|
Post by Azuresun on Apr 22, 2017 22:59:04 GMT
Eh, I prefer it to the old system, but premeasuring hasn't been an unalloyed positive. It doesn't feel like guns were adjusted for being able to hang right on the edge of their range or never missing a chance to aim. And really, I don't see how you can really escape "plot out your whole turn in proxies" as a logical endpoint of unlimited premeasuring. I find it's been interesting how different gaming communities approach pre measuring. When pre measuring was introduced in 40k most people used it to make sure they were in range to shoot, or to ensure that they were safe from extreme charge ranges. There didn't seem to be this pre measuring to the nth degree. I think that this was not the intention of the game designers. Precise distances tend to be less important in 40K--charges are random, lots of weapons have cross-board ranges, and units often have very high speed. Likewise in Malifaux, you're typically controlling ten dudes at most, and the scenarios encourage splitting up, so you don't need to carefully coordinate the exact position of everything. In WM, almost no movement is random, fractions of an inch can be the decider between "in range and charged / shot off the board" and "100% safe", and movement requires extreme precision when a colossal's charge can be stopped if it clips a swamp gobber. Of course people are going to do whatever is necessary to get their distances EXACTLY right.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Apr 23, 2017 0:59:28 GMT
Ok, I just gotta say one thing. Scoring sucks so far in this scenario packet. Its basically impossible to win on scenario. We need to eliminate the turn limit and the win margin because needing to score 6 more points than the opponent in only 7 turns is not happening. The scenario has basically become almost irrelevant. I think that's what they wanted. Death clock will almost never allow a game to go to turn 7. You are really just playing a game of assasination with points thrown in now. Scenario is only relevant if your opponent allows it to be. Every game I've played so far has pretty much just been trying to pull off an assasination. No scenario pressure at all. At least in SR 2016 even though most games were decided by assasination scenario was an incredibly relevant and active win condition. Now it's just one of those things that's there but never really comes up. I'm not very happy with that but I've always loved playing for scenario so that's probably just me. Which is really REALLY bad for the game. Turning it into a game of assassination really messes up the balance. Scenario should be a viable method of victory. Oh, and Deathclock absolutely will allow for games to go well beyond turn 7. Most typical Deathclock games are roughly 3 minutes for turn 1, maybe 5-7 for turn 2. Turn 3 is usually when you go into the tank for 15 or so minutes. Turn 4 might also see a tank turn. So 15 or so minutes again, but this could easily be less. You could have a game where you're still jockying around, or its a list that doesn't eat up much time. You have used 40 minutes of your 60 minute deathclock. But at this point, game turns are quite short simply because of how few models will still be alive at this point. And if the game isn't over yet, its become a very close game. The game is too assassination focused right now. The Scenario victory should be easier to get than needing a 6 point lead. It just kills any relevance for scenario. It tilts the game too hard towards advantaging assassin casters because control casters no longer have any ability to end the game on scenario before the assassins are going to have a kill shot on you. It also benefits the assassins because they are not forced to commit before they have that assassination run on the enemy caster because they're never going to lose as long as they can keep the score gap less than 6.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Apr 23, 2017 9:10:33 GMT
I'm just not seeing this 'proxy the entire turn' behavior in the dozens of games I played nor in the dozens I watched. But I very much appreciate being allowed to go 'Makeda will end up here, Krea will end up here, now lets make sure I put everything within 10" of the former and 3" of the latter'. I don't appreciate them putting a limit on premeasuring, especially because it's ANOTHER unnecessary rule to explain to new players. But if they absolutely 100% cannot let go of it, the current limit is too low. 3 should be mostly alright. Regardless though, this really is a solution in search of a problem that creates more problems as it goes.
The 'lead by 6' clause on the scenarios seems a bit too high, maybe 5 would be better. But this will require a LOT of testing.
I'm curious about that. Are there battle-reports reflecting this advantage of assassination? While I agree with you that the focus of the game has been shifted I doubt it has been completely flipped. Most assassinations I am used to seeing are due to one side having to commit their caster due to attrition/scenario disadvantage.
|
|
gdnerd
Junior Strategist
Posts: 656
|
Post by gdnerd on Apr 23, 2017 9:22:34 GMT
I have yet to see a batrep in the CID forums that ends on scenario or turns.
Edit: Went back and checked - exactly ONE ended on scenario. All the others were assassination or just flat calling it.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Apr 23, 2017 12:06:06 GMT
Ok, I just gotta say one thing. Scoring sucks so far in this scenario packet. Its basically impossible to win on scenario. We need to eliminate the turn limit and the win margin because needing to score 6 more points than the opponent in only 7 turns is not happening. The scenario has basically become almost irrelevant. Damn, I wish PP didn't even mention this ADDITIONAL, CORNER CASE, MERCY rule because everybody seems to obsess about it as if it were the thing you plan and play for and the main way to win on scenario. No. It isn't. It's going to happen once every now and then when you have matchup, skill and dice work in your favour. But the majority of wins is expected to be regular 7turn "see who has more CP" fight. Really guys, please, just forget this EXTRA, SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES rule exists. It doesn't make scenarios good or bad because it's just a corner case, rare exception for one game in ten. (for more heads banging into the wall on that matter check cid.privateerpress.com/forum/theorycrafting-listbuilding/7958-cp-s-is-win-by-6-too-much ) If there is something that needs adjustments is the time/turn limit ratio not the win conditions, they are ok. And the fact that a corner case rule doesn't see play often shouldn't really surprise anyone.
|
|
Deller
Junior Strategist
I’m on a Boat
Posts: 605
|
Post by Deller on Apr 23, 2017 12:47:44 GMT
Ok, I just gotta say one thing. Scoring sucks so far in this scenario packet. Its basically impossible to win on scenario. We need to eliminate the turn limit and the win margin because needing to score 6 more points than the opponent in only 7 turns is not happening. The scenario has basically become almost irrelevant. Damn, I wish PP didn't even mention this ADDITIONAL, CORNER CASE, MERCY rule because everybody seems to obsess about it as if it were the thing you plan and play for and the main way to win on scenario. No. It isn't. It's going to happen once every now and then when you have matchup, skill and dice work in your favour. But the majority of wins is expected to be regular 7turn "see who has more CP" fight. Really guys, please, just forget this EXTRA, SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES rule exists. It doesn't make scenarios good or bad because it's just a corner case, rare exception for one game in ten. (for more heads banging into the wall on that matter check cid.privateerpress.com/forum/theorycrafting-listbuilding/7958-cp-s-is-win-by-6-too-much ) If there is something that needs adjustments is the time/turn limit ratio not the win conditions, they are ok. And the fact that a corner case rule doesn't see play often shouldn't really surprise anyone. I have a major problem with your assessment. Before PP nuked the forums the big thing people were so negatively complaining about was random game length. PP's response to the complaints (I sadly can't source this since the forums were nuked*) were along the lines of "don't worry, games lasting that long are rare, and the rule rarely comes up". So people complained more about "why have a rule if the situation is so rare?" Now you're here telling me the exact opposite. The game ending on turn 7 "see who has more CP" is suppose to be the expected majority of wins. So which is is? Is the turn limit just in place so games don't last forever like PP has stated quite a few times, or are they the expected normal game end? *http:// museonminis.com/forums/index.php?topic=6080.0
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Apr 23, 2017 13:10:10 GMT
I think you are right in a way - the optimal ratio of Deatclock time / game turns / convincing win requirement is yet to be found and I don't think either we or designers know the best balance here. I wouldn't see those things in CID as set in stone or "mistakes" as they are in the process of being tested.
I just comment that testing with the specific purpose of finding out if the 6CP advantage is a valid win condition is going to be flawed as it is by definition a corner case scenario and is going to be in play rarely. That's why I said PP shouldn't have even mentioned it because people seem to put far too much focus on what is supposed to be a rare, special circumstance scenario while mostly ignorig the default scenario win conditions.
|
|
Provengreil
Junior Strategist
Choir Kills: 12
Posts: 850
|
Post by Provengreil on Apr 23, 2017 13:25:33 GMT
Eh, I prefer it to the old system, but premeasuring hasn't been an unalloyed positive. It doesn't feel like guns were adjusted for being able to hang right on the edge of their range or never missing a chance to aim. And really, I don't see how you can really escape "plot out your whole turn in proxies" as a logical endpoint of unlimited premeasuring. I find it's been interesting how different gaming communities approach pre measuring. When pre measuring was introduced in 40k most people used it to make sure they were in range to shoot, or to ensure that they were safe from extreme charge ranges. There didn't seem to be this pre measuring to the nth degree. I think that this was not the intention of the game designers. If my opponents could shoot some of their bigger guns clear across the diagonal of the board, given LOS, I probably wouldn't be as careful with premeasuring either. 40K includes guns with ranges of 60 and 48 inches, zooming flyers travel like 24 and then shoot from there, and the deathstrike notably has no maximum range. at all. It's very different scenarios.
|
|
Deller
Junior Strategist
I’m on a Boat
Posts: 605
|
Post by Deller on Apr 23, 2017 13:47:18 GMT
I think you are right in a way - the optimal ratio of Deatclock time / game turns / convincing win requirement is yet to be found and I don't think either we or designers know the best balance here. I wouldn't see those things in CID as set in stone or "mistakes" as they are in the process of being tested. I just comment that testing with the specific purpose of finding out if the 6CP advantage is a valid win condition is going to be flawed as it is by definition a corner case scenario and is going to be in play rarely. That's why I said PP shouldn't have even mentioned it because people seem to put far too much focus on what is supposed to be a rare, special circumstance scenario while mostly ignorig the default scenario win conditions. I don't think it is a corner case scenario though. Two months ago games ending by game length was a corner case scenario, as according to Pagani games only made it to the end of turn 5 twice during initial testing. That would suggest victories normally occurred due to assassination, scoring 6 CP more, or tabling the opponent. I have seen no evidence from Privateer Press that the 6CP win condition is suppose to be corner case. If going to turn 7 is corner case (something PP has stated), and getting a 6CP advantage is corner case, what's the point of playing on scenario? At that point the only avenues to victory are assassination & attrition. Congratulations, how do you beat: Karchev 10 Marauder Max Battle Mechanics 2 Greylord Forge Seer Widowmaker Marksman War Dog What list can hope to simply out attrition that? Who's reliably assassinating Karchev? How does that list that beats Karchev then deal with Karchev's pair of sac pawning Vlad1 all the rockets? Currently with the new SR scenario is not live at all for the most part. It's completely ignorable from what I've seen. I can go in with Deneghra1 Ghost Fleet and just attrition you down ignoring scenario for the first 4-5 turns of the game, and pick up all the points I need to get ahead on turns 6&7 assuming I haven't gone for assassination yet. Haley3 can just send Echos to contest elements as she has her gunline sit back and annihilate the opponent's force as they run to close in. She has absolutely no reason to bring the bulk of her army forward. Conceding 3-4 Control points early game doesn't matter anymore since as long as you pick up 1-2 it's going to take your opponent 7-8 to win. When it only took 5 points to win, giving up that early lead is dangerous because your opponent can always make a Hail Mary attempt at scoring the last point or two they need and steal the win. Now it's basically impossible to win on scenario once you're behind on attrition. Playing for scenario is currently a losing plan. It simply doesn't work with existing lists. All it takes to break SR 2017 is a list built for attrition led by a caster who's difficult to assassinate. Factions like Legion that are poor at the attrition game are going to suffer, and factions like Khador are going to run rampant. I'm not looking forward to being forced to play the attrition game into Khador.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Apr 23, 2017 14:26:09 GMT
Well, maybe that's the point. To have some actual fight in a WARgame instead of some telekinesis/slam/push/control feat hocus-pocus when someone loses without getting to attack and someone wins without having to actually kill anyone.
|
|
Deller
Junior Strategist
I’m on a Boat
Posts: 605
|
Post by Deller on Apr 23, 2017 14:53:18 GMT
Well, maybe that's the point. To have some actual fight in a WARgame instead of some telekinesis/slam/push/control feat hocus-pocus when someone loses without getting to attack and someone wins without having to actually kill anyone. Then Khador needs to get nerfed into the ground, because most factions can't win a fair fight against them and telekinesis/slam/control elements are their only real path to victory vs nonsense like Karchev. I would much rather scenario just be winnable and not have to give half of Khador the Mad Dog treatment because PP decided to make the faction's greatest weakness garbage.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Apr 23, 2017 15:56:32 GMT
Indeed.
PP already tried to make the game a pure brawl type game. They introduced Steamroller because that did not work. Scenario victory to end the game then and there needs to be realistically achievable. Otherwise, you put too much advantage on assassination and stand-off gunlines.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Apr 23, 2017 15:59:00 GMT
Well, maybe that's the point. To have some l fight in a WARgame instead of some telekinesis/slam/push/control feat hocus-pocus when someone loses without getting to attack and someone wins without having to actually kill anyone. Good thing that never ever really happened except with 2Una and Denny, and both were promptly nerfed or had the entire steamroller changed with her in mind. I'm not saying we should make scenario as easy as it was to win in mk2, but that the margin should be lowered to something reasonable like 4. Not the impossibility of 6.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Apr 23, 2017 16:01:47 GMT
Then Khador needs to get nerfed into the ground, because most factions can't win a fair fight against them and telekinesis/slam/control elements are their only real path to victory vs nonsense like Karchev. I would much rather scenario just be winnable and not have to give half of Khador the Mad Dog treatment because PP decided to make the faction's greatest weakness garbage. I am personally more interested in a fight then in just scoring points, but I see that as true. 9/10 CID Battles with Khador has Khador Winning. And through different flavors. Infantry, Jack, the like. But I don't want the game just about scoring points, its my least favorite aspect, but I don't know what the game should do then sans really requiring a hard evaluation of every faction. Making the game less about just "Stand In place" machine would require no less then a MKIV
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Apr 23, 2017 16:48:08 GMT
I'm not saying we should make scenario as easy as it was to win in mk2, but that the margin should be lowered to something reasonable like 4. Not the impossibility of 6. [sigh] But the margin of victory isn't 6. It is ONE MORE. On last turn. Forget this 6CPs rule. It's an add on. To be rarely used. Don't know how many more times it needs repeating to stick.
|
|