Balanced gaming - and please keep this thread nice

[nilus]

Is there an argument that tournament play with preconstructed lists encourages balance? Players have to bring 'all-comers' lists, because they can't know what they'll be up against. In theory, every list would have a balance of melee, ranged, offensive, defensive, buff, de-buff. In practice I have no idea: no experience of tournaments.

There are two problems with this

1) It takes away one of the things that makes Malifaux unique. Its the only popular mini game where you actually create your crew/army/horde etc after knowing your objectives and opponents faction. The whole concept of drafting a crew each round is a big draw for some tournament players

2) Preconstructed lists can lead to uniformity and games won and lost before they are event played. It moves the challenge from the game being played to who can come up with(or find online) the best all comers list.

[WarlockFiretop]

There are two problems with this

1) It takes away one of the things that makes Malifaux unique. Its the only popular mini game where you actually create your crew/army/horde etc after knowing your objectives and opponents faction. The whole concept of drafting a crew each round is a big draw for some tournament players

2) Preconstructed lists can lead to uniformity and games won and lost before they are event played. It moves the challenge from the game being played to who can come up with(or find online) the best all comers list.

I agree those are problems. I was trying to add to the discussion about balance. Maybe things like fun and variety have to take a back seat if balance is the goal.*

*Can you please read this in a non-snarky voice? I can't seem to get the tone right!

[edonil]

That starts down a path that, frankly, is kinda scary. I personally don't want to see fun and variety being sacrificed on the altar of balance. Like I've said elsewhere, if you want perfect balance, you need to be playing checkers, it's the only place where you're remotely close (even Chess has all the different pieces).

[morella]

@WarlockFiretop - just to let you know, I didn't read any snarkiness in either your post or the response by nilus - just jumping in because I worry about the same things re tone

ETA - the way I read it, you were not suggesting balance over fun, just that perhaps if the game is going to retain the elements people enjoy, putting up with some imbalance may be necessary

[edonil]

@WarlockFiretop - just to let you know, I didn't read any snarkiness in either your post or the response by nilus - just jumping in because I worry about the same things re tone

ETA - the way I read it, you were not suggesting balance over fun, just that perhaps if the game is going to retain the elements people enjoy, putting up with some imbalance may be necessary

This may be a strange question...but when you're putting up ETA, what're you using it in place of? Cause 'Estimated Time of Arrival' doesn't really fit...

[morella]

Edited to Add - sorry if it wasn't clear, and yeah I do it a lot, I reread my posts and have to (over)clarify

Thanks for mentioning it edonil - I updated my signature to include this in case it was not as commonly understood as I assumed

For my part, I have no idea what all the different smilies mean, so I just use the same one. One of these days I'll bother looking it up.

Edited July 13, 2012 by morella

[rancor709]

Balance in a game is literially a moving target if you asked me two years ago id say perdita was unbeatable. Ask me now and theres not a master i cant handle although some just arent fun. The point is our understanding of the game grows continually and the complexity of Malifaux means a chess like balance is foolharty. When people shout 4 balance what are they really asking for, for the most part they want all configurations to have a chance against all others. What a lot of the vets want is all masters. on an equal footing. They also want book 1 to be viable options and to not be scorned for playing book 2. That is what most are asking for. Others want player skill to be the strongest factor in a victory.

Playtesting is hard volunteer work and has been a joy.

[morella]

That's an interesting and important point - that balance means different things to different people.

For my part, I see (my preferred enactment of) balance as meaning in the hands of a skilled player, most masters are on relatively equal footing, a point which many players have shown can occur with those masters that are commonly seen as weak. I've stated elsewhere, and will reiterate, I have no problem with the idea that some masters are trickier than others to use effectively, as it gives me something to work towards, adding an extra layer with which to challenge myself (eventually).

But then, in all things, I view myself as the real opponent. (note - somebody local has finally responded to my pleas to get a game in - hope they don't change their mind - yeah!, just wanted to share)

[nilus]

I agree those are problems. I was trying to add to the discussion about balance. Maybe things like fun and variety have to take a back seat if balance is the goal.*

No worries, I took it completely non-snarky but its a valid point. The less variety in a game and the less complexity will lead to a more balanced game, but the question is it worth going down that path if it also reduces the fun factor.

I have not played much WM MK2 but from what I have seen and in talking with players they took that approach a bit. Streamlined and simpliefied in order to balance the game. In that case it worked for most people, I think partially because Warmachine was always an army game pretending to be a skirmish game. That is not an insult or anything, its just not practical to have an overally complex rules system when you have 30+ models on a side.

Malifaux will thankful never go down that path. The rules system just can't scale that big and the designers don't want to take that path. But with that we can keep two pages of rule per model with the understanding that balancing those two pages with the other two pages of a hundred other models is going to be nearly impossible.

[mpangelu]

I've found one game that isn't (as far as I can tell) broken.

MERCS.

Newere game, doesn't have a huge model line, but it's also fun, quick, easy to pick up.

And another might be games like Necromunda. Which I miss dearly, it was a fun game. There were matchups that did feel one sided at times, but even in those I was able to do well.

[Boscotopia]

It is not the responsibility of the player to balance, it is the designers. Just by looking at the card of a Book 1 Master and then looking at the card of a Book 2 Master you can see a balance issue.

I do not think the font could get smaller on Hamlin's card.

I also fail to see how playtesters missed the problem with LCB and Hamlin, among other issues. I don't think they did, I think the developers pushed it through as is because like all sequals and sophmore attempts, it has to be bigger and badder than the last. It is about sales and getting you to buy the next bigger, badder thing. They knew some people would get it because it looked cool but there would be more people buying if some thought they would have the advantage in games. The Factions are not balanced if you have to add Von Schill or buy the latest Master or minion to compete with the other latest Masters and minions. The game IS about choices, but the company forces those choices by what they distribute. Do I want a cool looking crew that makes sense to me and fits my ideal fanatsy crew or do I want a decent chance to win against the lastest and greatest? That is a question you should not have to ask. Sometimes we have to tell the companies that sales tatics are getting in the way of the game and they are in this case.

Also, I agree with mpangelu on MERCS...... never played Necromunda but I heard great things about it; I am sorry to hear it is retired.

[Yew Arcane]

Not having the time, energy or patience to read through the entire thread, it seems to me that there is one crucial thing people seem to be missing.

No game should be focused on piece by piece balance, except for checkers, or go, or if there were other games like that that I don't know. For example, in chess, while you can take the queen with a pawn, it would be easier to take a pawn with the queen.

And as a whole, to me at least, Malifaux is quite well balanced. Not model to model, but faction to faction. If you only have one box set, you are quite limited in your options, and so in many situations you will likely find that winning is not only difficult, but potentially impossible. But then you get more models to plug the holes in your crew, or to play specific roles. And get more crews to give yourself even more options. In the end, if your focus is on the individual models/masters/crews, you are going to see imbalance, but if you look at the game as a whole, you will see more balance.

I don't know anything about any other miniatures game, and to be fair, I know little about this one, and I don't get enough practice to call myself skilled, or even good, but I still enjoy myself.

[Gruesome]

Sometimes we have to tell the companies that sales tatics are getting in the way of the game and they are in this case.

I like how you just state that as a fact... ("like" = sarcasm)

[Omenbringer]

I've found one game that isn't (as far as I can tell) broken.

MERCS.

Newere game, doesn't have a huge model line, but it's also fun, quick, easy to pick up.

And another might be games like Necromunda. Which I miss dearly, it was a fun game. There were matchups that did feel one sided at times, but even in those I was able to do well.

Having played both, I would have to disagree that Mercs or Necromunda were better balanced games (dont get me wrong they are both great games).

---------- Post added at 09:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------

I also fail to see how playtesters missed the problem with LCB and Hamlin, among other issues. I don't think they did, I think the developers pushed it through as is because like all sequals and sophmore attempts, it has to be bigger and badder than the last.

You are making some pretty big assumptions there. Perhaps these things were noticed, perhaps they were argued, or perhaps some of the core mechnics that led to these abuses weren't clearly defined since they were completely new interactions (and only developed as the loop holes and abuses were discovered through longer play cycles and different interpretations of the language).

As someone that has participated in these playtest I must say that Wyrd has done (and continues to do) a phenomenal job of improving and refining their product. Additionally, they have been great about including members of the community that are interested in bettering the game, even going so far as to post open solicitations for volunteers.

The game IS about choices, but the company forces those choices by what they distribute. Do I want a cool looking crew that makes sense to me and fits my ideal fanatsy crew or do I want a decent chance to win against the lastest and greatest? That is a question you should not have to ask.

Keep in mind that a lot of the so called non-competitive masters/ crews from book 1 aren't actually so. Take a look at Som'er Teeth Jones, for years people have lamented about how awful he and the gremlins were (this was as recent as 6 months ago mind you) while a less vocal minority defended him. Today he is regarded as one of the top tier masters and cries for fixes have appeared. "Todays hotness" is exactly that. Dont get me wrong there are some models that need to be re-addressed, however it isn't as prevailent as the recent threads would suggest (it is often just unfamiliarity with particular models or interactions that force players to adapt a different styke of play than they are comfortable with).

Also, I agree with mpangelu on MERCS...... never played Necromunda but I heard great things about it; I am sorry to hear it is retired.

See comments above (also the Necromunda Rule book is available as a free download from Games Workshop and there are still communities that are very much alive and well).