I dont mind when people come up with diffrent ideas for cards, pilots, wepons ect. I just hate how the threads turn into "the ship CAN"T be played with out this fix" or "the ____ is over/under costed we need to print stickers to put on the cards to fix the problem" (THAT CAN NEVER HAPPEN PLEASE STOP SUGGESTING IT). I know ive come up with a few cards/fixes some are liked some are not so much. Our idea's can be fun but please dont get to serious about it. Fly casual

I want to come clean and admit I came off harsh in expressing venting my opinion, but I also think some were a little overly sensitive and/or took things too personally. These two a good combination don't make.

I don't get it. Why are there so many threads that run on like game design workshops, as if we had any say in changing ships you didn't like or found hard to fly competitively against the current meta, or mechanics you don't like, etc? It seems a huge waste of time and energy to play pretend and "what if" games on far fetched scenarios that the real life, paid design team would rightfully never consider.

So, 1) why are these threads so prolific, and 2) why don't those who participate instead divert their energy into improving their within the bounds of what is and what they can control?

So what should all of our topics be about?

(Now that the smoke is cleared, back to the jokes)

How Phantoms/Fat Turrets break the game?

How viable are card packs?

Wheres that **** boat?

The Force Awakens, how lightsaber hilts can ruin our childhood!

EDIT...how could i forget. Autothrusters....

I feel like as long as people don't devolve into:

"Everything I say is right and people should write a book about how great I am, and if people disagree with my ideas they are obviously wrong in obvious ways"

then how bad can it get?

Well there is always my favorite tid-bit of psychology science to consider: Psychology as it pertains to the act of playing. Or Play Theory. Basically it's the science that looks into how humans use 'Playing' to learn, teach, and practice skills as children. The natural evolution of playing games into adulthood I'm sure would be a part of that.

The common example is if you take a sample group of kids, lets say one each from the ages of like 4-9 years old, and watch them playing around on a playground right after they decide to play the game 'Tag', you will see the development of some remarkable skills and of a completely original rule set, a meta, an expansion to the rules, followed by a meta shift, perhaps a banning, so on and so on. At first there may be someone in their group that doesn't know how to play, lets say the 4yr old. At first they don't know what to do, they stand there dumbfounded, and invariably get tagged. They look around confused, wheels start turning, the mind seeks information and formulates a string of words together to ask: "What do I do?" the other children playing yell "You have to run and tag us!". Request for information, response, assimilation of data, learning happens. There's probably a bit more that goes on but you should get the gist. Up to this point basically you've had the primitive child-mind version of a game demo at a con or an FLGS, or from a friend.

Then the game is on. Concept in hand, they make their way out to tag some one. When they do the last piece of this tag puzzle is complete when they realize that they then have to evade the person they then tag. More learning happens, fortunately the game has plenty of repetition so learning reinforcement is inherent. The game continues. And as the restrictions of the play area warrant a meta takes shape. Perhaps it is discovered that one can hide in the tube slide, as counter 'it' should periodically check it for runners.

As they tire the suggestion is made that their should be a 'Base', a safe place to rest without actually leaving the game. Eureka, the games first rules expansion, after literally getting tired of the base rules. But with this new update comes a meta shift. 'It' can hover around the base and wait for easier prey. Now there develop ways of playing in the base zone like jumping off and then quickly back on again and again until you create an escape opportunity.

Eventually though something awful happens, the dreaded rules dispute. One player as 'It' swears they got one of the runners. But the runner swears otherwise. In reality 'It' only managed to tag the runners shirt tail so the runner never noticed. An argument ensues and conversation skills are practiced with heated exuberance. Eventually a ruling is made. The rules get their first update. An FAQ if you will. A similar process likely happens to establish some sort of limit for how long one can be 'On base'. Did you catch it? The games rules terminology is staking hold. Like in X-wing the 'Deployment zone' two word phrase has a bit more meaning to it obviously. 'Base' becomes a keyword with a very specific set of instructions for it's mechanics.

A banning might occur when it is complained too often that having the tube slide and the base makes it too easy for the runners to evade the It. If it proves to be too 'unfun' the slide is banished as the now out of bounds zone is made.

Up until this point the rules were most likely being made, or more accurately being passed onto the group, by the eldest few in the group, leadership skills start to develop, or as we perceive it as adults: The Development and Design Team take the lead. But the game continues and others from outside the circles ring leaders suggest ideas to spice things up. And finally that brings us to here. A Forum is established. Some one in the group calls 'time-out', they get together and discuss (some very sophisticated language practice learning there - the communication of your own ideas with the vernacular of the games content) and after many sessions of this talk back and forth and games played out over daily recesses the game continues to evolve with a steady stream of fresh content and new meta options and new players are brought in and so on it goes. A fully fledged game experience comes together as a whole picture.

But that's where the playground example and us take different paths. The kids didn't have copyrights or money of any kind on the line. Their game could evolve from any source indefinitely with out restriction. Sadly our more sophisticated adult-made world functions differently. But what is important to take away from this is that the psychology of humans when it comes to playing a game was all developed from your childhood. And it has a strong lasting impression. It was on a playground long ago we all became game designers. And we literally can't help it, it helped us with cognitive development. A more professional example/TLDR here:

http://www.earlychildhoodnews.com/earlychildhood/article_view.aspx?ArticleID=240

Food for thought.

Now you're calling me a troll.

Not sure how he could get that idea. Starting new threads telling people they shouldn't discuss things they want to discuss because you don't like it always leads to such deep, productive discussion. Throwing a bunch of generic fanboy dev-worship on top usually helps too. I mean, there's at least 0.0000013% of the time that it doesn't just turn into a pointless flame-spewing hate fest.

Oh, yeah, I guess I see now.

hey guys. i suggest a lazer beam cannon upgrade to the A wing. will fix its firepower and fat han problem

I feel like as long as people don't devolve into:

"Everything I say is right and people should write a book about how great I am, and if people disagree with my ideas they are obviously wrong in obvious ways"

then how bad can it get?

This is the internet.

However, how do I put this.

The forum is mostly for people to share information such as asking what builds are and what play styles are done and other stuff related to the hobby.

and of course we are not game designers. I mean it is rare that any one on the design team consults with any of us for design decisions. They have much better ways of getting information and feedback to determine the direction of the game development then the forums. They have game testers, they have the results from tournaments, they have experience developers who have worked with other point base build your army game. So if you are worried if anything on the forum will effect the ruling or change the game by banning the Millennium Falcon you won't have to worry. No number of flamebait threads will cause them to make a dramatic rules change. And if the devs are looking to the forums for suggestions, they will likely consult with the moderators and administrators who will act as sort of a filter to cut out the whine posts.

So why do we post things like card modifications and upgrade ideas. Because we can expand the hobby beyond the, dare I say, bland competitive format. You should listen to the S&V podcast interview the current development team on Team Covenant website. The devs said that it is okay to try something lie putting in Luke in an E-wing just by modifying the point cost but keeping the skill and the abilities (and an EPT slot) the same. They actually encourage house rules so you have things like Major Jugger posting his modified point cost list for house rules to have competitive players field less used ships like the Tie Advanced. Or other people posting homemade pilot tiles and upgrade cards to try stuff like the prequel N-1 Naboo starfighter. Again these are house rules and for those who are all about the competitive scene you won't have to worry because if there is one thing that is understood about the competitive scene it has to be stable so FFG prevents having to throw in stuff like ban lists or pages of errata that change each week or tournament. So competitive players will have a good plan of what is going on and can prepare in a tournament. House rules won't change the competitive game.

So go ahead an put your ideas for the game, just remember two things.

1. They will most likely not be implemented in the game, and if something you suggested does get added into the game it probably came for other sources (so don't take credit, all posts on these forums belong to FFG anyways).
2. Everyone has a right to disagree or make suggestions, and they do not have to play by your ideas or opinions.

Well I can't speak for everyone else, but it's because I enjoy game design! I have a degree in it! FFG...hire me...please. I'm begging you!

Mind you I don't really go around saying how things should be, I mostly tend to explain why things are the way they are to people who moan about current mechanics and how they may or may not align with the 'fluff'.

[One of the best posts I've read in a long time.]

Marinealver, that was one of the best posts I've read in a long time. I have no issue with house rules. I just wish threads were posed as such (many are) and not "FFG Designed This Ship Wrong--It's Broken--We Can Fix It". You'll notice there's rarely just one, but usually several in a row as everyone jumps on the bandwagon. Yes, it's annoying to call a ship broken (by any other name) when the only thing broken is critical thinking, and yes, it's annoying to see identical threads started consecutively, and yes, the hubris of pretending to know better than the experts annoys me too. Hence the vent. But what really honestly worries me is that a new player will think a certain ship is unplayable at even the local tournament or casual play when she or he reads these posts.

They probably won't stop. I accept that. I just wanted to vent, and I got the reaction I expected.

" I am so glad you decided to respond to me though...being as "negative and socially repugnant" as I am. "

Acceptance is one of the first steps to recovery!

" I am so glad you decided to respond to me though...being as "negative and socially repugnant" as I am. "

Acceptance is one of the first steps to recovery!

Still dodging the criticism I see. Hardly surprising...do you have anything of substance to add? Debate the points I brought up perhaps? Or will you continue to support your unsubstantiated personal attacks and snark?

Wait it's an n

That made me chortle...thanks

" I am so glad you decided to respond to me though...being as "negative and socially repugnant" as I am. "

Acceptance is one of the first steps to recovery!

Still dodging the criticism I see. Hardly surprising...do you have anything of substance to add? Debate the points I brought up perhaps? Or will you continue to support your unsubstantiated personal attacks and snark?

You criticize others when they make comments that you don’t like. And then you make comments and expect everyone to change their minds and just agree with you just because you said it. That’s Hypocritical! Your, so-called “Opinion” has not more value than anyone else’s.

Let’s be Clear, YOU Aren’t a game X-Wing game designer, You really DON’T have any clue what the X-Wing Game Designers think is balanced.

Your criticism is WORTHLESS! Bantha Poop has more value!

Your opinion is in the minority! The Vast Majority of the posters like the idea and thought it was interesting.

I know you don’t like my idea, SO What. Like I really care what you think! I Will let the X-Wing Game Designer’s decide On the value of the idea!

Wait it's an n

The shark's fine. It's just the pilot fish abilities that are broken.

@shake-a-noodle

And your little dog to!

Did you say that made you... Snorkel!? ... I'll leave now. (On an unrelated note I did snorkel with a shark unintentionally once. Was really cool until after surfacing and diving again I lost sight of it only to spin around and see it swimming by three feet in front of my face all like, "Sup.")

Did you say that made you... Snorkel!? ... I'll leave now. (On an unrelated note I did snorkel with a shark unintentionally once. Was really cool until after surfacing and diving again I lost sight of it only to spin around and see it swimming by three feet in front of my face all like, "Sup.")

I went scuba diving in the shark exhibit at the Maui Ocean Center.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmlE0FbrPc8

" I am so glad you decided to respond to me though...being as "negative and socially repugnant" as I am. "

Acceptance is one of the first steps to recovery!

Still dodging the criticism I see. Hardly surprising...do you have anything of substance to add? Debate the points I brought up perhaps? Or will you continue to support your unsubstantiated personal attacks and snark?

You criticize others when they make comments that you don’t like. And then you make comments and expect everyone to change their minds and just agree with you just because you said it. That’s Hypocritical! Your, so-called “Opinion” has not more value than anyone else’s.

Let’s be Clear, YOU Aren’t a game X-Wing game designer, You really DON’T have any clue what the X-Wing Game Designers think is balanced.

Your criticism is WORTHLESS! Bantha Poop has more value!

Your opinion is in the minority! The Vast Majority of the posters like the idea and thought it was interesting.

I know you don’t like my idea, SO What. Like I really care what you think! I Will let the X-Wing Game Designer’s decide On the value of the idea!

I am opinionated...I make no effort to hide it. I don't expect anyone on the internet to change their minds...I have been surfing since the prodigy days....I know how the internet works. I don't fancy myself a designer nor have I ever claimed to to be...though maybe you fancy yourself one? Thanks for clarifying something that didn't need clarifying I guess? You are correct in that I don't know what the designers feel to be balanced...but I have enough experience with mini games and games in general to see issues coming. Perhaps in time you will develop a similar sense.

I get the impression you think my opinion a worthless because it's calling to task very real issues with your "super awesome" idea. You still have not given any real response to the balance issues other than "your opinion is bangs poop!" It would behoove you to not argue like a 12 year old. And have we moved the goalposts from a good idea to interesting? That's new...

Once again I invite you to show my evidence of this "vast majority" you speak of that agreed with you, because I do not recall. Please...prove me wrong. How are you tracking it? PMs? Likes? This is yet another question you have completely failed to answer. You keep trying to deflect these things but that's not going to fly.

You think your idea is so great...please respond to my criticism constructively. I really want to hear how you plan to address the issue and you keep attacking me. Mayhap your idea isn't as solid as you wide like it it be? If you don't have a response man up and admit it...dodging the issue and attacking me isn't going to convince people.

Or we can keep going on as we are...part of me wonders why I keep banging my head against the wall with you on this. And part of me enjoys the challenge of trying to squeeze some kind of answer out of you, even if it makes you look like a but of a fool. But in the end, yes, the game designers will make the final call on your idea. I won't hold my breath for it to come to fruition though. Do yourself a favor. Take the criticism for what it is and use it to improve your idea...something you haven't done. I will support it if you can find a way for it to make sense and not break the game, but from what I have seen so far you are incapable of doing that.

I challenge you to go and prove me wrong.

@shake-a-noodle

And your little dog to!

Again with the name calling.

Sigh.

Nice to know one of us has stayed civil. I would say arguing with you is like arguing with my two year old..but at least he knows when to change his tactics or argument.

@Shake-A-Noodle (because it’s FUNNY!)

First, lets be clear! You called me out! So please don’t try to play the, “I’m Innocent Card.”

Actually the title, “Shake-A-Noodle”, doesn’t really fall under name-calling. It falls under puns.

Pun

The pun, also called paronomasia, is a form of word play that suggests two or more meanings, by exploiting multiple meanings of words, or of similar-sounding words, for an intended HUMOROUS or rhetorical effect. These ambiguities can arise from the intentional use of homophonic, homographic, metonymic, or metaphorical language.

I believe in proving what I state.

1) If you want proof that your opinion on this idea is the minority, all you have to do is go back and reread all the post of the subject. The evidence is there! And neither you or I can Change it!

2) As for the Variant Idea, I will prove you wrong. Play test the idea. (I have! It didn't unbalance anything!) You want me to prove my idea to you, Play test it. That’s Your proof! Play test the idea, and you will find that your arguments are all wrong. (I suggested you do this awhile back, but I see you haven’t accepted My challenge.) If you didn't play test the idea, then your opinion doesn't have any facts to back it up. I have play tested the idea, and I have proven you comments wrong. So if you want Me to prove You wrong, then you are going to have to play test it, because that is the only way to prove it, one way or the other! When it comes down to it, Proof over Opinion.

This is the reason for this “Dispute”, I will not except an opinion when I have facts that prove other wise.

@Shake-A-Noodle (because it’s FUNNY!)

First, lets be clear! You called me out! So please don’t try to play the, “I’m Innocent Card.”

Actually the title, “Shake-A-Noodle”, doesn’t really fall under name-calling. It falls under puns.

Pun

The pun, also called paronomasia, is a form of word play that suggests two or more meanings, by exploiting multiple meanings of words, or of similar-sounding words, for an intended HUMOROUS or rhetorical effect. These ambiguities can arise from the intentional use of homophonic, homographic, metonymic, or metaphorical language.

I believe in proving what I state.

1) If you want proof that your opinion on this idea is the minority, all you have to do is go back and reread all the post of the subject. The evidence is there! And neither you or I can Change it!

2) As for the Variant Idea, I will prove you wrong. Play test the idea. (I have! It didn't unbalance anything!) You want me to prove my idea to you, Play test it. That’s Your proof! Play test the idea, and you will find that your arguments are all wrong. (I suggested you do this awhile back, but I see you haven’t accepted My challenge.) If you didn't play test the idea, then your opinion doesn't have any facts to back it up. I have play tested the idea, and I have proven you comments wrong. So if you want Me to prove You wrong, then you are going to have to play test it, because that is the only way to prove it, one way or the other! When it comes down to it, Proof over Opinion.

This is the reason for this “Dispute”, I will not except an opinion when I have facts that prove other wise.

You are making the claim and the burden of proof is on you. I will go count if you provide the link to the old threads...though as I recall there wasn't much support claiming your idea was a good one...though now that you have changed the criteria to simply "interesting" who really knows. I am still pretty **** certain the support isn't as strong as strong as you think. All of the criticism you received was fair and should have been used to work with your idea

You are correct I haven't playmates your idea. YOU HAVE STILL FAILED TO PROVIDE POINT COSTS!!! Am I supposed to make up my own? Give them whatever slot I want for free? You straight up said you had no idea what these costs should be and left the onus on the designers to figure that out. How did you playtest without set point costs?

I don't have the time to playtest a half baked unfinished idea. Nor does my gaming group have any interest in your little variation. Show me these "facts" you claim to have. Battle reports ships used points spent maybe storyline of the battle. You have made this claim before and never showed said facts to the rest of us. Near as I can tell you have pulled it from your nether regions.

I wasn't playing innocent with you either...I am simply trying to stay civil and on task. You are the one calling me names and using behind "oh it's a pin and fun"...whatever dude. Stop acting like a a child and confront the criticism...both of us know you won't. More proof in my mind of the inferiority of your "super awesome" idea.

I am curious to hear from the "vast majority" out there as well who thought this was a good, it Nevermind I'll allow him to change the criteria, interesting idea. What did you like? Why do you think this will work? Did you experience balance issues or concerns during your playtesting. I guess I will have to call upon you to provide the facts that thus super awesome poster is unable to provide me.

I look forward to your responses.

Pass me some. I am enjoying this.