We spent 3 waves, almost 2 years, of this game trying to get it so that heavily upgraded ships weren't totally crippled compared to just taking more vanilla ships and now we're trying to restrict them?

Was going to say this...it wasn't that long ago people were clamoring for upgrades ships to be worth taking...now this?

There really seems to be no way to win...fortunately most here see the issues with this particular "fix."

I know, right? It's like when Tom got buried in six feet of snow and complained about the winter weather and then his neighbor Bob thinks he's justified in complaining about record-breaking heat waves once summer hits. There's just no way for the weather to win! Don't they realize that once someone expressed concern with one extreme everyone has to just accept every other horrible extreme that might come to pass? I mean, it's almost like they think a poor environment can be evaluated solely on its own merits, and they're somehow entitled to express their opinion of that regardless of what someone else in the community might have said about another poor environment.

Crazy!!

Don't you have a better game or tighter rules to go design? Or are you just going to snipe at me. Thanks for adding to the conversation I suppose?

My comment was completely reasonable and fully fact. Not too long ago people wanted a reason to take more upgrades and higher skill pilots...they now have them. The company will fix what needs to be fixed...I am well aware you feel they have gone from one extreme to the other...I think they shook things up as they had intended...some feel it went too far, others no (I am more in the no Co).

I know you have stated in the past you feel you could design a better game. I encourage you do so...and then maybe share it with us so it can be properly debated...

We spent 3 waves, almost 2 years, of this game trying to get it so that heavily upgraded ships weren't totally crippled compared to just taking more vanilla ships and now we're trying to restrict them?

Proves that you can't please all the people all of the time, just some of the people some of the time.

To be fair, you get more feedback from the people that are unhappy then the people that are content, even when the unhappy people are in the minority. IE: it doesn't matter what gets fixed, people will always complain, that doesn't mean it's the same people complaining all the time.

We spent 3 waves, almost 2 years, of this game trying to get it so that heavily upgraded ships weren't totally crippled compared to just taking more vanilla ships and now we're trying to restrict them?

Proves that you can't please all the people all of the time, just some of the people some of the time.

Very very true.

My comment was completely reasonable and fully fact. Not too long ago people wanted a reason to take more upgrades and higher skill pilots...they now have them. The company will fix what needs to be fixed...I am well aware you feel they have gone from one extreme to the other...I think they shook things up as they had intended...some feel it went too far, others no (I am more in the no Co).

Factual, yes - people have indeed expressed those opinions at different times. Reasonable? Not really.

It's perfectly reasonable for someone to think upgrades being pointless is bad AND upgrades making up 20-30% of most competitive lists is bad, even if they're the same person. What people want is balance in the game. That's how you "win", and there's nothing unreasonable or contradictory about it even before you look at different opinions coming from different people.

That's the point I was trying to make. You want to act like having an issue with one extreme means someone must accept any other extreme as good. It's a convenient way to shut down any debate about the current state of the game, but it's a complete straw man. Just like the "Go design your own game" line. Tell you what - why don't you design your own game, that way we can all debate that and determine whether you're qualified to provide your judgement that the game's state is good. Because if you're concerned about people's qualifications to comment, that shouldn't just be limited to opinions you disagree with, right? You wouldn't possibly be applying that selectively as a way to shut down someone with different views while letting ones you agree with pass unchallenged, right? Riiiiight...

Opinions pls

My comment was completely reasonable and fully fact. Not too long ago people wanted a reason to take more upgrades and higher skill pilots...they now have them. The company will fix what needs to be fixed...I am well aware you feel they have gone from one extreme to the other...I think they shook things up as they had intended...some feel it went too far, others no (I am more in the no Co).

Factual, yes - people have indeed expressed those opinions at different times. Reasonable? Not really.

It's perfectly reasonable for someone to think upgrades being pointless is bad AND upgrades making up 20-30% of most competitive lists is bad, even if they're the same person. What people want is balance in the game. That's how you "win", and there's nothing unreasonable or contradictory about it even before you look at different opinions coming from different people.

That's the point I was trying to make. You want to act like having an issue with one extreme means someone must accept any other extreme as good. It's a convenient way to shut down any debate about the current state of the game, but it's a complete straw man. Just like the "Go design your own game" line. Tell you what - why don't you design your own game, that way we can all debate that and determine whether you're qualified to provide your judgement that the game's state is good. Because if you're concerned about people's qualifications to comment, that shouldn't just be limited to opinions you disagree with, right? You wouldn't possibly be applying that selectively as a way to shut down someone with different views while letting ones you agree with pass unchallenged, right? Riiiiight...

I would ask that you don't put words in my mouth. I am very capable of speaking for myself. I have never once said or inferred an extreme needs to be accepted. I just don't feel we are at the extreme you feel we are. Would you agree with his idea that upgrade points should be limited? I certainly don't...and neither do most people it seems...my position here is not unreasonable...you disagree and that is both fine and unsurprising....I understand your point...I just don't see why you felt the need to snipe at me...

The design your own game line comes from A. The general somewhat hostile tone of your post as I read it and B.C. the fact that you straight up admitted to me not too long ago that you felt you could design a better game...I don't feel any qualifications are necessary to post, if I did I wouldn't be posting...the comment had nothing to do with qualifications and more to do with you putting out how you would "fix" the game...I see you posting all the time about how "loose" the rules are and how"poorly" designed parts of this game are...I don't recall seeing many viable solutions (though I don't recall all your posts either I am going off memory.) I am no game designer nor do I care to be...I enjoy playing this game as it stands and I look forward to what the PROFESSIONALS will create for me. I am aware might be coming off aggressive here...and that's because it seems to,me you sniped at me in particular for no real reason..

They are already limited by their cost and amount of upgrade icons on the pilot card. Why limit further and make it more complex?

<Mrs. Garrett voice> Girls, GIRLS!

Everyone calm down. The tone the boards have taken lately is causing me concern.
Let's not turn this into the Blizzard forums. <shudders violently>

<Mrs. Garrett voice> Girls, GIRLS!

Everyone calm down. The tone the boards have taken lately is causing me concern.

Let's not turn this into the Blizzard forums. <shudders violently>

Don't worry...me and buhallin have gotten into it before and while we may rarely agree I will admit that I do respect his opinion...and though I feel he may be a bit arrogant at times I will be the first to admit that I can be an ass. So it balanced out if you ask me.

We generally keep things respectful...even if we vehemently disagree.

Don't worry...me and buhallin have gotten into it before and while we may rarely agree I will admit that I do respect his opinion...and though I feel he may be a bit arrogant at times I will be the first to admit that I can be an ass. So it balanced out if you ask me.

We generally keep things respectful...even if we vehemently disagree.

It's not arrogance if you can back it up

Whether you meant it or not, things like comparing someone's opinion on a previous (unreleated) state of the game to the current state, or "Let's see what you design" are common tactics to dismiss and deligitimize opinions without bothering to engage them. If you think the current state of the game is fine, that's great - but anyone's opinion on an earlier state has no bearing on whether the current state is good or not. I suspect you thought the game was perfectly fine when there was little point to taking a bunch of upgrades, right? Does that mean that you're unjustified in thinking it's fine now? Is anyone saying "It's like FFG just can't lose" when you express your opinion? Because it kinda seems like if you think people disliking the zero-upgrade environment was relevant, then thinking the zero-upgrade environment was fine should be equally relevant (and disqualifying?)

Why don't I make games for FFG? Because, to be blunt, they couldn't pay me enough. By a long shot. And since they're not paying me to design, but I AM paying them, I have every right to express quality concerns whether I take the time to design my own games (or fixes to this one) or not. You don't have to be Bobby Flay to know (or say) that McDonald's is low quality food.

There's a very vocal contingent around here lately which wants to insult, belittle, and simply shout down anyone who dares to state that FFG's devs have anything shy of rainbows and unicorns flying out of their butt. If you want to disagree, fine - I've never told anyone that their opinion was unwelcome just because they disagreed with me. Maybe you didn't mean to, and maybe I was overly sensitive to it, but your post felt like it was going out of its way to be one of those ones.

@buhallin

Looks like we both over read into each others posts then. Not the first time it's happened. I have no qualms with people voicing an opinion different from mine. I relish the chance to engage them. I'll never shout someone down...I'll argue.with them until a solution is reached or we agree to disagree. Any of the myriad of people who have engaged me for an extended period I am sure would attest to that. I am far from disagreeable provided my opponent is respectful...which most have been. you have always tended to be...which is why I respect your opinion even though it tends to run contrary to mine.

But just add one thing. It is completely valid to point out the at least mild absurdity that is noted a bit in here. That the community got what it asked for...and now wants do go back to the way it was. "The grass is always greener on the other side." You may not see it the way I do...and that's fine...I know I can't convince you otherwise and I am pretty sure you can't convince me either. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree again...feel free to engage,me anytime you like. I would just ask that you try to engage a bit more tact and I will try to do the same.

EDIT TO ADD: the initial post that began this exchange was commentary...nothing more. You will note I said nothing further on this subject until I perceived a shot across my bow from a previously uninvolved party.

I've been playing miniatures games for 30 years, and this is one of the most balanced I've played. The design team do a great job of balancing new units AND reacting to changes to the meta. Until that changes, I see no need to impose additional limits, such as upgrade restrictions.

I'm glad upgrades are worth taking now. I'm also glad when I see a lot of upgrades across the table...it means I have fewer ships shooting back at me, and fewer I have to kill to win.

If you want to see "X-Wing gone wrong", look no further than Star Trek Attack Wing from Wizkids. Same basic engine, but some serious basic errors in design (primarily driven by marketing) that hurt gameplay. THAT is an example of a game that needs additional limitations to be fun and balanced. JMO of course, as someone who has played both extensively.

But just add one thing. It is completely valid to point out the at least mild absurdity that is noted a bit in here. That the community got what it asked for...and now wants do go back to the way it was. "The grass is always greener on the other side."

None of this is true.

The community was asking for upgrades to matter - not to become so dominant that they'd be a mandatory 25% of most competitive builds. And nobody wants to go back to the way it was - what people want is to find a balance where upgrades or no upgrades both present different but comparable advantages, leading to competitive choice.

We've gone from zero to eleven. Nobody was asking for eleven when we had zero, and now that we've got eleven nobody's asking for zero. The goal was always a nice sweet spot somewhere around 6 or so, give or take a point.

So it's only an absurdity if you're strawmanning both the new and old concerns, which is exactly what I took exception to in the first place. There's nothing the least bit absurd about "I can hear it if it's at zero" and "Eleven is too loud!" existing at the same time.

As I said you and I see it differently and that's fine...I think we would both best be served if we just leave it at that.

I don't think I am strawmanning I am not building something up in order to knock it down. I am calling things as I perceive them...as are you. We simply perceive it differently. You think we have hit the opposite extreme...i do not. I respect your opinion even though it differs from mine...it would be nice if you could show me the same respectra move on...you are not going to get me to.see it your way...just like I won't get you to see it the same as me....

I'm still seeing relatively bare bone lists, both swarms and none swarms, win or place highly in decent sized SCs. As such I feel as if the concept that competitive play is dictating that you utilize upgrades in the percentages that are being asserted to not be well grounded in current results.

There is certainly a number of builds that will be near as much ship as they are upgrade, but they certainly aren't the only viable competitive option.

So if you are looking for a 6, you're much closer to it then your posts would seem to entail.

I'm still seeing relatively bare bone lists, both swarms and none swarms, win or place highly in decent sized SCs. As such I feel as if the concept that competitive play is dictating that you utilize upgrades in the percentages that are being asserted to not be well grounded in current results.

There is certainly a number of builds that will be near as much ship as they are upgrade, but they certainly aren't the only viable competitive option.

So if you are looking for a 6, you're much closer to it then your posts would seem to entail.

This will be an ongoing disagreement in the emphasis on results. One of the recent store championships is a good example - some people I know said "Wow! A 4B+Z list won, that proves there's no problem!" But 6 of the top 8 in that event were Fat Turret lists. You also take it nicely to absolutes - occasional hyperbole aside, nobody thinks it's 100% the only way to win. It is considerably out of whack, as 15% of released ships commonly showing in 75% of the top lists alludes to.

<shrug> I wasn't necessarily trying to weigh in on the absolutes. I was mainly pointing out the logical fallacy (which he either refuses to or is incapable of seeing) of Shaka's insulting comments.

If anyone cares about my actual position, I don't think upgrades in general are broken, but I do think that what started as a very elegant system has gone completely off the rails, between ships come just shy of toes to count the upgrades to rather massive imbalances in cost effectiveness between certain upgrades and types of upgrades. I don't think that means we need different restrictions, but I do think it's gotten completely out of control.

<shrug> I wasn't necessarily trying to weigh in on the absolutes. I was mainly pointing out the logical fallacy (which he either refuses to or is incapable of seeing) of Shaka's insulting comments.

I must just be incapable of seeing it. As what you are claiming I am doing is not the definition of a strawman argument which I believe is the logical fallacy you are accusing me of.

Definition:

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.^[2][3]

^{Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man}

I am not attempting to knock the argument down...I am commenting on how this suggestion was a 180 from the attitudes we had not even a year ago...you may feel what was thought then is irrelevant to what is thought now but I disagree.

As stated earlier. I was simply making commentary before you sniped at me. That was what caused me act aggressively. I call the issues as I see them from my perspective. I have conceded (for the 2nd or 3rd time now) that we can simply agree to disagree...and that I, at least, am capable of doing this without being disagreeable. Though if you think I am being disagreeable I would encourage you to PM me...I am more than willing to discuss it with you personally. I still think that you can react in a similar manner. Ill apologize for the game design comment, as I have done in the past. It was an emotional response to your shot. But I hope you can understand where I am coming from...you get someone snarking your 2 line very valid (and it is valid...as I would contend by looking at some of the responses in this very thread) commentary 2 days later when he hadnt been involved up to that point? As I said that was all it was...you provoked me (more than likely unintentionally) and I reacted (perhaps overly aggressively.) We can agree to disagree I am sure.

If it wanst your intention to snipe at me, Ill give you that...but thats what it looked like to me. And thank you for sharing your actual position. This is what we should have been arguing...but we both already knew each others views on this topic.

You and I have gotten into it in the past before and I am sure we will again. Ill have you konw, I enjoy our discussions...you have taught me a thing or two and perhaps you have or might learn something from me...You are an intelligent dude...and Ill leave it at that...and Ill take my leave here.

I am commenting on how this suggestion was a 180 from the attitudes we had not even a year ago...you may feel what was thought then is irrelevant to what is thought now but I disagree.

Saying it's "180 from the attitudes we had not even a year ago" fails to understand the attitude of a year ago AND the attitude of today, why either was what it was, and how they're not the only two possibilities on the spectrum. You're actively refusing to acknowledge that anyone could hold an opinion outside of the one you've made up for them.

Ya I feel like restricting the upgrade options for each ship would be useful, mabey some kind of upgrade bar.

Wait a second......

Bahaha I mean no disrespect to the OP because I understand where he is coming from but this comment made me laugh so hard.

Limiting the cards you can use or creating ban lists for either upgrades or pilots would make this game not fun IMO.

This game is overall very balanced overall and one of its greatest strengths is the ability to make many combos for fun.

Limiting the cards you can use or creating ban lists for either upgrades or pilots would make this game not fun IMO.

This game is overall very balanced overall and one of its greatest strengths is the ability to make many combos for fun.

Using the Restriced List to break certain combos is an incredibly efficient way of opening up the game for diversity. And is always tweakable. FFG has shown just because something goes on the list, doesn't mean it will stay there always. And is always preferable to errata'ing something to uselessness.

As to the original point, I really don't like the idea of adding more math to deckbuilding. Load something up as much as you want (one day, I will run a 70+ pt Firespray). As the Attack Wingers can attest, it isn't exactly a popular option, either.

Upgrades already are limited. They cost points. Some are unique. Some can only be on certain ships or on ships in a cetain faction.

I think they are as limited as they need to already.

I think the best idea would be limiting "evade/regen" type upgrades to one per ship. Ones that would fit that category are MF Title, 3PO, Jan, Lando, and R2. That way falcons could only have one guaranteed evade a round instead of 2, 3, or even 4.

Anyway this discussion is fairly pointless as I don't see FFG doing anything to limit the number of blisters you want to buy. The reason Lambdas and E-Wings sell is for Advanced Sensors, Slave I and Millenium falcon are permanently sold out because of VI (because who really needs 3 Falcons?). Not to mention apart from not selling more ships it would piss off all the people who already bought lots of expansions just for the upgrades.

Swarms are just as good as Elite ship lists. The reason you don't see more swarms in Competitive play is they are more expensive and require more coordination. Dash lists and Deci lists are just super popular right now because they're new.

Anyway this discussion is fairly pointless as I don't see FFG doing anything to limit the number of blisters you want to buy. The reason Lambdas and E-Wings sell is for Advanced Sensors...

As a bonus, those blister packs also come with Lambdas and E-wings, which are both very usable ships.

...Slave I and Millenium falcon are permanently sold out because of VI (because who really needs 3 Falcons?).

Firesprays are very good, even if they're not at the top of the metagame right now, and the people with three Falcons are usually modding one.

Swarms are just as good as Elite ship lists. The reason you don't see more swarms in Competitive play is they are more expensive and require more coordination.

No, you don't see more swarms in competitive play is because a high-PS Phantom with ACD can take them apart. (I said "can", not "must".) Swarms just aren't typically set up to handle opponents with very high PS and Agility.