|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 9/30/2014 Posts: 345 Location: Wisconsin
|
In case you haven't noticed, there has been a lot of discussion about reserves squads and whether they need a nerf, or rework, or whatever. Something that has come up in some discussions is Unkaar Plutt, who is supposedly a counter to reserves (haven't seen his stats or anything).
This post isn't really about reserves, but the concept of creating a counter piece to a squad type.
First, if the piece is only for one faction, then you haven't countered anything. You have created a piece that only helps one faction against something that apparently needs a counter. Colonel Jacen doesn't counter reserves, he makes NR better by removing a weakness.
If the piece is fringe and 21 or more points, congratulations. No one will ever play that piece. Unless it is worth playing without the counter abilities.
If the piece is fringe and 20 or less points, only people who play Lobot will ever use it, unless, again, it is worth playing without the counter abilities. In my personal opinion, Lobot is stupid and allows for mindless squadbuilding, but that's up for debate.
The only option left over is to make a counter piece for at least a handful of the factions so that there will at least be the threat of it being played. This is probably not viable with the rate that we get new pieces. You would still have to make the piece worth it without the counter abilities or it simply won't see the table.
So the conclusion I reach is that the only way to make a counter actually counter anything it to make it essentially overpowered or make Lobot even better than he already is. I find neither option to be very good.
Thoughts?
Important note: This post does not reflect my opinion on the state of the power of reserves, it just happened because of a discussion that happened to be about reserves.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 7/26/2011 Posts: 951
|
Good post, now let's get an 8 point fringe piece with black opps!!
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008 Posts: 4,729 Location: Chicago
|
Most pieces (including Unkar) are not hard counters. They just make it harder to run, not as easy to get. Sometimes you'll run into them, sometimes you won't. But it might make someone think twice before bringing it.
Reserves squads like Jason's do have a hard counter - the MTB. Jason's brilliant move was to bring his own MTB to counter anyone else bringing one.
Virtually everything in the game has a counter of some sort. What I like to do when I design is simply give more options. Believe it or not - I have no desire to make "auto-includes". I avoid it. I like to try and make interesting pieces that inspire players to build with, and have some success but aren't overly dominant. With clever squad building and good play they can rise to the occasion - but not everyone and their mom uses them.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 4/19/2010 Posts: 1,291
|
Very good post. And I agree with the Fringe thing 100%. Lobot in my eyes should be banned, because he does take away squad building, but in the same sentence, Lobot is essential because if you run into an NPE, like the vehicles or something, your only chance most of the time is to bring a hard counter that wouldn't be built into your squad for any other reason. Tough tough situation. Because you can't make Fringe pieces to good, because they go in every squad, but if only 1 faction receives a counter to a squad type, then only that faction can counter it...
Oh the problems of designing. I'm in favor of only certain factions receiving certain things, and I wish more than anything each faction had a play style specific to that faction. But were way beyond that idea. We have what we have. The question now is how do you contain counters to certain factions. I don't think EVERY faction should have access to EVERY counter. But I also thing everything could be countered differently.
Example, Black Ops. Sith desperately need something like this to help them be competitive. But do they need Black Ops? No. They need a Sith like ability. Something different, but still counters the idea of act control. Ideas I have, a SA or CE that reads. OPPOSING PLAYERS MUST ACTIVATE 3 CHARACTERS EACH TURN. Sounds crazy right? And that idea probably is, but I think unique ideas that differ from faction to faction is a must. And it helps keep the faction pure and flavorful in my eyes. Oh well tho. No one really listens to these suggestions. Pieces will be created to suit whatever each designer wants.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 8/30/2014 Posts: 1,055
|
shmi15 wrote: OPPOSING PLAYERS MUST ACTIVATE 3 CHARACTERS EACH TURN. Massive +1 to this. Would love an ability like that, especially in Sith. Quote:Oh well tho. No one really listens to these suggestions. Pieces will be created to suit whatever each designer wants. Massive -1 to this. I have seen at least two pieces in the last two sets that very specifically meet suggestions I made in the forums. One of them I can't disclose right now (personal preview ) but I will tell you they basically did exactly what I suggested. Now I certainly wasn't the only one voting for him, and I have no brownie points or anything that would cause them to pay special attention to me, but the piece sums up my request almost exactly. (The other piece is Resistance Chewie - at one point I specifically asked for an Impulsive-type ability that only triggered when certain allies were defeated, so you can't just kill Salacious Crumb to get it and it's not worth sacrificing the piece to get the boost)
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008 Posts: 4,729 Location: Chicago
|
shmi15 wrote: OPPOSING PLAYERS MUST ACTIVATE 3 CHARACTERS EACH TURN. Interesting. I think this could work with some restrictions. For example - would you want it to be used vs another Sith squad? No - it's self defeating then. It's really only meant for vs higher acts. How about this - If the opposing squad has more unactivated characters in their squad than yours at the beginning of a phase, the opponent must activate 3 characters that phase. Any other abilities that alter number of activations per phase may not be used. Quote:Oh well tho. No one really listens to these suggestions. Pieces will be created to suit whatever each designer wants. Not really how it works. In fact more often than not I find that I am creating pieces that hurt squads I would play (I tend to gravitate towards stronger tactics that need to be taken down a notch). I often design things I don't like personally, but I think others will. Oftentimes it's community suggestions that inspire us. We pour through the "wants" threads and CCC to get ideas, and keep our thumb on the pulse of the game to see what players are loving or complaining about.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 5/3/2014 Posts: 2,098
|
All I know is we need a sith Vader. Been saying that one for since I knew there was not one. Since the beginning.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 4/19/2010 Posts: 1,291
|
TimmerB123 wrote:shmi15 wrote: OPPOSING PLAYERS MUST ACTIVATE 3 CHARACTERS EACH TURN. Interesting. I think this could work with some restrictions. For example - would you want it to be used vs another Sith squad? No - it's self defeating then. It's really only meant for vs higher acts. How about this - If the opposing squad has more unactivated characters in their squad than yours at the beginning of a phase, the opponent must activate 3 characters that phase. Any other abilities that alter number of activations per phase may not be used. Quote:Oh well tho. No one really listens to these suggestions. Pieces will be created to suit whatever each designer wants. Not really how it works. In fact more often than not I find that I am creating pieces that hurt squads I would play (I tend to gravitate towards stronger tactics that need to be taken down a notch). I often design things I don't like personally, but I think others will. Oftentimes it's community suggestions that inspire us. We pour through the "wants" threads and CCC to get ideas, and keep our thumb on the pulse of the game to see what players are loving or complaining about. Any idea where the enemy has to activate more than they want. I just threw out a sentence with an intention. But, to me, that is a Sith way to deal with activations. They sit, and wait to see how you set up, then strike. I don't like the Krayt CE, nor an Ozzel/San Hill one for them, it would just be doing the same thing over and over. Diversity is where its at. And forcing an opponent to show his hand before he wants, could be key. Yes, your wording is much more precise than mine, and would encourage more versatile Sith squads. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008 Posts: 4,729 Location: Chicago
|
shmi15 wrote:TimmerB123 wrote:shmi15 wrote: OPPOSING PLAYERS MUST ACTIVATE 3 CHARACTERS EACH TURN. Interesting. I think this could work with some restrictions. For example - would you want it to be used vs another Sith squad? No - it's self defeating then. It's really only meant for vs higher acts. How about this - If the opposing squad has more unactivated characters in their squad than yours at the beginning of a phase, the opponent must activate 3 characters that phase. Any other abilities that alter number of activations per phase may not be used. Quote:Oh well tho. No one really listens to these suggestions. Pieces will be created to suit whatever each designer wants. Not really how it works. In fact more often than not I find that I am creating pieces that hurt squads I would play (I tend to gravitate towards stronger tactics that need to be taken down a notch). I often design things I don't like personally, but I think others will. Oftentimes it's community suggestions that inspire us. We pour through the "wants" threads and CCC to get ideas, and keep our thumb on the pulse of the game to see what players are loving or complaining about. Any idea where the enemy has to activate more than they want. I just threw out a sentence with an intention. But, to me, that is a Sith way to deal with activations. They sit, and wait to see how you set up, then strike. I don't like the Krayt CE, nor an Ozzel/San Hill one for them, it would just be doing the same thing over and over. Diversity is where its at. And forcing an opponent to show his hand before he wants, could be key. Yes, your wording is much more precise than mine, and would encourage more versatile Sith squads. Just my 2 cents. I like the idea in all honesty. It's actually similar to Aves. In fact - if we took what Aves does and amended it to 3, then it's more powerful (you can choose when to use it) Aves - Usable when your squad contains only Fringe characters: If this character is unactivated at the start of an opponent's phase, you may force that player to activate 2 characters that phase (including the first phase of the round), suppressing enemy commander effects that alter the number of activations per phase. New Sith idea - Usable when your squad contains only Sith characters: If the opposing squad has more unactivated characters in their squad than yours at the beginning of an opponent's phase, you may force that player to activate 3 characters that phase (including the first phase of the round), suppressing enemy commander effects that alter the number of activations per phase.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 4/19/2010 Posts: 1,291
|
TimmerB123 wrote:shmi15 wrote:TimmerB123 wrote:shmi15 wrote: OPPOSING PLAYERS MUST ACTIVATE 3 CHARACTERS EACH TURN. Interesting. I think this could work with some restrictions. For example - would you want it to be used vs another Sith squad? No - it's self defeating then. It's really only meant for vs higher acts. How about this - If the opposing squad has more unactivated characters in their squad than yours at the beginning of a phase, the opponent must activate 3 characters that phase. Any other abilities that alter number of activations per phase may not be used. Quote:Oh well tho. No one really listens to these suggestions. Pieces will be created to suit whatever each designer wants. Not really how it works. In fact more often than not I find that I am creating pieces that hurt squads I would play (I tend to gravitate towards stronger tactics that need to be taken down a notch). I often design things I don't like personally, but I think others will. Oftentimes it's community suggestions that inspire us. We pour through the "wants" threads and CCC to get ideas, and keep our thumb on the pulse of the game to see what players are loving or complaining about. Any idea where the enemy has to activate more than they want. I just threw out a sentence with an intention. But, to me, that is a Sith way to deal with activations. They sit, and wait to see how you set up, then strike. I don't like the Krayt CE, nor an Ozzel/San Hill one for them, it would just be doing the same thing over and over. Diversity is where its at. And forcing an opponent to show his hand before he wants, could be key. Yes, your wording is much more precise than mine, and would encourage more versatile Sith squads. Just my 2 cents. I like the idea in all honesty. It's actually similar to Aves. In fact - if we took what Aves does and amended it to 3, then it's more powerful (you can choose when to use it) Aves - Usable when your squad contains only Fringe characters: If this character is unactivated at the start of an opponent's phase, you may force that player to activate 2 characters that phase (including the first phase of the round), suppressing enemy commander effects that alter the number of activations per phase. New Sith idea - Usable when your squad contains only Sith characters: If the opposing squad has more unactivated characters in their squad than yours at the beginning of an opponent's phase, you may force that player to activate 3 characters that phase (including the first phase of the round), suppressing enemy commander effects that alter the number of activations per phase. Did we just become best friends?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008 Posts: 4,729 Location: Chicago
|
All these years I thought we already were.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 4/23/2008 Posts: 907 Location: Central Pa
|
shmi15 wrote:Oh the problems of designing. I'm in favor of only certain factions receiving certain things, and I wish more than anything each faction had a play style specific to that faction. But were way beyond that idea. We have what we have. The question now is how do you contain counters to certain factions. I don't think EVERY faction should have access to EVERY counter. But I also thing everything could be countered differently. This is pretty much what I wanted to say in this thread. We need counters for everything, but no one should have counters to everything. We just need to be sure that the counters will be able to be played by SOME people. Lobot should address some issues, but not all or even most. I don't think he should be banned, but I strongly believe we should be very careful not to make him more powerful. I like that Marn is there as a possible counter. I used Wuher in my championship squad to counter him as well. While he used to be an auto include in my own squads, I haven't used him in 2 years including when I won and I am happy seeing him in my rear view mirror in my own squad building. As far as counters go, I like the rock-paper-scissors approach. Regarding Aves, I think he was one of Tim's finest pieces. I use him in my Talon squad. Sometimes he's indisposable, sometimes he's just a weak shooter. That's ok...I see the value in having him around. He's just enough of a shooter when he doesn't impact the game in other ways to leave him there. That, in my opinion, is the perfect example of a good counter.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008 Posts: 4,729 Location: Chicago
|
Darth_Jim wrote: Regarding Aves, I think he was one of Tim's finest pieces. I use him in my Talon squad. Sometimes he's indisposable, sometimes he's just a weak shooter. That's ok...I see the value in having him around. He's just enough of a shooter when he doesn't impact the game in other ways to leave him there. That, in my opinion, is the perfect example of a good counter.
Awe thanks Jim. Although you might be a little biased - I did lean on you quite a bit for input on the piece. You deserve designer credit on Aves
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 4/23/2008 Posts: 907 Location: Central Pa
|
TimmerB123 wrote:[quote=Darth_Jim]Awe thanks Jim. Although you might be a little biased - I did lean on you quite a bit for input on the piece. You deserve designer credit on Aves I deserve credit for telling you the original idea didn't work. I told you why it didn't, but not how to make it work. That was all you, man. You deserve designer credit. I deserve glass half empty guy credit.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 5/3/2014 Posts: 2,098
|
Squad counters is a good subject for our game. To me counters do not need to be one direct ability, ce, nor do they need to be one piece that does it all.
I feel that it is a slow process to get rid of NPE's or to counter squads. The point being that different styles should play and have a chance of winning. Full counters are not fun for the person wanting to play a certain style. The only time, imo, a full counters should be used is if it is a community npe.
different game styles should be better against some them others. Think of Pokemon. Fire is good against grass but weak against water type. So it stays fair without needing a fire Pokemon that is strong against water type.
if we want to get melee force users to be more involved we stop trying to counter everything and just make good melee force users.
We are so worried about specific npes that we are failing to make fun pieces.
I think factions needed to be evaluated on how well they do against other factions and try to keep it similar with what each faction brings to the table. OR could be a natural counter to some rebel squads with board wide ce's drop. But OR can't be played, we need good pieces in OR.
Etc etc. Sith has been ok at making a counters with aleema and queen amonoa but it has made game play in sith a tad more difficult to fit in those tech pieces.. But too much defense has stifled the vision of sith. Make a Vader,ake a good 35 pt malgus, make anew Naga and see how much differently it plays, it can be a counter to a squad type with fast hard to kill sith that have movement
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008 Posts: 4,729 Location: Chicago
|
TimmerB123 wrote:Darth_Jim wrote: Regarding Aves, I think he was one of Tim's finest pieces. I use him in my Talon squad. Sometimes he's indisposable, sometimes he's just a weak shooter. That's ok...I see the value in having him around. He's just enough of a shooter when he doesn't impact the game in other ways to leave him there. That, in my opinion, is the perfect example of a good counter.
Awe thanks Jim. Although you might be a little biased - I did lean on you quite a bit for input on the piece. You deserve designer credit on Aves Also I was remiss in not giving due credit to the rest of the vset 10 team. I did have long conversations with Jim about the piece, but we did lots of work as a team to get him to where he ended up. Laura and Deri specifically made key contributions. So - group effort for sure
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008 Posts: 4,729 Location: Chicago
|
jen'ari wrote:I feel that it is a slow process to get rid of NPE's or to counter squads.
This is very true. Usually it's soft counters that we give, and it takes skill to use them. Often it takes many sets to build up to something. Squadbuilding to find the balance is a big part of the game.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member Groups: Member
Joined: 9/30/2014 Posts: 345 Location: Wisconsin
|
TimmerB123 wrote:jen'ari wrote:I feel that it is a slow process to get rid of NPE's or to counter squads.
This is very true. Usually it's soft counters that we give, and it takes skill to use them. Often it takes many sets to build up to something. Squadbuilding to find the balance is a big part of the game. This is a good thing I think. If you rush a hard counter out right away, chances are you will create more problems than you solve. It's tough to wait for the changes that you want, but I think it's the right way to do it.
|
|
Guest |