Daniel Guinoza
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hello

Drafting, while a part of Mythic Battles: Pantheon, has logistic disadvantages when considered inside a competitive setting. If drafting is included, it should be a very specific format. Also, should KSE content be tournament legal?


A) What should be allowed and what not:

1)Banlist?
Yes, as some interactions two years from now may not be tested. You just ban a combo piece and done. This makes sure balance holds long term, while reducing the strain in the testing department.
2)KSE tournament legal?
Yes.Including it won't anger some backers, while maintaining balance won't anger nonbackers. Basically think of it as just another expansion, that is guaranteed to be balanced via the banlist. The disadvantage would be play experience if someone doesn't have the KSE, which would be the same as not having another regular expansion. Also, the information is public, so they could be familiar with what they do.
3)Rotation?
No for units/cards. As long as a banlist is maintained, rotation won't be necessary, and rotations make old content be worthless, pushing away some players. As for maps, only half the players need them so it may be fine.
4)Mandatory content?
No for units/cards. Requiring specific expansions in order to play in tournaments unnecessarily ups the entry barrier, and makes nonmandatory content worthless competitively. As for maps, only half the players need them so it may be fine.

B) As of right now, I propose two strong tournament format options:

1)Premade armies: The draft phase is skipped. Advantages: It accelerates the tournament a lot, which is very important as people normally don't have the whole day or stamina to play a long tournament (unless it is a regional or worlds, in which case you don't want to tire the players). Still drives sales of expansions, and players don't feel obligated to buy expansions, but buy them to have more options. Disadvantage: No draft. I think the logistic advantages make it worth a consideration, and if the second option is not implemented, then a strong candidate to be the standard format.

2)Draft what you own: Each player brings the core set and any expansion they want. Each player can only draft from the miniatures/cards they own, and the shared content can only be chosen once by any player. For example, player A has Core + Hell Judges (but not stretch goals). Player B has Core + Poseidon. Player A starts choosing the god Ares (from A's available Zeus, Ares, Athena, Hades). Player B no longer has Ares available, now can choose from B's available (Zeus, Athena, Hades, Poseidon). This is a good compromise, as each player will play a competitive game (important when the stakes are high) with content they own. Keeping the intersection as draft once keeps the spirit of the draft phase of the core game, and allowing players to field their own expansions makes buying expansions relevant (good for the company) and gives more options to the player (good for the player).

Options I don't recommend:

1) Like Imperial Assault maps. It has mandatory and rotating expansions. Even though it drives sales of the expansions, it limits the pool of potential players, as the entry barrier (and maintenance) is expensive. Mitigated if only for maps, as only half the players need them.

2) Just the core set: This would be like a Catan world tournament, and not drive the sales of the expansions.

3) Core set + mandatory expansions: Requiring X content makes the practical core box (as in core + all required expansions) more expensive (tournament wise). Disadvantages: Entry barrier is higher, non required expansions may sell less.

4) Drafting from mixed owner's pool: This would mean a specific type of sleeves will be mandatory, along with other disadvantages of lending mentioned below.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive and further discussion:
Spoiler (click to reveal)

Suppose player A has an 'all-in' kickstarter pledge, while player B only has a regular core set.
-Let's say there is a draft phase. Will KSE content will be 'legal' to use? For example each player is expected to bring their own core set and any expansions they want. At the start of the match, one core set will be used, and all expansions from both players (without overlapping) used. Say, player A has the 'Manticore', player B doesn't but player B can draft the Manticore. Player B is content because of the option of drafting the KSE.
-If there is no draft phase, players could bring premade armies. Is KSE content overpowered or just provide different options at the same power level? In this case, player A could bring a Manticore and other KSE content in their army. Player B can't because player B doesn't have the Manticore, but has a regular core only army that has the same power level as the KSE army, so player B is content as the game is 'balanced'.

There are many questions within:

1) Should KSE content be tournament legal?

For me, saying no would anger backers, while saying yes would anger nonbackers only if they would feel disadvantaged.

2) What is the policy regarding overpowered units or overpowered combos that passed the balance test?

As more and more units are released, it may not be feasible to test every single combination, so eventually banlists or rotations are needed in every competitive game. I'd prefer banlist.

3) Should players bring premade armies (skipping the draft) or should they draft?

There are many advantages to allowing premade armies should KSE content be at the same or lower power level as non KSE content and if there will be plans to tackle overpowered units/combos:

-Time efficiency: Drafting takes time. Now multiply it by 4-6, the typical number of swiss rounds at competitive tournaments. Even if experts can draft and finish a game in less than an hour in a casual setting, you have to take into account that players will use more time within a competitive setting. A notable example is in Hearthstone, where pro players (even when they are so expert they know the most likely optimal play immediately after drawing their card), they take most of their turn "exploring other options just in case". That is, if there is a 5% chance of finding a better play in two minutes, they will take the time to think. Within a competitive setting, players will maximize their advantage, and it includes time to think, which multiplied by each game round, coupled with drafting each match, means a lot of extra time.
-Less exhaustion: Drafting takes some mental energy. Multiply this by 4-6. Watch the x-wing 2016 world finals. It was a disaster, because players were so drained, they played poorly.
-No counter-drafting: Hopefully drafting won't turn into a paper-rock-scissors with prescience. Not drafting bypasses this.
-Assuming the tournament requires each player to bring the content they are allowed to play with, disadvantages presented at the bottom for archival purposes or should this not be the case. This presents some options: Content is fixed or arbitrary (bad, since some expansions would feel mandatory which will drive the entry barrier up, which would only increase in time, and/or rotation: bad since old content would be 'wasted'). A good alternative is that each player is only allowed to draft from content they own, which would make expansions bring more options, drive expansions sales (good for the company), KSE should also be allowed (since it is healthy for there to be a banlist and anything overpowered, be it KSE or not would be banned, and KSE would only bring in balanced draft options).

There are also some aspects that have advantages and disadvantages on both sides:
-Overpowered unit management: If there is a draft phase, overpowered units must be picked first, making the game stale. If there are premade armies, overpowered units would be a must, also staling the game.
-Overpowered combo management: If there is a draft phase, an opponent can negate the combo by picking the other player's necessary pieces. But, this also stales the game. If it is premade, players would just field the combo, also the same case.
Both aspects can be managed with a banlist, nerfs, etc.
Should KSE content be overpowered by itself or as a combo, it would make player B sad, although not allowing it in the first place would make player A sad.

Finally, there can be disadvantages to allowing premade armies:
-The game includes drafting in the core set, which adds another layer to the game.
-How important is drafting? Is it more important than making a faster, less draining tournament or allowing potential conflict if a miniature is mishandled?

Other, less efficient options:

-Only one blind draft at the start of the tournament: Even if it doesn't have exhaustion and counter-drafting disadvantages, and a mild extra time requirement compared to drafting each match, it adds the disadvantage of keeping track of which things belong to which player multiplied by the length of the tournament instead of per match. This makes it even less desirable than the regular draft.
-One normal draft with core + equal expansions shared by groups of 2 or more players. This would make some expansions mandatory and some irrelevant for a particular tournament. Not recommended. If expansions are not equal, it may be imbalanced, and tracking who owns what could be disastrous.

TL;DR:

To sum the above content:
-Regardless of anything, banlists i think are a necessity in a competitive setting. Even after a through balance test, a unit released two years from now may have unexpected, untested interactions. It should be a necessity.
-KSE content should be allowed if the above holds, which should, because it doesn't anger both backers and nonbackers if balance is kept.
-The disadvantages of drafting are serious enough to consider other options, of which the premade option is the best.

All in all, MB: P explores new grounds with the drafting mechanic, but the drafting itself takes new issues regarding competitive play, such as risks of lending, cheating, theft, keeping track of who owns what, sleeves from two people, counter-drafting and making each match take more time and be more mentally taxing. I just wanted to know if KSE content would be legal, and ended writing a small assignment. 10/10 would do again.

Edit:
New:

I guess what I'm trying to warn about, is that the drafting itself, coupled with expansions (regardless if they are KSE or not) represents a new paradigm in a tournament setting with high stakes, such as regionals or worlds. Note that other games are either each player brings what they own, or are self contained board games (no expansions or no problem adding the same expansion for all). This game if it includes drafting, has some collectible aspects that no longer makes it self contained (requires expansions, each player should be free to get some expansions, different from other players) and also sharing components brings some issues even if everyone is honest. Now, if it was only the core set, these problems would be nil, but i think they want to sell expansions. I will keep adding other alternatives mentioned.

Other alternatives suggested in the replies:

-More than one competitive format: I think 2-3 formats is an ideal number as to not cut the community.

-Wild? Format which allows KSE and what not. Well, any casual tournament can play by their own rules, regardless of what Monolith deems legal, and community tournaments where everyone knows each other limits some of the disadvantages.

-Core set only (or add arbitrary expansions): Since only one player ideally would own the game, this would be akin to a tournament of settlers of catan or any other boardgame. The disadvantage is that it would make expansions less relevant or mandatory, which will be bad either for sales or for players if they must buy X expansion to play.

-Assuming the best case scenario, in which each player plays with their own content and draft from a single pool (or even better: they can bring their expansions but opponents aren't allowed to pick units they don't own, since fixing the required expansions would make them either mandatory or irrelevant, or even worse, wasted if they rotate) allows some disadvantages to be mitigated:
-No risk of lending: Not drafting means not lending your miniatures. In wargames, each player typically owns their miniatures (and in card games, each players owns their respective deck), so there is no concern for other players mishandling your minis or cards.
-No diffused responsibility in card marking: What happens if an opponent marks your art of war cards? In normal hobby games, each player is responsible to make sure their minis and cards are legal, but in this case it would be harder to catch the culprit, as the opponent could have as likely marked the owner's cards. Bending would make some cards more likely to stay on the bottom when cut after shuffling, etc.
-Less risk of (un)intentional theft: Most card games are wary about putting your cards in other player's decks, with good reason. Some player may take by accident or intentionally one of your cards/miniatures after the play is done (supposing at least some content is not owned by the same player). This could be mitigated by allowing only the content of one player to be used, which could make the game less balanced.
-No keeping track of who owns what: To encourage actually buying and using expansions, they should be allowed. If this is the case, then players are likely to have different expansions and bring them to the tournament. This means the drafting pool more likely than not will have different owners. Now people have to keep track of what minis are theirs, which is way easier than knowing which art of war cards belong to who, which leads to the next disadvantage:
-No issues with sleeves: Assuming different owners drafting pool, each player needs to make their deck using cards likely from different owners. This means all the cards need to either be unsleeved or enforced to use the same manufacturer's sleeves.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Clapperton
United Kingdom
Hebburn
Tyne & Wear
flag msg tools
mbmb
Re: Sanctioned Competitive Play questions: Drafting and KSE content
My expectation is that there'll be more than one tournament format, and that KSE content will find its way into an 'all in' format for draft only where both players have access to the same pool. I've played draft games in tournaments where one player's cards are used without issue, and I don't anticipate that being an issue here either
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Guinoza
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Sanctioned Competitive Play questions: Drafting and KSE content
redben wrote:
My expectation is that there'll be more than one tournament format, and that KSE content will find its way into an 'all in' format for draft only where both players have access to the same pool. I've played draft games in tournaments where one player's cards are used without issue, and I don't anticipate that being an issue here either


When playing with friends, it doesn't really matter. I mean far more than just a small well-knit local community. They talk about FFG organizing their tournaments, they are thinking big. I assume they may have a world tournament in mind (small local tournaments with seasonal prizes are sweet, but a world tournament has an appeal that drive people to buy more and requires a considerable commitment or help, which they have in FFG).

If you play at a world level tournament, my points above hold. If you mean a small community tournament, then some of the risks mentioned are reduced. Would you play a MTG tournament which required you to lend your black lotus to people you don't know well? I seriously doubt it, and lending your KSE has a similar vibe.

Other disadvantages that are relevant even if it is a local community tournament: Lenght, exhaustion, mixed sleeves.

Multiple formats sounds fine, if that is the case i seriously encourage the devs to consider a premade format that skips the draft.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M. S.
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Sanctioned Competitive Play questions: Drafting and KSE content
as for KSEs in competitive play, I read comments on that topic with the general tendency: we are thinking on ways to integrate them without making it a problem
or something along those lines.


concerning drafting.
I don't see them taking it completely out for competitive play, it's a core element of MB; I think they are thinking about some options to make it more ergonomic, in terms of workflow, and perhaps allowing for a variation or two in the process. Given that it is still more a boardgame where one set provides all, I would assume everything comes out of one box even if there some restrictions.

As for the rest of the arguments against drafting, how do you play regular boardgames against others if you encounter such a abundance of risky lending, cheaters etc?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Guinoza
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Sanctioned Competitive Play questions: Drafting and KSE content
asgorn wrote:
as for KSEs in competitive play, I read comments on that topic with the general tendency: we are thinking on ways to integrate them without making it a problem
or something along those lines.

I think they have taken their time to balance some KSE (at least the first stretch goals). This means KSE shouldn't be overpowered and just bring different options, no different from a non KSE expansion, which is fine.

asgorn wrote:
concerning drafting.
I don't see taking it completely out for competitive play, it's a core element of MB; I think they are thinking about some options to make it more ergonomic, in terms of workflow, and perhaps allowing for a variation or two in the process. Given that it is still more a boardgame where one set provides all, I would assume everything comes out of one box even if there some restrictions.

I also think drafting is a part of the game. But consider other disadvantages, some of which hold even in a local tournament. If you say that one set provides all, it means you only use the core, which would make the expansions sell less. And if you include arbitrary expansions, it would make them mandatory for that exclusive tournament. And yeah, some of the concerns are logistic: time, exhaustion required to add 4 to 6 draft phases.

asgorn wrote:

As for the rest of the arguments against drafting, how do you play regular boardgames against others if you encounter such a abundance of risky lending, cheaters etc?

At the local community level, where you know everyone, there is no problem. At a regionals or world level tournament, there may be a risk of that. And even if everyone was honest, there are other disadvantages such as time, added mental exhaustion, sleeves, etc.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Clapperton
United Kingdom
Hebburn
Tyne & Wear
flag msg tools
mbmb
Re: Sanctioned Competitive Play questions: Drafting and KSE content
Yes, I have played drafting games outside of a small community using other people's stuff. I expect KSE formats to be at best a side format, but the main big tournament formats will be a set defined pool of non-KSE minis, that everyone can bring their own of. All that would be shared is the board and omphaloi, just like with Imperial Assault. You will draft from one pool, but use your own minis.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Guinoza
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Sanctioned Competitive Play questions: Drafting and KSE content
redben wrote:
the main big tournament formats will be a set defined pool of non-KSE minis, that everyone can bring their own of. All that would be shared is the board and omphaloi, just like with Imperial Assault. You will draft from one pool, but use your own minis.


If you have played out of local community drafting games, good for you, but it doesn't really alleviate some of the disadvantages. Even if everyone was honest, some of the disadvantages would still hold.

"Draft from one pool, but use your own minis" Good, this solves some disadvantages, added to the OP.

However, a set defined pool of non-kse minis is a problem. If you include the core set only, players won't buy expansions. If you require fixed expansions, expansions will be mandatory, which turns potential players away, as it will be effectively a 'big expensive core set'. From then, it will get worse, as it will either get bigger and more expensive each year, or rotation occurs which suddenly makes your mandatory expansion now worthless. Also, not allowing kse minis in tournaments will make some backers angry. If the units are well-balanced, and a banlist is properly maintained (such that if there was a kse unit that allowed an op combo, it would be banned), then it wouldn't be pay to win, so it wouldn't be bad to include them. As said in the example, it would only make a nonbacker angry if it was OP.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
L S
Germany
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Option 3: The organizer provides the playing pieces.

Advantages: Everybody can play, the organizer is a proxy of M/MG and happy about an opportunity to promote the game and/or new content, players don't have to carry around large chunks of largely redundant minis, and - last but not least - drafting occurs as per the game's rules.

Honestly, any proposal that bastardizes the drafting phase must take into account that an essential part of the strategy in MB-P lies in the choice of ideal units to counter your opponent's composition. Counter-drafting is necessary for a balanced game.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seleukos
Germany
Neuss
NRW
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Arah wrote:

1) Like Imperial Assault. It has mandatory and rotating expansions.


I think you confused this with the LCG model. Or do you refer to the maps?
Anyway, Mythic Battles will run into the same problems, either:
1. Allowing all maps to be legal, so players not owning all expansions will play on unfamiliar maps.
2. Allowing only base game maps, which might be boring in the long run.
3. Adopt the Imperial Assault model and rotate the maps.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Clapperton
United Kingdom
Hebburn
Tyne & Wear
flag msg tools
mbmb
It's not a case of making backers or non-backers angry, it's a case of creating a level playing field that everyone operates on. If you have KSE's and I don't, and we're at a major MB event and are drawn together, and we use your pool, we're using units I have never had the chance to play. It's not like scarcity of distribution at retail that collectable games have, these are products which are flat out not available to buy, there's a fair few of them, and it's a clear advantage to own them if everything is allowed.

Like I say, I don't think there'll be no tournament formats in which they are allowed, only that it won't be the base format. At any given time the base tournament format will be that you have to have the core box and certain specific expansions. If you want to play, then you need them, or you need an opponent willing to let theirs be used by both of you (just as with the maps in IA). They can rotate the legal expansions, just as IA does with its maps.

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aditya C
United States
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
That may be. I think the KSE's will likely be just for exhibitions and minor tournaments. Not for prized events.

Even otherwise, several of them have similar units that aren't exclusives that play a similar role and thus the exclusives won't necessarily make it very difficult for an experienced player to figure out their value.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benoit VOGT
Luxembourg
flag msg tools
designer
mb
Regarding Organized Play, we contemplate to propose several kind of tournaments: all Units available can be drafted (included KSE) or draft limited to the core box and some given expansions...
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Guinoza
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Randombias wrote:
Option 3: The organizer provides the playing pieces.

That would be ideal if organizers have a lot of boxes, which should be feasible for large shops only (regionals/worlds level events). Added to OP.

Randombias wrote:
Honestly, any proposal that bastardizes the drafting phase must take into account that an essential part of the strategy in MB-P lies in the choice of ideal units to counter your opponent's composition. Counter-drafting is necessary for a balanced game.

I also care foremost about balance, that is why a banlist is proposed.

Nikator wrote:
I think you confused this with the LCG model. Or do you refer to the maps?

About the maps, it is ok to allow or rotate them, since only half the players are supposed to have it (the entry barrier isn't upped). I will correct the OP.

redben wrote:
It's not a case of making backers or non-backers angry, it's a case of creating a level playing field that everyone operates on. If you have KSE's,... we're using units I have never had the chance to play,... and it's a clear advantage to own them if everything is allowed.

I also care about balance, which is why the recommendation of a banlist. The second issue could be familiarity, but that can be mitiagated since the information is public, and people are also not familiar with other expansions they don't use (as in this disadvantage is only mitigated in a core-only tournament).

redben wrote:
At any given time the base tournament format will be that you have to have the core box and certain specific expansions. If you want to play, then you need them, or you need an opponent willing to let theirs be used by both of you (just as with the maps in IA).

Requiring them to compete makes the entry barrier more expensive, and makes nonlegal expansions worth less. If they rotate, it is even more expensive since in a year or two you could need all the content. About lending maps, there are less disadvantages since it is just a playing surface (you only need to worry about liquids spilling).

Caibre wrote:
That may be. I think the KSE's will likely be just for exhibitions and minor tournaments. Not for prized events.

Even otherwise, several of them have similar units that aren't exclusives that play a similar role and thus the exclusives won't necessarily make it very difficult for an experienced player to figure out their value.

Agreed, even with lack of experience, the information is public. It is the same as not having another non KSE expansion. As long as KSE isn't overpowered and a banlist takes care of potential future overpowered combos, it shouldn't be a problem.

Benoit0905 wrote:
Regarding Organized Play, we contemplate to propose several kind of tournaments: all Units available can be drafted (included KSE) or draft limited to the core box and some given expansions...

Thank you for the insight. It looks like it isn't set in stone yet so there is time to contemplate the alternatives.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Clapperton
United Kingdom
Hebburn
Tyne & Wear
flag msg tools
mbmb
If you want to play IA competitively, and you don't know in advance that others there will let you use their maps, then you need all the big box expansions. That's no different to what I suggest here. If you know others in the tournament have the expansions and will let others use them, then you don't need them. If you don't, then you will. At least here you're buying the expansion knowing you will use the minis, whereas in IA you are buying for a few tiles.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Guinoza
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Precisely, it ends up making the entry barrier more expensive.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bat Man
msg tools
Well, for having played quite a few competitive games the fact that:
- the game is not available at the same time for everyone
- the Kickstarter distribution model doesn't fit with the regular content patches releases a competitive game needs/wants
- a one-shot manufacturing model which doesn't fit with regular releases that keep the meta moving and the tournament kits full of goodies
- the money and the risk involve into the development of a competitive scene (otherwise, why Kickstarter other than getting a forecast of their orders?)
- half of the game is exclusive and has to be banned
- the rules are not written for competitive play
- mechanically, the 12 points system is not precise enough to balance all units
- FFG has no financial interest in carrying this game whatsoever, requiring Asmodee to step in. Never happened before afaik.

I really don't see how it may happen. For me, it is Leo being over-enthusiastic over a small talk with an american good in business who leaves all doors open just in case. It is a story we want to hear, as we want credibility on the balance of the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Guinoza
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
batman14 wrote:
Well, for having played quite a few competitive games the fact that:
- mechanically, the 12 points system is not precise enough to balance all units
- FFG has no financial interest in carrying this game whatsoever, requiring Asmodee to step in. Never happened before afaik. small talk with an american good in business who leaves all doors open just in case.
- the rules are not written for competitive play


I agree on that. 100 points or more are more precise. However, more points would add more time and mental exhaustion requirement.

I think FFG/Asmodee's interest is in two points: to have a strong grasp on the competitive boardgaming scence (netrunner and x-wing being good examples that are aiming to become mtg-like requiring strong investments). Second, to imitate. They partnered with GW to learn their ways, now they have a strong line of growing mini wargames with x-wing and now runewars incoming.

About the rules: yes, they suck hard because it is still a beta. They really need to take a look at an x-wing tournament FAQ to know how many substeps are involved in each phase, the required timing information that is missing (for example, when does Hercules reroll? When does Achilles? X-wing makes it very clear: Player A throws dice, player B modifies the dice, then player A modifies the dice.) Rules on the level of x-wing and MTG are essential to this game and I hope they are made to that level of detail by next year's december.

batman14 wrote:
- the game is not available at the same time for everyone
- the Kickstarter distribution model doesn't fit with the regular content patches releases a competitive game needs/wants
- a one-shot manufacturing model which doesn't fit with regular releases that keep the meta moving and the tournament kits full of goodies
- the money and the risk involve into the development of a competitive scene (otherwise, why Kickstarter other than getting a forecast of their orders?)
- half of the game is exclusive and has to be banned


I disagree on these points. People not having the product at the same time doesn't mean much, because if someone is willing to spend an extra they can get it off ebay. It is also likely we will see the core at retail (Conan is already available at retail).

The regular patches: They said that partnering up with FFG required them willing to errata the cards, and they are willing to do so.

One shot manufacturing: The game has a lot of expansions already. Even with just the core and 3 big box expansions you have a lot of replayability. Maybe rotating expansions (or a rotating banlist like in yugioh) can shake the meta, instead of adding products like a typical game. Also, you draft so each game is different. The drafting flowchart, if imbalanced, can arise and be very strict (ie get Ares if your opponent gets Hades or something like that). In that case, erratas will come. Other than that, the games will be varied, and would apply only to proposed fix #1, not #2, and only if no banlist/rotating banlist is applied.

Money required to organize tournaments: FFG is supposed to help in that. It won't cost them much to host an extra game in their annual world tournament.

Exclusive content: No, it does not need to be banned if it is balanced. At worst it is just expensive, not impossible to get and also it is not pay to win, just pay to have variety.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bat Man
msg tools
- My buddies will never play a game competitively if they cannot access all the content. I play xwing and IA, and on that scene it's a big no-go to not have a unit.

- The goal of competitive play is to stimulate sales. Good luck justifying to a store that people are allowed to play with components that the store cannot sell.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aditya C
United States
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Competitive play could involve both players bringing one expansion that they want available in the matchup. That way there will be a limited pool and both players get to influence the game setup and will have to purchase sets to be able to play in the tournament.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Chamberland
United States
Charlotte
North Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
batman14 wrote:
-mechanically, the 12 points system is not precise enough to balance all units
- the Kickstarter distribution model doesn't fit with the regular content patches releases a competitive game needs/wants
- a one-shot manufacturing model which doesn't fit with regular releases that keep the meta moving and the tournament kits full of goodies

MBP is similar to collectible miniature games - about the same weight as Heroclix, but lighter than Star Wars and D&D miniatures. These three games have point values from about 1 to 50 and they struggled to get the point values correct, resulting in tier 1, tier 2, and non-competitive pieces. The regular releases of new sets allowed the designers to better balance the meta was well as keep the game fresh.

MBP is using a restrictive 1-4 point value scale, about 1/10th what the CMGs use. As such, there can be a big variance in power levels of two 2 point units (where the CMGs could have costed them at 18 and 25). You can look at Krosmaster, which uses a 1-6 point scale and has few tournament level pieces, for comparison.


batman14 wrote:
The goal of competitive play is to stimulate sales. Good luck justifying to a store that people are allowed to play with components that the store cannot sell.

Not difficult. Stores have been running WizKids events for 15 years.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Guinoza
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
batman14 wrote:
- My buddies will never play a game competitively if they cannot access all the content. I play xwing and IA, and on that scene it's a big no-go to not have a unit.

- The goal of competitive play is to stimulate sales. Good luck justifying to a store that people are allowed to play with components that the store cannot sell.


Banning KSE content will anger some backers. If they pulled that move, people won't care too much about season 2 (which will be coming).

As I said, it is not impossible, just expensive. There will always be people selling stuff on ebay if they can sell at a good price.

X-wing is a horrible model and comparison. You need everything not because of the minis, but because the upgrade cards come in another factions' ship or worse, in an epic (tournament illegal) ship. It is really a greedy practice. Why don't you complain about a $50+ emperor palpatine that comes with a big, expensive, useless epic ship? Most of the KSE singles will be available below that price. NOTE: AVAILABLE (on ebay). Does it enrages you that bad to buy it on ebay instead of at retail?

If you have friends that are interested in a game, point them to the KS. There is still time to pledge. If not, you can always pledge yourself and lend them some stuff because it is your choice, not theirs, to get full content (you can play with just one set with them).

Now, if you/friends are completionists, having a full playset of x-wing and ia is really expensive. Far more expensive per game than buying off everything from MBP from ebay at inflated prices. In the end, only the monetary value of buying off every unit will count, and i assure you it will be lower. For a full playset of x-wing you need 1x every ship and then up to 3-5x of some ships. $150-200 per wave for soon to be 10 waves is a lot. MBP Typhon at ebay won't cost more than $1500 in the first year.

Basically, everything boils down to dollar value, not exclusivity. Money is exclusivity, not the other way around, so you are essentially in a more exclusive economic situation by playing x-wing than by worrying about MBP's exclusives.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seleukos
Germany
Neuss
NRW
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
batman14 wrote:

- the Kickstarter distribution model doesn't fit with the regular content patches releases a competitive game needs/wants
- a one-shot manufacturing model which doesn't fit with regular releases that keep the meta moving and the tournament kits full of goodies


I see this as the most important points that Mythic Battles has no future as a competitive game. The Kickstarter pushes out what constitutes several Waves of X-Wing, IA or Star Wars Armada. FFG can in-between see how the game evolves and correct the products towards a better game experience.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Guinoza
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Nikator wrote:
I see this as the most important points that Mythic Battles has no future as a competitive game. The Kickstarter pushes out what constitutes several Waves of X-Wing, IA or Star Wars Armada. FFG can in-between see how the game evolves and correct the products towards a better game experience.


The game has been tested extensively. The original Mythic Battles has many years, and this is a reboot that increases the amount of units, streamlines the game, etc. This reboot has been tested over 1 year with thousands of games.

Also, they are willing to errata cards if they are overpowered.

As for it being one shot, it shouldn't be a problem, as it is it offers many lifetimes of replay value, far above x-wing or IA. Also, season 2 is a given, and there can be more expansions to the game. Finally, this game will most likely come to retail with some help from Asmodee. At the very least the core box, and if it sells, more expansions are a possibility.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Chamberland
United States
Charlotte
North Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Arah wrote:
Nikator wrote:
I see this as the most important points that Mythic Battles has no future as a competitive game. The Kickstarter pushes out what constitutes several Waves of X-Wing, IA or Star Wars Armada. FFG can in-between see how the game evolves and correct the products towards a better game experience.


The game has been tested extensively. The original Mythic Battles has many years, and this is a reboot that increases the amount of units, streamlines the game, etc. This reboot has been tested over 1 year with thousands of games.

Also, they are willing to errata cards if they are overpowered.

As for it being one shot, it shouldn't be a problem, as it is it offers many lifetimes of replay value, far above x-wing or IA. Also, season 2 is a given, and there can be more expansions to the game. Finally, this game will most likely come to retail with some help from Asmodee. At the very least the core box, and if it sells, more expansions are a possibility.

Of those thousands of games of testing, how many were in a tournament format by hyper-competitive players? The type of players who would attend a national championship at Gen Con. The type who would have the meta of a Premade Armies format down to a handful of viable builds within a year of the game's release.

What is Monolith's card replacement policy for the cards they errata for being under- or over-powered?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Guinoza
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
[q="Mandor"Of those thousands of games of testing, how many were in a tournament format by hyper-competitive players? The type of players who would attend a national championship at Gen Con. The type who would have the meta of a Premade Armies format down to a handful of viable builds within a year of the game's release.

What is Monolith's card replacement policy for the cards they errata for being under- or over-powered?
[/q]

-I am severely against a competitive scene in its current form, specifically regarding competitive players, refer to the opening post. However, the argument that KS equates to a null tournament scene is flawed. Whether it is released in one go with extensive testing or in waves with moderate testing in between is not very important when considering MBP already provides more replay value.

Their policy to replacing errata'd cards is irrelevant. Competitive players will always either know of the changes and/or tournament organizers will be required to have the erratas available. A printout of FAQ's (where erratas are commonly found in competitive games) is reasonable. Errata'd cards are also more commonly found in 2nd+ prints of core sets, as well as prizes if it was a KSE unit.

I don't really see them replacing expensive dashboards a few times per year, that would be too expensive.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.