Khadoran

Its Missions, Makes Me Consider Dropping Infinity.

157 posts in this topic

At first I thought having missions to complete sound good, never been a fan of death matches. 

All you had to do was to get some some different types of specialists in your lists to be able to compete. This works fine in some missions, but as you get deeper into it.. This is not the case anymore.. 

 

It turns out some missions are pretty much dictating how you will make your list or you will loose and its not like have one specialist of each, no its very restrictive.

 

Thats not fun, I want to be able to field the models i like.

 

I will take two missions iv played recently as example.

 

You can read the rules online yourself but i will give a short overview:

transmission matrix: 

 

Basically there are 4 antennas which are all repeaters with a 8 inch radius and they cover a huge amount of the board. Having specialists, doesn't really matter in this mission is just about having troops near the antennas.. so much for all the specialists hype..

 

But it does not end there, if you invest points in things that can be hacked you are pretty screwed as those will never be able to move inside the antenna radius to get points or you chance to get hacked by the enemy hackers. So last game i had like 200 out of my 300p not able to move anywhere on the map except the edges of it and no chance to claim points with them. Tried to get close with my Tag but got expelled, turn after the HI got immobilised when trying to get in... And there is basically NOTHING you can do about it, you cant shut down the repeaters and the enemy didnt pay a single point for them.

 

To win you make a list with medium and light infantry and 2 hackers.. Not to hard to figure out but is that the list i want to play with? maybe i kinda like using tags/HI/Remotes.. or dont own every model in the army.. 

 

BEACONLAND

Basically you need to have more beacons than the enemy and every specialist(any kind) get one to place.Also if you have a baggage you get +3 on WIP rolls to place beacons..

 

Whats the point of this? why is there no max cap on beacons ..like 4? That would have made this into a actually good mission! Then you would actually have to think where to place stuff and try deactivate your opponents. 

 

To win, you basically spam 12 point specialists and include a baggage remote. I doesnt take any skill to figure this out, it just restricts your list way more than ANY game iv seen do, and its bad, not fun at all. People want to play a list they like to play, i think most would be willing to make some sactifices but Its never good to force the entire list around the mission.

 

What if I dont like 20 models on the table and prefer a few heavy ones. A "normal" list with like 5 specialists have basically no chance against someone set up for this mission.

 

And iv not even played all missions in ITS, im sure there are more just as bad..

 

Man feels like iv wasted my time with this game. Iv played alot of war games and this is worse than any of them, why ruin a good ruleset with these missions?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should play all missions multiple times before deciding to quit. It's true that some missions favor some compositions more than others but that is why you bring 2 lists on tournaments so you can pick one better suited for mission you play.

If you don't play tournaments, you can always plays YAMS at home with friends or in local club. No need to play ITS missions then. Or just modify ITS mission and play them like that if your opponent agrees with changes.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... two out of, what, 18 missions have list building "requirements" that rub you the wrong way? Maybe you should play other missions? Maybe you should open your mind when it comes to list building. Or maybe you should just git gud. Lots of options besides quitting. =)

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I allready 

 

So... two out of, what, 18 missions have list building "requirements" that rub you the wrong way? Maybe you should play other missions? Maybe you should open your mind when it comes to list building. Or maybe you should just git gud. Lots of options besides quitting. =)

 If you think you are good to make and army around these missions i dont know what to say.. Iv played them when i did not know what mission we would play before hand. Iv already wrote how to "beat them". Its no skill in it, just dumb.. And its quite hard to avoid them when the last two tournaments( i did not go there) had one of these in them.

 

Well there are other games, I play warmachine as well. Not saying those missions are perfect but nothing comes close to how dumb these 2 missions are.. Not even played all mission in infinity yet, im sure there are more just as dumb considering these are 2 out of my last 5 games.. Quite a high percentage of terrible mission design.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you didn't know the missions ahead of time that's part of the problem. The whole point of ITS is that you know the missions before hand and write lists that can handle them. 

 

And "no skill"? Please.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are set to just play one style of army that is composed of apparently many hackable models and have a low model count so it's the games fault you are not doing well?

 

Tournaments are all about bringing an army that can handle most situations and it rewards good list building. Sometimes one sided armies also tend to do best but then the game would quickly devolve into slug fests and a race as to who can do more damage to win the game and have the opponent retreat.

 

Missions are designed exactly to counter such things.. if your force may lose a direct shootout with your opponent you simply switch to taking the mission objectives if possible and win by mission points even if that means you don't get a single kill in the game.

 

I come from Warhammer Fantasy where things like missions were unheard of in tournaments (at least as long as i played it competitively) and it was basically lining up your troops and trying to annihilate the opponent, at times fun but tactically very one sided.

 

When i started playing objective based games later on the whole world changed because it forced me to reevaluate my tabletop tactics. Gone were the ties where i would rush headlong into the enemy with my most elite troops while the mandatory regulars kept back to mop up, now sometimes i outmaneuvered my opponent to focus in the objective and just held on long enough to win like this.

 

If that is not your style then you should simply stay away from ITS tournaments and play free for all games with your friends but don't make it out to be a fault of the game because you like to play only one style and the game forces you to adapt which you don't like.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe i am confused, but tournaments anounce on advance the missions, right ? Building 2 list for the missions and possible match ups is important, so if beaconland is there, yes, having a baggagebot is a plus, but if there is also annihilation, you are better off having a second list withouth that baggage (for example).

 

Building your list and planning ahead how you will confront the missions is actually part of what makes ITS flavorful imo.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before playing the Avoid Turnament card is better to see if the OP can only have a chance of playing Infinity on Turnaments, for other wargame this was a truth for me.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In no other games I know does a mission force you to change the entire list, you can have a list thats ok at all missions, which is what I have tried to make(while including stuff thats cool on paper).

 

After all I have 5 specialists and 11 models.. Its not a kill all list. It works ok mostly but then there are these missions that totally ruin your day unless you made your list specifically for the mission. Thats just bad game design IMO. Im sure im not alone in this, you want this game to get big or not? change the ITS to be more general.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like ITS the way it is.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you do realize that's just a matter of taste. In this game mission objectives and list building goes hand by hand, including the different match ups you could get (then of course, it is how you pilot your robot, something harder to figure out).

 

You shouldn't play ITS missions randomly. And no, that's not bad design, that's a different design choice, which actually adds more depth to the game and you have to take it into account in your list building process. If, for example, you only wanted to buy 10 models and play 1 list for every mission, you would be playing ITS wrong, and obviously your expectations won't be met. If you don't enjoy having to construct your list, you always have YAMs or the more open ITS missions.

 

If your problem is that you can only play at tournaments, i feel sorry for you, because you either try out to enjoy ITS to its fullest (and not how you perceive a game should be designed), or you should just quit.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's kinda the point. You change your force to suit the mission, that isn't news. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way i see ITS and infinity as a whole is its very much a spec ops team, skirmish game. There is a mission that is known in advance (for ITS) and you build your team to best achieve that mission. 

 

But beside that point, ITS missions are optional, tournaments are optional, what you take in a list is optional. No one is forcing any of them on you. I play CHA with no hackers or engineers - its not the games design fault that I've chosen a list without them and yes sometimes theres mission that require them so I have to get creative and do my best with a self imposed disadvantage.

Yes beconland is a build around mission - but if you didn't know what it was in advance i would assume your opponent didn't either so they most probably dont have a super heavy specialist list and they just had a well rounded list that was better than yours.

 

But coming back to my first point playing infinity is optional. Either play or dont play, no one is forcing you to.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes It is a matter of taste, I prefer to make lists to be good against my opponents lists, know what in the other factions and make a list that can handle the tools other factions might bring, all the while "hacking a random console and what not".

 

I feel this makes for a more dynamic meta where lists comes and goes since people change lists. But now I suspect lists will change less, since the lists are restricted alot more by the missions, i see this as a flaw and when things get stale, people get bored..

 

Also dont think my view is so alien, even reading the boards here and talking to people iv met, many others are complaining about beaconland for example, how they dont like spamming specialists and that some factions have an easier time doing this. Like they dont actually like playing that type of list, they want to make a list they like to play.

 

Iv had a good time with some of the more "normal" missions, hacking a console here and there and some secret objective. The rules in infinity are solid and the game is mostly fun. First time iv actually had "missions" make me not want to play a game, its not good..

 

 

Sure its optional to play.. But what IF,changes are made so more enjoy the game?

The community will be larger and they will make more money which leads to other good things.

 

The game is allmost "there", some missions just need a little tweak, Il just stick to WM for now I guess, probably play a game here and there but not as much as I expected.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that some missions take the list requirements too far this year. Baconland is just stupid. Requiring an alternative list to your TAG list is not too far imo.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes It is a matter of taste, I prefer to make lists to be good against my opponents lists, know what in the other factions and make a list that can handle the tools other factions might bring, all the while "hacking a random console and what not".

 

I feel this makes for a more dynamic meta where lists comes and goes since people change lists. But now I suspect lists will change less, since the lists are restricted alot more by the missions, i see this as a flaw and when things get stale, people get bored..

 

Also dont think my view is so alien, even reading the boards here and talking to people iv met, many others are complaining about beaconland for example, how they dont like spamming specialists and that some factions have an easier time doing this. Like they dont actually like playing that type of list, they want to make a list they like to play.

 

Iv had a good time with some of the more "normal" missions, hacking a console here and there and some secret objective. The rules in infinity are solid and the game is mostly fun. First time iv actually had "missions" make me not want to play a game, its not good..

 

 

Sure its optional to play.. But what IF,changes are made so more enjoy the game?

The community will be larger and they will make more money which leads to other good things.

 

The game is allmost "there", some missions just need a little tweak, Il just stick to WM for now I guess.

 

That is why Beaconland is being phased out from most local ITS tournaments, cause of the problems you listed.

 

Anyways, the ITS missions change every year, if Beaconland continues to get a negative reputation then they will just phase it out ot improve on it.

 

EDIT: Like everyone has mentioned, ITS missions are optional. If you feel disappointed  with the missions then play YAMS if you want a mission based game. Don't like YAMS? Make your own missions. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

try 20x20...not bad for pickup games...and can be played with any list.

 

On ITS...I'm finding I like it less and less too...I simply don't enjoy tweaking lists so much or having half the list already written because it's "mission requirements".

IMHO to get the most out if the ITS missions you need to know in advance which mission and which opponent you're playing and write a list accordingly, this works and makes a good game IMHO even out of the stupidiest ITS missions. You'd need a very good selection of models though...

Otherwise you should avoid beaconland and other nonsensical scenarios and play one of the remaining missions.

 

We had a lengthy discussion on the subject started by tamrielo with a good insight of what missions would/could make a good ITS tournie, might want to have a look.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game is allmost "there", some missions just need a little tweak, Il just stick to WM for now I guess, probably play a game here and there but not as much as I expected.

 

I think the game is already "there" and I hope it stays "here". Have fun setting up your 80% assassination run combo.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to know what other ways to play are currently available, you can visit Data Sphere, where we have listed the well-known systems.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The diversity of army list is based on the mission pool you are going to play on, which, since there are plenty of missions, and match ups (mission * factionplayer1 * factionplayer2 * scenery), it's very easy to keep diversity. You are "forced" to get specialists, but you are not forced to get THIS specialists or the ANOTHER. Secondary objectives are hardly game deciding, plenty of ITS mission only have 1 secondary that you can switch anyways, and it's normally more important to have a coherent force to deal with the primary mission objectives first.

 

Simple missions and one list systems tend to do what you say, kill diversity since you are forced to bring a take all comers list. And about simplifying for more people to get into the game... there are simplified ways to start playing anyways, you don't need to simplify what it's suppossed to be the competitive enviroment.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also VERY easy to simply:

 

Post on a local forum, group, what have you, and state what points you'd like to play at, and if there are some missions you'd like to play, simply state the mission(s) you want to play.  Make a list and then show up and play those ITS missions if so inclined.

 

All you need are willing players, a set level of points, and tell them the mission so that they might plan accordingly.

 

Have you tried YAMS?

 

I think it's a lot of fun, and also follow up on Scorch's post.  Datasphere has some great offerings.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For ITS, it's important that the tournament organizer gives a lot of thought to the missions he wants to use.  As mentioned, posting the missions beforehand is an important component of running an event, because it allows players to both practice and prepare.  If you like using only one list, then ITS might be more of a challenge for you, because you're more likely to encounter a scenario your list isn't prepared for.

 

One thing that's interesting is that I'm attending an ITS event soon that's only allows players to bring one list, and the scenarios will not be announced in advance.  This is actually an interesting challenge, because there are so many ITS scenarios now that it's going to be a true puzzle to create the perfect all-rounder list.  This tournament is going to demand a lot of its players, and also require a good deal of luck, because some players will inevitably bring lists that are going to be stronger than others.  I'll be interested to see how this experiment turns out. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to know what other ways to play are currently available, you can visit Data Sphere, where we have listed the well-known systems.

Just started to check out Data Sphere. The 20x20 style missions seems interesting, its what i expect when i think missions for a game..

Not read alot of the missions yet, but at first look im impressed.

 

Hard to get it for tournaments but maybe for next league. Thanks!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes It is a matter of taste, I prefer to make lists to be good against my opponents lists, know what in the other factions and make a list that can handle the tools other factions might bring, all the while "hacking a random console and what not".

I think this is your problem. That's not really how infinity works, especially in ITS. You must build lists toward the missions, as you've seen.

Also Iv =/= I've. ;)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And iv not even played all missions in ITS, im sure there are more just as bad..

 

Man feels like iv wasted my time with this game. Iv played alot of war games and this is worse than any of them, why ruin a good ruleset with these missions?

 

First, you're making a very blanket assumption about the scenarios. "I'm sure there are more just as bad" means you're not giving them a chance.

 

Second, by your name I expect you're coming from Warmachine?  The game where assassination always ends the game regardless of what scenario goals were achieved?  I'm sure things have changed, but the last time I played a WM tourney, I went for scenario in each game...and was sorely whooped (in score) by a guy who'd made an assassination-focused list.  Ridiculous, since the game "should have good scenarios".  

 

Anyway, you should definitely give Infinity another chance :)  If ITS doesn't rub you the right way, then there are countless other player-made scenarios that will work out for you.

 

Edit:

 

 

People want to play a list they like to play, i think most would be willing to make some sactifices but Its never good to force the entire list around the mission.

 
Totally disagree.  It's a great game that makes players play to scenario rather than things like the above (I kill you, I win...no matter what you're trying to do!).
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites