source:https://discord.com/channels/118301609146056709/449345314407579649/1518932405686243338 Qualitative Feedback - What would you like to see changed, and what do you enjoy? What would you like to see changed or improved? 285 participants left comments. There were a total of 549 comments. I have sorted the comments in ‘themes’. A theme represents a broad grouping of similar concerns and comments. 1.Fliers / Vehicles Overpowered (86/285 = 30.2%) This theme was structured around the power of fliers. All comments within this theme noted how strong fliers were and that they needed to be weaker. Some comments suggested specific ways to downtune fliers such as being able to declare CC against them with units that possess superjump. 2.Old Profiles / Factions Underpowered (79/285 = 27.7%) This theme was structured around old factions and units feeling left behind or less powerful than new factions. Common mentions were Tohaa, Ramah Taskforce, Onyx Contact Force, Yu Jing, and O12. Many individuals listed profiles or sectorials that have received virtually no changes in N5. Many users noted how this made them feel demotivated to play the game. 3.Specific Factions or Units are Too Powerful (27/285 = 9.5%) This theme focused on newer factions and units that felt too powerful. The most common mentions were Next Wave, PanOceania, Neoterran Capitaline Army, Puzzlers, and the Swiss Missile. Responders noted that these armies or units were not fun to play against and overshadowed older factions/units. 4.Hacking is Overpowered / Hacking needs Changing (24/285 = 8.4%) This theme clustered around how non-interactive active turn hacking is, and how boring it can feel to be on the receiving end of hacking. Some users suggested changes to pitchers or hacking. Changes focused on how to make defending against hacking easier. Some users commented that hacking as a whole was a ‘solved’ and limited system which needed overhauling. 5.Non-Functional Rules / The Rules need Clean-Up (20/285 = 7.0%) This theme commented on clarity of rules and noted particular examples that were difficult to parse. Holomask was mentioned multiple times, as was cyberplug. Some users expressed frustration that there were not enough FAQs and this was putting them off playing the game. 6.Powercreep / Rules Bloat (19/285 = 6.7%) This theme was similar to certain factions being too powerful but contains responders that did not mention a particular profile or faction. If I add this to the theme of ‘Specific Factions or Units are Too Powerful’ then that theme represents 46/285 people, or 16.1%. This theme also contains individuals who said they felt new profiles were too bloated with skills, i.e. they have too many new rules, and they wanted to see a return to simpler profiles. The Sharvara was mentioned as a particular example of a profile that has too many rules. 7.ITS Complexity / Narrative Alternative (16/285 = 5.6%) These individuals noted concern and dislike for ITS missions. Many said they felt ITS missions were too complicated and/or unbalanced. Many of these individuals expressed a desire for more narrative missions or campaign play. 8.Unrespondable Mechanics - Eclipse, Guided, SpecFire (16/285 = 5.6%) These individuals all listed a mechanic that is difficult to respond to or removes player agency. They noted that the game is less fun and fulfilling when these mechanics come into play because it feels like choices are removed. Many asked for examples such as Disco Balls, Speculative Fire, or Guided to be significantly limited, or in some cases, removed entirely. 9.Alpha Strike / Mobility Concerns (15/285 = 5.3%) These individuals commented on how fast the game was and noted that they felt that early, aggressive play was too powerful. Many gave examples such as superjump with jet-propulsion. Some of these users expressed a desire for AROs to be better because they felt that defending in the earlygame was too difficult. 10.Armies Too Similar / Identity Loss (13/285 = 4.6%) This theme focused on armies all gaining access to most rules as they get reworked and how this reduces faction differentiation. Many of these individuals commented on factions feeling the same and that uniqueness has been lost.
Regarding the topic "Non-Functional Rules / The Rules Need Clean-Up," I noticed that skills and equipment are currently sorted alphabetically by their first letter. However, this alphabetical sorting doesn't serve any practical purpose. They should be organized logically instead, which would greatly improve readability. Taking sharvara as an example, related rules should be grouped together: Post-Hit / Damage Resolution: Rules triggered after being hit should be grouped. Examples: Courage, Remote Presence Special Deployment: Deployment-related rules should be grouped (along with Combat Jump, Parachutist, Hidden Deployment). Example: Forward Deployment (+4") Ballistic Skills / Shooting Modifiers: Shooting-related modifiers should be grouped (along with BS Attack (-3), Albedo, MSV). Example: Mimetism (-3) Close Combat (CC): Melee-related rules should be grouped. Examples: CC Attack (-6), Natural Born Warrior Movement / Mobility: Movement-related rules should be grouped (along with Climbing Plus). Examples: Stealth, Super-Jump
My Personal Views on These Topics 1. Fliers / Vehicles Overpowered (86/285 = 30.2%) Regarding Vehicles being overpowered: Aside from the scoring bonuses, I don't feel there is anything that urgently needs to be nerfed right now. Some players noted that "hover vehicles have disrupted traditional deployment habits because lying prone behind cover used to be incredibly safe." Therefore, this perception of being "overpowered" might just be an illusion caused by players not being used to the change yet. 2. Old Profiles / Factions Underpowered (79/285 = 27.7%) Specifically mentioned: Tohaa This isn't surprising since the faction is out of print, and it lacks the massive player base of a major power like PanO. However, Tohaa possesses some of the most unique mechanics in the game; throwing in buffs could easily break its balance. Statistically, Tohaa performs average (with a 47.2% win rate) and has even won tournaments. It belongs to the category of factions that look weak on paper but have a very high skill ceiling. Ramah Taskforce As Haqqislam's biotech representative, its light and medium infantry might not seem as cost-effective now, likely due to the massive point drops for heavy infantry in N5. Furthermore, most of their melee profiles rely on CC (-6) or Natural Born Warrior, making them less affected by the changes to Martial Arts. Statistically, its performance is slightly below average (a 46.5% win rate) and it rarely places at the top of tournaments. The root cause might simply be a "lack of appeal," given that its total games played haven't even reached 50. It would help if the developers allowed Doctors to heal units that are not fully wounded but still alive. Right now, Doctors can only heal unconscious targets, which feels far too useless. Onyx The most awkwardly positioned sectorial within the CA. The developers have officially announced that a rework is in progress. Yu Jing This complaint is quite strange. ISS was recently reworked and has already started appearing in top tournament lists post-update. Meanwhile, the Invincible Army has been performing well since its release in N5. vYJ lists also consistently place in top cuts, having gained access to tools like pitchers, Minelayer (2), and discoballer . The complaints might just stem from ISS players feeling their rework wasn't as high-powered as other factions'. O-12 O-12 used to have the most versatile toolbox. However, with N5 widely distributing these tools (pitchers, disco balls, Chain of Command, etc.) to other factions, vO-12 lost its core advantage while retaining its N4 weakness—a high average point cost per unit. It is currently the only faction showing a statistically significant underperformance. 3. Specific Factions or Units Overpowered (9.5%) The Next Wave In stark contrast to O-12, while it shares the high average point cost, its units are incredibly overturned for their cost. Examples include the Harbinger, Cliff Jumper, Teucer, and Achilles. PanO While everyone in N4 complained that PanOceania could only shoot, N5 handed them a massive buff package. This includes the (+1B) + X-Visor Pitcher that leaves Nomad players green with envy, the cheapest disco balls, fast Pandas, and significant point reductions or buffs for powerful heavy infantry. The scale of these buffs feels a bit excessive. NCA Similar to PanO, but due to fireteam efficiencies, it executes certain tasks even more effectively, though it lacks a few specific tools as a trade-off. Puzzler Its cheap point cost and the fact that its death doesn't reduce your Order count make it an "extremely low-risk" unit. Moreover, Hidden Deployment is the best defensive mechanic in the game due to its unpredictability. Since most HD units are relatively expensive and provide Orders, players usually use them for long-range defense rather than baiting templates. The Puzzler, however, bypasses this risk entirely. Swiss Guard The complaints mostly center around the +1SD Missile Launcher profile. Its passive turn defense is devastatingly terrifying, and Hidden Deployment makes its threat impossible to predict. Catching an entire fireteam in one template shot can literally end the game on the spot. While this unit might be overtuned in certain scenarios, a slight point increase or adjusting its SWC cost would probably be more reasonable.
I do strongly feel that fliers do need some attention. The range of comments that I see on Discord on the topic does veer towards the extremes, although almost no one seem willing to defend them. I did take the opportunity that TTS offers, as well as doing some proxying with my unused Yaoxie remotes, to do some testing of fliers in the days before the massive buff they received in the October update (I believe it was). My conclusion was that Go-Pod (which received no update from the big buff other than Techrecovery) was super-oppressive, but that otherwise fliers were mostly fine. Since then, however, most fliers received both a cost decrease as well as an improvement to their key capability. Well, with two exceptions; Go-Pod was not improved and Feiquan was... improved (this isn't about the Feiquan so I'll opt for brevity) What I find with my experience both before and after these buffs were; 1. Fliers were initially released in a well-tuned state. Not overly cautious as some users initially feared prior. 2. Fliers were initially released quite strong. 3. Techrecovery was ill-advised. Having IMM-A and IMM-B disable the Aerial skill would be the big brain move here. 4. Nearly all fliers are currently far too cheap. With regards to breaking up the meta; N4 and N5 both increased the amount of units that are capable of breaking up the tactics of so called "null deploy" (in this case, which interpretation of "null deploy" doesn't matter). With a drastic increase in the number of units that have high speed, super-jump, jet-propulsion on all combat jumpers, more DZ parachutists, etc, the "need" to break these deployment patterns simply does not exist. There are so many units that can do this at a much more fair price. In support of this argument, initial statistics gathered of competitive gameplay indicates that for the first time in Infinity's game balance history, the combination of these hyper-aggressive units and the nature of the ITS17 missions, we see a very clear advantage for the player going first. The lieutenant roll off has never been this indicative of who will win the game. For reference, throughout N4 we had a persistent narrative that the hyper-aggressive play you would see out of player 1 was ruining the game experience and dictating the games, but the statistics never showed that this tactic in itself actually yielded results that deformed the game balance. For sure, it was accepted that the player going first had to play aggressively, but the win rates did not get skewed, showing only a very slight advantage to player 2 for most missions. Breaking play patterns can be a very bad thing You've got to remember that this is a game that involved two players and that both players have to feel like they have fun and participate. Breaking a pattern is in itself not a goal to pursue. Given that this is, at the end of the day, meant to be entertainment, the goal should rather be a game system that strives to make sure both players will 1. Have a reasonable chance of retaining their important units past turn 1 regardless of who is player 1. 2. Have a reasonable chance of doing actions that advances their position As such, a game balance that increasingly determines the game by what happens during turn 1 is ultimately never going to be good. You really want both players to feel like they have a chance for as long as possible. To be clear, I am not advocating for stronger AROs. Stronger AROs only leads to the other player being locked in and unable to play the game. However, I am advocating for an increased acceptance that hiding valuable units is okay. I am advocating for that having to go through a lot of trouble to dig those units out, is an integral risk-reward proposition in tactical games and thinking. There should always be a real decision whether to dig deep or opt for the more cautious method of peeling the layers. As part of this, at some point, these hyper-aggressive units have to be reined in. Preferably starting with the units that just doesn't have a cost:performance trade off, which means - in clear text - most Aerials. There is a reasonable level to be found. Call it hypocrisy if you will, I call it a nuanced take, I do find the Feiquan to be pretty reasonable. It's particularly under-geared compared to the others, though, so that has a lot to do with it. Increasing costs and/or reducing gear on the other aerials with the reference value of 6pts is what I'm talking about. This will still leave you with ridiculously strong highly mobile units that are much more capable and survivable than anything in the same price range.
I also think that the idea that units being untouchable when prone somewhere is intrinsically linked to people's perception of hacking within this game. Given that hackers are never encouraged to actually engage with the game's mechanics, and instead are encouraged to let other units do the work for them by moving repeaters forward and using pitchers (I'm gonna leave that argument for elsewhere, but I do feel like pitchers are a solution to some of the game's other problems, and that you can make a one-sided solution). A unit that hides, does not participate in the game and incurs an order penalty to do so when it is activated. With a few exceptions, such as extremely speedy units such as the Racerbots or when the units in question are hackers. Arguably, instead of making an ever increasing number of units designed to directly shoot these units, instead design systems that encourages them to move out in order to engage with systems. For example; Increase potency of hackers' own Zone of Control hacking, decrease it through repeaters Increase potency of hackers when target is in LOF Introduce LOF mechanics to hacking, making terrain matter through "quantronic interference" Introduce LOF mechanics to repeaters etc As a whole this could look like this; Repeaters apply an ECM-3 "latency" to everyone instead of Firewalls, this penalty is removed if opponent is in LOF, having target in LOF and personal ZoC applies a +3 bonus (or even lets them ignore Firewalls), a deployable cover type that prevents Hacking Area, certain pieces of terrain such as holo-ads prevents hacking if they block LOF between the target and the hacker/repeater conferring total or partial cover bonuses, Tinbots are changed to provide bonuses inside Zone of Control, and the re-introduction of the Nullifier as a common "found on Shinju" technology.
