Constructive Malifaux Feedback

[Sliver Chocobo]

I disagree with what you said about Lilith

First of all master of Malifaux is fine how it is

Df should reduce to 6 and she should be given irrsistable

She should be given+2Df buff when she's in a forest

More out there options

Blood from stone turned into a (0) and two control cards instead of soulstones, also once per turn per crew (no using the double ganger to make blood counters)

Alluring increasing her irrsistable to 14 as well as everything else

And does anyone else look back and think it strange that she doesn't have blood sense

---------- Post added at 06:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 PM ----------

I disagree with the change of primordial magic's cost, it's too much

---------- Post added at 06:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 PM ----------

The change to tot doesn't make sense, why do they need to change?

---------- Post added at 06:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:34 PM ----------

An incresse to Df 5 isn't enough for Nekima make her cost 11 as well

---------- Post added at 06:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ----------

Interesting change to the black blood shaman, no comments from me here

---------- Post added at 06:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:39 PM ----------

The chreub needs a buff I'm thinking not only models that it hit's with it's bow can't attack the chreub but gain a http://themostexcellentandawesomeforumever-wyrd.com/community/uploads/emoticons/default_Minus.png' alt=':-fate'> against irrsistable and lure

---------- Post added at 06:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 PM ----------

I dislike the change to the twins

My thoughts insignificant to lelu. Make Lilitu rare 1 and cost 15 and comes with a free Lelu

[bashamer]

@nix

Having trouble with is something that has a small change; maybe a medium change.

For Collodi there is a large change requested; and if he is the master it is a massive change.

So either I'm missing something on Collodi, or I'm missing something on his crew, or my reasoning is wrong. And honestly I'm fine w/ any of those things, but being confused is something I find annoying.

I guess the thing I'm missing is the 1 line of "due to X, changing Y & Z"

It is hard to discuss the work when you are only presented with the answer; and right now we don't even have a problem statement or a hypothesis, let allone the work.

42.

[Poltron]

If only Wyrd had the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything...

Gotta read that again, thanks for the reminder bashamer!

[nix]

@nix

Having trouble with is something that has a small change; maybe a medium change.

For Collodi there is a large change requested; and if he is the master it is a massive change.

So either I'm missing something on Collodi, or I'm missing something on his crew, or my reasoning is wrong. And honestly I'm fine w/ any of those things, but being confused is something I find annoying.

I guess the thing I'm missing is the 1 line of "due to X, changing Y & Z"

It is hard to discuss the work when you are only presented with the answer; and right now we don't even have a problem statement or a hypothesis, let allone the work.

42.

sorry about that, my comment was (obviuosly) not clear.... *grin*

I do not agree with the Collodi changes, and actually see some of your reasoning in your earlier thread and agree it supports why the changes are not good. My comment was more along the lines of:

- new players in our community (new to seeing Collodi and experiencing him on the table) also feel like they can do nothing in the game.

- Then, those players take some time to learn how he players.

- Then most players do not feel like they can do nothing against him.

This changes when a skilled player is playing Collodi. At the same time, local players have trouble dealing with any crew a skilled player is playing.

Then I intended to convey that Collodi is good at specific strategies. Outside of those specific strategies he is only average. He is not really tough to deal with once you understand how he works. The fact that there are 13 different individual strategies in the game means Collodi becomes balanced by those strategies. As I understand the Rules Manual, the game is balanced by a couple factors, two of which are your ability to pick the best master for your strategy and the fact that some masters are better at some strategies and worse at others.

[Cunning]

One of the problems that I see with Collodi is the game often ends up coming down to who wins specific initiative flips. A lot more than with any other henchmen or masters. If Collodi wins you get a majillion attacks on everything and little survive. If your opponent wins the marionettes die fast.

My default Lilith crew was actually designed as a collodi killer. It just so happens it's pretty decent generally too which is nice.

I do kind of disagree with the proposed changes to Collodi but I do think he needs something. As he is he can bring over 20 attacks to bear in one activation which I think is a bit much.

Edited June 29, 2012 by CunningStunt

[ukrocky]

Mmmmm. I disagree Collodi relies on winning/losing initiative. Any game and master does usually.

[bashamer]

Collodi is amazing when it comes to tagging; to mitigate this there is the 25% reduction in mobility.

I can see that part and agree.

But when we are worried about negative play experiences then the Sitched .... well .... he could use some carebear power.

But my understanding was that this was a competitive play balance thread, not a new player game experience problem.

Anyway, I’ll wait for the OP to enlighten, but right now we are extrapolating the question from the answer.

[LupusFerreus]

My default Lilith crew was actually designed as a collodi killer. It just so happens it's pretty decent generally too which is nice.

Teach me master!

[Guy in Suit]

Make Collodi's Henchman number a 2 instead of a 7 and you are most of the way there, IMO.

In fact you could deal with a lot of the 'problems' just by tailoring points costs.

Asking Wyrd to basically re-write half the cards sounds like a bit of a fools errand to me - but asking that the Ice Golem cost 7SS might actually happen.

[bashamer]

Collodi Henchman 7 ->2 means you run him along side a master as he become relatively cheaper; and you run him as a master less.

As for the reasoning for that statement;

Right now; if I decide to take Collodi and want to “include” Lilith it costs me 15 points and I get a +5 SS Cache. So colloid + 1 doll right now is -5 points and a 0 ss cache -> 10 points and a +5 ss cache.

Post change; if I decide to take Collodi and want to “include” Lilith it costs me 10 points and I get a +5 SS Cache. So colloid + 1 doll right now is 0 points and a 0 ss cache -> 10 points and a +5 ss cache.

Will you see him less; probably as a master; but not as a henchman. So we are back to where he is a problem and what we are trying to solve.

[Guy in Suit]

Change his henchman number... not his SS cost...

[Cunning]

Teach me master!

The list was

Lilith

Primordial Magic

2 x Lelu

Lelitu

Doppelganger

Insidious Madness.

Only gives 4ss cache but this is fine against collodi. If not against collodi drop the madness.

I've had lots of success with this list. I may occaisionally switch to 2 Lelitus instead but that's about the only change I'd make. It's geared to winning initiative. Against Collodi if Lilith win's initiative turn 2 or 3 she's probably won, whirling death against collodi shuts him down.

[Q'iq'el]

The problem is that Stitched aren't just used with Collodi.

This is the problem with most minions - fine with one master, very synergetic and dangerous with another.

IMHO paying some attention to the models which make the game not enjoyable is one thing, but trying to turn it into a perfectly balanced system for tournament play is simply a mistake. It is not that balance is impossible... but rather than the notion games would be more fun if they only were balanced is absolutely misguided one.

Games are fun because: a) you can invent a new combo and beat others, if you are that player; you can practice with your underdog list and beat all the WAAC *"!"# if you are that player; c) you enjoy asymmetric encounters, the need to improvise on the spot and all the random mishaps; d) you enjoy themed crews; e) winning streaks with the top-list strike your ego right way etc.

Bland game with equal chances is not on the list. And there are plenty of traditional games based on strategy and equal chances to choose from, with much better player base. And let's face it - the most successful miniature wargame ever never really bothered with balance and it didn't hinder their growth at all. Historical games, which precede the genre, never really bothered with creating balanced situations either - just with recreating historically imbalanced encounters and seeing how the players would deal with the situation.

Having finally read the spreadsheet, I have only one thing to say. If this is what tournament players want universally, can we ban Malifaux tournaments?

Seriously, the game is all about asymmetric encounters from the start. Everybody who made an informed choice to start playing it, knew it beforehand. Those who didn't bother to do their research have no right to complain.

Think about it. You have a faction-balanced game, where some masters are outright impossible to beat with some other masters (but easier to tackle with yet other masters). You choose your faction and the crew for the mission before you learn the opponent's master, so you can never be sure if you have upper hand or if you'll have to improvise to catch your VP.

This doesn't lend itself to tournament play. It works great for story based encounters and leagues played between friends in local clubs and stores. It needs to be recognized as such, because it is the selling point of the game and the reason why people play it and have so much fun with it.

So, I suggest Malifaux players adapt a tournament format where the asymetry doesn't matter that much. Personally I think making tournament-specific Strategies and Schemes would be a solid approach, perhaps make the masters known before hiring the crew, though it may take hiring countering models too far.

Because it is one thing to fix Alp Bomb, Dreamer turn-1 teleportation or Hamelin's rats, and another to introduce a comprehensive set of changes focused around bringing down all the models closer to average. Dumbing down cheap and effective models which hardly break the game (Terror Tots or Gremlins for example) and increasing survivability and power of big and expensive ones, together with mitigating random factors, will only make the game bland and boring for normal players.

I'd go as far as to say the day in which you feel you have equal chances and don't have to work uphill regardless of what crew is being fielded on the other end of the table is the day Malifaux dies. There will be much less challenge, less suspense and much less satisfaction from pulling a victory or a draw out of the jaws of certain defeat. And. IMHO. if that doesn't work for tournaments, make a separate set of tournament objectives or don't play tournaments.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Q'iq'el

[morella]

+1 to everything Q'iq'el said so eloquently - I had meant to post something in the same vein in other similar threads. Each faction (and master) should retain their unique qualities. If everyone has access to everything then it is just boring boring same same. Which is exactly what turned me off of other games. Adjusting strategies and schemes or revising costs is one thing, but trying to level the field with constant tinkering leads to a vicious cycle. And personally, I like the idea that some masters require more skill to use than others, but also agree that there should be some way to address the problem of bad matches in competitive play.

[JayBarlekamp]

@ Qi'qel - well played sir. brilliant post

[fishtank]

The master rock-paper-scissor could also be mitigated somewhat by the idea that was proposed here ages ago: instead of Declar faction-flip strat-build crew you go Declare faction-flip strat-declare master-build crew.

[magicpockets]

Is Nicodem balanced against all the current models in the game? Yes, and this has been proven by Nicodem players who see the proper combo's and get them to work. Can Calmdown (as an example.. could be Nix or anyone else) see those combo's? Apparently not, because Calmdown (or nix... etc) sees Nicodem as weaker than other masters and in need of changes to balance him.

Okay, I agree with this in part as we (including Calmdown) thought Gremlins were crap until we met Spiku. But I doubt there is a case for Nicodem being as balanced as Hamelin/Collette (for example)

Once per Crew per turn, might be alright. But when you have so many models that can cast it (and seeing as Skeeters can only cast it once a turn anyway), then Once per turn doesn't seem to be a big enough change. Or maybe, reword it so Skeeters can't cast it. You're going to be more sparing with Somer's wounds than you are with Skeeters' wounds.

Trouble with skeeters is you don't ave the wounds to do it properly as they have 3wds (bar the odd heal/rat) so can only make you drop 2 cards. Once per turn per crew may be an elegant fix.

I find it very interesting that the only negative change on your list for Lilith is that her defense is lowered by one point. She does however gains the ability to charge or strike models without having line of sight. To me this seems like an improvement overall. Why improve a model which UKRockys claims is currently wrecking your tournament scene. The Comp Pack has her SS cash essentially reduced by 3.

Similarly you have the Doppelganger being reduced in effectiveness by weakening ill-omens. The Comp pack has the Doppelganger as being reduced in price by one SS with no other changes making her better.

I was under the impression that the UK comp scene had a general consensus on what changes should be proposed.

There is no general consensus other than that by all trying to "fix" the game individually at this stage we'll minimise bias and find improvements between us.

A car company improves every year's new model so that people will want to upgrade, why should Nathan, Eric & co deny themselves income?

And a car company immediately obsoletes their older models by replacing one model with the new.

We wouldn't want to play that way.

Yeah, but if I buy a car that doesn't work properly the car company fixes it...

We're extremely proactive in a way that would clearly surprise many of the critics that pop up on our forums.

We discuss and fight about a lot of stuff, often before anyone even mentions a problem online. Then, one of the oppositional Devs will say, "If it's a problem then why has no one brought it up online?" and then, weeks later, when it does, the first Dev will copy the link and say, "Told you!" and then go "na na na, poopy head!"

The problem for those online vocal critics is, I think, they want rather immediate gratification to a problem they perceive with an exact fix that they perceive is not only the best, but sometimes the only correct fix. But then, we'd be machine-gunning errata, all over the forums....

Instead, we first acknowledge a problem - the scope of the problem, then discuss how best to fix it. Then, how to address the fix and present it. Clearly, we really cannot just throw an errata out on the forum willy-nilly any longer. Then a different set of critics say [justifiably] "Oh noes! You cannot expect me to find every change in every thread! Wyrd changes everything all the time! It's unplayable!"

It's hard to win.

So we compile and we test and then we roll out a comprehensive change and a different set of critics complain, "It took too long. My playgroup gave up because Misaki's "Wind" irritated us."

I adore what you do for Wyrd and the world you've created through the fluff, but this reply smacks of hyperbole. Firstly, most of the changes should be quick to make (skeeter loops/stitch counting for vp) and don't need time (let alone YEARS of PT), secondly I personally don't agree that it's reasonable for you guys to claim PT time issues for fixes for stuff we've already given you money for when you can PT a book full of new stuff in a few months.

Secondly, people talk about meta and it's impact on the rules - yet that's how erratas are made are they not? And they're metas without the "let's break stuff" players in them, which is where I worry Wyrd uncertainty comes from - you guys should be listening to people like Calmdown and UKRocky and paying a LOT of attention to what they say (and me for Hamelin obviously ) - and be seen to doing so rather than "nothing here is new, we've identified these issues, we'll fix some in the upcoming x years" (seriously, your post basically says that Wyrd see this stuff first and are aware of the issues. If that were true 1) the problems wouldn't be there in the first place as you'd have fixed them before going to print, 2) you'd make correct fixes instead of Alp/Nekima fixes, and 3) you'd be able to make changes quickly rather than years later). You guys relly need to accept its cool that the Dev team aren't the best Malifaux players out there - none of us expect you to be, hell no one cares that Nathan and Eric don't even play Malifaux.

Re the current climate, whether I agree with the idea of one person trying to fix everything or not, these guys should be being snapped up by the Dev team (informally, i obviously don't mean being hired) rather than having to have back door chats with (now ex) Wyrd employees about their views. They do know what theyre alking about (mostly lol) and they have PASSION for making Malifaux better. But unfortunately one of either politics, indifference or arrogance is stopping that from happening - all of which get in the way of what we all want, fixing this damn game. Instead, you gus have now let the rot set in...

Collodi is great for some strategies, and not as great for others. I imagine that's part of the intention to having 13 strategies to pick from (26 if you count shared vs individual) before moving to Story Encounters.

Yeah, but you pick encounters before you pick crews.....

Seriously, the game is all about asymmetric encounters from the start. Everybody who made an informed choice to start playing it, knew it beforehand. Those who didn't bother to do their research have no right to complain.

Imbalance, broken crews and one sided games were a design decision? Wow, just wow. And to dismiss people who want Malifaux to be a fun, balanced game as irrelevant - has your account been hacked? You're one of the LAST people I'd have expected that type of response from...I honestly don't know what to say. And people are thanking you for this post? It's a sad, sad day....

perhaps make the masters known before hiring the crew.

We did this at the ETC and it definitely helped, but not to the point of me going "I'm taking Hamelin" made my opponents accept the imbalance in the game

Because it is one thing to fix Alp Bomb, Dreamer turn-1 teleportation or Hamelin's rats, and another to introduce a comprehensive set of changes focused around bringing down all the models closer to average.

+1

But doing something is better than doing nothing

Edited June 30, 2012 by magicpockets

[Math Mathonwy]

Imbalance, broken crews and one sided games were a design decision? Wow, just wow. And to dismiss people who want Malifaux to be a fun, balanced game as irrelevant - has your account been hacked? You're one of the LAST people I'd have expected that type of response from...I honestly don't know what to say. And people are thanking you for this post? It's a sad, sad day....

This. Malifaux Child isn't a design decision. Nor is Stitcheds not giving VP.

[Gruesome]

@Q'iq'el: I can appreciate the thought behind your post, but telling people what they ought or ought not to expect or accept in their game and from a company to whom they give money on a regular basis is not going to convince anyone to change their mind, IMO.

I can understand not liking the motivations for the spreadsheet or disliking the individual changes, but I think that everyone should clearly see from the number of varied replies in the thread that a great number of people appreciate many of the changes and, in fact, as mentioned above by nerdelemental, many of the SAME DISCUSSIONS are happening within Wyrd itself.

So, regardless of whether you think these sorts of changes are appropriate, it seems like the bus is driving the other direction...

Personally, between the two hot topics at the moment, I prefer the less impactful and easier to digest comp list to this, but ymmv...

Edited June 30, 2012 by Gruesome

[bashamer]

On the speed of changes:

There have been companies that were extremely responsive about rulings, companies that have been extremely indifferent, and companies that have been bloody insane.

Having a watch list, chewing trough the ruling is good. Making it slow is ok. Having knee jerk rulings and errata for balance will make me quit this game in a heartbeat. AEG was known for this and I refuse to buy any of their products after suffering trough L5R and Spycraft, for instance "discarded from play" became a game mechanic of a Friday afternoon, on a mailing list. Imagine my surprise that weekend during a tournament, and I wasn't even playing the card that was the cause I just got hit by some friendly fire.

So that they take their time is great; that it isn't fast enough is a given; but it will never be.

Lastly Malifaux's most endearing qualities to me is the liberal helping of OMGWTFBBQ sauce that is slathered on every card. And if there were not strategies and schemes this game would be unplayable bad and broken. But they made the game playable, and they did not compromise on the OMGWTFBBQ and to me that is a feat. Are there broken things; yep. Did they get changed; yep. Did they get changed so bad that they now have to change them again; yep. And I think that it makes the designers hesitant to publish changes as they are forced to revisit an old model because it got hit so bad that it now needs TLC again.

even more Lastly:

No, as in over the summer in the US, is the worst possible time to release changes w/o some rollout schedule. because nothing will $$$$$$$$ people off more than traveling to a convention ant having someone tell them during their first game that their crews rules changed last night.

[nix]

Okay, I agree with this in part as we (including Calmdown) thought Gremlins were crap until we met Spiku. But I doubt there is a case for Nicodem being as balanced as Hamelin/Collette (for example)

It's interesting, don't you think, that you can admit you had the wrong opinion about gremlins, but not about Nicodem? Also, I am unsure if you are using Nico as an example (as I did) or as a specific case.

[Dumb Luck]

See, I don't get it. Gremlins are rubbish. *wink*

[Omenbringer]

Once per Crew per turn, might be alright. But when you have so many models that can cast it (and seeing as Skeeters can only cast it once a turn anyway), then Once per turn doesn't seem to be a big enough change. Or maybe, reword it so Skeeters can't cast it. You're going to be more sparing with Somer's wounds than you are with Skeeters' wounds.

I dont agree with limiting it to only Some'r, reducing it to once per turn per crew would address the problem (since it prevents the spaming of the ability).

The spell requires an 8+ to be succesfully cast 46% of the time with cheating from a Skeeter (and with a 0 SS cache, using a Soul Stone to enhance the success is usually not really a viable option). Also, as Magicpockets states the potentcy of the spell is really limited by the number of Wds that particular Skeeter has anyway.

Couple this with fairly low offensive stats of the gremlin/ pig crew and it really isn't that potent of a spell (add in the lower initial control hand and it becomes even less impressive). Granted Some'r can draw additional cards from the death of gremlins that are close enough, but that also means he has lost a significant model (that is fairly difficult to replace with only a 24% chance of success with cheating and requirement to have another Bayou Gremlinl to use for it, and resulting in 2 Bayou Gremlins that are half dead) and of course remember that Some'r can't carry those extra cards into the next turn with him (he still reduces back to the max of 5 in his hand during the Draw phase).

Calmdown is probably tired of facing Som’er/Gremlins the way they are and Von Shill as well, with the beat down Von Shill can do to undead. In my play area only 1 other guy besides me is currently playing Som’er and I only started playing him 3 months ago. I decided to give Ramos a break.

Some'r appears to be the "new hotness" in his community and I am sure that just like Hamelin and the Dreamer the community will adapt to it and devise ways to counter it (it really isn't that difficult for most crews). My community happens to see Some'r (and the gremlins) a whole lot and most dont have many problems dealing with him.

[magicpockets]

It's interesting, don't you think, that you can admit you had the wrong opinion about gremlins, but not about Nicodem? Also, I am unsure if you are using Nico as an example (as I did) or as a specific case.

Thing is, I'd never played against Gremlins before I'd seen them and had paid little attention to them as far as theoryfaux goes. With Nico, I've seen him played many times and by a lot of different (and good) players so feel I have a more rounded opinion of him, hence my comment (for the record, same with Rasputina - she can be goodish, but not "top tier" good).

I'm one of the first to admit when I'm wrong and will do if I ever meet a Nico player who blows me away like Spiku did, I'm just not holding my breath. *wink*

Now, if you want an under-appreciated master - let's talk Perdita...

[Iron Skies]

Perdita SMASH!