1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What if... sectorial unique profiles

Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by Mahtamori, Dec 27, 2021.

  1. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Yeah, and that's important to have vanilla be balanced. It shouldn't just be able to pick the best units from every sectorial with no downsides.
     
  2. Willen

    Willen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    735
    TacAware is a different beast, I am talking more about what we call "Command Skills" more common within a Sectorial.

    For example, I play IA. Having the NCO HMG HacTao only available in the sectorial would be a small wrinkle that would make the sectorial more unique without sacrificing anything super relevant in vanilla. Giving CJC access to a Sectorial-only Intruder Lt would also be good and defining for the sectorial, while not that relevant for Vainilla Nomads who have other good Lts. Same with making IDK, all wildcats gain NCO in CJC?

    I am not talking about taking tools away from vanilla, but making Sectorials more unique through the command structure while perhaps toning down the current wildcard-full link bonuses situation. One or two different options in the Command Skills relevant only to the Sectorial would be great!

    Other idea is to make certain units only Regular in the Sectorial and not the generic Army. Back to Nomads, what if Zeros and Bandit would be irregular in Vainilla but regular in their sectorials? TBH I think there are just more aspects to explore than just "link bonuses and wildcard combinations" and variable AVA, without the need of creating specific profiles that will then have reduced sales (since you can use them in a sectorial only and not vanilla for example).
     
    Ugin, WiT?, Kreslack and 1 other person like this.
  3. Elric of Grans

    Elric of Grans Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    341
    The obvious issue with this particular example is that it would make all Wildcats more expensive, likely pricing them out of use. Why would you take a Wildcat if an Evader were significantly cheaper? Without NCO, Wildcat Boarding Shotgun is already 24pts vs Evaders 23. This would especially hurt them given not all profiles would particularly benefit from NCO. NCO on the Spitfire? Amazing! NCO on the Combi Rifle? Not so much. I think NCO works much better when placed strategically on appropriate profiles, not so much when given out willy-nilly (see: Reverend Moiras).

    Turning Irregular units Regular also has a similar potential pitfall. A Bandit is currently excellent value for points. If it became Regular and jumped up to, say, 35 points for the Killer Hacker Device profile... not so much.
     
  4. Willen

    Willen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    735
    I think you are missing the forest by looking at a particular tree. Internal balance needs to be looked at, yes. I can go at lengths about CJC, that that is not the point.
     
    Ugin likes this.
  5. Alfy

    Alfy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    484
    Well, I understand the gameplay concerns, but lore-wise, I think that’s exactly what it should be able to do. On top of that, I’ve always found it a great way to slowly diversify my played armies for little, or at least incremental, cost: I can get a few models here and there and play them in my vanilla army until I have enough to switch to a sectorial.

    But that’s because I play casual, optimizing my lists is not a big concern. In fact, I may be too casual for this conversation, but my understanding is that sectorials build their competitiveness from: fireteams, increased availability for certain units, access to different profiles. I think that if we’ll thought out, the latter two should be able to bridge the gap without the need for exclusive units. In fact, wouldn’t just playing around with the specific profiles available to vanilla and sectorials address your issue of vanilla having access to the “best units”?
     
    Abrilete likes this.
  6. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    No, not really, and the entitlement of players who think that they deserve an unfair advantage for having a collection wide enough to run vanilla effectively is telling.

    The problem is the "increased availability for certain units" doesn't matter if vanilla has high enough availability for all of its needs anyway. Vanilla needs to be curtailed to the point where vanilla players feel it and actually have to make meaningful choices about what's in their list; this means that honestly a lot of units should be AVA 1 in vanilla, in particular most midfielders.
     
    Willen, Stiopa and Elric of Grans like this.
  7. Alfy

    Alfy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    484
    That... Is such a weird thing top say, especially to someone who just told you they played casually and merely mentioned a way to build their collection gradually without having to buy an entire sectorial in one go... There seems to be some strong negative emotions mixed in with the logic here.

    A general rule of thumb of AVA 1 seems like a fine idea to me. And if the profiles available to vanilla are also a bit more limited, as long as it balances things out, it certainly seems fine as well. But then I'm more interested in various factions and sectorial displaying significant differences than anything related to raw power, so I'm probably more open to have things nerfed than most here.

    I'm just saying avoiding units being specific to sectorial does seem important to me. In part due to the aforementioned advantage of being able to build up gradually, but also because otherwise, vanilla is just another sectorial, with access to only its own specific list of units. Which wouldn't be a big catastrophe but would homogenise things even more.
     
    csjarrat, RolandTHTG and Mahtamori like this.
  8. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    No, vanilla not having restrictions on what it can take homogenizes factions between each other. If every vanilla faction has camo midfielders, good gunfighters, etc, then there's no value to one or the other.
     
  9. SpectralOwl

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,891
    Likes Received:
    3,130
    There were enough differences in the past, and both PanO and Ariadna still have some very strong limitations and internally-competitive Sectorials. Factions like CA and (especially) Nomads with massive rosters and no hard rules against having certain capabilities have bloated out too far in recent years though in order to provide something new and worth buying to each faction, and could probably use some effort to distinguish them again.
     
    Silas7, Mahtamori and Abrilete like this.
  10. Brokenwolf

    Brokenwolf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2019
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1,832
    Can someone point to any data that supports the belief that Vanilla Factions are overperforming versus sectorials? I keep seeing all this digital ink spilled that vanilla is better, but has that ever been validated against the ITS results?
     
    Abrilete and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  11. Alfy

    Alfy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    484
    I guess the issue arises when trying to design different sectorials, giving each a comparative advantage that all end up in vanilla.

    But then again, can't that be solved by limiting the profiles vanilla has access to? I mean not just limiting the number of profiles, but downgrading some of the profiles themselves? Theme-wise, a unit operating outside of its sectorial is not as efficient. Up to now, the ethos has been that those units are MORE efficient within their sectorial ("they're used to work together, so fireteams"), but I don't see why it couldn't be the other way around.

    Then vanilla factions would still have access to all the pieces, but depending on what you tweak, you can create contrast between factions. Then everyone might very well have access to a camo midfielder, just not necessarily a good one.

    Anyways, just my two cents.
     
  12. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    5,888
    Likes Received:
    11,260
    It is mainly based on global ITS results (plus past campaign results and non ITS tournaments), were "Vanilla" factions fare quite well on the aggregated statistics, given the global situation recent data is more difficult to find than in the past years, but there are still out there.
     
    Hecaton and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  13. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Yeah. As an example, Morans should be AVA 1 in vanilla Nomads.
     
  14. Weathercock

    Weathercock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2018
    Messages:
    1,279
    Likes Received:
    1,936
    White Banner is criminally bad for this. Most of its notable pieces have more than enough AVA on their profiles in vanilla to get rid of most of the sectorial's perks. Guilangs, Hundun, Long Ya all should probably be AVA 1.

    But there are a lot of sectorials like that.
     
  15. WiT?

    WiT? Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,025
    Likes Received:
    1,408
    I don't think ITS stats are the be-all-end-all. If a faction is 'winning events' that is not the same as that faction being "well designed". I totally agree that vanilla tends to get the better of sectorials in terms of army composition, in that it can usually take whatever number of a profile that it wants and that sectorial typically gets a useless or meme AVA increase like the 5th Daturazi or the 5th droptrooper respectively.

    If we look at CA as an example, because they do a mixture of good and bad AVA changes. They get;

    Meaningful AVA changes
    • 1 Caliban vs 3 in SEF - this is a premium unit with different premium loadouts (only CoC, amazing combat engineer, and a solid spitfire) that CA vanilla must choose between but SEF gets all of them. Many normal lists would want 2 if possible.
    • 1 Speculo vs 2 in SEF with unique loadout - most people would take 1 or 0, but the skew is only available to SEF
    • 1 Noctifer vs 3 in SEF - many lists want one, but the skew is only available to SEF
    • Q Drone is 1 in vanilla vs 2 in SEF - sometimes a list wants 1, but having 2 is a real asset given how it is above the TR bot curve
    • Shrouded is 2 in vanilla vs 4 in SEF - lists want 0-2 normally and 3+ in camospam, CA gets all normal utility but not enough for full camo list
    • 1 Seed Soldier vs 4 in SEF - sometimes a list wants 1 but often 0, the added AVA is useful for camospam in SEF
    Meaningful LT changes
    • Mentor LT is 1 SWC in vanilla vs 0 in SEF - vanilla is forced to spend SWC or big points on its LT and the sectorials are not.
    • Kornak is useless in vanilla but a Strategos +1 order LT in MAF - ties into LT flexibility in sectorials
    Maximum desired AVA for useful units in vanilla, sectorial gets meaningless or even memeworthy changes
    • Rasyat is AVA 1 in vanilla, but 3 in MAF
    • Grief is 1 in vanilla and 1 in Onyx
    • Taigha creatures are AVA 4 in vanilla but AVA 8 in SEF. Most lists want between 1 and 4 of these, and vanilla can take the maximum feasible spam number.
    • Daturazi are AVA 4 in vanilla and 5 in sectorial, with a core link and no haris.
    Imagine if we mixed in some more profile changes there. Like Rasyat only getting deployment zone parachutist in MAF, or only getting his spitfire profile in MAF. Datz and Taighas being AVA 1 or 2 in vanilla and a million in sectorial. Delete NCO factionwide in vanilla (EI inflexible command structure seems to be a thing) and apply it more liberally in sectorial. More changes like that would make the different armies use the same miniatures but feel much more meaningfully different.

    Hecaton is always negative. Ignore it and don't take it seriously.
     
    #35 WiT?, Jan 11, 2022
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2022
    wuji, Abrilete, Willen and 2 others like this.
  16. WiT?

    WiT? Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,025
    Likes Received:
    1,408
    It's easy enough to build profile options. Give access to Bandits as-is in both factions and Regular versions for higher cost in sectorial only.
     
  17. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    1,982
    If you think vanilla has too many options, reducing the AVA on individual troop profiles is bailing water using a leaky thimble. If you don’t have grouped AVA limits, next year’s new sectorial undoes whatever progress you make.

    Of course, the problem with grouped limits is that the complexity is going to rival the fireteam (and wildcard) charts.
     
    QueensGambit, toadchild and Mahtamori like this.
  18. csjarrat

    csjarrat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,741
    Likes Received:
    1,844
    Infinity is too big. Been saying for years there's just too many units and factions. It needs a good cull of options and a proper balance pass
     
    Gwynbleidd and Mahtamori like this.
  19. Gwynbleidd

    Gwynbleidd Non asto coram malo

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2021
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    1,330
    Hmm… Agree and disagree at the same time. It needs a cull done correctly else it could end up bland. There’s the risk of making it like dropzone commander (excellent game but too few factions) or if it’s allowed to grow exponentially then it runs the risk of 40K syndrome with far too many factions and options available. There must be a happy medium with the right balance of factions and options. I feel that this can be achieved but it will take time.
     
    Stiopa likes this.
  20. csjarrat

    csjarrat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,741
    Likes Received:
    1,844
    Yeah for sure. It would be highly controversial and would infuriate a good number of folk on here and Facebook groups let alone the wider player base but it's getting unmanageable and even this long after an edition change, we've still got patched forces with lick-and-a-spit updates to n4 rather than meaningfully balanced updates. Leaves the overall game looking untidy and effectively brings in a tier system of forces whilst making vanilla a daunting mess for new players to even find a starting point of list building.
    Na2 imho was a solution in need of a problem.
    There wasn't really a demand for it from the player base, and if there was a bit of love for a druze force after the manga, there was certainly no call for the deluge of na2 sectoral and associated merc/KS waves that ended up spread across the rest of the game
     
    Elric of Grans and Gwynbleidd like this.
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation