Discussion in 'ITS' started by Daniel Darko, Jan 15, 2019.
I love Extreme Mode.
I like a game to be hard.
What's your opinion?
I prefer to lose because my opponent outplayed me not because I randomly get screwed by the mission.
...because both of you get randomly screwed by the mission... No?
Still your argument stands - it disturbs the interaction as some kind of third party. Something I like.
Extreme mode leads me to lean towards objectives being ignored more often than not due to the requirements and/or order expenditure not being worth the points.
The new classified deck dramatically expands the types of units and equipment a list must have to successfully complete all the classified objectives. I don't think it's smart to build lists around completing classifieds, as they are usually only 10% of an ITS mission's points. Therefore, I am usually just less likely to be able to complete my classified objective in any given mission, depending on whether I happen to have whatever the classified I get needs.
Extreme mode makes classified objectives even more expensive and difficult to complete, but it doesn't make doing so worth any more points. So really, all extreme mode does is make it a lot less likely that anyone will bother with their classified, unless they get lucky and get an easy one. That's not very interesting to me as a player.
Less, since secure HVT is a thing :D
I don't like the execution. It's just making adding another purchase that's gonna be played in maybe 2% of games to a mandatory ITS deck. Not very customer-friendly imo.
Extreme mode isn't very interesting IMO. Infinity is a difficult game (and that's partly why I love it), but Extreme mode is essentially about failing a dice roll more often. Frustrating, random, that's all.
Plus: LI lists are even more disadvantaged compared to others.
I don't like it as it is now, but i like the idea.
It would have been perfect if the card was something like "Complete this for standard. Complete that for extreme." and the Extreme mode was worth +1 OP or the negation of a completed enemy classified.
We used it with success at a tournament where there were too many players for the number of rounds.
This meant it was less likely that the tournament would be decided on vp.
So it does have a place, but the missions aren't imaginative and secure hvt should either be off or be trumped by the other cards.
More likely it would be decided on die rolls than good play though.
As are a good number of the WIP a thing missions. Its is a game of die rolls, often imperfect ones accounting for that is part of good play.
Having used it to reduce tiebreakers it did the job and we would probably use it again. Feedback from the players was positive.
Its useful to have the choice to include them, my biggest complaints are the icons on the new classifieds.
On a personal note I would like to see a return to charts if CB wish to use classifieds in a somewhat experimental capacity.
Yeah, and losing a mission because you fail 4 die rolls in a row is not good gameplay.
Sure but that is already ingrained to the ITS system, you can either double down on it or let vp take over. That said I would like to see the ability to use a long skill to auto pass these sort of checks.
Nobody is forcing you to use the deck, if you don't feel the need that's fine.
Edit: Having the option to have difficult classifieds is a good thing, the way this difficulty is presented could do with improvement.
Boring, like hard difficulty in some of the video games where monsters just have 50% more HP and that's it.
I'll never play it.
Mind you, if it was up to the player to decide before drawing the classified, and they'd get a bigger reward, I would be up for it. As it stands it's useless.
That's interesting. Although I'd tend to "after drawing the classified a player can choose to exchange it for the extreme mode version, which is worth double points".
I want to play test a variation of Highly Classified where each player chooses 2 open Classifieds. If both players choose the same, it's replaced by the extreme version of that classified but counts for double points (the precise details of how I need to game out a little).
Anything that gives more options like this is nice. This is not mentally taxing, works as an extra option that you can ignore, and gives a tactical layer to the decision. Something that the current version lacks entirely.
I see some of you people complaining about possible cases of bad luck, which deny success in a well-played (tactical) game.
Yes - this sucks (since LUDO).
I am getting an understanding of my love for the Extreme Mode, which is: I am bothered by the mirrored version of this frustration:
In Standard Mode the Objectives are achieved at the same time, you are working on your main agenda. (Ex. Your important trooper is unconscious, you heal him, you get your points). It is the luck of drawing easy Classified Objectives, (who are too important and should not be gifted Objective Points) which I cannot enjoy that much. Especially if one has drawn a significant harder (or impossible) mission, due to the faction, army list or enemy they are playing with.
If you have Extreme Mode on, you have to work on those missions. They are "earned". Even the "easy" ones expect more from you than a random one-time-occurrence.
Conclusion: (Your own) Bad Luck is frustrating on Extreme Mode. (The opponent's) Good Luck is frustrating in Standard Mode.
I prefer the risk of bad rolls over gifted Objective Points. I experience it as more fulfilling.
Thanks for the insight.
That may be the case with retroengineering,but I think for most of the other Objectives you do actually have to spend resources (read: orders) to fulfill them. Or just ignore them because you won't ever get them, like Predator