1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hemos actualizado nuestra Política de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

Balancing for player skill

Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by Superfluid, Jan 14, 2018.

  1. Varred

    Varred Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    19
    @psychoticstorm
    Truth is, respectfully, that You are wrong in all of this. Never onece have i seen a game table so stable, with terrain peices laid out so good as to not be moved by any Player or bystander whole game long. Been playing the game quite long and each and every game there is a situation, that a hand of one or another Player, a piece of clothing, someone just passing through the LGS moved some stuff by accident.

    For the sake of my point, event CB produced cardboard terrain is wobbly enough, that minis placed on containers fall from time to time. So we all play with intent if the intent is physically achieveable. It goes like :

    Player A - if it is physically possible for my model to see only guy 1 but not guys 2,3,4 and 5 in that link team, i would like to performance that move sticking to cover.

    Player B - OK, it is possible so go with it
    Or
    Player B - i dont think You can do that, lets measure it.

    Of course if someone is a dick about it, i will be also and will measure every thing using every way i can in keeping with rules, but will probably never play the guy again so what is the point?

    Back to the topic, if even one unit in game (barring TO Camo) is designed in a way that would encourage 'gotcha ARO' play, that is simply bad design and shuold be changed in my opinion.

    But that is just me
    Cheers
    Varred
     
    Ebon Hand and Plebian like this.
  2. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,020
    Likes Received:
    5,736
    Respectfully, it is not wobbly enouph to be a problem.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  3. Varred

    Varred Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    19
    Oh look how the mighty fall.
    One post You were pleading for civil speech and now You are not making any counterarguments to my post, noo. You are event mocking my manner of speech, which was as friendly as it gets over the internet. I suppose I cant give You the warning You tend to give everyone just now cause You are the boss and i am but a simple user.
     
    david_lee, Ebon Hand and Plebian like this.
  4. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,020
    Likes Received:
    5,736
    Maybe because we all know what respectfully means when situated at the start and I used it to make a point.

    There is no counterargument to somebody who does not want to make an argument and simply makes a provocative post, a persona attack is a personal attack however "sugar coated" it may be.

    But lets assume I am wrong and I will apologise for that, (though your follow up post indicates otherwise) I then should have said earlier that the rules make reasonable assumptions that the game area is stable enouph and to be fair anything people are supposed to be playing on, including the paper terrain is reasonably stable.

    There is skill in Infinity and there is skill in models placement and range guessing,you may not like it and prefer people that have such skills to not be advantaged I am sorry this is not how the game is supposed to work and this is what we discuss here.

    If you want to argue is if is right people who do not have skills in model placement and range guessing to have an advantage over people who do not, fine.

    If you want to make absurd arguments like terrain can be potentially knocked off as a proof that this can never be, I am sorry I do not subscribe to such reasoning.

    Rules are not created with accidents happening in mind, do you honestly expect rules to cover the model and terrain been knocked off by a bystander? by the wind? or simply assume in accidents players will simply reset the terrain as faithfully they can and move on?
     
    Wolf and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  5. Varred

    Varred Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    19
    I didnt sugarcoat shit. Wanted to be good and polite. But i see we are going in circles here. Neither side want Ing to accept another.

    I get, that rules are designed to reward some skills. Be ot Infinity skill or model placement skill. I have no problem with that. The problem i have is, if i can ut a Silhouette there and check with my eyes, why cant i assume i already did that and proceed with the game. It is an unnecesarry waste of time, doesnt promote anything but being a dick. Lets say I am playing with someone first time ever. We dont know each other. I say i checked all with my eyes and move my mini to a corner. I placed it with such care, that nothing can spoil my plans. But my opponent thinks otherwise. We can argue, but before we measure we have to declare skills and my second skill may heavily depend on how many AROs he can get.
    What now?
     
    #45 Varred, Jan 16, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2018
    Ebon Hand likes this.
  6. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,020
    Likes Received:
    5,736
    Ok, but how is that relevant in balancing for player skills?

    On what you argue? opponent must check LoF to get ARO, if you argue whether he does or does not get LoF you place the Silhouettes and draw LoF if there is no LoF he does not get ARO.

    The exact same situation can happen with PBI, you can say I move with the intention to only see one of the 5 fireteam members and your opponent can argue this is a physical impossibility.

    But is this relevant in balancing for player skills? it is a theoretical argument preventer that has not been successful out in the wilds.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  7. Varred

    Varred Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    19
    Storm... Placing Silhouette is a measurement by the rules. Yes? And getting AROs is before i declare my second skill. Correct?

    Then either way I am doing something wrong. Cause either i measure before deciding on the order, or i am deciding with not full information that shuold be avaliable to me.

    It is an argument in that debate, cause it warrants balancing on that model placement skill. That shuold never be THE case. Model shuold not be balanced based on how precise i can put it down on the table. It is a bad game design, and it is even worse decision, assuming it is made that way intentionally.
     
  8. Magonus

    Magonus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    777
    The reason you cannot understand us, Varred, is because the problem with intent is not

    but

    The shortcut you want me as your opponent to agree to, that you will make me assume that you already did that and proceed with the game, depends upon the presumption that this "waste of time" you would have to engage in in order to find the perfect position, is acceptable. There are a number of behaviors in Infinity that are not explicitly illegal in the game, that are unacceptable.

    For instance, there is no prohibition against using -V-'s Army builder to recreate your list while we play the game. By doing this I can discover what your Hidden Deployment units and Lieutenant might be, and that will give me an advantage that I would like to have. But I do not want to waste time, so I ask you to assume that I already did that, and proceed with the game. In that case, to not waste time, you will have to tell me whether or not your have Airborne Deployment or TO Camouflage units in your list, and you will have to tell me which models may be your Lieutenant.

    For another instance, there is no prohibition in Infinity against declaring Zone of Control AROs on models who are obviously beyond Zone of Control. But I want to declare Zone of Control AROs on models who are beyond Zone of Control because it will give me an advantage by being able to see the range between that model and the model that you are activating. So again I ask you assume that I already did that, and to not waste time, I get to check range every order you spend from any model whenever I want.

    Of course, these behaviors are unacceptable, just as spending lots of time to find the perfect position and making me bend down to help you get an advantage against the ARO units I have deployed, is unacceptable. So I will not assume that you have already did that, and demand that you find the real position of your models each time (unless we are in a tournament, and are pressed for time). The result of that is that I will become better and faster than you at this game, and you will be a rude player who forces me to get your way.

    Incidentally, although there is no explicit prohibition for your "intent" shortcut, this is how Corvus Belli plays their game:

     
    #48 Magonus, Jan 16, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2018
    Wolf, Alkasyn and Stiopa like this.
  9. Varred

    Varred Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    19
    So u played the opponent make me do this and that card.
    And also, all of your examples are bad. Waay out of question. I say if my private list is my private info, You are in facet prohibited by the rules to recreate my list in Army and You even cant ask about Airborne Deploy.

    Furthermore, while talking about t'there and back again' situation, as in original internet thread, there is little use in doing all that little steps. Even rules say i put my model in its final destination. So i have a 4-4 trooper an inch and a half from the edge of the building. I say, i make a move out in cover to gain LoF to one of your models and go back to the same place. By the rules Psychotic has cited in that thread i dont have to move my model. So i gain LoF to all your models behind that corner, or do we agree that it is possible that i move to only one ARO and back?

    Because to me, checking every movement like what u say is being a dick about it. Not because i would t or could t do it, but because i play the game for fun first and foremost and spending half an HOUR on one short skill is not fun at all.
     
    Ebon Hand likes this.
  10. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,020
    Likes Received:
    5,736
    Guys seriously this is not what the tread is about.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  11. Alphz

    Alphz Kuang Shi Vet. Retired.

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,039
    Likes Received:
    2,044
    Haha yep definitely RIP
     
    Superfluid and Belgrim like this.
  12. Superfluid

    Superfluid Welcome to Svalarheima

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    380
    Likes Received:
    479
    The game balance I was originally talking about was about game design and not placing models on cardboard terrain :smirk:
     
    Wolf and Alphz like this.
  13. kinginyellow

    kinginyellow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    391
    Apologies as i may have lost the original purpose the OP. Is it effectively asking how the individual models are balanced? By intent or as not?

    It is said that a sufficiently skilled person given some extra time playing not intent can produce similar results as those that are. So i feel that it may be that intent or not, the balance should be the same for skilled players doing playtesting.

    And i also feel that if there were balance differences between the 2 would be minor. Their playstyle would change dramatically, but the inability of perfect pie slicing means to spend orders going in a different direction.

    Heck, the amount of terrain and how its placed would change balance more than intent or not. Ive heard british tables are rather open fire lanes and U.S. tables are far more dense.
     
  14. Andre82

    Andre82 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    547
    1) I disagree. The fact that some players are capable of slicing the pie means the defending player should assume the pie will always be sliced and position his defending troops accordingly. This should only be a risk you are willing to take vs low level opponents or ones you already know can't do it well.

    2) Agreed. If that power can be achieved reasonably then it should be the default expectation.

    3)
    A) No idea
    B) No
    C) No... but this is by it's nature just an opinion. I feel any pro's are far overshadowed by it's cons.




    How much time is "lots of time"? Do we use a stopwatch to verify time? If it is an important shot then I would like to be allowed to use all of my allotted time to make sure I get it right.​
     
    david_lee, Ebon Hand, Plebian and 2 others like this.
  15. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,416
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    If it gives you an advantage, it's too much time. If @Magonus is repositioning one of his units, it'll always be in enough time.
     
  16. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,416
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    Without help from both players to make LoF clear, Infinity turns into a nightmare experience, as the box on p.61 of the Infinity rules implies. If you don't want to spend time helping your opponent check LoF, you better be prepared to take their word as gospel when they say "My model A has LoF to your model B but not C or D."
     
    Ebon Hand and Abrilete like this.
  17. Alkasyn

    Alkasyn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    538
    Likes Received:
    620
    "Reasonable amount of time" is what you're looking for, and no, it is not exactly defined.
     
  18. Magonus

    Magonus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    777
    I do not know you and do not play with you, so I do not have to put up with this nonsense. A reasonable amount of time may be defined as the time right up until it annoys your opponent.
     
    Wolf, Stiopa and FatherKnowsBest like this.
  19. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,414
    Likes Received:
    4,929
    No its the time your gaming group allows. The bad and unsportsmanlike behaviour here isnt from the player wanting to discuss the move and the positioning
     
    Ebon Hand and Hecaton like this.
  20. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,416
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    What if you get annoyed any time your opponent is making a serious attempt to put up a fight?
     
    Ebon Hand likes this.