Answer me this, what makes every other faction better at hacking than PanO and better at standing to Nomads, because it looks like PanO has more tools than most in the hacking department, a surprise really...
And it's also worth noting that 1) there are plenty of PanO players in this same thread who say they've no issue and rather enjoy PanO's style 2) a good majority of the complaining seems to be coming from folks who are, at best, tangentially attached to PanO and 3) several other social media channels are rife with praise for and folks enjoying playing PanO. Again, if you don't like the tools PanO has available for Task X, then, well, does the fault lie with PanO and CB for letting you down, or you for trying to beat a square peg into a round hole?
I can understand many of the discussions and concerns but some baseline must be reached, to my surprise given I did not care much up to this discussion, as I said above PanO and the sectorials are quite well equipped with tools for hacking, more so than other factions so my question remains, why they are fine and PanO is not?
@psychoticstorm I was just taking your comment about midfield terrain, and following it to it's logical conclusion. If you should avoid putting the highest elevation in the midfield, and you shouldn't place it in the DZ, then where do you expect it to be placed? Is this the satellite event you're talking about? Even if it isn't, it shows more "typical" tournament layouts. All physical, no TTS. I can't even count the number of places to safely hide hackers and repeaters on these tables. https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/tournament-tables-from-recent-satellite-event.41955/ Why do you so lightly disregard the TTS community? If there is a difference between the TTS meta and the in-store meta, it's because the TTS meta is developed by more people playing more frequently. It's like MtG in the days of old, before online. It would take months to develop a meta after a new release; then with the introduction of MtGO the rate of gameplay exploded. Subsequently, formats became "solved" within weeks of a new set. The same thing is happening to Infinity because of TTS, the meta is being "solved," and the solution is GML hacking lists. I really don't know why you keep saying it either. No one is disagreeing with the point that table layout has significant impact on the game, we are all on the same page there. It doesn't address the issue. It is practically impossible to set up a table that does not inherently favor a hacking game plan.
Let’s flip the script. Take the core of the argument. Why don’t more non-PanO factions engage in shooting against PanO….I wonder why they may not do that…
Or why, when they do try and shoot PanO, do they leverage other tools to make it happen? I mean, why don’t other factions just rush Bolt Cores? They should have the tools too, right? Or pre-revamp Kamau MSRs. After all, they’re supposed to be able to beat it at its own game in its own space, ¿no?
Ok, for Neoterra, maybe. But I already outlined how it doesn't really matter what you pay, because you basically gain nothing for including the hacker. Considering it's being moved to "it's your fault for including terrain that lets Morans and hackers hide" don't throw stones.
What tables do you play on, then? I'm guessing that, until we see an actual picture of them, they will be some mysterious configuration that always allows PanO players to attack enemy hackers in the enemy DZ and kill enemy Morans. No, we cannot conclude that. You're trying to explain away a balance fail on the part of the design team. Given that we've established you need a protractor and ruler to do as you say in this thread, have you ever seen a TO do that?
I do all the time. Because my shooting tools are as good or better than PanO's, besides a few specific pieces that note every PanO sectorial has access to.
The fault lies with CB, emphatically, and if you weren't a submissive-authoritarian disposition and an inveterate liar you'd admit that.
You say that it's the players' fault when you have to engineer incredibly specific terrain layouts that are unfamiliar to most of the playerbase to allow actually attacking things like Moran nets. You should cop to what you're actually saying.
TTS communities are generally prone to an unhealthy degree of group think and general lack of innovation. This is often pushed vocally by some quiet frankly crap statistical arguments which have the appearance of professionalism but wouldn't pass peer review. This isn't to call out infinity specifically either, it's a general problem across multiple wargames.
Uhhh...PanO gets out shot all the time. There are tons of units across the game that are equal shooters to PanO. What the hell are you even talking about Mao? I really want to know what kind of meta you play in. Same goes for Psychoticstorm, I would love to see some lists out of your meta. It could just be drastically different, full of wide open tables and that would help people understand what is going on.
That's interesting, I'm not sure I've witnessed that. But I'm only a lurker in the TTS community, so maybe you're right. I don't think its reason enough to ignore the meta, though. A community of noninnovative group-thinkers can be hard to distinguish from a community that's just playing in a solved meta.
I think you reach weird logical conclusions. I do not disregard TTS community, TTS gameplay is an entirely different beast, it has its own advantages, disadvantages and quirks that are not relatable to a non digital gaming experience, simply the fact that a game table can be reliably recreated and therefore players can know what game tables they will fight in, including and not limited to knowing the precise distances, places the TTS in another league, the fact we had to figure out for months why there were complains about putting in the FAQ if players are allowed to use the Infinity army to figure out their opponents list or not, only to find out that it was a TTS complain because of the length turns take there... Ultimately TTS is yet another local meta with all the quirks, group think and conformity local communities experience, a far bigger local meta than most but a local meta, shaped by its terrain and players, never the less. Local tables, they are not bad, definitely so far we have not managed to create a mid field castle that is unassailable from any direction or boxed in deployment zones that are impervious from intrusions. How is bad terrain placement a failure of the design team? ? Ok then, give me a report on how factions with less tools in their hackers and definitely less ways to forward their repeater network than PanOceania are better than PanOceania especially against the top tier factions? The whole terrain discussion started because you claimed the terrain makes hackers and forward repeaters impossible to touch, most of us assumed you can maneuver to a place you can at least shoot them, preferably out of hacking range.
