Malifaux Masters: A Tier List

[Math Mathonwy]

My issue is the notion that a objective tier list should be built by a panel of experienced/highly skilled players.

An objective tier list should be build-able by anyone with a valid data set and a computer. If it is truly objective, the list will be created by statistical analysis. A truly objective tier list should always return the same results based on a set of valid data. If we created a truly objective list, we should get the same outcome regardless of meta.

I do not think a true objective tier list is impossible, rather, we simply have a woefully thin supply of valid data with which to build a list. If the goal is to create a objective tier list, we have a long wait ahead.

Following your idea is indeed impossible, because before you could get enough "valid data" there would be a new book released that would invalidate that data. Incidentally, no tier list in the history of ever has been built like that (some fighting games maybe excluded), so your understanding of what a tier list is isn't shared by the rest of the world, basically. Now, you can get into a semantic argument about what "objective" means, but I dealt with that point in my previous reply to you.

---------- Post added at 10:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 AM ----------

While I'm not a huge fan of Fixed Master, I can't help but feel Malifaux would be better off were players forced to reveal their leader selection prior to the Hiring Crews phase. Models that play well in super specific match-ups would see more table time, masters like Hamelin and Dreamer would be easier to combat with tailored lists. I realize it wouldn't be all roses and sunshine - "Oh, you're playing Seamus ...? See if I hire even a single living model!" or "Lady Justice? Kirai. Every. Single. Time." - but I honestly believe the pros would outweigh the cons.

... but I'm OT again.

That latter scenario wouldn't happen any more than it already happens, since you should both choose your master (by hiding their card in your hand) and reveal at the same time. Of course choosing Kirai is most of the time the optimal choice for Ressers (what with her being in the first tier), so...

[Soundwave]

I feel a player should be able to choose their master after flipping the strat (as it is now). I often wonder how the game would change were leaders then revealed prior to hiring, however. EDIT: Which is to say, separate the hiring of the master from the hiring of the crew, creating two separate phases.

I agree that this might spice things up, in a positive fashion.

[Calmdown]

I agree that this might spice things up, in a positive fashion.

Most people agree with this that I've spoken too, it was actually floated quite a while ago by myself and a few others I believe. The major benefit is that it means you arent rock/paper/scissors'ing so much; building to match your opponent's faction might work in theory, but in practice crews vary so wildly by master that you're really just guessing what they could bring. You can build your crew effectively knowing the master.

My tournaments are going to be using this rule, honestly I think it's all the rulebook rules need and you have the best system for building your crew to match the game.

[Shadai]

Most people agree with this that I've spoken too, it was actually floated quite a while ago by myself and a few others I believe. The major benefit is that it means you arent rock/paper/scissors'ing so much; building to match your opponent's faction might work in theory, but in practice crews vary so wildly by master that you're really just guessing what they could bring. You can build your crew effectively knowing the master.

My tournaments are going to be using this rule, honestly I think it's all the rulebook rules need and you have the best system for building your crew to match the game.

And while initially when I heard this I thought "That's a pretty good idea..."

Now I'm like... eh...

At what point to you hamstring and frustrate the new player?

While its great for those of us that have enough mini's that we can effectively build all crew combinations in our respective faction, the new player is going to only have one maybe two crews, and certainly not the stuff to counter what I'm doing. Meanwhile, you allow me to know exactly who he's playing, and build for it, insuring that he is going to have a frustrating game at best, and more than like a loss for his effort.

I dunno. The power-gamer in me that wants to win all the time is like "yeah bring that rule on" but the actual what to have fun gamer in me likes the challenge of the chess game draw.

[Cunning]

And while initially when I heard this I thought "That's a pretty good idea..."

Now I'm like... eh...

At what point to you hamstring and frustrate the new player?

While its great for those of us that have enough mini's that we can effectively build all crew combinations in our respective faction, the new player is going to only have one maybe two crews, and certainly not the stuff to counter what I'm doing. Meanwhile, you allow me to know exactly who he's playing, and build for it, insuring that he is going to have a frustrating game at best, and more than like a loss for his effort.

I dunno. The power-gamer in me that wants to win all the time is like "yeah bring that rule on" but the actual what to have fun gamer in me likes the challenge of the chess game draw.

If a new player only has one or two masters and certain models you'll already be able to build a crew that can deal with them.

Personally I dont think that tournament rules should be build around being fair to new players. It's a tournament it's supposed to be competitive.

[Soundwave]

Most people agree with this that I've spoken too, it was actually floated quite a while ago by myself and a few others I believe. The major benefit is that it means you arent rock/paper/scissors'ing so much; building to match your opponent's faction might work in theory, but in practice crews vary so wildly by master that you're really just guessing what they could bring. You can build your crew effectively knowing the master.

My tournaments are going to be using this rule, honestly I think it's all the rulebook rules need and you have the best system for building your crew to match the game.

I also believe it could help the "moderately fresh communities" with varying amount of masters per player. What I mean with this is that if Player A has 1 available master from just starting and Player B has 3-4 from playing a bit longer, the fresher Player A will have to try and opt his list versus possibly 4 different master, as to where Player B only has to opt his list versus one master. This is because Player B knows, metagame-wise that he/she is facing, say, 'A Rasputina Crew' and not 'The Arcanist faction'.

I say this because in reality not every player in a community has every master of a single faction, and it would (partly) aid in making it games less skewed. So basically it could aid both the competitive scene and the casual/fresher scene. OH WOW!

[Spiku]

Well, everyone knows who I will take at a tournament, even if I'm vs Neverborn ;D

Master reveal I like in principal, but I would have to play it. I am a little concerned that being able to build specific counter crews might be a bit powerful in already bad match up results on master pick. Meh.

[Dustcrusher]

Tier 1- Bowie

....

Tier 5,384,256,937,405,873,046,834,556,739- Kid Rock

Lemmy is somewhere in between (but much, much closer to Tier Bowie).

Oh be fair, Kid Rock is higher tier than Nickelback :-P

Following your idea is indeed impossible, because before you could get enough "valid data" there would be a new book released that would invalidate that data. Incidentally, no tier list in the history of ever has been built like that (some fighting games maybe excluded), so your understanding of what a tier list is isn't shared by the rest of the world, basically. Now, you can get into a semantic argument about what "objective" means, but I dealt with that point in my previous reply to you.

So my next question is "where is the sweet spot between objectivity and time constraint?" In other words, is there a way the community can create a tier list that is reasonably objective (i.e. minimizing subjectivity while acknowledging it will still be present) without halting the game's development indefinitely?

I found these docs from the Blood Bowl community and thought they might be of interest.

Sort of a tier list with win percentages is here. Note how widely the amount of play differs among the teams:

http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/LRB5Stats.htm

This gave me some perspective on revising rules to balance play, especially knowing that Blood Bowl is at its core a simpler game mechanics-wise: http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm

[msgfree]

Following your idea is indeed impossible, because before you could get enough "valid data" there would be a new book released that would invalidate that data. Incidentally, no tier list in the history of ever has been built like that (some fighting games maybe excluded), so your understanding of what a tier list is isn't shared by the rest of the world, basically. Now, you can get into a semantic argument about what "objective" means, but I dealt with that point in my previous reply to you.

You are right, insofar as it is is highly unlikely that we would ever get enough data accounting for how often new books are released.

To your point about this being a matter of semantics, you again are correct. However, I am not alone in feeling that a tier list cannot be called objective without data to back it up.

Calling a list objective implies that it is based upon measurable data and that the results are indisputable.

It doesn't matter how skilled a group of players are building a list, there will always be biases. Just because a consensus is reached, doesn't mean that the consensus is correct. It was only a few hundred years ago that the scientific community was in consensus that the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth and the earth was created in 6 days.

Even on these forums the consensus on what is and isn't good changes every month.

Furthermore, I believe that even a subjective list isn't entirely accurate at the moment. Book 3 only came out about 6 months ago, how can that possibly be enough time to play enough games to make accurate judgments?

Make all the tier lists you want and call them what ever you want, no one will stop you. People were sharing there opinion about tier lists and my opinion is that I am not comfortable calling a tier list objective unless it is backed up by data. I am also not comfortable redefining the word to suit a given situation. If you are comfortable, then more power too you, but I know I am not the only person who thinks this way.

Besides subjective isn't a "scarlet letter", there isn't anything wrong with just admitting that the lists are subjective.

Edited March 6, 2012 by msgfree

[magicpockets]

Well, everyone knows who I will take at a tournament, even if I'm vs Neverborn ;D

Master reveal I like in principal, but I would have to play it. I am a little concerned that being able to build specific counter crews might be a bit powerful in already bad match up results on master pick. Meh.

It would be good for tackling things like Hamelin -if you know it's him you're facing you can stack your crew with card discard or die triggers, blasts, pulses and magical weapons etc to get around him.

[msgfree]

So my next question is "where is the sweet spot between objectivity and time constraint?" In other words, is there a way the community can create a tier list that is reasonably objective (i.e. minimizing subjectivity while acknowledging it will still be present) without halting the game's development indefinitely?

That's the million dollar question, isn't it?

Damn you! *shakes fist* now I'm going to be thinking about that all day instead of doing work :-P

[Hatchethead]

Most people agree with this that I've spoken too, it was actually floated quite a while ago by myself and a few others I believe. The major benefit is that it means you arent rock/paper/scissors'ing so much; building to match your opponent's faction might work in theory, but in practice crews vary so wildly by master that you're really just guessing what they could bring. You can build your crew effectively knowing the master.

My thoughts exactly. It's certainly not a new idea. I personally have created several threads on this topic in the past, but all were booed off stage before they really got started. I've heard it mentioned by others in the past, as well, but this is the first time I've seen any real support for the idea.

Master reveal I like in principal, but I would have to play it. I am a little concerned that being able to build specific counter crews might be a bit powerful in already bad match up results on master pick. Meh.

Indeed, that's the concern. Bad match-ups do exist, and maybe they'd get worse, but we'd also see some of the "bent" masters fall in line just a bit, which is a positive for the majority.

That latter scenario wouldn't happen any more than it already happens, since you should both choose your master (by hiding their card in your hand) and reveal at the same time.

Absolutely. I believe leaders should be revealed simultaneously. I've often wondered about flipping for the right to decide who reveals first, much like deployment ... but giving a player the ability to choose their master based on the other player's master choice feels like a game-breaking advantage.

And while initially when I heard this I thought "That's a pretty good idea..."

Now I'm like... eh...

At what point to you hamstring and frustrate the new player?

A new player showing up with a starter box is going to enjoy a level playing field for exactly one game ... or not even that, assuming the opponent finds out which box it is. Afterward, the guy with four masters and a suitcase full of minions is going to know exactly which master he's facing and will hire appropriately. Meanwhile, assuming the new player also owns a few clam shells worth of additional minions, how is he to know what to bring? Considering the massive selection of models his opponent has on hand, he's stuck guessing which master he'll be playing against, with no way to know how best to tailor his crew to survive. He can build for the strategy, of course, but that's only half of the equation. He's playing Fixed Master versus Open Faction, and that's a losing proposition.

The way I see it, this change helps the new player as much as it does the vet. Yes, it gives the suitcase player an opportunity to customize his list even more, but it also eliminates a large number of potential models from the suitcase (not to mention all potential leaders save one), giving the new player a sense of direction and a hope in hell while hiring his crew.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Hatchethead

[Shadai]

A new player showing up with a starter box is going to enjoy a level playing field for exactly one game ... or not even that, assuming the opponent finds out which box it is. Afterward, the guy with four masters and a suitcase full of minions is going to know exactly which master he's facing and will hire appropriately. Meanwhile, assuming the new player also owns a few clam shells worth of additional minions, how is he to know what to bring? Considering the massive selection of models his opponent has on hand, he's stuck guessing which master he'll be playing against, with no way to know how best to tailor his crew to survive. He can build for the strategy, of course, but that's only half of the equation. He's playing Fixed Master versus Open Faction, and that's a losing proposition.

Yes, and you are talking metagaming. Using knowledge gained outside the game for you own purposes inside the game to increase your chances. It is unavoidable, people are nosy, and this game is not played in a bubble. But for that one game... that one, perfect game, even David can beat Goliath. Is that new person, with his box set and a couple of clamshells he spent his hard earned cash on after visiting our community and checking out the forums here for advice, and reading all up on it on the tactica, going to win the tournament? Probably not, due to the unavoidable fact he's going to get metagamed into losing. But at least he has a shot to win. And even if he only wins one game, it is at least something for him to look at and enjoy, and maybe bring him back to the forums, to the tactica, to buy more models, and become a better player. Like shooting the perfect shot in golf. Sure, you don't hit perfect shots all the time. If you did, you'd be pro. But you all know when you hit that one perfect shot in 18 holes, and it's the memory of that shot that keeps you coming back.

You want to reveal masters at the start and completely screw that person's chances over from the first game? I say that's just selfish. It's a game. It's meant to be fun. It's probably why I don't do many tournaments. Cause while I like everyone I meet that plays Malifaux, we all know there is that one guy that is just NOT FUN to play against. You want to be that guy? Fine. But no one else wants to, nor do we want to play you.

Let me tell you a story about a boy. This boy went to Gencon a year ago and fell in love with this game. What's not to love? The models are sweet, the fluff is interesting, the card mechanic is (excuse the pun) aces, and the best part is IT DOESN'T TAKE A LOT OF MODELS TO PLAY. You can play this game and be competitive with just a starter box and a few clamshells, depending on the master. I am that boy. I really enjoy this game for all of these reasons. I like this game for all the reasons I hate Warhammer. In order to be competitive in Warhammer, you need a whole hell of a lot more models then Malifaux.

And you know, all those wonderful people who helped me pick a faction, show me how to play etc etc are great ambassadors to this game. They told me that you can have a crew at a disadvantage to your opponent and still win, due to the victory point system. You know what, they are right. Any given Sunday. Even someone at extreme disadvantage can sometimes pull out a win. Well, unless you're Spiku and his opponent is playing Hamlin. But I digress. There are really few matchups as one sided as that though.

The way I see it, this change helps the new player as much as it does the vet. Yes, it gives the suitcase player an opportunity to customize his list even more, but it also eliminates a large number of potential models from the suitcase (not to mention all potential leaders save one), giving the new player a sense of direction and a hope in hell while hiring his crew.

It does?

Are you arguing both ways?

Because I don't know how you think that is going to help the new player. He's still going to hire the same few models, maybe swap one in for another occasionally, but the list is going to pretty much stay static. And he's going to do this regardless of what the other guy is bringing to the field. The only person this helps is the guy with all the models being bushwacked on the first round. Part of the game is the random draw. I like that about this game. It keeps it interesting. Some times you're the dog, some times you're the hydrant. The only thing you can do is keep your head down, learn some things, and try to get as many victory points as you can.

[Undisclosed]

It would help the new guy in crew selection. They both announce masters and the experienced player has chosen Lilith, and the new player has chosen Lady J (Just for example).

Now rather than the new player being faced with 'Neverborn' he is faced with Lilith, a quick look at the card if they are unfamiliar or a run down by the opposing player and then the new player can start to understand what they should/could be hiring to achieve their strategies and schemes and to also defend against a potentially aggressive Nephilim crew.

Being faced with an entire faction to guess at when starting out is daunting, because of the varying play styles you are taking into consideration and so from a crew selection point of view you are just stabbing in the dark almost. Announcing a master allows a degree of focus for both players but will be more helpful to the newbie.

[Calmdown]

So basically it could aid both the competitive scene and the casual/fresher scene. OH WOW!

Most balance changes help the game at all levels. But talking about balance regularly apparently makes the atmosphere of the forums toxic.

[Shadai]

Undisclosed I'll answer that with a quote from that wall o' text I just posted. Cause the anti point to your point was already in there.

He's still going to hire the same few models, maybe swap one in for another occasionally, but the list is going to pretty much stay static. And he's going to do this regardless of what the other guy is bringing to the field.

And he does this for a couple of reasons. 1. It's all he knows how to play right now, and/or 2. It's all he has.

So there is no advantage for the new person at all. Just a disguised bigger advantage to the guy who has more models to bring to the table. Being "daunting" has nothing to do with it. I'm "daunted" every time I take the table against a master I've never seen played, played myself, and/or played against.

[dgraz]

Most balance changes help the game at all levels. But talking about balance regularly apparently makes the atmosphere of the forums toxic.

It's these kinds of boorish comments that make the forums a toxic place.

[Calmdown]

It's these kinds of boorish comments that make the forums a toxic place.

Actually I'm pretty sure the original insult directed at me was what made it toxic, but to each his own.

[Undisclosed]

@Shadai

The advantage of the experienced player would remain regardless of system, he will still have a box full of minis to choose from when he announces faction or master.

Being daunting has a lot to do with it. When you only know a vague idea of something 'i've heard Neverborn are quick and have lots of tricks' there isn't a lot to go on when deciding crew (even if you only have a box plus a couple of other minis)/deployment/opening play. This also stretches to individual masters, but at least most of them have a certain crew play style focus which is apparent to how the master itself works on the card.

Just my input, but i would prefer the announce master. If someone told me their master when i learnt the game and said things like 'This master buffs the crew or summons new models, so if you focus on trying to get the master the crew loses it's potential' then it would have been a great help in playing the game.

I can still see your point of view however, and both have their merits.

[Hatchethead]

But for that one game... that one, perfect game, even David can beat Goliath.

I'm discussing this matter from a big picture perspective, what's best for the game on a grand scale. You're concerned with the microcosm of a single game, the first game, the only game in which a new player with a secret stash of models has any kind of advantage over a player with a vast selection of models.

The new player with only a single crew and a handful of minions has the advantage exactly ONCE, and only if he doesn't let slip which master he intends to field. If you're playing at a con or some event where you're up against players you've never seen before, I can understand how this could be a fantastic thing. But in the average local gaming community, the environment I game in 99% of the time, wherein you tend to play the same people over and over? There is no benefit. In fact, in my environment, if I'm having to announce which of my five leaders I intend to field, that's actually benefiting the player with only one or two masters to choose from.

Did you just imply that I'm selfish? Excuse me? I'm sorry, I don't know you and you clearly don't know me. I love Malifaux and I want nothing more than to see it succeed. I'm a Henchman. My job is to promote the game and attract new players, which I do on a regular basis. I've been growing my local community since 2010. I'm not a power gamer, I don't cheese and I want nothing more than to see my opponent have fun. I'm not even very competitive, on a relative scale.

You've obviously had a bad experience with a meta/power gamer. Fine. My condolences. But don't allow your bias and butt hurt color your judgement. Don't jump to conclusions, and next think twice before you presume to judge my motivations without knowing the first thing about me.

[dgraz]

Actually I'm pretty sure the original insult directed at me was what made it toxic, but to each his own.

Two wrongs don't make a right. There is no reason to continue slinging back-handed comments around.

[Dustcrusher]

That's the million dollar question, isn't it?

Damn you! *shakes fist* now I'm going to be thinking about that all day instead of doing work :-P

Muahahaha... *grin*

The only potential snag I see with announcing a master versus announcing a faction is the Outcasts. Wasn't the pick a faction mechanic meant to benefit the Outcast player?

Other than that, I don't see a huge problem with revealing a master rather than a faction.

[Hatchethead]

The only potential snag I see with announcing a master versus announcing a faction is the Outcasts. Wasn't the pick a faction mechanic meant to benefit the Outcast player?

It's a theory. The Outcast crews have almost nothing in common with each other (theme, play style, shared minions). If attempting to predict a master for any other faction is rock/paper/scissors, trying to predict an Outcast pick is like ... something else. Was that by design? Is that part of their balance mechanic? I honestly don't know. If it is, I believe it's a mechanic that should be reevaluated, as it does more harm than good.

---------- Post added at 03:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 PM ----------

Also: My apologies to Shadai. In retrospect, I may have overreacted and inferred a personal attack where none existed. It was not my intention to dress down a new member of the forums. His opinion is quite valid.

[Spiku]

Two wrongs don't make a right. There is no reason to continue slinging back-handed comments around.

That's a very hypocritical stance to take, given you are perpetuating this with these responses to Calm Down.

Hatchet:

One of the interesting things I find with Outcasts, is that my lists for fighting Outcasts are very similar, in much the same way as my lists against Neverborn are. With what I build against the faction, generally applies across the board. I will use very similar lists, as a Gremlin player, because a lot of what I use doesn't work right against Outcasts (Von Schill, other Gremlins, Levi and Hamelin all stop my optimum gremlin output, and require similar lists to deal with/same changes in play style)

A lot of the counters to masters are faction counters, based on the weight of the likely models to be fielded and threats to face. I do feel that you remain better off being faction vs faction, with no pre-master reveal, just because I don't like that there is likely some noticeable favouring to specific counter models.

Screw Austringers ;D

[Hatchethead]

One of the interesting things I find with Outcasts, is that my lists for fighting Outcasts are very similar, in much the same way as my lists against Neverborn are. With what I build against the faction, generally applies across the board. (...) A lot of the counters to masters are faction counters, based on the weight of the likely models to be fielded and threats to face.

That's part of my beef, to be honest. Master counters are faction counters ... except when they're not, and that's generally where we run into problems. Also, I can't help but feel that crew hiring has become dangerously generic at the expense of niche models that were designed to counter something very specific, often the abilities of a certain master or the minions said master relies upon.

But your point is well taken. Announcing a leader pre-hire is certainly not a cut and dry consideration, and I can't speak to the Gremlin perspective as I have zero experience in the shallow end of bayou gene pool (no offense).

... and yeah. Screw Austringers.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Hatchethead