1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Order Expenditure Sequence: Forced ARO's & Catch 22's

Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by Ginrei, Jul 24, 2018.

  1. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    I do not think using CBs intent is justification for their arguments. First of all, we don't actually know with any certainty what their intent is. We only know what what the gave us. And quite frankly, not many entities trying to sell a product are going to admit what they are selling didn't quite match their intent. (EDIT: post 106 does a good job explaining this further)

    When you say 'their argument' I feel there's a lot of room for interpretation there. I'm mostly concerned with disputing the arguments claiming these areas of Infinity can't/don't need/shouldn't be improved.

    I don't see how CBs intent, potentially changing in the future, is relevant? Are you trying to draw a connection between this and how a fact can potentially change in the future as well?
     
    #101 Ginrei, Jul 25, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018
  2. FatherKnowsBest

    FatherKnowsBest Red Knight of Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    635
    ....or...you could just go play Infinity and skip all that.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  3. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    I don't think i'm arguing myself into any corner at all. I've illustrated a very jarring disconnect between the two. I'm suggesting ways to remove this disconnect and introduce alternatives that actually work thematically.

    If people don't see it, or don't agree with, fine, everyone is welcome to that opinion. N3 might do a better job than all the existing games out there, which is frankly part of the games appeal, but I'm not blind to the possibility it can be improved.
     
  4. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    Could you expand on that? I don't see what the issue is.

    For the record, catch-22 ARO situations are 100% intended.
     
  5. A Mão Esquerda

    A Mão Esquerda Deputy Hexahedron Officer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,394
    Likes Received:
    4,104
    And have been from the beginning of the game.
     
    Abrilete and FatherKnowsBest like this.
  6. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    I could say the same to you and everyone else on these forums.
    Well i'm talking about introducing a new skill (Charge, whatever) where moving into base to base limits the AROs of anyone who didn't have LoF at activation of the order. I could potentially combine that with a BS Attack from the start of my movement targeting another trooper that i didn't move into base to base with. Which we don't want. There are other routes we can take, we could make CHarge a entire order skill... however it needs to be fine tuned based on problems that arise from the design/balancing process.
    You'll need to expand on that then. Because there is a lot of information those statements don't provide.

    Intending to create a situation where the active player is rewarded for setting up a situation and have it reflected thematically, is entirely different than using the game system available(O.E.S.) to best replicate that intent. It may be a subtle difference but nonetheless can have VERY different outcomes.

    Video games are a great example. Imagine the developers intent of the first ever MMORPG with PvP. Now imagine the intent of today's developers. They can have the exact same intent but create two experiences of completely different depth and quality. There are plenty of examples where developers have even created their own game engine/platform(infinity) to best represent their intent. Do you see how their intent doesn't actually reflect the quality of the end product? (there's probably a cleaner analogy here with painting and the tools available, whatever)

    So once again, this argument about intent has virtually no bearing on this discussion. It's only relevance is in what elements should be kept regarding any proposed changes. And I've tried my best to suggest we only improve the current state of things. Because the more elements we keep, the less CBs intent matters because nothing is being lost. Obviously it's not that easy, because changing things divides opinions on what is actually lost or gained... which is why providing relevant evidence along with opinion is vital if a discussion is going to go anywhere.
     
    #106 Ginrei, Jul 25, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018
  7. FatherKnowsBest

    FatherKnowsBest Red Knight of Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    635
    For those familiar with me, they will be able to note that I have, in fact, been concerning myself less with the forum as I have been following my own advice.
     
    Ginrei likes this.
  8. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    I'm not familiar sorry, but I can certainly understand why you'd want to stay away. While i enjoy the dialogue here sometimes, it's a lot of shit to wade though trying to find it.
     
  9. HeckMeiser

    HeckMeiser Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2018
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    65
    Your counter to the inundation of claims that the rule works as intended and doesn't need to be improved was to say that a better rule could potentially exist in the future. It could be improved to work differently, despite working the same way since the first edition of the game. It's impossible to infer how CB wants their rules to work based on previous design decisions (the situation you claim to be a problem having always existed in the rules of the game), so we can't actually know that the rule works as intended either.

    It's incorrect to say that the rule can't be improved because it might be improved later. The statement is wrong now because it might be wrong in the future. This is nonsense. Following that reasoning would mean that nothing is ever verifiable; this is what I was getting at with those questions. To argue against a claim now on the basis of new information we might have in the future is madness.

    I wouldn't try to say that this game's rules could never be improved because I don't believe that, but I do believe that the tactics you've been using in this thread are unfair. You're treating your own value judgement about "catch 22" ARO situations as being indisputably a problem with the game, something that are a part of the rules by design and always have been, and every time any poster has disagreed with you, you accuse them of not understanding you (which is arrogant and insulting), or of basing their arguments on information that's unknowable (again, insulting to imply that CB can't write clear rules that show a pattern of intent).

    You even straight-up told me that you don't think I'm worth speaking to because of my disagreement, and I have to admit I felt a bit hurt. Do you actually think that's fair? Do you value the intelligence of anyone besides yourself?
     
  10. A Mão Esquerda

    A Mão Esquerda Deputy Hexahedron Officer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,394
    Likes Received:
    4,104
    To make it simpler, then, Corvus Belli explicitly and intentionally created situations and rules within their game to result in "Catch-22" AROs, where, based on the situation created by the Active Player, the Reactive Player is forced to choose between two evils and hope they have picked the right one. Additionally, those rules and interactions were specifically and intentionally created in order to make sure the Active Player retains the upper hand/greater control, whatever you wish to call it. As such, your wish to change the way "Catch-22" AROs work, in order to... well, in order to whatever, conflicts with the explicit intentions of the game designers. Softening them/changing when and how they occur/etc., goes against the nature of the game CB created and continues to develop.
     
    Cry of the Wind and HeckMeiser like this.
  11. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,148
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    Look, I know that if I dig deep enough through my boxes, I can find a copy of the original, 2006 Infinity Quick Start Rules that used to be included in every starter. Forcing the opponent into a Normal Roll was part of the game then.

    N1 (and N1+FAQs, generally referred to as N2) maintained that, and the game design idea was maximum realism. Forcing the opponent into a Normal Roll was part of the game, the epitome of proper tactical play. Which is really damn hard to do, when your opponent knows this and is trying to avoid it.

    N3, for every time realism clashed with playability, went to the side of playability. That's a huge change. And yet, forcing the opponent into a Normal Roll is still part of the game. It's harder now than it used to be, IMO, but that makes it more enjoyable when you can pull it off.
     
  12. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    I've bolded the bit I don't understand. Why is this not wanted?

    You said we don't know the intent. From many conversations with Interruptor (the guy in charge of the rules and background) over the years, I know that being able to force catch-22 AROs is an intended part of concepts like forced Change Facing AROs, and is why they are still present across a major edition change.

    Please note that I'm not claiming that N3 is a perfect game that can't be improved as that's a ridiculous position - but you have yet to propose anything that would be an improvement. As far as using the available game system is concerned, that's not relevant here - the concept has stayed roughly the same across an edition change that rewrote every rule in the game.
     
    Abrilete, Vakarian, daboarder and 6 others like this.
  13. Cry of the Wind

    Cry of the Wind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    350
    I've previously and still do have many issues with the wording of many rules in this game and their possible grey areas. A Mao Esquerda and I don't see eye to eye on many of them. That said I have to agree that the current ARO mechanics seems fine (when the grey rules don't cloud them...) and any attempt to rewrite them to solve an issue that is as far as I can tell is an intended game mechanic that makes the active player have an advantage seems completely unneeded. I'd focus on the existing mechanics that either don't work as intended (thematically or mechanically) or cause other grey issues, like Stealth or Engage or LoF...
     
  14. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,148
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    (change in emphasis style to retain emphasis in original, on top of my emphasis)

    Exactly what I've been trying to say. N1 to N2 was not a major change (wish I could find the change docs, there was less than 24 pages when you printed the entire paragraph that changed! Do any of the old-timers still have that?). I think the single biggest change from N1 to N2 was the change in scatter distance, to make a close miss actually miss (ie, to get the template off the center of the model).

    N2 to N3 was a major change. Hacking and CC were completely re-written. Where you measured from was changed (center of model to edge of base)! And despite all those changes and rewrites, the ability to force your target into a Normal Roll remained. Even weapon ranges were re-written, and so was the Order-ARO procedure (largely due to the change in Camo ARO responses, since in N1/2 you had to survive an attack from out of camo in order to respond to it! Normal attack on you, then if you survived you got a normal attack back)

    Ergo, the Catch-22 ARO is working exactly as CB wants it to. If it wasn't, they would have changed it in N3 when they changed everything else!

    You might not like how it works, and to be honest it does suck to run into. But it's exactly how CB wants their game to work. So it's on you, if you want to continue playing the game, to learn how to avoid the most common Catch-22 ARO situations, and to accept that when you get forced into one, you got outplayed.

    I will be honest. I *ranted* about the CC system in N1/N2 (pretty sure @ijw remembers those :stuck_out_tongue:). Lots of people agreed with my comment that it wasn't very effective to go into CC. Yes, Ninjas carry guns, and usually use them. But back then, there was literally no point in getting into CC. Shooting was always better. Every time. The Dice Calculator proved it. So when N3 came out, CC got fixed, so that there are times when CC is better. Not many, because a 10mm beats kung-fu outside 7m, but at least they exist and will reward the player for setting them up. But the Catch-22 AROs didn't get changed.

    In N1/N2, pretty much everyone described learning Infinity as a long series of, "holy shit, you can do that?!?" moments. Camo. Hidden Deployment. Rambos. AD troops in the backfield. TAGs. They all have their counters. So do the Catch-22 ARO situations. (not least of which is 'don't let a bloody Ghazi Muttawiah get within 10.5" of you!')
     
  15. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    Ok, I didn't say you weren't worth speaking to because you disagreed with me. IMO you didn't understand what I was saying. It's as if I said, 'it's my belief dogs are cute', and you respond with, 'No, cats are ugly'. I've been having that type of conversation continuously on these forums. I simply had enough, i had to draw the line somewhere, i did apologize as I said it, but I didn't pull any punches, for that I'm also sorry. So please don't take it as a reflection on you. It was a reflection on the gap between what we were talking about.

    That said, it still doesn't appear that we're on the same page. You're claiming things i haven't said. I never said CB can't write clear rules with a pattern of intent. I simply point out cases were it could be better. And if it can be better, I've basically found faults. You're not the first person I've ever spoken to that seems to make a leap between me finding fault with something to mean i think it's bad. I've said already Infinity is the best wargame there is, even though i find faults in it. Maybe it's my fault but I have little desire to explain my reasoning much beyond what I've already stated in this thread. So this is my absolute last attempt to get my point across.

    Your first conclusion about my argument isn't correct. The relevance of that article is not about a better rule possibly existing in the future. It's about, no matter how much one might believe a statement/fact is correct in the here and now, the world has continued to prove things can improve drastically beyond an individuals expectations. There are mountains of evidence supporting this. People are free to believe I can't improve the game, but believing this area of the game can't be improved is a bold statement to make in the face of so much contradictory evidence. So I'm not saying they are proven wrong... I'm saying, I think they're wrong based on the evidence available. There's a difference, and I've had to say it so many times i might slip up once in awhile.

    So you may think my tactics are unfair, but i have to ask, how would you argue your case in similar circumstances? Whatever case that may be. If all the evidence you provide in support is dismissed solely on the basis that there is simply no room for improvement.

    Side Note; Should we really stop trying to improve things just because some internet rabble says so? What if people believed humans could never fly or take to the stars because their neighbors/government/scientists said it was impossible? And i'm here only talking about a fucking futuristic wargame. So yes, I'm confident in my evaluation.
     
    #115 Ginrei, Jul 25, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018
  16. A Mão Esquerda

    A Mão Esquerda Deputy Hexahedron Officer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,394
    Likes Received:
    4,104
    Something that is functioning exactly as the designers intended is likely not the best place to look to improve something. And, as noted, "Catch-22" AROs are something that are functioning explicitly as intended and designed by the creators of the system.
     
    Abrilete and HeckMeiser like this.
  17. HeckMeiser

    HeckMeiser Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2018
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    65
    Again, the insistence that nobody can understand a simple premise. This is why I was questioning you about what you were trying to say.

    We have all this evidence from history of stuff getting better. So clearly this rule can be better. So clearly it must change.

    This evidence?

    I'd recognize that this entire discussion is based on value judgements about whether a rule is working the way it should.
     
  18. paraelix

    paraelix Seed Embryo Scholar

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    1,163
    Likes Received:
    1,206
    I thought your whole schtick was about making it easier for the Reactive player by giving more opportunities for them to make, so-called, "sensible reactions"... And now you want to create a brand new skill that deprives the reactive player of the ability to ARO vs a model?

    Also, I feel you're forgetting the fact that there is a move/cc skill that exists already, and that is an entire order skill... It is called Assault.

    Also, emphasis added... Who is "we" in this scenario? Are you now collectively speaking for all Infinity players in spite of most people here disagreeing with you?
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  19. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    @A Mão Esquerda @Section9 @ijw
    You don't seem to be getting my point. Lets look at it another way. CB has used their own system(set of rules) to implement their intent. I want to improve their system to better implement their intent. The two are not inseparable. I can improve the rules governing catch 22s without actually changing the intent behind them. CB have been doing this themselves over the editions. What I'm proposing is no different.

    @ijw is essentially proving my point for me. You guys seem to believe him and he's saying CB has changed, i assume improved, the rules without changing the intent to any significant degree:
    "the concept has stayed roughly the same across an edition change that rewrote every rule in the game."

    Any communication about what CB wants to achieve isn't what matters here. If they implemented their intent perfectly they wouldn't need to rewrite/change the rules each time. So what does this tell us? It tells us they are working to improve the implementation of their intent for Infinity, their vision as it were.

    So these arguments you guys keep trying to throw in my face...:

    @Section9 "But it's exactly how CB wants their game to work.",
    @A Mão Esquerda "Something that is functioning exactly as the designers intended is likely not the best place to look to improve something"

    ...are rather meaningless I'm happy to say.

    Unless of course you truly believe this particular area i want to improve in N3 is perfect, it's safe to assume it can be done better. CB has certainly thought so over the years.

    Does that make any more sense to you guys?

    Example: Your trooper is positioned at a corner in full cover. Two enemies are standing around the corner. Do you think being able to declare Charge+BS Attack to limit AROs from both troopers, possibly to different degrees based on which you move into base to base with, and being able to shoot the one with the fewest restrictions is a good idea?
     
    #119 Ginrei, Jul 25, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018
  20. A Mão Esquerda

    A Mão Esquerda Deputy Hexahedron Officer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,394
    Likes Received:
    4,104
    One might counter that your insistence that something working exactly as intended, as designed, and as implemented, which you seem to be in the (vanishingly small) minority of thinking needs improvement, is rather meaningless. CB wants the rule to do X. The rule does X 100%, exactly as CB wants. All of the proposals you've yet to posit neither 1) solve the (nonexistent) problem or 2) improve gameplay, but rather add more layers to the matter, making Infinity arguably worse, rather than better, or even strip away core concepts of the game. Perhaps it might merit improvement, but based on the available evidence, your solutions or ideas aren't an improvement.
     
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation