I don't see myself always bringing a troop with grenade launcher because I need it for a plan B. That sounds just boring for me and probably my opponent. So first turn would be just burning orders to fire grenades from a safe position and kill as many mid table enemy troops as I can, while my opponent just looks at me rolling. Right now the only options are Squalo or always bringing that one fusilier with grenade launcher. If suddendly they added a +3 range band and included a grenade launcher profile to let's say Kamaus, Bolts, Bagh-Maris or some similar troops then everyone would complain that Pano just sits on rooftops and shoots grenades when you come to close. The Squalo could bomb you on 12s... with a lot of enemy troops dodging on 7s or 8s... It is already a problem with Druzes as I heard, because they can do it in a fireteam, they have regular and E/M grenades and visor X. Giving them better range bands would only make it worse in my opinion. I don't know if it would solve balance. But it doesn't sound fun.
I would argue that these examples are relevant and pointless at the same time. "How do you deal with X?" is entirely situational dependent on terrain and lists been involved, Since I played mostly Invincibles and White Banner lately, I used Super Jump regularly to clear those, PanOceania has Vargar and Seraph that can perform similar roles, but one could equally use Auxbots to deal with the issue if the terrain allows it, or bring a camouflaged TAG or Swiss Guard on their deployment zone and deal with the problem ectr ectr. Point is Jazz can be really well hidden and inaccessible, or an easy pick for a determined attack, dependent on how terrain is set up, the list can have indirect fire, or super jump or some form of camouflage or they can have none and your only solution may be to waltz a full core of Orcs in the opponents deployment zone to deal with the problem... Yes, they are potential tactical situations and they may be common depending on the local meta, but are so dependent on lists and terrain that theoretical discussions are limited.
Given how much people loved my Starco in N3 when Emily rained death from the back it is not fun, grenade launchers are not on the complains list because of the rangebands nerf and the spotlight stolen by the guided ammunition.
You know that combo, plus the Druze with the same thing and the Squalo hitting on 9s from HMG ranges, were the only problem units in N3. Unlinked Zhanshi hitting on 8s at 16 never hurt anyone, it was just a mid-range and expensive tool for clearing annoyingly-positioned units until a few units got X-Visors and Core Links, or the Squalo's huge 0-band. Can confirm; it's not. It's the most boring way to play Infinity. But it requires about 3 seconds to edit back in on Army, the threat of it would prevent enemies from deploying non-Marker units too close, and we're clearly not getting exciting new options soon to solve the problem in a fun way, so I'll take a GL over having to suffer through the exact same problem in reverse. I'm getting sick of being told to shut up and adapt by people who just adamantly refuse to understand why this crap is boring and how tedious it is to play around.
If you want to drop grenades up to the middle of the board a fusilier link can do so on 9s I am not sure why you would want the +3 range band back, it would just create again yet another GML situation.
It would be as soon as those with an extensive repeater network can get advantage of it, it is just not as lethal.
I considered myself lucky since I could be for long periods of time playing in several communities from my country, so I'm truly aware that terrain is always a hard point to take in consideration. Maybe the hardest to keep in mind since a lot of people think that they play in really dense terrain tables, or the opposite, that they play in really open tables, only to discover how wrong they were (usually in the hard way). However this and "what kind of threads you can face" in this theoretical way were a lot of things sink, or where the anchor for some factions is. (Sadly isn't a unique thing for pano). Maybe the thing isn't about to take down Jazz (or any other profile), we could say the same about maybe, a Tag, but to have the tools to do it. Usually we have to build a list to foresee potential threats and potential configurations of terrain, because until the day of the tournament is unknow. What choices we have in our profiles list will determine how well or bad we could be flexibles. This is one of the points where Pano fails. This balance, this try to be flexible, to have more options, to try to cover everything, is easier for some factions than others, so they are a clear disadvantage since we are dependents on pure luck, not how skilled players we were. Here is where some factions aren't well balanced against others. Exactly this "situational" is a big part of the Pano problems. In actual ITS trying to fulfill missions requirements, table possibilities, armies we could face with only 2 lists is, in fact, pretty much impossible for some armies. For those, Pano I think is the leader with too advantage. Please, game don't need more "speculative play". :) Yes, is boring. So, it should be discouraged and another solution is needed :) For our good, all players.
God I agree with you so much, but nothing's being done about the uninteractive and boring play against high-end Hacking (this is worse than N3, by far, as far as my own participation goes) and fixing this properly and enjoyably will require a whole wave of reworks that CB clearly isn't willing to provide to a faction that seemingly only sells Space Knights anymore- we're getting Exrah hyped up before any non-Combined discontinued faction is being revamped, and MRRF's been out of rotation for over three years now with no sign of stopping. I might actually put the Squalo GL back in my lists anyway, its high BS combined with the DepRep on my Auxilia might be able to feed those Morans a taste of their own medicine.
I doubt there will be reworks when they can release new stuff instead. They need to sell miniatures to pay the bills and don't have new rules to fall back on for income, or a paint line, or a hobby line, or anything else. Just minis. This means that they cannot spend time and development cycles really working on stuff that is already out, as they just won't make money from it. It sucks, but it's the hole they have kind of dug themselves into.
This is absolutely true, the problem is that the comment itself addresses the issue at such a high level that it becomes irrelevant in relation to the "Pano problem". Just replace Pano with any other faction in the game and the comment is still true. So the comment itself, despite being true, is completely useless in this particular context. Regarding what we think Pano should be, from the design perspective I won't make any comment. There is people in CB who get paid to figure out exactly that. From a playing experience, I know what Pano should and shouldn't be, and from this perspective my opinion is 100% valid because I'm a player and I play them. A lot. It's still an opinion, but a very well-funded one based on hundreds of hours of play. So, from my perspective, Pano should be fun to play with, and shouldn't be frustrating or one dimensional. The rest are opinions on how we, the players, think that Pano could be improved in regards to playability and frustration potential. If CB figures out how to improve this in a way that no other player has ever considered before, fine by me, but there are thousands of hours of gameplay in this forum, way more than what CB could spend. This forum also has a diversity of perspective that people playing in different metas in different countries only can achieve and CB could only dream of from their little, in comparison, playtesting experience. The message, as I said in another post, is more than clear. Pano is boring, one dimensional, frustrating and too limited by fluff restrictions. It's an unwieldy faction to play with that can't even perform adequately in what is supposed to be its main strength because the rest of the factions have developed tons of counters to this strength while Pano hasn't improved in any way. If CB decides that Pano won't continue being "the best shooting faction" (which it isn't) and decide to give them skills previously forbidden or limited for Pano, great. IF CB decides to really enforce the "the best shooting faction" motto and fix fireteam compositions and limitations to shooting, also great. The thing is, I don't really care as the faction becomes more playable and enjoyable. There's more in this thread than (from your perspective) the tantrums of entitled players who think their faction deserves everything. There are really deep insights on how the Pano game is devolving as a result of the powercreep of other factions and its own stagnation. Again, as I said before, a lot of times this insights aren't delivered in the best of ways, but that doesn't mean the insights aren't there. I'm sorry for picking your posts for explaining my points, it's nothing personal. In fact I enjoy most of your posts, they seem like a good balance against my apocalyptic rants. But this time I think you are missing the point.
Well, they've certainly lost my money over the last few years. O12 was a solid and well-designed faction launch, but that's about it. Lack of support for factions they're not focusing on while power creep continues to escalate among "fresh exciting products" has killed any desire to expand my old factions, and I'm sure not buying the junk they've devalued my purchases to shine up- not worth the price and hobbying effort to stay competitive, and I sure as hell don't want the Aristeia!-ish "hero" armies that are being sold now as a fluff project. The support for casual or narrative senarios isn't really there anymore, either. I think I'm finally checking out of this conversation. All this anger and frustration, and ultimately it all comes down to CB just not caring anymore. I think I shall return the sentiment.
The main issue I identify is there is no unified identification on what boring and inflexible is, its subjective and I understand and respect that there are many opinions about it, I also respect that regardless of the dissonance of opinions, it is a clear feeling.
I'm going to take a shot at this (Because I'm pano, I take shots at everything): Pano is boring because in all 6 flavors: My defense is a core linked SWC gun and/or a hidden deployment high mimetism SWC gun. My offense is a SWC gun in my DZ held by Tag Chassis/Link team/high mimetism unit My plan is Shoot everything between me and objectives The defining trait of my list/faction unique are it's restrictions. These are 100% exaggerations, we have hackers, mines, jammers, aux bots, drop troopers, marker states, great tags and some top class HI. However, I think this pattern is pretty strong in Pano and those exceptions need more touch up and emphasis in specific sectorials to be more pronounced. While I think there are some fluff/theme changes to make across all of Pano to give an new "identity" since "Best shooters" is rightfully dead; the bulk of our playstyle variance should come from sectorials that support a variant playstyle like: SAA - Midfield mines and Camo shell games MO - means to get into Melee, panzerfausts for Aros and coordinated orders. Varuna - Lean into board control through Jammers/Helots/Mine laying croc man NCA - Better hacking Svar - ??? Vanilla - ??? I would propose we focus less on high level "pano is boring and should be changed to be better this way" and start threads around each specific sectorial and how we think that sectorial could be built to feel different.
I think there is a whole topic on "How do you maintain the game when you only profit from new Minis?". I'm very happy with the support they give old Sectorials/Mini's given it costs them money and brings them no direct profit. That said, I wish I knew a better business model for them, because the current one puts our wants and their business at odds with each other. I appreciate the game and would be happy to throw 5 bucks a month in a support donation towards game design. The downside to that being we as customers would probably feel entitled to much greater return in balance/game updates than our collective donations afford.
Ok, what if Jazz is in a closed building? That's something that happens. Should the PanO player just forfeit? "GG, you are clearly my tactical superior for having bought Nomads."
That, personally, is why I’m glad there is such variation between factions, and such lenient proxy rules. You can try so many different things, and decide what suits you best. It’s also one of the reasons I’m glad there are NA2 factions, where you can try blends.
The core problem "Lack of access to several key features of the game" and could be addressed in various ways. It is however easy to spot where the problem originates from. Not seeing a new Auxbot in 5 years Not getting a new BS15 trooper since the Seraph beginning of N3. Lack of support in general. 2 officially benched Sectorials that feel more like 4. Unless you are MO, you had the Uma rework and the Bulleteer nerf in N4.
