While great they are taking feedback, my concern is how much testing was done ahead of time, and if it was done why does it feel like Sectorials got weaker vs vanilla as a whole when vanilla is already the most competitive way to play? Additionally, when can we expect updates and balance sweeps of the sectorials (points costs, fireteam updates, etc) considering it took nearly 18 months to roll out this update.
I do not think anybody can make any good assertion concerning balance with the new rules in effect. It is too soon and too early for that.
That's why I was asking what the plan moving forward is. GW for instance is committed to balance sweeps twice a year. Additionally, this doesn't answer any of my questions regarding internal playtesting. My Shas did get significantly better, but Vanilla got boosted even more.
CA as a whole is the clear winner here. MAF has links as good as before or better, and some strong new units. Onyx looks very promising and fun now. Shas already didn't care much for fireteams, especially core. And their solo units now have weaker ARO pieces to worry about. Vanilla now has more cool units, namely Kaitok. Duo teams. And of course Avatar has weaker ARO to deal with, and weaker pitchers that can setup Oblivion. 4/4 subfactions buffed, thats very good news for CA. I shouldn't complain either as my YJ got 3/4 buffed with only IA being weaker than before, but dare I say it, significantly weaker IMO.
I'd argue that Tohaa are some of the biggest winners; they were completely unaffected by the changes to Core Links (as they literally don't have any), while picking up a slick new Haris option for the Longarms. Tohaa has always done all of its heavy lifting with Triads and Solo Pieces; the weaker ARO and attack pieces across the board are going to make them much better in comparison.
You could also say they at least gained the option to get +3 Discover for unmixed teams. Where before they got nothing if they did that.
True! Though if I'm being completely honest I don't think +3 WIP is nearly enough to consider pulling the Makaul/Kaeltar/Taquel/etc out of my Triads. It's a nice little bonus for the shiny new Chaksa Triad though; Chaksa FTOs discovering Camo markers on 22's is pretty neat.
Sorry but I'm only agree partially with that asertment. The knowledge can be infered too, at least to a certain level to make some theories which, probably will be accurate in practice. Without any need to play a game we can afirm for sure vainillas will become stronger than they were, because the will face ARO pieces less powerful as they did before the changes. This is a balance modification directely related with the changes. Otherwaise it will be the same to say "changes will not affect the game". Many fireteams with full old bonuses are almost the same fireteams any could play back in N2, many of then definetively weaker than the "cool mixed N3 fireteams". So, this is a balance change for sure. From this is easy to infere that vainilla armies which were strong enough to fight in active turn against the old mixed cheap fireteams, wil become stronger regarding at least when they will face that sectorials which recives the dropping power. An Avatar will not have the same problem taking down a regular snipper than a baghmari snipper. This is a fact which don't require any kind of "game testing" because if I'm not wrong the changes are triying to take out power of a lot of fireteams combination. Same I'm saying can be applied to those sectorials which haven't received the power down or which have received a level UP (for example Ramah). Those will be in a better place than they were. What we can't yet know is how sutile or hard the changes will be. A hard example of this is the amount of new fancy duos or haris many factions have now, this will made some changes in game, probably for good, but in general it will be a thing on the active turn. Same applies for the active fireteams, with less bonuses, so lower % to hit, burst should, in theory, become more relevant. This kind of "info" is what isn't easy to predict without play. Less quality ARO will do better for the active turn. Of course, thanks God, Infinity has others factors to take into consideration: table composition, missions, etc. all together make harder to predict how changes will work, but that is an specific issue more related with how players play than "rules", but all of these haven't received changes as well, so, whatever armie which haven't suffered any alteration or only would have received profiles, will go up, because here we can apply what it works in the past it would works same or better against "weakened ARO".
I do not see any disagreement, as you say there is a plethora of unknown data that need to be tested to find out what really happened and adjust from there. Are generic armies more powerful? probably, they were before nothing done made them worse, was the adjustment of fireteams needed? yes, it was, does it need to be fine tuned and adjusted after enouph data have been accumulated? certainly. We can speculate and gutfeel the balance but we do not have enouph data to make assertions on balance, fireteam rework is not an end product its a basis for a continued improvement platform.
Just to be clear and avoid misunderstandings. With this.... Are you trying to say that the game is «evolving (although it would be more correct to say regressing)» to a state of «permanent beta»? Are you really saying that «the company» (the one that charges for a product) has declined to make an end product and that it is «the customers» (those who pay for the product) who have to act as testers for that beta product?
At no point in Infinity's history this game didn't have serious balance issues. At no point it did not need adjustments. Admitting as much by announcing the living rulebook doesn't make CB unprofessional, it makes them not hypocritical. We don't even really have a thing like an "end product" here. Between new troops, new sectorials, new missions and new ITS seasons, the game is in constant flux.
I don't know who called CB unprofessional or hypocritical... at least I haven't. I'm sure your arguments are interesting and perhaps correct and maybe I agree with them, but when it comes to understanding what someone has meant by something he has said... they don't help at all.
You're using loaded words to describe what the most successful and most critically acclaimed games have actively pursued and done, whether board games but especially computer games. Of course, you can't regress the game to beta as that would imply that the consumer confidence is untested.
Just out of curiosity, if you're not the person I'm asking what he meant... why do you think what you tell me helps me understand what someone else meant by something he said? I think he can explain himself.
Ok then. The tone of your post was of bemused amazement that CB would dare to admit the game may need some changes if new and sweeping rules might affect something they haven't forseen. My point is that such an admission is not truly surprising, but something to expect.
The Living rulebook and the new fireteam rules means that the company can more responsively and more actively respond to feedback and adjust to balance and gameplay concerns. I do not see how anybody would see that as a bad thing, the game system can now make changes that in the past would need to wait an edition change (or if they are not that drastic an expansion book) to happen.
