Constructive Malifaux Feedback

[Zachilles]

I agree with everything but the Jokers, seriously Malifaux gives you more ways to Mitigate risks than any other wargame, it needs a little bit of crazyness in there. If you want a very competitive game with no Randomness/Risks play chess

[Gruesome]

Too funny...

Out of a spreadsheet with 90000+ changes listed, its a joker thread... Again...

[UberGruber]

Malifaux gives you more ways to Mitigate risks than any other wargame

Not sure I quite agree with that as an absolute statement but I do wholeheartedly agree that there are lots of ways to mitigate risk in Malifaux and that a significant factor in the game is in fact the very presence of random risks that one must strive to mitigate.

In essence from the OP's statement that malifaux should:

-Reducing luck factor

-Balancing out power level by reworking existing models

-Overhauling strategies and schemes

-Minor rules changes

I'd agree with the second (but qute honestly if models are going to be reworked, do it once, get it right and then leave well alone. Constant retinkering satisfies only real die-hard players - and ironically is undertaken because they're not satidsfied . . .)

I agree very much with the third. In fact I think overhauling schemes and strategies would actually mean tinkering with some of the models could be avoided.

And yes, perhaps the odd rule could be changed.

But as I say for the first, I utterly disagree. Wanting randomness reduced is not about balance, it's about control. There is a strong perception that control allows for more skill, randomness less, which is true at the extremes but not in the vast middle that Malifaux inhabits.

Reducing chance in the game will not improve balance, nor will it make the game more competitive, nor will it really mean the more skilful player is likely to win, unless of course randomness is reduced very significantly, which isn't what's being asked.

Edited June 28, 2012 by UberGruber

[DeusInnomen]

If you disagree, are you disagreeing with the suggestion that these changes will make the game more competitive or are you disagreeing with his intention that the game should be more competitive at all?

My disagreement arises from the fact that the Jokers mechanic is one of the things that makes Malifaux different from other miniatures games. I'm okay with the game being more competitive as long as it brings in more players, I'm just not comfortable with the idea of making the game less unique. Wargames are quickly growing into a crowded and interesting market, and presently Malifaux stands out strongly for its mechanics and scale.

Having said that, I've been thinking about the Joker mechanic being completely out of the hands of the players. So, in the spirit of this thread proposing changes, here's something I was considering:

A player may spend a Soulstone to either turn a Black Joker into a 1 of no Suit or a Red Joker into a 14 of any Suit. This may be done by either player and changes the card before any results determined by it would be applied.

An option that could balance this: allowing the other player to negate this effect by spending a soulstone of their own.

I'll keep thinking about this and see if there's any overt problems with it.

[Zachilles]

Malifauxs biggest hurdle it needs to overcome is this notion that the game is not balanced between masters, its balanced between factions. That is just a cop-out way of saying Malifaux has horrible internal balance. New players don't get into this game buying a whole faction at once, how many players do you think have been lost because they bought a the Seamus box set and asked for advice on how to beat Neverborn with him only to get the response "Sorry game is balanced by faction you should be playing Kirai"

[Mike3838]

Too funny...

Out of a spreadsheet with 90000+ changes listed, its a joker thread... Again...

I know, come on people!

I'd say the model changes are broadly at the right level (although I have the same concerns as Dom that everyone else is proposed buffs except Gremlins who get cuddles across the board - I think this risks leaving them behind) and would do a great job of bringing the lesser-used models back into play, and curbing the power of a couple of the worst offenders that only need minor tweaks to put them back where they belong. I don't think I'd be unhappy if Wyrd implemented this list tomorrow.

Mike

---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:28 PM ----------

Too funny...

Out of a spreadsheet with 90000+ changes listed, its a joker thread... Again...

I know, come on people!

I'd say the model changes are broadly at the right level (although I have the same concerns as Dom that everyone else is proposed buffs except Gremlins who get cuddles across the board - I think this risks leaving them behind) and would do a great job of bringing the lesser-used models back into play, and curbing the power of a couple of the worst offenders that only need minor tweaks to put them back where they belong. I don't think I'd be unhappy if Wyrd implemented this list tomorrow.

Mike

[Cunning]

I know, come on people!

I'd say the model changes are broadly at the right level (although I have the same concerns as Dom that everyone else is proposed buffs except Gremlins who get cuddles across the board - I think this risks leaving them behind) and would do a great job of bringing the lesser-used models back into play, and curbing the power of a couple of the worst offenders that only need minor tweaks to put them back where they belong. I don't think I'd be unhappy if Wyrd implemented this list tomorrow.

Mike

Neverborn and Outcasts (dont forget Hamelin gets cuddles too) get the most reduction in power but this is pretty much in line with how most people view the power levels of the game anyway.

If i was to disagree with 1 chnage the gremlins got it would be the slop hauler. While I understand the reason behind it i think it's a bit too much. Maybe make it so it cant be used 2 turns in a row or something.

One difference between these changes and others I've seen proposed is that a) They address the specific reasons why models are over/under powered and They dont just cuddle the overpowered models into the ground but mostly improve the more under powered models to a good level and give a slight reduction in power to more powerful models.

It might not be perfect but it's as good a list of suggestions as I've seen.

[bashamer]

oh as to actual rules, I'll speak to Collodi as I play him the most and the most vanilla;

this is to be taken in jest.

Dear lord Collodi must be a terror, pushing the marionettes from rare 4 to rare 3 & removing flury & removing melee master (after all that is what puppet show (all) does) and removing hard to wound and ... wait.... what? is the stitched just kicked out of the game; and abducted it's wicket doll while at it? I have a hard time believing that there are no changes on those guys. But lets assume the stitched keeps his 0 cloud so the dolls still have their ranged cover (bit of assumptions here) and the wicked-doll stays ... well the same.

So his melee damage output gets about a 40% drop on the marionettes, you also lose a marionette so your total melee output is 45% of what it used to be (but you got 2 more SS and you don't have to cast any spells / get lucky as well, you don't get to.)

as for the serious bits.

So as a henchman you pay 14 points for an amazing objective grabber, but nothing much after that as his melee output got hit... significantly.

As a master (this is how I prefer to run him) he lost a lot. First off his starter is no longer legal, the impact of this is hard to assess but the production folks might throw a fit. So in the context of book 2 you have 2 options outside of the marionette, the stitched and then wicket doll (neither of which you mention so it is hard to assess the impact). As there is a significant hit to the survivability of the crew you pretty much have to put 3 stitched on the table to have any beef; after all the marionettes lost hard to wound and as there are only 3 have to be used with extreme care. Or you got a SPD 2 master, enjoy.

So the special forces dolls led by Collodi turn into the special forces stitched with wicked dolls for filler to get to your point cap. And well as Collodi has very little reason to actually cast spells bringing soul stones with him is useless outside of initiative flips. Sure you could prevent wounds, but by that point your marionettes are dead and you are a speed 2 ball of useless.

But again, neither of the units are mentioned, and the only secondary cuddles are that Collodi really could not care less about drawing cards from the stitched, as flurry and casting are out, and healing from the wicked doll is less useful as the marionettes are easier to kill

[ravenborne]

So, randomness vs strategy in a game is a total design decision. Every design team chooses how much they want in the game. I think the designers want the game to have that element of randomness.

This does however create a problem in competitive play. Perhaps a solution might have something to do with a version of competitive play, similar to the way magic the Gathering has their categories of play.

There could be say, a set of tournament rules where the Jokers were removed.

However, realize that means some of the abilities on the cards wont function, such as Rasputina's Black Joker interaction (don't remember the name).

My personal opinion is that Joker's are fine. Once you get used to them, you can incorporate their potential appearance into your tactics, so it does become a tactical element to some degree.

[Tograth]

Reading through these, some of them make sense. Only a few however. Many of these seem....ill advised, some seem aimed in the wrong direction, and the majority seem to be aimed at Cuddling strong crews in your local meta, or buffing your own crews.

I do have to ask though, did those nasty gremlins touch you in a bad place?

for instance:

the overall destruction of gremlins after your recent near loss to a UK renowned gremlin player.

the lack of any change to Marcus, and the changes to a lot of his beasts which seemed to get a lot less buffing than equivalent rezzer models.

the purely anti rezzer cuddles to von schill.

the fact that not a single rezzer got a cuddle.

as I said at the start, I think some of these ideas are valid, but the majority seem to be heavily biased.

[Ratty]

Reading through these, some of them make sense. Only a few however. Many of these seem....ill advised, some seem aimed in the wrong direction, and the majority seem to be aimed at nerfing strong crews in your local meta, or buffing your own crews.

I do have to ask though, did those nasty gremlins touch you in a bad place?

for instance:

the overall destruction of gremlins after your recent near loss to a UK renowned gremlin player.

the lack of any change to Marcus, and the changes to a lot of his beasts which seemed to get a lot less buffing than equivalent rezzer models.

the purely anti rezzer nerfs to von schill.

the fact that not a single rezzer got a nerf.

as I said at the start, I think some of these ideas are valid, but the majority seem to be heavily biased.

I think anyone's opinions of game balance will be heavily influenced by local meta. I've heard a lot of people saying the Perdita is hugely overpowered, but in general this is due to playing with wide open firing lanes within which ranged crews dominate.

This is why I would never take any players opinions of balance totally to heart, and I would definitely not use this list as a set of changes for tournaments. This is why when you playtest you aim to get lots of different groups from different metas, and you have to dissect every report and comment for cultural bias and the actual causes of the issues.

However, there are some good suggestions in the document and I have read through it all.

[ukrocky]

the overall destruction of gremlins after your recent near loss to a UK renowned gremlin player.

the lack of any change to Marcus, and the changes to a lot of his beasts which seemed to get a lot less buffing than equivalent rezzer models.

the purely anti rezzer cuddles to von schill.

the fact that not a single rezzer got a cuddle.

as I said at the start, I think some of these ideas are valid, but the majority seem to be heavily biased.

You couldn't tell he plays ressers and there's players with Marcus and gremlins he's scared of in the UK can you?

[nix]

I want to first acknowledge and point out how well written and reasonable the opening post is, along with the fact this thread seems to be staying constructive so far. I cannot say that it surprises me, after speaking with Calmdown for the podcast I find him to be a very reasonable and non-hate-worthy guy. That does not remove the enjoyment that comes from poking fun at his more bile filled posts.

So, going through the spreadsheet, here are my opinions overall. These are not really worth much, since they are given for free (worth the price of admission), but I felt compelled to share.

• Preameasure – Yes please. I do not agree with the rumored impression that pre-measure would slow the game down.

• Joker Changes – I disagree. I think the Jokers as they stand add distinct flavor to the game and do not need to be changed, even in competitive settings.

• Cast Duels – I disagree with this. Casting duels should stay different from other opposed duels for theme reasons along with a balance reasons. They should work differently to opposed duels and this should be factored into the balance of the models who rely more or less on Casting.

• Poison – I agree with this change but understand the developers made the errata to work as it currently does for bookkeeping purposes. As Malifaux is already complicated, I see why this change was made.

• Blight counters – I am ambivalent to this change.

• No Escape – I disagree with this. A better change would be to allow a charge for outside melee range, and an attack if opposing model is in melee range.

• Shatter – I disagree. Shatter works fine as is, no need to change this.

• Rip Throat – I see no reason for this. The ability is fluff driven/characterful and does not need to be changed.

• Pack Mentality – not familiar with this ability

• Dumb Luck – I understand this change, would need to be tested

• Aim high – I see no reason for this change, I believe only 1 model has the ability. If a change were put in it would need to be tested extensively with an eye to balancing Ophelia.

On the model changes, I see many I agree with, some I think are interesting, and many I disagree with. Ratty has a great point about testing and balance. I think there are great ideas in the spreadsheet but overall the ideas need a lot of testing across multiple meta's to be fully fleshed out and balanced. I think these are an excellent start for a set of house-rules for "Calmdown's Malifaux" and can even see some other groups adopting these. As a whole, I cannot see many of the model changes being widely incorporated without extensive testing across multiple geographic areas along with multiple groups at different skill levels.

[Calmdown]

I think it's a bit of a push to say that these changes are based on a 'local meta' when my 'local meta' is the UK tournament scene and multiple disparate local club scenes. There are many comments that people do make which are 'meta biased' (such as the aforementioned Perdita being overpowered in metas with a lot of new players) but given the breadth of the UK tournament scene I dont feel that this is the case here.

Also, I think it's unfair to say that this list is biased. It's pretty much across the board buffs to underused & underpowered models and only a few tweaks down to models with aberrant or broken mechanisms.

Gremlins are kind of a different subject; as I said earlier when talking to Dom they really need a total redesign more than a few tweaks because their design is inherently flawed and that flawed foundation has been built on top of, which is causing compounding issues.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Calmdown

[Guy in Suit]

I am curious who the gremlin players are in UK that have caused you so much angst! Man the changes proposed would make them TERRIBLE.

[Tograth]

I think it's a bit of a push to say that these changes are based on a 'local meta' when my 'local meta' is the UK tournament scene and multiple disparate local club scenes. There are many comments that people do make which are 'meta biased' (such as the aforementioned Perdita being overpowered in metas with a lot of new players) but given the breadth of the UK tournament scene I dont feel that this is the case here.

Also, I think it's unfair to say that this list is biased. It's pretty much across the board buffs to underused & underpowered models and only a few tweaks down to models with aberrant or broken mechanisms.

Gremlins are kind of a different subject; as I said earlier when talking to Dom they really need a total redesign more than a few tweaks because their design is inherently flawed and that flawed foundation has been built on top of, which is causing compounding issues.

The UK tournament scene is actually relatively small. Theres, what, 30 players nationwide who play in the more than one or two very local tournaments?

On top of that, the group of players who regularly find themselves placing in the top 5 or 10 are all the same players.

I'm afraid that regardless of what you might hope, it *is* a meta.

With regards bias, you know my feelings there. It's more than obvious by the blatant rezzer buffs, gremlin cuddles, and, bizarrely, the distinct lack of effective marcus buffs. It is the last point that makes it clear how biased it is, since the distinct lack of marcus buffs is glaring when compared to raspy or ramos. The only reasoning for this that I can see is a very strong marcus player in your meta (UKrocky).

[nix]

I think it's a bit of a push to say that these changes are based on a 'local meta' when my 'local meta' is the UK tournament scene and multiple disparate local club scenes. There are many comments that people do make which are 'meta biased' (such as the aforementioned Perdita being overpowered in metas with a lot of new players) but given the breadth of the UK tournament scene I dont feel that this is the case here.

I would disagree with this for a couple reasons. I have spoken with you, UKRocky, Mythicfox, Magic Pockets, and Clousseu about your playing experiences within the UK. I have also ineracted with other UK players such as Spiku, Insane_Prophet, and Tograth. As I understand, all of the people mentioned are in different areas of the UK but all take part (at different levels) with the UK Tournament scene. The ideas about how the game should be balanced and how the game is played across my discussion and interactions between all the mentioned players is pretty much the same. That defines a pretty solid Meta to me. This is especially so when I look at players from SoCal Malifaux (Sothern California), the Chicago area (Nilus and crew), and the NOVA (my group) and NYC (Guy in Suit/Warmongers). areas. The Warmongers and NOVA are very similar in how we play and view the game, which is fairly different from the Chicago group, the SoCal Group, and the UK Players. While there is some overlap, it is not that much.

While I appreciate there are differences in the geographic spread of the UK tournament scene, the "Meta" of the UK scene is very consistent in thier view on the game, and fairly different from the 3 areas within the US I mentioned. The 3 areas I mentioned in the US I mentioned are as different from each-other as they are form the UK scene.

Ok, I tried to explain that two different ways, I hope I was not too repetitive and got the point across clearly.

---------- Post added at 11:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 AM ----------

Oh, and UKRocky is beating me up via PM. He and I had a great discussion (a bit over an hour) yesterday for an upcoming Gamers Lounge podcast. It was very specific about comp and seems to overlap an awful lot with this post.

With that said, I was planning on releasing that as a segment in Episode 56, which would not release until July 15th (ish). While I am not up for releasing another episode overlapping last nights release, I will look at pulling episode 56 up sooner or putting our discussion in a special release.

[Barnaberible]

Wizards of the coast were very good at spotting 'broken' cards (or should i say cards that were misused from the way they were intedned to be used) and simply banned these from tournament play (or at least they did when I used to play.

I view Malifaux as similar to magic in many respects so maybe something similar is called for here?

Different meta should certainly be taken into account, be it local, national tournament or whatever needs to be taken into account for obvious reasons and probably a 'competitive tournament rule set' needs to be decided if that's the way you want to play the game

But at the end of the day wyrd had a vision for the game and what they wanted to get from it so if your planning to mess with it too much then it begs the question 'why not go and play something else'

I like alot of the quirkier rules, the make the game what it is and I bet alot of people play Malifaux for the same reason.

[bomba776]

-

Edited July 5, 2012 by bomba776

[Sandwich]

So what do you UK lads think of the Stitched Together?

I couldn't find it anywhere on your list.

[Talos]

Personally I think the Stitched Together is fine, the only problem I saw or heard people talking about was it not giving you VPs.

Other than that, I think it is fine. Yes people would still take them if they were 6ss , but I dont think they are overpowered at all.

Do people think it is too powerful ?

Edit: Had a quick look over the changes and like a few dont like some, which is to be expected. Personally not a fan of Collodi's changes as it makes him boring to play, but I can see the reasons for it.

[LupusFerreus]

Won't some changes be rendered moot by the soon-to-be-released book 4? We don't know what minions/changes will mix up the game yet again. Some crews may receive minions which give them boosts, or new synergies which can make them more viable at least.

All I'm saying is, once book 4 comes out there'll be another thread or round of threads about new balance issues and changes that will be proposed. Why not just wait?

[Calmdown]

Won't some changes be rendered moot by the soon-to-be-released book 4? We don't know what minions/changes will mix up the game yet again. Some crews may receive minions which give them boosts, or new synergies which can make them more viable at least.

All I'm saying is, once book 4 comes out there'll be another thread or round of threads about new balance issues and changes that will be proposed. Why not just wait?

Because releasing new models does not make old, bad models suddenly worth taking.

Additionally, releasing models that 'shore up weaknesses' in existing crews is generally bad design. You want to release models that add something new or interesting; if something has a pre-existing issue, you should fix that issue directly, not just release something shinier. That's how power creep happens.

[Undisclosed]

It's very unlikely that book 4 will make models like Malifaux Child worth taking unless they are changed.

[ravenborne]

I find it interesting that so much talk is about “skill” and the “meta”. I know those are very important but the game system has a holistic set of mathy interactions , what some game designers call constituative rules.

I do believe that Malifaux has underlying constitutive mechanics that can be examined outside of any local meta. I don't like this idea that we can't possibly understand the game as an entire system. The premise seems to be that we can only understand a game from our personal perspective on playing it, and while it does color our view, it is not entirely true.

For example, I played mostly rezzers for my first year of the game, and so I do have much more of a detailed understanding of how they function and where their design problems come into play. Without having spent an equal amount of time with other factions, its very hard to speak about their very subtle details.

However I don't need that per faction year of experience to look at numbers and basic interactions. Abilities can be framed in a mathematical relationship and that tells us a lot about balance. When you look at models and factions from that perspective, some very obvious things show up that may need to be addressed.

Combining that sort of analysis with play experience and testing is where the best results will be had in balancing. Having read a lot of Calmdown's posts, he tends to delve into this sort of analysis more than most, and he has a lot of play experience, so I think its unfortunate to discount his spreadsheet by saying, “oh it’s all about meta”. He is at least much closer to the kind of data and analysis that needs to be done to avoid metagame bias. I would look at his list as things that should be playested in strategy after strategy, in master versus Master scenarios.