Reinforcements feedback thread

I disagree. If it was the conduct you would have just deleted the offending posts and moved on.

What's more, my last post is very much on topic, about how CB doesn't communicate well over balance issues in general.

 

The feedback are always the same, and all negative; It's not like anything will change going forward. Only the CB can change something, and we are wondering how long it will take to do so.

 

Potentially it will take a mass exodus of players from the game, for CB to make some meaningful changes but by then it will be too late.

 

Yup, but we have no assurances that the negative critiques are even making it to CB, or if they care. Is it "can't fix/won't fix" or "working as intended"?

 

Yes sadly this is why I am probably going to be taking a break from the game, and start playing Conquest. At least that company listens to their community and makes meaningful changes. It would be nice if CB did the same.

 

Personally, I'm not playing any more Reinforcements until some acknowledge from CB's side shows up.

I will give another piece, however: after a single game of 250+100 Vs 300pts (player 1 was 300pts), counting only "non-null" victory points (previously we were using reinforcements "count if the player wanted it", so there was no safety that Player 2's turn would not start a Retreat!!!), the only thing that happened is that the first turn was a massacre of the second player, and while the reinforcements did something in turn 2, only one player got to do anything on turn 3, so hard was the alpha (and I lost the pointman, triggering my own reinforcements, but that left the other troops to focus on the mission while the reinforcements were a second "Alpha"). Granted, we both knew each other's lists, but knowing no matter how many troops you kill, the other side won't go into Retreat because of nearly 100pts in reserve I think favours a "rush it all" or "don't release the kraken" mentality...

Incidentally, I think Steel Phalanx is very good at playing without the opponent too, and their 300pts lists are even better equipped to crush 250pts enemy ones (and even like to get enemy reserves close by, if they retained their 6th sense...), so...

I certainly hope this thread is providing ideas and gets noticed by those who created it in the first place. If you ask for feedback and give no signal whatsoever of even noticing said feedback, it is quite likely that people will merely stop and leave.
Or worse, think that this thread was only a preventive damage control from people well aware they have released an unfinished product (and plan to shove it into our collective throats the whole ITS season and Interplanetario tournament, thus pushing hardly for the Satellites to use it too) and this is a way to distract criticism.

TLDR: if Corvus Belli asks for feedback and people gives it (and ideas), the least CB can do is acknowledge the community's effort with a post, specially if no changes have been shown in the Reinforcements PDF.

Spain is a country of Faith. Not necessarily in a greater power, but in that Things Will Be Right... somehow. So while I hope to be wrong, it seems to me that Infinity gets attention only until Warcrow launches, and CB assumes most of the playerbase from Infintiy will also transition to Warcrow (considering how punishing is to stop playing Infinity even a week, I don't know how they can see that... unless we get a Tohaa Infinity year...)

 

So IGL is currently finished with two out of three rounds of a casual 250+100pt reinforcements event - we've played supplies and highly classified, and have frostbyte to go. I certainly can't speak for everyone, but I'll do my best to sum up how the discussion around reinforcements have changed.

In general, I'd say that after two rounds the consensus has shifted into being more negative. Where before there was a bit more of a plurality of different opinions, some large and ugly bugbears have reared their heads, and there's a better sense of what the specific issues are with reinforcements in it's current format.

The first issue is that in non-exclusion zone missions, reinforcements have access to an entire half of the table to deploy on breaks a lot of things. Aside from being able to completely outmaneuver any enemy models on your side of the table, it makes it basically impossible from one player to stop another from pressing buttons. In combination with the smaller order pool for alpha striking, this encouraged some very defensive and uninteractive games in the supplies round, with the player going second essentially winning by default. HC had similar issues as well where it was basically impossible to stop a reinfor group from doing a lot of classifieds, depending on what they were.

As alluded to, reinfor does make alpha striking harder, and makes going second more attractive - but does so to an extent that makes it pretty impossible for the player going first to win, depending on the mission. Even when you successfully alpha someone hard, the fact that you can't contest your opponent's reinforcement group can often give the game the feeling that what the main sections actually do doesn't matter.

It's also become clear that a great deal of the current mission set simply doesn't work with reinforcements. A lot of the more simple missions, especially without exclusions zones, are pretty broken in reinforcements - the actions of the main sections don't matter, all that matters is the reinforcements group. This was especially the case in HC, and I expect it to be worse in frostbyte where the only thing that matters is who drops second and is able to dominate the exclusion zone.

In terms of discussion about how reinforcements should change without just throwing the format out entirely, people have been tending towards ideas that have reinforcements on the table for longer (for example mandatory drops once you hit the point threshold and/or mandatory drops in turn 2), and ideas that limit the deployment options of reinforcements (for example reinforcements being DZ bound and/or generating AROs ala combat jump/parachutist).

Personally, I think that dropping reinforcements should be mandatory once you hit the point threshold, and maybe that threshold should be lowered somewhat (maybe to 50 points). I also think the deployment options of reinforcements should be limited. Just to the DZ feels a little harsh given their limited order pool, but maybe something like your DZ alongside the ZoC of your commlink trooper as long as it isn't in a null state?

 

@Koni
I think Last Launch needs some clarity on how 'Extracted' interacts with certain types of troopers like Lieutenants and EVO Hackers.

Specifically Rules as Written if you extract your Lt it doesn't meet any of the triggers for loss of Lieutenant so are we to play it as there is no Lt on the table yet you are not in LoL?

Similarly if you extract your EVO that has a active supportware that doesn't trigger the cancellation of the supportware.

 

It's funny. I'm also playing in the IGL and so far both in the IGL and my other games of Reinforcements, what people tend to complain about hasn't happened. In fact, the games I've played (with the exception of the one game which tutored me on how bad ISS is at dealing with Bolt pure core snipers) have been very enjoyable with the reinforcement group playing a vital part of the back and forth, both offensively and defensively, without it breaking the mission design at all. I think mainly what's got me a positive view of it is that it's broken up the meta design of the game and it's allowing factions that were not very good to compete again, if only because what's needed of a list to play Reinforcements has changed.

Yes, the games do need you to be much more selective when it comes to missions, but that's not really a problem with the game format but with mission design;

• Reinforcements play better when scoring is done per round and not at the end of the game
• Reinforcements play better when objectives aren't necessarily on the middle line
• Reinforcements play better when there aren't massive shifts based off of small differences

This is not untrue for normal Infinity, as well, but the difference with Reinforcements is that it sort of... reveals... the less good mission/scenario design concepts that more than normal infinity.

 

I def agree with your perspective a bit more, I don't feel as negative on reinforcements as a whole compared to others. I'd also agree that it's evened out the balance between factions and especially vanillas and sectorials. I do think it needs some changes, but I think with those changes it could be something really really great.

100% agreed. I've had some absolutely fantastic reinforcement games in missions like mindwipe, unmasking, capture and protect, and even supplies (I think R1 of IGL was rough for a lot of people because that map was pretty trash tbh).

Honestly thinking about the issues with missions more, it makes sense. It's common knowledge that if you are taking first turn in missions like frontline or even acquisition, you need to alpha the hell out of your opponent because you can't really win by playing the mission.

 

Thank you @Koni for that response! It's good to hear that you are reading and listening. I know this is the Reinforcements thread, and I don't want to go off topic, but since it's so rare to hear from any of you and no one from CB has yet replied in the other thread: Can we please keep the Squalo Mk1 profile even when the model goes OOP? A lot of people are asking for it.

 

I would start by fix these three simple things:

- Absolutely remove the commlink tax, charge a few more points only for those profiles that increase the maximum limit of 15 units (but I would still maintain a basic economics profile that only has the commlink, even in those factions where the commlink+1/+2 exists)

- Remove the calculations to do for the entry of reinforcements, and put the compulsory entry in the second round, independently from the circumstances; furthermore allow the ARO against the reinforcements that have just entered (being able to deploy units, which are already entering mid-deployment, in a completely open field has absolutely nothing strategic or tactical about it.) The Aro is one of the best rule of infinity, don't ignore it.

- Modify the score of some reinforcement units, and add some economic units; since, especially for some factions, the possible combinations of reinforcements are very few, and often 10 or even more points are left over, to reach 100, which cannot be spent since the cheapest units start from 15+ pts.


With this simple step there would be already notable improvements.

 

Both round 1 and round 2 were curveballs, and directly opposite curveballs. One was a sniper's wet dream and the other was shotgun hell.

I think what round 1 showed were two things; one being that Infinity's ARO balance is wonky and the other, specifically about reinforcements, is that AROs are necessary.

I played against Shasvasti so I got off easy and only had to deal with one Noctifer which was fair and game as I used Armand. Some factions, however, can put up a lot more difficult to deal with AROs that also typically serve as well above decent solution to removing similar AROs, which is kind of late N3 rearing its ugly head again. (Looking at you, Bolt snipers! (Though there are a couple of others (and I can't believe I need to write that disclaimer))). I didn't crack the Noctifer, but a failed guts and pressure from reinforce Bixie kept the Noctifer's head down half of T2 and T3.

--

That reinforcements rewards and encourages factual AROs (not just the flash pulse bots) is fine. That the factions don't support it is a known issue among players for at least a decade. There are some real ugly issues with faction balance that needs to be redressed, and I honestly don't think we can blame Reinforcement for them.

To be honest, I don't agree with much you write, but I do think you're on to something about making the mandatory drop on T2. The best games I've had so far has also had reinforcements drop on T2 for both players.

Someone wrote that the intention had been for Reinforcements (350pts) to be compatible with non-Reinforcements (300pts), and if so then maybe to commlink tax is just fine. I'd have to test it, which would mean finding others willing to test it without revealing beforehand if I intend to drop reinforce or not (which is to say; I'm not going to be able to test it). Internet wisdom atm says non-Reinforcements have the upper hand, so... I dunno. Usually internet wisdom comes with caveats, and the biggest one here is that I doubt anyone has actually tried it.

 

I do not know if it was the intention, but the community really supports the idea, I know it has been tried by various communities with positive results, but I have no personal experience playing a 300 standard vs a 350 reinforcements.

 

The Lost of Lieutenant #100 episode has a good interview with @HellLois. He gives some background and the goal with Reinforcements. Basically, this is a large field test to get community feedback. They also are interested in Reinforcements versus non Reinforcement games, but are taking it slow.

It is the last hour of the show (timestamp 03:14:54 - 04:28:37) and a good listen.

 

Just finished IGL12, which was a 3 round reinforcements event with 60 players.

We polled and took feedback from players afterwards.

Of 42 respondents to the poll, 29 said they would not play reinforcements again (69%), and 13 said they would.

Comments were as follows:

"Format breaks a large portion of the mission pool, creating games where there is very little you can do to stop the player going second from winning. Commlink as it stands right now is a redundant mechanic that only serves as a tax. Reinforcements dropping should provoke AROs and/or be more limited than an entire half of the table in terms of where they can deploy. Dropping reinforcements once you hit the VP threshold should be mandatory and/or reinforcements should be forced to drop on turn 2 rather than turn 3."

"The comlink requirement is disappointing, in that it takes up even more valuable space and points when both of those things is even more limited in this format. This limits choice and reduces the fun of the game. I believe free play is the only viable way to run Reinforcements, and should be considered the norm, despite the fact that I’ve not seen that combination used at a live event yet."

"I would like more creative uses for Commlink. I would also like it to be easier to fill out 100 points rather than 87 or 103."

"Want more commlink choices. Want to have a reaction against reinforcements deployment or at least a way to force their landing."

"Auto win is lame, they need to be able to be AROd on drop at a minimum"

"Please work on fixing known issues with the base game, instead of inventing new, wacky variants that you don't have the resources to do properly."

"I think it is an interesting idea that needs to be heavily tweaked for actual gameplay"

"Dislike the lack of variety in commlinks. Dislike how reinforcements cannot be AROd when they land. It feels uninteractive and can ruin some mission."

"Reinforcements almost always come down on turn 3. If they come down turn 2, you've generally already lost. Many of the reinforcement profiles are excellent and have been very fun to play, but since they almost always arrive on turn 3, you don't get much time to play them. 100 points and 2 SWC is very tight, and as such, there are often only a couple viable reinforcement groups in a given faction. If the points restriction was removed and simply changed to a model count limit, it would increase the different builds of reinforcement groups. I'm guessing everyone has said this, but 10 points for a commlink is crazy. They are a specialist, so 2-4 points seems totally fine. Making Commlink have more impact on the game would make it more interesting as well. My 'fix' would be to have reinforcements normally arrive on turn 2, but if you can kill/isolate the commlink unit, it delays reinforcements to turn 3 instead."

"Reinforcements works terribly with the current mission pack. It can be summed up as go second and win. Also not all factions have equally good access to reinforcements - Bakunin being a clear winner."

"Reinforcements are a good start, but the way they arrive on the table is too non-interactive. It feels like there is no effective way to stop a Reinforcements group from eliminating anything near their drop zone with ease, as well as having near-guaranteed access to objectives. By extension this means that the player going second in a game always has the last word and a huge leg up, especially in missions that score at the end of the game. I think there needs to be either ARO opportunities when Reinforcements land, or some other way for a player to corral and counteract them. Right now they feel unstoppable."

"Reinforcements arrive too late to allow counter play: this results in a games defined by the Deployment of Reinforcements. Focussing Reinforcement arrivals into round 2 ensures that there's counter play to Reinforcements. At worst their arrival better the 2nd and 5th game turns allows gameplay with flexibility"

"Reinforcements is way too strong for second player 250 pt / 5 swc is what made the format interesting"

"Reinforcements are good but I think would be a lot more interesting as a mechanic if they were optional per player and balanced against a normal list. I think having cost for the commlink is okay but it's currently too high"

"It's too much of a swing in the last turn. It doesn't work as it currently is. I think it has potential for sure but it needs to have certain missions that suit AND the current rules still need a rework. Really not a fan currently."

"Force opponents to bring in troops when they are triggered, and lower the amount of point’s required to lose to either 75 or 50 points."

"Reinforcements is a fun extra but skews balance strongly in favor of the player dropping reinforcements second. missions are not designed to accommodate this. Deploying reinforcements troops without generating any ARO is incredibly powerful. It was not tested enough and seems ill thought out and half baked. On the other hand, It is a novel idea and makes list building fun. It has potential if it could be worked on further."

"Work more with comlink models. Make it cheaper, add comlink to other profiles (Skiavoro Lt for example). Optional reinforcement drop is op. Should be mandatory."

"Slow to play, dropping them 2nd is too powerful in a mission where points in a zone score. I also felt my preferred play stlye of big chunky guy and chaff is really hurt at 250 so feel I can't enjoy infinity the way I like to play"

"Missions don't really work, T3 drop can swing the game way too often without real counterplay"

"Reinforcements most of the time don't do anything because they arrive too late, but once in a while they complete the game by themselves. The change I'd love to see would be make them arrive automatically in turn 2 instead, and arrive in deployment so they can't swing games."

"Reinf must be changed, especially second player handicap, mb they must create exclusion zone, or something."

"Reinforcements work really well and add a new interesting tactical dimension to the game. I wouldn’t change anything."

"It is a fun game mode in a casual environment. However the powerlevel is so different, that a competitive environment would be quite skewed"

"Have played around 15 matches. Will not play again. Sadly a boring, unbalanced and unfinished concept. Need total rework. Should stay extra in ITS."

"Second turn with reinforcements feels too powerful to degree that it's breaking some missions altogethe"

"Has potential but it is too half-baked at the moment and is turning people off."

"Reinforcements decrease two things: total order number in the game and (surprisingly) total number of useful tools and models on the table. Both of these things lead to three consequences thing: you now have less opportunities to do something that matters, getting a couple of bad rolls now matter significantly more than earlier, and the price of the mistake is much much bigger. There are missions which became super unbalanced with reinforcements, like frostbyte, or any other mission which is scored "in the end of the game pass the conditions". Nah"

"We need some changes in mission pack for Reinforcement pls"

"Reinforcement plays absolutely best when they arrive on round 2. As a consequence, fiddling with "retreat levels" feels detrimental. The drop pod is causing issues. Whether it remains or blocks line of fire seems to be almost game deciding differences on missions without exclusion zone."

"1. Obligatory if 100pts damage suffered, or 2. Drop T2 always 3. Make missions specifically for Reinforcements format, or 4. Make them obey Exclusion Zone in every mission"

"They don't work. Comlink tax is bad game design and certain factions can't properly play the format"

"Neat concept, but it does not feel good to play. It adds more time and "complexity" without increasing the enjoyment of the game"

"I would like more player agency in list building (more comlink options, decision on how many point to put in to reinforcements or if you play it) and for reinforcement dropping to be mandatory when able."

"I like the idea and the reduced main force does make list building interesting again but the way reinforcements themselfes got implemented (not mandatory and how they teleport in) does make the game take a nose dive once they land... which is sad."

"I think Reinforcements are only a problem with certain missions. They really need a mission set recommended for use with Reinf and/or to modify some missions."

 

Thank you for collecting and sharing all that feedback, @HeadChime. Sounds to me like the overall message is pretty clear: The majority of players thinks it's a good idea but seriously lacking in execution.

Time to release a big patch rather soon I'd say if you want to sell all those sweet new models, CB.

 

Wow.

 

True because Dominating Missions favour 2nd turn already. But I also wan't to point out the RF can be so devastating, that 2nd turn player haa little chance to regroup with hs late RF.

I had two games with a win while my RF drop on T2 and I go first, one of this was Panic room. And here RF ignore the confused deployment which makes them very strong.

I also think they should not be allowed to deploy on the midline. Maybe give them a 16" deployment zone. IE 12" deployment at the start of the game and 16" for RF.