HoME General Discussion Thread

[Joseph Sweeney]

*looks back at candy*

It's Easter! I can't stay long!

I gotta say, I'm in agreement with Caps here.

Happy Easter!

~JS

[elvenwizard9]

As interesting and important as the debate may be, I thought we agreed to shelf Gandalf the Grey, as further discussion on him seems to be detrimental to advancing the rest of the project. My suggested action has been posted in the voting thread.

[caps]

Originally Posted by elvenwizard9

As interesting and important as the debate may be, I thought we agreed to shelf Gandalf the Grey, as further discussion on him seems to be detrimental to advancing the rest of the project. My suggested action has been posted in the voting thread.

Nothing wrong with your proposal, although it could have waited a little longer.

However, it's outcome has no effect on our current discussion in this thread. Gandalf is not really what my last few posts have been about. The discussion about Gandalf revealed a major philosophical difference in how various members of this project perceive unit balance. That difference must be resolved before we continue with other design or Playtesting as our chosen group philosophy on the matter will affect both of those arenas. We cannot skip this conversation or save it for later.

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

These are not our only two options or even really what I was getting at.

WK says that our units should be able to beat Tier 1 builds at least 50% of the time. Specifically, that Gandalf should singlehandedly be able to turn armies that would not be able to come close to doing that (standalone heroes) into ones that can. I say that approach, generally and specifically in the case of Gandalf, will lead directly to power creep.

This is a discussion about power creep, not mediocrity. Personally, I don't associate units in the normal range of competitive strength with mediocrity if they are thoroughly well-designed.

I think you are unfairly representing my position.

First, I agree with this from SoA:

Originally Posted by Son of Arathorn

Of the two options cited (beef up the Fellowship or accept mediocrity), I'd rather seek a compromise: explore the Fellowship as powerful heroes in their own right, capable of forming an army which, when combined with Gandalf, can stand at a level of power comparable Tier 2 builds like the Elf Wizards, Roman Legionnaires, etc. To quote Jexik:

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

I'll state my position clearly:

I believe Gandalf's army, using the best heroes available, should beat Tier 2 armies at least half of the time, and should occasionally beat Tier 1 armies.

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

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

Which armies did he beat:
- Nagrubs/Tor-kul-na
- Cathar
- Deathchasers
- Thralls
- Minions of Utgar
- Fyorlag Spiders

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

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.

Please don't misrepresent my position again. 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.

[Son of Arathorn]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

WK says that our units should be able to beat Tier 1 builds at least 50% of the time. Specifically, that Gandalf should singlehandedly be able to turn armies that would not be able to come close to doing that (standalone heroes) into ones that can. I say that approach, generally and specifically in the case of Gandalf, will lead directly to power creep.

I agree, that's a level of power which I'm not comfortable with (which led me to post on a power level I am comfortable with). However, I'm not entirely sure that's the position White Knight is taking. I don't find it unreasonable to expect Gandalf & company to have a chance against some of the armies he's listed, such as Cultists, Romans, Warforged, and Phantom Knights. I do find it unreasonable to expect them to trounce 4th Mass, Marro Stingers, 10th Regiment, and Heavy Gruts 50% of the time, for reasons I'll examine below.

With the current debate in mind, I ask us to consider that if we so choose, the Fellowship heroes can lend Gandalf support the heroes tested with him simply can't, because most of the heroes tested were never meant to fit an all-hero army. Raelin is a cheerleader, Skahen works with Tricky figures that follow Vydar, Kaemon Awa is a stand-alone hero who has become the Swiss Army knife of the meta-game, and Captain America is a Marvel Hero who's strongest synergy is with an A-ranked squad. Siege is incompatible with Gandalf's mobility due to Crag of Steel, leaving Tandros Kreel as the only figure which really gives the army an essential element: the ability to prevent attacks on weaker units.

You can't expect to cobble the best-ranked heroes in the game into a heroes-only build, and win games simply because those units are the best of their kind. Whether they're considered the best in the game because they complement armies which dominate the meta-game, or they simply have high stats, they were not designed with the intention of a hero-only army. The Fellowship, on the other hand, can be designed with that scenario in mind.

The way we're going about this is akin to using a hammer with screws, then concluding that the hammer should be heavier or we should use a weaker wood because the job isn't going smoothly, rather than looking at the third option. Does that make sense to anybody?

[elvenwizard9]

So... What you're saying is, SoA, that when we design the Fellowship we should design them so that they would function better in an all-hero army than the "top tier" heroes we've already tested, therefore making Gandalf more powerful in our own meta-game?

[Son of Arathorn]

Originally Posted by elvenwizard9

So... What you're saying is, SoA, that when we design the Fellowship we should design them so that they would function better in an all-hero army than the "top tier" heroes we've already tested, therefore making Gandalf more powerful in our own meta-game?

Bingo. One should find it more advantageous to play the Fellowship together than to play Gandalf and a disparate number of Classic 'Scape heroes.

[elvenwizard9]

Originally Posted by Son of Arathorn

Bingo. One should find it more advantageous to play the Fellowship together than to play Gandalf and a disparate number of Classic 'Scape heroes.

Seems agreeable. However, I still think that Gandalf should still be a bit stronger in classic 'Scape, able to hold his own very effectively in Tier-2, disregarding Tier 1.

[Son of Arathorn]

Originally Posted by elvenwizard9

Seems agreeable. However, I still think that Gandalf should still be a bit stronger in classic 'Scape, able to hold his own very effectively in Tier-2, disregarding Tier 1.

As I said before, that's a power level I'm comfortable with Gandalf occupying in classic meta-game.

[elvenwizard9]

Originally Posted by Son of Arathorn

As I said before, that's a power level I'm comfortable with Gandalf occupying in classic meta-game.

In the distant future... I assume Gandalf the White would be moreso towards Tier 1?

Ah, whatever, best focus on the task at hand.

[infectedsloth]

Originally Posted by White Knight

I believe Gandalf's army, using the best heroes available, should beat Tier 2 armies at least half of the time, and should occasionally beat Tier 1 armies.

That's not the correct way to look at balancing customs. Win percentage is merely a indicator that something may be off. That's all any piece of information is, an indicator that something might be off. There isn't a single piece of information that can confirm a figure is unbalanced. 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. Trying to define such a formula will get us nowhere. The only way is to playtest the figure, analyze the result then use your experience to take into account all the variables so you can determine if the figure is balanced/competitive, based on what your criteria is for what is a competitive figure. That criteria may change from figure to figure based on a variety of factors.

I don't see a need to continue discussing power creep further. Lets focus on deciding about Gandalf.

1. Is it possible to properly balance Gandalf without the fellowship. If it's no then we should shelf him for now and start the rest of the fellowship.
2. If yes then what design do we want to move forward with of the 3
3. Is that version of Gandalf balanced. If yes with we should move to finalize him. If no, we'll have to discuss if we want to playtest him more, tweak the stats or wait until we have the rest the fellowship in the process.

Those are our options. I feel any other discussions are holding us up unnecessarily.

I don't think we can properly balance Gandalf without the fellowship, therefore I think we should shelf Gandalf for now. I'd be fine with deciding first which of the 3 version we want to shelf.

[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.