I haven't really figured out why MO gets flack... it's got some cheap cheerleader options (fusiliers, fugazi, mulebot, Joan+irregular), AVA total TO infiltrating specialists, AD killing machines, interesting HI options (yes we all know that knight deathstars are cool), interesting template options, it's got mech deploy goodies. It's got a lot of the tools you would expect in a good sectorial. Is it perfect, no, but it seems pretty competitive to me.
Nah, I've been getting that feeling more and more lately. Maybe it's my GM senses tingling, but a lot of Infinity profiles have had a very obviously min-maxed for advantage feel to them and while I don't tend to mind that in RPGs, in a war game where the point cost should actually mean something, I start losing trust in it the more I see it abused by the actual developers. And to be certain, this min-maxing isn't new, but as we reach a new level of profile bloat, they seem to be going back to that well more and more often to make new profiles pop against the existing ones. As developers, they should be looking at these loopholes as bugs to be fixed. They should see the Frenzy discount and say "wow, this combo gives a whole lot of points back for basically no downside". They should see the effect of dumping CC down to a bare minimum and going "gee, almost every troop with minimal CC investment gets a ton of extra utility from dropping to a bare minimum" and think about adjusting how points are calculated. They should be looking at how costs are calculated for units with "Skornergy" perk combos and seeing if the system might not need to discount incongruous combos. At this point, it is obvious that they know what the flaws in their rubric are, but when they use them to make powerful troops it also becomes sort of apparent that they simply don't care to fix them. It feels like they're leaning in to these flaws in their point rubric more and it is damaging my ability to believe that balance is their real end goal. I mean, no point system is perfect, but to see devs use known flaws in their system to produce profiles that are above the curve just feels straight up terrible in practice.
Nah they have definitely been min maxing profiles more. Its hard to look at a profile released in the last year and say "theres the bloat" Last I can think of was the Jager mono CCW
Nope. Combines well with E/Mitter for getting down HI and/or TAGs. However, why a unit whose lore is about retrieving cubes would have equipment for dealing with heavy units is questionable. On the other hand, Shock CCW on Tankos?
it combos, but thats still bloat IMO. Good bloat combos for Niche effect, so id count the MonoCCW that way, but yes it may vary from person to person
Why would they fix it? I mean without proof or a meta to give you that proof then any ideas about balance are pretty much just opinions. Having powerful units only means anything if that army is also disproportionality winning. For example pretty much everyone agrees that Post humans are overpowered units right? However is vanilla Aleph also OP? I don't really know myself, I do know that despite Post humans power I keep reaching for Haq and it's OP Mutts. This community is constantly tripping over itself to praise the balance of the game to the point that even high ranked players are stupidly hesitant to rate the effectiveness of units. The only high profile person I can even think of that is willing to do it is VaulSC and even then I am pretty sure that is where 90% of his hate mail comes from. Or is this not about balance and instead about faction identity and feel?
None of the supposedly new power creep comes even close to some bullshit N2 things like vector or biomine pretas. None.
Some of the one-on-one unit comparisons are a bit jarring. However, the units being compared to (Vanguards, Mobile Brigada, etc) are ones that have long been highlighted as being potentially overpriced for what they deliver. It's going to take some time before we have a good sense of whether or not Tunguska is balanced versus other armies.
sure, but now they are just exacerbating the issue by sticking their head in the sand on one side and giving out golden eggs on the other.
Are they? I mean are Riot Grrls better then Hallowmen? Is Tunguska really all that more powerful then other sectorials or is this one unit really good compared to other similar units, kind of like how every warband feels like trash after you look at Mutts?
See, that's not what daboarder is talking about (as far as I can interpret). Also Riot Grrls got buffed in N3HS. They're not a problem child unit. Far from it. Now take a gander over at PanO's problem child units like the Teutonic Knights, Bolts, and KoTHS and tell me they did something for them? That's what he means by burying their heads in the sand. These old and un-optimized (for the current game) units don't get a second look. Over here with Tunguska we get some new and super (to an extent) optimized units like the Hollowman.
Ok but I am not sure what you mean by problem child unit. Anyway lets look at it. Why would they do something for them when they are releasing Nomad units? Super optimized units mean NOTHING and are worthless unless they are disproportionality winning. Do you think Nomads are going to be disproportionality winning now? They might NEED those powerful units just to be competitive at all.... I don't know and unless you have data the rest of us don't then I doubt it can be proven one way or another. Ok so this is what I think is really the core issue then. The new units benefit from new mechanics and maybe some old profiles should also get those new mechanics, For example how do Morats not also have fullauto units? Some of those old units now feel left behind on the new design philosophies and options. It's not just the new mechanics, it could be as simple as tweeking numbers to help those older units out. Is this correct?
@Andre82 I feel like what you're saying here is at the core of the age old warning against comparing units across faction lines. It's possible to have a unit in army X that's reasonable and fair that would be broken in army Y. People are right to call out significant points mismatches between similar units (especially when things like vanilla Nomads exists where all those HI directly compete against one another), but we need to have people start playing games with Tunguska before we can really say how the overall game balance is affected.
You got it. *thumbs up* Optimization between units is what I'm getting at. Hollowmen work for what they do in Nomads. They don't make Tunguska OP but they're needed to make it competitive. I doubt Tunguska is going to flip the game on its head. It will compete but it won't be the destroyer of worlds. The combo of shiny new stuff hype and fear mongering usually falls in the middle after a few months after Tunguska has been played and for opponents to get a read on them. Would know. I was around when SP was hot off the presses. Cause if you're treating the game as a living miniature game with releases like Tunguska (and the NA2 factions) you need to do the same for the other half as well. That way its not a 4 year wait for the book to correct the issue (which might not even be fixed with the book release). It doesn't need to be immediate but knowing CB these changes will not come until far later. That's my opinion when it comes to how they keep evolving and updating their game at the moment.
The only unit in Tunguska that has jumped out at me as "game-changing" is the Puppeteer due to its Counterintelligence. Its not as good as Strategos, IMO, but it does change the way the mission begins. Varuna is likely one of the three remaining sectorials getting spoiled this year. I am pretty sure Varuna will have nice toys and new rules that will make this argument come up again, but the topic will about the unbalanced units of Varuna instead of Tunguska.
Ok good. Hardest part of any discussion is making sure you understand your opponents argument. For the most part I agree with you. CB is painfully slow and seam more interested in producing new units (that make them money) as opposed to revamping old outdated units.... but there is another issue. Everyone for as long as I have been playing Infinity has been blowing smoke up CB's skirt about how wonderfully balanced the game is. They are not likely to "fix" something everyone is telling them is not broke and even if you do have a bad unit it can be very risky improving that unit without throwing the rest of the faction out of wack. Simply put if you want Bolts fixed then you have to prove Bolts suck AND that improving them won't screw faction balance. If we had more torment reports that might be easier done. If however the meme "it's not your list" is in fact true then why the hell would they waste time fixing something not broken? Get what I am saying? If I want them to make TAG's better then I have to prove that TAG's are not very good. Without proof TAG's suck then it is just my opinion and others disagree.
Oh, the laundry list is long for the Bolts on why they're broke and fixes for them. I'm sure peeps like @daboarder, @eciu, @Stiopa, even @barakiel and others can fill you in. I doubt they want to rehash it all for the thousandth time though. Go back through this forum and the old one and find threads just on the Bolts themselves (there's plenty of them). They remind me of the N2 Crane (if you weren't around it was arguably the worst unit in the game for its price). CB has its data from army. How many times Bolts are taken and not. Same for the other "problem child units" I've mentioned. Don't know what those are (they don't exactly share it) nor do we even know if its a good source of data. It's more about getting them to be a worthwhile addition to a list. They don't need to be the uber unit. Just something to make them appealing to take but not as an auto include. It's a very fine balancing act but CB has shown, for the most part, it can be done. As to "It's not your list" it's a yes and no. You can kneecap yourself in list building just like you can when your playing a good list (for whatever scenario). I get what your saying more or less. Hey, TAGs got some nice bumps. Didn't use to be specialists after LTs couldn't be them anymore (old ITS rules). Then they got little specialist bots and pilots.
