As I've already pointed out... Dismissing complaints/concerns based on their opinion of the source rather than the evidence/feedback provided is a terrible idea. Do i need to provide examples of how this can go badly?
I'm sorry, i stopped reading here. The world is not polite because you are not. And this not an excuse to act like an (instert swearword of your choise) Start with yourself. Start being polite, you will be amazed what could happen.
Personal attacks already? Have I said anything in this thread to warrant that? I found this topic interesting, but I can see you won't let me have a polite discussion here. I don't care if you don't like me, I don't like you either. But I was willing to discuss this subject with you as can be seen from my responses here. Can you say the same?
Unfortunately for you, you don't live in a world where everyone who disagrees with you is just complaining about "trivialities." The title being phrased the way it is is important, because it's become somewhat clear over the last stretch that the people making rulings, whoever they are, aren't always up to speed on how the game is played or what's actually written in the rulebook, so it's very much an honest question. If you want to take the position that there's nothing wrong with that, that's fine, but you seem to be taking the position of "there's nothing wrong with that *and* it's wrong for people to talk about it or acknowledge it." If an honest question is "offensive" then that says more about the person taking offense i.e. that they're using the claim of "offense" to try to deflect a legitimate line of inquiry. The most important thing I've got out of this thread is basically @A Mão Esquerda saying that people are complaining too much, and @psychoticstorm saying we're complaining too little. The subtext, is, of course "Shut the fuck up."
From my view, yes, most of the things that are brought are trivialities/edge cases, etc. That, coupled with the staggeringly ignorant way criticisms and critiques are leveled, is laughable. You are literally advised that your caustic, personal, and incessant complaining on, well, everything, is directly counterproductive to what you claim you want, and your response is to double down? Truly? "Hey, we're being advised, in good faith, by people involved in the process that our manner of complaining is counter productive. Should we do a little self examination and be a teeny bit more productive (or, at a minimum, at teeny bit less caustic) in our engagement? NO, THEY'RE WRONG! We'll continue on, and complain more when we're dismissed as impossible to please, mollify, or indeed reason with, AND we'll add in another dose of invective!" Pull the other one, meu filho, it's got bells on.
If the source has proven itself to be unreasonable, why listen to it? If one feels good faith efforts have been made to accommodate that source as much as possible, and those efforts have be met, at best, with stone faced rejection, why attempt again?
Why would you assume I'd hold your "advice" in such high regard? People said that the Xenotech + MSV 2 shit was an edge case, too, and that got fixed... you, and you in particular, are inevitably going to take the "CB's work is flawless" tack in any conversation, for reasons entirely separate from the quality of what they do, so taking any "advice" you give is pointless. The thing is, if we were "less caustic" (i.e. less loud), the problems would just get ignored, as @psychoticstorm so kindly pointed out with his statements in this thread. Moreover, the company in question and its representatives frequently use informal or mocking tones with customers ("LOL just Reset!"), and you're essentially saying that segments of the community have no right to respond in kind. It makes sense if the culture of the region you were raised in valued civility to a higher degree than mine, and in particular values the idea of "lessers" being forced to be civil to their "betters" but with the reverse not being true as a way of reinforcing the social order, but the culture I was raised in sees that kind of behavior as bootlicking, duplicitious, and servile. Sure thing, kid.
Just as you, and you in particular, are going to mock the company and the product they produce in conversation, regardless of the quality of what they do, so any "critique" from you is pointless. And I've not advised you to take any advice from me but rather have noted that you, and you in particular, have been advised by people involved in the rules process that your specific approach to providing feedback has the exact opposite effect to the one you profess to desire. And I shudder at the thought of what culture you were raised in that sees exercising a minuscule amount of intelligence in crafting a message as bootlicking, duplicitous and servile. After, it's not as if the expression "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" doesn't have cognates across languages and cultures. But, hey, you do you, rapaz.
If you and people like you are doing your best to convince CB that the only people critiquing their product are doing so in bad faith, like I assume you're doing, then the company will be worse off for listening to you. I mean, why do you think that a company's public-facing employee can be disrespectful and flippant but said public can't?
Sigh please stop fighting among yourselves. And please stop assuming what I said, sure I can understand language and cultural barriers, but I do hope you understand the core of the message. Sure I can understand and agree that all criticism regardless of form and presentation needs to be checked because there can be something valid even in the most aggressive and derogatory thread and yes I can understand that this can come from passion, but you must surely understand we are all humans and as I said you are not helping me or anybody else raise potential issues with this behaviour, when I need to point to a thread that from the title says "we are all stupid and do not know our job", it is not a good start and having the same people with the same disrespectful behaviour commenting on the thread is not a good continuation either. Regardless I gave the same advice I usually do be polite and considerate first and foremost and constructive, you are making the job of everybody trying to convey a message more difficult with such behaviour and aggressive threads, please do understand that ultimately a human will read the feedback and not a machine, and I do not think for most of you you would like to read the something in the forum you submit it here. @Hecaton please either provide a quotable demonstration on the things you say or stop putting words in peoples mouth.
Show me where I said CB was stupid. I posited that CB would be stupid if they ignored problems because too many people complained about them upthread, which is a logical viewpoint, as I'm sure you'd agree. The question asked in the title of the thread remains valid, though the answer is still unclear. Eh, I generally prefer frankness in critique. Saves time and lets us all be more honest. What? About you saying that certain issues aren't receiving enough complaints to be justified? I'd think that your comments on the E/M grenade spec fire issue were clear enough.
I wonder if this isn't just a case of equal and opposite reactions? The more devoted people are in defense, the more devoted people are in attack. I know people dislike rude or aggressive attitudes. But is that really so different from other character traits found here? Personally, I'm not bothered by others language if they're contributing to the discussion, I can filter that out and focus on the facts. it's peoples inability to listen or try to understand the other persons point of view that tends to drive me crazy. So who's to say which is worse? Is it a majority/popularity thing yet again? I'd rather speak to someone who makes good points while constantly insulting me, instead of speak to someone who ignores ever point I make while smiling and being as polite as possible.
It won't break it (probably). Same way the single Purple Sun of Xerus didn't broke the WHFB. Its always a death by thousund cuts. And additionally in Infinity the current powercreep of super efficient active turn pieces just kills the whole concept of ARO's. What's the point of ARO if actually best tactic is not to ARO and just try to hide and stall the enemy by making him "waste" orders to run after every single piece of your army ?
Eeeeyup. I'd be willing to bet that the communities that think AD3+ is broken haven't learned how to deploy against it. I'd further bet that those communities are relatively new to Infinity Around here, people usually get one kill from an AD trooper, at best, so we see them as marginal. I am not seeing how you can counter a Linked Jammer in the first place. Exactly. Would be a good fix. I'm actually OK with Jammers keeping their Intuitive Attack ability, I think. Yes, it does make them really strong, but fluff-wise it makes sense that you can jam a place where someone could be (most modern jamming grays out an area in static). Interplanetario is running SpecOps this year. Given the utility of a Jammer, why wouldn't a Haqq or PanO player spend 4XP on it? Now that we ahve established that the premiere Infinity tournament is going to see a decent number of linked Jammers, what tools besides SpecFired LGLs (or HGLs) can you use against a linked Jammer? You can't Smart Missile them to death, you cannot FO them (assuming proper deployment on the Linked Jammer player's part). You can't even reset against it, because you're not targeted by a Comms Attack when you declare your second action. So, @A Mão Esquerda , how are YOU going to deal with those linked Jammers? Because I don't have a damn clue! I still think that is the most polite way I've ever heard to tell someone to go fuck themselves...
em. you are Aleph? put nanopulser in his face. yes, you probably get ISO. he probably be Dead in the same time. Jing? Drop da Bomb on him. even 12 DAM could kill him. Ariadna? use mines & shoot down link members that give him a bonus. tear fireteam apart with dogs. surprise shoot him when his buddies fell. Use Vet-Kazaks & Lought at his face... should i use more examples???
@Section9 A Dat can run in on the fireteam just fine. I'll almost certainly be playing Onyx, though, so the answer is... don't get close.
Not having a official forum means no control, nor feedback, over the community's interaction. MUCH worst for the company. The Xenotech was deployed on the ITS-X document with less than a month of development, and no playtesting at all. At the Interplanetario it was little more than a sketch. Anyway, if were I work were to spend three months to fix anything, the company would have not lasted a single quarter. The problem is that I was not talking about three months waiting for a change based upon negative feedback. I was talking about exploits, and precisely the Xenotech smoke one took nearly 5 months to be fixed. And for the last two or so of those months we had a post by Hellois suggesting what was finally implemented. One of my problems with uprising, aside from the sheer "zero-sum intelligence" of the parts (there was more Idiot Balls than players going around in-Universe...), was the justification CB presented as "proof" that almost no one used JSA units in YJ... by showing metrics taken since Red Veil hit the shelves, with (logically) much more use of those units than any other. Sending you to play something more true to X-Com... which Kill Team seems to be going for... with direct input from people making important tournaments and testing. Translated for all: "bring Veteran N1 troops, or use cheap disposable Warbands with Direct Template weapons you can somehow maneuver to have LoF to the Jammer, or use DropBears/minelaunchers and disposable troops, or nibble the Fireteam so it loses at least the SS2, meaning 2 casualties". The last one is sooooooo meh... because in QK the hafzas links with Janissaries (among other things), in Hassassin the Muyibs can have 2 Asawiras in the fireteam, and in Ramah you can have a Ghulam core with Naffatums (flamethrowers normal and heavy) and Asawiras... In varuna, the fusiliers can go with 2 ORCS, in Acon they can have 2 Bagh Maris and one ORC, and in Military Orders the Specops can be in the middle of a HI core... the only one in a Fireteam that is not as hard to crack is the Neoterra Specops, since it seems to link only with other fusiliers... Gamble everything to a PHIs (probably +3) roll trusting the enemy does not know how to survive the Explosive AD Trooper... which was *another* rule people complained about (specifically, because Dakini and Hollow Men fireteams...). "use things inmunne to Isolation" What about ones that are not some sort of Russian Roulette, using things that are anyway inmunne to it, or sacrificial pawns? I mean, if we wanted to play massive battles, there are other games out there, designed from the ground up to handle hordes... I mean, the idea is "something that any sectorial can do, aside from throwing cheap troops or removing the 4+ bonus of the Fireteam Core". Because not all have Veteran L1 troops, suicidal warbands, or explosive AD troopers.
I'm really annoyed by this discussion, this is my last post on it. If you are not prepared to sacrifice something (may it be a couple of orders or a model) to remove a menace, whatever may it be, you are playing wrong. This is the game. Risk => Gain. And if you are not prepared for something (may it be about your list or how do you approach a game), the problem is not in the game.
We're increasingly off topic and this thread is turning into yet another well articulated, polite and we'll reasoned complaint about Jammers. [emoji14] If anyone cares: Spoiler I absolutely agree with you. This is why Libertos are one of the best anti-Jammer units going because they trade so well and, if you use your Irregular order wisely, get another action after the Jammers hit. Which, frankly, is the issue with Jammers: there's no risk to using them. They can put game defining board control in place at no risk while being disproportionately difficult to remove (due to the joys of roofs, building interiors and other pathing complexities). That leaves aside the issue that they displace similar abilities: Cybermines are comparatively awful, AHDs are comparatively narrowly focused, expensive and vulnerable while EMarats are actually decent and balanced as they're both more powerful but are limited by their nature as a DTW. None of these cause the same in-game assymetric interactions as Jammers. Tone them down by: A) fixing Reset B) making them Comms Equipment (introducing a vulnerability) C) introducing ISO-1 (can Reset out of) and ISO-2 (needs and Engineer) They remain excellent area defensive tools but their effect falls in line with the risk their bearers take.
