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

So about this "points formula"

Discussion in 'PanOceania' started by eciu, Jun 29, 2018.

Tags:
  1. Skoll

    Skoll Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,038
    Likes Received:
    1,266
    Problem with thinking the existing sectorials will be updated with n4 is one we dont know how far n4 is and two they might not be updated to a good spot.
     
  2. xammy

    xammy Keeper of Random Facts and Strong Opinions

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    654
    At this point do you need a rules revision like N2->N3->N4 to revise a sectorial or can you just release a new PDF like tunguska got.
     
    Dragonstriker and DFW Ike like this.
  3. A Mão Esquerda

    A Mão Esquerda Deputy Hexahedron Officer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,394
    Likes Received:
    4,104
    People can comment as they like and do as they like, on both sides. My views are abundantly clear.
     
  4. eciu

    eciu Easter worshiper

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,002
    Likes Received:
    4,661
    I think he made himself clear enough, that your opinions are rather ... stalwart (even if wrong).
     
  5. Rejnhard

    Rejnhard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2018
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    336
    CB points formula was always problematic. Mimetism for 1 point is silly, especially on troops like CA total reaction drones. (Camo in general feels undercosted - which CB seems to be trying to solve with adding anticamo options like senors and jammers)
    CC was always overcosted, unless the profile also had good CC weapon and/or skills.
    I get that some unit to unit comparisons are dissapointing, but lets not pretend it's a new issue.
     
    Hecaton, inane.imp and AdmiralJCJF like this.
  6. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2018
    Messages:
    181
    Likes Received:
    807
    Yeah, at this point it feels like CB are starting to "game" the point system they created in order to form uber-cheap troops for factions they like. It started in 2nd Edition when they used the CC tax as a bludgeon to keep certain troops overpriced, with the coming of fire teams we saw Frenzy handed out like candy to certain sectorials and not others. Now we're seeing inscrutable point discounts and dump stats in strategic places to create what are basically cheaper and better versions of existing units.

    There is definitely an issue with focus and ongoing support that CB really need to resolve with regards to old sectorials and new ones. It is starting to feel too much like rotations in a CCG as new stuff comes out to trump old stuff and CB just kind of expects us all to keep pace and keep buying for the latest and greatest.

    I mean, with my normal main faction on the backburner now, my secondary faction (Nomads) getting a facelift should have me over the fucking moon. But no, I'm here scratching my head at the incongruous costs of these new units and still feeling just so damned tired with CB right now. I know I said I'd be waiting for the Invincibles to drop before deciding whether to wash my hands of this, but the Tunguska release (awesome models aside) just isn't filling me with the kind of confidence or good will a new faction drop (for a faction I play no less) should. If this is the kind of thing I can expect in the future, then it isn't instilling more confidence in CB for me.

    Maybe I'll just hold off until 4th Edition comes out and check back then. It's kind of sad that my favourite war game in recent memory has reached the same point GW reached back in '99. But hey, if GW can turn things around after nearly 20 years then maybe CB can manage it in 30 (adjusting for CB production timelines)!
     
  7. A Mão Esquerda

    A Mão Esquerda Deputy Hexahedron Officer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,394
    Likes Received:
    4,104
    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
     
  8. Mourelle

    Mourelle Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2018
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    16
    Well Im here since 1ed and Im feelling the same, It is like a player did the new troops and not a developer. Something just like "let me use se the point system to create my "cool" trooper"

    Maybe its not what is happening but looks like a lot of people "feel" the same so I think CB should look at it.
     
  9. barakiel

    barakiel Echo Bravo Master Sergeant

    Joined:
    May 5, 2017
    Messages:
    2,299
    Likes Received:
    7,519
    Anyone who knows me also knows that I'm an ally of PanO. They're the faction I play the most, and the faction I've achieved the most success with.

    That being said, I don't mind what's been done with Tunguska. The balancing act, in my mind, isn't present in the individual profiles of various units, but in the Sectorial as a whole.

    Few mines (none on a functional cheap platform.) Few direct templates (non on a functional cheap platform.) No cheap Close Combat troops. No MSV2 (this may not seem like a big deal, until you run at them with a Swiss guard and they realize they don't have any of the aforementioned tools.

    It's hard to fit any of the really impressive tools without being at ~13 Orders, which is a bit below what I'd consider optimal. And considering how little area denial or disposable defense they have, those small lists are going to leave a lot of expensive units hanging out to dry.

    The first thing I thought when I started seeing these profiles was "the stock on my JSA just went way, way up." Oniwaban, Saito, Ryuken-9 SMGs are going to eat TJC for lunch. A TJC player is going to have to be very, very sharp not to just get absolutely demolished by a pretty standard non-HI JSA force.

    TJC is a harder matchup for PanO, because of the efficacy of the TJC Hacking game, plus select ant-REM or anti-HI options. But I still wouldn't want to be a TJC player staring down a Swiss Guard and multiple Auxilia.

    Don't let the glitter fool you. TJC units are individually very strong, but they aren't auto-win options in the same way that GW designs their new releases. That's where the GW-to-CB comparison fails. GW's games don't tend to involve a lot of player talent to win with new options. JSA, TJC, etc. are hard to play.

    Kazaks will be the same way. The Ariadna players used to 20 Orders and 18 point Infiltrators are going to wonder why the new Sectorial is so "overpirced", why all the profiles are so "bloated", and why TAK doesn't have Chasseurs in it.
     
    #69 barakiel, Jun 29, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2018
  10. TanakoSkyler22

    TanakoSkyler22 Varunan Diplomat

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2018
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    229
    @barakiel

    I agree with the general sentiment. Though I'd like to add that I still feel PanO gets the shaft slightly but it still preforms rather well.I do maintain that the Hollowmen are undercosted but not the most OP as it seems. TJC is certainly going to give PanO some troubles but with little smoke or any MSV 2, they are gonna struggle against ODD and TO camo.
     
    AdmiralJCJF and xammy like this.
  11. xammy

    xammy Keeper of Random Facts and Strong Opinions

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    654
    @barakiel This is where I'm at currently. I can see there are some blaring holes in the JTC line up that can be exploited. I've been playing around with PanO lists that avoid the hacking game altogether. When you leave the hackable stuff out of your lists you'll find that PanO has some really strong units who can still counter a lot of what JTC brings.
     
  12. MrNailbrain

    MrNailbrain Relentless Optimist

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    986
    Since none of us have any practical experience against Tunguska yet, we will see how it shakes down. Right now it's a lot of fearmongering, keyboard cowboys, and jumping to conclusions. I'll admit I'm guilty of all of the above and I'll also admit I really want to be wrong. I would love for my first couple of games against Tunguska to make me realize that everything is OK and we got worked up about nothing.

    I just know personally that my regular Nomads opponent is going to be TJC-crazy and I'm going to have a real hard time dealing with a lot of these units given my personal playstyle and unit choices.
     
    AdmiralJCJF and barakiel like this.
  13. Solodice

    Solodice Freshly Squeezed Troll

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    The day CB decided some sectorials or units in general were done and aren't getting updates...

    [​IMG]

    That kind of design philosophy doesn't mesh with bringing new sectorials or units into the fold with new skills, weapons, equipment, and ways to make them cheaper. These old sectorials and units might go the way of the dodo (especially those that don't have a sectorial coming for an update for said unit). Since we're in the PanO thread the easiest dodos for me to pick out is the Bolts, Teutonic Knights, and KoTHS. Hell, you know what unit the new counterintelligence skill makes sense on? The Locust (he isn't a dodo in my mind but this shows how locked units miss out on some thematic skills that work for them).

    If you're going to bring in new stuff then the older units need to be looked at to see if those new skills, equipment, or weapons help them in overall theme and power level. Some won't need them but for others it would help. Locking them away from the evolution of the game is a mistake. I don't know CBs internal workings but it might be a case of shiny new thing, laziness, not enough man power, or creative apathy (these are just assumptions and not accusations before anyone jumps down my throat).

    Sometimes CB will do this like with FRRM just recently but it's a rare thing.

    Part of it has to do with power level but also theme and a coolness factor. I always look at Morats and see a lot of missed opportunities in theme (why can't Raktoraks form duos with the Lt?) and power (why can't a Kurgat autocannon join a Kurgat Haris team?). Some things make you scratch your head on CB's thought process.

    Tunguska provoked this discussion cause it checks off on theme, power, and coolness factor. This of course makes others look at their own factions and go "Damn, why can't we hit the theme, power, or just coolness factor as well as they do." This will also be player dependent like everything else.

    Waiting 4 years for a new book to fix all of this doesn't help. If you're going to treat the game as a living miniature game with new sectorial releases with new weapons, equipment, skills, etc. then you need to treat the old stuff the same way.
     
  14. Nemo No Name

    Nemo No Name Aleph Cultural Atache

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,164
    Likes Received:
    2,836
    While in general I agree on your points, this one I consider completely off.

    First of all, Hecklers with Jammers are probably one of the best area defence weapons. Ghazi are nothing to them. All of the units you mention will just end up standing there doing nothing because they are isolated.

    Combine them with Crazy Koalas and suddenly the deployment zone is a no-go area for most enemy troops.

    Of course, this doesn't come cheap and in general, yes, I agree, Tunguska is balanced. But not because they lack area control.
     
    Dragonstriker, AdmiralJCJF and Zsolt like this.
  15. barakiel

    barakiel Echo Bravo Master Sergeant

    Joined:
    May 5, 2017
    Messages:
    2,299
    Likes Received:
    7,519
    I get you. The only challenge I see here is that those three criteria... Theme, power, and coolness factor... Are all very subjective. For me, NCA is thematically awesome, powerfully dominant, and extremely cool. Lots of people don't agree. And it doesn't mean that they're wrong, or that I'm wrong, but rather that we define these things differently. Would I like to see Bolts get tweaked? Yeah, but I also know NCA can receive zero changes and still make a mess of most opponents.

    Similarly, I think Hassassins are kind of underpowered, but at the same time they're home to do of the game's most "powerful" units: Fiday and Muttawiah.

    Lastly, I still haven't seen anything in TJC that stops plain, ancient, classic Vanilla Ariadna from being the stupid, nasty, absurdly ridiculous powerhouse it has always been.

    So yeah, TJC has some powerful stuff. But I don't think this really alters the game for PanO. A faction that gives up tricks to shoot stuff (which TJC definitely does) actually plays to PanO Strengths, because at the end of the day, we're pretty much always going to shoot better.
     
  16. eciu

    eciu Easter worshiper

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,002
    Likes Received:
    4,661
    You really need to start playing MO, NCA&ASA have had spoiled you....
     
    DFW Ike likes this.
  17. eciu

    eciu Easter worshiper

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,002
    Likes Received:
    4,661
    Well that's not exactly the point. It's a bit hard to exactly say Tunguska power level (yet), but obviously there are some glaring "crazy optimazation" done to quite a few profiles (Securitate and Hollow Men being main offenders), and in general Fireteam galore (everyone is Securitate noaw).

    Which is funny as it goes directly into theme of PanO (proffesional army) and PanO supposed main advantage (optimized units). On top of that many new entries have a great "fun" rules factor ("oh you can do THAT?"). Aand all we know is (for now) that Varuna will have BS13+Mimetism guys (because X-Visor + LGL was reserved by StarCo).

    Yes NCA and ASA are very competetive sectorials, but let me ask you when was the last time you took Fusilier link team in other way than a static firebase ? (again noone is arguing that Swiss should have BS16).

    It's fucking annoying to see CB make up 2 pages of rules for some "super kick-ass" bike which can transform into auxbot, while NCA has a single Auxbot choice (for a full trooper unit which is all about auxbouts ^^), and Seraph has an Auxbot acting as a battleship anchor whenever it tries to superjump because CB playtesting didn't catch that rule interaction ^^
     
    TaHu, Hecaton, Superfluid and 6 others like this.
  18. eciu

    eciu Easter worshiper

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,002
    Likes Received:
    4,661
    Oh and PanO was designed to be boring because our fluff says so.

    Thats why Tunguska LI has access to Feurbach (produced on PanO licence) xD
     
  19. barakiel

    barakiel Echo Bravo Master Sergeant

    Joined:
    May 5, 2017
    Messages:
    2,299
    Likes Received:
    7,519
    I don't like MO for a lot of reasons. Just because you love/hate MO, don't drag me into it :wink:. NCA and Acon are good sectorials for a lot of reasons, but I think the rest of PanO is flawed. That's why I play NCA and Acon.
     
  20. Solodice

    Solodice Freshly Squeezed Troll

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Bolded for emphasis...

    It's always going to be subjective. I think the PanO sectorials are fine. They have concrete themes, good power, and are cool. I think they can be pushed further in their themes though.

    I could throw out my grades for all the factions and sectorials for that criteria but that would require its own thread.

    There are few units out there though in PanO that need a look (the dodos I listed) though. Hopefully my Asuras will get a look when the OSS comes rolling around.
     
    barakiel likes this.
  • 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