• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    12d 7h 42m 30s

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Mc_Clane

  • Rank


  • ITS PIN O2549
  1. Joe, Dexter, Are you going to broadcast a streaming of the Carlos, aka Bostria, Seminar?
  2. Template weapons in gerenal are very good against links. You just have to catch more than one enemy of the link to make it worth. Heavy rochet launchers or ML on expansive mode work miracles on ARO. If the enemy moves 2 miniatures close enougth to get hit by the template. Make note that if you catch a secondary objective with the template, your enemy is forced to dodge or go for direct armor rolls with the se ondary target if you pass the roll (and even if the enemy shooter wins the confronted roll). The other resources, are another 5 man fireteam with high burst, the classic camo/DDO troop or even melee.
  3. Kuangshi+controller core link is basic. Crane core link is awesome! Good options, good resistance and afordable thanks to the CG. Pheasant Duo is somehow sweeter than other big link options. 2 specialists (CoC) +madtraps +freeAgent. good to be a group 2 asset (due to it's flexibility) and make objectives in the last turns thanks to freeagent and DUO Haris option can be a god option for Camo-hunting with bao BS or a reactive link with Bao Snipers. But they lack some resistance. Wuming Duo works good too. Nice to advance and take objectives. Core looks too expensive, even with a zhanying Kanren options are all so good that is hard to pick up one. Madtraps for table control, FO and killer hacker 4 taking objectives, minelayer+sensor for camo countering
  4. I really don't like the so called "propaganda factors". The reason why, is because it's not gaming related. A fake well witted or funny BR can get tons of commendations and I don't know Why those reports should count more than the normal ones. Another reason to take into acount is the point distorsion generated along the campaign that inacts the factions of taking real and efective actions. That effect gives the feeling of chaos and thakes away the valew of strategy. Also, fake acounters can do mass fake reports on the enemies objetive to disrupt their perception, so is a policy that can be easily abused. A campaign should be more than just Battle Reporting blindly. Obiously, Good repots need to be rewarded. For that very reason, I think that the campaign needs another scale of scoring for the popularity of the reports. A true propaganda war that moves the hearts of the HS to think of it' winners as "the moral" winners or the "rightful" winners instead of the material winners. The fake or questionable reports should be actively nulified during the development of the campaign to reduce this effect. A weak since a warning on the suspicious reports should be enought to nullify them fairly. What about giving a bonuss point for the dominant faction for battles fought that do not involve them? (or a bonnus point for every X battles that not involve them?) Or give bonus points for defeating the dominant faction?
  5. @Beasts of War - Warren Some notes about my previous mesage A secrecy initial period may be needed for aliances for them to not end too soon Breaking conditions can be random or depending on the tipe of alliance If a alliance ends up broken, at least a round of alliances (or two) were they can't repeat could be needed. Note that secondary factions can be used as a weapon to end enemy ceasefires. putting a counterinteligence/sepsitorizing factor in play. So maybe the distrust scale should be scaled and balanced during the duration of the next campaign and another reason to play with other factions
  6. First of all, congratulations for the results of the campaign. My most sincere thanks to BoW and all of the players that submited their reports Having said that let’s begin the main issue. After the campaign, we all have tasted some bitter flavour. Somo of them based on the organisation and some other in the suspicious dinamics of some players Things that in my humble opinion BoW can do to improve the campaign 1st- Improve comunication, previous organization and official statements. In this campaign there was a lot of inconsistency. Especially regarding the dates. the first one the ending date extension, second the reveal of the new zones (probably delayed by treaty mechanics), the mechanics inside the campaign and followed by the rest of info that should had been oficial and clear from the begining. - Lower a bit the number of weeks of campaign 9-12 may be fine - It doesn't need to be public but it should exist an internal agenda with fixed dates for things as the apearances of new locations or event trigers. For example an event every 2-3 weeks. That could be scheudled before from the beginning and automated anouncements can be preseted for their releases. – Final victory conditions clear from the start. As other players had claimed before me. – Clear inside mechanics from the begining. Until the moment we don’t know how the linked battles count towards points. Both reports give points? only the reports were you have winned/tied count? If you report a victory of a not registered player their faction recieves his points? if a battle is reported separatedly it counts double? why should someone report their loses? – It’ll be great a common forum section for all the factions to discuss doubts an exchange thoughts instead of going to infinity forums. Also PM mesages or group mesages inside the campaign manager would be great. 2nd- Alliances and treaties. I really don’t like the mechanics of the alliances on this campaign, they were too rigid. I feel that they’ve done more harm than good. adding points in a so straightforward way is a pretty big handicap to overcome. Also, almost no conditions to form them or sustain them. I think that the alliances can be a hipe fountain PASIVE TREATIES Consider non agresion pacts (global or for locations) as pasive aliances/treaties. The conditions of the treaty may be background concesions or similar. And they should be listed amongst the other alliances for all it's faction players to see. This alliances can be broken with distrust mechanics similar to the ones you have used for the current treaties. ACTIVE TREATIES It's conditions can be subjected to background claims or concesions or just a crossed active ofensive. (for example i'll help you there if you help me here or if you help that other faction there) Consider more active mechanics for alliances. The allies actually must need to be active and allocate resources to give points to allies. For example the ally scored points during the durarion of the alliance are given to the objective faction. Consider lowering the pasive point shared of active treaties. For example a 20% of the actual allied faction total points escored on the location while the alliance keeps at play. If the alliance is brojen this points are lost. Consider time limit for the alliances, auto break if no ally activity for x time and a condition for enemies to break the alliance. For example scoring x points on the enemy main location, an enemy interest.... consider more than 1 active alliance. maybe limited to 2 active alliances that provide points. consider waves of alliances every 2 weeks. COMBINED ATTACK WAVES Consider relating the strenght of the CA wave attacks with a % of the points scored by the other factions (for example: total points scored by alliances/total number of enemy factions). it could be in a random location, the less played location or just in the next new location. 3rd- Easy Cheating, False reporting and spying. Probably the hardest part to fix. But For me is just enought to make it more dificult or toilsome for the cheaters. Consider using ITS code as a requisite for the account campaign manager acount. Intro the acount set a Primary faction and make able to add secondary factions. Primary faction chat totally avaliable and secondary factions not. Consider linking a requisite before introducing the results to guarantee the agreement of both players on the location and results. Another option could be taking in consideration rewarding linked battles with 1 extra point for the players involved, even for loosers as it is now two players can play a game and report each one on the location they want without linking. Consider stablishing minimum requirements for reports Consider rethinking the scoring mechanics. Only players reporting a win or a deuce score points with their reports. Loosers don’t score points for their rivals Consider some kind of consecuence of blue vs blue reports. I know that sometimes this confrontations can't be avoided (for exaple tournaments) but it'll be cool for example to keep track of this situations and players for endgame sumary Consider reducing the faction reports per week to 6-7 instead of 14 (2 reports/day) and making it weekly instead of daily. A "suspicious report" button may be a good idea for the Staff to locate and check suspicious reports. This status should be only visible for the staff personel. This button doesn't have a direct effect on the validity of the report or the player. It's just a help to keep track of reports tha doesn't fit the minimun requirements and to send warnings to the players about their reports before taking measures if things are nor fixed. Shure players can be bullies but when the result are private and the result is in the hands of a moderator/staff member, I think it could be a fair enought. A posible measure could be a paralel scoring for factions to measure distrust. Things like blue vs blue or false reports can have an effect here. this may not have a direct repercusion on faction wining scores, but the most trustful/distrustfull factions can be awarded/penalized via background. @Beasts of War - Warren I Hope that some of this ideas can help you to seek more rewarding and intense campaigns on the future.
  7. Yeah That pretty much solves the bonuss issue. I've spected more scalated waves.
  8. But too many fronts opened at once. Not enougth time to reinforce all. They will probably pick up 2 of them
  9. PANO is not alone. They left the Antella front to fight in Aranda. and the same for the Ariadna players. I don't think that there is coordination there. Foremost, the other theatres just came out and they'll probably have to splitt forces if the other factions Doesn't take the lead. I presume that ONZA island is in Haqq interests (O-12), Yujing (East Sector) and Tohaa (east sector and O-12), AOGE center in the interest of Aleph (retake it), Nomads (Raid alephs base), Ariadna (Central sector) and Mountt SKILLION in the interest of PANO (south sector) and Aleph So ARANDA will probably fall to the combined to this point. Too many fronts for PANO. Ariadna might take the lead here on the future
  10. Enable backstabs was one of the reasons for an aliance system. The other was to make it posible for the less played factions to grasp some oportunities to win the campaign. And with the current winning conditions and only one aliance, it's near imposible for any faction to take 3/5 sectors (6/9 locations). So, or the winning conditions drop down drasticly or the campaign results will be a huge draw with no big changes. x2 factor means that the active player will score double. The active players are the ones that score most of the points. so, yes I think that their winning ratio will inprove It's proved that a push forward to reach the dominat faction is more effective than a equitative struggle. See Nomads on Zhurong or the initial Yujing push for narooma or the CA in Sagres. Now the situation seems a perpetual draw. (but the things are diferent if we consider sectors instead of theatres) Also the bonus goes of if the alliance is broken. But the bonused points scored will remain anyway so the diference to the other factions will be reduced if an alliance brokens. also far better than trying to coordinate a common front. regarding the second round, it would be boring if all the alliances are kept and another ones are done in adition. and unfair if some factions can have two because they are not betrayed and pact another. Maybe a +3 round system with a maximum of 2 simultaneus aliances would be the best (and of course funnier) I insist that a x2 bonuss seems to much. x1.5 could have been more fair. But we'll see the impact of the bonus on the next month the current rules don't allow any kind of coordination outside the alliances to kick the EI to their space butthole.
  11. Sure, Equipment, and NPC/bestiary have a need of background descriprions. They already stated that equipment will be probably one of the last chapters.But i think that there is already plenty of info on the books about that two. Psywar, introduction, or mechanic chapters are easier to check and they probably don't need to be verified by @gutier itself. On the other hand, a vehicle/spaceship chapter would have been more demanding. I don't know if a vehicle section is gonna be included in the corebook but maybe It will be the one that demands more atention from @gutier due to the lack of info in the wargame. By the way, a spanish translation has been already negociated with @nosolorol for the core and player's guide, maybe they could negociate the asistance of a translator from them in order to speed up the verification and feedback process. (If I remember correctly the spanish Player's guide should be a first wave material)
  12. That'll be the case if only background chapters were delayed. but Core mechanics chapters are also afected. Psywar, Equipment (descriptions are writed in the CB books), DM chapter, introduction chapters... If it's a matter of terminology just take the CB book as reference. If it's a matter of CB being too slow on the chequing, ask for a full time liaison (It doesn't have to be @gutier, it can be an expert on the background that solves minor issues and leaves the rest to @gutier), contract a translator to soften the work of the existence liaison (obviously the CB personnel are more fluent on spanish), and so... just put that grey matter to work and seek a suitable solution
  13. Someone is concerned about all the delays or it's just me? I'm not trying to lecture anyone about their jobs, but as a backer I want to see a smoother process instead of chronic problems. Early delays so far have been of 1 week in the first months of the kickstarter, now they are between 3 to 6 weeks. I really don't know which it is the source of all delays of the estimated dates. If they are basically unrealistic, if they are correcting more than once the same things or if there is some bottleneck in the process. This is not a problem which is relevant only to the founders of the project. The inability to gauge dates, harms the image of Modiphius as professionals. And I think that is something that should be solved by its own interest. before taking new projects without measure. They have their hands in Two new big projects. Conan And Infinity, a lot of older projects and they're aiming for a new exciting project acording to newsleters. I'm the only one concerned about them aiming too big? They should work this problem before it starts to take damage on their benefits. It si not only a matter of avoid publishing the giving of dates. Longer times than predicted makes projects more expensive. so it will make it harder to keep the promeses It seems a structural problem so the management of the project needs to locate the problem and solve it If the problem is as suggested by the comments, a matter of communication and approval with CB, they should try asking CB to provide them with a dedicated content liason. But it doesn't seem just a Background related problem because it affects rule chapters the same way. Psywar chapter has more than a month of delay, Equipment and introductions are more opaque because they've been less specific but at least 2 weeks. If the problem is an overtasked team just assign resources. If the problem the correction of continuous therm accuracy, establish a reference chart for the writers. and so...
  14. seriously? CA is the 5th faction in terms of players. We aren't talking here about the tohaa with less than 260. Wich has so little options. Almost 480 players is a pretty solid quantity. A x2 ratio it's Better than doubling their numbers in 2 of the locations. The number of hardcore active players doesn't really increase proportional to the number of new players. And is far better than an alliance that can be broken (CA bonus stays after alliance disolution) and requires implication and coordination from both sides. A thing that may not be the real interest of the two factions. (they are probably aiming to asure control and lay efforts on other escenarios) if you say so... Taking consideration the winning conditions of the campaign, controlling at least 5 locations (3 sectors). CA has the Upper hand. In the EAST SECTOR, 266 points it's almost the points scored by the tohaa in narooma when Yujing made it's move. At the time the yujing forces were composed by near 500 comanders and the CA has a virtually force in narooma of more than 950. That puts the East sector at risk. NORTH SECTOR: Zhurong is a bit more harder, but no so much. And it counts as a hole sector. WEST SECTOR: In west sector, is laid some sort of descoordination. That is another favorable condition for the CA. The ones that should be pushing on aranda are the nomads (and not ariadna and pano) because it should be their highest interest the control the west sector. The aranda dilema it's posibly not a dilema at all. Loosing control in aranda and wait for the PANO versus Ariadna confrontation might not be such a bad scenario. They can focus there later and retake control. it'll probably be less difference there than in other theatres. And if someone come to thought of form an alliance in on any of the two theatres, the EC would control the sector with little effort. And in adition to that, there is the fact of the volatile side of the alliances. That can be broken by distrust, but the CA bonus stays anyway. so the diference in points can be less than the current. So I think that the CA has the upper hand in every way. They just need to make a higher bet, take advantage and wait. EDIT ADITION: CA spies can camp and plant seeds of distrust among factions. So yeah, they can without a doubt take advantage of the alliances
  15. @Beasts of War - Warren are you keeping track of this topic or not? I feel like the CA bonus ratio on alliances is too much oversized. x2 on points scored seems to much. It’s far better than an alliance on a specific location (that requires implication and coordination) and they have it on too many locations. A x1.5 ratio may have been more rational.