It definitely needs refinement, and is definitely not fine as a rule. The triple tax it imposes on every player is silly, and problematic during list building.
Forget the "tax" and focus on the functionality and the potential it has. Even the free optional group change has its advantage giving the reinforcements group an extra order, but it can be much more than that.
What you’re implying? In the potential the rule has to develop over the future? Or in the potential on how it is affecting in its current iteration to the reinforcement group? If it is the former, of course it has potential. But only as much as the developer of the game is willing to put into it. And the same potential of any other rule to be developed. Like Biometric Visor has the potential of be of any actual use against Impersonators when you’re in the reactive turn, but in the current reality of the game it has none. Or like the ARO rules has the potential of being able to react to a positionable being deployed within your Zone of Control when you do not have LoF to the active trooper, which would lessen a lot the feeling of unfairness of double/triple pitcher throw into spotlight+GML, but in the current reality of the game you can not. And the one and only who can make such rules is the Developer. Players do not make rules, only home rules. And as neat those home rules could be, there is no way to make them be part of the community in a cohesive way. I may think that Hacker Evo having a program pre-loaded into the game is amazing and convince my local gaming group to make it that way, but good luck in trying to go to a tournament / event in another gaming group or city and wanting to use a Hacker Evo that way. By the way. I think the game would gain a lot into “fun factor” and “list variety” and “preventing alpha strikes” if the developers take a look into the very three specific “rules” I previously mentioned and “develop the potential in them”. As they affect the core game and some issues that have been being asked by the community from very long time. If it is the latter, and you’re implying on the potential that moving a line trooper specialist operative / “pseudo hacker” wardriver has to the reinforcement group…in the current version of the rules it is literally that you’re adding an order to the single reinforcement combat group. The other perk, be it the commlink being an specialist itself for button pushing purposes, is a little compensation for the +10 points , 0.5 SWC, “you’re forced to that this very specific line trooper / non-hacking-hacker wardriver” you have to pay. Which as a lot of people has said: In the current mode of the rules as both players has to use a reinforcement list with a very, very specific set of restrictions, it makes little sense that you have to ver even more restricted with this “use a +10, 0.5 SWC line trooper that has to be this very specific one”. Reinforcement ideas are interesting, and one can see what’s the intention behind them from the developers. But the complaints come on how they have implemented such ideas. Which, in my own opinion, have been non-elegant and unequal while at the same time being too much restrictive where it matters most.
A reinforcement "tax" is appropriate when there is a benefit it is balanced against. Having 100 points worth of units arriving, un-ARO'able, right up on the centerline is a fairly massive benefit, so the existence of the tax is reasonable. However, a tax is only reasonable if you can forego the benefit in exchange for foregoing the tax. So, the reinforcement tax only makes sense as a balancing tool for Reinforcement lists vs non-reinforcement lists. The "+X trooper" skill is a nice list design tool to allow some reinforment armies to be larger than others; it allows the list designer to balance fixes. It seems under-utilized so far, but it could be interesting to have some Commlink troopers with +1 or +2 being cheaper base models or larger points/SWC tax, while commlink troopers with +0 being more expensive troopers or lower points/SWC taxes. It opens a bit of design space, even if it currently unused. It might even be separated from the Commlink skill, to allow larger (non-reinforcement) lists if certain troopers are selected.
I just love how they put Biometric visors on several reinforcement profiles, meaning on units that usually arrive on turn 2 or 3, when your alpha strike with Impersonators is already over and did all the intended damage. Really smart design, luckily Biometric visor is probably free equipment ( also useless and should be removed from the game, but that is not relevant for the topic ).
They also work against surprise attack from holoecho units, but yes the equipment is largely useless.
I am guessing its mostly to provide some reinforcement Haris with some protection from Surprise attacks?
If only Surprise attack worked in ARO. But since it doesn't and Reinforcements arrive with full orders to spend in their ACTIVE turn, they don't really have to worry about that much.
Biometric Visor is also usually linked with having Discover (+3). As in N3 Biometric Visor has that as a nested benefit. And you could say that Discover (+3) is an useful skill no matter which phase of the game as it allow it's user to discover any kind of markers. But sadly some of these new profiles has received the Biometric Visor, presumably paying their points for it, without the old nested Discover(+3) paired.
I agree that CommLink is powerful, but I feel like the Lt Skill is also useful, putting aside that it is mandatory (just like commlink), it provides an extra order to that model, like TacAware, but which can also be used by NCOs. Yet, I don't see any Lt pay a Pts tax over the base loadouts. How much do other unit pay for TA ?
yeah, but those swc are never because of the power of being an Lt (the 3pts worth effect of having an extra order). Like Alguacile & Djan pays 1SWC as a fluff-tax for being an unfavored Lt choice according to the fluff, IIRC.
This, so much. Look, I'm not saying the idea of Commlink is bad, or that reinforcements are bad. I'm saying Commlink as is right now is pretty bad. It could easily be made more interesting if it were on more profiles and had more varied costs and benefits instead of just being a 20 point model you're forced to take to play this specific game mode.
How many games have folks gotten in with the new rules and profiles to be able to make such sweeping and categorical statements? Or is it all simply list building and theory crafting?
Played two games (Aridna VS Jsa / MO vs ISS) with reinforcement Mod so far (250 + 100 pts). My feelings : - Reinforcement never showed up before turn 3 - Forces you to play with a minimal order pool most of the game, and to stay very focused on the mission (if it's not a killy mission of course) - Deter you to strike your opponent beyond the reinforcement limit before turn 3 - A very refreshing experience according to me and my opponents so far. Some missions like suprematy and frontline are unplayable with this Mod as 100 pts dropping without possibility to ARO is almost an auto-win for player 2. But Supply, Counter-mesure, Unmasking and some other mission promise to be very fun with this Mod. Also, having more options for your Comlink troopers would make more sens. Maybe add and option here and there on some rarely spotted profiles.
People whine and complain on the internet all the time. Especially in this, hear this, _optional mode_ of gameplay.
If only I could set a reminder post for 1 years time to see if this optional game mode is not so optional anymore.
haqq gets 2 haris but are mathematically unable to fit in 2 haris. I'm not sure if you call that complaint as mere theory crafting; or actual gameplay experience ? I suppose having a Haqq player bring two haris, and the other player complain that he went over pts and thus cheating is what is required to formalize an Actual gameplay problem ? I mean, how am I suppose to complain the 0.5SWC for commlink is prohibitively expensive other than playing it as being 0swc and being called out on it ?
Most of the people around here agree that they like the intention of the reinforcement game mode. The majority applaud that changes are being included to keep the game fresh. There is a general appreciation at the upcoming models for reinforcement, or at least the concept arts, to be attractive and alluring for their collections. And in general they keep encouraging to CB to keep iterating in the mode. Myself included. That does not prevent that people may have a reasonable concerns or opinions on some of the aspects of the reinforcement game mode. Please remind that having such doesn’t mean the reinforcement game mode shall be rejected in all aspects and angles. In fact, such concerns and opinions are the very feedback that is desirable by any game developers. As there is ‘reception feedback’, that is the one that is collected on launch date. And ‘experience feedback’, that is the one that is collected after the community has time to experiment with the launched product and toy with it. As I have said before in another thread, I once worked as a Community Manager for a certain big gaming company. So please let me collect what a summary of a Community Feedback Report would look for this very launched feature. Minus the data of social media hits / references / mentions / views for each separate item line that can be easily collected by the proper social media tools such as Sprinklr and similar. Summary of Sentiment previous to launch: Spoiler: Summary A. (++) Reinforcement mode was expected to be a way to alleviate Alpha Strikes crushing victories in the game and was quite looked forward for a part of the community that was growing wary of such gameplay in both competitive and casual gaming scenes. B. (++) It was informed to the community that it was going to be an optional mode and not included in the core game. People applauded this as it would not make anyone feel ‘forced’ to use the game mode neither the upcoming models, but still opened the door that if the game mode was awesome it would be embraced by the community and become the new standard. C. (+/-) The Preview Week received mixed feelings. While the models themselves and concept art receive general praise, the production mistakes with the slides showing wrong data for the profiles was commented by the community. Additionally, although the players liked that all the armies received rules for the reinforcement mode, the mention that Tohaa would not receive new models any time soon, and that all NA2 were clumped together for reinforcement and their profiles were already existing ones, was found lacking by the community. Reception Feedback on launch: Spoiler: Rules PDF Rules PDF: A. (+++) The players welcomed with good spirits that all the rules were free to download and that an updated tokens sheet was provided for them. B. (+) The community was able to digest and process the layout of the rules PDF with clarity. With only some minor questions here and there about an overlook rule bulletpoint. C. (+) Although some players didn’t notice at first, the fact that the Commlink trooper could be freely swapped to the Reinforcement Group was well welcomed. As players were originally wary of such Reinforcement Group having too few orders once it was deployed. Having an additional order in the form of the Commlink group swap make the players to be more secure on the Reinforcement Group having an impact. D. (=) Players reacted with the updated 100 victory points loss condition for the suggested 350 game size for Reinforcement being called on the game with surprise as it was clearly pointed out in the Preview Week that the game mode would need only 50 points of losses to be activated. Even then the sentiment was neutral for this change. Players pondered what implications this could mean for the pace of the game. E. (+/-) The community expected that the reinforcement game mode would be scalable depending the game size, and reacted with mixed feelings about the game mode being locked at 100 points for reinforcements F. (-) There was some doubts if the Reinforcements would generate ARO on their deployment. The community welcomed that it won’t be the case. But some voices raised the concern that this may generate some noninteractive gameplay. In some missions such as Supremacy it could mean that going last can become an auto win as the opposing player can not do anything to the troopers being deployed, and the active player only need to not activate them to score. And in a general sense an already deployed trooper that is in the midfield can be flanked with ease with the Reinforcement Group, being unable to do anything nor react with an ARO until it is too late. Spoiler: Army Update Army Update: A. (+++) As usual, the players applauded that both the mobile app and the web version were updated for free for all of them. And there was excitement on seeing the new profiles. B. (++) It was welcomed that an official post with the changes was published in the official forums, and quickly shared in other media such as the Global Infinity Community Discord Channel. And that it was updated with further changes along the day. C. (+) The community welcomed that @Koni, an official CB member, would thank them in their search of typos and bugs in the update. D. (=) Even when there were a considerable amount of typos and bugs in the update, there was a understanding that it would happen and they would be quickly solved as they arised. E. (=) Some people struggled to find how to activate the reinforcement mode in the Army, but Bostria’s video explaining how to do it swiftly solved the issue. F. (+/-) The players received with mixed feelings that some factions would get what was perceived as more powerful or optimized units rather than others. But the community withhold their impression until they could experience them firsthand on the battlefield. Some mentions were specially made for those new profiles with a +1B Missile linkable Missile Launcher, where some people find it overperforming. And other expressed their surprise for the premium cost it was paying for such additional +1B. G. (-) The community reacted with surprise and some negativity that only one profile for each army was a Commlink unit. And that it was a +10 Point Cost, +0.5 SWC one. With the NA2 also lamenting that they were forced to use a Wardriver for the Commlink. Players expressed that they expected to have a variety of Commlink troopers to choose from. And that they don’t understand the Point and SWC tax for a game mode that is optional and therefore both players are playing for it willingly. They pointed out that it make the list-making feels more restrictive and unoptimized. H. (- -) With the Reinforcement Point cost locked at 100. Players found that in most cases it was impossible to make either a Pure Core in the reinforcements for their army (YJ), or unable to make two Harises for reinforcement for what it was shown as an ‘special perk’ of their Army (HQ), or having an AVA for a given unit that was impossible to be included in full to fill such AVA (0-12). While others had no problems to having what it was perceived as an efficient an lean reinforcement group (Ariadna, Aleph). This lead to a perception of both lack of iteration on the game mode profiles to detect such cases, and also a ‘winners and losers’ feeling on the update. I. (- -) A part of the community pointed out that the game mode feel unnecesary restrictive, and that it was hard to see excitement in list making given the small pool of units and points available for each army. Some people even commented that they expected that an ‘solved out’ meta may raise soon for each army in reinforcement mode. J. (- -) The update in the Army pointing out which sectorial and army were Out Of Production but still playable was received with a gloom feeling by the Tohaa and Spiral Corps players, as it confirmed the expected and already announced new that their armies would stop getting new launchs. Even still players applauded that those Out of Production armies were properly tag as so, as it would help new players in their army choosing decision making. K. (- - - ) The retirement of the Squalo for Panoceania was found with a negative reaction from the Community, as they shown they were discontent from such removal. Some people pointed out that although they knew it was going to be out of production, they expected that support would be given for the Squalo in rules still. The swift announcement that Squalo MK 1 would still get rules support until their store retirement alleviate the spirits of the community, but they still requested that the Squalo MK 1 get CB rule support even further than that. ‘Experience Feedback’ - Spoiler: TBD To be Done in the upcoming weeks. As an initial approximation some players already jumped swiftly into the mode to try it, which show a quick adoption of the game mode (+ + +) With them starting to share their experience with the mode with a positive (+ +) feeling over the game mode in general although they pointed some concerns over the mode such as the non-interactivity on some cases (- -) and the unbalance of the mode in certain current ITS scenarios (- -) I hope that you find this approximation of what the Community Report of this Reinforcement Game Mode Update would look like. Let’s see how the upcoming weeks develop in both the community and the developers front regarding it.
