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. A Mão Esquerda

    A Mão Esquerda Deputy Hexahedron Officer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    1,878
    Also, what other problems does the “solution” then cause, both foreseen and not? What other interactions does it affect? What else can go sideways? Trading one (overblown) problem for a cascade of others doesn’t seem the best approach...
     
    Del S likes this.
  2. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,731
    Likes Received:
    4,607
    Yes, yes, this is all the basic thought that goes into game design. Which doesn't always happen at CB.
     
    theradrussian likes this.
  3. Del S

    Del S Nomadball

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2017
    Messages:
    918
    Likes Received:
    2,078
    Your proposals usually wind up more like irradiating the entire hospital to treat one localised growth that's actually benign.

    And the counter issue is that you're possibly only in need of a solution to disingenuous problems because you're too inadequate to deal with any examples you encounter. Just git gud.

    They aren't though. They probably won't be made much more expensive in the N4 changes. But as a solution points changes would be far better than your plan a.

    Makes secondary templates like nanopulsers and chain colts pretty much pointless in the majority of scenarios. It also means that in active you'll have 1 dice roll versus the entire lot of targets so a large enough cluster of enemies means that you're getting outnumbered unless you have been fortunate to sneak around. That same large enough cluster that used to justify using the thrower rather than your primary weapon is now a deathtrap.

    Fire has other advantages that make it more worthwhile, but even then it's only worth it against one target without twin weapons or fireteams to get extra dixe.
     
    #1163 Del S, Oct 23, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2019
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  4. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,731
    Likes Received:
    4,607
    Well, I obviously disagree.


    I don't see anyone named "Del S" playing ITS tournaments this season. Are you one of those people who hasn't played in three years?


    Well, they should be made more expensive. If a unit is as effective in the hands of a brain-dead player who's just figured out how to smoke to block LoF as a lot of warbands are, they should be made more pricey. I've been playing a good amount of vanilla O-12 lately and the idea of including a basic Kappa at all is pretty laughable, let alone before you've maxed your AVA on Varangians. Either something like a Kappa should cost less or something like a Varangian should cost more.
     
    sorniak likes this.
  5. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,296
    Likes Received:
    7,864
    From what I can tell, flamethrowers, Chain Rifles, Chain Colts, etc etc all cost roughly 1 point (or a rounding error) with heavy flamethrowers and riotstoppers costing 2 points.
    Well, the other solution is to start removing DTW profiles from chaff troops, but that risks invalidating a significant amount of models.

    Well, if all they need is comms contact, then why can't they coordinate over larger distances like a Coordinated Order? If they are trained to work instinctively and in close tandem with each other at shouting and hand-signal distance, why can't they participate when Isolated?

    The idea revolves around coherency checks and adding a LOF component to the coherency check, not much more. The core idea is exactly to make fireteam placement harder, but the practicality of the actual check isn't all that hard.

    Intuitive Attack wouldn't be pointless at all. The entire point of Intuitive Attack is that you can attack someone who you can't see or that's under a marker. You can't use Intuitive Attack against someone you can attack normally with a BS Attack and vice versa currently and that wouldn't change with the idea of DTWs being technical weapons.

    Oh god no, don't improve dodges versus DTWs! This might sound like a nerf to DTWs, but it's quite a lot different. Currently a Thorakitai (random non-mimetic unit) has a 22% risk of taking damage from a Chain Rifle (Wu Ming as a random shooter with large number of weapons) while under my suggestion they'd actually have an increased risk going to 48%, but they can also respond with a BS Attack if they can see the attacker and if they judge they have decent MODs - resulting in 36% risk of damage but also a 26% risk for the Wu Ming (who doesn't have cover in this quick roll).
    For the most part, I'd like to see an increase in the lethal game with this change. Often a warband spraying with a DTW results in a lot of dodges and wasted orders far in excess of the measly 5-7 points you pay for them. While on the surface it is an interesting situation where a cheap model can be used to discourage certain tactical movement, what the games often devolve into is the reactive player hiding everything and using cheap models to discourage all tactical movement to get LOF to your troops which forces the opponent to use fairly limited tactics of addressing this (light grenade launchers to bypass the chaff or chaff of their own or smoke for the most part) which strongly risks restricting list diversity in the long run.

    P.s. some of the numbers above are bogus because I accidentally used Forward Observe out of laziness for simulating a technical DTW which means the target didn't get their ARM save and I can't be arsed fixing it, but it's still fairly illustrative
     
    Tourniquet and Hecaton like this.
  6. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    625
    Likes Received:
    457
    DTW work like that because their range and because is a counter for some kind of troopers (remember that not everybody has access to MSV, so DTW is one of the few options to deal with TO/OOD). Seems to me the problem to some people are that they play in tables with excess of complete cover (a problem also related with jammers, hacking, 6th sense). Maybe (just maybe, is a suggestion), some people should try to play in other kind of tables, just a little more open, then maybe (again, just maybe) they could find that some troopers are not so broken, just their tables.
     
  7. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,731
    Likes Received:
    4,607
    Nah, dense cover doesn't tend to make hacking or 6th sense too good. Just Warbands and Jammers; Warbands because their lack of long-range weapons ceases to become a problem, and Jammers because they can attack without being attacked back. Seriously, I see all these beautiful multi-level terrain pieces people make for Infinity... then realize they're completely unworkable because a Jammer hidden in the middle of them would be ridiculously overpowered.

    Remove Jammers from N4. Replace them with E/Marats. Done. Easy. It would make the game better and save room in the rulebook.
     
  8. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    625
    Likes Received:
    457
    dense cover makes that anyone can move more freely and safely, and then, those tools that don't need LoS seem more powerful. With fewer easy complete cover positions, is easier to hunt them from outside their ZoC or before they got to position
     
    oldGregg likes this.
  9. Gunmage

    Gunmage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    246
    I'd like to note that you'd have to waste half a dozen orders to get to that position. Current mission set does more to invalidate these structures than Jammers do - we have a bunch of these, and the only way to make people go beyond first floor is to put a critical objective higher up. The only units that use upper floors in usual games are either Climbing+ fast-movers (coughSphinxcough) or those that are able to deploy in them, and even then - it's all about the roof and the first floor, usually.
     
    oldGregg and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  10. colbrook

    colbrook Black Fryer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,662
    Likes Received:
    8,445
    If your opponent dodges you use a pistol or another gun to make it a F2F.

    The advantage of a DTW is that you're forcing your opponent to either choose dodge (which means they can't hurt you) or risk taking an automatic hit.

    Cheap warbands are too cheap, that is definitely a problem. Solve it by making them more expensive rather than making the Crane, Black Friar, Naffatun, and every other DTW user worse!
     
    #1170 colbrook, Oct 23, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2019
    Del S likes this.
  11. colbrook

    colbrook Black Fryer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,662
    Likes Received:
    8,445
    The other solution is to just make them more expensive, that solves the problem.
     
    Mahtamori and SpectralOwl like this.
  12. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,296
    Likes Received:
    7,864
    Very true, but on the other hand I don't think a nanopulser on Shinobu (etc) is worth much more than 1 point, she's way, way, too expensive to trade wounds using DTWs. Hybrid solution is to give expensive units that don't really want to make damage trades one subset of DTWs and pure chaff units that wants to make wound trades another more expensive subset of DTWs.
     
    theradrussian likes this.
  13. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    625
    Likes Received:
    457
    if the DTW is a primary weapon, then the price could be increased, but not in the secondary ones. I think that should be applied to all weapons in the game, not only DTW.
     
  14. SpectralOwl

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    901
    Or simply tax Warbands with DTWs the same way HI get stung for Infiltration or Camouflage.
    The Uhlan would appreciate this deeply.
     
    theradrussian and colbrook like this.
  15. colbrook

    colbrook Black Fryer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,662
    Likes Received:
    8,445
    Edit: looks like I was ninja'd a couple of times.

    Or use the solution I posited earlier, that's often been suggested for the shotgun tax problem too.

    BS weapons should have two costs, their cost as a "Primary" weapon, and their cost as a "Secondary" weapon.

    So a Warband with only a Chain Rifle or nanopulser pays 4-5 points for it (smoke grenades, pistols, knives, etc, are always secondary)

    But a Wu Ming, or Shinobu, or Naffatun, etc pay a discounted price of 1-2 points because they're already paying for a primary weapon.

    The same already seems to happen for troopers like Bolts who are paying less for their LSG than a Jaguar is, because already having a combi rifle means the LSG is worth less.
     
  16. Del S

    Del S Nomadball

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2017
    Messages:
    918
    Likes Received:
    2,078
    And I don't, such is life.


    There's sod all tournaments in my entire country let alone my local area to the point organising our own is probably the only way I'll reach one in the near future - the nearest event in the next year on the calendar is in Leeds and not so easy to reach since I don't drive and it's 250 miles away. Plus there's more to the game than the ITS scene, even if it's the lense you and CB mainly view it through. The difference is CB do seem to think of fun at times, rather than going for full competitive focus.



    If a fix is needed, then that's far more rational that upending the entire value in dtws
     
    #1176 Del S, Oct 23, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2019
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  17. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,731
    Likes Received:
    4,607
    The ITS scene is what the game should be balanced around, however, since it's where balance matters the most. Moreover, those of us who play it frequently often have insights about it; combined with the fact that people at CB have lost interest with the game and don't play it very often, it creates disconnect between different groups' perception of the game.



    Overall points costs need to be looked at more holistically. DTWs are great on cheap expendable troops and on durable troops, since you either don't care if you survive the unopposed retaliation or are likely to survive it. It's the mid-range troops who it should be cheaper on imo.
     
    theradrussian likes this.
  18. colbrook

    colbrook Black Fryer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,662
    Likes Received:
    8,445
    So we should increase the cost of the Crane, Hsien, Santiago Knight? I actually think they're pretty well costed at the moment.

    Edit: I don't think TAGs with DTWs need an increase either, or the EI aspects. Devas? Asuras? No, if anything they're a little costly.
     
    #1178 colbrook, Oct 23, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2019
  19. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,731
    Likes Received:
    4,607
    Yeah, the issue is that with dense cover it's easier to get a killer hacker near a hacker as well, so it makes hacking stronger but makes their counter stronger.
     
  20. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,731
    Likes Received:
    4,607
    The issue is that ARM is overcosted and the Hackable trait doesn't actually give a discount, so a lot of the troops you mention are more or less costed appropriately. I think Asuras are overcosted though. Some of these might have their costs adjusted, but IMO the DTW on, say, a TAG like the Guijia should make up more of its point cost than it does, but the overall points cost of the thing is not too high.
     
    theradrussian likes this.