Running the numbers with @khepri's dice calculator, you could actually brute force through an enemy repeater to kill Jazz using a 39 point Knight of Santiago. Two wounds and a built-in tinbot is very nice: Active - 0.26 wounds / order: Wins F2F: 67.4% Causes 1+ wounds: 23.1% Causes 2+ wounds: 3.1% Failure: Ties F2F: 6.1% No wounds: 65.3% Reactive - 0.12 wounds / order: Wins F2F: 26.6% Causes 1+ wounds: 11.7% Causes 2+ wounds: 0.7% Wounds / order: 0.12 Link is calculation is Here: https://infinitythecalculator.com/?...ontB=false&critImmuneB=false&dtwVsDodge=false It will take several orders, but it is not undoable. It also matters how many other hackers they have or if they dedicated a Brigada -6 Tinbot to Jazz (which is an investment). But looking at popular meta/net Nomad lists, multiple (3+) hackers do not seem common. If it is Jazz and another hacker, you just focus on killing one first and tank the other (Jazz has a ~30% chance to wound unopposed). But it is not a worthless endeavor if it defangs a significant part of an opponent's list. And it is not like Pano is lacking paramedics or engineers if something goes wrong. EDIT: Bolded For Emphasis. A TinBot-6 Jazz costs resources and is only available to CJC.
Good god, at least assume the right hacking programs. Jazz is going to throw Oblivion back at you for the one shot stopping power. Realistically there are probably a couple other hackers floating around. In real world application you are going to be isolated and dead, losing 45pts for the chance to eliminate a 15-22pt hacker that doesn't really impact the enemy hacking net.
You know, you can run the numbers. If you did, you would realize that her using Oblivion worsens her chance to win the FtF and increases the chance you wound her. In addition, if you remove the enemy hackers, the enemy hacking net cannot hurt you.
Uhh you stuffed up the math in that link. The damage values are wrong, and you forgot to apply the -6 Tinbot Jazz links with so the Santiago is WIP10. The actual result should be 20.7% Santiago vs Jazz 18.4% Those are pretty awful odds.
If they want to look at real world numbers it going to be 2 hackers for less price than that Santiago...maybe 3.
Jesus christ. Just stop. You're trying to throw mathematics out the window to win an argument of a game that relies heavily on mathmatics. At this point why bother with any balance since dice exist and low odds gambles are "enjoyable". Just stick PanO at Wip 1 and your arguments are still valid as you have no regard for anything other than "it can happen".
I suppose it depends on your needs and setup. Trinity, if Jazz is alone is better if you want to waste orders which is fine. It's 45pts vs 22pts. That said, I cannot imagine a scenario where that happens, and I would probably use Oblivion in my lists to go for the 1 shot. Jazz is going to get up anyway next turn.
I'm going to be over here actually understanding how math works. What do you do when, the majority of the time, Jazz just kills or disables your hacker instead? Just forfeit?
So I will try this another way, can you provide some examples of Nomad lists you are concerned about with PanO? Because the meta Nomad lists I can find seem to rely on 1/2 hackers.
Dice anomalies happen. That’s all I stated. I have no idea why you’ve gotten so angry over a statement that has occurred and will occur despite the mathematical improbability of it. Of course for the most part mathematics work out but dice are dice and strange things happen.
I’m certain that @anubis like other players will find another solution instead of forfeiting the match because one plan didn’t work out.
I will keep having fun with the game, cause i tried and i lost. You can do your math and (hopefully) win and have fun... or whatever you try to achive with playing this game =) Isn´t it great that we all achive happiness on different ways?
Your points are all over the place so let's go in order: Nobody is saying perfect balance is attainable, but we can strive for better balance. CB moves at a glacial pace to concerns unless it comes from a source they particularly care about. I dont know why you think nobody has played a game of Infinity and is commenting here out of pure speculation. Seems you're just dismissing opposition as idiots. I hate to tell you, but vector and placement directly feed into numbers. The system of infinity does allow for some unexpected results. So does every game system. So you made this thread with the idea of begging the question. Nice of you to admit. Hacking has a fundamental design issues that is feeding this feeling. Partial issue. Hacking is a very stacked system as is right now. The factions that have good hackers have good access to other tools that further empower their hacking creating a multiplying effect. PanO has very basic tools and overall fairly poor hackers for their respective prices. There is a broader question of how effectively PanO can engage with hacking not just the guided issue. PanO is capable of winning games. Nobody said they couldn't. You can win games with a hacking focused Pano list. You will win less often and will be subject to hard counters. You have already made it clear that you find this engaging to engage the game in an inefficient manner so there is nothing I can say to you here. You're not understanding the issue and concept that is being communicated then. Thats not a reflection on other people. People are saying to disengage in hacking and focus on the shooting because the risk analysis doesn't work out well to lean into hacking. Again you started this thread begging the question and now you are continuing to show that you came asking in bad faith. You can read and project what ever emotions you want and do what you will with your time yet you came here and started this discussion. Posting on a forum and having an opinion does not paralyze anyone's life from continuing. It doesn't stop other things from mattering. Other things mattering more doesn't mean that your hobby is of 0 relevance. This flippant attitude just shows again that you really have no desire to engage.
“Plan A went up in flames… OK, Plan B! is an unmitigated disaster, so C it is… aaaand I lost… OK, what happened? My opponent just played better than me today? OK, then no need to be discouraged, we’ll try again!”
Except if you think that when it's really that your faction doesn't have the tools to compete with your opponent's faction, at least in that way, then you're just a dumbass. It's not better play when you have unearned advantage. I can hurrdurr my way through zero-risk noninteractive play all day, it doesn't make me a good player.
No, you also implied that relying on strategies that have a miniscule chance of success was a good thing, and that avoiding them, or pointing them out as a balance issue, makes you a bad person.
Most humans have functional mirror neurons and don't enjoy unfair games. Obviously there are exceptions, but I'm not particularly interested in playing games where I or my opponent has an unfair advantage. I'm not going to waste money on games I think that don't give me (or other players) a fair chance at winning.
