I don't think the long campaigns have enough oversight between missions to balance things out based on THIS campaign. Currently, the rewards only consider who won this mission, and not how many missions have been won or lost in a row so far...

I don't think it's enough to adjust things based on the outcome of each mission individually - there needs to be a programmed oversight of the campaign as a whole, serving to mitigate the snowballing of power to one side. This oversight would address the issue of 'talent' on both sides of the table. Kinda like skill-based matchmaking in video games. You get stomped in a couple games, you get matched with lower-skilled players until you win one, then things even out for the most part...

It's possible for a good IP to steamroll average players every mission - but if they win 2 in a row, maybe the losing side needs an injection of power. Then, after that injection, if they lose yet again, they would get a greater injection until they manage to win. The campaign design should be doing everything it can to keep the ratios close throughout a campaign.

It might be 'fun' in the 'pew pew' sort of way, but it will eat an anyone to lose 7 missions in a row - I don't care who you are...

12 minutes ago, macmastermind said:

I don't think the long campaigns have enough oversight between missions to balance things out based on THIS campaign. Currently, the rewards only consider who won this mission, and not how many missions have been won or lost in a row so far...

I don't think it's enough to adjust things based on the outcome of each mission individually - there needs to be a programmed oversight of the campaign as a whole, serving to mitigate the snowballing of power to one side. This oversight would address the issue of 'talent' on both sides of the table. Kinda like skill-based matchmaking in video games. You get stomped in a couple games, you get matched with lower-skilled players until you win one, then things even out for the most part...

It's possible for a good IP to steamroll average players every mission - but if they win 2 in a row, maybe the losing side needs an injection of power. Then, after that injection, if they lose yet again, they would get a greater injection until they manage to win. The campaign design should be doing everything it can to keep the ratios close throughout a campaign.

It might be 'fun' in the 'pew pew' sort of way, but it will eat an anyone to lose 7 missions in a row - I don't care who you are...

I find the question of overall campaign balance to be a really tough one. The common suggestion that you hear a lot is to give both sides the mission rewards if one side loses 2+ missions in a row. The end result of that, however, is that you end up with a campaign where, no matter what happens, one side will have at most 1 XP more than the other (and that's completely determined by who wins the first mission). Now maybe that's desirable, but it kind of makes me think "well what's the point of winning the story missions if we always end up the same? At the same time, though, it's absolutely no fun to have a campaign snowball completely out of control for one side.

So I guess the ideal solution is... actually, I have no idea . Maybe if they could somehow orchestrate it so the missions themselves got harder for the side who won the last one? Give extra threat, units, etc. to the other side? I like that idea in theory, but I can't come up with a way to build the rules for it to work in practice.

53 minutes ago, ManateeX said:

At the same time, though, it's absolutely no fun to have a campaign snowball completely out of control for one side.

I think this is the crux of it. The campaign games should ultimately be close. As a matter of fact, I'd wager that you could lose 6 missions in a row and still have fun as long as they were close losses. Last die roll close (one way or the other).

But too many times when one side is winning every mission, the missions are nowhere near close (personal experience). So, exponential reaction to streaks might help balance the whole during a long campaign...

EDIT: Even as much as to start penalizing the winner and not allowing any XP reward...

When I've been the Imperial player, I've been able to mitigate the snowball effect by "cheating" a little. Particularly when I'm playing with friends who aren't hard-core gamers. Easy fixes are to give the Rebels more credits then they should have earned, esp. if they didn't get any/all the crates. Since most missions have 4 crates, I've given my Rebels the equivalent 200 credits so it's like they got all the crates. Also, allowing the Rebel heroes to sell back items at full price is an easy way to allow them to get the best equipment.

Other easy things the Imperial player can do, pick the less powerful agenda decks/cards, or don't use them at opportune times. "Forget" to use the special features on Imperial class deck cards. When selecting open groups, take groups that will play to the Rebel heroes strengths. Are the Rebels playing Fenn, take standard Storm Troopers. Do the Rebels have Mak in their team? Convince them to spend the money on Execute then bring Imperial Officers and Infiltrators. There's plenty of options like that depending on the heroes being used.

It can be a little tougher to skew the results when you're playing as the rebels, but it's not impossible. Buy poor weapons, max out strain so you can't perform those actions when needed, and activate in questionable order. Putting your weakest character(s) on the front line is a great way to get them wounded. Allowing the Imperial to wound 1 or 2 heroes in a mission lets them stop focusing on them and move onto the healthy heroes, thus allowing them to win via the wound all heroes condition.

Of course none of these are "rules", and outside of the money options I listed before, it's hard to standardize these "fixes". But when you're playing for fun, then make it fun.

28 minutes ago, thestag said:

When I've been the Imperial player, I've been able to mitigate the snowball effect by "cheating" a little. Particularly when I'm playing with friends who aren't hard-core gamers.

I agree that it's up to the IP to balance the game at times. I've been known to back off once in a while to make sure my rebels don't get demoralized. However, they're pretty good at their jobs and in the past I've actually been worried about Rebel snowballs. For instance, when playing RtH , the rebels were 4-0 in the first third of the campaign. I was concerned that they were going to clean up the campaign which wouldn't have been fun for anybody in my opinion. Luckily, I brought my A-game and for the next few missions and the campaign ended in a nearly even split with the rebels taking the finale. I guess my point is, it's easy to back-off when you're ahead as IP, it might be harder to manage the game if things go the other direction, unless your rebel players are uber-nice, but I wouldn't count on it:)

Same, I'm sitting at a 3-0 in my hoth campaign right now, the Rebels are sweeping me. They're trying to earn Jedi Luke in the next mission, but I think I might be able to bring the hurt this time. Just picked up Mortar (which should really start bringing pain) and Armored Division (getting rJet Troopers for 1 threat is gonna be fun, especially once I put Automated Repairs and Reactive Armor on them, and they'll both benefit from Armored Corps if they're adjacent to each other. You really can't beat that for 1 threat.)

7 hours ago, macmastermind said:

I think this is the crux of it. The campaign games should ultimately be close. As a matter of fact, I'd wager that you could lose 6 missions in a row and still have fun as long as they were close losses. Last die roll close (one way or the other).

100%, when I first started, I ran the core campaign for my boardgaming group. They're all experienced and competent so they picked it up very quickly, and worked really well as a team. I won the first mission, they then won all the missions straight up until the final game where I slaughtered them with repeat-actioning Vader.

The darkest time was mid campaign where it seemed like they could kill every unit on the board far too easily, I was constantly either leaving them alone on the map for turns at a time, or feeding them pitifully small threats piecemeal. Neither of those felt good options from a dramatic point of view. Then things turned and, while I was still losing I felt the games get closer and more tense, which was a lot more fun. Maybe I just got better, or maybe the latter third of the scenarios are designed better, I don't know.

The win on the final mission also didn't feel fun, with the special rules for Vader, they felt cheated, and I couldn't help but agree. I'd much rather lose closely than win big in campaigns. Skirmish games as well to a certain extent, but nowhere near as important as in a campaign where you want to tell a cool story, and keep everyone's interest throughout the whole thing.

In summary, balance isn't important, but the reality, or illusion, of a close fought game is. Victory must *feel* possible for both sides, though you can never account for player skill totally.

I find it interesting how many people consider that "playing for fun" and "playing to win" are completely opposite things. Some of the most fun I've have in games of all types has been in trying to win and the same things seem to go for most of my gamer friends. If things do get too one-sided, I try to come up with a thematic reason for changing something: the Rancor ate a couple of Gammoreans in one of the missions, the loss of an officer left troopers confused in another, and Jabba promised the team some extra credits for their good work in the most recent one. Reducing the snowball effect is one thing, but there still needs to be a clear cost associated with losing - and benefit with winning.

I dont think i am a pro Imp player, but in my game team i have to most experience with the Imps.

For me if i let them win or I win is the same.

I realy liked when i got 4 msg after a party how hard they beat me and i shouldnt be sad its a game. I thanked for the kind words and told nothing

BUT

I have one 4 player team in my game team who are very good.

They usualy bring Fenn Diala Gideon and Mak to play. Only against them i play with full power and deadly serious.

and when i feel that they mop the floor with me it hurts. But i cant play subreversive tactis all the time

I play as Imperial vs my wife.

Im the one who reads all the rules etc etc.

Each missions I feel a bit outgunned and with some pointers now and then, wife beats me in most battles. So hard to bring down 2 heroes with the legendary card (+10 health).

Am I enjoying it? Absolutely loving it.

5 hours ago, burek277 said:

I find it interesting how many people consider that "playing for fun" and "playing to win" are completely opposite things. Some of the most fun I've have in games of all types has been in trying to win and the same things seem to go for most of my gamer friends. If things do get too one-sided, I try to come up with a thematic reason for changing something: the Rancor ate a couple of Gammoreans in one of the missions, the loss of an officer left troopers confused in another, and Jabba promised the team some extra credits for their good work in the most recent one. Reducing the snowball effect is one thing, but there still needs to be a clear cost associated with losing - and benefit with winning.

I always play to win, even if it is my first time playing a game. But there is playing to win in a friendly fun game and then there is foot on the throat, tournament play to win. I played in a Campaign Against Cancer X-Wing tournament. I played well and could have won 2-3 games if I would have ran midway through the games, but I was playing for fun and it was not a "real" tournament, so I went in for dog fights in uphill situations. The only time I don't play to win is when I am playing my son or other kids and want them to have fun. Although I will only let my son have a pass until he learns a game and then I will take it easy on him but go for the win.

4 hours ago, VAYASAN said:

I play as Imperial vs my wife.

Im the one who reads all the rules etc etc.

Each missions I feel a bit outgunned and with some pointers now and then, wife beats me in most battles. So hard to bring down 2 heroes with the legendary card (+10 health).

Am I enjoying it? Absolutely loving it.

It's funny, but if i had to pick I think I'd actually rather be the side that keeps losing in a snowball instead of the side that keeps winning. I don't really care that much if I lose, but I have a lot more fun if I can go all-out and maybe sometimes succeed again poor odds vs if I feel like I'm either going easy (and thus not having much fun) or potentially alienating my friends.

I disagree that you need to have any additional reward for winning - the way we play, both sides get the same reward whether they win or lose, and we give a boost to any side that loses 3 games in a row. And we don't have issues with people intentionally throwing games or anything - most games don't give you any lasting reward for winning, but you try to win anyway. This system seems to work pretty well, but I know it doesn't appeal to everyone.

I was thinking that (thematically) it might make sense for the losing side to get more XP, and the winning side gets more credits/influence. You learn more from your losses, but your victories will give you more influence over the galaxy (as the Empire) or access to resources (as the Rebels).

I find it very interesting the notion that winning can be the reward in itself and extraneous rewards are unnecessary and can make the game too stressful for some. My campaign has recently disbanded but hopefully I will find a new group soon, if my new group is more casual I might try out some variation of this where losers aren't punished outside of the mission they're in, although only for story missions.

I think the question of how to prevent snowballing in campaign system without rendering mission outcomes as meaningless is to either give non-resource rewards for winning (bling, style upgrades, medals, whatever) and/or have a more complex narrative structure that is affected by each outcome.

I think another solution is to reward each side with non-cumulative rewards that can only be used once and don't stick around for the rest of the campaign. XP and credits can only be spent once, but the extra upgrades they buy stick around to be used in every mission for the rest of the campaign, which is cumulative and contributes to the snowball. For example, what if the winning team was awarded a token/medal or something that could be cashed in for a one-time effect, like drawing an additional card from the side mission deck or agenda deck, rerolling a die, recovering strain, reinforcing a figure, etc, but the effect doesn't replenish after it's used up.

As a fan of shows like Survivor, I kind of see it like that. Each episode features a few challenges. The winners get rewards, be they food, comfort, or immunity. The challenges themselves do not determine the victor of Survivor, though, as it's a game that is larger than any single challenge.

So I get why mission need rewards, otherwise they're just sort of a formality. The question is- is the way the rewards are doled out something that threatens balance? Or, by offering rewards to everyone plus a bonus reward, does the game still retain a good measure of fairness?

I do wonder how many games actually spiral out of control. I haven't had it happen yet. I've seen the stats on BGG, but you can't tell how missions are linked to one another. Does this actually happen, or do we just like to worry about it? I mean, I'm sure that there are groups that just can't win, but that may or may not be related to mission rewards.

4 minutes ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

I do wonder how many games actually spiral out of control. I haven't had it happen yet. I've seen the stats on BGG, but you can't tell how missions are linked to one another. Does this actually happen, or do we just like to worry about it? I mean, I'm sure that there are groups that just can't win, but that may or may not be related to mission rewards.

Well, here's a campaign mapped out with the Rebels winning every mission and fulfilling any and all optional objectives- literally, a worst case scenario for the Empire every turn. The following is from a real possible campaign played with 4 heroes, but I'm obscuring mission names for possible spoilers. Also, assuming no crates ever taken.

Intro

Rebels: 800 credits, 1XP apiece

Empire: 1 XP, 1 Influence

Empire denied of: 1 Influence

Side Mission 1

Rebels: Hero Reward, 400 credits, 1 XP apiece

Empire: 1 XP, 1 Influence

Empire denied of: 2 Influence, blocking hero reward

Story Mission 1

Rebels: 2 XP apiece, 800 credits,

Empire: 1 XP, 1 Influence

Empire denied of: 1 XP

Side Mission 2

Rebels: Hero Reward, 400 Credits, 1 xp apiece

Empire: 1 XP, 1 Influence

Empire denied of: 2 Influence

Story Mission 2

Rebels: 800 credits, 2XP apiece

Empire: 1 XP, 1 Influence

Empire denied of: 1 XP

As of right now, we can see that the Empire is about 2XP behind the Rebels about halfway through the campaign. That is, admittedly, a pretty decent class card. Influence is pretty negligible, in my opinion- it's useful, sure, but far from as important as XP. Also, the Empire has missed some opportunities to block Rebel credits (which I forgot to mark), which could've hurt the Rebels.

So yeah, I think there is some potential for a snowball- but also, if the Empire is losing that badly (and I can say this because I've been there) then perhaps someone else should take over for them.

3 minutes ago, subtrendy said:

Well, here's a campaign mapped out with the Rebels winning every mission and fulfilling any and all optional objectives- literally, a worst case scenario for the Empire every turn. The following is from a real possible campaign played with 4 heroes, but I'm obscuring mission names for possible spoilers. Also, assuming no crates ever taken.

Intro

Rebels: 800 credits, 1XP apiece

Empire: 1 XP, 1 Influence

Empire denied of: 1 Influence

Side Mission 1

Rebels: Hero Reward, 400 credits, 1 XP apiece

Empire: 1 XP, 1 Influence

Empire denied of: 2 Influence, blocking hero reward

Story Mission 1

Rebels: 2 XP apiece, 800 credits,

Empire: 1 XP, 1 Influence

Empire denied of: 1 XP

Side Mission 2

Rebels: Hero Reward, 400 Credits, 1 xp apiece

Empire: 1 XP, 1 Influence

Empire denied of: 2 Influence

Story Mission 2

Rebels: 800 credits, 2XP apiece

Empire: 1 XP, 1 Influence

Empire denied of: 1 XP

As of right now, we can see that the Empire is about 2XP behind the Rebels about halfway through the campaign. That is, admittedly, a pretty decent class card. Influence is pretty negligible, in my opinion- it's useful, sure, but far from as important as XP. Also, the Empire has missed some opportunities to block Rebel credits (which I forgot to mark), which could've hurt the Rebels.

So yeah, I think there is some potential for a snowball- but also, if the Empire is losing that badly (and I can say this because I've been there) then perhaps someone else should take over for them.

Sure. I wasn't doubting that it's possible I just wonder how sensitive the game is to rewards and if the "snowball" effect is real or perceived. As you also recognize, ability is very important. It might be totally valid, I'm jut wondering out load.

This get's to my other question regarding the sophistication of game design. I always wonder if game designers use probabilistic models and gaming simulators to figure some of this stuff out (yes, like Joshua in War Games). If so, you could test some of these ideas and control for things like "ability level". My guess is that they aren't that sophisticated. If BW.eu or Jodo Cast get another interview, perhaps they can ask:)

I think that one solution of snowball effect would be to give some extra threat or threat reduction. For example:

after 2 missions lost in a row, imperial player gets extra threat equal to half of the threat level (rounded down) duing first round

after 2 missions won in a row, imperial player gets only half of the threat during first round (rounded up)

after 3 missions won/lost in the row, change the figures to 3/4. After 4 missions, to 1 (double threat, or no threat at all during first round)

In my campaign rebels are winning 5-4 so its been pretty fair with a couple coming down to last dice rolls. My theory is that in the campaign if you lose a mission the next story mission should be easier. maybe thats the case next time maybe the rebels will win the first mission and i can see. Under siege wasnt that tough for the rebels. but maybe a good emp player could have murdered them.

But if fun was had then theres no problem.

So, from a design perspective, there's really only one goal of having rewards at the end of the mission and that's to build up your side with new things and keep the game fresh. I think the mission decision tree and the nature of the missions is how the designers intended to balance things (if you lose, your opponent gets to play to an objective and you just have to obstruct, etc), but it doesn't work very well IMO...

If all players at the table have similar strategic skill, then the game plays balanced for the most part. But you typically don't see everyone at the table having the same skill level, and that can dramatically affect the outcome of a mission. Using rewards as a balance is something I don't think was considered during design - nor am I sure it really should have been, but after seeing things played out in reality - perhaps there should be a 'Balance' game mode where mitigating disparate skill levels is the goal. In that sort of mode, losing a string of games would exponentially increase your rewards - till things even out...

It would be nice for the folks out there who just want to run fun campaigns and then have to deal with literally never winning a mission...

15 hours ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

Sure. I wasn't doubting that it's possible I just wonder how sensitive the game is to rewards and if the "snowball" effect is real or perceived. As you also recognize, ability is very important. It might be totally valid, I'm jut wondering out load.

This get's to my other question regarding the sophistication of game design. I always wonder if game designers use probabilistic models and gaming simulators to figure some of this stuff out (yes, like Joshua in War Games). If so, you could test some of these ideas and control for things like "ability level". My guess is that they aren't that sophisticated. If BW.eu or Jodo Cast get another interview, perhaps they can ask:)

Rewards are probably super hard to account for, since I'd say that not all rewards are created equal. Completely disregarding credit or XP gains, even just looking at the actual rewards. For instance, in the above example, consider that in Side Mission 1 the Rebels earned Veteran Prowess for Fenn. That's a pretty dang good card, as it makes what is already a good and often used ability of his even better. Or, maybe they attempted a different mission, and got a lesser reward. Sure, it'll still help them, but Fenn isn't gonna have that Blast 2 for a while still, and it's almost impossible to know how the game could have gone differently if he had.

Regarding design- I'm not really sure exactly how they do it, but I imagine it's sort of a guess and tweak type of thing- in that they'd design a mission, test it with users and their team, and make adjustments as needed. But of course, there's still no way you'd be able to account for all variables with that sort of testing. Nor do I think there really is a way that a mission could be completely balanced for every possible factor.

Reviving old thread as I've been thinking about this lately after just starting up my third concurrent campaign.

For me, the fun part of the game is playing competitively. If I have to ease off the throttle as the Imperial player it takes away some of the enjoyment. However, I don't want to kill off all of my groups so badly that I end up not having anyone to play with. In one of my campaigns, I offered the idea of a "difficulty" setting and they chose "Medium" so I may make some sub-optimal moves, choices, etc. to help balance out the campaign a bit. The players are all having a good time so I think it's working (albeit not as exciting for me to play this way). One of my other groups I offered this option as well but they felt that it wouldn't really feel like winning to them if they knew I was holding back so they wanted me to go full bore. I have an inkling this may not work out well in the end if they end up losing too many missions in a row. In the third campaign, I am playing against my most experienced group of Rebel players and they're playing all top tier heroes so I haven't held back yet. I narrowly won the first two missions but am concerned that if I push too hard it may become un-fun for them as well.

On the one hand I feel like the game should be able to be played competitively and still have missions swing both ways. On the other hand, I realize that experience and skill playing the game is not always equal so maybe holding back a bit is required to make things feel a bit more balanced. Maybe I'm playing the wrong game... too bad I enjoy it so much

3 hours ago, machfalcon said:

Reviving old thread as I've been thinking about this lately after just starting up my third concurrent campaign.

For me, the fun part of the game is playing competitively. If I have to ease off the throttle as the Imperial player it takes away some of the enjoyment. However, I don't want to kill off all of my groups so badly that I end up not having anyone to play with. In one of my campaigns, I offered the idea of a "difficulty" setting and they chose "Medium" so I may make some sub-optimal moves, choices, etc. to help balance out the campaign a bit. The players are all having a good time so I think it's working (albeit not as exciting for me to play this way). One of my other groups I offered this option as well but they felt that it wouldn't really feel like winning to them if they knew I was holding back so they wanted me to go full bore. I have an inkling this may not work out well in the end if they end up losing too many missions in a row. In the third campaign, I am playing against my most experienced group of Rebel players and they're playing all top tier heroes so I haven't held back yet. I narrowly won the first two missions but am concerned that if I push too hard it may become un-fun for them as well.

On the one hand I feel like the game should be able to be played competitively and still have missions swing both ways. On the other hand, I realize that experience and skill playing the game is not always equal so maybe holding back a bit is required to make things feel a bit more balanced. Maybe I'm playing the wrong game... too bad I enjoy it so much

I play the game differently has the imperial (more D&D oriented style) but I do understand your point. Rather then holding back by making sub-optimal moves, activations, etc, maybe you could impose that difficulty level on yourself by playing thematic open groups rather than optimal open groups. If you think it could be interesting playing this way, you could try to figure out the best strategy considering what you are bringing. Wouldn't a win with suboptimal open groups be more satisfying knowing that you outsmarted the rebels with not necessarily the best figures available but say the most thematic ones? For example, on a mission that take place in an imperial base, you'd expect to see imperial figures, so try the missions without bringing those nasty mercs figures.

While i agree that campain balance has a bit of wiggle room and doesn't have to be perfect.

But i dont really think that missions that are massively tilted towards one side or the other are acceptable.

Jabba's Realm was really bad for that, with several missions heavily favored for both sides. The fact that even the intro mission was balanced badly makes me wonder if it was rushed.

HotE felt better, in which none felt unwinnable. Granted Ive only played 5 of the 12 missions.

I personally as an imp player, dont generally hold back, but i am generally playing with experienced players. But against newer players, where thematics are more important, I can understand holding back a bit, especially if they are behind.