Deller
Junior Strategist
I’m on a Boat
Posts: 605
|
Post by Deller on May 7, 2017 22:46:15 GMT
Couple things. 1) Still not sure why the myth is still being perpetuated that Cryx sucks at attrition. Satyxis may suck at attrition, but Ghost Fleet and Goreshade2 Infernal Machines are pretty brutal attritionwise. Deneghra1 Ghost Fleet is one of the most disgusting lists in SR2017 since her 9 Ghost Shot rifles & the Hellslinger Phantom can see right through the mandatory LoS blocking terrain in the middle of the board. 2) You clearly never frequented the old Protectorate boards if you think Greytemplar is Po the Barbarian. privateerpressforums.com/member.php?87120-Grey-Templar Greytemplar has been active in the Protectorate community for years under that name, & last I checked Po only played Cryx, Circle, & Trolls but I could be wrong there. No need to call people out like that especially when you clearly don't have all the facts and a simple search history of the PP boards can prove your accusation wrong. 3) After 3 weeks I've still yet to watch any game be won on scenario where the person losing didn't basically have their entire army killed. The two scenario victories I've seen have been because the person winning has played the entire game extremely safe from ahead. Most games that would be won on scenario never reach that point because the losing player just concedes once they can't see an assassination path.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on May 8, 2017 0:22:54 GMT
Couple things. 1) Still not sure why the myth is still being perpetuated that Cryx sucks at attrition. Satyxis may suck at attrition, but Ghost Fleet and Goreshade2 Infernal Machines are pretty brutal attritionwise. Deneghra1 Ghost Fleet is one of the most disgusting lists in SR2017 since her 9 Ghost Shot rifles & the Hellslinger Phantom can see right through the mandatory LoS blocking terrain in the middle of the board. 2) You clearly never frequented the old Protectorate boards if you think Greytemplar is Po the Barbarian. privateerpressforums.com/member.php?87120-Grey-Templar Greytemplar has been active in the Protectorate community for years under that name, & last I checked Po only played Cryx, Circle, & Trolls but I could be wrong there. No need to call people out like that especially when you clearly don't have all the facts and a simple search history of the PP boards can prove your accusation wrong. 3) After 3 weeks I've still yet to watch any game be won on scenario where the person losing didn't basically have their entire army killed. The two scenario victories I've seen have been because the person winning has played the entire game extremely safe from ahead. Most games that would be won on scenario never reach that point because the losing player just concedes once they can't see an assassination path. This. The like button does not portray how much I agree with all of this. Cryx us good at attrition and Denny 1 in ghost fleet (and probably the new bane theme) is absoluteley disgusting. Personal attacks are not cool wether you feel they are warranted or not. SR2017 "winning on scenario" is a joke. It doesn't happen unless: 1 Opponent is bad or makes bad mistakes, 2 Opponemt is dead to the point of not having any board presence. It's a mercy rule. It's not relevant and every game in SR2017 is the same meet in the middle and kill stuff dead.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on May 8, 2017 0:38:11 GMT
I assure you, I was not/am not Po the Barbarian. I am using the same handle I have for well over a decade. Given you can make such a colossal error like that, how can anybody take what you say seriously?
Nice attempt to personally attack me using something I didn't even say.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on May 8, 2017 0:45:44 GMT
It's a mercy rule. It's not relevant and every game in SR2017 is the same meet in the middle and kill stuff dead. Which is exactly why its a problem. The game, and by that I mean the factions in the game, have been built around the idea that scenario and/or assassination are the main win conditions. All games will boil down to a boring slugfest in the middle of the table. The difference between the scenarios are minor to none. This is boring, and lazy, game design. There isn't any depth to this because you're forcing every faction to use the same playstyle if they want to actually win. But the factions are not designed to do that. So we're gonna have a pretty awful mess on our hands.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 8, 2017 0:57:37 GMT
It's a mercy rule. It's not relevant and every game in SR2017 is the same meet in the middle and kill stuff dead. Which is exactly why its a problem. The game, and by that I mean the factions in the game, have been built around the idea that scenario and/or assassination are the main win conditions. Isn't that the core point of the game, the main marketing thing and the core of the game? Personally, as a guy who never plays for scenario and kinda finds it unfun, I always preferred a "Slugfest". As in actually having the stuff fight. I never mind loosing, but I always find a loss by scenario the most annoying and aggravating.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on May 8, 2017 1:04:51 GMT
Which is exactly why its a problem. The game, and by that I mean the factions in the game, have been built around the idea that scenario and/or assassination are the main win conditions. Isn't that the core point of the game, the main marketing thing and the core of the game? Personally, as a guy who never plays for scenario and kinda finds it unfun, I always preferred a "Slugfest". As in actually having the stuff fight. I never mind loosing, but I always find a loss by scenario the most annoying and aggravating. While I can't speak to your personal enjoyment, that sort of thing is not healthy for the game as it is currently designed. Not all factions can equally participate in a "slugfest". Circle Oboros is built around hit and run tactics. They're glass cannons. They cannot fight "fair" as it were. PP is wanting to basically make the game just a boxing match in the middle of the table. But some factions are little 120 lb feather weights while others are 300+ lb monsters. Factions which are designed around hit and run tactics or quickly scoring points and winning before the enemy can catch them cannot compete in this new scenario packet. Everybody has to play a boring grind-fest in the middle of the table when not everybody can do that equally. It's going to lead to most lists looking very similar, and using the same playstyles. The game will not have the variety it once did. Anybody who thinks that Mk2 scenarios didn't involve fighting is simply wrong. There was plenty of fighting. Its just that there were many different ways of fighting. SR17 is basically saying you can only use 1 type of fighting, and anything that can't do that way has to pack up and become a shelf warmer. To use an example that has been used previously, how do you expect Circle Oboros to deal with Karchev, 4-6 warjacks, and a unit of Ironfank Pikemen who are sitting in the middle of the table? They can easily contest all the zones and get and maintain that 1-2 point lead they need to win by the time the 7 turns are up. Warpwolves can't just get stuck in with those khador warjacks, they're very squishy and will just get pummeled. They can't use hit and run tactics because they'll give up the scenario and Khador will win by the so-called Mercy Rule. And they're never going to assassinate Karchev, he's about as unkillable as they come. Everybody is basically forced to play a jack/beast brick, or something that can kill a jack/beast brick, and then run it into your opponent's jack/beast brick. And whoever dies the least wins at the end of the game. There is no more tactical depth here. No being clever and pulling victory from the jaw's of defeat(unless you play an assassin caster, which again not everybody can do). The game is becoming mono-flavor. It's lost it's tactical depth. And all of the interesting attrition builds have been nerfed into the nothingness from Mk2.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 8, 2017 1:12:07 GMT
It's going to lead to most lists looking very similar, and using the same playstyles. The game will not have the variety it once did. Well that's interesting, but maybe there could be something different? An in-between state (Comprmise)? Personally, I hate Scenario sans its necessity to stop shooter lists from dominating. BUT, I understand that others don't. Maybe we could be constructive. I think first of all Scenarios Could benefit from being more...Fluffy? Call me a wierdo, but I think if they felt more like interacting with an actual world better scenarios could be designed that feel like real wins and losses.
|
|
|
Post by Swampmist on May 8, 2017 1:22:10 GMT
Not going to comment yet on the scenarios because I'm in the middle of finals papers, but I said at the beginning that if this thread escalated we would have issues. Big Fat, you went WAY too far, so I'm giving you a few days off. Defamation is actually a criminal offense, and sharing PMs is a big Buttmunch move. Come back later this week with a clear head, and understand that differing opinions do not make people evil. Cyel, your post about Grey was purely an attack and contributed literally nothing to the thread. Keep your cool next time and I won't have to talk to you again.
As I said at the beginning of this thread, this is a topic that very easily falls into attacks and aggression, and I do not have the time to deal with this nicely right now. If I have to so much as look at this thread in the next week, it's getting locked and I wiill not hesitate to put people in time-out.
In short, stop being buttmunches and learn to get along. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on May 8, 2017 1:23:04 GMT
The issue with fluffy scenarios is many. Fluffy scenarios usually involve some asymmetrical attributes, which makes balancing them hard to manage.
I personally think its better to make sacrifices for competitive play. Steamroller is supposed to be the competitive packet. Its not something for the fluffy bunnies to mess around with, they're not the target audience.
If you want fluffy scenarios, make some up yourself. But PP should focus on the competitive community since that is the main driver. And currently, SR17 is not up to competitive parity because its not being built around the factions. Its being built up around some fantasy that the Developers have about what they want the game to play like, not what the game actually needs to be a fair and competitive one.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 8, 2017 1:33:04 GMT
The issue with fluffy scenarios is many. Fluffy scenarios usually involve some asymmetrical attributes, which makes balancing them hard to manage. So don't make them asymmetrical. Even simple things like Capture the flag, king of the hill (Which ends up being most scenarios) feel better then stand in place. But competitive play dominates all other types of play and you know it. It's very much meta-bending. The core game isn't advertised as a stand in place and score points sort of game. Which may be a marketting issue but in that case, the number of players would be much, much smaller. It's sexy marketing awesome machines clashing against each other in a lively terrain. Its not going to attract much players if the draw is stand in place ontop of cardboard terrain. I mean X wing has that sorta deal, but its much easier to get into. We two have no control over the real developer's intentions, but lets imagine we did. How could we come to a compromise.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on May 8, 2017 1:52:37 GMT
I'm sorry, but how the hell is Capture the Flag or King of the Hill any different than what we have now?
Yes, competitive play dominates all the others. As it should. Fluffy play is, by its very nature, doomed to be relegated to the sidelines. People playing in garages or a local league of some kind. It's just not worth attention from the major competitive packet.
"Stand in place and score points" is a very poor description of Warmachine. That's not how I saw previous Mk2 steamroller. Mk2 steamroller was fighting over some vital points so you could score and get to the 5, or assassinate.
If anything, the current disaster of a Steamroller packet is more of the "stand in place and score points" because you have to do it longer. It lacks any decisive action or play outside of assassination, and that's boring.
I suppose we could go for slightly more narrative objectives like 40k uses. Where you place 6 markers on the table taking turns to place them and you get points for controlling them each turn. Something like the current 40k Maelstrom missions could be interesting. Those work by each faction having a Strategic objective deck, and each turn you draw some number of them. Each gives you a objective to do for some number of points. Like cast spells, kill a unit with shooting, kill X type of unit in melee, etc...
Those would definitely be more interesting.
I suppose you could have 6 scenarios for setting up the objectives. Perhaps each mission would have the same number of elements, their location would be different.
So say each mission would have 3 Flags, 1 round zone, and 2 square zones. As well as 1 objective. Objectives would be placed by their owner anywhere on his own table side. This would make objectives more reliable since they'd always be present.
Then each of the 6 missions would have a different arrangement of the flags and zones. Each faction would have an official Mission deck that would be used each turn.
So say turn 1, you draw up to 6 mission cards. When a mission card was achieved, the points would be scored, and the card discarded. Then the next turn, the player would draw up to 5 mission cards, replacing any that were used. Till eventually you would be down to only 1 card each turn. Game would end when the players reached a certain number of points, assassination, or deathclock.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 8, 2017 1:54:20 GMT
I'm sorry, but how the hell is Capture the Flag or King of the Hill any different than what we have now? Its effectively 1 Singular scenario. King of the hill, done over and over in different flavors. So what your saying is that your unwilling to compromise. Alright.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on May 8, 2017 2:03:52 GMT
You obviously didn't read the rest of my post. I showed a possible way to maybe make more fluffy scenarios, but its going to be a very difficult thing to do. Its possible, but it's likely not worth the effort.
Fluffy scenarios might be fun, but that is secondary to having a competitive tournament packet. Competitive gaming requires the rules and win conditions to be precise and clear, as well as balanced across all the spectrum. That has to take precedence over any fluff considerations if you actually care about the integrity of your ruleset.
If people want to play fluffy scenarios, they should make their own. Don't demand that PP make them for you. They need to do their best to make the game as balanced as possible. Distracting them with narrative things will only result in them failing to do the important stuff.
Plus, if the game is fair, competitive, and as balanced as possible, that is the best possible result for everybody. Competitive and part timer players alike.
|
|
skormedlover87
Junior Strategist
Desperately searching for days off to game...
Posts: 517
|
Post by skormedlover87 on May 8, 2017 2:04:47 GMT
What about opening the door to instant win options? A scenario or 2 that include a flag in enemy deployment zone that, if dominated, instantly wins the game. A rule that increases the "mercy" conditions to up by six OR score 4 points in a turn. Also there are plenty of ways to make the scenarios more interesting and less symmetrical. Rolling for board side can also determine "offensive and defensive" rolls.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on May 8, 2017 2:12:29 GMT
As I've said before, we could really fix the current problems simply by dropping the amount needed to win. Even just 4-5 instead of 6 would be enough to even the playing field. Remember, its still 4-5 points MORE than the enemy. Not 4-5 points total. So as long as your opponent can score some points, he's not going to instantly lose the game.
Attacker and Defender scenarios can work, but again that's something that really leads to balance problems. Just trying to make sure both side's win conditions are both equal and different is tough. Is "surviving for 7 turns" really equally challenging as "kill the enemy caster"?
|
|