|
Post by W0lfBane on May 8, 2017 3:19:48 GMT
I believe that pp believes that the scenarios they have been using for the longest time have become stale and they need something new. I think before we can really continue this conversation about how we can move forward in the future with scenarios i think we need to look at examples. We're all familiar with sr16 and how it worked. I suggest you guys look up dropzone commander and the tournament packet they have. Most of those scenarios ate very balanced and I've mostly been pleased with then. The only time I've felt shit out of luck in scenario is when a certain faction is overall more competent at denying me certain scenario elements. All of then also have a little fluffy description in their original books that could help people get into the mood of it. I feel like that can show us different ways that one can score points. (Objectives,intel,critical locations ,focal points) and i feel future version of steamroller can benefit from having different ways to score. (This thing can only be scored at the end of the game, this one gets scored every turn, first one to get here scores a bonus point) Also the original books had extra fluffy assymetric scerarios with attackers and defenders. In my opinion pp can benefit from releasing a less competitive packet that has more fluffy scenarios. Assymetric ones for people that want to run such tournaments. Unfortunately i don't know any other games that have well balanced tournament scenerarios that we can look at for further inspiration.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on May 8, 2017 3:30:58 GMT
Man, I turn up to a thread full of arguments and I've been slagged off without even being here. Classy.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on May 8, 2017 3:34:15 GMT
I believe that pp believes that the scenarios they have been using for the longest time have become stale and they need something new. I think before we can really continue this conversation about how we can move forward in the future with scenarios i think we need to look at examples. We're all familiar with sr16 and how it worked. I suggest you guys look up dropzone commander and the tournament packet they have. Most of those scenarios ate very balanced and I've mostly been pleased with then. The only time I've felt shit out of luck in scenario is when a certain faction is overall more competent at denying me certain scenario elements. All of then also have a little fluffy description in their original books that could help people get into the mood of it. I feel like that can show us different ways that one can score points. (Objectives,intel,critical locations ,focal points) and i feel future version of steamroller can benefit from having different ways to score. (This thing can only be scored at the end of the game, this one gets scored every turn, first one to get here scores a bonus point) Also the original books had extra fluffy assymetric scerarios with attackers and defenders. In my opinion pp can benefit from releasing a less competitive packet that has more fluffy scenarios. Assymetric ones for people that want to run such tournaments. Unfortunately i don't know any other games that have well balanced tournament scenerarios that we can look at for further inspiration. More variables out of control of the players makes competitive play more of a crap shoot. If you have too many things to account for in list building, people will generally just ignore it and hope to not see stuff that they are bad against. I think the Sr 2016 packet was the best tournament packet they ever produced. Linebreaker was better than most people claimed (it was won by fast warcasters, not gunlines. Its a shame the gunline to win meme took over). Sr 2017 feels a little like they are spinning way too many plates at once.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on May 8, 2017 13:21:55 GMT
The variables out of my control i spoke off were due to the mechanics of the game and not due to the mechanics of the scenario
|
|
|
Post by skathrex on May 8, 2017 14:14:35 GMT
Isn't it just a shift in the meta? I mean yes Scenario play gets weaker, but isn't that something people wanted? I mean Haley2 isn't especially well loved.
I hope its not all Slugfest because I can see that becoming boring, but I have watched games where the 2 armies didn't really "fight" each other. It looked more like a sportsgame than anything else, because it was just about the points. So I like the direction, I just hope they won't have overdone it.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on May 8, 2017 15:58:08 GMT
Except they've nerfed haley2, and every other control caster. So why was there a need to make scenarios totally dead?
|
|
|
Post by cainuslupus on May 8, 2017 16:11:46 GMT
Except they've nerfed haley2, and every other control caster. So why was there a need to make scenarios totally dead? She wasn't nerfed nearly enough and her gameplan is plainly pissing of most people playing against her. Maybe that's the reason? Or maybe old "scenario play" was the reason game was slowly dying, killing any interest from new players? She plus steamroller is plainly bad design. TL;DR: Old "scenario play" lacked meaningfull interaction. It probably perverted designers intentions and abused bad rules/design mistakes. Current is more intuitive.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on May 8, 2017 16:35:20 GMT
How is it more intuitive?
If anything its less intuitive, since its more difficult to explain. And it's just less of a thinking game. SR17 has devolved to where all games are basically both players ramming their armies at each other, quite literally. There is no tactical depth here, no room for playstyles other than "apply axe to face!", and no pulling a hail-mary victory from the jaw's of defeat other than assassination(which is not something all factions can do).
Haley2 could have used more nerfs if they were going to keep the superior SR16 format and keep improving on it. Instead they've decided to just burn the whole thing down and start over with something even worse, which is a big mistake.
There was plenty of interaction between players on the old scenario play. You had to prevent your opponent from scoring anything, otherwise he would get ahead. Now, preventing your opponent from scoring is not a big deal as long as you are also scoring at least something. There is just no urgency to scoring of points. You have 7 turns to pull off an assassination or grind your opponent down. And if you can't do either of those, which many factions cannot, you're just screwed.
There will be no more awesome games where you go into the tank trying to figure out how you can score the last 2 points you need to win before Butcher3 comes and eats your face. And if you fail to kill those last 3 enemy models contesting the zone, you're gonna lose. You can only have this experience now if you go for assassinations, which again not everybody can do.
This is a general theme with SR17. It's hideously biased vs certain factions. They want everybody to homogenize into only 1-2 playstyles, when many people simply cannot do those playstyles. While other playstyles are basically an autolose playstyle. No more hit and run, no more pull off a janky scenario victory, no more control, etc... Basically all the variety is gone.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 8, 2017 16:42:26 GMT
How is it more intuitive? Removing the faction balance elements, not every single element adds depth to a game. The game could have a thing where every turn each player must sing their favorite song and whoever gets judged the best gets extra points. That would add allot of depth, allowing for alternate playstyles where some people focused on their vocal abilities, whilst other players focused on defeating the other armies (This represents how well moral is upkept in Armies). Also, you get points if you can also run a good game of solitaire on the side (This represents you managing the armies resources). Im not arguing how good the game is without it or the like, but depth and complexity don't necessarily lend themselves always to a game. Sometimes you gotta think what the core of the game actually is.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on May 8, 2017 16:48:16 GMT
That's really a poor analogy. Having to think critically about how to score points added a great deal to the game, not like some stupid irrelevance about singing.
Yes, not everything adds good depth. But the more live scenario play in SR16 was 100% good depth. It gave an actual chance to playstyles who couldn't go toe to toe with heavy armored brawlers. SR17 however basically forced everything to fight toe to toe in the middle, and that puts the advantage squarely in the factions and playstyles built around putting as many beefy jacks/beasts into the middle. Unless you can go into the ring with a Juggernaut you're just going to lose, and many factions simply lose.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on May 8, 2017 17:00:50 GMT
How many SR 2017 games have you played greytemplar?
|
|
|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on May 8, 2017 17:12:55 GMT
That's really a poor analogy. Having to think critically about how to score points added a great deal to the game, not like some stupid irrelevance about singing. Yes, not everything adds good depth. But the more live scenario play in SR16 was 100% good depth. It gave an actual chance to playstyles who couldn't go toe to toe with heavy armored brawlers. SR17 however basically forced everything to fight toe to toe in the middle, and that puts the advantage squarely in the factions and playstyles built around putting as many beefy jacks/beasts into the middle. Unless you can go into the ring with a Juggernaut you're just going to lose, and many factions simply lose. Well this is just blatantly false. All but one of the scenarios edges are in the killbox which is considered the edge of the table. In fact, 4 of the scenarios have the edges of zones 6" from the table edge. So either you're wrong about the whole game taking place in the middle of the table or reality is a lie. Or more likely you just decided you didn't like SR2017 and haven't actually played/looked/thought about it much.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 8, 2017 17:30:48 GMT
That's really a poor analogy. Having to think critically about how to score points added a great deal to the game, not like some stupid irrelevance about singing. Fine. You score points on how you can position your units in a circle. The bigger the circle the more points. That would also require strategic thought and be based on the game. And says who? You? Like I can agree on something like "Well the way it forces engagement Really puts the Circle at a disadvantage in such a way I believe we can't adjust". But "Its 100% Good Depth" is as valid as "I 100% really liked it".
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on May 8, 2017 17:30:54 GMT
Just because a portion of some elements is close to the edge doesn't mean you don't have centralized gameplay. Actual gameplay is resulting in all the action condensing in the middle of the table. There is no real depth of tactics, or any need to play intelligently.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on May 8, 2017 17:39:23 GMT
Just because a portion of some elements is close to the edge doesn't mean you don't have centralized gameplay. Actual gameplay is resulting in all the action condensing in the middle of the table. There is no real depth of tactics, or any need to play intelligently. I'm just going to add a notch for greytemplar and continue like this. Most of his arguments sounds like someone who hasn't played much SR 2017. In my 10 or so games, the depth of strategy has dramatically increased. No longer am I forced to run into the maw of my opponent's army because I will lose on scenario if I don't. My opponent can score a few points and I can still claw back a win by attrition. The games often involve multiple flanks that each require tactical thought to work on. At the very least the depth is equal between 16 and 17, but in my opinion it is greater. It is absolutely not as simple as mashing things together in the middle. I am hearing lots of people on podcasts with similar negative feelings (just finished the last chain attack, for example) but then go on to say they've played 0-2 games. I know what it looks like on face, and I have had the same thoughts. But I got out there and played games, and it turns out scenario is much more live than it seems. It isn't always, but it certainly matters more than many people make it out to matter.
|
|