What Exactly is "Balanced"

[xraine69]

Originally Posted by killercactus

Plus, I'll add one more thing:

1) The "Bring a pre-made XXX Point army and battle to the death" game was a scenario in the original Heroscape rulebook, so the game was created with that in mind.

However, there is still a difference between this and tournament play because in a (standard) tournament, you have to use this same army for 4-5 games in a row ON DIFFERENT MAPS. Please note that ON DIFFERENT MAPS is capitalized. We have to remember that units are priced to perform in their optimum capacity, which means they're priced to perform ON THEIR BEST MAP. This is a huge restricting factor for many units in tournament play, since a tournament basically forces you to play on different maps, therefore you have to bring an army that can handle the varying terrain. That's a big reason why the consistent units are more viable in tournies (bigger than some people realize, I think).

In summary - when you look at the rulebook, it seems that Heroscape was designed to be played where the player knows both 1) the Scenario and 2) the Terrain beforehand. In a tournament, players only know the Scenario beforehand, and the scenario is often kill-em-all.

Show me all the official symetrical maps and Kill-em-all is usually a secondary victory conditon for most scenarios. OK, most TDs post the maps for tourneys and players playtest on those maps learning the terrain. I don't see the issue with picking out say 3 scenarios for a tournament and giving people time to playtest them. Most of the scenarios have an alternate win conditon and usually can be played in under an hour. I'll leave you all to go back to balancing custom Scape.

[killercactus]

I don't think I really disagree with you, xraine, but I do believe that the map is a bigger factor in "unbalancing" units than the scenario (used to mean "win condition") is, most of the time.

You're absolutely right though that Heroscape was made (and it's units are costed) with special scenarios in mind, which will not always be played on symmetrical maps. I think TD's use kill-em-all the most as it's the easiest scenario to explain and to setup for.

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by kolakoski

As for the rest, there is an implication that an evolutionary point system, such that most units are "competitive," and "casual" or "fun" play are somehow mutually exclusive, or at odds. Or, further, that the "essence" of Heroscape will be somehow lost. Why else would the idea be summarily rejected by so many without any form of trial.

While I like the idea of an evolutionary points system, I wonder how it would be implemented. I would be very willing to play in a tournament that uses Legacy (or some other modified) points system.

[wriggz]

I don't think having Every unit equally balanced would be good for the game.

At the point of perfect balance you have, well chess on cool terrain. The strengh of some units create underdog or armies built to spite those units. Also a system that is perfect for kill'em all, will fail at capture the flag, heat of battle or even multi player free for all.

It is the imbalance that keeps the game dynamic, we are all working to mix the enjoyment of certain units with building the most competative army.

Jexik made a good point about Raelin (and to a lesser extent rats), that her existance makes lots of so-so builds viable thus promoting diversity.

[kolakoski]

Originally Posted by xraine69

Show me all the official symetrical maps and Kill-em-all is usually a secondary victory conditon for most scenarios. OK, most TDs post the maps for tourneys and players playtest on those maps learning the terrain. I don't see the issue with picking out say 3 scenarios for a tournament and giving people time to playtest them. Most of the scenarios have an alternate win conditon and usually can be played in under an hour. I'll leave you all to go back to balancing custom Scape.

Neither the scenario conditions nor the terrain mitigate the general effects of a flawed point system. Even in non-kill-'em-all scenarios, the game is kill-'em-all for X number of turns, and determines who has the best chance to perform the non-kill-'em-all victory conditions, or degenerates into kill-'em-all totally. Believe me, I know, given the effort I have put into my own scenarios to avoid just that, how difficult it is to avoid this degeneration. As for maps and terrain, during Grishnak's mixed-Marvel tournament series, we each had a pool of 1,000 points, and determined what armies to field after seeing the map for each game. The only change in army construction of any note had to do with whether fliers were advantaged or not. Most choices were unaffected. Those units for whom terrain is a factor (other than flying or melee versus range, which are already considered in their pricing) are such a tiny percentage of the whole as to be superfluous to this debate. These sorts of arguments are akin to the one presented to me not long ago. It was suggested to me that, if I wanted a particular over-costed unit to play "competitively," I should design a scenario specifically to cover its weaknesses. If too vulnerable to range, for instance, I could just add fog. In other words, if any scenario can be created, no matter how tortured, such that the figure was viable within it, then that figure's cost is OK. Again, I object to being put in the position requiring me to jump through so many hoops (mentally and physically) to play a figure (like Moriko) competitively, when a rational alternative exists in evolutionary pricing. Similarly, map-shmap, Q9 is under-costed.

In any event, I am so glad this subject is being addressed here in "Heroscape General Discussion", as opposed to being relatively buried from mainstream eyes within "Other Customizations . . ."

[wriggz]

But don't you see your "evolutionary pricing" is a labour intensive and really no different than scenario play.

I'm not saying you are wrong to use it (quite the contray), however I take up arms when you declare the offical system flawed.

On one side I'm seening your point and agreeing to it (even applauding it as a clever and elaberate sceanario when some units recieve a boost, while other are penalized). However, you are declaring my way of playing flawed, and by extension infering my ignorace and close mindedness of the potenial of a better system.

[killercactus]

Originally Posted by kolakoski

Even in non-kill-'em-all scenarios, the game is kill-'em-all for X number of turns, and determines who has the best chance to perform the non-kill-'em-all victory conditions, or degenerates into kill-'em-all totally. Believe me, I know, given the effort I have put into my own scenarios to avoid just that, how difficult it is to avoid this degeneration.

I agree with this.

Originally Posted by kolakoski

As for maps and terrain, during Grishnak's mixed-Marvel tournament series, we each had a pool of 1,000 points, and determined what armies to field after seeing the map for each game. The only change in army construction of any note had to do with whether fliers were advantaged or not. Most choices were unaffected. Those units for whom terrain is a factor (other than flying or melee versus range, which are already considered in their pricing) are such a tiny percentage of the whole as to be superfluous to this debate.

I disagree with this (at least to an extent).

The first problem is that having a limited pool from which to draft (even if it's 1,000 Points - I don't care if it's 5,000 Points) skews the results. I doubt many people included enough squads of Marro Drudge in their pool to truly make them useful on a swamp/jungle map. Ditto for other units that get terrain boosts.

Beyond that though, there are far more units that benefit from map terrain and construction that those who directly say so. And even though Flying and Range are included in a units pricing, they are only included to the extent that those units are on a map that makes the most of their abilities. On small maps, ranged units are over-costed. On long maps, melee units are over-costed. On flat maps, Flying units are over-costed. On maps without choke points, Deathreavers are [worth less than they usually are]. On maps without lots of water, units with Slither are over-costed. On maps with lots of one-hex terrain jumps, double-spaced units are over-costed. I could keep going.

I'm not going to jump out and declare that the Points are perfect. I do believe there are some units that are just too good or too bad for their cost, period. I'd say Deathreavers and Hatamoto Taro definitely fall into this category, and Raelin and Q9 are at least in the discussion. Apart from them though, I believe that the Points system does a pretty darn good job of valuing units when they're in their optimum environment.

[Aldin]

The problem with evolutionary pricing is that it simply makes the imbalances fluid rather than static. There is no such thing as a perfect set of costs.

When I toyed around with dok's auction bidding I began to realize that at any given set of prices there will be A units and F units. It's just that evolving the pricing means that those will be in flux rather than static.

Originally Posted by winonavampire

Once you figure out how God Ball should be costed, you can apply that logic to your thoughts on how other units are costed.

This is a key concept, by the way, and the reason there is no perfect set of costs. Too many abilities in the game are high variance and high variance is inherently unbalancing. You can either make high variance units so cheap that they have too much effect on the metagame or so expensive that they aren't worth bringing to a tournament.

Personally, I see no benefit in spending a lot of work turning known values into ones which need to be relearned each time. But... your mileage may vary.

~Aldin, shiftingly

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by wriggz

I don't think having Every unit equally balanced would be good for the game.

At the point of perfect balance you have, well chess on cool terrain. The strengh of some units create underdog or armies built to spite those units. Also a system that is perfect for kill'em all, will fail at capture the flag, heat of battle or even multi player free for all.

It is the imbalance that keeps the game dynamic, we are all working to mix the enjoyment of certain units with building the most competative army.

Jexik made a good point about Raelin (and to a lesser extent rats), that her existance makes lots of so-so builds viable thus promoting diversity.

Even with Perfect Balance it would be far more than simply Chess on Cool Terrain.

The costing of units should be equivalent from 1 piece to the next. For example, Q9 is 5 points less than Sujoah for some unknown reason. Maybe Sujoah recevied a bump in price in case she goes against a low defense Elf army??? However if that is the case Q9 should have been given a boost in case he was going against a Vampire Army.

*I realize Sujoah has a tiny autokill % (which is minimized by 1st needing to inflict a wound), bonds, and can fly. That being said I suspect few would actully claim that Sujoah deserves a higher point cost than Q9.

Heck, if you want a fast moving, flying killer even Cyprien at 150 is likely a better choice than Sujoah.

As far as Raelin is concerned, I think Jexik is wrong. Raelin is not needed to promote army diversity, many have her since the opponent likely will too and therefore need her to be fighting on a level playing field.


Knights-Can win without Raelin
Heavies-Can win without Raelin
4th Mass-Can win without Raelin
10th-Can win without Raelin
Romans-Can win without Raelin
Greenscales-Can win without Raelin
Q9+Rats-Maybe Can win without Raelin

Originally Posted by Aldin

You can either make high variance units so cheap that they have too much effect on the metagame or so expensive that they aren't worth bringing to a tournament.

~Aldin, shiftingly

Every unit should have a type of "Equilibrium" Price at which people feel that it is neither too expensive nor too much of a bargain to not use. Once units are at their equilibrium every piece should have an equal chance of making an appearance.

[killercactus]

Of those armies you spoke of, DA, really only Knights and 4th aren't made significantly better by adding Raelin. If your point is that those armies can still beat armies containing other units AND Raelin without her, than maybe I agree, but maybe I don't.

I don't think you can genuinely compare any unit to Q9 and get a fair point comparison, because Q9's Point cost is a problem. However, I agree that Sujoah starts looking bad when compared to say, Nilfheim, but that has to do a lot with the tournament metagame and another unit whose Point cost might be a problem - Deathreavers.

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Every unit should have a type of "Equilibrium" Price at which people feel that it is neither too expensive nor too much of a bargain to not use. Once units are at their equilibrium every piece should have an equal chance of making an appearance.

That implies that you can price a figure without consideration for how it interacts with other figures, different scenarios, different maps, and different start up costs/zones. It also implies that no given set of abilities is inherently less valuable in tournament play for reasons unrelated to cost.

Let's look at two different units to see how equilibrium isn't possible:

1) The Marro Hive. On a larger map, the Hive loses value rapidly. Once winning the game requires using terrain that is outside of the Hive's activation aura the value of the Hive drops precipitously. Price it low enough for large maps though, and it is too cheap on smaller maps.

2) The Grok Riders. Doesn't matter how cheap you make them, a 24 hex starting limit means you can't have more than three squads - and they're very fragile. There is no price point that makes them worthwhile in a tournament army as anything other than filler.

~Aldin, who also notes that some units work better for some than others because of how they fit playstyles as well and doesn't think evolution can account for that either

[wriggz]

Also consider household Metagame. I have one of each common, all of a sudden heroes are a better draft choice. On the other hand I never picked up the Dragon Boosters (no braxas, Nief, Q9) Commons are looking really sweet.

I do agree there are some outliners like Taro. Seriously, He does so little there will always remain a hole in my Offical collection. Sure I could change his points or powers If I bought one, but I would rather spend the money on some cool D&D scuplts and make my own unit from scratch.

I'm not really sure what you Balancists want. Do you want everyone to accept your relative scoring as the offical scoring? Do you want fugure tourments to use your scoring? Or do you want to be acknowledged as equally valid. These are the quesitons I'm interested in, in this debate.