited amount of time and play testers available. If a huge multimillion dollar game like Modern Warefare 3 cannot make it through Beta without bugs ( and that game had millions of play testers), what hope does Malifaux have? So it is necessary for the community to point out flaws in the system, much like how oxygen is crucial for humans to survive. If you don't have it, you die. Even though oxygen is the most important gas for humans in the atmosphere, it is not the main component of the air, in fact it is only about 21%. "Broken" is not the majority of the forum topics, but it tends to be the most important. This is because it is what captures the mind share of new players and causes quite the controversy. So far oxygen (read: "broken") sounds great, whats the problem? Well, even though oxygen is necessary for life, it can also be toxic under certain conditions. At greater than atmospheric concentrations and elevated pressure, oxygen can kill you. This is where "broken" becomes a problem. There is a fine line between helpful and harmful and "broken" long ago crossed over into the harmful. I would argue that all the "broken" threads are doing more to undermine the growth of Malifaux than anything else Wyrd's competitor are doing. On these forums, "broken" has been taken from an essential part of the game's evolution and has become toxic. Posters making declarative statements about models are what sticks with new players visiting the forums. Rather than help, this exaggeration of the slight imbalances in the game drives people away. I know that this will probably have no impact. Please just remember that the line between medicine and poison is very thin. By pushing too hard on the "broken" angle, you can hurt the game more than you help it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omenbringer Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 @ msgfree: love the analogy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buhallin Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) The reverse can be said of those who say something isn't broken, or that something isn't weak. That that person has not found any of the critical feedback, positive or negative, to be the case when THEY play. If the person mentioning the issue could just learn to play they wouldn't have any issues. It is equally incredibly condescending. Wow. If only I'd done something to address this in my post... Selective reading/quoting FTW! But let me reiterate my response: Yes, it is condescending. But at least it's dealing with the person doing the posting, and not an entire group who you've never played. You say, "I think the Dreamer is broken" and my response is "You just need to learn to play him" and I've directed that at you, and honestly done so with some shred of evidence - your problems facing the Dreamer. If I say "I don't think the Dreamer is broken" and you say "Everyone you know who plays the Dreamer needs to learn to play him" you've insulted my entire play group, and done so with no evidence at all of their play ability. Additionally, the "learn to play against him" responses are often (but not always) accompanied by attempts to be helpful. "Deal with the Daydreams quickly", "Make sure not to leave your Master exposed to the deep strike", etc. On the flip side ("Everyone you play against sucks") the people involved in the discussion aren't the ones playing the master in question, there is rarely, if ever, any sort of help offered. What would be the point? See the difference? Edited February 22, 2012 by Buhallin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePandaDirector Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) msgfree: Let me get this straight. So what you're trying is... that McMourning is broken, right? Right? I suppose it might be helpful if there was an established method or process by which people can express any opinion on the topic of imbalances/bugs, etc. Some kind of scale or frame of reference that is universally recognised and applied. Even if the thread starter doesn't state it, someone can easily state what type of statement/discussian it is. So something that is mostly a local and isolated case is not recognised the same way as a debate that has been developing over the course of several tournaments. My main criticism of the forum's discussian on these matters is that it's a little convuluted, so many seperate threads discussing the same thing, so many wild claims from people who have read too many opinionated claims. Things like PullMyFinger are good as they give a singular source for people to start with and initiate debate, but for rules and bug discussian a recognised language and centralised hub would certainly help newcomers and oldtimers alike to realise that there is a difference between someone not understanding how to beat a master and that master having a recognised flaw in its design. With that established people can then discuss the topic with the same frame of reference and not make any wild claims. It might also be helpful for Wyrd and the Rules Marshals to use a similar reference to keep people up to date with the development of any possible errata, so that an issue that has had enough reported cases to have credablity is not mistaken for Wyrd saying that it definitely broken or not broken. So yes, in short, better communication, single recognised language and references and more streamlined method to both have debates and showcase them to those who may mistake so much passion to make Malifaux better for broken foundations Edited February 22, 2012 by ThePandaDirector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfgar Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 "Broken" is like Oxygen (O2), But Love is like Oxygen. Which means Love is Broken. I knew it! :radioactive: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magno Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 If that O2 level gets too high, even above 27%, it increases the flamability limits of many flamable gases and O2 becomes a very dangerous. The "flamability" limit of these forums is pretty wide and so its always on fire. AHAHAHA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 I think "local meta" applies in the social network sense a lot more than the geographic one. It doesn't really matter how far apart people are if you're seeing the same players on a regular basis. I'm not denying that any of the people listed are good, even great, players. But such groups are often presented as some form of authority - that if you disagree with them, it's because you're not as good as they are, or your opponents aren't, and if you'd have to face THEM then you'd realize just how broken it was because they're that much better than anyone you play. This often extends to results that don't match up with the conventional wisdom - a major tournament produces surprising results, and it's because the attendees were n00bs, and if YOUR group had been there, it never would have come out that way. It's an incredibly condescending attitude, and it annoys me to no end. It's one thing to question someone about how they play against a model they think is broken - what they've tried, what they haven't... and even if it often comes across very condescending, at the very least you're dealing with a person directly. But when someone insults my entire play group, it's taking it to a level well beyond civilized conversation. I very much get what you're saying, my point was we have a core who travel and therefore we get mixed in with a lot of different players at different events - so it's not a "local meta". For example, when I take Hamelin to a tourny in Canterbury it's against a whole raft of local players (let's call them group A) and the verdict is "Hamelin is broken". I then go to a tourny in Leeds (500 miles away) and some of us may be the same "traveling players" but the majority will be local players to that event - who (Group give the verdict that Hamelin is "broken". The at an event in Bristol (hundreds of miles from either of these) the same verdict from group C. That to me means it isn't a "local meta" problem but a game design problem. If it was a local meta problem, "brokenness" should change in different make ups of players. My point about travelling was that many of the people discussing "broken" on the forums get to play in a lot of different local metas - not that we're the same "local meta" just playing in different locations. Can you see what I mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buhallin Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 I do see what you're saying now, and my apologies for misunderstanding. I'm still not sure I agree with it, however. Malifaux, more than any other tabletop game I've played, has a spike in effectiveness of good players at the high end. On my end, we were lucky enough to have the US Navy bring tadaka through our local area recently. He's a spectacular player, with a love of finding combinations that make your head hurt. He steamrolled the vast majority of us (although I did get a few back primary with Hoffman. More than a few of my local players, after being on the receiving end of his skills, were of the opinion that Hoffman is "broken". Is Hoffman broken? I dunno, but he hasn't yet showed up in Calmdown's sig, so he's probably safe. I will say that he's my Exhibit A for the problems with the Bury mechanic right now, but I doubt he's at the top of anyone's problem list as a master. You're obviously a very serious player. You're going into a local meta with something they may very well have never seen before, at the very least probably using it with a skill and finesse they aren't used to, and stomping people into the ground with it. "It's broken!" is a natural first reaction. So, I'll be honest - I don't think your experience is necessarily a valid data point. If anything, it's even worse than the typical forum complaints. It's one thing to say "My friend and I just started playing, we picked up starters at random and he picked the Dreamer and demolished me, he's broken!" Your case is essentially "I played this really awesome player with Hamelin who demolished me, Hamelin must be broken!" <shrug> I know it probably looks like I'll find problems with everything anyone throws up at this point, but my point really is that there are a ton of things that can contribute to the perception of a model's ability, and even great players can learn something. That's why I take exception with certain people who present their views as absolute. However good you think you are, and however much you travel, you're still playing in a relatively small pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omenbringer Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Though I agree with both of you (Buhallin and Magicpockets) I would add that some masters/ crews/ models/ combinations are definately in need of repair because they do so heavily influence the games outcome and are much tougher to face (even with purpose built lists and above average skill level). When these are called "broken" and the perception persists thread after thread and month after month (despite discussion) the Master/ Crew/ Model/ Combination should be looked at and rebalanced. As an example several recent threads have appeared declaring that such and such is broken only to be quickly dismissed through forum discussion (Collodi and VonSchill being two recent and notable ones) however, Hamelin and the Dreamer threads have been around for over a year now and even with all the advice that has come from those threads they are still considered very much "broken" (at both ends of the spectrum, both new casual players and very experienced tournament players). Continuing to ignore the problem does nothing for the game and only leads to the perception that the game is really imbalanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 I want to stick my neck out here and say something about "skill" as opposed to "broken". Firstly, I agree 100% that the cries of "broken" from people freshly stomped into the ground vastly exaggerate the problem. Losing badly because you didn't know how to play against something doesn't make it "broken" - it's more L2P. But people don't like being told L2P (whether it's meant insultingly or constructively) so they blame the opponents crew, and don't even think it's how good the other player is. Take Calmdown, so many people attack him and say he only wins because he plays broken crews (most recently, "He's only winning with Rezzers because he takes Von Schill") - I mean WTF? Very few acknowledge the general skill at Malifaux that goes into his games and the insight it takes to use a crew to the level where you're opponents cry "broken". Truth is, I'd bet he'd beat most people on here with a crew drawn out of a hat. And it's something that p*sses me off as well. I'm a very good player (if anyone wants to start another "You're so cocky to say that" attack like last time, go get a life) but so many times I hear that it's only because I play broken crews - I start with Zoraida - people play me, lose badly and tell me she's broken. I move to Pandora - people play me, lose badly and tell me she's broken. I move to Hamelin - people play me, lose badly and tell me he's broken. I move to Levi - people play me, lose badly and tell me he's broken. I then move to SOMER FFS! - and now the consensus seems to be that he's broken! Sure there's a lot of strong Masters in there but to me broken is something a complete n00b can pick up and effortlessly win with - not a crew that has taken months of thinking and practice to work out the interactions and actually get good with. (Disclaimer - I still think bury and Hamelin's crew mechanics are the two closest things to "broken" in the game) (Also, on this, I don't think the argument that two players of equal skill buying starter boxes at random should expect an equal fight is valid. Some Masters are strong out of the box with limited growth potential, and others are seemingly weak out of the box but play awesomely with some practise - and some are awesome out of the box and "awesomer" with practise. That's how it is with a game designed for large and varied crew selection.) So, rant aside, I do think there are certain serious balance issues that need addressing, but the harsh reality is everyone on here is at a different skill level and some people are going to be able to "break" crews and beat people (irrespective of the crew), and some people are going to buy the best powerplay lists out there and lose because they're just not as good as everyone else. Malifaux is not a system where two players of varying skill are going to have an even/balanced game, and nor should it be. So please, before you cry "broken" stop and ask yourself if you lost because your opponent's crew is more powerful than yours, or because you simply aren't as good or flipped bad cards. And sorry for the slight derail, the balance discussion is important but I just wanted to put some perspective in there about skill which is all to often overlooked or marginalised - especially when people think flaming Wyrd or the RMs over everything they lose to is a justification for their lack of playing ability. Inexperienced and/or poor players give valuable insight into crews and game issues, but it just p*ssed me off when people post about how broken stuff is because they lack the knowledge/experience/ability to play against it (or a lot of the time because they didn't see the "broken" thing themselves before it was pointed out) - and I think that's where most of the damage is done to non-players perception of the Malifaux system. Okay, let the flaming begin.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiku Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Pretty sure you and Ian were the ones who said he was broken first ;3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calmdown Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Broken is not, in fact, the new broken. When Pockets and I declared Gremlins "broken", which was probably the precursor to this thread, we did not mean "oh, these are a bit good". We meant "oh, these look ridiculous on the level of Dreamer and Hamelin". We were saying they were genuinely good, not that they were "a little bit useful". I agree that the word broken is probably used a little too much, but there's a difference between completely broken lists (eg Dreamer and Hamelin) and broken interactions (such as the current Bury mechanics). Also, the majority of what people consider broken, they only consider so because it beat them and they don't know how to / don't want to learn how to beat it. Is Hoffman broken? I dunno, but he hasn't yet showed up in Calmdown's sig, so he's probably safe. Haha, gold. Post I was alluding to the same thing with my comment above about the majority of what people consider to be broken actually being fine. A lot of people - in all walks of life, not just gaming - tend to blame someone else before blaming themselves and Malifaux is no different! Accepting that you lost because of your mistakes (whether that be in crew selection or play) is how you get better. When I first started, I was running a Guild shooty crew and got schooled three times in a row by Cunningstunt's Lilith. I went away, examined why I lost, came back with a different list including a Peacekeeper and Austringers and turned the tables. It's all about learning experiences and you deny those to yourself if you always blame the game. Edited February 24, 2012 by Calmdown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Pretty sure you and Ian were the ones who said he was broken first ;3 No. What we said was "why does everyone say Somer is the weakest Master, he's broken" - it's only now that we've set out to break Somer publicly that a lot of people are starting to argue that Gremlins are already broken. To put it into context, other than posting that we've worked out how to "break" him, we haven't actually said anything about how and look at the great ideas and issues that are being discussed in that thread (I know many of them have been aired before, but usually in a "how to get the most out of Gremlins" sense, not in a "we need to cuddle Gremlins" sense). Every crew has interactions and strengths that you can use to your advantage and with correct scheme choices and minions can almost beat any other crew. It's just funny that since we turned the spotlight on Somer that he's getting all of this "broken" attention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishtank Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) "Broken" is when there is genuinely no way to even attempt to prevent, counter or respond to a manoever. This to me means Dreamer yo-yo and some of the Hamelin soulstone nonsense. "Overpowered" is when something is so good there is no reason not to take it over comparable cost models. Twins, Stitched. Everything else, including stuff like the Gremlin nonsense I was owned by last night, is just good. (Taking a stupid Lady J Death Marshall list and playing wrong didn't help...I mean, there was no reason beyond fluff for the Exorcist to be there). Really wish I could work out how to make my Guild feel Broken Edited February 24, 2012 by fishtank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetid Strumpet Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Ditto for Seamus. =/ Can never seem to win many games with him and he almost always dies. Used my Pandora twice last night and won both games pretty much on turn 2 helping a friend prep for Adepticon. Just can't figure out how to win with my favorite. If anyone figures out how to do well with Seamus please let me know. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soundwave Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Seamus Who needs to win when you always get a Positive play experience from fielding a giggling hat-man and his undead hookers?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 "Broken" is ...some of the Hamelin soulstone nonsense. What a perfect example of the BS "broken" statements people make - this is not broken at all. Sure you get a powerful master sat on 20ss+ but that's balanced by the fact the player now only has 3AP with which to use them each turn and a single model (assuming you sac everyone) to achieve all schemes and your strategies. The SS Factory as it's been dubbed is not a viable strategy for anything other than slaughter and possibly distract, and only works with limited schemes too. It's not "broken", it's called knowing how to play Malifaux under certain circumstances to turn an almost guaranteed loss (rat spawning in slaughter) into an opportunity to win - and in doing it you even hand VPs to your opponent as you have such a low percentage of your crew left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishtank Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) My entire experience of Hamlin comes rom listening to you on GL. What I understood was that you built a list that exploited the rules to reduce a game to - near enough -Solitaire. That to me - while fair enough in the environment you were playing - is broken. Again, comes down to definitions...but effectively being able to turn to your opponent and say "You cannot win." (and if I've misinterpreted what you said, mea culpa. That's how it sounded though.)...then something is wrong. (more so if the schemes involved are Bodyguard and the one about collecting Soulstones...) Edited February 24, 2012 by fishtank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nilus Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 What a perfect example of the BS "broken" statements people make - this is not broken at all. Sure you get a powerful master sat on 20ss+ but that's balanced by the fact the player now only has 3AP with which to use them each turn and a single model (assuming you sac everyone) to achieve all schemes and your strategies. And honestly I think the problem here is not with Hamelin but with the Slaughter Strategy itself. Its the reason I have basically stopped using Slaughter in any of my events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishtank Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Stoopid telephone make me make double post. Stoopid telephone not let me edit double post. Edited February 24, 2012 by fishtank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiku Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Most of my shared slaughter games see 1 model die, or both players chilling out in their deployment zone/moving around until turn 6 then trying to cap one kill and get their schemes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omenbringer Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 And it's something that p*sses me off as well. I'm a very good player (if anyone wants to start another "You're so cocky to say that" attack like last time, go get a life) but so many times I hear that it's only because I play broken crews - I start with Zoraida - people play me, lose badly and tell me she's broken. I move to Pandora - people play me, lose badly and tell me she's broken. I move to Hamelin - people play me, lose badly and tell me he's broken. I move to Levi - people play me, lose badly and tell me he's broken. I then move to SOMER FFS! - and now the consensus seems to be that he's broken! Sure there's a lot of strong Masters in there but to me broken is something a complete n00b can pick up and effortlessly win with - not a crew that has taken months of thinking and practice to work out the interactions and actually get good with. (Disclaimer - I still think bury and Hamelin's crew mechanics are the two closest things to "broken" in the game) You are right several of the Masters you listed are very tough to face (unless you build to counter them or play to them first before your strategies), however the only one that is listed that I consider in need of major repair is Hamelin (for exactly the reason you listed). We had a league that showed pretty well exactly what you are talking about, a completely new player (not just to Malifaux but mini-gaming in general) completely walked the league with a very vanilla Hamelin list. Though the consensus from the forums was that the rest of our community just needed to learn to play, I would argue that they do and a lot put in the work to figure him out as soon as they knew he was going to be played. Even coaching a few of the players (I was playing in the league not running it) could not produce the win. For me this screams problem, he may be beatable (but far from consistently, easily or with normal lists). To the Bury mechanics I would also add the Drain Souls action which really should be limited to once per game vice as long as you have minions to sac. By the way several of us have been shouting Some'rs praises for years, granted not the "he is broken" non-sense but definately his praises (with that said there are somethings with him specifically, a few of the gremlin models at large, and the rules in general that need to be fixed to get him back to where he was intended to be). Who needs to win when you always get a Positive play experience from fielding a giggling hat-man and his undead hookers?! This is the quote of the day for me, some of my best games where loses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts