Netlisting in general is not a good idea, there are so many variables involved that unit familiarity and local meta are more important factors, this is why you can see in winners factions and units people dismiss as not optimal.
That's similar to the old Tohaa Nullifier: a deployable that rendered hacking impossible inside its ZoC. I miss Nullifiers.
It depends on what your local playgroup is like. Huh? By definition if you're netlisting you're using the units the winners use.
It'd be a good thing imo. Pitchers and FastPandas are still to good. Perhaps FastPandas should be one use? Once you've used a hacking program through them, they burn out and are removed?
Let's give some credit to the one launcher the pitcher and assume they will engage enemy hackers in their terms... besides the Firewall you suffer because of hacking through an enemy repeater (which stacks with ECM, but not through tinbots). alternate, instead of (it's not like the current one, which requires LoS and is less optimal than a Combi rifle most of the time). Or bring back Nullifiers... I would allow ARO against fastpandas as if they were peripherals at the very least, frankly...
Have no fear: Infinity players in real life are overwhelmingly positive and the game is quite balanced. The forum has become a hangout for a few loudly negative people, who generally repeat their opinions over and over while reasonable people have mostly left. We're all a bit baffled why moderators have allowed it to get this bad. Definitely check out the Discord. It's good for newer players, has friendly and active advice, and active moderators. As for game rules balance, @tacos is right that where criticisms are valid in this thread and others, the issues are generally finer-points of the game that you have to be fairly skilled to exploit. They are hard to truly capitalize on while avoiding play-around (ie shoot the hacker) and tend to imbalance the game mainly between skilled and evenly-matched players. GML can be nasty for example, but many of us have begun playing against it specifically (fast flanking units or durable AD troops, grenade launchers, killer hackers in hidden deployment near likely targets of Spotlight, deceptive or decoy units to suck down GML alpha strikes, etc.). It's also true that these counterplays don't work as well against really skilled players, so yes there's definitely work needed on the system... but they work pretty well against 90% of the players out there. Infinity isn't perfect, but it's better than any other squad-skirmish minis game I've ever played. And it keeps getting better with each update/revision. The main issue there is that revisions and fixes are slow to come out (although many of us already play using the most obvious ones, as we have for other balance problems in past editions). The slow editing/revision speed of CB's rules team drives a lot of terminally-online forum posters pretty crazy, thus the constant negativity here on their official forum.
What I mean is that we have seen in ITS 14 list of tournament winners that included factions or units that were not included in the "must absolutely have" suggestions, defying netlisting and internet common wisdom. I believe this is because familiarity with the units one fields and the opponents army is more important in winning than finding a list with the most optimal models people suggest in the internet. For example, reading the discussions with the Interplanetario winner, this is the difference between having a GML in a list and been just a tool in the list and been the sole tool of the list.
That's not my experience. If I go to a 3-round tournament 1 or 2 of the games will be against a build (say Nomads or SP) I have no chance against. It's doubly frustrating knowing they nerfed fireteams broadly when vanilla was the problem. My USARF was threatening before that change, if not top tier. What KHD can actually threaten a good hacker in ARO through a repeater? Why would you ever mention that as a defense? You can't stop a Heckler using a FastPanda to take out your lieutenant or attack pieces top of 1, full stop. You're describing a fairy tale, honestly. It doesn't resemble the Infinity I see played, and it doesn't resemble the kind of infinity that does well at the event this thread is about. What specifically? Nah, starting with that particular Nomad build, or like the one Lobo uses, and then getting good with it would be fairly efficient.
Played in a few tournaments over the last 5 months (3 small 10-12 ITS, 1 30-person ITS, 1 45-person biggun), haven't had that experience at all. IME when people meet to actually -play in person- the game's got excellent balance and skill is the biggest determinant (with luck in dice and amount of sleep/proper nutrition the next highest factors). Where netlists have appeared they have tended to be a sign of inexperience, and the players fielding them lose a lot. My own favorite Bakunin build is a bit netlist-y (arrived at honestly but same endpoint many others have found), and I've encountered some pretty nasty tactics all prepared to deal with my precious space-roadies. It's still been a lot of fun fortunately, but kinda what I deserve for being predictable in reaching for a well-known build. I am willing to bet very, very good money that one can put most top local players against SP and GML Nomads with a force designed for general ITS play (not tailored to SP or GML Nomads) and watch those netlists melt. Interplanetario definitely did highlight some issues with Eclipse-equipped uber-warbands in mixed links (see below) but also was a good example of priming through public pre-discussion (and of predictably crappy terrain setup, which I really wish that particular tourney would grow out of). The complexity level of the game, and the fact that it frequently doesn't work without some level of agreement between players, self-selects for nice people. And surprisingly even people who are grumps on the internet tend to be pretty nice once you meet them in person. That's a tangent, and not one I'd agree with. IMO the game got richer and stronger when BS19 linked visor shooters got rarer. Vanilla's variety and combined arms potential is good, but sectorials' concentration of force and toolbox skills plus order efficiency is possibly even stronger. When it includes potential solutions for everything, a link moving 3-5 troops up to your problem spots overcomes the +2 difference in BS. Thus SP's current nastiness (which I do agree need a bit of taking down... and f%&king Tohaa who deserve every crutch they can get, those poor model-less bastards). Also a USARF fan btw, but they just need an update period. Such is the nature of cyclical development in the hands of a small business. It's frustrating but also kinda fun, and we can always try out our own revisions in friendly games. 6-2 Minutemen ftw!
I do agree with what @Hecaton is posting here. Vanilla / Sectorial balance do need to be looked out, and Sectorial needs to be more attractive than "you can make fireteams" than Vanilla. Something that can directly be tackled with the AVA of the troops. And by having certain profiles exclusive for the sectorial instead of the Vanilla. Such as what the Roadbots were intended to be for Starmada, before the miss-communication issue make them available for vanilla too. I agree with @Lady Numiria and I think this thread need another clean up again to keep it on-topic. @psychoticstorm
Removed some of the posts, more should be removed but would break up thread coherency, hope this is enough.
Weran, playing Vanilla Nomads won Interplanetario 2023. SP have a huge number of representatives in the top 10.
