I believe one of the reasons why people voted no in the last poll is because we are already in N4 and people dont like to be in a damned if do damned if you dont situation OR you change horses mid race. Fair to say we like simplicity but we also like consistency and at the moment to back track would be a lack of consistency. However, as the title says, would people prefer a unified system? Please explain? Also, if uncertain what a unified system means, in this particular thread it mess less if not ultimately no FAQs required. I'm also aware the might seem redundant but I believe it's necessary so that we all can start to understand what is the root of our problems?
What do you mean by "unified system"??? I am sorry but I do not even understand your definition of that kind of system in your post. Please explain! :)
I voted No. Imagine a unified system where the rule are published as they are and there are no further FAQ. You can ask all the clarification on intents you want, CB don't answer any of it because it want to maintain your "unified system" gold standard that says no faq required! Also, remember that in the past CB purposely did not answer some questions that they considered "coffee table talk". In their mind, the problem posed did not require a FAQ and the RAW was sufficiently well written to cover actual game play. But in the mind of forum users, they did require a FAQ. So when a unified system means no FAQ required, it would mean no FAQ required in the point of view of CB. No, i don't want us to return to that system.
Woah woah Charlie, calm down. No one said no rules clarifications, I'll admit but the creation exceptions for exceptions is becoming a norm. I apologize for not stating that but as it stands, most of the current FAQs are just that. Exceptions fornexcepts that create cascading problems for players.
A universal application of rules, no more exceptions to exceptions, it becomes to convoluted and messy. A unified system mean that it would create intuitive solutions within itself instead of need exceptions or even an FAQ. Apologies for not better that stating, but given the current FAQ problem stems from the "you can declare without reqs" and has been the stem of all the big FAQ problems since N4 dropped I kind of thought the meaning of unified system would be easily understood.
Wuji, I think your heart is in the right place. This is why I decided to engage in this thread. Allow me to begin by saying I'm not trying to criticize the initiative, nor you as a person. This is just an opinion of someone who saw a lot of your posts. The impression I usually get from your posts (and polls) is you tend to state your mind on something, mark opinion you agree with as the only proper solution and everything else as worse, then proceed with a poll. Even the poll names are usually constructed in a way that diminishes "other than satisfactory" results. I do not think you do this purposefully. I suspect you are a passionate person, invested in the game and just disappointed of how things are. I feel this way, because this is how I used to be when I begun my Infinity forum adventure. I followed a very similar pattern. This made me think maybe you do to and If I could give you an advice: Consider changing the narrative a bit, providing less of your own opinion in the initial posts, treating all options equally and sticking to facts and stats only when describing the issues. This will open the doors to some interesting conversations and is guaranteed to have more positive engagement from forum users. Nothing prevents you from jumping in and adding your opinion once the wheel starts turning. As to the poll, I voted "no" as I misunderstood your opening post. I wholeheartedly support FAQs and believe this is the only way to fix the game as it is now. Still I feel disappointed with how N4 turned out and feels being more overcomplicated with every successive FAQ. Disappointed to a point where me and some of my buds find time to play some miniatures and we talk Infinity and are just not interested. New edition is not new anymore and it still feels like being beta tested. Personally I hate playing betas of all kind. There's no worse moment in edition's lifetime than just before new edition release. Playing old feels redundant, playing new (like when C1 came out) feels a good way to learn bad habits cause rules are still a subject to change. I feel like Infinity is still a beta right now and this makes me sit most of it out more than I would have done otherwise. I mean - the game is still Infinity at it's core, but there's just so much cringe and hiccups with the rules. N4 was supposed to be smooth and streamlined... Intuitive. It seems anything but that. So yeah. In the end I do want to see a "unified system" - a well done, finished product. And this is why how initial post is constructed is so important. I would have voted differently from the get go.
This should have been a PM... As for your statement of fixing the game as it is now. Well, I explained that people are most likely torn in their decisions and "fixing the game as it is now" exemplifies my point. I understand that. It seems that admitting the limitations of the current system is an adverse topic... as far as all systems of any kind in an game, or reality, need consistency. Generally speaking, people like simple, and easier. Generally speaking intuitiveness is both of those things. With the N4 system, while I'm happy to play Infinity in any form, I see a consistent thing is the need for exceptions and FAQs. Does that clear things up? If that and my other responses do, then please change your vote because what we want and what we're willing to settle for and contort our minds to fit the present system are two different things and I think we all know that.
I’m sorry, but what the heck do you mean by “unified system”? You’ve posted like three times in this thread and not explained it. Was 2nd edition’s “you can declare any skill as long as you can possibly fulfill the requirements at the end of the order” (trying to fix that and make it workable is what got us into the current rules situation, by the way) a “unified system”?
I did explain it. And you're not sorry, "what the heck do you mean" is low level trying to start shit. I'm trying to help this game stop having an FAQ royal rumble every season and stop the non sense rules, I dont need you lying to my face saying I didnt explain anything! So get out
Here we go again. Wuji, your thread is confusing. Your 'unified system' has no details and no plan for being achieved. What you have asked is essentially "do you guys like good things and dislike bad things?" and that is a meaningless question. Plus the name sucks, it doesn't really tie into what you are suggesting - something like "straight forward rules" or "universally applicable and simple rules" would be more appropriate. Instead of making vague statements, give some concrete ideas. Some details. Writing rules is hard. Saying "wah rules bad I want better ones" is easy. Stop doing the easy thing and try contributing to the hard one. The other posters ITT have come here with a more conciliatory attitude, and you've already started taking it personally and blaming them. Stop, ask yourself why does this keep happening. It's not some gigantic conspiracy, its the normal response to people putting up crappy posts and crappy ideas. Improve your content and you won't get this pushback. He tried to explain it earlier. A rules system where everything is good and nothing is confusing or broken. How do you make the things good? I dunno. How do we remove the problems? I dunno. Don't you like good things? If you do you should definitely vote yes. Just don't man. You think there have not been olive branches or helpful advice before? If you think differently to Wuji, its a personal attack. If you push this it will devolve into bullshit and defensiveness and blame projection from him as it has every other time I've seen it.
Dont start a fight. Just cause the other person didnt like my explanation didnt mean I didnt explain anything. You say its confusing but you got the jist of the point that a unified system is good and what we've been struggling with presently is bad. Thank you. As for the name, I borrowed it from someone else. But just cause you dont like the name of something doesn't mean you act like you're acting now. Instead of trying to scold me, if you get the point then talk about it. Look how many people voted that they dont like a unified system yet those same people complain with every FAQ. That's proof that I'm right. Who wants to sit there and complain every season. And the argument is some sort of unfairness in the game with some unforeseen consequences and often some sort of baiting that feels like a cheat. It's funny that you say here we go again like you have good memory, well then use it, think back, I've probably given more varying suggestions than other individual when comparing screen time by %. And in those suggestions I've ran the gamut of playing within the confines of the current rule structure as well as have suggested often scrapping it and going back to something tried and true. I think we would actually get somewhere if you admitted what I'm saying is true. But you'd also have to admit this and say these words: "damn, he is telling the truth, and has been, maybe I've developed a bias". Think about how prone to bias people are, I mean, ive spoken about it quite alot and I am aware of it often including in myself. What makes you think you're so immune to it? I'm being honest. Cause you tell me so often you dont like any of my ideas and then when I something vague to let other people fill in the gaps on there own, then you dont like that either. Well if you think I'm asking an obvious question like, "hey guys a unified system is good right" well, which is it, is my post and responses confusing, is it obvious, is it good? Cause I just pointed out that your comments interfere with each other. Why not just help me make the game better instead of trying to fight me all the time... If you think that I think it's a conspiracy, then you should probably talk to a therapist about it. I hope it's just a joke. I've pointed out time and again that people are flawed including myself. The number one difference between me and most people, yes I'm that different, is I'm just more often aware of it. Like you dont see the problem at all with your post saying it's all me like solkan not thinking there is anything wrong with the wording "what the heck" or telling me I didnt e plain anything". Well that's Emily disrespectful and what he really means is that he didnt understand what I was saying but he clearly felt the need to blame it on me. Yet, you understood just fine. So clearly you're better at understanding than him, maybe youre better at explaining than I am. But since you agree that a unified system would be better instead of all these exceptions to exceptions, then explain the one you would do instead of trying to play within the confines of a flawed system and shooting down my ideas to return the very simple mechanic: reqs before declaration and the single caveat of treat ZoC AROs like vs a marker state. Yep, you get it, but you seem to not thing outside of this singular post, you just remember your negative feelings outside of this post, the point of something open is so people dont get hung up on the details like they so often do. Look at you man, no ownership in your own bad behavior, nor acknowledging that others on here act the same way. All you have to do is admit no one here is innocent, and we're square. But just like every human being, it's not you or anyone else that you kind of like, it's the dude who you dont like. Well, I've pretty much described every single aspect about this thread now. So talk about that. Dont talk about me outside of this thread. Look at the points made, understand the arguments. And we might just actually salvage this. And also, I'd really really appreciate it if you spoke to me the way you would if we were in person, maybe you would be this brave but for what, you really test other people this much to find out what they're made of, it generally doesnt play out that well...
Also, since some people want an example of a unified system... 2 changes. - Make Declarations always meet Requirements first. - Treat ZoC AROs like AROs against markers. Options are Dodge, Reset and Hold ARO incase you get LoF. This fixes everything. I dont care what anyone says about it till they can prove that this turns into ARO baiting of any kind.
I would appreciate it if the thread does not devolve to the state it needs to be locked (text intentionally not red).
how is this system better than: - Declare whatever aro you would like to perform, and check requirements at time of resolution This solution requires not adding an addition step and is opposite what the faqs currently have setup. Because your solution sounds clean, except there are multiple faqs that will have to be removed to have it your way. But we can't remove all the faqs because your example requires ZoC to be able to be measured as it is currently. So to have it the way that you are requesting would require not only adding that additional step but a heavy change to the faq. What the rules writers have currently gone for is simpler if a little odd until explained that again, just declare whatever you would like, we will check it later.
Which is why I said you'd explained it. You did it badly, but you did explain your position. What you did not do was read my post. If you read something confusing enough times you can 'get the jist'. But you can do the same thing with something clearly explained in just one reading. Who voted no? What exactly is that proving? The stuff about bias and my lack thereof is all projection - when did I mention any of that? What has this got to do with anything? What in my comments is 'interfering with each other'? You are letting Psycho's comment about dirt and gems get to your head. You just spew out random ideas with little though. Sure, if you fling enough dirt at the wall some gems will stick. But you also get a pretty dirty wall in the process. When you post good ideas I say so. I've done it at least once. A vague thread that essentially boils down to "guys, I think good rules would be an idea" is not one of those ideas. Read better. Then you turn around and drop "It's funny that you say here we go again like you have good memory, well then use it", or frankly, your entire response to Solkan. Don't play the victim here. It took me multiple re-reads of your posts to figure it out. It is pretty easy for someone to see "unified rule system" and not know what that means. Your explanation was essentially "a rule system that does not need FAQ... because it is amazing and perfect and intuitive". It wasn't a good explanation or one that makes much sense in the context of posting at thread about improving the rules. I didn't 'shoot down' any ideas because you didn't present any. As for fixes, I'm in the vaulsc camp of "make all attacks the second skill" as a good starting point. But frankly, a rewrite from the ground up in simple clear terms is probably better. You have to start with something more substantial. Look at my Morat thread for instance. I suggested some percieved issues with Morats, and posted up some possible solutions that a few people and myself worked on. Then opened the floor for critique and other ideas. I wanted something to change, and I spent hours on that post. I gave people something to work with and the end result is something quite positive. This thread doesn't do that. Its too vague. It's too confusing. It's too redundant which to your credit you mention, but not to your credit this thought did not seem to deter you in making it. You got all that the first dozen or so times we interacted. Now you get this. If you post something that is bad I will tell you so. If you post something good, I will do what I have done the other times (?) you have done so and say so. I just can't help it.
The point of the thread was to discuss a system wide idea cause the present system has inherent flaws. So in reality, the point of this thread is kept with my post that you didnt agree with just now. If you didnt understand the point of the post, you could have just asked me in some way to clarify more for you. I get that it could have been executed better in the first place, but there is a right and a wrong way to go about trying to get someone to clarify themselves.
Skipping to the point. Again, just cause someone doesnt like the explanation, their response is uncalled for. The more this forum let's people get away with any transgression, the more transgressions there are bound to be.
When you and I stopped talking last time I didn't bother with talking to CB, I just left the forum cause I didnt want the headache anymore. I come back and I keep the composure that I usually before I say fuck-it and start blasting people but you still threaten to lock threads of discussion rather than single out people who are making little aggressive moves at other people. I've told you before, people dont act like this in real life. In the other thread, someone called you weak. I guess I can say it's good you didn't lose your shit but you do really need to be getting on people's cases. That's why these guys here think they talk the way they do and act like people shouldnt be offended or at least aware that people are trying to disrespect them. You said you were gonna be more serious about bans, I said good because I knew I can keep myself in check and can express manners but had doubts about others. You're apparently still the mod, so moderate, stop shutting down peoples discussions, the silent majority hate that, we like and CB needs real discussion, no more baiting, and prodding just get rid of those people. Drop the hammer already. I know I know I can keep my shit together. And you notice I'm actually giving you the opportunity again. It's your turn.
Which part do I need to have clarified? I explained that your changes require massive rework of the faq and requires certain sections of the faq to work. The current design is simple if unintuitive to begin with. The conundrum people have on "how does it work" literally can be solved by explaining that "everything can be declared, only at resolution will it the requirements be checked". This is simple, the inherent flaws people are having about this is that either the faq and raw are not quite matching the desired goals, or that there are certain scenarios that have changed and want to know how to play it. They are asking tactic based questions on the new system being given to us. This is why I stated that No, I do not wish for the unified system that you are polling about after the most recent faqs that have come down.
It would be just as easy to describe what we already have in N4 as a “unified system”. And that’s the problem with this your poll. More importantly, take your example unified system. Infinity is in the situation that it’s in because it’s not possible to “always meet Requirements first” unless you eliminate practically all of the requirements, or eliminate things like holoechoes and “Discover plus BS Attack.” And you’ll need to either add pre-measuring or eliminate the requirements to be in range when declaring a BS Attack. Do you think that’s the sort of changes that people think they’re voting on?
