Customer feedback is important to a game development proccess, and the forums can be a good source of feedback. In my experience, while it shouldn't force developers to make choices, it is a tool they can and they use when they find it useful, and i am fairly certain there has been enough content productive enough to make the developers think about solutions to glass cannon arc dodgers in a meta that has lasted for atleast 4-5 months already.

Absolutely! And yet, one of the designers stated in an interview that the development lead time is approximately 18 months. Not sure if that's specifically for ships and perhaps shorter for upgrades, but my points are

1. the community brings issues to light later than the designers notice, based on a backwards timeline from release date
2. I seriously doubt the forum provides any significant insight the designers didn't/couldn't already see themselves.

Oh my god Zomad. If I looked through your posts, I might die from the sheer amount of counter-stating you do. Jesus Christ.

You say it like I meant that our most common suggestion wasn't used, ergo our opinion doesn't matter. That's pretty off base, Zomad.

What I said was that our input is used to some degree. Auto-Thrusters is a response to Fat Han. It's not the response we came up with but if you ask me, it's a better response that keeps balance in mind and also offers something great for the TIE Interceptor.

So are you suggesting that

• Autothrusters wasn't already designed, playtested, and in the manufacturing pipeline by the time the community was complaining about Fat Han, and
• if it weren't for the community complaining about Fat Han Autothrusters would never have come about?

You're acting like things we talk about have absolutely no impact. I have no idea how you could possibly think that after Chardaan refit, but maybe you're stunted, I don't know.

I'd like see an X-wing title card maybe Rogue Squadron or something that effect that grants either the boost or barrel roll to there action bar. Maybe make it so the ps has to be like 5 or higher.

Oh christ, could you even imagine an X-Wing with a barrel roll? Terrifying.

I think what he is trying to get at is not that these foums have no impact...they do. They provide valuable feedback and data compliation.

I think he is trying to point out that the community doesnt have the impact it likes to believe it has. Listening to some people on here you would think they have the devs ear and are part of the inner circle. The smug can get pretty thick...I think back to the 3rd faction debate after I was, sadly, proven wrong. The smug was freaking overwhelming and the air of self importance from so many, stifling...

That is what I think he is getting at...yes they listen and yes our opinions may have some slight impact. But thats all it is slight. The community is not responsible for Chardaan Refit...they may have seen what the devs saw and they may have spoken out. But I dont feel they are the sole or even primary reason it was created.

EDIT to add:

I like you by the way Lackwit. I have tended to agree with you on a great many things...and I often find your posts entertaining...but by unnecessarily personally attacking him here you are certainly living up to your moniker.

Oh my god Zomad. If I looked through your posts, I might die from the sheer amount of counter-stating you do. Jesus Christ.

What counter-stating? (Not entirely sure what that means.)

I wish you didn't avoid my questions. I really do want to know what you think.

Alka Seltzer

Action: You may remove up to 2 stress tokens from your ship

Note: this is not meant as a joke - given the current "stress is the new black" environment.

How do you make an action if you are already stressed ?

Stressception.

My bad... That pretty much ditches the idea.

But I would love to see something that could counter the whole stress-bot design that is currently possible. If you face a squad designed around handling out stress you may never get to take an action once firing begins. It would be really nice if there was a counter to that.

Maybe an EPT that allowed you to remove two stress when flying green. That would make it more of a gamble to do a 47 point VT-49 with 2 x Tactician + Mara Jade stress factory.

Proton Torpedo Launcher

Huge ship only. Hardpoint

Range 2-5

4 attack

Attack (Energy): Spend 2 energy to perform this attack twice.

Energy Transfer Matrix

Action: you may not attack this turn, regain one shield

Or

Action: spend a shield token to gain +1 attack die for this turn only.

You could make that an imperial and rebel version too. This could also work as an astromech.

"Concentrate ALL firepower" If all your ships can target a single ship (as in every ship has it in its forward firing arc and in range) then you get to preform ONE attack using the highest PS pilot. then roll the combined red dice total for all ships then discard card.. would have to be an expensive EPT or perhaps even a "HUGE SHIP" only thing.. could make for one devastating attack!! or an expensive never used opportunity lol could tighten things up a bit by putting a range 1-2 modifier on it..

EDIT to add:

I like you by the way Lackwit. I have tended to agree with you on a great many things...and I often find your posts entertaining...but by unnecessarily personally attacking him here you are certainly living up to your moniker.

Sorry aboot that. But I did get my name for a reason. I can hardly stand people with their heads up their exhaust port. But really that name was given to me, not thought up by me.

Oh my god Zomad. If I looked through your posts, I might die from the sheer amount of counter-stating you do. Jesus Christ.

What counter-stating? (Not entirely sure what that means.)

I wish you didn't avoid my questions. I really do want to know what you think.

I've stated what I think. That I believe our opinions and concerns, and the meta we have developed, not FFG, have most certainly impacted their design decisions.

You say it like I meant that our most common suggestion wasn't used, ergo our opinion doesn't matter. That's pretty off base, Zomad.

What I said was that our input is used to some degree. Auto-Thrusters is a response to Fat Han. It's not the response we came up with but if you ask me, it's a better response that keeps balance in mind and also offers something great for the TIE Interceptor.

So are you suggesting that

• Autothrusters wasn't already designed, playtested, and in the manufacturing pipeline by the time the community was complaining about Fat Han, and
• if it weren't for the community complaining about Fat Han Autothrusters would never have come about?

You're acting like things we talk about have absolutely no impact. I have no idea how you could possibly think that after Chardaan refit, but maybe you're stunted, I don't know.

So now you're suggesting that FFG designers created Charddan Refit only as a direct result of the forum, correct? Could you elaborate, please?

What about the other two questions I asked? I sincerely want to know what you think.

People have been complaining about what turrets did to green-dice-reliant ships since the Millennium Falcon was released, and this was before "Fat Han" was a thing. It was just "Han Shoots First" and neither R2-D2 (Crew) nor C-3PO existed at the time.

Were Autothrusters designed before people started complaining about the savage beating agility ships were taking from turrets? I doubt it. That started a looooong time ago.

Whether Autothrusters were designed only because people started complaining about it is up to debate. I have a feeling that the general community's thoughts on it were taken into account, though.

The same goes for Chardaan. I doubt they looked at the forum and said "Well, many people think there should be a 2 point cost reduction... let's do it!", but certainly they took into account the feedback about why no one was using A-Wings competitively. Instead of giving A-Wings an upgrade that cost more and provided a stat boost or mechanical advantage, they chose to give players the option of reducing their points with a nice thematic spin to it by occupying a normally beneficial slot. And, frankly, I would not be surprised if they went that direction because of community feedback.

Customer feedback is important to a game development proccess, and the forums can be a good source of feedback. In my experience, while it shouldn't force developers to make choices, it is a tool they can and they use when they find it useful, and i am fairly certain there has been enough content productive enough to make the developers think about solutions to glass cannon arc dodgers in a meta that has lasted for atleast 4-5 months already.

Absolutely! And yet, one of the designers stated in an interview that the development lead time is approximately 18 months. Not sure if that's specifically for ships and perhaps shorter for upgrades, but my points are

1. the community brings issues to light later than the designers notice, based on a backwards timeline from release date
2. I seriously doubt the forum provides any significant insight the designers didn't/couldn't already see themselves.

For both points, the designers are a small group of people with an also relatively small group of playtesters. Of course the designers are smart, intelligent people, but they can't catch everything. Not only are 10,000 minds more likely to collectively out-think 100, there is some information (which may be imbalances in the game or simply new strategies) that can only be discovered after a metagame has been forged through months, if not years, of competitive play - an environment that you cannot duplicate for in-house playtesting.

Sure, not everything the community finds is new to the designers and it isn't always 100% significant, but it doesn't mean that significant issues aren't ever brought to light.

Oh my god Zomad. If I looked through your posts, I might die from the sheer amount of counter-stating you do. Jesus Christ.

There is nothing wrong with that per se. Discussion only happens if we share different perspectives.

Customer feedback is important to a game development proccess, and the forums can be a good source of feedback. In my experience, while it shouldn't force developers to make choices, it is a tool they can and they use when they find it useful, and i am fairly certain there has been enough content productive enough to make the developers think about solutions to glass cannon arc dodgers in a meta that has lasted for atleast 4-5 months already.

Absolutely! And yet, one of the designers stated in an interview that the development lead time is approximately 18 months. Not sure if that's specifically for ships and perhaps shorter for upgrades, but my points are

1. the community brings issues to light later than the designers notice, based on a backwards timeline from release date
2. I seriously doubt the forum provides any significant insight the designers didn't/couldn't already see themselves.

1. That's speculation. For all we know, the cards could be ultimately decided a few weeks before reviews, that would give plenty of time where the upgrade/pilot developing proccess of a wave could be influenced by current trends (ie, final decissions on wave 6 being decided when enough data about Fat Falcons and useful feedback delivered by forumees to be food for the last effort into playtesting.

2. I am sure they are fantastic game developers and playtester, but that's been false, they already stated that they did not expect the resurgence of Falcon play and how Fat Falcons worked (they were happy with it, not saying it was like "omg we borken our game" ).

In short, unintended uses of the game you developed is something completely expected, you can see this in most games (and in many expertise fields). That's why you don't make a developing process completely rigid, where 18 months before you just had decided how the players will play. This is a big problem for example with Games Workshop games, even if they playtested extensively, the game can and will change a lot on a 2 year period.

In contrast, Xwing's current direction seems to give an opportunity to ships that had dissappeared a bit (like the interceptor) on wave 4, or has always been underperforming, a chance to play on the meta that has been dominating the last months, which in my mind, is proving what we are saying, that Xwing's development is an open process where customer feedback matters.

Otherwise it would mean that the game developers (whom are not even the ones that started) have the capacity to plan the meta that would be played 2 years ahead and every single thing that happens on list building or player play.

It sounds to me like much more likely the open development process than the rigid one, atleast, with how well the game is handled, but who knows, maybe they truly are super geniuses.

TLDR version:

I would ask you the oppossite Zomad.

What makes you think that any game developer has the ability to really figure out problems that will arise 1 year and half later on their game?

EDIT to add:

I like you by the way Lackwit. I have tended to agree with you on a great many things...and I often find your posts entertaining...but by unnecessarily personally attacking him here you are certainly living up to your moniker.

Sorry aboot that. But I did get my name for a reason. I can hardly stand people with their heads up their exhaust port. But really that name was given to me, not thought up by me.

So the fact that other people realize you lack wit so much that they would name you so--and you take that name and proudly share the story--absolves you from responsibility of personally attacking others. Wut?

So are you suggesting that

• Autothrusters wasn't already designed, playtested, and in the manufacturing pipeline by the time the community was complaining about Fat Han, and
• if it weren't for the community complaining about Fat Han Autothrusters would never have come about?

You're acting like things we talk about have absolutely no impact. I have no idea how you could possibly think that after Chardaan refit, but maybe you're stunted, I don't know.

So now you're suggesting that FFG designers created Charddan Refit only as a direct result of the forum, correct? Could you elaborate, please?

What about the other two questions I asked? I sincerely want to know what you think.

People have been complaining about what turrets did to green-dice-reliant ships since the Millennium Falcon was released, and this was before "Fat Han" was a thing. It was just "Han Shoots First" and neither R2-D2 (Crew) nor C-3PO existed at the time.

Were Autothrusters designed before people started complaining about the savage beating agility ships were taking from turrets? I doubt it. That started a looooong time ago.

Whether Autothrusters were designed only because people started complaining about it is up to debate. I have a feeling that the general community's thoughts on it were taken into account, though.

The same goes for Chardaan. I doubt they looked at the forum and said "Well, many people think there should be a 2 point cost reduction... let's do it!", but certainly they took into account the feedback about why no one was using A-Wings competitively. Instead of giving A-Wings an upgrade that cost more and provided a stat boost or mechanical advantage, they chose to give players the option of reducing their points with a nice thematic spin to it by occupying a normally beneficial slot. And, frankly, I would not be surprised if they went that direction because of community feedback.

It didn't take the forum to inform the designers that turrets are bad for glass cannons that arc dodge. I'm sure they knew that from the moment they designed the Falcon, and had in mind at least potential corrections. But they wanted it to have its day.

Same goes for Chardaan Refit. It's harder to say they knew from the beginning it would need a -2 cost. I doubt it, in fact, unless they had the Z-95 scheduled a long time back, which is possible. The Refit, IMO, is more directly related to the Z-95 than its use on at the highest levels of competitive play. They needed to differentiate the two, and the Z-95 is now the cheap missile carrier. To make the A-Wing comparable, they needed to give it an option that would take away the missile, but cheapen the cost to bolster its roll as an arc dodger.

OK, you did bring up a good point, but

1. These guys have nothing else to do but design and brainstorm X-Wing
2. Compared to most ideas on this, they're a lot better at it than we are
3. If two minds are greater than one, then 10,000 minds are surely greater than two is a fallacy due to diminishing returns and competing interests. Take Kasparov versus the World as an example.

Not to be super literal, but these are all about cards, not miniatures. When do we get to design tiny ships?

TLDR version:

I would ask you the oppossite Zomad.

What makes you think that any game developer has the ability to really figure out problems that will arise 1 year and half later on their game?

Probably because they are about that time ahead of the public game? .

I think the player with less ships should be able to win initiative through an arm wrestling contest instead of dice rolling. Large bases count as 2 ships for this.

TLDR version:

I would ask you the oppossite Zomad.

What makes you think that any game developer has the ability to really figure out problems that will arise 1 year and half later on their game?

Probably because they are about that time ahead of the public game? .

That would mean that the game doesn't evolve in unexpected ways by player interaction, which is something that definitly happens, and even if we took that for granted, it is a very risky way of running a game, where any minor variation could destroy your game for long time before you can get it fixed because of your development timings don't overlap with the current trends in the game.

I don't know, we can expect Xwing Devs to be really really amazing at their jobs who can read the future and have in their heads a better data pool about the game than hundreds or thousands of different players over a timelapse of over a year., playing on different venues, local scenes and sharing those experiences online where people can filter good and bad lists and get them popular so they "invade" every local meta until it dominates the scene completely.

It just sounds very very very naive, and completely outside my experience on any games, where players would find unexpected plays, lists or optimization choices by day 1 that the game developers and their playtesting team couldn't find even on a extended period of time.

Just read the first post so if there is already something similar sorry,

Kamikaze 7 pts ept

After bumping you may discard this card to inflict damage equal to your speed to the ship you bumped and yourself,

(i.e. my tie fighter does a 3 bank bumps my opponents b-wing and discards the card to force both to suffer 3 damage)

Absolutely! And yet, one of the designers stated in an interview that the development lead time is approximately 18 months. Not sure if that's specifically for ships and perhaps shorter for upgrades, but my points are

1. the community brings issues to light later than the designers notice, based on a backwards timeline from release date
2. I seriously doubt the forum provides any significant insight the designers didn't/couldn't already see themselves.

1. That's speculation. For all we know, the cards could be ultimately decided a few weeks before reviews, that would give plenty of time where the upgrade/pilot developing proccess of a wave could be influenced by current trends (ie, final decissions on wave 6 being decided when enough data about Fat Falcons and useful feedback delivered by forumees to be food for the last effort into playtesting.

You're right, the cards probably have less lead time than ships due less complexity, interaction, and chance of breaking the game. However, it appears to have taken Paul Heaver approximately 11 months from his Worlds 2013 win until the publication of his Stay on Target upgrade card, which was with the help of the development team: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4956.

But it doesn't take the forum to tell them that. You're giving the forum way too much credit. It's like the cancer patient who prays to God for healing. If they recover, it's because God heard the prayer and answered them. If the cancer returns, it's because it's part of God's plan to call them back home. It makes no sense, it's just assigning meaning circumstantially.

TLDR version:

I would ask you the oppossite Zomad.

What makes you think that any game developer has the ability to really figure out problems that will arise 1 year and half later on their game?

You can't figure out what will arise 1-1/2 years later, but you can spend a long time analyzing and testing (both by scenario, play testing, statistics, game theory, etc) the current field before you continue. At the same time, other projects are in various stages of development: Wave 7 is probably right now near final with only molds, advertising, timelines, etc, left to establish. Wave 8 ships are probably decided, but some features might be still debated. Wave 9 might have a short list from which they will surely choose from and ideas of what features they might have, but not yet decided which, etc. The whole process is a flowing river. I may be wrong, but I have a good hunch on this.

TLDR version:

I would ask you the oppossite Zomad.

What makes you think that any game developer has the ability to really figure out problems that will arise 1 year and half later on their game?

Probably because they are about that time ahead of the public game? .

That would mean that the game doesn't evolve in unexpected ways by player interaction, which is something that definitly happens, and even if we took that for granted, it is a very risky way of running a game, where any minor variation could destroy your game for long time before you can get it fixed because of your development timings don't overlap with the current trends in the game.

I don't know, we can expect Xwing Devs to be really really amazing at their jobs who can read the future and have in their heads a better data pool about the game than hundreds or thousands of different players over a timelapse of over a year., playing on different venues, local scenes and sharing those experiences online where people can filter good and bad lists and get them popular so they "invade" every local meta until it dominates the scene completely.

It just sounds very very very naive, and completely outside my experience on any games, where players would find unexpected plays, lists or optimization choices by day 1 that the game developers and their playtesting team couldn't find even on a extended period of time.

A game like this does have a few surprises, but not many. The fortress was one hack few expected. The Tri-Lambda is another example, though less pronounced. This game just doesn't lend itself to novelties like others do. The surprises are mostly tactical, like in poker, where you're trying to out think your opponent's next move, or strategic, like in chess*, where you're trying to out think your opponent's next 10-15 moves, or mechanical, where you're trying to break the game itself.

* X-Wing is also somewhat strategic because you can think a couple moves ahead; and chess is of course also very tactical.

I would love to see a Elite Pilot card that would allow the pilot to move at a lower pilot skill than is printed on the pilot card. I have found that some times it would be an advantage to move into position early, that later. Though the pilot still fires normally.

This would be great for:

1) Formation flying.

2) Blocking

3) and bomb placement, especially Proximity Bombs.

So like a movement version of decoy? Make it 2 pts (same as decoy) and its actually a pretty good idea...I wouldnt mind seeing this in game. I, too have wanted the same ability...The main question is what to call it.

Yes, I would call it "Ace Pilot" or "Advance Piloting Skill"

EDIT to add:

I like you by the way Lackwit. I have tended to agree with you on a great many things...and I often find your posts entertaining...but by unnecessarily personally attacking him here you are certainly living up to your moniker.

Sorry aboot that. But I did get my name for a reason. I can hardly stand people with their heads up their exhaust port. But really that name was given to me, not thought up by me.

So the fact that other people realize you lack wit so much that they would name you so--and you take that name and proudly share the story--absolves you from responsibility of personally attacking others. Wut?

You know, the funny part is, I'm actually known for my wit. But the name implies a certain daftness. I'm not dodging responsibility, so much as telling the truth of it. I have many snappy/witty comebacks or things to say, but you ask me what 5x5 is and I'll actually have to think about it. But what I'm really lacking in, is the patience to debate someone who plays Devil's Advocate for the sake of playing Devil's Advocate.

I believe this is the right thread for these,

and not assuming everyone has already seen them

as they were made about three months ago...

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/T-33_plasma_torpedo

Other interesting ideas I might flesh out:

• YV-929 armed freighter's Triple Blaster.

It didn't take the forum to inform the designers that turrets are bad for glass cannons that arc dodge. I'm sure they knew that from the moment they designed the Falcon, and had in mind at least potential corrections. But they wanted it to have its day.

Same goes for Chardaan Refit. It's harder to say they knew from the beginning it would need a -2 cost. I doubt it, in fact, unless they had the Z-95 scheduled a long time back, which is possible. The Refit, IMO, is more directly related to the Z-95 than its use on at the highest levels of competitive play. They needed to differentiate the two, and the Z-95 is now the cheap missile carrier. To make the A-Wing comparable, they needed to give it an option that would take away the missile, but cheapen the cost to bolster its roll as an arc dodger.

Of course they knew turrets were counters to arc-dodger ships. They designed their game with counters in mind. But did they know or expect that it would kick all those ships out of the competitive scene?

And your explanation of the refit is, of course, opinion. It's entirely possible, though, but we don't know. I'm not ruling out the possibility of this upgrade or that upgrade having been designed in isolation, but I'm trying to figure out why you're completely writing off the possibility that the designers take the metagame and player feedback into account. It just goes against everything that the gaming industry has shown us so far.

OK, you did bring up a good point, but

1. These guys have nothing else to do but design and brainstorm X-Wing
2. Compared to most ideas on this, they're a lot better at it than we are
3. If two minds are greater than one, then 10,000 minds are surely greater than two is a fallacy due to diminishing returns and competing interests. Take Kasparov versus the World as an example.

I know people who do nothing but brainstorm new electronica songs but, despite trying for years, they are not as famous as Tiesto or Armin van Buuren. Having nothing to do other than something does not necessitate being good at that something!

They may very well be better than literally every other X-Wing player out there, it's true. Though I find it difficult to believe that FFG managed to get provably the best players in the world to work on their team, it doesn't matter a wit.

Yes, Kasparov versus the World is a great example of how 50,000 people attempting to play a single game ends poorly - it's the chess equivalent of "Twitch Plays Pokemon". But just ask any White Hat developer whether a small team of dedicated programmers can out-think and defend against the world's population of aspiring intruders.

One of the reasons markets, as opposed to centrally planned economies, are so great at fostering innovation is due to its ability to utilize the unique knowledge and skills of millions of participants without them having to knowingly cooperate. In the world of X-Wing Minis, the metagame is the "marketplace of ideas" which chooses the most effective lists and weeds out the ineffective. The designers can do a lot with their planning and in-house testing, but their most powerful tool is the metagame, which can only be developed over time by the whole playerbase. If they aren't taking the metagame into account, then it's a bad sign because we are not actually playing a game but the tabletop equivalent of watching a movie; a guided "experience" on rails.

Basically, yeah, they could be designing the game and covering their eyes and ears from player input. They could even be such geniuses that they have meticulously constructed every metagame shift (so genius, in fact, that the playerbase is fooled into thinking they created the meta!), anticipated worldwide player strategies years in advance, and the design team is sitting at their desks, wearing Palpatine cloaks, while rubbing their hands together and muttering "Yes.. good, good" every time a tournament report comes in. If this is the case, the real question is why they're not billionaires working in the financial sector.