HoME General Discussion Thread

[Lazy Orang]

Originally Posted by boromir96

Hey ll just popping in with a quick suggestion. I have neither the time or energy to participate in this project, but wanted to voice something that I'd been thinking about for a while. When I first started with this project, I just wanted some fun, balanced LotR customs that all fit together, to have fun with. These will likely never be used in an Uber competetive scene, or even very competetively. But what has the project yeilded so far in the large amount of time it's been active? One design that truth be told, is really not very fun. I'm not saying that ust because I think he's underpowered, I enjoy playing many underpowered units, because they're fun (i.e. Deathstalkers, Major X17, Pelloth). Gandalf is not fun.

Now anyways, I would suggest that you stop enforcing VC standards for playtesting, and just get some designs out. Points and maybe even powers can be tweaked later, I don't think anyone would really care. These aren't VC customs, will probably never be received like them, and shouldn't be treated like them. Just give people some fun units to play with, please.

I don't mean to offend anyone, it's just something I've been thinking about for a while.

I'm about between this guy and the rest - I think good balance and a reasonably competitive nature are important, but this level of fiddling is, IMO, ridiculous. How long have you guys been around exactly? I'm pretty sure it's two years, at least. In that time, your process has been so exhaustive that not a single unit's been finalised. How do you expect to have a good, fun range of LotR units at that rate? I think that a more C3G-esque approach would be beneficial here - well structured playtesting with an emphasis on casual rather than competitive play. From what I've seen, only big projects like C3V have the resources to churn out a reasonable number of units balanced to your exacting standards. It's okay to have these standards a lot of the time, but if this project is going to work, then they need to be changed, otherwise nothing's going to happen, as it seems time has shown.

[caps]

Originally Posted by White Knight

I think you are unfairly representing my position.

I apologize WK, I'm given to hyperbole sometimes. It runs in the family.

Originally Posted by White Knight

Second, if you go to this playtesting post, you can which armies Gandalf battled. MOST of them are Tier 2, and he still lost.

It was in fact that post that lead me to analyze the losses and conclude that Gandalf was fine as-is and could pass forward with just a lowered point value.

My answers to this question:

Originally Posted by White Knight

Which of those armies he beat are Tier 1? Which are even Tier 2?

Is in bold and italics below.

Originally Posted by White Knight

I'll state my position clearly:

At 165 points, Gandalf lost to:
- Warforged -Tier 2
- Cultists -Tier 2
- Wovles/Werewolves -Tier 2/3
- Romans -Tier 1
- Agents -Tier 1
- Elves -Tier 2
- Brutes -Tier 2
- Sidhe -Tier 3
- 10th Regiment (3x) -Tier 1
- Vampires and Phantom Knights -Tier 2
- Dreadguls -Tier 2/3
- Stingers -Tier 1

- Heavy Gruts -Tier 1
- Knights (2x) -Tier 1
- 4th Mass -Tier 1
- Braxas (Low Variance) -Tier 1/2

Which armies did he beat:
- Nagrubs/Tor-kul-na -Tier 1/2
- Cathar -Tier 1
- Deathchasers -Tier 2
- Thralls -Tier 3/4
- Minions of Utgar -Tier 2
- Fyorlag Spiders -Tier 1/2 (Quahon makes this almost a Tier 1)

--

Originally Posted by White Knight

Third, and this is important:
Raelin (A+)
Agent Skahen (A-)
Kaemon Awa (A-)
Captain America (A)
Tandros (B)
Siege (B)

We had to put Gandalf with Raelin, Skahen, and Awa, all A-ranked units, in order to for him to win some games. We put him with the best of the best heroes, and he could barely hang with Tier 2 armies.

I'm sorry, but that's not good enough for me. The reason those units are A-ranked is because they help their armies to win, and often. If you take away Gandalf and use those heroes by themselves (maybe use his 165 points more wisely), they could probably win the games that Gandalf's armies won.

For a second I thought your last sentence ended in "lost" and I was going to disagree with you, but if your conclusion is that if both teams were to drop 165 points of figures the outcome of the games would be the same then I find that a reasonable suggestion, but not one that means Gandalf is all wrong as-is.

Originally Posted by White Knight

Cap, you are thinking too hard about the "meta-game". Let's look, instead, at what Gandalf has done so far--he's lost most of his games, most of them against Tier 2 armies. He's had the best of the best heroes available and hasn't been able to win. To me, that's unacceptable as leader of the fellowship.

I feel like infectedsloth and Son of Arathorn have both made great posts that more than addressed what's wrong with this paragraph, so I'll let that rest.

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by infectedsloth

A figure could be perfectly balanced winning 10 out of 10 games. A figure could kill double it's points for 10 straight games and still not be overpowered. You can't look at just one piece of information, it won't tell the whole story. There's way to many variables to account for: Map, glyphs, player skill, luck, your army, their army, strategy, tactics and so on.

There's no magic formula for determining if a unit is balanced, competitive or whatever term you want to use.

You have several points above, and so I'll address them separately:

1) There's no magic formula for determining if a unit is competitive/balanced

I was going to agree with this, but then I thought about it some more and there actually IS a formula of sort:

- playtest the unit in it's best armies and on it's most advantageous maps
- does it win most of it's games, especially against Tier 1 armies? Then maybe it's too powerful and will unbalance the metagame.
- does it lose most of it's games? Then maybe it's not competitive.
- does it win a lot, but have specific weaknesses that make good counterdrafts against it? In that case, it might change the metagame, but it might still be competitive but not too strong.

That's what we've been discussing the whole time! Caps is not comfortable with a unit consistently beating Tier 1 armies. That sounds an awful lot like a formula.

I'm not comfortable with a unit consistently losing to Tier 2 armies. That sounds a lot like a formula.

But maybe its a definition thing. Here is MY definition of competitive:

Competitive Army - An army that you can take to a competition against equally skilled opponents and have a chance of winning a championship, but also an army that will not completely dominate all other armies.

By that definition, beating Tier 1 armies more than half the time with no other weaknesses would not be competitive--it would be unfair and unfun because it would be too dominating.

By that same definition, Gandalf as currently designed would not be competitive. Even in the best of the best armies (Raelin, Skahen, Awa) he couldn't bring home a championship.

2) A figure could kill double it's points for 10 straight games and still not be overpowered.

I agree with this one 100%. I've seen it in playtests all the time. If a unit takes out double it's points, but at the same time it's opponent decimates the rest of your army and you lose, then what was really gained? The goal of the game is to win the battle--this isn't Fantasy Heroscape. No one is keeping track of Sgt. Drake's kills, or assists, or blocks. They look at the end result and see if his army won or lost.

3) You can't look at just one piece of information, it won't tell the whole story. There's way to many variables to account for: Map, glyphs, player skill, luck, your army, their army, strategy, tactics and so on.

While this is true, for playtesting purposes I can only go with information provided. For instance, I can't judge if someone playtesting has no skill unless they document their poor decisions. I have to assume that they and their opponent both had equal skills. Same for tactics, strategy, etc... Which is why we look at more than one playtest.

4) A figure could be perfectly balanced winning 10 out of 10 games.

Caps would disagree. He feels a figure should lose more than 50% of the time to Tier 1 armies.

I would disagree as well, assuming: 1) you played against strong armies, 2) you played against equally skilled opponents, and 3) you played on maps that did not consistently unequally favor your unit.

(Playing Syvarris/Taelord on a castle map is just deadly. Same thing with Taelord/Omnicrons.)

Originally Posted by capsocrates

My answers to this question:

Is in bold and italics below.

Please, please post where you got these numbers. I put the numbers from Jexik's Cookie Cutter Army Discussion next to your numbers and they don't match up. If there is a newer post I should be looking at for Tier armies, please, please let me know where it is--I've been looking for it.

From my numbers above, it looks like you've inflated many of the numbers. More hyperbole?

[caps]

I got the numbers from myself. I haven't looked at Jexik's thread in a long, long time. I generally think of an army as Tier 1 if it is mostly composed of A-range units or if it is a strong contender in a tournament. I think of an army as Tier 2 if it is a contender in a tournament. Tier 3 would be a long shot in a tournament, but they still stand a chance, especially in the hands of a skilled player. I would think of Tier 4 as an army that probably won't win more than a couple of games at a tourney, even under good circumstances.

I'll have a look at that thread again and try to keep in mind that when you refer to tiers you are thinking of the labels defined in that thread.

[elvenwizard9]

It's looking like it'll be Boromir and Aragorn, followed by Frodo and Sam, unless Frodo and Sam get a couple more votes. Either way I don't mind. The funny thing about each pairing is, I'm brimming with ideas for one of each pair (Boromir and Sam), and am completely blank on the other (Aragorn and Frodo). Interesting...

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

I got the numbers from myself. I haven't looked at Jexik's thread in a long, long time. I generally think of an army as Tier 1 if it is mostly composed of A-range units or if it is a strong contender in a tournament. I think of an army as Tier 2 if it is a contender in a tournament. Tier 3 would be a long shot in a tournament, but they still stand a chance, especially in the hands of a skilled player. I would think of Tier 4 as an army that probably won't win more than a couple of games at a tourney, even under good circumstances.

I'll have a look at that thread again and try to keep in mind that when you refer to tiers you are thinking of the labels defined in that thread.

That explains a lot.

So all along you've been thinking that Gandalf's been losing to mostly Tier 1 and a few Tier 2 armies, when in reality he's been losing to mostly Tier 2 (Agents, 10th Reg, Romans) and Tier 3 armies. No wonder we have such different opinions.

By your definitions above, Gandalf's armies could either be considered:
Tier 1 (with Raelin, Kaemon Awa, and Agent Skahen who are all A+ units)
or
Tier 3/4 (they might win a game or two at a tournament, but they won't win it all)

I think the first part of your Tier 1 definition is incorrect. The way figures are ranked (and the way we playtest figures) is in their BEST army builds. Put Sir Gilbert in an Arrow Gruts build and he wouldn't be considered an A unit. Put him in a KoW build, and that's a different story.

The way armies are ranked is how well they do against competitive armies at tournaments. An army can have all A-units, but if those units don't work well together and they lose at tournaments then that army isn't Tier 1.

[infectedsloth]

I'm going to try and keep this short.

I feel we agree on most cases. Where we disagree it's either a difference of word choice or a minor difference of opinion, where both opinions could be considered right.

Point one:

Originally Posted by White Knight

playtest the unit in it's best armies and on it's most advantageous maps
- does it win most of it's games, especially against Tier 1 armies? Then maybe it's too powerful and will unbalance the metagame.
- does it lose most of it's games? Then maybe it's not competitive.
- does it win a lot, but have specific weaknesses that make good counterdrafts against it? In that case, it might change the metagame, but it might still be competitive but not too strong.

That's a fine formula that will probably lead to balanced customs. I believe we both know how to playtest, so me making this argument doesn't help. With that being said I'm going to make it anyways.

Notice your use of non absolute terms. You basically proved me point by doing so. You'll still have to use some subjective methods. I feel this is true for all formulas that can be made about balancing figures.

2&3 we both agree! See HoME is making some progress!

Originally Posted by White Knight

I would disagree as well, assuming: 1) you played against strong armies, 2) you played against equally skilled opponents, and 3) you played on maps that did not consistently unequally favor your unit.

But if you don't assume the rest of your post, there is no way of coming to a definitive conclusion of if a figure is balanced or not. I think we agree here to, we're just having a tough time seeing it.

[caps]

Originally Posted by White Knight

That explains a lot.

So all along you've been thinking that Gandalf's been losing to mostly Tier 1 and a few Tier 2 armies, when in reality he's been losing to mostly Tier 2 (Agents, 10th Reg, Romans) and Tier 3 armies. No wonder we have such different opinions.

If those are Tier 2 armies then we could replace all my comments about "Tier 1 armies" with comments about "Tier 1 or Tier 2 armies" and what I said would still be true--especially any comments I made about my approach to balancing units:

• Tier 1 and Tier 2 armies are strong, solid armies--there's no reason that Gandalf should singlehandedly enable a Tier 4 army to suddenly give them a 50%+ win ratio against any of those armies.
• Win-ratios are really only a subset of playtesting and I'm tired of talking about them at this point (in other words, the argument about tiers is a red herring).

Originally Posted by White Knight

By your definitions above, Gandalf's armies could either be considered:
Tier 1 (with Raelin, Kaemon Awa, and Agent Skahen who are all A+ units)
or
Tier 3/4 (they might win a game or two at a tournament, but they won't win it all)

I think the first part of your Tier 1 definition is incorrect. The way figures are ranked (and the way we playtest figures) is in their BEST army builds. Put Sir Gilbert in an Arrow Gruts build and he wouldn't be considered an A unit. Put him in a KoW build, and that's a different story.

The way armies are ranked is how well they do against competitive armies at tournaments. An army can have all A-units, but if those units don't work well together and they lose at tournaments then that army isn't Tier 1.

I wrote up a post arguing with you and then realized that you were putting words in my mouth, not speaking them yourself. Of course, this is all correct. I'm not sure what I meant when I said

I generally think of an army as Tier 1 if it is mostly composed of A-range units...

Maybe I wrote that fragment without thinking or maybe I had something specific in mind, but I can assure you that I think of Raelin + Kaemon + Skahen as a Tier 4 build at best, and that the following part

...or if it is a strong contender in a tournament

is what I think of as Tier 1. Honestly, I think most of Jexik's Tier 2 and even some of his Tier 3 (Arrow Gruts!) armies are strong contenders at a tournament, and by the way I was thinking of them I'd consider them Tier 1. Thinking of armies in terms of tiers is just going to lead to more miscommunication. Or, I suppose, lots of time looking at the Army tier thread to make sure we're all ascribing armies to the right tiers. That thread seems less useful than the Power Rankings, both for general purposes and for playtesting purposes. Army tiers have come up so rarely in any discussion in C3V or SoV since I have been with either organization (2 years in October) that I had forgotten there was a thread dedicated to ranking them.

Can we move past Tiers and W/L yet?

[caps]

Originally Posted by elvenwizard9

It's looking like it'll be Boromir and Aragorn, followed by Frodo and Sam, unless Frodo and Sam get a couple more votes. Either way I don't mind. The funny thing about each pairing is, I'm brimming with ideas for one of each pair (Boromir and Sam), and am completely blank on the other (Aragorn and Frodo). Interesting...

Frodo and Sam are the only two that are a pair. If there is a tie between any two "items" on that voting list (say, Aragorn and Boromir), there will be some kind of tiebreaker to narrow it down to one. Also, whoever comes in second will not necessarily be brainstormed after whoever comes in first.

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

• Tier 1 and Tier 2 armies are strong, solid armies--there's no reason that Gandalf should singlehandedly enable a Tier 4 army to suddenly give them a 50%+ win ratio against any of those armies.

True, true, for MOST units.

However, if Gandalf were specifically DESIGNED to turn an all-heroes army into a semi-competitive army, then there IS a reason.

Certain figures in Heroscape are designed to boost a less-than-competitive army. Specficially, Ulginesh does that for the elves. And, as you said in a previous post, Quahon does that for the Spiders.

In this case, (and I might be alone here in this desire), I was hoping that Gandalf could take a group of small/medium unique heroes (dare I even say Tier 4?) and turn that Fellowship into a semi-competitive army (dare I say Tier 2?).

Having said all that, you've suggested that we move beyond win/loss and Tier armies. Perhaps moving away from Gandalf for a while will help our group to get on the same page again.

[caps]

Originally Posted by White Knight

True, true, for MOST units.

However, if Gandalf were specifically DESIGNED to turn an all-heroes army into a semi-competitive army, then there IS a reason.

Certain figures in Heroscape are designed to boost a less-than-competitive army. Specficially, Ulginesh does that for the elves. And, as you said in a previous post, Quahon does that for the Spiders.

In this case, (and I might be alone here in this desire), I was hoping that Gandalf could take a group of small/medium unique heroes (dare I even say Tier 4?) and turn that Fellowship into a semi-competitive army (dare I say Tier 2?).

Having said all that, you've suggested that we move beyond win/loss and Tier armies. Perhaps moving away from Gandalf for a while will help our group to get on the same page again.

See, I don't think we designed Gandalf to do that; I don't think Gandalf should be able to make that army semi-competitive. Gandalf is supposed to be able to help them with board control and give them a way to escape from figures that try to tie them down. His role is more like Emirroon, not Ulginesh, and he is effective in that role. It's up to players to make something more out of it, so in that sense I agree that it's possible our other Fellowship figures could make a Gandalf + Heroes army more effective.

And to be clear, to continue the Elf-hero comparison, I don't think the Fellowship should have an Ulginesh--at least, not a figure that offers OM management and bonding.

But at the end of the day I don't expect a Fellowship army to be very competitive. It's just the nature of the game that all-hero armies rarely/never are competitive (without bonding). I think it's more likely that members of the Fellowship will be able to individually participate in competitive armies. I even think it's thematic--the Fellowship usually avoided Skirmishes and Battles when they could. After we finish the Fellowship and design some squads I expect players will be more able to produce something traditionally competitive using all-HoME figures.

I expect an all-Fellowship army to be used more in scenarios and more casual play. The competitive meta-game is only one way to play the game. Gandalf would be really, really useful in the dungeon crawls from the D&D set (or any other Dungeon-Crawl probably).

[elvenwizard9]

I'm itching to brainstorm a new unit, but where did everybody go?