BPong seems to be one that gets a lot of flack from the community - are there other missions that you guys think need a look? Are there fundamental problems throughout the mission set that need being looked at?
By unbalanced you mean the winner of the Lieutenant roll has a distinct advantage? Personally I don't think the advantage in B-Pong is huge, it just means the player going second has to play very differently and if your list can't play defensively you may struggle. Last Launch on the other hand I believe if you built your list for it and have 2 Evos and the first turn its going to be practically impossible for the opponent to recover.
I hate the ones that need Anti-Material to destroy something. Some factions have easy ways to do it and others don't. Yes there's ways to get D-charges but first you need to get to them, then extract one, and then get to the objective. While some forces just do a move-move plant D-Charge and done.
In that case, yes, but that's just one example. That's fair. Most people I discuss this with irl seem to think the disparity is pretty strong.
I don't know if it is possible, but when using OTM could it added that when you insert the results, you can add both deployment and play order? That would give more information for the data teams to analyze and help know where there are potential imbalances.
It is something that has been suggested, could be theoretically implemented, and who does not like more data points? another thing worth considering is logging what list has been used in each round.
Another good idea. But fundamentally I think that the power of going 1st/2nd in Infinity is something that has needed to be addressed for a long time. Maybe in N5. It's also just a problem of mission design, and those don't seem to be being iteratively polished like I'd hope they'd be.
Personally I think that if there is a dramatic advantage to turn order in any given game then you probably made your table to symmetrical. The choice between deployment and turn order should actually be a choice and not automatic depending on mission or list. Deploying second has some inherent advantage but where that less than the advantage of turn order the difference should indicate how unbalanced the table sides should be.
If that advantage varies dramatically between missions (like going 2nd in Power Pack and especially BPong being a huge advantage) then you can't make a table that is uneven to the right degree to make that fair. Honestly, I reject your claim, you can't fix poor mission balance with table layouts. Impossible to do when some missions favor going last in every round to the degree that they do. Infinity needs progressive scoring.
Table layout is too random of a thing to "fix". Unless you play on the same table against the same opponent. Especially stores you are stuck with what they have, what you bring, and how it's set up at that time. There is some control of the mission and our forces, however. I’d like CB to take assessment of the forces. I really do like some forces having a “thing” that they do well, but many times that “thing” doesn’t translate into accomplishing missions. For instance, my O-12 has a lot of Non-lethal weapons. That sort of sucks when you have missions that need dead opponents. So, it would be nice if forces that are Immobilized but Non-Null state, at the end of the game, were considered captured and therefore “dead” for the purpose of counting VP.
Bpong is absolutely a mission where table layout can effect the game as much as turn order. One side of the table can have pieces of terrain that block the central point from enemy lof and a clear space to move the beacon to in your half whilst the other has to move exposed to the centre but also has obstructions forcing you to have to move the beacon in an indirect path. I'm not opposed to progressive scoring however I don't think it needs to become the new standard.
How do you make a table that is fair for bpong but not unfair for two other missions that don't have such a massive scoring advantage to who goes 2nd?
In B-Pong you don't need to move the beacon, ever. The player going 2nd just needs to remove enemies touching the console (GML is preferred because they can't be in camo) and get one of your dudes to touch one. The only way for the 1st player to win is inflict a crippling alpha strike/LoL during 1st turn. Such a poorly designed mission.
To be fair, table layout can be a huge balancing factor, not only for missions, but also skill level and matchups, but, as @Space Ranger said, it is too much of a random factor to take it reliably into consideration. I have won B-pong as first player, but I would say it was matchups a proper Tunguska list pared against HI based armies can freeze the zones around the consoles. I would not say it is a badly designed mission, but I would say it needs fine tunning, it is also a mission were skill level difference between players becomes easily apparent.
But they have a lot of lethal weapons also! Glueing an enemy makes it easier to kill it. Besides once there was a mission, that favours stunning, glueing etc. you mean - without dircet contact? You need to move it at least once.
True but only if you have the orders to do it! lol. I've played a few where I glued guys down but if I used orders to then kill them, I wouldn't have been able to accomplish the mission. I think it would be fair because those guys still provide orders and have a chance to get out of it.
B-Pong is a weird mission. I get the intention, to have a soccer match but I think the points scoring let's this concept down. Perhaps, to keep players focussed on moving the beacon, the scoring should be different. For example, at the end of each round, the player with the beacon inside the enemy's half of the table the furtherest distance, scores 2 OP. At the end of the round, having the beacon still inside the enemy's half of the table, 1OP. Remove the points for being in silhouette contact with the consoles and just having the beacon in the enemy's half of the table. This would encourage the players to focus on moving the beacon the furtherest in inches or centimetres into the enemy half of the table to score points. The player going first would attempt to alpha strike and push for the beacon. The reactive player would defend, then counter. Most likely kill each other until the third round then push for the beacon.
Something I loved from last years campaign was the terrain rules. Some or all of the tables would have a terrain that allowed troops with that type of terrain or Terrain Total, to either gain a +1 move or super jump. My White Banner really got good because much of YJ has Terrain (total). I'd like to see some cards that you can pick at random for a mission/table that gives troops different abilities depending on the card. One might be Mountain Terrain and gives those troops +1 Move, or another that gives them Climb Plus. One that's Zero G and gives either Super Jump or Climb Plus. There's many things they could do. Dessert: One troop with Terrain (Dessert) gains Forward Deploy +4 Inches. It also doesn't need to be random. Players can just pick as well.
Whatever the 1st player does, you do the following: - Get one of your guys b2b contact with the beacon. - Get one of your guys b2b contact with the console. - Kill all enemy guys b2b with the consoles. GML is best suited for this purpose. -> Score at least 1p more than the enemy. Repeat for each round. Peripherals are ideal at being b2b with beacons/consoles.
