Most of the published missions are rather "meh".

I think that's a bit harsh. The three included with the core set were necessarily very limited to the ships available in that set. I remember playing the Senator's Shuttle scenario for the first time and thought it was pretty cool, Of course we have all moved on, and those missions must seem very "meh" to most of us now, but they were a good and quick intro to something beyond the Deathmatch. And remember, back then they didn't really have a clue that this game was going to be the runaway success that it is, and probably didn't think it worth much effort to come up with intricate scenarios for a game that may not be successful.

The missions included with the Falcon, Slave, and Shuttle were designed to showcase each of those models respectively, and I thought included some interesting elements without requiring a massive investment in the game. Mission 7, that came with Imperial Aces, is the one I thought started to break the mold a bit, and I really like the direction that things are heading with the Transport campaign-style offerings and the Corvette's branching story lines. It says to me that they are paying a lot more attention to the non-competitive, storyline mode that many have asked for, as evidenced by this thread and the discussion it has sparked.

Ok, you're right about strategy often making the tactical game less fun. It's definitely a challenge when developing campaigns.

I think DagobahDave has found a way to keep the balance at the tactical level, while providing stakes at the strategic level in his Unofficial X-Wing Galactic Campaign , discussed in this thread . It's also very much bottom-up, without the game balances at the tactical level changing. That's maybe both the saving grace and the limitation of that format.

I think, because of that, individual matches should still be points balanced, though there may be map elements that have a points value for one side or the other.

Hm, that's certainly a worthy notion - that the points remain the same, but the field changes. Some spaces may be more asteroid heavy than others, or include some sort of space station.

The strategy, then, may be about what to deploy in what match. Map campaign, each team (rebels vs imps) gets 1000 points, treated as a single fleet (in regards to unique cards, excepting squad leader). Then, in deploying to the campaign map, the fleet must be divided amongst the players on a team, though trading is fine when fleets are in the same zone. Now, when you meet an enemy fleet, you play the mission for that zone, including points limits, but the squad for the match must be built from what is available in your fleet. Ships that survive or flee a match rejoin their fleet and repair/rearm. If a fleet is reduced below the points requirements for a zone, it cannot invade that zone until it reinforces from another fleet. In this way, it may be worth it to lose a battle or zone in order to finally kill Soontir, so that next time your opponent no longer has him available. It may be worth fleeing to preserve your force and attack a different zone. Provide zones with some sort of benefit, or make a map victory condition. Win through map condition or through attrition (event total fleet strength below 100 points)

Make some zone missions clearly favor certain ship types, so asset denial or lures become a thing. This isn't strictly narrative, just another layer of game, but it does provide stakes, ability to design more mission based play, and possibly emergent narrative. (Aw man, i can't believe Han died in the second battle for Bespin, but he managed to blow up the Imps Tibanna reserves, making their zone wireless)

I think this aspect of the discussion probably deserves its own thread. The trick would be to make the overall game fun at all levels - and I would suggest three levels: the strategic, operational, and tactical. I don't want to belabor that point right now, given that it's a little off-topic, but I think you're coming up with some really interesting ideas that I'd like to discuss further.

A "design a new format thread" I think's a pretty good idea.

I would also argue there is a sub-category: The modellers. It is much more prevalent in a game like 40K but you see it here in X-wing too. The lads and lasses who want to make stuff for the game, who rebuild and repaint their models, who hear of a mission and immediately think "I could make a .... "

Yes! I've also felt that itch. Unfortunately, I'm not enough of a modeler with too much time on my hands.

The five categories are based on MTG where modelling isn't possible. I'd say modellers warrant more than a sub-category.

Not only in this game, but also other games that I've enjoyed, it seems like there are several breeds of gamer. For the sake of argument, I'll divide the population into two types. One type lusts for the win, and the other wants to be transported to a Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away. I imagine that there's a spectrum, rather than two discrete groups, but I do think the divide clarifies.

I think these two types of gamer can certainly have fun together on the 'fly casual' side of things, but I imagine that there's always going to be some disconnect. The former type looks at builds and tactics, the latter type might think what sorts of missions might be dramatically interesting. By and large, it seems to me that this game is more geared towards the former type who may have come to the game from a computer gaming background, whereas roleplaying games are more geared to the latter type, which is where they first got into the Star Wars universe, aside from the movies.

I'm certainly of the latter type (though I also have a competitive edge), and I'm wondering how many here are longing for a more narrative side to this game.

I generally think these kinds of type casting are too unspecific, mostly because they aren't mutually exclusive. For example each of the example backgrounds contain a wide range of player types, covering both mentioned types. It's similar with other types like casuals etc, it almost always comes down to the personal interpretation of common used but not exactly defined terms. I think of them more as characterizing features, which exist in most gamers to a varying degree.

One of the things I like about X-Wing is that the Star Wars theme is well represented in the numbers and mechanics of the game, allowing for movie-like lists without requiring too much trade-off with effectiveness. Since, story driven parts are central to the Star Wars universe, I wouldn't mind more narrative/scenario driven games in official settings, but since I'm not that much competitive I'm quite satisfied to run them on my own.

besides, there are only 10 types of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.

A "design a new format thread" I think's a pretty good idea.

Done. See here .

I generally think these kinds of type casting are too unspecific, mostly because they aren't mutually exclusive. For example each of the example backgrounds contain a wide range of player types, covering both mentioned types. It's similar with other types like casuals etc, it almost always comes down to the personal interpretation of common used but not exactly defined terms. I think of them more as characterizing features, which exist in most gamers to a varying degree.

Yes, there are shades and complexities. I'm boiling reality to simplicity for the sake of clarity. However, if you think that there are useful realities that come out of the complexity that the simplicity can't accommodate, I'm interested in hearing it.

besides, there are only 10 types of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.

Good one!

besides, there are only 10 types of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.

And those who didn't realize this joke was in base 3.

Alternatively, there are 10 types of people: those who understand hexadecimal, and f the rest.

I don't fall into either camp. I enjoy challenge, competition, and twisting my mind into unique places. Magic has long described this as Johhny. Beyond that I enjoy seeing the game design behind the game, and the ideas that they could lead to.

I disagree Asgo ("besides, there are only 10 types of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.")

I heard that there are only 3 types of people .. Those who are good at math, and those that aren't.

This may be heresy, but Star Trek Attack Wing supposedly has some really nice scenarios. Each expansion ship you buy comes with a scenario card.

They also have different types of terrain: big ole planet in the middle, nebula, minefields.

Honestly, I'm getting tired of the same old asteroids. I sure would like to mix it up.

This may be heresy, but Star Trek Attack Wing supposedly has some really nice scenarios. Each expansion ship you buy comes with a scenario card.

They also have different types of terrain: big ole planet in the middle, nebula, minefields.

Honestly, I'm getting tired of the same old asteroids. I sure would like to mix it up.

Can you relate and translate some of those scenarios into an X-Wing setting?

I am a Johnny/Vorthos hybrid personally. I love putting the pieces together, finding hidden connections, etc. Star Wars makes it so much the better!

Timmy is hard to describe in X-Wing as well. In Magic, they're the ones who love the cool dragons and behemoths even though theyre overcosted and tend to die easily.

I'd say at best Timmy is what people said. They like stronger cards, or putting tons of upgrades on one person and running a big Godzilla with a target plus some random filler cuz they ran out of points.

The archetypes are split into the first three, and then the other two. the two categories dont tend to be exclusive or affect each other.

Those articles on design and marketing Magic were pure GOLD. That one about making gamers do things they way they want to do things and not through hoops? Solid gold. New world order. Subtle changes of card text to be positive. Gold.

Having each card make "quick sense" so that new players learned the game faster and then later found out the implications of the technical details. augh.

Pre-design?

They are some of the most interesting thinkers I've ever seen.

Hello everyone. Only been playing X-wing for a little over a month now, but I had to respond to this thread after about a week of lurking here on the forums. The psychological implications behind why people play strategy games and how they choose to do so is practically a strategy game in itself! Very amusing, but I digress. I also play Magic the gathering and I am definitely a Timmy/Johnny hybrid. I suppose it makes sense now that my first X-wing game involved fielding Vader with concussion missiles and a fully stocked Boba Fett. Also really excited to try an Epic game but I don't know too many other players here in Las Vegas.

This, by the way, is the original Timmy, Johnny, Spike article.

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b

(it started by having to take a little test but the test doesn't work anymore)

Here's the follow-up:

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr220b

(Sable, for instance would be an Uber Johnny, I would classify, if pushed, Aminar as an Innovator Spike)

This is where Melvin and Vorthos are introduced:

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr278

And this is how it all ties together:

https://www.wizards.com/magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr280

Seeing how much I love to read this kind of stuff, I'm definitively a Melvin/Johnny hybrid.

Another interesting take on playstyles:

http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1015595/The-5-Domains-of-Play

This, by the way, is the original Timmy, Johnny, Spike article.

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b

(it started by having to take a little test but the test doesn't work anymore)

Here's the follow-up:

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr220b

(Sable, for instance would be an Uber Johnny, I would classify, if pushed, Aminar as an Innovator Spike)

This is where Melvin and Vorthos are introduced:

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr278

And this is how it all ties together:

https://www.wizards.com/magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr280

Seeing how much I love to read this kind of stuff, I'm definitively a Melvin/Johnny hybrid.

Another interesting take on playstyles:

http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1015595/The-5-Domains-of-Play

This is a great presentation, which really broadens the scope tremendously. I still have to digest it all. The big takeaway for me (as a social scientist), though it was only briefly mentioned, is that motivational structures vary across cultures. He said the research shoes that there is correlation, but there is minimal variation - something like 5%. That's not particularly enlightening for our discussion here, but I think it's interesting that cultures that are otherwise very different from our own will have similar wants and desires (out of games).

Regarding the scenarios, I highly recommend the one that comes with Imperial Aces. I've played it only twice, but it was really fun. It seemed a pretty tough challenge for the Imperial side, but really fun.

I only play the scenario of the Starter, the senator, and we have a lot of fun, and I always want to do it again, greettings.