Some do, probably not players playing for long enouph to remember sometime long ago the Orc HMG was paying 2SWC but 1 point for their HMG, and the various iterations of SWC and points fluctuations between editions and within editions. SWC is a crucial part of the models cost and is interchangeable with points.
Considering discussion of the points formula is one of the few things I've seen actually get threatened with bans here (despite it not being explicitly forbidden in the rules)... no, no I will not be doing that. I'm not stupid enough to DM a mod with bannable material. And that's only tangential to the initial discussion anyways, which is whether or not the points formula, whatever it is, needs significant work. If you want something that doesn't go in depth but does do a solid job of pointing out that something is very, very wrong there's a 40 minute video that VaulSC posted recently. But it doesn't take a lot of analysis to realize that something's gone wrong somewhere. Just compare the Crane Spitfire to the Asawira AP Spitfire. Or the Sophotect vs. Parvatti. Or the multiple examples in this thread.
One thing that most people are not realizing it is that the point formula is only a guideline for the game designer, not a sacred measure that always need to be respected no matter what. Players going to be players, and if you give them any profile that is perceived as being most competitive than other, even by the slightest of %margins, the competitive players are going to use the one being perceived as most competitive than the other. And it is by those levers and pull given by the formula that the designer have some marging to tweak here and there, or directly disregard the formula, to bring change to the game. Either by making more attractive what was not attractive before, or by trying to not make auto-includes what was an staple before. Specially when the last was constricting design space. As I have say it before, the old WHFB had to be broken to avoid the humble goblin being so efficient in points that technically it would be de facto the best army by sheer amount of numbers and the best archers in the game at the same time, so they artificially make them more expensive than what they should be for balance reasons. But thankfully we are under a living game, and I have personally seen how CB is willing to balance and balance again whatever is needed. You could take a look at release Starmada back in 2020, and how is Starmada now. And I am not talking about the new profiles added, but the changes to the very same profiles that already existed back at launch. We have seen how the Avatar list was equalized by raising the points of several key units they fielded, including the very Avatar. But to do this CB is working with the data of ITS armies and what they’re including. And there is a interesting thread elsewhere in this forum that analyses this very data. Problem is, the release of N4 occurred during COVID Pandemic. And the data flow from ITS was severely halted during that time. Now with the world open again and with tournaments happening here and there, I am quite confident that we are going to keep seeing regularly Army Updates with changes to our profiles. They have already pointed out they’re right now working on the Army Update of summer. Pointing out things that we consider that are either lacking and never seeing game table, or too much optimized and skewering the meta of the game, is helpful of course. Just wanted to provide a more bright perspective instead of the gloomy one that the game is broken… when it is one of the most balanced games at the moment, and the ITS data thread found in this very forum elsewhere is proving it.
Yeah this was a big thing in XWing; several ships were priced at 26 points even though they didn't really "deserve" it just to stop players from running 4 of the things in a 100 point list. Points balancing is a delicate process that often dips into the metagame, which usually necessitates frequent tweaking and evaluating units not just by what they do, but by what roles they fill in a list and what impact they're having on the game overall (such as pushing other units or strategies out).
Hold on... lolwut?! Let me reiterate - discussing the "formula" is bannable here, but it's not in any rules of the Forum, but it's one of the only few things the moderation gets up in arms about, but the single mod of the Forum actually attempts to catfish people into sending him... that? This place is getting more looney by the hour.
We have been in discussion of this video a lot of times, ignoring everything KoJ has better than Asawira because they are not considered important in a meta like DA CCW and heavy pistol does not mean these things do not exist and that these do not add points to the model, likewise to all other examples given. Yes, some profiles may need some pass over like the bulleteers recently and others in the past, but these are minor adjustments, not an indication the formula needs significant rework.
Apart from the fact that I disagree with this statement, as do many others here, the reasons for which have been pointed out many times (frenzy discount being too high, especially for linkable units) — who is "we"? The CB team? Or we here on the forums? 1. In way too many cases over a way too long time, those passes are not happening though. 2. The points formula still doesn't make sense in a lot of places. So I'd still say it needs a rework, or at least its application.
What you are missing is that "not important in the meta" is a huge deal. See my point about the ships in Xwing being priced at 26 points because of the meta. Balancing strictly off of theory while refusing to make changes based on actual tabletop performance is a terrible MO. If the KoJ's advantages do not translate to equivalent value in actual gameplay, then its price should be lowered to reflect that value. If further issues arise later, then it can be further adjusted. In cases where price increases/decreases are either insufficient or too problematic, then other advantages should be granted instead (SWC reductions, profile buffs, fireteam availability/"counts as" status, etc). In egregious cases where the very concept of the model is fundamentally broken, a full rework may have to be considered. Just by looking at the first two Asawira profiles, moving from a Shock CCW to a DA CCW costs a single point; there's still 7 points to try and justify there. Except that all the justifications in the world don't matter when you look at how often they make it into lists or how those models perform on the tabletop. It's like trying to argue that both Negate and Cancel have their advantages in MtG when one is a multi-format staple and the other is unplayable trash. Oh and I can't help but notice you conveniently ignored my mentioning of the Crane. I'd love to see an attempt to justify that atrocity. EDIT: And no, I'm not saying the KoJ is unplayable trash with the MtG comparison; it's just an argument I've actually seen people try to make.
I disagree. A given meta does not mean that everything has to be balanced to that meta. Metas change and then you have to rebalancing everything again? Or do you hope for an eternal, static meta? You can only field a tiny part of options at once. So it is fine to have options that shine in different situations. To a given meta, some pieces shine more than others. That is natural for such complex, asymmetric games like Infinity. Rather than pricing all profiles for one meta, the factions need answers to different metas. So if one type of list becomes too popular, you can punish it by fielding counters.
There’s a difference between local metas and the overall metagame. A unit or strategy that is underperforming locally is fine. One that is underperforming globally is not. The KoJ is the latter.
How is the KOJ it underperforming Globally? Based on the last ITS N4 data analysis, it is still being used in commonly in Pano Vanilla, MO, and Winterfor. How can you say its "underperforming?" If it was underperforming, players would not be using it. Just because it is not as streamlined as a Karhu, does not mean it is underperforming. It still works in context of Pano.
Do not confuse "best option" with "good option." You see a lot of Yu Jing lists taking Zhanshi after all, and they're notorious for being a point overpriced. The KoJ might be one of the better options for PanO, but PanO is a faction notorious for having problems with Heavy Infantry costing too much (see: N3 Orcs). The KoJ's popularity in PanO lists only says that it's better than other options for a certain role. It doesn't do anything to tell you how good it is at that role overall. And, last I checked (and there may be analysis that I've missed), none of those three factions were ranking particularly highly, with MO in particular underperforming compared to its overall popularity. A popular model in a highly ranked faction (like the Taquel) can tell you a lot about how good that model is, but in middle or lower tier lists it's a lot harder; is the model actually good, or is it just the best they've got? Is the faction having issues because its underpowered, or is it lacking the tools to deal with a particular prevalent strategy? Questions that can and should be asked by a balance team. But instead they choose to bump the Bulleteer up in price because the Holy Formula said so. At this point I wonder if the balancing is being done "backwards," where a profile's price point is picked out first, and then rules and gear added until the formula hits that price point, regardless of the model's internal synergies.
I know in our local meta, our regional meta, and the various social media I personally am on, the KoJ is seen as a *very* solid piece. And that’s especially true in several of the faction specific channels. And as you touch on, it’s important to consider units not in comparison to units in other factions, but rather in comparison to other options in its home.
Isn't the bulleteer case exactly the opposite? The formula spat out some points. It was costed that way for a while. Then game\tournament data said it was overperforming and\or undercosted and the cost was artificially adjusted.
Mmmm from what I remember it wasn’t really seen as a problem piece from ITS stuff but I’ll happily take the L on that if someone can find a source.
Who knows. It wasn't a worrisome piece at it's old price, and they never gave a reason for the price change. It could go either way.
I thought they stated once that this is exactly what they do: decide what price point they want a unit to be, then tweak the profile until it fits that cost. I could be remembering wrong, but that is how I have always understood the situation.
Correct. This was actually touched on by Carlos in one of the studio updates. Sometimes profiles got weird extras or stat changes because the general revisions to the values of Armor and assorted Close Combat were reduced and some/many models became too cheap. Barring the ever present option they changed their minds. :D Honestly, I suspect they are tweaking their formula, just refusing to apply those changes across the entire line because of having to track down every undesirable change.
