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.

Wazatdingder

Thoughts on OP criticism

52 posts in this topic

On the recent Strictly the Worst podcast they discussed how they feel that the OP document is doing more to shape the meta than anything else.  I tend to find that I agree with this.  It was my feeling at the start of S3 that a lot of problems were fixed, but the OP document might of taken a few things a bit to far.  Here are a few of the main points discussed there and a few of my own.

#1- To Many Captains- It was discussed that Fishermen basically get the upper hand here because with the two captains they can cover most bad match-ups better than most.  It was explained as playing a 2 list game into a 1 list format for the Fish.  I like having multiple Captains with different options, but my opinion has always favored 1 list formats and I feel that this game would lose nothing by allowing only 1.  In fact I feel it would open up the field quite a bit.    

#2- Union- This is just my thing, I feel that the Union problem was mostly resolved in the rules rework.  Restricting access is just the final nail in the coffin for many members of this guild. maybe it is ok to only allow one on the pitch at a time, but there is a lot of utility from those models that one could get use of if more were allowed on the bench.  IMO though I think they should have just let them ride as normal in season 2 for a bit to see how they go.

As was stated in the podcast, this is not a Good/Bad argument, but just critically looking at how it effects the game and meta.  I would just like to hear a little more discussion on the matter. 

Slothrop likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 Captain per roster goes against the concepts of flexibility. Now that most teams have two (and Hunters will also have this advantage soon), I don't see it as a major thing.

Restricting Union was thematic, but I concur they should allow more than 1 on the roster.

...although let's face it, everyone just picks Harry now, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Wynter said:

1 Captain per roster goes against the concepts of flexibility. Now that most teams have two (and Hunters will also have this advantage soon), I don't see it as a major thing.

Restricting Union was thematic, but I concur they should allow more than 1 on the roster.

...although let's face it, everyone just picks Harry now, right?

I agree - we should push SF to produce 2 viable balanced captains for each team and not change OP. The current state of the game we have strong inbalance shown in the results of major tournaments - OP wont change that - errata will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of available captains isn't the issue.  

Firstly many teams have one captain who is substantially better than the other.

Secondly most teams cannot 'do' 2 viable teams from a 9 man roster or if they can it involves a degree of compromise.

Fish not only cover both of those bases, but their captains cover each other's weaknesses very well too.

I'd like to see multiple union (2-3) but only 1 on the pitch, and to give players a hard choice with just 1 captain.

RedSam, Isante and Napoleon like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the Organized Play document shaping the meta is a bad thing at all. It's just another context for the meta to revolve around along with errata, new models, pocket strats, etc.

There is no such thing as perfect balance in an imperfect balance system. It's just a constant recalibration of the scales, getting closer and closer to that perfect ideal but never reaching it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two captain thing is interesting, but here's the thing: Fish have the best 2 captain roster since they cover each other's weaknesses and don't require substantially different support, but if you force a 1 captain list again Fish are going to get absolutely hammered. So if your idea of balanced is "Fish aren't as good" then sure, going to 1 captain would balance the rules. Union would take a hit too, but I don't think that any other team really even needs to run 2 captains.

Ik-tornado and Makai like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play Shark into pretty much everything, even thought I take Corsair in my 9..  Fish, or any team, would be fine with fielding only 1 captain.  The overall issue is that each guilds captains aren't equal in power level.  In my opinion:

Shark=Corsair

Obulus > Scalpel

Midas > Smoke

Ballista > Pin Vice

Rage > Brisket/Blackheart

Esters > Tapper

Filet > Ox

Honour > Hammer

Theron is a hunter model

Napoleon and kryzak like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JS said:

I don't think the Organized Play document shaping the meta is a bad thing at all. It's just another context for the meta to revolve around along with errata, new models, pocket strats, etc.

I think OP is a good tool for shaping the meta.  I think what's actually being stated here is that the effects of the OP document are negatively impacting the diversity of the meta; which is something I'd largely agree with.

At the moment, I do think 1 captain is probably healthier for the game.  I prefer 2 captain theoretically, but the reality is that the option isn't implemented evenly enough across the teams for it to be a healthy addition.  I am curious if a middle ground would be simply that players reveal their captain, then mascot, then 4 players and if this would be enough to help things without removing the option entirely.

As for the Union.... I'm not sure if it really matters right now to be honest.  The teams have enough player selection I think the Union's time as a diversity buffer should probably be over. 1 per team and a minimum of 3 non-union players in the roster would be a fine compromise though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to at least keep union on the field restricted to one just for personal taste and giving union its own identity.

I favor the 2 captain format though. If we went back to one captain there would be complaints of how captain x is the only one you see/get to play, same with original/veteran roster slots. I would rather be able to actually use both my models at different times of the day. 

Its really just an issue of other teams not having captains that cover match ups besides Fish and Union, which I would rather see balanced through season 4 card changes than being told that "you shouldn't have bought both of these models except for hobby aspects."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Isante said:

The overall issue is that each guilds captains aren't equal in power level.

I'd actually argue the bigger issue is that not all the captains alter the overall team's strategy and none of them do as significantly as Shark/Corsair.  For example, Midas and Smoke play differently, but while Smoke enables a bit more of a condition game, she's still fundamentally winning on goals.  Similarly, while Fillet is more hands on than Ox, she's not reshaping the rest of the team.  Most of the time, when selecting players you can select them based on how they perform against the faction as a whole.  With Fish, you don't get to find out what your opponent's playing until after you've shown them all your players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add another factor into the conversation, on my saltiness thread someone posted about a NPE they'd experienced whilst clocking out, and suggested that time outs could be 1vp per minute used, but you didn't have to limit any one activation to 1 minute. Seemed like a good idea to me, especially as new players might be more likely to clock out and removing a stress-inducing experience for newbies can't be a bad thing. Is there any problem with this idea I've missed?

Clanger likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, malladin.ben said:

To add another factor into the conversation, on my saltiness thread someone posted about a NPE they'd experienced whilst clocking out, and suggested that time outs could be 1vp per minute used, but you didn't have to limit any one activation to 1 minute. Seemed like a good idea to me, especially as new players might be more likely to clock out and removing a stress-inducing experience for newbies can't be a bad thing. Is there any problem with this idea I've missed?

I'd love to see that implemented, sometimes that last game winning activation is not particularly straightforward and that suggestion would allow for a more flexible option for the clocked out player. There is nothing worse than an opponent being difficult when you are on your minute. here is the possibility of adding more draws into the mix dependent on what happens first a timing out or the game winning score? How would this deal with activations less than 1 minute? Clocking an opponent shouldn't be a safe option to win a game. 

Brain dumping now, an alternative may be to give the clocked out player the number of minutes equal to what it would take for their opponent to win the game to use as they will eg if the score is 8-8, the clocked out player could get 4 minutes to use as they wish (set at the point of clocking out, any opponent scoring on top of this would be logged as normal). If they don't win in that time-frame it becomes an auto-loss. Almost the same system but might be easier to monitor.

I clock out a lot and find the mechanic very clumsy at present.

-------------

I very much favour one captain lists as well. Some teams have flexible captains that fit into different line ups within the 9 players Fish and Morts being the most flexible whereas others wish for specific players to work with a particular captain, Masons and Butchers are bad for this, sometimes to the point of having negative drops (eg Veteran Ox). 

Long term balance would see the captains being mutually competitive with player selection being the point of balance for "bad" matchups. Any errors in captain balance are heightened by the fact they impact the game so much

If the tiebreak software could log captain used I think the information would be quite useful to see. Some are definitely put on the table more often than others.

--------------

I quite like the one union choice as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, malladin.ben said:

To add another factor into the conversation, on my saltiness thread someone posted about a NPE they'd experienced whilst clocking out, and suggested that time outs could be 1vp per minute used, but you didn't have to limit any one activation to 1 minute. Seemed like a good idea to me, especially as new players might be more likely to clock out and removing a stress-inducing experience for newbies can't be a bad thing. Is there any problem with this idea I've missed?

It's not necessarily a problem per say, but the biggest difference I see with it is that you can 'rush through' your junk activations to avoid losing points - as it currently stands, every time you activate a player, you lose a point regardless of whether they do anything useful or not, which means it's rare to get more than a full turn of activations out. Hyperthetically, if I'm far enough ahead, I could take multiple activations with my strongest player, by just doing nothing with my other players...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, FearLord said:

It's not necessarily a problem per say, but the biggest difference I see with it is that you can 'rush through' your junk activations to avoid losing points - as it currently stands, every time you activate a player, you lose a point regardless of whether they do anything useful or not, which means it's rare to get more than a full turn of activations out. Hyperthetically, if I'm far enough ahead, I could take multiple activations with my strongest player, by just doing nothing with my other players...

This ^.  For the most part it would help drag rounds on forever. Taking 3 second long activations so you can take a half minute with your loaded guy could make the game go on for multiple more turns. Clocking out should be "NPE" so you learn not to do it, because taking that long to finish can be NPE for the whole event who's waiting on that last match to finish so they can play.

jmrhode1 and W-Roxas like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ik-tornado said:

This ^.  For the most part it would help drag rounds on forever. Taking 3 second long activations so you can take a half minute with your loaded guy could make the game go on for multiple more turns. Clocking out should be "NPE" so you learn not to do it, because taking that long to finish can be NPE for the whole event who's waiting on that last match to finish so they can play.

Round times should mean this isn't an issue, every player should be finishing within their 45 each and additional admin/clock out time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Clanger said:

Round times should mean this isn't an issue, every player should be finishing within their 45 each and additional admin/clock out time.

That is still longer than games currently last so all the more waiting around for that last match lol. Yeah I guess it's impossible to go 2 hours under either method but I sure am not interested in getting closer to that 2 hour mark

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ik-tornado said:

That is still longer than games currently last so all the more waiting around for that last match lol. Yeah I guess it's impossible to go 2 hours under either method but I sure am not interested in getting closer to that 2 hour mark

 

But the tournament will have a published schedule which people will have signed up knowing in advance so you are likely to be waiting about for that round time whatever happens, how long your opponent takes within the previous round is irrelevant as long as its within the rules & requirements of the tournament. 

I'm semi in favour of the warmachine death clock method should a more elegant solution not be found, at least its simpler than rushed 1 minute rounds.

Warpstoned likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally im all about options and versatility. I really dont like the idea of a 1 Captain roster because guild ball as a whole uses so many fewer models than most table top games as it is, so the few you have you actually want to use. Taking away that second captain option i feel will do more than simply remove one model from your roster. Because there are multiple models that run well with specific captains. So by removing one captain your effectively removing those other models too because there isnt a whole lot of point having them in your roster. Now the few models you do use in this game is reduced to even fewer because youll be forced to take the captain that will do better against a higher average of teams and the rest of left collecting dust. Doing this i feel will make the meta worse regarding seeing the same lineup over and over again as opposed to someone who may either prefer a more versatile two captain list or simply wants to experiment or have fun a game without being locked into that list for the whole tourny. For those who would like to run a 1 captain roster they have the option to but i would much rather see SF continue to balance the captains as opposed to effectively giving up and saying "Well we cant get all the teams captains balanced so lets lock it all down so the teams with balanced captains have to choose"

Regarding the Union choice im much of the same mindset. I dont mind the 1 per 6 as much per say but at least 2 in the 9 would be nice. Once again this gives options, and for those purists who choose to run guild only they can. This still keeps Union players from effectively playing against their entire team like before. 

Regarding 1 point for every minute without limiting it to activations seems fine. But as someone who "routinely" clocks out especially at tournies (Im working on getting better) I dont mind the current state now either. It really encourages me to get better not only at planning but at being more decisive in my movements and actually knowing my team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, malladin.ben said:

To add another factor into the conversation, on my saltiness thread someone posted about a NPE they'd experienced whilst clocking out, and suggested that time outs could be 1vp per minute used, but you didn't have to limit any one activation to 1 minute. Seemed like a good idea to me, especially as new players might be more likely to clock out and removing a stress-inducing experience for newbies can't be a bad thing. Is there any problem with this idea I've missed?

as someone who has scored 10vps from clock and won a game, I dislike this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I may have misrepresented the original idea. I don't think they were suggesting that you didn't lose at least 1 vp per acitation,  just that of you needed to go over 1 minute you wouldn't just have your activation cut short, but could keep going but you'd lose 2 vp, or 3 if you went over 2mins. 

Clanger and Ruffy like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, malladin.ben said:

I think I may have misrepresented the original idea. I don't think they were suggesting that you didn't lose at least 1 vp per acitation,  just that of you needed to go over 1 minute you wouldn't just have your activation cut short, but could keep going but you'd lose 2 vp, or 3 if you went over 2mins. 

I'm the one that suggested it in another thread and I was actually thinking of not giving up 1VP automatically per player, but now that I read what you wrote, I think you made a better proposal. :)

Edit: would people be more inclined to take just one captain if there had to be one mascot per captain on the roster (either dedicated to a captain each or free choice)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think you would have to add a VP per minute spend and check if 12 VP has been reached when the minute actually expires otherwise you can just take infinite time to play out that one activation as long as you can reach 12 VP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, LunarSol said:

As for the Union.... I'm not sure if it really matters right now to be honest.  The teams have enough player selection I think the Union's time as a diversity buffer should probably be over. 1 per team...

I agree with this.  He goes on to say 1 per team and a min of 3 non union but I think that each guild is sound enough and focused enough on what they do that 1 guild model per roster makes sense.

If every guild could play like every other guild, then there should be no separate guilds.  There seemed to be too much bleeding over of specialties with more than a single union model incorporated.  I believe the ability to bring one in to help balance out a team is great.  More than that to make any team mirror the abilities of any other team seems to defeat the purpose of guilds and players playing only for their guild.

If nobody can tell, I'm a born and raised from the womb of GB Union Player and I don't like sharing, though I see the logic for a little of sharing.  It was frustrating in S2 to play a "mort player" with half their team being the same lineup I have, as a union player.  My 2 cents.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Isante said:

as someone who has scored 10vps from clock and won a game, I dislike this.

As someone who has only clocked out once to give 8 VPs to the opponent during a 4-4 tie I absolutely dislike it. 8 more minutes of shark chasing shark sounds awful.

5 hours ago, Clanger said:

But the tournament will have a published schedule which people will have signed up knowing in advance so you are likely to be waiting about for that round time whatever happens, how long your opponent takes within the previous round is irrelevant as long as its within the rules & requirements of the tournament. 

I would never complain about a tournament saying it runs 12-8pm, but I will be absolutely bored out of my damn mind if I finish my game in 30 minutes and have to wait on a game that's 0-0 and going to clock on both players soon. Which was a thing between two of my areas players the weekend before last. Wasn't at a tournament but they were trying to do clock because their games drag on. 

When I buy my internet I buy it as "up to 60 mb/s download."  Probably haven't gotten that since the day I had them switch it on. Up to includes 1 mb/s so I signed up knowing that, but if it is that slow consistently you can bet I would be looking into other providers even though there are none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wildly divergent, but what if you weren't restricted to 9 player rosters, but could select from any players available to your guild (1 union player on the field for non-union teams still in effect)?

 

Does this help or hurt any particular teams?

RedSam likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now