What's with the negativity?

[Cunning]

You've met someone who doesn't have one?! How do they use the bathroom? *grin*

Not met exactly, no...

[rancor709]

But seriously, what's it gonna achieve apart from rants, anger and arguments?

Maybe I may sound like a hippy, but can't we all just agree to disagree? M2e isn't bad or good.... Just different.

This is the truth. And because its different it we'll appeal to people differently than the original. For myself it appeals to me even more than the original for others it doesn't. It doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong as long as we play. But because it different it means change and change is hard.

Change is the hardest part for most people, think about it let's say hypothetically at work they switch the location of the coffee machine, management of course let's people know via the usual channels. Its a good bet that nearly 70% of the coffee drinkers will at first go to the location of the old machine even if they had read the email stating it had moved.

Why it habit, its comfortable, those same people will be grumbling that the coffee moved until in a few weeks they'll see that the new location is more convenient to them. Some may find that the new location isn't for them and give up coffee, and some will start bringing the coffee at home, or maybe even try to bring in a machine from home at the old spot.

The point of all that no matter how small the change to virtually anything the reactions are nearly always the same.

[PierceSternum]

I must admit to getting irritated at the continued assertion that some relevant quantity of dislike for M2E is attributable to people disliking change itself.

Its a cop out.

I could just as easily start saying that M2E lovers are accepting of its many flaws simply because of the things it happened to fix, but are unwilling to admit to the flaws because this is a "war" dang it, and admitting to anything is weakness.

Is M2E better than M1E? I do not know.

One thing that I TRULY believe, is that in three months time, M1E could have been fixed to be better than EITHER of what we have now.

[caen]

One thing that I TRULY believe, is that in three months time, M1E could have been fixed to be better than EITHER of what we have now.

That’s true ...

To some extend (again I exaggerate by far) I also have a impression that many Gamers express their laud support for M2E because They are willing to stay in "Winning Team". Followers of v 1.5 have already lose the day.

[Bacms]

One thing that I TRULY believe, is that in three months time, M1E could have been fixed to be better than EITHER of what we have now.

Even though I partially agree with you I think this is a fallacious claim. We can always say things would be better if they have done something else. But until you actually put down this ideas on the table and see the game you have it is only pure speculation. Perhaps we will see so much people attached to 1.5 than they might create their own rulebook of 1.5.2

[nilus]

You've met someone who doesn't have one?! How do they use the bathroom? *grin*

Through a bag connected to a surgical hole in your stomach. Colon Cancer is not a fun thing

[rcat]

Through a bag connected to a surgical hole in your stomach. Colon Cancer is not a fun thing

This conversation has taken a turn somewhere, hasn't it?

[Sonova]

One thing that I TRULY believe, is that in three months time, M1E could have been fixed to be better than EITHER of what we have now.

Rules bloat is a thing and 1.5 was suffering from horrible horrible rules bloat. Power creep is also a horrible horrible thing.

Fixing M1e would have taken a review of ALL the existing models and a rebalancing of all their abilities against each other yet somehow allowing everything that had gone before to remain somewhat valid. This means crafting a system where either all the remaining books can somehow remain valid or bogging people down with a truly epic amount of errata.

It is much faster to just redo the core systems from the ground up and reissue new cards while you are at it if necessary.

Privateer Press does it. Spartan Games does it. Games Workshop has made it more or less its business model and do it in an extremely obnoxious way, and yet still manages to require volumes of errata and clarifications on a regular basis.

Rules revisions are a practical decision not something that's taken lightly just to screw with the players.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Sonova

[PierceSternum]

Fixing M1e would have taken a review of ALL the existing models and a rebalancing of all their abilities against each other yet somehow allowing everything that had gone before to remain somewhat valid.

I disagree.

1. The top 5-10 or so models could be reined in ability-wise.

2. The bottom 5-10 models could be improved.

3. Point costs of models in the middle could be looked at.

4. Master Caches could be adjusted

5. A select group of rules could be addressed to be better worded.

6. Awesomeness like pre-measure from M2E could be added.

THAT'S what I am talking about. Rewriting everything in the game is what you are talking about and that's exactly what M2E is, so by all means, enjoy it. Its in progress and open for public comment.

I do not believe "perfect" balance is attainable in this genre.

But I do believe GOOD balance is attainable with a few months work in M1E and I believe that the majority of models do not need to be touched. Its simply those on the ends of the bell curve and some rules that need clarification and consolidation.

Simple as that.

I believe M2E will launch with much FEWER "bad" models than M1E did. But real balance concerns at the top end are a year+ from being understood.

EDIT: And in a wierd sort of way, I think that the positive of most/all models being playable could actually exacerbate balance issues simply because there are more permutations possible. Although I suppose that is compensated by fewer options per model, to a degree.

Edited July 27, 2013 by PierceSternum

[Sonova]

I disagree.

1. The top 5-10 or so models could be reined in ability-wise.

2. The bottom 5-10 models could be improved.

3. Point costs of models in the middle could be looked at.

4. Master Caches could be adjusted

5. A select group of rules could be addressed to be better worded.

6. Awesomeness like pre-measure from M2E could be added.

THAT'S what I am talking about. Rewriting everything in the game is what you are talking about and that's exactly what M2E is, so by all means, enjoy it. Its in progress and open for public comment.

I do not believe "perfect" balance is attainable in this genre.

But I do believe GOOD balance is attainable with a few months work in M1E and I believe that the majority of models do not need to be touched. Its simply those on the ends of the bell curve and some rules that need clarification and consolidation.

Simple as that.

I believe M2E will launch with much FEWER "bad" models than M1E did. But real balance concerns at the top end are a year+ from being understood.

EDIT: And in a wierd sort of way, I think that the positive of most/all models being playable could actually exacerbate balance issues simply because there are more permutations possible. Although I suppose that is compensated by fewer options per model, to a degree.

Even the process of determining which are the top 5-10 top/bottom models would be a pretty contentious process. And its more than just 5-10 models either way that need adjusting. Basically all the non-Neverborn and non-Outcast models from book 1 were considered uncompetitive when compared against the book 2-3 stuff with a few exceptions. The entire Neverborn faction is pretty much built on the schtick that they ignore the rules that everyone else has to follow because they have home ground advantage in the fluff.

Kirai, Hamelin, Hoffman, Pandora, Collodi and Dreamer were pretty much auto-lose to anyone on the opposite end of the table unless they were extremely well versed in the rules. And this is not because they were overly powerful from an objective standpoint. Its because they all required a specific plan of action thats not immediately apparent due to them bringing extremely esoteric rulesets to the table. These are all mechanics that simply do not exist anywhere else in the game. AND that's assuming that whoever is running them wont be total bastards out to win at all cost and abuse their opponents ignorance.

I think you are severely oversimplifying the problem. 1.5 isn't broken because of mere point costings or one or two abilities or even a few dozen models outright. Its broken because the learning curve IS hilariously steep and is bordering on inaccessible for new players if you have any veterans who run the masters listed above.

In essence the problem is that I literally can not play Zoraida or any of my first tier stuff in their full 'glory' in my local scene because that would create too much of a negative play experience for new players entering local leagues. If new players quit before their second game there will be no more leagues. No more leagues means my models are dead weight. So having to deal with a whole new game system is an easy choice for me.

And I am personally very very tired of having to pull my punches playing 2nd tier masters.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Sonova

[PierceSternum]

Again, I disagree. But that's ok.

Its not hard to collect a list of what models people think are weak and to simply choose those that are most often mentioned.

Certainly some things get made contentious here. But I am confident that ways could be determined to take in feedback and to consider the YEARS of forum feedback, as well as previous comp-packs to make some fast choices.

And the relevant bit to me would be to get a system in place that allows for further tweaking without as much headache so that people did not feel obligated to fight over every last little change they think might ever need occurring because they fear never getting another opportunity.

Paralysis by analysis is common in all walks of life. Pick the top priorities and stop talking about the others until its their time.

To me, its simply a question on a model by model basis whether a point adjustment makes it viable or whether behavior needs to change. There might be models like Malifaux Child that have no cost at which you would want one, whereas someone like Mortimer might really fall into a lot of lists by reducing his cost by 1 point.

I am not looking to problem solve here, but rather to say that I think that a rebalancing of M1E would not be difficult if a clear path and procedure were laid out and solid and consistent mechanisms for feedback were defined and established.

[rgarbonzo]

I loved Mechwarrior2 on PC. Played it and netmech for years.

I did not like Mech3 demo's so I did not buy it.

I do not feel like I rage quit Mechwarrior.

But I did explain all the things I did not like about it regularly at their old forums. Actually, a number of us did. (My old clan. I guess we were negative vibes...)

And Mech4 EXCEEDED our hopes and we played THAT for years.

Tomato, tomato.

Alert Thread Derail Ahead!!!!!

Mech 2 Mercenaries was the best Battletech PC game IMO. Mech 4 eh not so much.

[Helm]

And now I feel myself needing to play a game of Battletech. With my box and rules being on a different island entirely.

Thanks a bloody lot.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Helm
Typo

[i_was_like_you]

Alert Thread Derail Ahead!!!!!

Mech 2 Mercenaries was the best Battletech PC game IMO. Mech 4 eh not so much.

MechWarrior Online is also fun. But you get players who are used to first person shooters like Call of Duty, who are unfamiliar with the Battletech universe, who try to play it the same way as Call of Duty, and get disappointed that it's not Call of Duty...

[So why don't they just go back to playing Call of Duty, already?!]

...So the developers cater to their concerns and hire developers who try to make MWO more like Call of Duty to try to lure even more Call of Duty players to MWO, while losing many diehard Battletech fans in the process. Those are the same fans who have been well versed for decades about how certain mechs work, how their weapons systems should function, what a typical Lance of mechs should look like, viable tactics on the battlefield (read: teamwork, not lone wolf shenanigans that you can ill afford in a game that lacks respawns), etc.

Instead of listening to those who are knowledgeable about the game, they're listening to the CoD players because they see the potential for far more revenue from that crowd. The former players have prior knowledge going into the game, so they use that knowledge to maximize their purchases. So while they may want to supplement their in game currency with real world money to get the mechs they know and love faster, they're less likely to throw down large sums of money, unless they happen to be diehard fanboys. Newer players are more likely to see all of the shiny mechs and pay out cash to buy them, buying more of them when the mechs they have aren't doing what they want them to, when each mech has a specialized role on the battlefield.

Editions of games change. The formats they're played in change. The players of the games wax and wane. These things are inevitable. Does it mean people have to accept the particulars of these changes? No, it doesn't.

I love the world of Malifaux, and I look forward to exploring more of it in Through the Breach when it debuts its final product. I also agree that 1.5 suffered from rules bloat, but I don't think that was necessarily a bad thing. Sure, I would have liked it if some rules got folded into each other since they essentially did the same things, but other overlapping rules did not need to be killed off in their entirety merely due to them introducing more options in the game and on the battlefield.

I do agree that 2.0 has fixed a lot of issues, for now. Only time will tell. But it has also created its own issues that were not present in 1.5. I just hope that when we do see the final product, it will have a much better layout (the beta rules seemed to jump around from topic to, like an over-excited kid trying to tell you a story) and that it will have a very comprehensive index for finding the rules.

Edited July 27, 2013 by i_was_like_you

[rgarbonzo]

And now I feel myself needing to play a game of Battletech. With my box and rules being on a different island entirely.

Thanks a bloody lot.

My bad!

MechWarrior Online is also fun. But you get players who are used to first person shooters like Call of Duty, who are unfamiliar with the Battletech universe, who try to play it the same way as Call of Duty, and get disappointed that it's not Call of Duty...

[So why don't they just go back to playing Call of Duty, already?!]

Hmm now I hafta check that out, dang it!!!!!!

[G. Footman]

having come from a warhammer/w40k background, I'm used to new editions just as you've catched up to a 1000 point army, now need another 1000 points because everyone's playing 2000 point armies because they're in the rulebook. long as malifaux doesn't go that far, I can manage the occasional edition update.

it can't be nearly as bad as 3rd ed DnD going to 4th ed mmo-in-tabletop-form DnD at least

[Mister Shine]

I like 4e, wizards and their lesser friends wasn't a great edition of D&D

[Forar]

I like 4e, wizards and their lesser friends wasn't a great edition of D&D

I'm with you on this one.

To each their own when it comes to playing fantasy elves and make believe with dwarves, but the mechanical failings of a system to one person are strengths to another.

Y'know, just like Malifaux 1.5 and 2.0.

[caen]

1. The top 5-10 or so models could be reined in ability-wise.

2. The bottom 5-10 models could be improved.

3. Point costs of models in the middle could be looked at.

4. Master Caches could be adjusted

Maybe it is worth to start a thread where We can discused which models are over- underprices and which Masters need cache adjustments?

[Mike3838]

Maybe it is worth to start a thread where We can discused which models are over- underprices and which Masters need cache adjustments?

I think 50% of all existing threads on this forum consist solely of people having disagreements about exactly this

[caen]

But now numer of Peoples really intrested in cost adjustments will be signifficantly lower (becouse of M2E) - so maybe it will be easier to come to conclusion.

And I think such discusion may be a constructive way to propose changes to M2E (that may be someday officially supported by WYRD - or not)

[i_was_like_you]

No caches for anyone. Keep back as many stones as you think you'll need, up to the max. If all things are supposed to be equal, caches should be nothing more than a bygone relic.

[Mike3838]

If caches are balanced into the abilities of each master, as we can presume they are, each Master should be each balanced against others with caches included.

It's simply another stat at the end of the day, and therefore makes for nice additional variation in models ie. it's fluffy and interesting. You'd be just as well arguing for all masters to have the same Df, if things are supposed to be balanced.

---------- Post added at 08:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 AM ----------

If caches are balanced into the abilities of each master, as we can presume they are, each Master should be each balanced against others with caches included.

It's simply another stat at the end of the day, and therefore makes for nice additional variation in models ie. it's fluffy and interesting. You'd be just as well arguing for all masters to have the same Df, if things are supposed to be balanced.

[i_was_like_you]

They all have "fast" built in, now. Why should they have different caches?

Just because master A is more likely to use ss to auto suit on a spell, master B is prone to saving them for df, and master C uses them all out on combat, it does not mean than any of them should inherently bring a bigger piggy bank to the fight. After how ever many in game years it's been, acess to ss may have leveled out among the factions, as their supply lines become more secure. Guildies can just requisition more. Arcanists smuggle more. Neverborn trap your souls to rrecharge the stones they have or acquire them from fallen residents, etc.

Caches are not, nor can they be just a stat. Caches take what was supposed to be a 50 ss game, for instance, and skew it to not only two different ss values, but also another possible model and its associated AP. With AP being seen as such a limited resource in M2E, gifting a crew with more ss, thus more potential AP, offsets that balance. Even in 2.0 a lot of players don't take more stones into the fight than the master's cache.

If we want to talk about a master being more magically inclined, that's where the substat of Ca comes in, plus maybe a high WP with which to force their will upon others.

Edited July 31, 2013 by i_was_like_you

[caen]

SS Cache is for me a excelent balancing tool - if far easier to change the cache than rewrite abilities.