| | | | | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
Zaukrie
Underboss
2007 Posts
    
 | | 04/26/2006 6:24 PM |
| Here is my post and Shoe's reply. Your thoughts?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Zaukrie
Shoe, here is a design question, which you may not be inclined to answer.
I find it frustrating that each faction has one, maybe two core bands that are tier one (see my "argument" in the epic card thread, or the gauntlet WBC competition). Is that an intentional outcome, or is it just really hard to have more variety, or are we not seeing something you see. I have no background in Magic or any other collectible game like this, so I don't know if that is how it ends up there also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Groupthink, by its nature, will tend to categorize and rank the possible combinations. Due to that ranking, one warband or concept will always be perceived as "better" or "best".
I believe that the increasing variety of maps, and the viability of more minis per set (from a costing efficiency perspective) lends itself to a wider variety of warbands than the metagame currently recognizes. Or more accurately - perhaps the perception of the gap between Tier 1 and Tier 2 is greater than the reality.
But people listen to results. LE was declared strong after last Gen Con - and CG dead - but only 9 CG were in the field of 64. People talk of the pre-Underdark dominance of multichraal - but don't talk about the 7 multichraal players that didn't make top 8. Imagine how the metagame might have shifted had half of the SoCal group shown up with Inspired Archmage or Tripegasi instead of mutlichraal...
But I digress. We try to give each faction something each set, sometimes by providing a missing link for a "Near 1" warband, sometimes by providing synergy with other extant creatures. The game is better when many warbands can be competitive, and it is our goal to encourage a greater variety of warband builds.
(note - we walk a tight line, since we need to provide new warbands that are competitive with older ones, but don't push the older ones completely out of the picture. Quadfecta should still be viable, even as NOST or GAS enters the picture.) | |
Fastest dropping DCI ranking on record!
Champion of Juiblex | |
|
Gristlemane
Sergeant
623 Posts
| | 04/26/2006 6:30 PM |
| The most important thing he said is that the perception becomes reality. If people didn't think that the Helmed Horror and Marut were great, then they wouldn't be played. And if they aren't played then creatures that rely on things that constructs are immune to will gain value. The Helmed Horror and Marut's reputation in the community will help determine the efficacy of Gith monks.
The other thing to remember is that ultra-competitive players are going to pick the #1 option (or what they think is the #1 option) available to them. Option #2 may only be slightly worse than option #1, but it doesn't matter to Spike. He will always go with #1. So you might very well have a chance of winning a qualifier with a tier 2 warband, but it still won't be played much. | |
It's deja vu all over again. | |
|
Tried
Sergeant
501 Posts
| | 04/26/2006 6:47 PM |
| It is a fallacy that perception becomes reality.
If you will all agree with me on this point, we can accept it and move on.
[:0] | |
Let it be. | |
|
forkedmoon
Underboss
1305 Posts
| | 04/26/2006 7:11 PM |
| perception is reality...
until you roll a one. | |
Champion of Cyclops
| |
|
Dagni
Sergeant
870 Posts
| | 04/26/2006 7:15 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Gristlemane
The other thing to remember is that ultra-competitive players are going to pick the #1 option (or what they think is the #1 option) available to them. Option #2 may only be slightly worse than option #1, but it doesn't matter to Spike. He will always go with #1.
That's it exactly. Furthermore, the more differences between two bands, the more likely that, as a group, players will all tend to decide that one is better than the other.
For example, if someone plays Arcane Ballista with Couatl and either Kord or Marut several times, and also plays 6 Sacred Watchers several times, he's going to pick one or the other as the one he thinks is better. The ultra-competitive players are, for one thing, pretty good at making the right choice of band, so if one IS slightly better than the other, then many of the top players will agree about that. For another, these players (due to playtesting time constraints) are likely to ask the advice of some of the others! This will do nothing but reinforce the belief in one band over the other.
As a general metagame rule, this will always result in a very limited number of bands, especially within a single faction. Within a single faction, all the bands have the same options to choose from, so it's far less likely that the commander will be different, or that the fodder will be different, or even that the hitters will be different. In other words, one good choice, (Inspiring Marshal, Couatl, etc) will choke off most, if not all, of the other choices. Therefore there will be very few different bands that are all considered that good at the same time. The exception is when certain minis combine together far better than apart. For example, Young Master and Gith Monks both say, this mini is far better if used with the rest of the combo, otherwise it's not good. So the band is almost seperate from the faction as a whole.
It all funnels, too. Once band A is written off as slightly weaker than band B, and band C is considered slightly weaker than band D, the player doesn't need to consider whether band A is better or worse than band C. Instead, he just compares band B with D. Like a warband building challenge, you end up with only a few bands left, that're finally so evenly matched that sometimes even the top players will be split as to which to use.
- Dagni | |
Proud member of the GRUUMSH fan club! | |
| 
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| |
robbdaman
Underboss
2380 Posts
| | 04/26/2006 8:08 PM |
| I think that's the whole issue of the metagame as a whole. There are only a few solid competative concepts even if the R&D team set out to devise more. It's really all about consistency. There are some warbands that can win but suffer from too much variance that they just don't make it. This is probably why so many warbands look effectively all the same. Kiddoc's WBC Gauntlet is basically a list of Tier 1 warbands.
Personally this is why I feel that sealed format is more effective in determining who is truly a master class player for the game. Getting bad pulls and turning them into a solid warband that wins is a testament to top notch skill. Throwing together a warband that looks like every other warband as constructed format basically is becomes at times less about skill and more about the dice rolling your way.
I think in a year or so there could possibly be more diversity as we continue to get new pieces every set that can be effective. CG might be seriously competative someday, at least one can hope. New concepts come about including maps that create possibilities but it's gonna take a couple years before everything is well rounded as they need to be.
R~ | |
Champion of the Titan
******************************************************************************************************************************************************
Successful trades with: Tickparasite, Iyceman, Faragdar The Wise's friend, avrivah, Drakkengi, brucemc, Krush, maniacal_mini_monger, hung4treason, Gandy, NarlethDrider, Kunimatyu, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah..... | |
|
Gunthar
Commander
2938 Posts
| | 04/26/2006 8:09 PM |
| And this is a problem. It is a really tight balance for consumers and company. The very frustrating part is not only the lack of truly viable warbands, but truly viable factions and builds. There's the problem of fairly cheap commander with three-four beaters formula that has favored CE and now LE so much.
There's also the value problem. As it stands, there's a lot of "useless" minis in the game. Evil gets the majority of the minis and because of the RPG market, this is correct. Not all of them are great because of the need to stretch product life. However, it really annoys the living sh!t out of me the good factions got screwed and keep getting screwed on the skirmish side. Leaving about a third of the minis with almost no real use is bad value.
In all honesty, how good is LG? I won't even touch CG right now or this post would be longer than it's already going to be. In fact, I just cut out the long diatribe about the separate LG pieces like gimmicks. The fact remains, it's easy to see why so many people think it APPEARS the designers simply favor evil and aren't that concerned about fixing mistakes and game balance. While I DO NOT think this, I still see some major issues that do anger me greatly.
Bold was a nice, creative, idea, but not so great in practice. The implementation of the teleport temple saw to that.
LG commanders are supposed to be front-liner hero-types? If they are supposed to be steady and durable then why are they crawling wusses? Speed 4 should have been an apparent killer from the beginning. Yet there's not decent way to counter this. Good ranged units would have helped, but the decent ones were crippled with slow ranged attack. Slow spoeed means you don't pick where or when a battle takes place and you're going to get hit first and with their damage, you'll get hit harder.
Buffing is simply not efficient, especially with speed 4 buffers too. You can't be buffed on the run.
Anyway, I'm going to end this here because I'm actually starting to get truly mad, not just internet mad. I won't even get started on the Dreamblade stuff.
| |
Champion of Prit(Wemic vindication is here)
Minneapolis/St. Paul area
Completed trades: Aspect of Cheese (Love that moniker), Tickparasite, Elderthing, Lalato, Sodj, Grimoire, SmilinIrish, Zeb, RWarehall,Link, wikkawikkawa, Auramancer, Rommers, HK, Ivid5,Qillan_dvra, Puggins, Arcabius, Ironfist Boulderbender, Robby, Corim Danex, monster_slayer, DNDJUNKIE, Kelemvor, Krush, ckissee, Massawyrm, hockey fan, Wish, Uninspiring Lieutenant, vtloon x2, Vrecknidj, Darthpoke, WakeXX, AnarionZell, lycusmike, papabear5 and umpteen local trades with board members
| |
|
HidesFromHurricanes
Warrior
289 Posts
| | 04/26/2006 8:38 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by robbdaman
I think that's the whole issue of the metagame as a whole. There are only a few solid competative concepts even if the R&D team set out to devise more. It's really all about consistency. There are some warbands that can win but suffer from too much variance that they just don't make it. This is probably why so many warbands look effectively all the same. Kiddoc's WBC Gauntlet is basically a list of Tier 1 warbands.
Generally I don't like the Tier 1/Tier 2 concept of what is a good warband. Tier 1 warbands don't win competitions, the player wins the competition. I think that R&D has done a decent job at balancing the miniatures one on one. The tougher job is to balance the "stupid strategies" like what happens if I use all Dwarven Maulers in my warband. This is where the costs break down and what good competitors are capitalizing in their warbands. This would support the sealed shows a stronger understanding of general game concepts that Rob suggests. You generally can't get the game breaking strategies of using three gith monks, etc. In general the DDM community seems to follow a fairly limited paths of exploration in what is a good warband. If R&D has done their job well (which I think they have in general), then a larger selection of warbands should be able to win. | |
Champion of Savage Bard (Unearthed Arcana: Bard Variant)
Bloodwars Called shot (vindicated) Demonic Gnoll Adept/Priestess
Old Jagermonster Saying: Any Plan vere you luz your hat iz a BAD Plan. | |
|
PatEllis15
Commander
4463 Posts
| | 04/26/2006 9:08 PM |
| The interesting thing that I observe is exactly WHAT impact do the current, and future maps have on all this.
I went 9-0 one day with Archmage, but my playtesting showed me that the Fane of Lolth would not be my friend. Chances are I could have gone 2-3 with the archmage (which was my record with my miserable blended LE band that I pulled out of a hat the next day), but I certainly didn't think I could run the table again.
Had they allowed Tiles, I would have run him with confidence. Had they usd the Kings Road, again, I'm running him with confidence...
It is falacy to say that if people "thought" that the Helmed Horror wasn't any good, that no one would play him. He's a good piece. THAT is why he gets played.
That doesn't mean that there aren't OTHER good pieces that have been proven yet. The IM was ignored for 5 months after it's release, and he is, more so than any other figure, the staple of CG bands.
Pat E | |
"Games evolve. Otherwise we'd still be pushing rocks around the dirt. What do you think the cavemen said when some dude showed up with sticks?" - Chairman7w | |
|
djtool
Sergeant
584 Posts
Crystal MN, USA
| | 04/26/2006 9:31 PM |
| i gotta disagree (with HfH) there are numerous nifty little warbands you could come up with that wouldn't have a chance defeating HH band simply because of the strength of that piece. I'm not saying player skill has nothing to do with it. But the guy with the knife rarely defeats the guy with the gun.
| |
Champion of: Brain in a Jar | |
|
djtool
Sergeant
584 Posts
Crystal MN, USA
| | 04/26/2006 9:41 PM |
| @gunthar
i'm kinda with you but i'm not as angry. Mostly just disappointed.
take for example khumat...fresh on the heals of HH. I'd love to run him in a competetive format as I think he's just kinda cool, but that's asking for a lot of good things to happen in a game. I like the jaws of doom but when do i apply it? JA, FB, HH are fearless...marut, chraal, efreet, LEE (if someone was to actually field one), efreet, AoM, HGB, and Cele peg are all large based.
oh and the numbers. HH has same lvl, spd, hp's. HH does more dmg and is a construct.
[V] | |
Champion of: Brain in a Jar | |
| 
Avatar of the Tank
Newtoncain
Commander
2985 Posts
Land of 10,000 taxes
| | 04/26/2006 9:42 PM |
| Format also dictates what players will use. For example, last year with the A/CoP/P format (tiles) my quad green dragon ruled the ruest locally. But in assault only (its weakest format) on a map I went 2-4 at GenCon. Sure I new what I was going up against and lost horribly. I did have alot of fun playing (which was more important to me than winning it all. Don't get me wrong, winning is what we strive for, but if it is not fun. What's the point?) my quirky warband and all but one of the battles was atleast close.
What we need to see at the qualifiers this year is; 2-4 top level players run spoilier bands to jack up the HHs, Quads, Duel HGBs, ect. Not caring if they win it all. Those that are already in the top 20ish globally should give this a try. You'll end up going 3-4 and still be ranked high enough to qualifier off of record. You might even make the finals with a quirky spoilier band.
I know of at least one Local that always breaks the mold and does well.ΖD] Hopefully this person will come through for the qualifier. | |
They just don't know what's good in life...Conan, tell them what is good in life.
To rip the boosters. To count the minis spilled out before you, and to hear the indifference of the women... | |
|
Zaukrie
Underboss
2007 Posts
| | 04/26/2006 10:04 PM |
| I think there are creatures that are so clearly superior to other creatures that it is difficult not to play them.
Take the helmed horror. That mini has just about everything going for it in terms of damage and survivability. It is far superior to any LG mini for the cost (and don't give me the cross faction arguement, that is why we'll see more HH bands than LG bands at the qualifiers).
Take the Sand Giant vs. the Hill Giant Barbarian. They came out in the same set, but look at the damage output potential difference! It isn't even comparable in terms of which piece is better, nor can I conceive of an LG commander that would make the SG worth its cost compared to running a HGB and wardrummer/tiefling.
I think there is some groupthink, but I think some creatures are so superior that those will be played more frequently by those that most want to win.
It is just this lack of diversity that is making me re-consider my buying habits. If there are only 5 or 10 minis that matter to skirmish each set, why buy cases?
Take the orc wardrummer. Not only does it make CE more survivable thatnks to the morale boost, but it makes beholders and spellcasters and other creatures less useful thanks to the save boosting in general. This one piece may eliminate several other pieces from being played.
I am not convinced it is group think. A chraal or helmed horror is superior to any LE pieces in general, and in combination, so why would someone trying to win a tournament play some other LE creature? | |
Fastest dropping DCI ranking on record!
Champion of Juiblex | |
|
Zaukrie
Underboss
2007 Posts
| | 04/26/2006 10:25 PM |
| Assault may also be an issue here. Some believe that multiple formats would decrease warbands, other increase them. What I think is that assault favors fast, hard hitting bands, so fast, hard hitting creatures do better.
A format could be devised whereby slow bands with high AC do well (you know, shield towers or something holding the fort).
Whether or not this would increase or merely change the creatures used, I have not given enough thought. | |
Fastest dropping DCI ranking on record!
Champion of Juiblex | |
|
robbdaman
Underboss
2380 Posts
| | 04/26/2006 10:51 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Newtoncain
I know of at least one Local that always breaks the mold and does well.ΖD] Hopefully this person will come through for the qualifier.
I don't think breaking the mold is all that difficult. There's lots of nifty ideas that can work and do well but the variant warbands that are basically the same as almost every other warband are what still are going to be played more often than not. Creating something new and different isn't really possible to be at top competitive level if you want to win no matter how much fun it is. I enjoy fun games as much as the next but if you're going to lose all the time against Tier 1 forces then it's not much fun.
R~ | |
Champion of the Titan
******************************************************************************************************************************************************
Successful trades with: Tickparasite, Iyceman, Faragdar The Wise's friend, avrivah, Drakkengi, brucemc, Krush, maniacal_mini_monger, hung4treason, Gandy, NarlethDrider, Kunimatyu, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah..... | |
| The Defenestrator
AesophDarkfable
Warlord
5628 Posts
| | 04/26/2006 10:51 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by djtool
@gunthar
i'm kinda with you but i'm not as angry. Mostly just disappointed.
take for example khumat...fresh on the heals of HH. I'd love to run him in a competetive format as I think he's just kinda cool, but that's asking for a lot of good things to happen in a game. I like the jaws of doom but when do i apply it? JA, FB, HH are fearless...marut, chraal, efreet, LEE (if someone was to actually field one), efreet, AoM, HGB, and Cele peg are all large based.
oh and the numbers. HH has same lvl, spd, hp's. HH does more dmg and is a construct.
[V]
HH does less damage. Khumat does 20, HH does 15. That is on one attack of course. The Khumat if he came out in pre-angelfire would have dominated. Even at Angelfire he would have done well as there was still enough CE around. If the meta swings a different way (alot of anti-construct pieces for example) he will be worth his weight in gold. | |
Im out- find me on Hordelings if you want to chat. | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 04/26/2006 10:59 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Zaukrie
Take the helmed horror. That mini has just about everything going for it in terms of damage and survivability. It is far superior to any LG mini for the cost (and don't give me the cross faction arguement, that is why we'll see more HH bands than LG bands at the qualifiers).
Take the Sand Giant vs. the Hill Giant Barbarian. They came out in the same set, but look at the damage output potential difference! It isn't even comparable in terms of which piece is better, nor can I conceive of an LG commander that would make the SG worth its cost compared to running a HGB and wardrummer/tiefling.
I think there is some groupthink, but I think some creatures are so superior that those will be played more frequently by those that most want to win.
It is just this lack of diversity that is making me re-consider my buying habits. If there are only 5 or 10 minis that matter to skirmish each set, why buy cases?
Take the orc wardrummer. Not only does it make CE more survivable thatnks to the morale boost, but it makes beholders and spellcasters and other creatures less useful thanks to the save boosting in general. This one piece may eliminate several other pieces from being played.
I am not convinced it is group think. A chraal or helmed horror is superior to any LE pieces in general, and in combination, so why would someone trying to win a tournament play some other LE creature?
The HH is superior for its cost than the justice archon? I'm not sure that's true. The JA is less resilient and less accurate (but carries DR) but costs 13 points less and has a far greater offensive upside. The JA is as efficient a piece as any in the game, I think.
There are matchups where 3 justice archons is probably a better play than 2 helmed horrors, and that's not just the 6 point difference in total cost talking.
Also, I don't think it is safe to say that the chraal is absolutely a better piece than the other LE hitter options. A lot of the current primacy of that piece is based on factors outside of the chraal's statistics itself, specifically the current popularity of the HGB and helmed horror. Right now I expect about 25% of the bands I play to carry HGBs, and probably another 25% to carry helmed horrors. In that sort of metagame, relying on the duergar champion would be unwise, so I might pick chraals instead, hoping that the major weakness of the chraal, bands based on the red samurai, will be suppressed by the prevalence of the giants. But what happens when 2 of the 4 HGB bands that would have shown up to a 16 person tournament shift to red samurai, figuring that chraal and JA bands will show up to prey on the HGBs? Or something wacky like quad ogre ravagers shows up, figuring it can do well against a heavy HH metagame? Suddenly my chraals or HHs have a strong predator band in the environment - and the red samurai and ravagers aren't real bad matchups for the duergar champ. Stuff cycles as new sets come out, and if you're only getting 3 or 4 or 5 different pieces per set, you could end up with your pants down when a metagame shift catapults a formerly underused figure to popularity.
I think the environment is a lot more volatile than people give it credit for, especially at the local level. A lot of the preparation that I have to do for a local tournament would be irrelevant to the majority of posters here (how many of you have to worry about sacred watcher x5-7 bands showing up, for example? How many local environments have a guy who you can expect to show up with an archmage band 50% of the time?) so what we talk about instead are larger trends, which necessarily will be more simplistic.
It probably *is* safe to keep yourself to the 20 or 30 'best' figures per set, but that's been true of every collectible game ever, I think, as described in the old Mark Rosewater 'why are there bad cards' article that everyone should probably read every 6 months or so. | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
Teach
Sneak
140 Posts
| | 04/26/2006 11:35 PM |
| Just a couple of asides before I begin my little comment, I think it's interesting that a lot of the people discussing this are up here in Minnesota. The impression I get is that our metagame encourages a lot more experimentation than other metas, or at least rewards it. Also, as much as gunthar complains, he has won the past two tournaments up here with LG bands, so I'm not sure how much the whole wardrummer era has screwed LG, at least for him. [)]
I think groupthink both helps, and hurts the game as a whole. It does make it seem like there's only 6 or 7 minis every set that you really need if you plan on competing on the national level. Which is not what Wizards of the Coast is going for. I'd be interested in hearing from Shoe or other game designers the pieces or warbands they think should be included when discussing the best bands.
-Bill | |
| |
|
Tried
Sergeant
501 Posts
| | 04/27/2006 12:17 AM |
| I just want to jump back in here, after my attempt at a joke above with respect to perception and reality.
The best players are always metagaming against the perceived top bands. Even three months after a set comes out. Things may always be missed. Are there bands right now that differ from what people think (ie - perceive and widely accept) are the best?
Yes. Absolutely.
They are simply not being advertised prior to quals.
Some are tweaks of old bands - others variations on new. The same combos are being independently put together on both costs.
Be interesting to see how the qualifiers play out...
I will say that Ballista burst onto the scene only after a top 4 placing in the CA open this month. I still have little confidence in it, but it has won over believers.
Finally - Chris's statement about cores i find somewhat misleading. Even if the cores were similar - and you can use a lot of leeway here when saying cores are similar (are 3 chraals the same as 2+ efreeti, for example?) - it is often the fodder that further delineate the band. But subtle differences sometimes get grouped.
Are 4 Duergar champs the same as 3 + a Zak?
I would say no. They do play somewhat differently.
Are 3HH + naga the same as 3HH + Rak? No. Different again.
(I personally think the Naga option to be quite weak, but I know Guy likes it).
And so the final decision comes down to the player. What plays better in your hands, while allowing you the flexibility to face other bands? And finally, what is the most fun for you?
| |
Let it be. | |
| Knight of the
Round Table
Thenameless
Warlord
11464 Posts
The Fortress of Solitude
| | 04/27/2006 1:24 AM |
| quote:
Generally I don't like the Tier 1/Tier 2 concept of what is a good warband. Tier 1 warbands don't win competitions, the player wins the competition.
Not exactly true. DDM is like auto-racing. The best driver usually wins because he is hired by the team with the best car. Note Senna's move to McLaren from Lotus; Ickx to Porsche for Le Mans. The best DDM players are also usually first rate warband builders. If a great player showed up to a tournament with Arcane Archer/Medusa/Vrock/Aspect of Bane, he/she would get pounded by competent players with tier 1 warbands. | |
Over 270 successful online DDM trades. | |
|
Toxic_Rat
Sergeant
745 Posts
Lehi, Utah, USA
| | 04/27/2006 1:55 AM |
| One thing that has been passed over (or I've just missed reading it) is the effect that dice have on the game. So many games that I have played in have been very close, and get decided by missing that critical save or making that hit on the second attack. I think that while we can argue on paper whether Chraals are better than Orc Champs, the dice tend to even out those top bands that each faction has.
I have to wonder if DDM is at a point where a Paper/Scissors/Rock balance exists in the 'metagame.' Maybe that's a fancy way of saying that there are enough good bands out there to keep one band from being the odds favorite to always win.
Or maybe it's late and I'm just babbling. You decide. [:)] | |
Any time you try to make something idiot-proof, someone always goes out and invents a better idiot.
Champion of Siege Equipment | |
|
Toxic_Rat
Sergeant
745 Posts
Lehi, Utah, USA
| | 04/27/2006 2:02 AM |
| Maybe a bit more on the topic, I think the comment from Shoe that there is little difference between tier 1 and 2 is spot on. The dice I think are the balancing factor that brings these two tiers together.
Generally, we may expect (via GroupThink) that a Tier-1 band to defeat a Tier-2 band, but with the variance in dice, map choices, and player ability will bring that perceived difference in bands much closer together.
But because people like to think they are playing in tier-1, we will continue to classify them as such. | |
Any time you try to make something idiot-proof, someone always goes out and invents a better idiot.
Champion of Siege Equipment | |
|
XAos
Underboss
2395 Posts
London
| | 04/27/2006 3:38 AM |
| Some warbands which rely on luck to win. End up being considered Tier-1. Because 60% of the players at a tournamanet use it & one of them gets lucky for every single game of the match. My opinion is that Dual-HGB falls into that category. If your lucky with it in every game, it can win. But you can't afford any bad luck. A single failed rout check in even one game of the tournament does more damage to the warband than any amount of player skill can compensate for.
A lot of players do their own analysis of Tier-1 warbands. And go by their own opinion. So if everyone in the world said 4xHH are rubish (which at one time they were saying) While I'd consider their reasoning. I'd still be happy to go to a major tournament & prove the whole lot wrong. One of the strengths of the 4HH warband is that it cannot loose because of a failed fout check & it cannot loose because of your opponent rolling a critical hit on an important attack.
I believe the current reason that there are so few Tier-1 warbands is the massive power-creep that occured in underdark & angelfire. Many of the previous Tier-1 figures are obsolete, and CG for example has as yet no replacement options. Personally I hope CG never gets an uprated replacement for the FB. It needs warbands which give it it's own unique strategies. Not "just-another-clone" of the CE beatstik warbands.
quote:
Originally posted by Zaukrie
A format could be devised whereby slow bands with high AC do well (you know, shield towers or something holding the fort).
The ruined keep map with assault format, strongly favours slow, high AC warbands. both assault areas are very close together in the map-centre.
| |
Don't worry about the current metagame. It doesn't matter if it's ugly, bad, or the best ever. In 2 years time, set rotation will ban everything. | |
|
iluvxtina
Underboss
1500 Posts
Spain
| | 04/27/2006 4:07 AM |
| | More competitive CG creatures and much more cheap!! | |
LOVE THIS GIRL | |
|
iluvxtina
Underboss
1500 Posts
Spain
| | 04/27/2006 6:41 AM |
| | It,s boring to see everybody have the same warbands.Only hill giants,helmeds,maruts,githzerais and orcs in my last tournament. There were more than 30 competitors and at least 30% were hill giants+ wardrummer+drider.My warband was frenzied+inspiring but I lost (very bad luck in conceal checks).I think its impossible but i would like that WOTC revise the status card of a lot of minis to make them more playable (like gold champion or sword archon). | |
LOVE THIS GIRL | |
|
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10425 Posts
United States
| | 04/27/2006 8:44 AM |
| I'd like to say how important dice are. But, I can't. First, when we're talking about, say, the top 8 at nationals, then yes, dice matter. At that level, someone with a hot streak is probably going to win, simply because the quality of bands and quality of play is equal. (Although a really bad band matchup, or a really miserable map for one player could do it too.)
For a tournament of, say, 64 players, dice don't matter as much, or shouldn't. I lost a game at the Grinder last year. I was playing a LRD and rolled two 1s in a row against a Gauth's stun. I should have won that game. If I'd made either roll, I'd have placed into the top 8. But, I could have won that game in other ways. I could have kept the LRD 7 squares from the Gauth in the first place. I played a little too aggressively, trying to use bravado to cause my opponent to stumble.
If you can get yourself into a position in a game where the game will not come down to a single die roll to determine the winner, then you should (unless, of course, you con only do so by guaranteeing yourself a loss). This is remarkably hard to do against some opponents, and not so hard against others.
Dave | |
Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right! | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
640 Posts
| | 04/27/2006 9:27 AM |
| Groupthink is probably the closest term for it. We know from Magic that people will tend to gravitate towards one card being better than another or one deck concept being better than another. Individually, and especially together, we come up with this. I know there's an article out there on it (or at least some posts that have referenced it before). The competitive players are going to weed out to a small fraction of the set no matter how good each of the individual pieces of the set are.
It's not necessarily a bad thing. It's really not a fault in the game. It's just the way we are.
Besides, it's not like rogue concepts can't work. Often they work really well. The rogue concept has to be near equal in power to the warband it faces, but the surprise factor can really throw people off their game. | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
djtool
Sergeant
584 Posts
Crystal MN, USA
| | 04/27/2006 10:31 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by AesophDarkfable
HH does less damage. Khumat does 20, HH does 15. That is on one attack of course.
...correct HH does up to 30 dmg while khumat does only 20, and both attaks are non-magic.
I hope there is a time for him as I just think he's neat. | |
Champion of: Brain in a Jar | |
|
robby
Sergeant
918 Posts
| | 04/27/2006 10:58 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Thenameless
Not exactly true. DDM is like auto-racing. The best driver usually wins because he is hired by the team with the best car. Note Senna's move to McLaren from Lotus; Ickx to Porsche for Le Mans. The best DDM players are also usually first rate warband builders. If a great player showed up to a tournament with Arcane Archer/Medusa/Vrock/Aspect of Bane, he/she would get pounded by competent players with tier 1 warbands.
I think this can't be stressed enough. The best players have mastered all aspects of the game, including band construction and map selection (and previously tile placement).
I think the DDM version of Groupthink is often really just follow the leader, glossed up a little bit. And I don't mean this in a bad way. There are, IMO, only a few real innovators, a fair amount of tinkerers, and then a lot of folks who utilize the research efforts of others. I am in the latter category. I really love gameplay of DDM, but I just don't have the time to devote to innovate and test all the bands and combinations like others do. I'm grateful that they post their results when they do, because it helps my decision making process. Is that groupthink? I don't really think so.
Consider LRB. Groupthink didn't create LRB, it was a "rogue" band until it won consistently (piloted by skilled players), and then suddenly it was catapulted into the forefront.
As to the thought that recosting older minis will help, I saw pffft. That won't do anything but divert design time from newer minis. There will always be minis that are better than others, that isn't changing. Recosting will do the same thing that adding new minis will do; it will change the pecking order of the minis. It won't add choices, it would just change what are considered the best choices.
| |
To the list with you!
Email: robby.anderson@yahoo.com | H/W List | My Trade Interface | Reference Thread/Completed Trades
| |
|
XAos
Underboss
2395 Posts
London
| | 04/27/2006 11:35 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by iluvxtina
It,s boring to see everybody have the same warbands.Only hill giants,helmeds,maruts,githzerais and orcs in my last tournament. There were more than 30 competitors and at least 30% were hill giants+ wardrummer+drider.
You can't mean Drider, the only drider figure currently available is banned in tournaments. 'cause if I found a tournament where it wasn't banned. I would certainly play it.[)] | |
Don't worry about the current metagame. It doesn't matter if it's ugly, bad, or the best ever. In 2 years time, set rotation will ban everything. | |
|
Toxic_Rat
Sergeant
745 Posts
Lehi, Utah, USA
| | 04/27/2006 12:16 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Vrecknidj
If you can get yourself into a position in a game where the game will not come down to a single die roll to determine the winner, then you should (unless, of course, you con only do so by guaranteeing yourself a loss). This is remarkably hard to do against some opponents, and not so hard against others.
Dave
Yes, this is much better stated that what I was posting earlier. I have to wonder if the metagame requires that a player take those risks more often in those critical matchups. | |
Any time you try to make something idiot-proof, someone always goes out and invents a better idiot.
Champion of Siege Equipment | |
|
striderlotr
Commander
3370 Posts
| | 04/27/2006 1:25 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Toxic_Rat
One thing that has been passed over (or I've just missed reading it) is the effect that dice have on the game. So many games that I have played in have been very close, and get decided by missing that critical save or making that hit on the second attack. I think that while we can argue on paper whether Chraals are better than Orc Champs, the dice tend to even out those top bands that each faction has.
Unless of course your opponent rolls nothing lower then a 12 in a whole game. Then the dice factor is right out the window... still trying to figure out how he did it. In a few other games I have seen, the National playters each brought dice and either player could roll either die as they wanted. Then there was no question about dice and being fair. I've also seen some very unussual dice rolling techniques that lead me to question the randomness of the roll, but to me it is a gmae and I'm not about to try and call someone on something I'm not exactly sure of. | |
Sean Banks
Champion of Elementals
Official Organizer
Gen Con 05 maxminis Event | Winterfantasy 06 maxminis Event | Gen Con 06 maxminis Event | Winterfantasy 07 Community Event | |
|
Zaukrie
Underboss
2007 Posts
| | 04/27/2006 2:37 PM |
| Yes, the HH is superior to the JA. The JA's superior damage is situational - the HH is such a good piece because it does well against all comers - it has low variability in its effectiveness(this reinforces Jesse's point about more formats leading to less warbands in a different way). Spoiler bands and highly chaotic bands (the original hill giant, for example is highly variable - it doesn't hit often, but when it does, ouch) can succeed, they just won't be played by great players in big tournaments.
If I'm wrong, I'd like to see evidence of it in tournament reports, but I don't. And, whomever said 20-30 good minis in each set is way off, there just aren't that many in each set that hold sway in the serious DDM community. | |
Fastest dropping DCI ranking on record!
Champion of Juiblex | |
|
The_Duke
Sneak
158 Posts
| | 04/27/2006 3:34 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Gunthar
There's also the value problem. As it stands, there's a lot of "useless" minis in the game. Evil gets the majority of the minis and because of the RPG market, this is correct. Not all of them are great because of the need to stretch product life. However, it really annoys the living sh!t out of me the good factions got screwed and keep getting screwed on the skirmish side. Leaving about a third of the minis with almost no real use is bad value.
I think the value of some of these "useless" minis comes from RPGers and collectors, as you say. Also, something I was made aware of when listening to the Minis War College podcast: some of these minis are made for viability in sealed, where the environment is very limited. In such an environment, certain "useless" pieces become vital and important.
Also, there is a design philosophy that requires the inclusion of "sub-par" elements when designing a collectible game (IanB's reference to the Mark Rosewater article reminds me of this). Not everything can be "good," that would actually make everything mediocre, everything the same. Also, if all the collectible game piece elements are of equal play value, good players wouldn't necessarily rise to the top, as any choice would be as good as the next. Warband building wouldn't be critical, and play would be like flipping a coin.
I don't think designers consciously say "now let's make a piece that stinks!" I think they say "let's make a cool piece, but not a great piece; something for the RPGers or collectors, something interesting that we might build on later, or we might not." Don't forget these all have RPG stats on the flip side. Not everything is for ultra-skirmish efficiency.
Regarding factions getting poor pieces, it has been said on these forums before that one or two factions are necessarily going to be weaker than others. There will be an ebb and flow to faction power. This game is young yet, and with more releases, each faction will become deeper and more combos will be discovered. | |
Alfred O. Cloutier -Trading History - BLAULB!
| |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 04/27/2006 4:40 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Zaukrie
Yes, the HH is superior to the JA. The JA's superior damage is situational - the HH is such a good piece because it does well against all comers - it has low variability in its effectiveness(this reinforces Jesse's point about more formats leading to less warbands in a different way). Spoiler bands and highly chaotic bands (the original hill giant, for example is highly variable - it doesn't hit often, but when it does, ouch) can succeed, they just won't be played by great players in big tournaments.
If I'm wrong, I'd like to see evidence of it in tournament reports, but I don't. And, whomever said 20-30 good minis in each set is way off, there just aren't that many in each set that hold sway in the serious DDM community.
Well, I'm 1-1 so far with JA bands against HH bands, and would have a good chance at being 2-0 if they weren't carrying dark moon monks (and stealing fire resistance via the rakshasa.)
The thing is, HH's aren't uniformly strong against all pieces, any more than the JA is. They're weak against DR without magic weapon, they're weak against fire resistance.
A HH band facing off against a bunch of red samurais or ogre ravagers, for example, is honestly in pretty bad shape. 8 or 9 hits to kill on either one.
I'm not going to argue that the HH isn't a very strong piece, obviously it is! It hasn't completely dismantled the game, though, even though there seems to be a sentiment to that effect.
The 20-30 was me. That's the number I feel like have a shot at being competitive when you include metagame shifts, etc., and I'm thinking across all formats, so including epic. You don't think you could come up with 20 pieces in WD that have a shot at a competitive warband, even if they're not in one today? | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
| Hero of Skirmish
doubtofbuddha
Commander
3371 Posts
| | 04/27/2006 4:46 PM |
| Let me try this experiment:
Arcane Ballista
Aspect of Moradin
Combat Medic
Sacred Watcher
Warforged Bodyguard
Warforged Scout
Warpriest of Moradin
Brass Samurai
Dragon Totem Hero
Steelheart Archer
Warforged Barbarian
Wemic Barbarian
Flameskull
Inspired Lieutenant
Large Duergar
Shuluth, Archvillian
War Troll
Zakya Rakshasa
Hill Giant Barbarian
Hill Giant Chieftan
King Obould Many-Arrows
Orc Wardrummer
Quaggoth Slave
Troglodyte Thug
Tiefling Blademaster
24 with Wardrums.
| |
I am not gone. | |
| The Defenestrator
AesophDarkfable
Warlord
5628 Posts
| | 04/27/2006 4:50 PM |
| | And I'd even add Khumat to that list as well. | |
Im out- find me on Hordelings if you want to chat. | |
|
Zaukrie
Underboss
2007 Posts
| | 04/27/2006 5:06 PM |
| Great list, but I'm not convinced, assuming only constructed. How many people play sealed or draft, not at a pre-release (I love draft and like sealed, I really like the challenge, but most addicts won't play as they already own enough minis and don't want more that they already have)?
Based on tournament reports I've read, I'd take these off for sure(so far, it's early for this set):
Combat Medic
Dragon Totem Hero (although he may be useful in 500, not sure)
Flameskull
Inspired Lieutenant
Hill Giant Chieftan
King Obould Many-Arrows
I'd take these off, even though I think they should be good:
Warpriest of Moradin
Wemic Barbarian
That still leaves 16, which is more than I would have guessed. However, most of those are support or fodder, the only ones I've seen anyone build a band around as the core are:
warforged scout (not the core, but almost auto include)
Arcane Ballista (in Epic, on one map, though it has been used successfully outside of that)
Aspect of Moradin
War Troll (I'm not yet convinced anyone should build aroung this)
Zakya Rakshasa (not game changing, but nice nonetheless)
Hill Giant Barbarian (game changing)
Orc Wardrummer (so important as tech, that it needs to be here)
That is only 7 that have really changed/influenced the game. Interestingly, for me, 3 are LG.
I'd love for the Khumat to be more useful, but not affecting a huge number of the most effective enemies it will face in a tournament reduces its effectiveness.
Jesse, you seem to be both on my side (see the thread about Epics, I think, where you said each faction only has 1-2 viable bands, and then on this thread) which is your real, core belief? | |
Fastest dropping DCI ranking on record!
Champion of Juiblex | |
| Hero of Skirmish
doubtofbuddha
Commander
3371 Posts
| | 04/27/2006 5:27 PM |
| I included on the list not just the minis I see as being competitive but the ones that I see being competitive when accounting for metagame shifts and also included minis that I see being as useful in 500 point. (I admittadly don't play a whole lot of Epic, but I think its kind of obvious that the Arcane Ballista will be pretty useful in that format, for example.)
The War Troll is a piece I see as being more useful in epic.
Sacred Watchers are a band I've seen people build around, and I expect to continue to see people to build around.
My honest belief is that in any particular metagame there aren't going to be any more than 5-10 competitive (Marut/Couatl, Helmed Horrors, Chraals, Hill Giant Barbarians) and near-competitive (Archmage, Githzerai Monk, Quad LE, Quad CE) warbands. The pieces that are part of these warbands may shift, and include some of those on the larger list I noted above, but at any one time there is only going to be a small subset of the larger "potentially competitive" list that are in the "actually competitive" list.
I do admit I have been pretty happy with the designers ability as of late to create pieces that have the potential to shift the metagame and make older pieces more useful. Who (besides Chris [:P]) would have predicted the Young Master would be Core Toolkit material? Who would have though the Dark Moon Monk, which was virtually ignored in the past, might make it into one of the currently top-level competitive bands (Helmed Horrors.)
Part of the fun, for me at least, is exploring all sorts of combinations when new sets come out. They may end up sucking, and I may end up losing a lot (and I was losing quite a bit in the time period just after War Drums came out), but its worthwhile to pick out the little gems and potential game breakers before they start appearing in the popular dialogue.
Does that explain my stance at all? | |
I am not gone. | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
|