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. theradrussian

    theradrussian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2018
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    620
    And I've killed many a McMurrough - guess he must be bad!

    ...huh? I play all the factions except YJ, and tohaa, so I have a frame of reference rather than fanboying.

    Cool - you have a thing. Sucks to be the others I guess, rite? BTW, does it also work without order expenditure...mate (since you seem fond of that word it seems)?
     
  2. ObviousGray

    ObviousGray Frenzied Mushroom
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    2,178
    Yeah you won. Go ahead. *Yawn*
     
  3. Spinnaker

    Spinnaker Vanguard Officer

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2018
    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    269
    While I am strongly in favour of majority button pushing missions, retreat is fundamentally an unfun mechanic that punishes players for doing too well. People have argued that retreat should be in there to encourage objective play instead of killing, but I would argue that objective play is always going to be a safer bet than killing anyway, so the extra punishment doesn't matter. Killing that much of your opponents list is a very unreliable strategy, especially in a tournament where you're looking for those major victories if possible, so I hardly see players going into tournaments thinking "I'm going to kill everything and not go for the objective". On top of this, it really doesn't make that much sense from a 'simulation of war' perspective - "WHY AREN'T YOU PUSHING THOSE BUTTONS SOLDIER" "Can't Sir, all the enemies ran away, that means we have to sit around and do nothing"

    I'd like to see a system where, instead of reaching the retreat state, a player can choose to "cut their losses", representing command abandoning whatever stake they had in the mission and attempting to deny the opponent as much of their objective as possible - this would change the victory conditons for a specific mission to in order to minimise the points available to the one who had done all the killing. Maybe you could turn off certain buttons, or reduce the points awarded by certain quadrants and prevent scoring from others. In any case, this would represent the idea of the faction going for a 'Scorched Earth' policy much better than "we run away and you can't do anything else".
     
  4. n21lv

    n21lv SymbioHate

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    690
    Another set of things I recalled from other threads
    1. Separate State Markers from Troop/Equipment Markers, because there's quite a lot of confusion between the two. Anything that represents a Troop or a piece of Weapon/Equipment must be a Token, then everything else is a Marker.
    2. Label all those states that modify the way Troops enter the battlefield with something like 'Delayed Deployment'. This should include all skills that allow the troop to not be deployed as a Troop or Token (I'm consistent with my previous suggestions) during the Deployment phase. This will help new players to better understand the alternative deployment skills. It will be also much easier to have one place which describes that any troop in a State with the Delayed Deployment label do not add their orders to the Order pool, instead of repeating it every time and creating confusion.
     
    toadchild, Berjiz and meikyoushisui like this.
  5. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    514
    Likes Received:
    397
    Retreat is not punishing for doing it too well. Is punishing for ignoring the main objective. If you are doing the objective and also you kill the enemy, he will have not much resources to make a comeback and you will win (because you also did the objective). But if the enemy is able to make a comeback, maybe you were still not enought focused on the mission, but on killing.
     
  6. ChoTimberwolf

    ChoTimberwolf Artichoken Friend

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    396
    There are lists especially pano list there you are pretty much forced to shoot the enemy into retreat before doing objectives. If my opponent got something like Cutter, Aquila and swiss guard all 3 covering the objective I need to kill them to do the objective but if I kill them he is in retreat. Sure you could use smoke if you took it or suicide run the objectives or try to hack them but each case means wasting orders just not to kill the enemy
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  7. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    514
    Likes Received:
    397
    well, if the enemy is going with those 3 and killing them makes him go to retreat, means he will not be able to make a comeback at the mission (55-65 points where he needs some specialists and no smoke), so you can first do mision, and then try to kill. Or ignore them and go full mission with smoke (the mission is more important than killing, so you are spending orders at wining, not at killing). Also, if they have heavy weapons, we are talking of a 400 points game, and then there is no retreat with those 3 dead, if its 300, they have no cap, so one of the HI is leutenant or specialist, I doubt it will be aroing, so you could ignore him.
     
    DaRedOne and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  8. Alphz

    Alphz Kuang Shi Vet. Retired.

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    2,109
    I'll take situations that have literally never happened for 10 points John.
     
  9. Spinnaker

    Spinnaker Vanguard Officer

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2018
    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    269
    There is enough punishment for ignoring objectives without retreat, in that you aren't going to be scoring the points you need for a victory. What I am trying to say is that even if retreat was removed, hyperagression would still be a suboptimal strategy - players would still focus on objectives over killing, because it's simply a better way of getting points and thus winning.

    In the end, Infinity remains a wargame - killing your opponents dudes is an integral part of it and players should not be punished so much for doing that. I've had games of looting and sabotaging where my opponent zergs an Oyoma link team into my AC2 (losing them in the process), and had so many models watching his AC2 that it was very difficult to get models to it without putting him into retreat - I did nothing that game but play the objective, and yet I was screwed by the retreat system. It is a fundamentally clunky mechanic that I would like to see reworked (not removed) which is why I proposed a "cut your losses" system instead.
     
    Hecaton and Anansi like this.
  10. ChoTimberwolf

    ChoTimberwolf Artichoken Friend

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    396
    Not every list has smoke.
    Cutter+Knight of the holy sepulchre(coc)+swiss guard 235p/4,5swc still enough points for retreat and swc left.
    Yeah is it bad gameplay if the enemy leaves all 3 exposed covering the objective after his first of course it is but you get punished for a mistake of the opponent.



    Guess that means you are god or how do you know such a situation never happened?
    These are extreme examples but using some coord orders in your first turn to get a huge part of your army to cover objectives happens. Lists that don't carry smoke happens.

    Here was the theory that every case of someone in retreat means that the enemy was to aggressive I just point to examples there the enemy didn't have any choice
     
  11. Alphz

    Alphz Kuang Shi Vet. Retired.

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    2,109
    This is actually not true. Again, because we lived through this reality. Before retreat the game was pretty much kill the other team, then do a couple objectives unopposed.

    Looting and sabotage is a horrible mission though that either shouldn't have retreat or could just disappear. I'm ok with either.

    I'd like something better than retreat as well. Its crude and sometimes does weird things, as timberwolf might be trying to say. But not removing it. That's bad mmmkay. We know this already.

    Sadly it doesn't take a god to see rediculous hyperbole. I am a but a man.
     
  12. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,354
    Likes Received:
    1,823
    On what grounds will the TO default me?

    Some of us think the core of the game is great. We just think a lot of the other stuff needs some fixing. The general dynamics of infinity are brilliant - f2f rolls, the way order generation/expenditure works, and the deadliness of the game are all perfect. But many of the things around that just need some fixing.

    No, this is absolutely not true. In Armory, for example, you could Dominate the armory (do the mission) and kill your opponent to prevent him from doing so. Do it too much? Guess what, you screwed yourself out of two victory points for doing the thing that maximizes your ability to do the area control mission, i.e., control the area. Supremacy has the same problem except you screw yourself out of 4 points.

    Capture and protect? Intentionally putting yourself into retreat in this mission can easily net you a win. Looting and Sabotaging is actually the best example of this -- destroy the enemy AC2, and then put yourself in a position where you enemy *has to* put you in retreat to have a chance to score unless they have loads of orders and eclipse smoke. Rescue, Tic-Tac-Toe, Comms Center and Supplies have similar issues.

    Retreat encourages non-interactivity. It's interesting to me that the missions I listed in the second category above (missions where intentionally going into retreat is viable) are all missions that are best played in the least interactive way possible.
     
  13. Alphz

    Alphz Kuang Shi Vet. Retired.

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    2,109
    I dunno man. I feel like someone who can score enough objectives, prevent you from scoring objectives AND force you to put them into retreat must be a pretty good player and deserve to win.

    I'd have to spend the better part of a turn just putting enough models in the same place to functionally force myself into retreat... Like how are these people doing this?
     
    saint and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  14. ChoTimberwolf

    ChoTimberwolf Artichoken Friend

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    396
    So someone placing all his units to cover the objective in looting and sabotage is ridiculous? It doesn't take order and forces the enemy to take many, shoot you in retreat or have smoke available. In my games if possible I put as many units close to it as possible, so far the enemy was never lucky enough to get me in retreat but it was close.
    As I said earlier I don't think retreat should just be taken out but maybe tweaked although I have to admit that I can't find a good way to tweak it maybe enemy half of the table becomes hostile environment, the army in retreat called an air strike on the enemy side I don't know
     
  15. Alphz

    Alphz Kuang Shi Vet. Retired.

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    2,109
    It's one of the worst missions for this.

    We're on the same page though man. Retreat isn't great but it serves a purpose and it's been talked to death before and no one really came up with anything good.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  16. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    514
    Likes Received:
    397
    well, I played when retreat didn't mean the end of the game. Half the games were the same: kill the enemy and leave if you can only 1 dude, in cc for better results. If there is people now doing it and calculating the optimal way to do it without forcing retreat, why do you think if the rule is taken out, they will stop doing it? and also why there will not be more people doing it?
     
  17. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    5,761
    I know I we were not attentive the past few days due to Interplanetario, but I would had appreciated if you people had remained just a bit polite among yourselves, I am posting this in general have quite a few more pages to run through.
     
    WiT?, Spinnaker and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  18. Spinnaker

    Spinnaker Vanguard Officer

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2018
    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    269
    I'll concede to you here - I wasn't around to experience that era. I think we're pretty much in agreement about the changes we'd like to see though - replace retreat with a more nuanced system.

    That's an entirely fair point - again though I'm going to again point to my idea of a a 'cut your losses' system. I am not calling for the total removal of retreat, but rather a refining that gives the retreatee more agency in how they choose to go about it, and without taking the active player out of the game alltogether.
     
    #538 Spinnaker, Aug 21, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2019
    ChoTimberwolf likes this.
  19. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,077
    Likes Received:
    7,611
    How do you guys feel about the actual retreat? You're discussing ITS' special case, end-the-game Retreat, but do you guys think Retreat threshold and Retreat mechanic is at all interesting? (I.e. the Retreat that punishes the losing player a bit extra and prevents several of their models from scoring objectives)
     
    Berjiz, Hecaton and DukeofEarl like this.
  20. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Brisk antipodean

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,025
    Likes Received:
    1,639
    This is more of a shower-thought than a serious one, but would it be bad if they simply removed the rules from doctor, engineer, and maybe paramedic that causes you to deal damage to your target if you fail the roll? Keep rerolls in for cubes and ghost, all that jazz, but limit the consequences for failure to just the wasted order.

    PanO Doctors OP? Piloted TAGs OP? Paramedic-ing doggos OP?
     
    Azuset, theradrussian, Berjiz and 2 others like this.