Heroscape: Legacy

[Rich10]

While I respect the attempt to change unit prices, I wonder if any true progress can be made without stringent testing. For example, without testing, how can you know if the revised pricing has evened the battlefield between 4th Mass, KoW, Dividers, Blade Gruts, Omnicron Snipers, and Marro Drudge? I'm skeptical that this process will work without a regimented testing program.

[kolakoski]

Originally Posted by Rich10

While I respect the attempt to change unit prices, I wonder if any true progress can be made without stringent testing. For example, without testing, how can you know if the revised pricing has evened the battlefield between 4th Mass, KoW, Dividers, Blade Gruts, Omnicron Snipers, and Marro Drudge? I'm skeptical that this process will work without a regimented testing program.

Well met!

What do you mean by "work"? If you mean "answer your question(s) in a timely (according to you) manner," then you are undoubtedly correct. However, given the support and discussion Legacy's fledgling version generated, and the responsiveness of its creator and his local 'scape community to the constructive criticism it received, I am confident that it, and its adherents, will grow and thrive over a far shorter time than you imagine, even given the guerilla testing program. I will introduce it into the next Gang of Four event I host, and I am looking forward to again reading reports and impressions of its use.

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by kolakoski

Well met!

What do you mean by "work"? If you mean "answer your question(s) in a timely (according to you) manner," then you are undoubtedly correct.

I'm not particularly concerned with how "timely" something is. By "work", I mean if the revised pricing creates an equivalent utility among figures in their most advantageous army, on most tournament maps, in a 500 (or so) point pricing, in a double blind tournament type situation. For example, I think that testing is needed to see if 4th Mass at 90 points gives equivalent utility to Blade Gruts at 50 points, Axegrinders at 95 points, Snipers at 100 points, Roman Archers at 30 points, or Drudge at 35 points.

[kolakoski]

Originally Posted by kolakoski

What do you mean by "work"? If you mean "answer your question(s) in a timely (according to you) manner," then you are undoubtedly correct. However, given the support and discussion Legacy's fledgling version generated, and the responsiveness of its creator and his local 'scape community to the constructive criticism it received, I am confident that it, and its adherents, will grow and thrive over a far shorter time than you imagine, even given the guerilla testing program. I will introduce it into the next Gang of Four event I host, and I am looking forward to again reading reports and impressions of its use.

Originally Posted by Rich10

I'm not particularly concerned with how "timely" something is. By "work", I mean if the revised pricing creates an equivalent utility among figures in their most advantageous army, on most tournament maps, in a 500 (or so) point pricing, in a double blind tournament type situation. For example, I think that testing is needed to see if 4th Mass at 90 points gives equivalent utility to Blade Gruts at 50 points, Axegrinders at 95 points, Snipers at 100 points, Roman Archers at 30 points, or Drudge at 35 points.

Well met!

You have chosen to completely ignore everything in my post starting with "However." The issues you raise will naturally be addressed by "casual play", in that the relative strengths of units and combinations will become apparent, just as they have in "Official," to those of us who play often, and in tournament play, as the results from more Legacy tournaments come in, and as more tournament directors see the efficacy of the system as it evolves.

Anyways, as has been pointed out previously herein, it is a given that "equivalent utility" for all units is an impossibility. But "close enough to make most units viable," most of the time in most of the tournament formats extant, is certainly doable, and is closer to existing in Legacy than in Official, even as it is now, let alone in the series of refinements that will follow.

If you were to compare the "Official" with Legacy from scratch, based, not only on what we already know about the relative strengths of the various units in the game from Official testing and play, but what testing and play have already been done within the Legacy system, and the resulting direction the current changes in Legacy have taken it, it seems clear to me that Legacy is already further along than Official, and is on track to be even closer, to the illusive "equivalent utility" to which we aspire.

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by kolakoski

Well met!

You have chosen to completely ignore everything in my post starting with "However." The issues you raise will naturally be addressed by "casual play", in that the relative strengths of units and combinations will become apparent, just as they have in "Official," to those of us who play often, and in tournament play, as the results from more Legacy tournaments come in, and as more tournament directors see the efficacy of the system as it evolves.

Anyways, as has been pointed out previously herein, it is a given that "equivalent utility" for all units is an impossibility. But "close enough to make most units viable," most of the time in most of the tournament formats extant, is certainly doable, and is closer to existing in Legacy than in Official, even as it is now, let alone in the series of refinements that will follow.

If you were to compare the "Official" with Legacy from scratch, based, not only on what we already know about the relative strengths of the various units in the game from Official testing and play, but what testing and play have already been done within the Legacy system, and the resulting direction the current changes in Legacy have taken it, it seems clear to me that Legacy is already further along than Official, and is on track to be even closer, to the illusive "equivalent utility" to which we aspire.

I agree that "equivalent utility" for all units is an impossibility, but how do we know if we are getting closer without structured testing? For example, if a group of people plays Legacy (or should we call it Evolution) prices and no one else knows about it, I'm not sure that progress has been made. How do we know that we just haven't created a new group of A+ units? Finally, while structured testing is difficult, it might help some to come around to accept repricing.

[kolakoski]

Originally Posted by Rich10

For example, if a group of people plays Legacy (or should we call it Evolution) prices and no one else knows about it, I'm not sure that progress has been made. How do we know that we just haven't created a new group of A+ units? Finally, while structured testing is difficult, it might help some to come around to accept repricing.

Well met!

That's a straw man. The testing may not be as structured as you would like, but it has been, and continues to be, going on, even as we speak. As we have seen, every use of Legacy, especially in tournament is published and discussed ad infinitum. And you ignore the Evolutionary nature of the system. Even if it did create a new class of A+ units, it is likely that (a) they would be a higher percentage of the total units than in Official, and (b) if that turns out to be unacceptable, the next revision can raise their prices until relative balance is [achieved][restored]. That is not to say the testing you advocate is undesirable, just not necessary. The system is, by design, Evolutionary and, thus, self-correcting, where Official is static, by design, and we're stuck with its flawed pricing system.

[CornPuff]

I'm going to try to answer everybody, and keep the post relatively short. Which probably means I'll leave out something important. { upon further reflection, I cannot write short posts }

Typhon2222: Yes, I'll have standard, legacy and evolution cost in the spreadsheet.

Elementals and Kurrok
Kurrok is only there for the elementals, so if elemental armies are strong or weak I would want to tweak him a bit.

Ok, here is firestorm as far as I know:
Kurrok 120
10x Fire Elementals 350
(plus some filler to hit your point limit)
That's 470 standard, 525 Legacy, 550 Evolution.

That seems like a pretty good progression for an A- army. For Firestorm to be discouraged and Kurrok to be encouraged, the cost of the firestorm has to be only on the fire elemental. A 5 point change on that guy is a 50 point difference on army cost. I think fire is still a bit too potent to mess with the fire guy.

I took Earth Elementals down to 35-30 and bumped Kurrok down 100-90. And I took down water 40-35 because he's not that much better than the rest, is he? That should keep the elementals awesome, but you gotta pay extra for the firestorm.

Ana Karithon: 100-90 is good. Thanks for catching that.

Iron golem: 100-90 He'll be strong at this cost, but that should be fine.

Axegrinders: It's my goal for better or worse to make Mogrimm, Darak and Migol draftable without the axegrinders. This might be folly, but if the axegrinders team has to be cheaper I'm going to keep looking at them.

Sir Gilbert: He decreased from Legacy to Evolution despite his 'A' ranking. But, maybe I misjudged the ratio of squads/heroes. If its 1/1 the math is easy: Add 10 points to the bonding squad, take 10 off all bonded heroes for that squad. But Menchi did very well (Gencon 2010) with 3 KoW with 2 heroes (Finn, Alastair). That would suggest I should add 20 to KoW but remove 30 from the heroes, or something to that ratio... Ok. I made him cheaper, but not in a vacuum.

55-50 Thorgrim
75-80 MacDirks (All their heroes got much cheaper, its only fair)
75-70 Sir Denrick
75-70 Finn
85-75 Sir Hawthorne
115-105 Sir Gilbert
115-100 Alastair MacDirk

So that takes off 10-25 off every 2 hero knight army. The MacDirks proabably came away from this ahead as well.

Warriors of Ashra Hopefully now they are the right choice in for some armies. But I don't see a domination problem here.

Greenscales The savings are in the dragons. Okthurik for 135? Moltenclaw for 165? I think top choice for dragon may change. Jexik made it to day 2 last gencon with 4xGSW, Nilf and Raelin. No cleanup there other than more GSW.

Iskra vs Sonya Iskra doesn't need the wretchets so she is priced as a solo. Sonya needs Cyprien, so she is priced as a Cyprien accessory. Iskra is easier: as a solo she is about as good as Shiori or Guilty. If Iskra's price is a problem it's because of how well she does as a solo.

Sonya is a different beast. She is not priced to solo, but rather she is priced to make it an interesting choice whether or not to take her with Cyprien. Too cheap or too expensive and she is a no brainer. She's got to be a brainer and I hope she is at her cost.

That's it for part 1. Now I'll try to respond to some other stuff in my next post.

[Serenity]

CornPuff, thanks for the analysis and thought put into this.

Maybe Firestorm is doing better in the metagame than I'm aware of? I see Firestorm as a good but fragile army depending on a small number of figures with low defense. I'm not aware of Firestorm dominating tournaments currently even at normal pricing. It seems to me that taking even 1 or 2 fire elementals away from that mix has the potential to make the Firestorm army a non-contender. This is why I thought a slightly lower price made sense. I think I hoped it would encourage elemental armies to tend towards some mix of elementals, but not preclude them from having enough fire elementals to make a quality army.

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by Rich10

I agree that "equivalent utility" for all units is an impossibility, but how do we know if we are getting closer without structured testing? For example, if a group of people plays Legacy (or should we call it Evolution) prices and no one else knows about it, I'm not sure that progress has been made. How do we know that we just haven't created a new group of A+ units? Finally, while structured testing is difficult, it might help some to come around to accept repricing.

Rich10, I hope we all agree that the more quality feedback this system gets, the more likely it is to produce quality results. Will there be new A+ units created? Possibly. But, adjustments can be made. Quality players using H:Evolution points for tournaments is going to give us players trying to 'game the system'. That can do a lot towards trying to figure out what needs further adjusting. Hopefully the end result is that more units are viable and the number of quality options increases. I think that help keep things interesting.

I do think more structured testing makes sense and has been requested. Armies strong currently should be recreated as closely as Evolution points allow (say 500 point limit) and tested against formerly non-competitive armies and see how things have changed. Maybe you could do some of that structured testing, Rich10 and make this system even stronger.

[CornPuff]

Death Chasers
I took another look at death chasers... and evolved them. The reason is that I looked at the Ogre Warhulk and the Ogre Pulverizer against their heroes and saw that they were not very competitive as solo heroes, and I think they needed to come down.
This is what I did
90-75 Pulverizer
130-115 Warhulk
50-45 MBS
50-45 Nerak
75-80 Death Chasers

Take a look at a big sample at those prices
4x Chasers, MBS, Ogre Pulverizer, Ogre Warhulk. Nerak
570 standard, 620 Legacy, 600 Evolution.
See, not so bad right? Evolution is all about moving the points around with the goal of making more units viable. I hope this accomplishes that by leaving the Death Chasers viable because they bond with economical heroes.

Fen Hydra The hydra is so good. 6 defense, 4x4 attack. Wow. Just Wow.

Khosumet: I think he's in good company at 45 points.

Obsidians: map specific, strong, boring (but amazing sculpts) I'll bump them up 5

Wyverns
Awesome observation about the wyvern flock. 70-80

Grimnak
Yeah, I think I was wrong on this. With the increase the heavies got Grimnak should have come down a bit more, along with his breathren
145-135 Grimnak (He deserves his 'A' ranking)
80-70 Ornak
70-65 Tornak
50-45 Nerak (I mentioned this in the Death Chasers section)

4xHeavies,Grimnak,Nerak (Tiny Timmy's top 5 army, 2010)
450 standard, 535 legacy, 580 evolution.

To be fair, a reasonable person would probably not draft as many squads of 100 point heavies and probably end up with a 3 squad / 3 hero army.

On Testing and Progress

Can we make progress without stringent testing? Sure...

I think Legacy made progress without stringent testing. Why? It stood on the shoulders of the power rankings, which are the collective knowledge and results of hundreds maybe thousands of scapers. It applied the knowledge of the power rankings conservatively as to not stray too far from the metagame.

In Evolution I started with power rankings, but I think we are a bit off the reservation now and those A+ C- grades don't mean so much. With the feedback from Legacy, the goals of evolution shifted subtly. I don't think Evolution is about creating the ideal double blind tournament system. It's more about changing how you look at the game, challenging your assumptions about how to build an army, and shifting power from the haves to the have nots. "Equivalent utility" is still an important design goal but it is no longer the only design goal.

At this stage in Heroscape's lifetime it isn't good enough to tweak the system and come up with a slightly more balanced composition. It's time to do something a little bit cuckoo and shake the foundations of the game. That's the inspiration for Evolution.

I hope that through this process we all learn a little bit of what makes Heroscape great and how the unit pricing has shaped how we play the game. As far as repricing acceptance? I'm not too worried about it, but I'd happily point people toward repriced tournaments where people had a good time.

Serenity has some good points on this. What we really need is talented merciless players that can show us the broken armies by the trail of their dead.

Fire Elementals revisited
I personally haven't seen firestorm be a problem, but I know from the boards that it is strong along with its A-. What's really crazy about fire elementals is that you can run 10 of them at a time! I don't know any other unit where that makes sense, other than wyrmlings and elementals. That means is a 5 point change really means 50, so I'd rather err on the side of caution here.

[Typhon2222]

CornPuff, it's princely of you to respond so thoughtfully to almost every query and comment received! And, where felt appropriate, to change prices accordingly. Makes it feel like a collaborative process and ongoing evolution indeed.

A suggestion? I'd love to see a new thread started for H:E, so the most currently revised list of prices would always be found in the first post. It would also make it nice for future tourneys, so a tournament director <cough> could send attendees directly to the first page of the thread, rather than midway into a thread with an apparently unrelated title.

If we don't want to lose the last two pages of awesome discussion about H:E, I wonder if an Admin would have the power to cut-and-paste the entire last two pages into your new thread?

[kolakoski]

Originally Posted by CornPuff

What we really need is talented merciless players that can show us the broken armies by the trail of their dead.

Sounds like a plan.

Also, could you create, and keep current, a PDF of H:E as it is now, for printing?