Insulting nerf

Thank you for the clarification, I will agree with you in principle that PanO aren’t exactly optimised for certain missions especially in a tournament setting. I must say, you wound me sir! Your statement regarding my beloved Aquila guard is deeply hurtful. I of course realise why you’ve included them along with other units you mentioned but I’ve always loved fielding them and even in N3 ITS they performed for me. I do agree that aspects of N3 were sacrificed for N4 and I do miss those narrative elements that are not now present. You stated that the nerf is a sticking point for you as it doesn’t fix any particular issues that were known. I can definitely understand why this is then an issue for you and others here in this sense. It’d make more sense I think then if the increase was a result of something being added to the unit rather than a points increase occurring for no discernible reason that it would have generated far less upset. I’m not sure if I’m correct in this statement but this is how I’d view it. (I’m not you or anyone else here and cannot discern how you may feel and why… yet).

I’ll totally agree on your second point. I used to run in tournament scenes in other Wargames and was around for N3 quite a lot. (Different battle tag that I can’t recall the damn password to and thought it easier to make a new account). I left it as it wasn’t quite for me. I found myself at odds with certain types of gamers more often than not and I just haven’t got the energy to deal with them anymore. Not to say that of everyone who engages in tournament play! The majority are great players who I loved to game with but a small group in the tournament scene just didn’t sit well with me so I left it altogether and it wasn’t necessarily a group in the Infinity scene. As I said, I do agree with you here. If all someone does is the research into armies for competitive play then they’ll have a sharp shock when they actually play in that environment. Looking at things in a vacuum is fun. Taking an army you’ve done up in that sense to a player who practically lives in the competitive scene is basically gaming suicide.

Like I’ve said in the thread, my experiences with PanO seem to be very different to others but I’m currently only playing them in narrative, friendly, not necessarily competitive gaming environments and the dice gods have been kind. I do understand why it bothers you and others, especially since you’ve explained why so well, lol.

Despite any Ill feeling you may have on how PanO is performing and what equipment they may have (or not) to perform a mission; please don’t give up on them. I still find them a really fun force to use from Varuna to Neoterra and back. If nothing else, PanO units have the most sculpted asses in the human sphere. Even our TAGs have them. I think if they could get away with it they’d find a way to sculpt a really nice ass on their auxbots too. It’s possible this has already been vetoed by Aleph however.

 

Hmm… yes. I’ll agree there. The fluff does say they go to the best officer school and it’s not something reflected on the game board. Oh well. He shoots everything that gets near. At least he has done for me.

Good to hear I’m not the only one with a backlog. I’ve quite a few left to paint for PanO (a few more after today too) but I have literally all of haqqi to get done. I need more time to paint, lol.

 

It's dismissive. What, are players just supposed to stop playing PanO and buy into the designated protagonist faction of Nomads?

 

No, you absolute goober. You tell the designers where they got it wrong. Players want PanO to be good and to bave a fair chance at the game, CB doesn't understand their own game on many points, so it's up to the playerbase to communicate that to them.

 

Unless you tell people like @A Mão Esquerda to stop insulting people who have disagreements with balancing points that CB is making, there's no point. Previously, however, you've said that you think it's wrong to entertain the idea that CB has made a mistake, though, so I'm not holding my breath.

 

Interactive play (i.e. shooting your opponent where they can aro you back) is a worse move than doing some hacking/pheroware move that the opponent can't retaliate against. I guess players who didn't buy into the factions with good noninteractive options are just suckers who should feel bad.

 

Oh, ok, but you took the time to insult people with balance concerns when you don't understand the format they're playing in. Fascinating.

 

Coming back to this one (thanks forum outages!), I'd have to disagree that table layout isn't relevant to ITS balance. Infinity's one of the most table-dependant games I've yet seen, with density, verticality, terrain zones and sightlines all being things that can shape a game as much as the players' armies. The scarcity of terrain pieces larger than ZoC is probably the biggest contributor to the power of indirect options, since you can be positive on 90% of tables you can always get within ZoC of an opponent without needing to pass through their line of sight. Hell, think about it; any building that an opponent can't see the top of the size of an Objective Room can hide a LT from the hated Pitcher, since they'll have to actually draw line of fire down the sides of the building to get a Repeater in range of something hiding behind it. More tables with large, inaccessable terrain pieces could be a bigger help than any unit rebalancing ever could

 

I think this is a problem of the written word and not personal verbal interaction, I do not assume the tone and intention you do, please do consider other posters may be writing what you read with neutral or good intentions.

 

Where exactly did I insult someone? Instead of screaming at me, perhaps you’d care to take the time to discuss things with me as others here have done?

 

Ridiculing people out the gate is insulting.

 

Mao has gone far past "neutral or good intentions," and that's a pattern with him. You can't in good faith expect other people to be civil when you permit him to be regularly insulting.

 

Where did I do this? I’m not sure you’ve read what I said on here or you’ve taken it in a manner that was unintentional. No one else appears to have taken issue with my statements.

 

Can confirm, not offended by anything Gwynbleidd said. He's been pretty good about explaining his part in the debate and his position on things, definitely hasn't been dismissive like Mao. We may be discussing primarily from the ITS balance perspective, but Infinity is played in other ways that shouldn't be ignored when designing factions.

 

Thank you! I was wondering then if I’d posted something which came across as something else without knowing. Which has happened, but I try to mitigate it these days. Apologies to anyone if I did.

@SpectralOwl, very much agree with what you’ve said about table setup. The number of times I haven’t taken some scenery into account has hurt me far more than choices I may have taken in my list. This is why we’ve always discussed table layouts in our player group regardless of ITS or not and it’s a reminder to me to pay more attention. Also, any mission with the damn objective room. I keep forgetting that thing has infinite height.

Now. To try to get through my Easter chocolates in one sitting…

 

Table setup and local meta are two of the most important factors in how a skill or a weapon rises and falls in value, tables with short fire lanes make long range weapons obsolete and short range weapons rise in value, and vice versa, the elevation in tables makes skills like super jump and climbing plus important or nice to have and so on.

Likewise local lists change the perception of weapons, multirifles for example change drastically form "worthless/ too expensive" to "essential equipment/ worth every point" always dependent on the proliferation or not of armored profiles and dogged/ NWI models without shock immunity, or dependable doctors.

Missions too affect the perception, if a standard set of missions is always used in a group it will invariably shape the lists and meta of the community.

 

All true, well and good, but I don't think any table archetype really explains the highly selective points increase to the Bulleteer, whilst leaving such beasts as Bit+Kiss!, Bear, UFK & Makaul untouched. Surely you see the optics of it right? Let me break it down, and move it away from a complaint about Pano, because I think it's more meaningful than that...

1) There are two options here: either CB don't really have the appetite to repoint units depending on performance, or they do.

2) The bulleteer increase demonstrates that they do.

3) Other much more egregious units haven't been touched.

C) CB have a bit of a problem with balance, because they (2) have the appetite to repoint over-performing units, but (3) falsly identified the Bulleteer as a prime candidate. While it's unrealistic to expect them to be perfect, it is realistic to expect them to be vaguely in the right ball park when it coms to this issue.

If I've gone wrong somewhere in my reasoning I'd be happy to be corrected. Not knocking the company, love them to bits, but yeah, I think this is an issue worth addressing! :D

 

Sorry Judge! They're numbered as premises) and conclusion), old habit :D