Jump to content
MarkM

Vengence 2017 - Stats

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, EpicChris said:

... Hunters & Alchemists are very obviously outside the statistical normal zone...

Technically, depending on how you measure "statistical normal zone", either neither is outside or only one is (though the other is close). I did the work above, I'm not gonna apologize for pedantry. :P

This data is suggestive, and largely matches up with common wisdom. It's not iron-clad, though, due to things that are difficult to measure; player skill that we've mentioned previously, or the echo chamber effect where players avoid something that's considered weak and thereby exacerbate the problem. It's not like we've experimentally run a whole bunch of Vengeances to get a reliable data set and isolate variables.

As a guy who likes his statistics: stat's are in fact stats, man, but you gotta be aware of the limitations and problems with your data set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the Vengeance Steamforged Q&A, they actually said that they are happy with the (im)balance of the game.

Anyone want to buy some Brewers Guild?  Really nicely painted.  Comes with an awesome goal.

:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dozer said:

At the Vengeance Steamforged Q&A, they actually said that they are happy with the (im)balance of the game.

Anyone want to buy some Brewers Guild?  Really nicely painted.  Comes with an awesome goal.

:angry:

Data can highlight issues, but I think it's also important to note that different people playing at different levels also have different experiences of the game. At the top tables where players like @Stephen78 play the difference might not feel as noticeable as it does for players on the mid and/or bottom tables, and other teams may be perceived as stronger at different levels of play.

Game balance is probably impossible and arguably undesirable to get 100% right, and I think it's something that guild ball does better than any other game out there. I trust that they are on it and things will get better, I'd rather one slow fix that gets it right than several that don't, and I'm happy to wait for S4 if that's what it takes.

In the meantime, though I think it's important that we are allowed to share our experiences of things we're not enjoying as much, and I trust that SFG are listening and taking things on board, and that this game's next iteration will be even better. Negative experience denial is as harmful (well, maybe almost as harmful) to the future health of the game and community as those who knee jerk throw salt at anything that is not blatantly strong.

Cheerio,

Ben

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame that my previous post was edited out. Maybe a little critical but I thought it was a quality dank meme / political cartoon that suited the context of the discussion perfectly.

In that light, I want to say that despite the compounding and largely coherent evidence from multiple sources that Alchemists are ahead of the other guilds by a respectable margin and that Hunters are behind the other guilds by a larger margin, that the Steamforged team has - in my opinion of course - been exemplary in their treatment of game balance so far through their regular scheduled patches, and I expect this to continue in the future.

It's easy to not see the forest for the trees, and forget how successful and well-received the HUGE Season 3 update was, or the two errata cycles before that. Actually, most of the complaints were about things that weren't changed. Or misguided comments about Marbles, but we won't get into that.

I don't fault them at all for waiting to see how the new Hunters played out before making changes to the game, or for doing things on a schedule. But past evidence leads me to be optimistic about what will come down the line for some of the more maligned models in the game, along with the few power outliers.  #bansammons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Seryjniak said:

Or we can do this the proper way and say that 5% margin is the best in determinating what is bent and how much...

GOD TIER

Alchemists  64.6%

SLIGHTLY OP TIER

Engineers   56.5%

Fishermen  57.1%

SPOT ON BALANCED TIER

Masons       50.0%

Butchers     47.6%

The Union  47.1%

Morticians   46.4%

SLIGHTLY UP TIER

Brewers      41.6%

UTTER SHAJT TIER

Hunters      32.9%

 

When will SF adress this travesty that hunters are and alchs are - if ever.

 

Also why no SF played Hunters to show that we just can't get them right ?

 

Errrmmm *Sherwin* played Hunters. I know his role is limited to being the guy who just writes all of the background and character profiles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Totes McAwesome said:

Errrmmm *Sherwin* played Hunters. I know his role is limited to being the guy who just writes all of the background and character profiles. 

I stand corrected - didn't look past first half of the table :P

Share this post


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

At the Vengeance Steamforged Q&A, they actually said that they are happy with the (im)balance of the game.

Anyone want to buy some Brewers Guild?  Really nicely painted.  Comes with an awesome goal.

:angry:

Even with the current dataset GB is one of the most balanced games out there. Thus I'd guess they are genuinely happy with the level of balance they have achieved. An d I'm guessing they will address some of the issues in the future. But I do consider the steadfastness of the game one of the boons of the game. I'd hate for SFG to go the road of some of the other companies where you'd fear your investment to be invalidated after a few months.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to be honest, I had a bit of a poor showing for Brewers but I put that down to poor planning on my part rather than the team being underpower.. Even with myself being a little inept, there was still 2-3 games I could have potentially won if I'd got the third turn initiative but rolled 1's consistently.. 

Regarding Hunters, most players have only has two weeks to get used to half their team so I think it's a little soon to expect miracles, although you could probably say the same about Grace and Benny who seemed to do well literally straight out the box.. 

 

#saveAmber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Redmaw said:

Going to be honest, I had a bit of a poor showing for Brewers but I put that down to poor planning on my part rather than the team being underpower.. Even with myself being a little inept, there was still 2-3 games I could have potentially won if I'd got the third turn initiative but rolled 1's consistently.. 

Regarding Hunters, most players have only has two weeks to get used to half their team so I think it's a little soon to expect miracles, although you could probably say the same about Grace and Benny who seemed to do well literally straight out the box.. 

I actually do think the learning curve with Hunters is pretty steep. Having won 3 tournaments this year already with the teams currently considered at the top of the power scale, I have been focusing on Hunters for the last few weeks, and it's true that they aren't the easiest team to use. 

That said, I think I've already progressed well with them and although I only when 3/2 with them at the event last weekend, both losses were 10-12 and razor close and came down to mistakes I made due to clock pressure. I think with a little more familiarity with the team (and practice playing against Engineers who seem to be the team I'm struggling into right now) I think I could actually do pretty well with them. 

I will be sticking with them for the moment, as Farmers aren't going to be out for a few months yet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the above post is a valid point. Practice, learning curve and acknowledging the errors that tipped the game. Also we've had several years to understand most of the players/teams/interactions. Hunters were previously more limited.

Im not saying they are perfect, there are a few tweaks with them id like to see...but i dont think they are so below the curve as people think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HuggyTheBear said:

Even with the current dataset GB is one of the most balanced games out there. Thus I'd guess they are genuinely happy with the level of balance they have achieved. An d I'm guessing they will address some of the issues in the future. But I do consider the steadfastness of the game one of the boons of the game. I'd hate for SFG to go the road of some of the other companies where you'd fear your investment to be invalidated after a few months.   

the level of balance is pretty great in general. they just have to gently nudge hunters up and reign in alchs and we'd probably have a situation where every team is viable and there isn't a top dog who's so far out absolutely everyone agrees on it. 

You can't get much more balanced than what we have, especially with the vast amount of options and differences. More players, more guilds = more inherent imbalance. But even if you stripped everything down, to its absolute bare minimum, stripped it down even beyond chess, to the level of Go. Where there is still an advantage for the player that goes first and they try to compensate that player with points in tournaments. 

I'm thoroughly impressed its this close as they continue to add more teams and players 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HuggyTheBear said:

Even with the current dataset GB is one of the most balanced games out there. Thus I'd guess they are genuinely happy with the level of balance they have achieved. An d I'm guessing they will address some of the issues in the future. But I do consider the steadfastness of the game one of the boons of the game. I'd hate for SFG to go the road of some of the other companies where you'd fear your investment to be invalidated after a few months.   

Malifaux is balanced game - don't compere balanced game to a game lacking in balance ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Seryjniak said:

Malifaux is balanced game - don't compere balanced game to a game lacking in balance ...

Who was comparing anything to Malifaux?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Seryjniak said:

Malifaux is balanced game - don't compere balanced game to a game lacking in balance ...

 

2 minutes ago, Wynter said:

Who was comparing anything to Malifaux?

which isn't actually all that balanced from what I've heard..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Redmaw said:

 

which isn't actually all that balanced from what I've heard..

Then Sir you heard wrong. As much as I like Guild Ball (that can be little hard to believe given my stance on current balance) - the longer we pretend that there isn't elephant in the room the longer Therons and Zerolas of this world will migrate twords different experiences. What really grinds my gears is that we can see that all it takes is to bump hunters and reel in alchs (maybe some tweaks to brewers). I seriously hope that SF won't ask us to wait for another 3 or so months before releasing this "errata"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before this sinks into "X game is perfect and Y game is unplayable", there is no perfectly balanced game. There are also no games so unbalanced as to be unplayable (because people are playing them, so they can't be that bad!). So I don't want to see a load of Malifaux vs Guild Ball posts...

 

Sure, GB could benefit from some tweaks. So could Malifaux. So could every other game. But perfect balance is impossible, and when the outliers are barely wider than the deviation (like in this data) I'd much rather see slow and thoughtful tweaks that the community can adjust to. Is it frustrating when you're waiting? Sure, sometimes. But I'd say that's better than the game being in a state of constant flux and balance weaving about the place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Seryjniak said:

Then Sir you heard wrong. As much as I like Guild Ball (that can be little hard to believe given my stance on current balance) - the longer we pretend that there isn't elephant in the room the longer Therons and Zerolas of this world will migrate twords different experiences. What really grinds my gears is that we can see that all it takes is to bump hunters and reel in alchs (maybe some tweaks to brewers). I seriously hope that SF won't ask us to wait for another 3 or so months before releasing this "errata"

We have actually had 2 locals quit GB directly due to Hunters being their main guild and they got tired of trying to skate uphill with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Seryjniak said:

Then Sir you heard wrong. As much as I like Guild Ball (that can be little hard to believe given my stance on current balance) - the longer we pretend that there isn't elephant in the room the longer Therons and Zerolas of this world will migrate twords different experiences. What really grinds my gears is that we can see that all it takes is to bump hunters and reel in alchs (maybe some tweaks to brewers). I seriously hope that SF won't ask us to wait for another 3 or so months before releasing this "errata"

Fair do's, I've got a giant pile of things to glue and paint so I can test this out myself, but I've heard from more than a few sources that it tends to follow the GW route where whichever unit needs more sales gets buffed..

As both a Brewer and a Hunter player though, I will take free bonuses if they are being handed out, I just don't think any major changes are required this early into the new season..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there Captain specific stats?

As an Alc player with only a handful of games experience, exclusively with Smoke, I have felt utterly helpless after every game, having watched Shark and Obulus have their way with my team.

I'd be interested to know where the perceived Alc balance problem lies. Having watched the Vengeance final I'd say Midas was a pretty good candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Seryjniak said:

Malifaux is balanced game - don't compere balanced game to a game lacking in balance ...

Something something Rat Kings.  Don't go claiming that game is balanced when those were left alone for so long.  I believe something like 90% of the top players at adepticon last year used those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Thadrin said:

Are there Captain specific stats?

As an Alc player with only a handful of games experience, exclusively with Smoke, I have felt utterly helpless after every game, having watched Shark and Obulus have their way with my team.

I'd be interested to know where the perceived Alc balance problem lies. Having watched the Vengeance final I'd say Midas was a pretty good candidate.

Suggest you watch Steve Easton play Smoke some time. I played him Round 2. By the start of turn 2, he had scored 7 points with Smoke. 1 activation later, it was 11 points. He spoiled it somewhat by flame jetting Dirge with Mercury to finish the game.

Share this post


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

Something something Rat Kings.  Don't go claiming that game is balanced when those were left alone for so long.  I believe something like 90% of the top players at adepticon last year used those.

Not talking about other games as moderator requested I'll just point out how successful companies handle this kind of situations.

1. Identify the problem (via data and social media outcry)

2. Inform the community that you are aware of the problem

3. Inform the community that it will get resolved

4. Provide ETA for the solution

5. Playtest the solution

6. Release the solution

7. Thank community for help and patience

 

Is this not how mature company should handle this kind of situation :) ?

Share this post


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

Something something Rat Kings.  Don't go claiming that game is balanced when those were left alone for so long.  I believe something like 90% of the top players at adepticon last year used those.

I don't play Malifaux much any more, so it's certainly possible it's better balanced now, but I've seen some things in 2nd edition that were really quite off balance wise. 1st edition (and certainly at the 3rd year stage) the balance was really bad - certain crews just straight up ruined balance to the point that the game barely had a tournament scene to speak of - thinks like Dreamer and Hamelin were left for about 2 - 3 years with no reduction in power level... Malifaux is not a good comparison at all to Guild Ball in my experience when it comes to balancing the game and making well thought out changes. 

I'm sure, with probably about 10 years experience they've got better at it, but at year 3, they were just making rules for their models for fun in my opinion...

Share this post


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

Not talking about other games as moderator requested I'll just point out how successful companies handle this kind of situations.

1. Identify the problem (via data and social media outcry)

2. Inform the community that you are aware of the problem

3. Inform the community that it will get resolved

4. Provide ETA for the solution

5. Playtest the solution

6. Release the solution

7. Thank community for help and patience

 

Is this not how mature company should handle this kind of situation :) ?

1. Done

2. Done

3. Done

4. Done

5. In hand

6. Done twice so far

7. Done at every available opportunity

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


×