Rounds were 1.50 including deployment, we were playing in stupidly hot and poorly lit conditions with no place to put minis ( my box with minis was on the floor under the table so I had to reach under the table all the time while deploying ). Interplanetario is playing Infinity on hard mode. Edit: to be on topic, frenzy is another blight on the game, should be removed from the game with balance pass done on all frenzy units. Lot of the should be couple of points more expensive while some should be cheaper. I mean I have a bit more in depth idea what should be done, but I think there is zero chance of frenzy going away before N5. Linkable impetuous needs to go, that could be done without edition change.
I've heard the rounds are 1 hour 50 min and 1.50 can be interpreted as 1 and a half hour, which leads to 20 min difference. It would be an Infinity hard mode anyway. I agree that frenzy is what they give to profiles when they want to reduce points but not to change or remove something, such as Moiras. What I want to ask is, do we really have to follow the "point formula"? If some units are overperforming or underperforming, can't we just adjust their points without changing anything else?
Why can't you discuss a rather interesting topic without going at each others throats? I am seriously considering closing the thread and restarting it myself given as I see it I will need to remove about 2 pages of posts to sanitize at least somewhat the thread...
It was 1h 50min, sorry for the confusion. I believe point formula is the way to balance in Infinity as there are no faction specific rules, same stat profile in PanO and Haqq should cost exactly the same. But what makes profiles bad is the bloat and poor pricing on some stats/skills/equipment. For example, armor should cost less for every even point IMO, because AP affects them harder. BS over 13 should also be cheaper on infantry, for some reason it seems crazy expensive right now. Making those 2 things cheaper you could lose frenzy on Hospitallers and have them keep same price as now probably. Make Regen and Berserk more expensive on multiwound models, and combined with what I said previously you get to remove Frenzy on Asawira and make it more expensive ( as it should be ) while still following point formula. There are ways to make game balanced, it just takes some effort and people that do balance actually play 50 games per year minimum.
Points having fixed costs isn't a problem on its own. The problem is that if a combination of features looks too costly, you should revisit why the things are costed the way they are and make adjustments as necessary. Frenzy is just a band-aid for a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place. It's also a problem from the perspective of trying to streamline the rules, as it's still messy to track.
1 hour 50 minutes is not that long. Oftentimes 2 hours seems rushed, honestly; when I ran the LVO Satellite I had the rounds be 150 minutes. You're the one who's giving insults the go-ahead as long as they're directed at certain people, and makes bad-faith arguments to avoid any criticism of the state of game balance. There's definitely a problem here, but it's not bad behavior of forum denizens. Why do you avoid responding when I point out that a poster made an insult against me part of their forum title? Am I allowed to insult other posters in literally every post I make, as well? Somehow I think not. Calls for civility while you're blatantly allowing certain posters to be uncivil are going to rightfully fall on deaf ears.
Well the odd thing is they actually do also do just that, make profile specific points adjustments. You can see it on units like Evaders and Teutons, and more recently the unexpected changes to Bulleteers and Peacemakers, or Tsyklons getting Chain Rifles at no cost. They don't do it that often though, and frequently the approach of slapping Frenzy on a unit like Moiras to make them cheaper is done instead. I don't have a good answer as to why they do that.
Once again, I’m saying there are winners and losers. 2h is enough to play a game of infinity if you know what you are doing. Even more if you have a small list. It’s not that non-SP lists were bursting with troopers. I’m not saying that tight schedules are inherently bad for the tournament. It’s like saying that flex schedules and clutter maps are inherently bad because they make bearpodes better. Different circumstances favor different players/factions/lists. If you don’t like the current winner, you are free to host a tournament that benefits different kind of player/faction/list.
It was 1:50h which means 1 hour and 50 min. This results in 55 min per player*. If a chess clock was used both players were able to play all of their 3 turns*, if not players just played very short 2nd round. *) given players actually knew the if the main clock was running or not. In most of my games I actually had to leave the table and check on my own because neither I nor my opponent were able to get aware of any clock starting signal.
First things first, cause i think thats important: Bad behaviour is ALWAYS a problem. And it is a problem in here. Some of this..."emotional opinions" against other users, the rules, the company CB and it´s representives are not very appropriate. Not pointing the finger and not relating to justified critizism or heated discussions and maybe i have to pick on my own nose aswell, but some of the tone in here is at least questionable and unworthy the topic we be part of (remember: we are talking about a game of little metall dolls with no reasonable amount of money to earn. It´s not politics or religion). Then why revisiting the same restaurant over and over? It´s not the only place selling rice... I am not sure if canceling the target state after beeing shot at is the bees knees... i mean, in case you success its not worth for the GML-user to try over and over. But if you do not suc-ceed the result is the same: you got shot without any reasenable amount of counterplay. I repeating like a prayerwheel that spotlight and the target state (IMHO) is not the problem. The problem is that GML is interakting with the target state. Give a Forward observer a real reaseon to you its specialication: make GML just react to modells spotted by an Forward Ob-server! So you have to some point in this whole GML-tactic the moment, where some modell is forced to have LoF to a modell and actually do a F2F. Call it "Forward observed"-state or whatever. And even IF everything goes well and you get your F/O into position and to spottet someone and it gets nuked, you can´t just look "ok, what else is in my 16inch diameter cyrcle that I can spotlight". No, you have to actually spend orders to walk and create a new LoF. And that's where a good deployment comes into play, to not be easwily spotted by a modell that happens to have Forward Deployment +4. Plus: you would actually USE forward observers for their skill, and not just as the cheapest modell able to press a button. Yes, I maybe could be misunderstood. Makauls should defenetly NOT HAVE normal smoke, I totally agree here. Agreed, I think I mixed up the intentional design how SP "should be played" and how other factions "can play" their army. Because (to my experience) it does not differ that much (why I dislike the state of linkteam since … well.. 5 years now?) Pick a good weapon platform, glue some cheerleaders to it and give him the run for its money. If the cheerleaders are able to do additional stuff? all the better. But yes, I understood what you meant with the design of SP. Just mistaken it with the reality I meat with every other sectorial. This Concept design would be right and unique if we would go back to the first release of linkteams: Pick five guys all wearing the same t-shirt and make weak units good and good units amazing for the price of each unit of that kind. The actuall state of linkteams is… fine and a compromise that comes closest to what I would whish for… I realy want to disagree here. For two reasons: Faction identity. Some things should be more expensive in certain factions due to ac-cessability.like the TR-drone in JSA shortly after release. (I know, that's a very unpopular opinion), our some hardly accessabel Equiptments and so on… but that's just fluff-based. Not the best way to make the game balanced. In which army does a unit exist. For example I think a MSV units in PanO should be cheaper than everywhere else, because they cannot pull the easiest trick in the book due to the complete lack of smoke. A MSV in PanO has less uses than in every other faction that have access to the smoke + MSV combination. Some to HI´s: They should be cheaper in Armies that lack proper hacking to protect them or have fewer counters against a hacking network. That´s just one thing that comes to my mind and maybe it´s dumb, but to me it would make sense to fine-tune point costs of units to their faction environment. 150 minutes? 2 and a half hours? That´s a very luxuriant amount of time. Not that I dislike it, I am in fact a little jealous, but to my experience a 2 hour schedule is more than enough for a game, deployment included. (To be fair, even on non tournament games I like to have, for me, a 1 hour time limit for my turns, but maybe just to not loose myself in some nitty bitty overthinking) But if you work with a 150Minute per round thats also very nice to have. edit1: not necesseraly: Back in previous ITS seasons i played plenty of games against 24+ orders with the players having no problem beeing in the 2 hours of time. On the other hand, in small lists every order you use counts significantly more and some will take their good time to think about what to do more carefully. edit2: removed political reference.
Reduced accessibility of rare items in factions can be handled by AVA restrictions, or putting that desirable kit on otherwise less-attractive units. I think this is a good way of differentiating factions, and for PanO specifically: MSV is less vauable in PanO, so it should go on more profiles (like Orcs and Knights) and at a lower cost; This also reinforces the high-tech faction identity.
Does the thread still discusses the original topic though or we have gone again to units micromanagement?
Why haven't you responded to why you're giving certain regular insults the go ahead but calling for civility? In my experience it's not, and it affects balance to not have the later rounds be played - early-round spamming of cheap warbands is better if you know your opponent is not going to have round 3 to score once all your chaff is dead. The scary thing is that while the 2.5 hour time meant that more people were finishing their games, there were others who kept on dragging. Certain people will analysis paralysis their way to use any amount of time, and so you have to be there on slow play. Rounds going to time or not *is* a factor in balance; I generally think it's good TO procedure to provide enough time as well as warn players who habitually go over it, as otherwise there's perverse incentives to stall etc.
I am still contemplating if I should just delete a few pages of discussions for inappropriate conduct, edit the posts to preserve the conversation but have a discussion with missing parts, or close the thread and start it anew myself.
Wouldn't solve the problem when the insults are in people's forum titles. What kind of criticism do you think is acceptable? Are we never to criticize CB's balancing of the game?
You can constructively criticise to your hearts content. Hell I’m currently part of the save the Mk1 squalo movement as I’m unhappy with its profile removal (shameless plug there). However calling for an inquisition because of some personal perceived slight from aeons past is a bit beyond the pale. It’s also not acceptable to levy slander and threats against the game creators and employees of CB just because you’re unhappy. I am not saying that you have or have not done this, just that this would be where I draw the line. Now. If you’ll excuse me I have “15 minutes to reach minimum safe distance”…
