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

The definite N4 Comments, Suggestions, Ideas, wishlist's and Bugs that need fixing thread

Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by psychoticstorm, Aug 6, 2019.

  1. CabalTrainee

    CabalTrainee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    565
    That's an interesting observation. In my play group it is more common to critique only/mostly stuff that we assume is too strong in your own armies because we assume that is what we individually understand the best.
     
  2. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Brisk antipodean

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    982
    Likes Received:
    1,562
    That sounds like a pretty healthy attitude actually. I think we're a little the same locally too, but Australians are like that natively so it's less deliberate.
     
  3. fatherboxx

    fatherboxx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    329
    Achiless is worth taking right now
    Kriza Borac is worth taking
    Su Jian is worth taking
    Swiss Guard? you bet your ass he is worth taking etc etc

    When people talk about class-based buffs they need to think about units in that class that are already great and would be out of control if they get anything substantial.

    MI seasonal rule in ITS X did little to make Bolts or Wildcats or Grenzers much better, but little bastard MK5 got extremely silly with additional FD, Intruder and Djanbazan (already top choices in their armies) now almost always start in scoring zone and in positive ranges for HMG without a chance for a cleverly placed ARO to outrange them at first.
     
  4. Click2kill

    Click2kill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    148
    I will certainly agree that its hard to consider MI units with mid to short range weapons outside of the Bravery rule compared to another unit in the game. That -2 inches of movement ends up being an order pit and is worse if you don't have multi-terrain to get through difficult terrain and need to slog through or around such. Needless to say in most cases the armor is the same or better on a HI that gets to move and extra inches.

    I wouldn't mind seeing Bravery stay on a few of the MI profiles.
     
  5. Judge Dredd

    Judge Dredd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    554
    I would like to see the LT order usable in fireteams like NCO or tac awareness.
     
    Sedral and Smiler like this.
  6. Alphz

    Alphz Kuang Shi Vet. Retired.

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,038
    Likes Received:
    2,037
    Also ref. the dunning kruger effect.

    Something that has become much more obvious with the proliferation of access to the internet.
     
  7. HANGMAN

    HANGMAN Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    5
    I haven't gone through all 21 pages, as I looked at a page or to and they were very off subject, so I'll just add my two cents here.

    I don't want power creep. A lot of people are seeing it and complaining about it. I'm not the only one. I'd like to see a reset of costs across the board. In doing so, I'd like to see costs as they were a couple years ago, so more, not less. I like the skirmish idea of the game. I don't want 20 orders or more on the table, I like the 10 to 16 order lists. I know some factions can do more and that's fine, for the most part they don't and IF they have to go up or down in point costs, I hope they go up.

    TAGS and HI. These troops types have such a disadvantage. They can be hacked, glued, E/Med...more can effect these troop types than any other in the game. It's fine, except I'm not a fan of being able to incapacitate a 100 point model with a single hit. It really steers the players away from taking these troop types, IMO. How to fix this? Allow them to break out of adhesive, -6 for HI and -3 for TAGs vs a PH roll. Have them have a couple of defensive hacking programs, one like FEEDBACK which makes it so the hacker can't hack them again that round, or make them invisible to Hackers. With Immobilization, have them be able to reset out of it, again -6 for TAGs and -6 for HI.

    Fireteams. It's nice they are versatile, but lets not go crazy with the wildcards and 'counts as'. Being a fireteam is bonus enough.
     
    Guardian and SpectralOwl like this.
  8. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,541
    Likes Received:
    8,761
    Yes, I am very concerned about power creep in the game. I bailed out of Magic when it turned into an arms race (if you didn't buy the new set of cards when it came out, you were no longer competitive at all) in 1994, I bailed out of GW about when 5th edition dropped, and I bailed out of WarmaHordes when I couldn't spend enough time on the forums to be aware of all the combos.

    I really like the Infinity setting and core rules ("it's always your turn" etc), but I will bail if the game gets into serious power creep. Despite having sunk thousands of dollars into the game over the years. Probably tens of thousands, actually, since I have over a thousand dollars worth of civilians alone. And then there's the terrain...


    That used to be the standard learning curve of the game. "Wait, you can spend more than one order per unit?!?" "Wait, AD troopers can do that?!?" "Wait, TO camo can Hidden Deploy?!?" etc. The first time you see something, it kicks your teeth in, then you talk with your opponent to see how to beat it the next time.
     
    Penemue, Abrilete and Alfy like this.
  9. Scutarii

    Scutarii Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2018
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    31
    I'd like to see some more more support for narrative and story based play. Missions that are explicitly assymetric and based around recreating scenes/tropes from inspirational media, release things like 'generic civilians pack!' for when we want to populate our board with people running out of the way of the stealthy spec-ops teams suddenly opening fire in a shopping mall, etc. Could just be 2d hard cardboard standees made from the same stuff as their scenery packs if they wanted to keep costs down (and they're unlikely ot be used by the majority of players, I know that I am in a more minority position here).

    These don't have to replace anything in ITS packs or the like but...maybe we could get an equivalent of ITS missions packs but for sillier narrative focused play too? And yes I know I could do this myself. But I am lazy and would rather pay for a professional product with nice production values etc. to go with it.

    I dunno...one player has to meet their contact who's eating at Lo-Pan's Noodle hut and exfiltrate them while their opponent is trying to intercept them all the while both need to avoid causing trouble that lets the local populace know what's going on (Stealth! Silent weapons! Stun weapons on civilians from surprise states!). Or maybe a previous mission went badly and the scene is crawling with journalists and civilians with their [mobile phone equivalents] out recording and you're either going in to remove the evidence or to capture the black-site tech for research or something.

    Yes, I know, the existing missions kinda cover that if you squint but they then get put through changes to try and make them fit general mission structure and balance and such so start getting divorced from the source.

    Gameplaywise...can more stuff be hackable? Either positively or negatively?

    Basically everyone on the team is connected in some way right? Radios or comms, their visors or weapon or health monitors, etc. The sensor on the mines that detect something could be hackable? If I can possess a TAG why not possess a MadTrap? Why can't I hack a medium infantry? Or a Light for that matter? Hell if a Warband is some random psycho/brave/etc they probably haven't done any meaningful OpSec and their [mobile phone equivalent] is easily accessible to the advanced hacking skills of the team.

    Risk would be in making low-tech factions stronger as more of their stuff would not be hackable...you'd end up with the stupid state Shadowrun 5e got itself into with wireless bonuses encouraging your stealth infiltration team to run around broadcasting their location to the whole world (top tip, when your Smuggling Compartment is connected to the internet and actively broadcasting its existence it has failed at its job).
     
    Section9 and Superfluid like this.
  10. Azuset

    Azuset Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2018
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    151
    Dear CB,

    Please, please, please don't make drastic changes to the rules. This is literally the best tabletop game I have ever played. I would even argue that it is the best tabletop game ever made. That being said it's not a perfect system. I have a blast playing this game and at the end of the day that is what is most important. One of the best things about this game for me is that ever decision I make as a player matters. That is exciting and hard to do as a system of rules.

    I'm not a high level player so I can't really speak to the rules at that level. Having that said here are my requests.

    In general don't touch the core mechanics of the game.

    Please don't change the Initiative/Deployment Roll.
    Please don't change crits.
    Please don't change the complexity level of the game.

    I think the game benefit the most is clearly written and translated rules. Right now there are over 1.4k rules questions on this forum. That does not even include the old forums which I was not a part of. I think this would cut down on a lot of frustration and make the game easier for new players to enter.

    Thanks!
     
    #410 Azuset, Aug 17, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2019
    Cthulhu363, Bellyflop and Abrilete like this.
  11. rhelyk

    rhelyk Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2018
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    33
    I've been here since the beginning, when the original ORC trooper and Armored Cavalry torso (it was not even called a Squalos yet) sculpt was shown on TheMiniaturesPage, back in 2005 when TMP was actually a source of news. I bought the original Pano, Yu Jing and Haqqislam starters before there was even a rulebook, luckily my hobby shop carried the Corvus Belli 15mm historical figures for ancients battles and they could import Infinity because of that. I remember the original black and blue website that showcased the 15mm historical figures just as much as Infinity. And I remember playing with the original rules pamphlet that didn't even have an explanation for SWC yet. It showed the SWC cost, it just didn't say what SWC did.

    I love this game, I love the story, I love the sculpts, I love the art. But it's only been with the release of N3 that I could really get others into the game, and we really enjoy playing N3.

    Dear CB, from my heart of hearts: DON'T CHANGE MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    This game is great as-is, it just needs a cleanup. Do what N2 did to N1. Cleanup the language, incorporporate the FAQs and errata into the main rules, but keep the game the same. A bit of change can be fine, crits going to armor 0 but not autowounding would be fine. I'd like AP ammo to affect cover (ideally separately from armor, so a 5 ARM +3 cover became 3+2 in cover, a small but good distinction). Nested rules should not be removed, they can easily be solved by adding it more clearly to the wiki and and allowing Army to separate them (a check-=box in the options to show ALL nested rules would be wonderful). Maybe combine a couple hacking programs together. That's it. That's all.

    Just, do some cleanup, but DON'T fundamentally change the game. It's awesome. You did a great job with it. I love you for it. Don't streamline it too much. Don't take away all the rules and abilities that makes it interesting. The game is great, just work on the explanation of how things work a bit better, that's all it needs.
     
    #411 rhelyk, Aug 18, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2019
    Cthulhu363, Penemue, ZlaKhon and 6 others like this.
  12. Spinnaker

    Spinnaker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2018
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    250
    I'm a newer player, so I can't claim to be an expert, but I'll readily echo the sentiment that other people have been putting out that the game is generally in a pretty good place right now. You will always have some factions that are stronger and some that are weaker but compared to, say, Warhammer Infinity is a shining beacon of balanced factions.

    People will fret about power creep when Shasvastii or Varuna come up and accuse CB of trying to push new models, but they always seem to overlook stuff like IA, FoCo or Ramah coming out at the same time - compare again to Warhammer where the newest set or releases are nearly always flat out better than what has come before.

    I won't deny that Jammers and FAT2 could be improved, but it isn't like they are massive issues - the main problem they present is that they are unfair/frustrating for newbies, but you can get around this by just not taking the bloody things in intro games. To be honest, my main issue with recent releases has been the mentality used for wildcard profiles - I've always preferred the idea of wildcards being toolbox pieces that are added to links to increase their versatility (Think Messer in Shas, Patsy in Varuna or Raktoraks in MAF) as opposed to big attack pieces that can be boosted by links full of chaff (Sheskiin, Kamau, or Tarik) - this is more of a thematic issue than anything though.

    I feel like the level of anger floating around on the forums sometimes is slightly disproportionate to how things actually are - it would do people some good to slow down before breaking out the bold text, increased font size and capslock.
     
  13. Superfluid

    Superfluid Welcome to Svalarheima

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    380
    Likes Received:
    479
    I hope that CB finds a way to help infinity grow, rather than pandering to self selected forumites, who are naturally the more hardcore players. So long as the game grows, the player base expands, the game develops and becomes a better play experience and they improve tournament play, I don't really mind the form changes come in.

    I'm equally suspicious of posts suggesting overhauls to systems (like my own post from near the beginning of this thread) as I am to posts from the forum elite who will be happy with the bare minimum.

    I want CB to make changes that make business sense, because pandering to hardcore users will only make an alienating product with a diminishing userbase.

    Plus, I'm aware it's human nature to be resistant to change, but I don't think anyone would argue against n1<n2<n3
     
    #413 Superfluid, Aug 18, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2019
    Willen, Azuset, Yog.0 and 5 others like this.
  14. Stiopa

    Stiopa Trust The Fuckhead
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    2,754
    Likes Received:
    5,802
    I don't have many issues with the game rules-wise (aside from some hot spots, like new TI - though it'll take some time to really judge its impact), but I do hope that with N4 CB will carefully consider all factions and sectorial and apply the most recent design ideas to all. For now when a new skill or way to construct fireteams is introduced, it finds its way to very few units and sectorials. I'd like to see more balanced approach here.

    New edition aside, I'd like to see some logistics changes. For one, release schedule is too slow given the amount of new stuff. I feel that one release per faction per month would greatly help here. Additionally, some units - especially basic LI or warbands - could use 6-trooper boxes instead of current 4-trooper ones. It'd allow to fill in gaps in their loadouts, release Paramedic and FO sculpts at the same time, allow us to field some alternative sculpts for units we tend to use in greater numbers. And finally, I'd like to see the mixed box approach (Securitate+Grenzer, Dakinis+Deva) abandoned.
     
    Modock, Alfy, saint and 4 others like this.
  15. Lothlanathorian

    Lothlanathorian Not a custom title

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    206
    I'd have DA/EXP function as it does now, with the first hit being critical-affected and the remainder being normal. It beats the shit out of all of them being DAM20. That's terrifying and overkill (which is, of course, the best kind of kill, but a thing we are trying to minimize).

    I wouldn't have AP affect cover. Keeps the rules simple, allows the interaction to happen more realistically, if not necessarily in the same order, and you don't have to remember that "AP halves ARM. Unless it goes through cover, then it halves cover ARM, but leaves the ARM on the profile unaffected." We make it "AP halves ARM," and "Cover bonuses are unaffected by AP."

    I don't hate this at all, actually. This is a well proposed suggestion.

    Penetrator rounds are usually less effective against soft targets specifically because they are designed to punch a hole in heavier armor. AP as is reflects this quite well. AP is meant to counter high ARM values in-game, just like it is IRL and I do not think that needs to be addressed or redressed. (I hope I responding to the right post and didn't quote the wrong one or that I didn't misread something).

    I do agree that adjusting ARM cost so that 1-3 and 4+ have different point costs, but AP has become to be a bit ubiquitous in the game where it used to be very limited or have a SWC offset.
     
    Abrilete likes this.
  16. toadchild

    toadchild EI Aspect
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,443
    Likes Received:
    4,652
    I think K1 captures that much better than AP does.
     
    ChoTimberwolf, Stiopa and Hecaton like this.
  17. Alphz

    Alphz Kuang Shi Vet. Retired.

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,038
    Likes Received:
    2,037
    Another random wish/thought.

    Tweak cover and arm.

    Cover provides +2 arm.
    All models except maybe light infantry (and rems imo) +1 arm.

    I think this would further differentiate survivability of medium and heavy infantry to light. And slightly increase the relevance of AP by shifting some ARM from unmodified to modifiable.
     
    Lothlanathorian likes this.
  18. n21lv

    n21lv SymbioHate

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    685
    I don't want to ask for much, basically just make the game rules clearer.
    1. Please be consistent in your terminology and don't emphasise words just for the sake of emphasising them. If you write BS Weapon in italics or in bold script, it must be explained somewhere.
    2. Please stop using enumerations ending with ellipsis or 'etc' without providing a clear rule that determines the set of objects that fit the enumeration (e.g. Effects of Sensor: Triangulated Fire).
    3. Please add reference numbers everywhere where it's possible so that anyone could refer to any part of the rules via simple and clear method. This will also enable you to write things like 'This is an exception to rule 48.1b'!
    4. Please make sure to mention all effects and requirements in the rule description before you decide to mention some part of the rule in an example/reminder box.

    And a special plea.
    Please consider creating a simplified ruleset where some of the most complex rules and interactions are cut out so that we could expand the player base without having to spend 40+ minutes to explain all the intricacies of the ruleset before even getting to play the demo game. I've been demoing Infinity at every geeky event in Latvia since last year, and found that it's really difficult to explain how cool the game is to a person who has never ever played any wargame. Sure, Infinity is not a game for everyone, but one has to have a really strong nerve to not to break down after seeing people leaving their demo table for a demo game of Forty Kay because the rules of Infinity are so complicated and difficult to understand for a beginner. And don't even try suggesting to play the missions from those 2-player starter sets (Icestorm, Red Veil, etc) -- no one has the time to play all 6 missions on a demo event. And I can't see any reason why would someone consider a game, where six dudes with same weapons are shooting each other for three turns when I just 'sold' the game to the person by mentioning TO camouflage, drop troops, infiltration and smoke grenades, to be interesting to any degree.
     
  19. yoink101

    yoink101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2018
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    311
    I think this is most of my wish list.

    Cleaning up hacking. The only reason it’s usable now is Captain Spud (huge shoutout!). But right now there are too many programs that don’t do anything. Right now, redrum is better than trinity in something like 95% of interactions. Something needs to be tweaked.

    Maybe limit the number of programs, for example:
    • The immobilize program
    • The isolate program
    • The damage to hackers program
    • The possession program
    • The utility programs
    Then give each hacking device specific bonuses. The khd can only damage other hackers but gains a +3/-3 modifier swing and an extra damage type or two.

    The hacker plus gains +3 modifier and an extra damage type.

    I don’t know, something.

    Clean up the weapon entries. There is no reason for a spitfire and an AP spitfire to be different weapons. Just allow the ammo type entry to vary for each weapon on different profiles.

    Make the discover skill less terrible. As it stands camo is incredibly potent. It would be good to make it slightly less effective.

    Allow suppression fire to shoot through token states and zero visibility zones. It should take all appropriate penalties (surprise shot, -6 for firing into a zero vis zone) ect. Right now, suppressive fire is almost never worth the order because it’s too easy to drop smoke/eclipse/white noise on an area and just prance through. Allowing a suppressive model to attack, even at huge penalties, would create more interesting tactical choices.

    Simplify the fireteam rules. They’re complicated enough that new players and players unfamiliar with a faction have trouble figuring out if their opponent’s are actually putting legal fireteams on the table. Even players who know the rules sometimes mix things up. You can keep all of the mixed fireteams but make it easier to wade through and understand.

    For example, in Varuna, 2 orcs+3 fusiliers is a fireteam. Just give orcs and fusiliers the skill “fireteam core: A”. Anything with fireteam core: A can for a core fireteam together. Kamau can still have wildcard, but things become a little more flexible and also a little more clear.
     
    Berjiz, SpectralOwl and Alfy like this.
  20. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Brisk antipodean

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    982
    Likes Received:
    1,562
    Another minor thing: I'd kind of like the resolution of smoke grenades to have one fewer step. Like: place template, roll dice. Rather than the current requirement, which is: nominate point, roll dice, place template at conclusion if roll is successful.

    It's basically just a step faster most of the time, and the same number of steps if you fail the roll (because you have to then pick up the template). It'd also feel a bit more consistent with how other templates function, where you have to place the template prior to moving on to rolling dice.