Welcome to Steamforged Games Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Right. If Shank was 1/4 he might be better than he is now, but ultimately you probably wouldn't take him because he's not really better enough to be worth less than the base 2/4 value players in this game get.
  2. It's NOT worse than 1/4 but the 3 is roughly as problematic as the 1 when it comes to Inf stats. Generally speaking, if a player isn't 2/4 they have to do something completely absurd or else they're a liability. It's a lot easier to see play as a 2/3 over a 1/4 though as long as you do enough when you only keep 1 of your Inf and give the other to the rest of the team. vOx gets by with the 3 cap for me just fine on the back of his charge for 1. He does a ton of work while still providing an Inf to players capable of doing more work as long as he can get his discount charge. I have honestly never triggered The Old Ways though. It's likely a trap. Meathook similarly does a ton with 1, even more with 2. It would be nice if she could take 4, but honestly she's sort of diminishing returns character, IMO and reliably putting 4 on her would often be more of a trap than anything.
  3. Roster construction isn't as big of a deal with the 10 man. The issue with oRage is simply that you take him for the ability to enhance your takeout game, but if you want to play a takeout game you're probably just going to play vRage.
  4. His best strength is the ability to ignore being pushed by a counter attack. When you get stuck on that nail, you should look for your Hammer.** **Apologies in advance for that terrible joke
  5. This is actually a good point that's easy to overlook. In game I'm constantly surprised at how good Harry is and after game I'm always surprised how many benefits he brings I forgot to use. Midas and Vitriol definitely have a similar problem though and vKat adds on it with a good heaping of that classic "cost is irrelevant if it wins you the game" problem. Funny enough, I've been contemplating how similar VP ends up working out to the way life does in Magic. vKat certainly feeds into those comparisons.
  6. To some extent that's true, but its also worth mentioning that in Guild Ball there's also generally less choice to optimize. To some extent I refer to the selection pool itself, but the system of everything being 1 "point" also limits how things are valued. Players are generally worth taking or not; you never have situations where say; Boiler, Brisket and Shank are really good, but add up to 101 points so you have to drop Boiler and Shank for Tenderizer and Meathook to get a player combination that fits in the points limit. In a lot of games an option could be good, but awkwardly pointed in such a way that the only combination that maths out is with other models that are not worth their points or models that leave you playing under the limit; effectively making that model overcosted in either scenario even if its undercosted in a vacuum.
  7. People might dislike it, but its kind of a crap in one hand and wish in the other kind of situation. You can want statistics to not matter all you want, but at the end of the day if there's an imbalance that gives a competitive advantage, wishing it didn't matter doesn't change who's on top of the podium.
  8. Cool; thanks for the heads up. I haven't had a chance to read the details yet; just the broad concept.
  9. Barley. We need a Brewers/Farmer player named Barley.
  10. Bunch of cool games out there now worth playing. Guild Ball is definitely one of them. Happy to leave that thread at that. As to the actual data, it definitely gives you an idea of what the outliers are. Acting on the data, however generally involves a little deeper analysis. You want to edit outliers and see how it changes things. For example, if you take the winning player and normalize their win record, how much does it affect the Alchemist stats? Breaking down games into match ups is also important to seeing how much change is needed. The current data suggests that Hunters (and Brewers) need a buff and Alchemists need a nerf, but how much depends a lot on where the stats come from. Maybe the real problem with Brewers is that they have a 0% win rate vs Alchemists but have a pretty solid win % with that data adjusted. Everything is connected, so its important to really look at things when deciding which string to pull.
  11. Veteran Stoker as Blacksmith/Brewers seems likely. I'd not hate to see a Brewers/Farmers crossover either. Maybe a Famers/Engineer player named Combine.
  12. @Lord Antoine pretty much hit the historicals of why the Masons community is viewed so negatively. As for players; I just don't think the team composition changes have had enough time to get players interested in giving Masons another chance. Regardless of how the team actually played on the table, the S3 roster rules were miserable and made the team frustrating to get to the table. Other teams have just been more accessible. I do think there's some issues the team faces still, but its all little things that only come out in the big picture and could really be fixed relatively easily by taking a look at our S2 players. Character Plays are still an issue and it would be really nice for vHarmony to be worth taking to help with that. Likewise, the team is really hurting for what Chisel brings, but she's just not quite where she needs to be, particularly when so much of the rest of the game has access to Harry. I really think a couple buffs to these two would make a huge difference overall. Still, the team is in a way more exciting place now than it was a week ago. 10 players is a huge difference but gaining captain knowledge is probably the bigger one. Masons have been a fun team for the most part, but they're way more exciting when I don't have to try and squeeze myself through a broken door to play them.
  13. I did very much look at the Blacksmiths and think Masons 2.0. I do agree that has more to do with Masons always having more of an "armored" aesthetic than a stone working one but the team also feels like its expanding on the original unique gimmick of a dedicated player pair. A lot of that has to do with Masons being the game's "rock" rather than being designed with the skills of quarry workers, which is a general shift we've been seeing with newer teams. I'll be curious to see how the Masons evolve going forward, but in a lot of ways I see this as an opportunity to reshape the Mason identity. I'm certainly hoping Masons get a bit more attention in Season 4 and if the Blacksmiths force that issue? Great.
  14. Something to pay attention to is how many rounds your game is going. In general, what I find causes games to run long is a combination of slow activations and not aggressively pursuing points. If you're getting to the 4th round, you're probably taking a lot of actions that aren't moving the game towards its conclusion. It's actually why I find it hard to go easy on new players when I'm trying to teach the game. Me playing less aggressive doesn't cause them to score faster; it just makes the game take longer and eventually I find 4 hours have passed and I just have to finish things. That's something I've noticed in games that run long when I've watched new players play each other as well. It's not that their activations are THAT slow; its that they're in the 5th round and the score is 6-4 or something.