"Don't say it's designed badly - they did EVERYTHING badly"? Odd defense

Wave 1 isn't badly designed, it's designed without wide scale gameplay feedback data.

It is rather badly designed. It has 4 total ships, 1 of which is pretty broadly useless. The costing system has major flaws which took them 4 waves to fix enough to take swarms down a notch (and required a fix that some feel broke the entire game) and is still erratic at best, the rules are nowhere near detailed enough to support the CCG-like ability structure they tried to put on it even before you consider such glaring issues as secondary weapons, and many of these flaws are bad enough that even the devs acknowledge it would require too much errata to be worth fixing, which is why we get the sort of "Ignore what the book says" rulings that we do.

Despite all that, they managed to make a very fun game with some brilliant ideas that keep it going despite the flaws. So credit where it's due... so it's certainly a fun game, and even a very good one - but it's not well-designed at all.

Fair point on the designer hate. It is unfair, particularly since I doubt they make the marketing decisions. It's just bitterness over the fact that (no matter how you slice it) the problems the Advance has are FFG's fault, and they want to charge a premium price to correct their own mistake.

As far as the divide goes, that seems to be exactly how this is breaking down. For the people who are interested in epic play, combining the Raider and the Advanced is a great value. For the people who aren't, it's horrible because the value of all of the epic items in the box is effectively zero. There's no utility there for us. We're just paying $100 for a new TIE/ad model and the cards to fix our existing ones. That works out to $21 per Advanced (more than the cost of the ship itself), since there's enough in the box to fix 4 (3 more + the 1 that comes in the box). Contrast that w/the A-Wing fix that was $5 per A-Wing fixed, even if nothing else in the box had value to you (and the A-Wing wasn't even as broken as the Advance to begin with).

Some folks may find it an hook to get into epic play. That's one of the primary things FFG is counting w/this move, trying to push people into at least dabbling in the format to help sell some of their more expensive models. Personally, if I want to play capital ships, I'll play Armada, where they can be done right w/o having to integrate w/dogfighting gameplay. Epic has zero appeal to me, and having a Raider won't change that. All it will do is potentially recoup some (certainly not all) of the premium price it heaped on to my TIE Advance fix when I hock it.

Bear in mind that if you do buy a Raider for the Advanced cards you'll A: probably use it, B: probably find it pretty fun to fly, and C: could always recoup some of the cost by selling the Raider.

Or team up with a friend who wants the Raider. Yes, I can see why some people don't like the setup, but it is how it is and FFG can hardly go back on it now. The question is what you do about it.

It is rather badly designed. It has 4 total ships, 1 of which is pretty broadly useless. The costing system has major flaws which took them 4 waves to fix enough to take swarms down a notch (and required a fix that some feel broke the entire game) and is still erratic at best, the rules are nowhere near detailed enough to support the CCG-like ability structure they tried to put on it even before you consider such glaring issues as secondary weapons, and many of these flaws are bad enough that even the devs acknowledge it would require too much errata to be worth fixing, which is why we get the sort of "Ignore what the book says" rulings that we do.

When you link it up to the other waves, maybe. But the Wave I Worlds winning list had Darth Vader in it. Wave 1 Darth Vader. If all the Wave 1 tournament X-wing players together all looking for the best list didn't spot the lethality of the Howlswarm until later waves how are the designers meant to have?

We have hindsight. They didn't.

How poorly the Advanced was designed in retrospect, it no doubt seemed like a good idea at the time. But is IMO another example of X-Wing having grown into something that James never intended the game to be.

But regardless of that, it is not like FFG intentional designed a bad ship in order to sell a Epic ship some 3 years latter. Yes I know no one is really saying that, but it's getting close to it.

I can understand why some people are not happy with this decision, but that doesn't make it a bad one, unfair, or gouging.

Where is the assumption that FFG has to rebalance underwhelming figures coming from? That is generally a rare thing to see in a minatures game. For the most part bad models just stay bad, if there are fixes they often come in the form of additional product. Warmachine for instance as fixed some units with new attachments, that have to be purchased. Still overall you do not see the effort in rebalancing prior releases that FFG seems to be engaging it. I really think people need to temper there insistence for model fixes, it's getting a bit absurd.

Where is the assumption that FFG has to rebalance underwhelming figures coming from?

To be fair, from FFG themselves. They've made it clear that they intend to fix ships they see as being poor performers, or overcosted.

Where is the assumption that FFG has to rebalance underwhelming figures coming from? That is generally a rare thing to see in a minatures game. For the most part bad models just stay bad, if there are fixes they often come in the form of additional product. Warmachine for instance as fixed some units with new attachments, that have to be purchased. Still overall you do not see the effort in rebalancing prior releases that FFG seems to be engaging it. I really think people need to temper there insistence for model fixes, it's getting a bit absurd.

If you think balancing is unnecessary feel free to stick your lists where your mouth is and not run Chaardan Refit, A-wing Test Pilot, Royal Guard TIE, BTL-A4, Bomb Loadout or either of the Advanced fixes. If it's all right to leave ships as junk then leave your A-wings and TIE advanceds as junk.

@Buhalin

Apologies for the lack of a quote...this forum is stupid mobile unfriendly.

If sales tank for this box that is what market research is for. They will reach out to their local resellers, player base, and other stakeholders to help them determine why...that is how customer intent is discovered. That is when it be determined if this was as bad an idea as some think it is.

They won't just look at slumping sales for a single box and think "well epic must not work" OR "this is obviously a protest vote"

Speaking with your wallet does work...it just takes time and sometimes you still aren't going to get your way.

When you link it up to the other waves, maybe. But the Wave I Worlds winning list had Darth Vader in it. Wave 1 Darth Vader. If all the Wave 1 tournament X-wing players together all looking for the best list didn't spot the lethality of the Howlswarm until later waves how are the designers meant to have?

We have hindsight. They didn't.

Many of the issues I cited were not just balance related. Many of them are flaws and limitations with the core rules design that had nothing to do with hindsight. Realizing that your rules don't let turrets work is a matter of analysis, not an insufficient volume of testing. Even the balance issues aren't all hindsight - you really shouldn't have needed mass testing to realize that different pilot abilities had different value, yet there is absolutely no costing for them. That shouldn't require hindsight.

But even then, it's kind of their job to design a game without hindsight. Admittedly, it can be a difficult one, but there are plenty of examples of games which were well designed from the start, so it's not like it's impossible. If you want a contrast, take a look at Conquest - I have a few issues with how they've approached balance, but if you want to see a tight rule set right out of the gate, that's it. The Star Wars LCG is another with very solid rules (although even worse balance). Other teams at FFG seem to be able to get a tight, well-designed rule set from the beginning. I don't think it's unreasonable to compare X-wing to the same standard.

So objectively, "They couldn't know" isn't true in many cases, and doesn't really hold water even if it were.

Where is the assumption that FFG has to rebalance underwhelming figures coming from? That is generally a rare thing to see in a minatures game. For the most part bad models just stay bad, if there are fixes they often come in the form of additional product. Warmachine for instance as fixed some units with new attachments, that have to be purchased. Still overall you do not see the effort in rebalancing prior releases that FFG seems to be engaging it. I really think people need to temper there insistence for model fixes, it's getting a bit absurd.

If you think balancing is unnecessary feel free to stick your lists where your mouth is and not run Chaardan Refit, A-wing Test Pilot, Royal Guard TIE, BTL-A4, Bomb Loadout or either of the Advanced fixes. If it's all right to leave ships as junk then leave your A-wings and TIE advanceds as junk.

I don’t think you could come up with a more hyperbolic response to my post. Nowhere did I say I was against FFGs efforts to rebalance models. I very simply and clearly pointed out that such an effort is comparitevly rare in minatures games and when done is always in the form of additional purchases. Additionally I stated that the overabundance of near demands for fixes of any model even remotely deemed less then ideal is getting upsurd. I feel in your urge to get needlessly agressive on the topic that you didn't really read my initial post.

Vandor is likely correct that FFG themselvs has created the expectation because afterall if you give a mouse a cookie.

When you link it up to the other waves, maybe. But the Wave I Worlds winning list had Darth Vader in it. Wave 1 Darth Vader. If all the Wave 1 tournament X-wing players together all looking for the best list didn't spot the lethality of the Howlswarm until later waves how are the designers meant to have?

We have hindsight. They didn't.

Many of the issues I cited were not just balance related. Many of them are flaws and limitations with the core rules design that had nothing to do with hindsight. Realizing that your rules don't let turrets work is a matter of analysis, not an insufficient volume of testing. Even the balance issues aren't all hindsight - you really shouldn't have needed mass testing to realize that different pilot abilities had different value, yet there is absolutely no costing for them. That shouldn't require hindsight.

But even then, it's kind of their job to design a game without hindsight. Admittedly, it can be a difficult one, but there are plenty of examples of games which were well designed from the start, so it's not like it's impossible. If you want a contrast, take a look at Conquest - I have a few issues with how they've approached balance, but if you want to see a tight rule set right out of the gate, that's it. The Star Wars LCG is another with very solid rules (although even worse balance). Other teams at FFG seem to be able to get a tight, well-designed rule set from the beginning. I don't think it's unreasonable to compare X-wing to the same standard.

So objectively, "They couldn't know" isn't true in many cases, and doesn't really hold water even if it were.

Both examples you've given, particularly in the case of Conquest, the streamlined ruleset is a direct result of the growing pains from AGoT, Netrunner, and X-wing. Conquest in particular is a big step forward for them in regards to rulesets as I know they brought on playtesters specifically to edit rules language and structure. I'm interested to see how that growth impacts Armada and AGoT 2.0.

When you link it up to the other waves, maybe. But the Wave I Worlds winning list had Darth Vader in it. Wave 1 Darth Vader. If all the Wave 1 tournament X-wing players together all looking for the best list didn't spot the lethality of the Howlswarm until later waves how are the designers meant to have?

We have hindsight. They didn't.

Many of the issues I cited were not just balance related. Many of them are flaws and limitations with the core rules design that had nothing to do with hindsight. Realizing that your rules don't let turrets work is a matter of analysis, not an insufficient volume of testing. Even the balance issues aren't all hindsight - you really shouldn't have needed mass testing to realize that different pilot abilities had different value, yet there is absolutely no costing for them. That shouldn't require hindsight.

But even then, it's kind of their job to design a game without hindsight. Admittedly, it can be a difficult one, but there are plenty of examples of games which were well designed from the start, so it's not like it's impossible. If you want a contrast, take a look at Conquest - I have a few issues with how they've approached balance, but if you want to see a tight rule set right out of the gate, that's it. The Star Wars LCG is another with very solid rules (although even worse balance). Other teams at FFG seem to be able to get a tight, well-designed rule set from the beginning. I don't think it's unreasonable to compare X-wing to the same standard.

So objectively, "They couldn't know" isn't true in many cases, and doesn't really hold water even if it were.

:Honestly, I think it was because FFG was in a period of transition. They had their LCGs, which while they had a tournament presence, it was no where near as large as what they have today. They didn't make this game's rules as tight as they should've. You can see how they tightened up their rules making in Netrunner and SWLCG. They did not put as much emphasis on tournaments as they do today. And I think the current designers understand a tournament game better than the previous designers.

But regardless of that, it is not like FFG intentional designed a bad ship in order to sell a Epic ship some 3 years latter. Yes I know no one is really saying that, but it's getting close to it.

Nobody's saying anything close to that. But the reality is that they did screw up, and they're making the fix available only in a very expensive package. It's entirely possible that they're not even intentionally exploiting the fix. Maybe they just wanted a ship in there, and the Advanced was a viable candidate, and it never occurred to them that they were charging for a bug fix.

I can understand why some people are not happy with this decision, but that doesn't make it a bad one, unfair, or gouging.

Most of these terms are subjective. A lot of people get uptight at it being called a ripoff, but the common use of the term applied to cost for value. Since we have (I hope) established that value is relative, whether or not it's a ripoff is inherently subjective. You can disagree with whether it is or not, but it's not some objectively insulting statement. "Fair" is obviously going to be in the mind of the beholder.

Same thing goes for calling it price gouging. Here's the definition (stolen via Wikipedia, because where else do you go during an online debate?) that I think people are applying: The term is not in widespread use in mainstream economic theory, but is sometimes used to refer to practices of a coercive monopoly which raises prices above the market rate that would otherwise prevail in a competitive environment.[1] Alternatively, it may refer to suppliers' benefiting to excess from a short-term change in the demand curve. In this case, if you consider the product as the TIE Advanced fix (which is exactly what those who don't want the epic ships do) then FFG certainly holds the monopoly, the price for that fix is being placed well above reasonable market value compared to other fixes (such as the A-wing cited above), and FFG is not only benefiting from the change in the demand curve by including it, they're creating that change by doing so. Again, you can argue some of the points and we can get into a nice, long academic discussion over whether this qualifies, but it doesn't seem so far out as to be intrinsically unallowable.

About the only thing there that I would agree is obviously wrong is calling it a bad decision on FFG's part. It's probably a good decision on their part - it will undoubtedly increase sales by some amount, and their control of the rest of the product means the backlash will, despite Zoolo's "vote with your wallet" enthusiasm, be minimal. I think it's certainly bad for consumers overall - those who want both certainly wouldn't be harmed by a split distribution, and those who only want one would benefit. But there has been a fair bit of conflating "bad for consumers" and "bad move by FFG", which is (unfortunately, honestly) not the reality.

So those are the common terms. Most of them are subjective to some extent or other, and none of them are so insulting as to cross some instant line into "We can't talk to this person rationally".

Actually I believe the poster who called FFGs packaging another anti-poor person move would fall into that category.

Both examples you've given, particularly in the case of Conquest, the streamlined ruleset is a direct result of the growing pains from AGoT, Netrunner, and X-wing. Conquest in particular is a big step forward for them in regards to rulesets as I know they brought on playtesters specifically to edit rules language and structure. I'm interested to see how that growth impacts Armada and AGoT 2.0.

True, but there are plenty of others which were developed at the same time as X-wing but did a much better job building a decent rule set. SWLCG may have horrible balance issues, but the rules were tight and well defined. So they were perfectly capable of defining a good rule set during that same window... X-wing just didn't get the treatment.

X-wing was released a bit ahead of the LCG and developed a year plus ahead. The LCG went through a complete redesign after Gencon 2011 when both it an X-wing were demoed.

I very simply and clearly pointed out that such an effort is comparitevly rare in minatures games and when done is always in the form of additional purchases.

I think X-wing is a different beast than most because of the very low model count. If you compare it to Warmachine, Prime included 3 warcasters and 11 models/units for each faction. Escalation added one more warcaster and 8 more models/units. More than two years into X-wing, we have a total of 9 models for each faction. So in two years of life the total release of X-wing matches the average yearly release for a Warmachine expansion.

That's why there's a difference. X-wing releases new models rarely, and the structure means there's not much else they can do to those models. Most minis games have much higher model counts as well, which means including a new model to buff specific units works well. The low squad count for X-wing means that we get things like Captain Jonus, who is far too expensive to be really functional in what was obviously his intended role.

So if they're going to fix anything, they don't have any choice but to do it as they have been, with new modifications and pilots to existing models.

Man, Buhallin,

if you hate this game so **** much, just quit.

Really.

People play this game because they enjoy playing the game. While many will suffer some sense of over inflated ego at how good their toy ships are they move across the table, and tempers may flare from time to time, most of the time people just want to play a game, have fun, and do so socially.

You have gone from bashing the marketing decisions that FFG made to bashing the game design itself in an attempt to prove, what I perceive, as a relatively vain point.

If your ego has to continue to play a game you don't like, because of the decisions made by the company and by the designers, in an attempt to show disdain for the game, then really man, i think your in an unhealthy hobby.

Don't misunderstand, discussing the game balance, features, functions, limitations of the game engine, and how the game as a whole plays is a healthy thing to do. Its good to talk about what isn't as good and what is just better, and how to make it as level as it can be, but really, your just doing it with malice at this point (or at least my perception) and thats probably a little unhealthy.

X-wing was released a bit ahead of the LCG. The LCG went through a complete redesign after Gencon 2011 when both it an X-wing were demoed.

Yes, it was. But it was only a 3-4 month difference, which given printing lead times means it would have been pretty much impossible for the LCG to incorporate any lessons learned from X-wing's time in the wild.

If anything, that only makes X-wing look worse. Even with completely scrapping the system and going back to the drawing board under time pressure, they managed to turn out a tighter rule set than X-wing.

Man, Buhallin,

if you hate this game so **** much, just quit.

I'm sorry you think it's impossible to analyze the game, and point out its flaws, without hating it. I happen to like the game quite a bit. But that doesn't mean that making Biggs cheaper than Garven was good design. It doesn't mean that the game hasn't spent two years recovering from the overwhelming pain of the PS tax putting most unique pilots in the box forever. It doesn't mean the rules, which barely include timing despite a CCG-like ability structure, are well-designed. And it doesn't excuse FFG increasingly pushing the limits of putting highly desirable game components in increasingly expensive boxes.

Believe it or not, it is possible to still enjoy the game despite those issues, and I do. If you can't see how that's possible, then I feel for you, but please at least try and do better than "Classic Internet Flame #17". You could, perhaps, explain why not having any point value for ability is a good design choice? Or dispute that the PS tax has severely impacted the usefulness of unique pilots? Or explain how the rules really do adequately cover timing despite the pain they've caused us rulemongers for the past two years? Nah. "I don't like what you say so just leave!" is so much easier, isn't it?

I very simply and clearly pointed out that such an effort is comparitevly rare in minatures games and when done is always in the form of additional purchases.

I think X-wing is a different beast than most because of the very low model count. If you compare it to Warmachine, Prime included 3 warcasters and 11 models/units for each faction. Escalation added one more warcaster and 8 more models/units. More than two years into X-wing, we have a total of 9 models for each faction. So in two years of life the total release of X-wing matches the average yearly release for a Warmachine expansion.

That's why there's a difference. X-wing releases new models rarely, and the structure means there's not much else they can do to those models. Most minis games have much higher model counts as well, which means including a new model to buff specific units works well. The low squad count for X-wing means that we get things like Captain Jonus, who is far too expensive to be really functional in what was obviously his intended role.

So if they're going to fix anything, they don't have any choice but to do it as they have been, with new modifications and pilots to existing models.

I don't think there is an apt comparison to make there. First Prime was a new ruleset and didn't include that many actually new releases. One of which took something like a year to be released, and was and is utterly unplayable. Warmachine book releases don't really correspond with model release. Some models in a book will be released well before the book some well after. I think the most recent Hordes book had 3-4 new releases per faction in it which will be released over a fair bit of time

Additionally an individual release for X-wing includes significant more customization then one for Warmachine. There aren't really multiple configurations in a Warmachine release, other then min or max unit sizes.

X-wing was released a bit ahead of the LCG. The LCG went through a complete redesign after Gencon 2011 when both it an X-wing were demoed.

Yes, it was. But it was only a 3-4 month difference, which given printing lead times means it would have been pretty much impossible for the LCG to incorporate any lessons learned from X-wing's time in the wild.

If anything, that only makes X-wing look worse. Even with completely scrapping the system and going back to the drawing board under time pressure, they managed to turn out a tighter rule set than X-wing.

We are getting a bit off topic here but I know you and I have discussed this before. I would take a looser rule set that focused more on balance than a tight rule set that has balance issues. An unbalanced game is not fun as far as I am concerned...

I am glad you told me about the swlcg. I certainly wont be getting it now.

Most of us here anent designers, and I think most (or at least me) are more concerned this games fantastic balance is preserved than how tight the rules are.

On topic, my enthusiasm for speaking with my wallet comes from the fact that it is the only protest option anyone really has. The question is...how many will go through with it? I think it will be not enough to make a difference...moved like this will no doing continue. And I have no problem with this.

Man, Buhallin,

if you hate this game so **** much, just quit.

I'm sorry you think it's impossible to analyze the game, and point out its flaws, without hating it. I happen to like the game quite a bit. But that doesn't mean that making Biggs cheaper than Garven was good design. It doesn't mean that the game hasn't spent two years recovering from the overwhelming pain of the PS tax putting most unique pilots in the box forever. It doesn't mean the rules, which barely include timing despite a CCG-like ability structure, are well-designed. And it doesn't excuse FFG increasingly pushing the limits of putting highly desirable game components in increasingly expensive boxes.

Believe it or not, it is possible to still enjoy the game despite those issues, and I do. If you can't see how that's possible, then I feel for you, but please at least try and do better than "Classic Internet Flame #17". You could, perhaps, explain why not having any point value for ability is a good design choice? Or dispute that the PS tax has severely impacted the usefulness of unique pilots? Or explain how the rules really do adequately cover timing despite the pain they've caused us rulemongers for the past two years? Nah. "I don't like what you say so just leave!" is so much easier, isn't it?

Well, to that i can say that healthy discourse is a good thing. With that, however, as you conveniently pushed my comment out of context and just put the label on me of using "Classic internet Flame #17" you either failed to read the post in its entirety or you just ignored the last comment from me stating that healthy discussion on what makes a game good and what its opportunities are is a good thing.

In terms of engaging you in an intellectual discussion, if that were the topic, sure I would be happy to, and as it happens i too agree that for better balance, all games need to establish a form of design form factor that dictates that X is worth Y points. But that completely isn't the conversation you're trying to engage in, or what this topic is about.

You make the smarmy comment that i take the easy road because i lack the intellectual capability or knowledge to do so (inferred from your previous comments challenging me on various viewpoints, with the tonality that i either wouldn't have an answer because I'm not intelligent enough or just don't know enough about the game to do so) but the reality is that it seems like the person lashing out is doing that, not me. I just simply offered an outside perspective based on observed behaviors and statements.

Thing is, you have just moved from rioting about the Raider to complaining about something else and using that as a vehicle to express your disdain, in a conversation that really featured little about game balance and more about business decisions. Essentially, you went from "i hate these guys cause their mean to me" and included "and their momma is fat too" argument. When someone calls you on it, and states you could just leave the game if you hate it that badly, you immediately result to sarcasm and attempting to demonstrate whatever you feel as intellectually viable to "puff up" to a threat and dismiss it instead of actually considering the fact that while it may be an old comment, and one you have seen seven million times before, it might actually be applicable.

Now, lastly, I don't actually want to see anyone leave the game. However, re-assessing why you play the games you do might make playing the game more enjoyable, despite its absolutely terrible design, poor timing, and way to expensive mandatory upgrades.

I actually did read the whole post, including the statements about how good discussion was. But it was smokescreen BS. "If you hate the game so much just leave" is not a statement offered by anyone who's actually interested in discussion. So I stuck to the more honest bits.

Thing is, you have just moved from rioting about the Raider to complaining about something else and using that as a vehicle to express your disdain, in a conversation that really featured little about game balance and more about business decisions. Essentially, you went from "i hate these guys cause their mean to me" and included "and their momma is fat too" argument. When someone calls you on it, and states you could just leave the game if you hate it that badly, you immediately result to sarcasm and attempting to demonstrate whatever you feel as intellectually viable to "puff up" to a threat and dismiss it instead of actually considering the fact that while it may be an old comment, and one you have seen seven million times before, it might actually be applicable.

I wasn't the one who brought up game design. That tangent was started by someone else, and I went with it. Sorry it bothered you so much. Someone else started the tangent. I disagreed with his conclusion. Someone responded to that, and then I responded to that. That's how discussions work. Since you were equally offended by TIE Pilot and everyone else who participated in the discussion, your concern over the purity of the topic is obviously genuine, and not just an invented offense meant to single me out.

Now, lastly, I don't actually want to see anyone leave the game. However, re-assessing why you play the games you do might make playing the game more enjoyable, despite its absolutely terrible design, poor timing, and way to expensive mandatory upgrades.

Hey, Lucy, thanks - the nickel's in the mail! I appreciate you not packaging the concern trolling with the $100 spa plan, the a'la carte pricing is perfect!

Fair enough, it was in fact brought up by someone else, and you did reply to it. As i read it, i perceived a different chain of events and had to go back and fact check myself, so i was wrong and I'm sorry about that.

I also wouldn't say I was equally, less or any more offended by anyone. You comments however seem to carry a specific level of animosity with them and as I read it, you seem to be the most vocal with the most vitriol.

In any event, i did mistake your intentions, and even if i didn't, i certainly don't want to become a member of the community to serve as a catalyst for frustration, so if all things are equal, then i apologize if i misunderstood the nature of your posts.

Lastly, you can call me a troll as much as you want, and you can make fun of me as you choose, these things i cannot stop, but when I say something, i mean it, and when i say that i don't want to loose anyone in the game i actually mean it. However, when i say you should think about why you play the game to help you try to find some enjoyment in this game that you love/hate, i mean that too. Your comments are extremely negative to a game you are supposed to enjoy.

Honesty is out of style on the internet, I get that.

Youll find more honest people on this site than anywhere else on the interwebz I have found....