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

Jammers & Burst Bonus

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Pyra, May 18, 2019.

  1. Solar

    Solar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    3,916
    And yet Interplanetario is, again, one tournament in one place and not indicative of a general trend. It was LI last year too, and you barely see any tournaments in that format.
     
    A Mão Esquerda and barakiel like this.
  2. barakiel

    barakiel Echo Bravo Master Sergeant
    Warcor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,789
    Likes Received:
    5,731
    Interplanetario attendees are... What... less than 1% of the total Infinity player base. You can focus on one event, or you can think of the broader health of the system.

    Interplanetario's also been Limited Insertion previously, but that doesn't mean I'm going to assess the health of the whole game based on playing Limited Insertion.

    Ninja'd perfectly by @Solar
     
  3. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    1,303
    The problem is you can't have a real conversation about the state of the game as a whole based solely on anecdotes. MO winning is anomaly when you look more holistically at tournament stats (where there are a few armies that are overperforming) but it seems like arguing with some players about these kinds of things isn't effective because they certainly aren't going to let data sway their opinions.

    There's also a difference between discussing the dynamics that arise in the game when played ideally compared to the classic theoryhammer example of:
    Player 1: What if I do A?
    Player 2: I respond with B.
    Player 1: What if I instead do C, another thing my list can do?
    Player 2: I respond with D, a strategy that would not be possible if my list contains all of the tools necessary for B.

    The problem isn't discussing the game in the abstract, it's discussing the game in abstract without considering all of the limitations that players experience both in list-building and on the table. For example, when people have listbuilding discussions, and someone asks "How do you deal with a Kamau MSV2 Sniper?", that's not theoryhammer, that's a meta-defining link team that just blows away most stuff.

    As for your point about being hyperbole, I kind of agree. Altogether balance in the game is tight -- in the top quartile of the game, the gap between overperforming and underperforming factions was only about 15%. Given the sample size of ITS games, that's absolutely a large enough number to say there are some problems in balance, but it's also small enough to indicate better balance than many, many other games.
     
    ZlaKhon, Ginrei and Pyra like this.
  4. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    1,303
    I think it's more about how Interplanetario is supposed to be the most representative tournament each year of how CB expects and wants their game to be played. Running IP with weird extras, terrain rules, etc. means that that is how CB expects the game is to be played (whether or not it is played that way, which as both of you note, it isn't, is another question entirely.) IP is a symbol of how CB wants the game to be played, rather than how it actually is played.
     
    ZlaKhon likes this.
  5. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    841
    That's fine, but I was simply responding to what you wrote. I genuinely thought you had missed those posts about Interplanetario. Perhaps you should have written, "As soon as we start seeing SpecOps be included in a significant portion of events..."
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  6. barakiel

    barakiel Echo Bravo Master Sergeant
    Warcor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,789
    Likes Received:
    5,731
    Interplanetario always represents a statement made by CB.

    it's never "this is how CB wants the game to be played."

    It's just saying "you can play Infinity a lot of different ways, and we think this way is fun and awesome."

    If IP is Limited Insertion, they're not advocating that every person play Limited Insertion. If they run IP with Spec Ops, that doesn't mean everyone should play with Spec Ops. When you have a big range of options, and you pick one, it doesn't make all other options "false" or "wrong."

    It's good for CB to make IP dynamic, innovative and unique, because it's a flagship event. If IP has a format that's debatable or questionable, like Limited Insertion or Spec Ops, it creates buzz and interest (evidenced by the fact that we're all here talking about it.) If IP were just one more big ITS event, with a familiar format and "safe" mission choices, then there's less to set it apart from the other 100+ person events around the world. CB wants their event to be unique, so they make choices that help it stand out from the others.

    This is Marketing 101, and also a good reason why "the opinions of people talking on the internet" is not a basis for running a business.
     
    Flipswitch, Koni, Solar and 1 other person like this.
  7. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    841
    I think we might be talking past each other here... I'm not disagreeing with you. But you literally wrote:

    Emphasis mine. I simply pointed out that "someone" is.
     
    #27 Sabin76, May 21, 2019
    Last edited: May 21, 2019
    Lesh', xagroth, Ginrei and 1 other person like this.
  8. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener Kamau Amphibious Intervention Operative

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,656
    Likes Received:
    1,999
    I always figured IP marketed itself as a very inclusive event, I've always seen it more as just a celebration of the game than any meta-defining event. Making it a hyper competitive event would certainly leave some people out, besides they want to have some fun with the format since no other big tournament really does.
     
  9. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    1,303
    I'm not arguing that CB expects every person to play specops, but playing specops at IP says that CB believes that at a competitive event that they run themselves, one that is always going to be looked to as what is most representative of the game due to its official sanction by CB, that specops is a perfectly competitive way to play. Or alternatively, it stands as a direct contradiction to the balanced competitive play they've been aiming for with ITS for so long now.

    I agree it's valuable for CB to pick interesting or unique formats for IP, as its once yearly and it's a chance for them to do something fun. But it also is a symbol of how CB wants the game to be played. Putting terrain zones on tables, using specops or other ITS extras, how certain rules are adjudicated, etc. all set a precedent for how CB expects/wants the game to be played.
     
    Pyra and Ginrei like this.
  10. Alphz

    Alphz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    1,642
    I think this projects a lot of the intention on IP and CB.

    I don't think CB has come out and said any of that.

    I find Barakiel's estimate to probably be more accurate about Interplanetario. It sets out to be unique, it doesn't ever set out to be the gold standard of competitive play, as evidenced by previous outings with several different addons.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  11. Skjarr

    Skjarr EI Mouthpiece

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    252
    He did indeed have a Jammer while hiding in his Kharawij costume. However as Tarik shot his way to defeat I didn't use it :D

    The way all 3 games turned out I used it just once to ARO a dropping Tiger soldier....It failed the WIP roll!
     
    xagroth, Solar and Aspect Graviton like this.
  12. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,658
    Likes Received:
    9,391
    Indeed, as far as I'm aware they've never said anything along those lines.

    As an aside, Limited Insertion appears to have been used in about 15% of events in the first quarter of the current season: https://www.infinitythegame.com/blo...atistics-the-year-ends-but-not-the-its-season
    Which is down slightly from 18% across Season 9: https://www.infinitythegame.com/blog/item/562-its-tatistics-analyzing-the-organized-game-of-season-9
     
  13. Aspect Graviton

    Aspect Graviton Friendly Alien Overlord
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    I thought it was probably the kharawij! Truely this linked jammer is a weapon to surpass metal gear!

    #RetreatToVictory
     
    Skjarr likes this.
  14. Urobros

    Urobros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    663
    Hello,

    I did the same question in the spanish subsection, here I din't find the answer, but in spanish sbs. @ijw answered jammer recived the +1 Burst Mod.

    I'am really surprised how a lot of people dislike the SpecOps, too my is a really atractive options. The chance to personalize the setting of a troup is really really fun. Yes, a lot of people made the same, but others try really bizarre combinations and place on the table really good options.

    The discussions about the jammer looks like appears several times per year. Maybe now it will a more interesting weapon in game play terms, because more people has acces to the jammers, or other options in order to isolated an enemy. I think this will do really well to the game play. They are a lot of troups with the "vereterans l1 rule" which people barely use it, but now, if we have to face jammers, the veteran rule become much more attractive.

    It could be possible that a more table presence of jammers, do more good than harm.



    Best regards.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  15. Janzerker

    Janzerker Invincible Angry

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    696
    Spec Ops rules are badly designed and unbalanced. It's natural for people that care about balance to dislike them. They are fun if you happen to play PanO, Aleph, Haqqislam or to a certain point CA. The rest of factions just got dull lists with less interesting tools and options than the others. It would be acceptable to a certain level if Spec Op rules were aimed only at casual campaign games. But intending to use them in a competitive format like ITS breaks the deal.

    Only PanO, Nomads and Haqqislam get jammers, furthermore, when using Spec Ops, Pano and Haq get a linkable jammer option and the interaction between jammer and fireteam rules make jammers ridiculously unbalanced. If jammers are going to stay in that way then all factions must be given that option otherwise the factions that get access to linked jammers get and edge over the others in competitivity.


    There are not that many units with any level of veteran. Actually they are scarce

    PanO: Bolts
    Ariadna: Vet. Kazak, Frontovik
    Haqqislam: Zhayedan, Govad, Druze, Al Fasid
    Nomads: Securitate
    Aleph: Yadu (and Shackti who is a Yadu)
    Tohaa: Sukeul
    CA: All Morat troops

    Realize YuJing have none and they don't get access to jammer either.
     
  16. zapp

    zapp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    539
    In Vanilla, there are Krakots at least.
     
    emperorsaistone likes this.
  17. Urobros

    Urobros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    663

    I use to play precisely with Acontecimento, Hassasin or SSS, maybe this made me to say "the spec ops isn't broken", but sometimes I played well Merovingia and the spec ops was always welcomme. Not only this, when I face other factions like CA or Nomads with SpecOps they made me the day. In the tournaments where the Spec Ops was allowed you only face most of the time two kind of SpecOps "the three degrees SpecOps" or "The Linkable Shooter". I will say this isn't unbalanced but boring.

    I can't deny some things in the game are unbalanced, and probably SpecOps have some combinations a little over powered, but the effort should be make better the SpecOps in game play terms, not delete it from the game, I think.

    Probably not the factions have recived good spec ops, and this is what will be improved.

    Yes, only Pano and Nomads are now in the "Fancy Jammer Team", but don't forget the amazing increment of E/M weapons (zappers, emarats...) or the Pherobooster and the Kriigel with "Eraser" much worse than a jammer with R2 (no need of fireteam) and a negative malus to the rival of -3 and DT against PB. And nobody is saying "the Eraser" is broken, when is almost the same as a Jammer in a Fireteam (still no sure if the jammer can apply the +1 to Burst). Too much people talking about "jammer" but forgeting about Eraser, only inferior to the jammer when the target has structure instead wounds.

    I have played many games against jammers and never did so harm as the Eraser did.

    And not only the jammers are "dangerous": the E/M Granade Launcher are something much worse when you place them in a fireteam, more if the troop has X-Visor... The difference here is that the jammer need to place itself in close range and only can affect one miniature at the time.

    I understand the complais about jammers, but I really don't share it. Of course still need I play with and against linked jammers.

    Best regards!!
     
  18. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,011
    Likes Received:
    7,925
    Well, when SpecOps first came out in N2, there was a lot of complaining about how they allowed you to take a model that covered intentional design gaps in a sectorial.

    With the faction-specific skills, equipment, and weapon lists now it's a lot harder to cover a sectorial's weaknesses, but the various faction lists are NOT balanced at all.
     
  19. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener Kamau Amphibious Intervention Operative

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,656
    Likes Received:
    1,999
    I'm not sure there is really any way to make the spec-ops balanced and still feel flavorful and fun. To me they're a fun add-on. I wish people took ITS a little less serious so that way we could see these goofy add-ons and game modes used more frequently, but it is what it is.

    There's time and place for everything and it's unfortunate most people don't have time for a less-than-serious event
     
    Urobros likes this.
  20. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,217
    Likes Received:
    4,051
    They all have access to Doctor, Engineer and Hacker, despite some having the Hacking device as a different one (defensive for Ariadna, AHD for Haqquislam -who have Doctor Plus-, white for Tohaa, EI for CA...), so the tri-licensed SpecOps that covers the gaps (which was the one allowing to ignore the sectorial's limitations) is still there.
    Engineer is 4pts, however, instead of the 3 it was before, and Mimetism has gone up in points as well to 5, I think. You still can up WP to +1, and grab a close range weapon or so if you want.

    Different weapons access is nice and fun, but some weapons are not (Jammers).
     
    Section9, Urobros and Ginrei like this.