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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
