Crits solve the problem of when a trooper is able to sufficiently stack ARM so high that at all succeeding at wounding is far too unlikely or outright impossible, or when MODs have been stacked so high that winning a Face to Face is far too unlikely, which isn't what the game is meant to be about. Solve tthe situation with the soldier with effective BS of 2 faces off against an enemy with an effective BS of 13 and you can probably shift crits to no longer auto-winning. Solve the situation where a Trooper (TAG really) in cover can reach 12+ ARM versus most weapons' DAM 13 Normal damage and you can probably shift crits to no longer auto-wound. Want to add skills or equipment that increase ARM? Want to make heavy armour generally have higher and more impactful ARM levels? Better keep crits. Or increase damage values, but that makes the game deadlier to soldiers and civilians without any functional armour. But maybe that's something positive?
Time for another of my unpopular opinions. I don't think we should change crit role effects (this is separate from the FAT2 discussion, which I'm fine with talking about ways to modify that). Hear me out. If one compares the top tier player win rates in Infinity (80+%) versus something like MtG (~60%), it becomes pretty clear that luck is much less of a factor than we like to think in winning _games_. Luck wins _rolls_ in the same way that it wins hands in poker. In general (about 80% of the time if you play at the level of a top tier player, for instance) luck is not enough to make up the difference in skill between good play and bad over the course of a whole game. This strikes me as just fine - If I go up against a top player, 4 times in 5 I will lose _right now_ with crits as they stand. Shift that too much to favor the better player (take out chance), and new players have no entry point into a very complex game. Crits certainly kill units, and it sucks, but we all know that good play can work around that when you play to the mission. I'm as frustrated as anyone that sometimes my attack piece takes an unlucky ARO. But blaming crits for a loss is usually the easy way out.
I like the idea of Crits, because most of the time there's at least a small chance of success. A Jotum in cover can't be damaged by damage 13 weapons, but there's still a chance with crits.
It'd be a little weird if the solution to things like Fatality's 10% crit chance ended up being burst caps.
I can agree with this, for sure. Some kind of crit mechanic is still a great and healthy thing for the game. I just wish there was a way to make it more interesting for the opposing player. It's the most non-interactive mechanic in the game. This kinda feels like a lot of generalization and vague feelings VS sources and data. Do you have anything to back up your win rate statements?
The only thing I like about crits as they stand is that they are mechanically swift to resolve. Fat2 is a fine mechanism but should only have been on snipers.
Don't get me wrong, critical hits is a good mechanic but as it is right now make too risky high ARM models imo. My suggested changes were in the direction of giving these models more consistency. If in N4 they change costs or introduce additional rules to enable these models, then the critical mechanic as it is would be fine.
Crits should make the target ARM0 (or maybe even some just flat -3 or -6 ARM to keep TAGs slightly more crit proof?) with Fatality coming in 3 levels to keep in line with its tie to the crit mechanic: 1: +1 Crit Damage 2: +2 Crit Damage 3: Crits bypass armor (current mechanic)
What I say is accurate. Look at the top ITS win rates for season 10. For instance, @Polynikes is currently the top US player, with 56 wins, 1 draw, and 9 losses. You'll see similar stat lines for the top players. For MtG, this win rate issue has been discussed for years across the community. Here is the ELO project review as a recent primer: http://www.mtgeloproject.net/formatpct.php The short version is that chance plays a very small role in game wins in infinity as it currently stands. This bruises the ego, but the numbers are what they are.
Exactly, Hacking in a setting like Infinity should be like fracking space magic/the Force (maybe a bit too much hyperbole). Not some special size Allen wrench in your toolbox. Right, they should have put it in hacking devices though! Man, I've been out of the game for a while. Also, this needs to make a comeback. Pushing people away from HVTs sounds hilarious.
I think the core rules are fine and don't need any changes. I would like to see nested skills go away and just list what they have. The main thing I want to see is clean up and organization.
One thing I will say for sure, watching how other game companies have gone . . . I have a pretty high confidence that N4 will be pretty solid out the gate. 1, 2, 10yrs down the line. Hard to say. I plan on making an offline copy of Army builder paired with an offline copy of the Wiki, and the N4 opening ruleset, and put those things all on an archive DVD. That way, 10 years down the line, when people start reminiscing how Infinity used to be good before the new CEO or whatever came on board, I will pull out my archive copy, and start an 'Oldfinity" group.
Thanks! I was legitimately curious about the source for the data. Are ITS win rates only for events, or are they self reported from local things? I'm fairly new to how ITS runs.
It's only event results, but the events themselves are potentially local things. But if you look at Polynikes' detailed ITS page (https://its.infinitythegame.com/profile/a2955-polynikes) there's a whole bunch of big tournaments listed.
I'm pretty OK with how the crit mechanic works. The only issue I have trouble with is the very rare scenario when one crit bounces multiple opposing crits. I would like to see crits cancel all non crits and max 1 v 1 opposed crits.
Cool, thanks! I know that some other games have issues with people self reporting small events to inflate their rankings, and I just wanted to make sure that ITS was clear in comparison. I'm very glad to see that it's fine.
Wishes for N4: Please, PLEASE don't go the GW route and simplify the game into stupidity. Streamlining can sometimes end there and ... no. Maybe not make it harder to learn and remember everything, but also keep the core. And I actually quite like the idea presented here:
For the record, my goal wasn't to attack or to insinuate you are a bad person. I am not even saying there is malice or intent behind blaming bad luck, in the heat of the moment most people will blame luck to some degree. However for your opponent intentional or not blaming luck or dice rolls can come across negatively. Either they feel guilty for something out of their control or can feel that their effort or ability isn't recognised if things like "I lost because of dice" are said it comes across like your opponent had no impact in the game it was just some rolls. Sometimes that genuinely is the case but man is it rare, and for every game where dice hurt you they tend to reward you. I guess my point being blaming dice is never helpful. It either makes your opponent feel bad or it prevents you from critically thinking about the game. Im guilty of having done it, and i try my best to avoid it because I don,t feel I am being fair to my opponent. Personally I am happy with how infiltration currently works because the pay off for pushing is huge. Potentially having a plus 3 to the roll would be good for encouraging it and also making a skirmishers PHY relevant, But it may be very powerful so it would have to be played.
