We'll never know for sure but I think if it was easy to access playtesting than it was at the time of development and launch, they would have used it
Infinity is a dice game, b3 with a damage code that isn't awful can pick off enemy hackers that grab objectives and contest those that advance into hacking range with aros much like any other piece you use for area control. I think the hacking game needs expansion, the cuts to it in n4 went a bit far imho
They kind of need to decide whether hacking is meant to be a prominent part of the game similar to magic* in a fantasy setting, or if it is to be a smaller opportunity based thing. If it is the latter, then hacking devices should continue being cheaper than Combi Rifles, maybe even cheaper than Rifles, and they should probably scale back repeaters in general to make it more opportunity based and possibly tweak the programs a bit more to targets. If it is to be the former, then they need to start considering the Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock of the thing. For example, they should not let the best passive hacking defence be available to the best aggressive hackers. They should also make sure that factions or lists that don't do hacking at all are disadvantaged versus aggressive hacking and hackable units. What, exactly, is a Rock and what is a Spock could be debatable (e.g. are Killer Hacking Devices a form of aggressive hacking since it kills people or is it hacking defence since it only kills hackers?). Right now the game's more in the camp of hacking being largely one of opportunity (device costs are quite low, the risk when not bringing hacking isn't even comparable to not bringing long range guns, and the benefit of bringing hackable units is still on the tame side), so making sure more factions have the tools to deny hacking or more effortlessly disable repeaters is probably the least destructive way forward. E.g. Nullifiers probably wasn't a bad idea and No LOF Deactivators when? * disregarding, of course, that snipers and grenades are the real equivalent of magic
I had hoped with the N3 changes to Hacking we were going more the "These guys are wizards from a fantasy game" style of hacking. Supporters, Attackers, Defenders etc. But they never took that step forward. They could very well have expanded it greatly to provide buff type things to multiple unit types, individual hackers having more capabilities to support defend or attack butt hey didnt. Made me sad.
High emotions aside, this has been a very productive thread, with some good perspective, examples, and arguments. The issues we have discussed are summarized here, from my point of view. Solutions are presented. This is of course my own take and I have a certain viewpoint, namely: Counter-play options are often the best way to balance issues, rather than simply nerfing strong units/tools. This is essentially what @Mahtamori is saying I think. Overall the feeling seems to be that hacking got trimmed back just a bit too much, and a slight expansion of the options will help balance a lot of the current issues. Whether that is better done with specific-profile tweaks or with blanket changes to hacking programs is being debated. My take is that the problems right now are very widespread, so tweaks to programs are more likely to spread solutions around fairly than just buffing a few KHD troopers' profiles or nerfing units like Jazz in specific. Summary Issue 1: Overprotected hacker-castles are almost impossible to even approach with most hacking units (ie Jazz with Tinbot -6, pitchers, Morans: other examples exist too). @Triumph has presented a good argument that we need harder-hitting tools to deal with heavily protected hackers behind firewalls using highly-available repeater networks. I for one am now convinced by his argument that this is a serious problem (one that I mainly exploit on the user side these days, which blinded me a bit to how overly-strong it is). After running the numbers a lot, it is clearly that those units are -too- difficult to assault, even with a full set of orders and tools. Thanks for the persistence of Triumph, I did finally see the light on this. My take is that the issue is Firewall modifiers being very difficult to negate, like cover that just can't be removed. That's not terrible even at -3, but at -6 the numerical skew is too strong, especially when combined with high BTS units. EDIT: NB, Castled hackers operating through repeater networks should remain a valid tactical option: they are one of Infinity's unique game features, and develop the hacking game in some cool ways. It is only the most-skewed upper-tier hackers which need a bit of reigning in here IMO, so a solution should target those units/issues specifically while leaving basic linked Line Infantry hackers relatively untouched. Possible solution: Add AP to Trinity (Triumph's solution) - This is a decent measure, simple and direct. - I dislike that it also still makes Trinity stronger against basic BTS3 hackers, even if by a single point. It also does not address the big hits to WIP that Firewall gives, which is a lot of why Tinbot -6 is so protective, not just high BTS and lowered strength comboed (although that is the more exagerrated numerical reach, at a variance of -12 with Tinbot -6 and BTS 6). - This may be the most likely solution, as CB likes a light touch. - Oblivion clearly needs to lose the AP ammo as well (separate issue), so making both switches at the same time might feel balanced to the designers. Alternate possible solution: A KHD attack program that halves Firewall modifiers for Hackers (Icebreaker comes back). - Target should be hackers ONLY, no one else. Tinbots are great for defending HI, there's no problem there. It's only Hackers who become problematic behind strong Firewalls. - This would also address the WIP protection that Firewalls provide, in a way that just adding AP to Trinity does not. - Halving protection avoids the extremes of KHDs in N3. Climbing a -3 WIP/-3 BTS penalty to assault a Tinbot -6 hacker is still nasty - It hits the worst offenders of hacker-castling moderately hard, but does not harm basic hackers more at all, restoring some balance and therefore increasing more diverse unit choices. (This is also a sneaky sales-enhancement tool if you want to see it that way: Sell those hackers people have been avoiding recently!). It also leaves basic-ass Live Infantry hackers in a link with a Tinbot - It also give KHDs one more valid attack choice. 3 programs is still manageable complexity. One could also lower the number of tweaked Trinity profiles out there a bit, to keep this relevant. - What B value, WIP changes, etc. to give this program are debatable, would require playtesting. B2 with WIP -3 seems decent, or B3 but no WIP mods. But those are just gut feelings, playtest is needed. Issue 2: GML is a bit too easy (moderate order cost for no-risk-to-active-player kills of key pieces) and non-interactive. The clear need is to increase either the order cost slightly, add interactive counterplay, or increase the risk to the GML user. Solution: Bring back U-Turn EVO program, adding counterplay. - A counterhack at -6 against a missile is a very light counter, but increases the feeling of counterplay, and the order cost of GML. It actually was pretty good in N3, it just didn't get used a lot because EVOs were fairly rare. Given the proliferation of repeaters in N4, this feels like a balanced measure. - Provides more incentive to bring support EVO hackers, which really expands hacking game options. In my mind this is a very good thing. I don't think there's a way to increase the risk of GML, although lowering repeater proliferation makes direct assault with hackers to Spotlight more likely, which does indirectly increase risk of the strategy overall. Issue 3: Repeater proliferation Solution: Make Pitchers B1 in links. - Specific equipment mod that says they do not gain +1B. - Increases order cost of Pitcher spam slightly, without totally nerfing it. - I do NOT think making them Technical Weapons is wise: You really don't want Jazz shooting those Pitchers with her WIP instead of BS 11). - Pretty light touch, but does require an exception to the general +1B link rule, so might not be super likely to happen. But I really think the benefits outweigh the costs here. Solution (at the same time as the above Pitchers change): Make Deactivators work in ZoC - Allows Deactivators to address not just Repeater spam, but all Deployables, so this will require testing. Given the camo nature of most non-repeater deployables though, and the need to spend 2 orders or so for most Engineers and FObots to reach and then deactivate even a single midfield repeater even with no LoF requirement, this seems fine. - Also addresses Deactivators being rarely used right now. CB's stated goal is to avoid niche tools that are confusing for new players. Right now sorting out when Deactivators are better than just shooting the equipment creates exactly that kind of confusion (the current Rules forum thread gives good analysis of it though). - Not actually a huge change to existing state, as Jammers can currently do this already, and Deactivators can do it with LoF. Mostly a difference of ease of use, and of access. Deactivators are all over already, they just don't get used much. Buffing them for a specific use with one line of rules change is a pretty elegant solution IMO. - Open question is whether this could/should also be allowed to attack Comms Equipment mounted on troops instead of deployable equipment. I would say yes, but it's a bit more of a change if I understand the current sate of Deactivators correctly. Issue 4: Hacking program choice is maybe a bit too pared-down, needs more choices, particularly for defense with Hacking Devices and offense with KHDs. Overall this is a much more debatable issue, but it dovetails with a lot of the solutions above. There are big questions over whether modifiers are better applied to specific profiles with bracketed number, or as blanket new program choices (but just a few of those, to avoid the confusing spread we had in N3). Adding more programs seems better to me, for the reasons I mention above. Solution: Add an Icebreaker program to KHDs for very hard targets. - See Issue 1 above. Solution: Expand use of EVOs by adding more counterplay options to them (namely U-Turn) - See Issue 3 above Solution: Remove AP from Oblivion - More debatable: I do think AP is somewhere between OP and justified here. As a final NB, I'd love to see Sniffers and Nullifiers come back, but with Nullifiers just imposing a -3 on those skills they prevent rather than completely preventing them. These deployables would in turn also expand the usefulness of Deactivators as well. More counterplay is a good thing. [ @HellLois , @Koni , Gutier, @Bostria, @ijw etc., this summary is partly for your benefit: some balance questions about hacking are decently presented in this thread, but scattered in with the usual grouchy comments so I pulled the material out as well as I could. Hope it is useful, if you guys consider the forum input in design.]
Yes and no, if you take AP off Oblivion you recreate the problem of high BTS targets (Asawira, KoJ, Avatar etc) are basically unassailable by hacking because there are no AP options available and all of these are potentially able to knock Oblivion down to Damage 13 via a firewall bouncing off BTS9 (passing saves on a 5+). If we pull AP off Oblivion we need a new program designed to handle those targets, which isn't necessarily a bad route to go. As you mentioned earlier hacking was scaled back too much in scope. We need a greater variety of basic hacking tools. If you go for a one size fits all there's a strong chance you wind up with a situation where it's either too weak or too strong against certain targets. I think this is actually Tourniquet's solution. I don't hate it, but ultimately I'd prefer CB just add more programs tailored to different target types. Hacking devices should function like a MULTI weapon where the ammo types are the different programs you select based on what you're attacking. Fighting a Ninja Hacker? Bust out Trinity. Need to deal with a BTS6+ target? Use a different program that's better against them instead.
Sidenote, there's a really interesting split in the way that changes like this could be implemented. These changes and tweaks to hacking and equipment could either come out as a virtual release or even a FAQ, for brevity and speed. Or they could be rolled out as the attractive rules element of an expansion book. Releasing them as a FAQ or a virtual rules update packet (with maybe a bit of fluff support) would be the easiest option, and would help get the game back in balance and healthy very quickly. That's a very big incentive to help people play and buy the game as it currently exists, to keep and grow momentum. Rolling them out as an expansion book though would create some great hype, and good filler for a sellable expansion without increasing the number of SKUs in the game or putting pressure on to retire current armies. That's been done in the past, but a new expansion could even focus the book -mostly- on rules instead of units, which would lower the amount of development work needed on the sculpting, troops-design, and marketing side. Throw in a few new profiles as that sweet, sweet dopamine-reward thing we all get with new toys of course :) and you've got an easy one-year book release. Dunno whether the CB folks would see the current set of issues as something deserving much of a release, but one of the fun things about following a games company for a decade is seeing how they do things with your favorite games. (This is also one of the hard parts about being into something like GW stuff...).
I want scenery profiles to come back as a rules expansion. Our group actually played with scenery and structures.
@Savnock just wanted to be clear, you didn't explicitly make this mistake but -6 firewalls still only provide a -3 to hacking damage.
Found an old photo of a table we used to use with the scenery rules for opening/closing doors and chopping through walls
Do you follow The Dice Abide’s stuff? They use a lot of terrain rules, and the satellite tourney that he and WiseKensai and some other folks run (Rose City Raid) always looks like it has a bunch of terrain rules. Special terrain rules are still usable, you just have to add them. Totally doable by TOs at events too. But yeah more explicit official set and support would be cool. As would some explicit density and layout design. They would fit in a supplement/expansion quite well, maybe alongside hacking tweaks.
Right, good catch. Honestly hits actually land on Jazz so rarely that I forget that bit sometimes (more complexity).
Yeah we can add the rules back in, the reason that table stopped getting used is because, getting back the previous topic, the balance of N4 hacking made the table unplayable in a balanced sense.
One of the great things about “special terrain rules” is that their scope/allowable breadth is very loosely defined. You could just use “here on Concilium, hacking works slightly differently” to houserule to fix things that are messed up with the system. Say every table in your tourney has the same “special terrain rules” instituting the solutions I just summarized above… or not allowing LoL… or anything else you want to try fixing in the system. That’s the glory of being the TO. ;) Just make sure those changes/mods are available in full to everyone to consider when they are making their lists/choosing forces well before the actual tourney. Like send the rules mods document out with the announcement of the tourney. Those fixes could make that specific really fun-looking table playable again for you… or as a playtesting testbed, or just to show people the way the game could feel with some different choices.
My view of the game is that a lot of YJ players are still extremely salty about Uprising and somewgat inexplicably Nomads, and therefore CB must be doing something right
I don't think many YJ players are too bothered about the Uprising anymore (save for how poorly executed it was, which is more a matter of fact than of soreness). We've got several good sectorials under our belt, Raveneye did wonders to make them feel like significantly more than accessories to vanilla. As for the Nomad hangups, a lot of it comes from them receiving units that feel suspiciously like 'Yu Jing+' concepts. But I think that has more to do with an acceleration in the arms race of the game overall.
Most of the Nomad units you see competitively have been in the game for years and/or are extremely on theme. The Nomad.txt list is Jazz/Billie, Puppets, Morans, Szally, Uberfallkommando, Missile Bot, Morlocks, Heckler Jammer etc. Most of those are N2 favourites! And the ones that aren't are definitely within the Nomad wheelhouse. No the problem is that some people are too busy fussing about what other factions are getting to think about their own sweet shit, which can seriously fuck up that Nomad.txt list. You don't catch a lot of people complaining about Haqq which is a truly serious powerhouse, because its not about performance, its about perception. And that's fine. Shithousery! Slag off your foes and big up your guys, with good humour about it all. The last bit is what's really missing; everyone takes everything so damn seriously on here. Used to be fun, back in the glory days where we just wanted to see an Uhlan, please Bostria... Damn kids!
Well, either that or something else. I'm mostly saying that hacking has been allowed to grow to where it needs to be an integrated game-wide system - or scale back and be just a support system again. It started as a means of letting a lower-tech faction mess with the high-tech factions, but now that lower-tech faction is decidedly high-tech. (Well, at least Nomads were presented to me as being a low-tech faction making artisanal alterations to stuff that's out of their league to stay relevant) Let me paint a possible scenario for what I mean with a more focused support system. Tohaa stink magic Sure, I'll wait for you to get off the floor and recover from the surprise. Basically, Phero-warfare has most of it right. I don't agree with how incredibly strong it is versus units that weren't really designed/compensated to take No LOF attacks, but the general gist of it is about right; Strong effect, short range, very distinct effects that don't compete and no repeaters that allows you to focus several Wizards' power in the same area. Whether talking support magi- hacking or an integrated system, the goal should be to motivate hackers to get out on the field. The recurring complaint that an Interventor holed up in a dumpster somewhere in the DZ being almost impossible to shoot at while it has a strong effect on the game and a strong enough defence versus hacking to be unassailable through their repeaters is only really valid while the terrain has such spots (which don't get me wrong are really really common because the shooting game absolutely needs them), because repeaters allow the Interventors to be almost anywhere on the table for hacking only, and because clearing repeaters is a lot more difficult than setting them up. Another recurring complaint that's somewhat gotten drowned out by the noise of exploding Guided munitions is that hacking is kind of weak. Two sides to it, basically. In either case, I'm going to paint a system suggestion that doesn't list a bunch of options, but rather a suggestion. Repeaters: Removed FastPandas & Pitchers: Removed* Firewall: As is Oblivion: B2, AP, DAM 13, Target: anyone Carbonite: B2, K2, DAM 13, Target: hackable Spotlight: B2, -, DAM -, target: anyone Trinity: B3, +3, N, DAM 14, target: hackers (as is) White Noise: No NFB, but otherwise as is. Blackout: B1 ZoC, N, DAM 13, target: Comms Equipment/Weapons, effect: disables Comms Equipment/Weapons on units in ZoC.** The key take away to the Tohaa stink magic is that it doesn't have repeaters and that it works on everything but STR units, who are a minority of units, or units immune to attacks (read: camo). While I don't actually want to spend enough time to redesign the system to the degree where I could justify a specific unit being immune to the "anyone" hacking, I don't think it's necessary. Yes, I shifted Carbonite to be the preferred means for disabling the Avatar and I know that IMM-B isn't as specifically good at it as ISO is, but on the other hand higher effective DAM so more likely to actually stick. Also, with the removal of Repeaters, Trinity is more likely to be able to do the job it is designed to do because hackers won't be holed up in the DZ as much and you are very unlikely to get ganged-up on through Repeaters. On the other hand, you'll need to do the leg work so if the opponent is keeping a hacker back in their DZ to protect against landing Liu Xing or similar, you're actually going to have to walk over there yourself. Yes. Oblivion is now Bear Patrol and a lot less strong against TAGs. Didn't the Tohaa Stink Magic title key you in to this? Supportware: generally as is Enhanced Reaction: target: hackable, does not stack with other MODs to B Total Control: B2, AP, DAM 14, target: remote presence, effect: POS Eject: B2, AP, DAM 14, target: unit with pilot, effect: dismounted & TAG IMM-B Generally speaking, increasing the target densities of a few hacking programs and also promoting the use of units that are hackable, but remember; you need to keep your hacker very close to the unit you want to buff since there's no Repeaters. Hacking devices: removed. EVO Hacking device: retained for space reasons Hacking MODs: generally speaking less relevant Last but not least, this. While the idea of having Hacking Devices as a short-hand for what programs are loaded into their respective devices would make things easier when there's a lot of hacking programs with minor difference, I don't think that system is necessarily interesting if the goal is to create more unique and interesting hackers. Instead I propose that Hackers are granted one to three hacking programs and are customized through that. Instead of White Noise being relegated to specific factions that have access to Hacking Devices Plus, the program can be assigned to specific hackers where the faction itself has a better need for it. For example, what if Ariadna's Wardrivers had Carbonite, White Noise and Enhanced Reaction? Yes, that's one general-purpose program, one program to exploit the faction's own weakness and a buff program to promote the use of the few hackable units they have. In fact, in this way you could flavour factions specifically with programs; JSA primarily being concerned with Yu Jing would have more Eject and Carbonite and less Total Control or Supportware in general while Yu Jing being more concerned with PanO would have more Total Control and White Noise while probably having less Blackout, Eject or Enhanced Reaction and even though both have a lot of Hackables they are also not the most ARO-focused faction out there with both doctrinally favouring active turn stomping. Is this playing with fire? Sure is! So a Too Long Didn't Read 1. Remove Repeaters 2. Make programs have more targets 3. Make programs a bit hit harder in general 4. Limit hackers to a short list of individual programs appropriate to the unit instead of having lots of MODs 5. Force hackers out of the DZ to remain relevant * For the sake of argument, another interesting design would be for FastPandas and Pitchers to be owned by the unit that fired them. E.g. BIT and KIS would still have their Pitchers, but only BIT could use the resulting Deployed Repeaters - Nourkias has to do his own walking. ** A program like this that makes the hacker into a movable Nullifier could also work in the context of a system with a lot of Repeaters by making a moveable area where hacking just doesn't work for anyone - huddle up close to the hacker, then move as a group taking Repeater equipped units out at short range until end of turn.
