You know I think the whole rock/paper scissors thing is sorta healthy for the game.

It is and isn't for several reasons. Rock/Paper/Scissors is bad for the skilled players because it means that no matter good of a player you are, if you brought paper and you randomly get paired up against someone with scissors, you are probably going to lose. But it also means you could be a very poor player but maintain a 50/50 win rate just because of who you got paired up against, which make it good for new players, which are the lifeblood of any game.

The fact that a rock/paper/scissors game favors newer players (the majority) over skilled players (the minority) means it's actually in FFG best interest to create a rock/paper/sicssors game at the competitive level while maintaining the illusion that games are decided by skill. This makes new players happy by giving them that 50/50 win rate that they probably don't deserve, and it keeps the skilled players happy because they can keep telling themselves that they won based on their skill and not because they got paired against good match ups.

But I actually don't think the current meta is a pure rock/paper/scissors game, I think currently we have a system where at worst games are 70/30, where Rock (Fat Han, Chiraneau) that beats Scissors (phantoms) but can also beat Paper (swarms) on a coin flip, and scissors always beats paper, and then we have Lizard (Super Dash & Corran) that beats paper, coin flips against scissors and loses to Rock. This leaves paper (swarms) as the weakest choice in the meta (relative to the other 3) and rock (fat han/chiraneau) as the strongest choice since it beats the other 2 outright and can beat the 3rd on a coin flip.

You know I think the whole rock/paper scissors thing is sorta healthy for the game.

It is and isn't for several reasons. Rock/Paper/Scissors is bad for the skilled players because it means that no matter good of a player you are, if you brought paper and you randomly get paired up against someone with scissors, you are probably going to lose. But it also means you could be a very poor player but maintain a 50/50 win rate just because of who you got paired up against, which make it good for new players, which are the lifeblood of any game.

The fact that a rock/paper/scissors game favors newer players (the majority) over skilled players (the minority) means it's actually in FFG best interest to create a rock/paper/sicssors game at the competitive level while maintaining the illusion that games are decided by skill. This makes new players happy by giving them that 50/50 win rate that they probably don't deserve, and it keeps the skilled players happy because they can keep telling themselves that they won based on their skill and not because they got paired against good match ups.

But I actually don't think the current meta is a pure rock/paper/scissors game, I think currently we have a system where at worst games are 70/30, where Rock (Fat Han, Chiraneau) that beats Scissors (phantoms) but can also beat Paper (swarms) on a coin flip, and scissors always beats paper, and then we have Lizard (Super Dash & Corran) that beats paper, coin flips against scissors and loses to Rock. This leaves paper (swarms) as the weakest choice in the meta (relative to the other 3) and rock (fat han/chiraneau) as the strongest choice since it beats the other 2 outright and can beat the 3rd on a coin flip.

You're applying a video-game-design mentality to FFG that I don't think exists. This isn't F2P and doesn't survive on the same financial mechanics.

The fact that a rock/paper/scissors game favors newer players (the majority) over skilled players (the minority) means it's actually in FFG best interest to create a rock/paper/sicssors game at the competitive level while maintaining the illusion that games are decided by skill.

You lost me here. The illusion of skill? You don't honestly believe that we have a repeat world champion because he was the luckiest guy in the room two years in a row do you?

Nobody actually believes this game is truly as simple as rocks papers scissors, it's just a useful metaphor to explain it concisely. If it were truly that simple, these forums would be a ghost town. We'd just go play rock papers scissors and be hundreds of dollars richer for it.

No, that metaphor serves to describe the list archetypes and only that. How you fly that archetype is another matter entirely. You can fly any list well, and you can fly any list poorly. And you'll see the people who fly a good list, the best way will win.

The fact that a rock/paper/scissors game favors newer players (the majority) over skilled players (the minority) means it's actually in FFG best interest to create a rock/paper/sicssors game at the competitive level while maintaining the illusion that games are decided by skill.

You lost me here. The illusion of skill? You don't honestly believe that we have a repeat world champion because he was the luckiest guy in the room two years in a row do you?

Nobody actually believes this game is truly as simple as rocks papers scissors, it's just a useful metaphor to explain it concisely. If it were truly that simple, these forums would be a ghost town. We'd just go play rock papers scissors and be hundreds of dollars richer for it.

No, that metaphor serves to describe the list archetypes and only that. How you fly that archetype is another matter entirely. You can fly any list well, and you can fly any list poorly. And you'll see the people who fly a good list, the best way will win.

If I plop a swarm down and my opponent is flying 86 double phantom I'm done for. I went paper and he went super sharp scissors. I'm just blatantly not winning unless one or both of them get parked on asteroids.

That doesn't change the fact that it's still in the best interest of the bad player to fly a good list to maximize his chance of winning. Hence the rock paper scissors thing.

The fact that a rock/paper/scissors game favors newer players (the majority) over skilled players (the minority) means it's actually in FFG best interest to create a rock/paper/sicssors game at the competitive level while maintaining the illusion that games are decided by skill.

You lost me here. The illusion of skill? You don't honestly believe that we have a repeat world champion because he was the luckiest guy in the room two years in a row do you?

Nobody actually believes this game is truly as simple as rocks papers scissors, it's just a useful metaphor to explain it concisely. If it were truly that simple, these forums would be a ghost town. We'd just go play rock papers scissors and be hundreds of dollars richer for it.

No, that metaphor serves to describe the list archetypes and only that. How you fly that archetype is another matter entirely. You can fly any list well, and you can fly any list poorly. And you'll see the people who fly a good list, the best way will win.

You know I think the whole rock/paper scissors thing is sorta healthy for the game.

It is and isn't for several reasons. Rock/Paper/Scissors is bad for the skilled players because it means that no matter good of a player you are, if you brought paper and you randomly get paired up against someone with scissors, you are probably going to lose. But it also means you could be a very poor player but maintain a 50/50 win rate just because of who you got paired up against, which make it good for new players, which are the lifeblood of any game.

The fact that a rock/paper/scissors game favors newer players (the majority) over skilled players (the minority) means it's actually in FFG best interest to create a rock/paper/sicssors game at the competitive level while maintaining the illusion that games are decided by skill. This makes new players happy by giving them that 50/50 win rate that they probably don't deserve, and it keeps the skilled players happy because they can keep telling themselves that they won based on their skill and not because they got paired against good match ups.

But I actually don't think the current meta is a pure rock/paper/scissors game, I think currently we have a system where at worst games are 70/30, where Rock (Fat Han, Chiraneau) that beats Scissors (phantoms) but can also beat Paper (swarms) on a coin flip, and scissors always beats paper, and then we have Lizard (Super Dash & Corran) that beats paper, coin flips against scissors and loses to Rock. This leaves paper (swarms) as the weakest choice in the meta (relative to the other 3) and rock (fat han/chiraneau) as the strongest choice since it beats the other 2 outright and can beat the 3rd on a coin flip.

Thank for not reading my whole post.

I think Paul Heaver is our 2x World Champion because he is both a very skilled player AND he figured out that rock (Fat Han) had the best win ratio against the meta and then picked Diamond (R2-D2) that has all the benefits of rock but also beats other rocks in the mirror match. If he hadn't been smart enough to figure out that the rock/paper/scissors meta was weighted to favor rock, I don't think pure playing skill would have carried him to 1st place.

Did you watch Heaver's semi-final match against Ira? It was almost sad watching Ira's falcon lose 1 health a turn while Paul's never even took a single hull card.

But, watching the finals, Paul clearly outflew his opponent.

You know I think the whole rock/paper scissors thing is sorta healthy for the game.

It is and isn't for several reasons. Rock/Paper/Scissors is bad for the skilled players because it means that no matter good of a player you are, if you brought paper and you randomly get paired up against someone with scissors, you are probably going to lose. But it also means you could be a very poor player but maintain a 50/50 win rate just because of who you got paired up against, which make it good for new players, which are the lifeblood of any game.

The fact that a rock/paper/scissors game favors newer players (the majority) over skilled players (the minority) means it's actually in FFG best interest to create a rock/paper/sicssors game at the competitive level while maintaining the illusion that games are decided by skill. This makes new players happy by giving them that 50/50 win rate that they probably don't deserve, and it keeps the skilled players happy because they can keep telling themselves that they won based on their skill and not because they got paired against good match ups.

But I actually don't think the current meta is a pure rock/paper/scissors game, I think currently we have a system where at worst games are 70/30, where Rock (Fat Han, Chiraneau) that beats Scissors (phantoms) but can also beat Paper (swarms) on a coin flip, and scissors always beats paper, and then we have Lizard (Super Dash & Corran) that beats paper, coin flips against scissors and loses to Rock. This leaves paper (swarms) as the weakest choice in the meta (relative to the other 3) and rock (fat han/chiraneau) as the strongest choice since it beats the other 2 outright and can beat the 3rd on a coin flip.

I think this is completely wrong. You are assuming that new players like rock-paper-scissor mechanics. I think most people do not like it. If your mechanics are too random (list pairings) or unfair (skill doesn't matter) then new players will try a couple of games then leave.

But, watching the finals, Paul clearly outflew his opponent.

That godly manouver of 4 straight itself was worthy of bard songs.

OT, i dont see ptl dash that mucch but thats because not many people think they can keep engaging a ps9 phantom with a ps7 outrider.

Forgetting luck too... Suprised it hasn't been mentioned.

Dem fickle dice.

Like a regular at our local league night. 18 losses in a row.

From what I've seen he flies quite well. But the dice gods hate him so yeah...

Poor bugger.

Example. He gets 4 x interceptors into range one of opponents defender.

Rolls nothing for all 4 ships.

So to win you need three things

Fly well

Strong list

Luck

No strong build or great tactics will win you the game if Lady Luck gives you the cold shoulder.

Forgetting luck too... Suprised it hasn't been mentioned.

Dem fickle dice.

Like a regular at our local league night. 18 losses in a row.

From what I've seen he flies quite well. But the dice gods hate him so yeah...

Poor bugger.

Example. He gets 4 x interceptors into range one of opponents defender.

Rolls nothing for all 4 ships.

So to win you need three things

Fly well

Strong list

Luck

No strong build or great tactics will win you the game if Lady Luck gives you the cold shoulder.

If he's lost 18 games in a row he's either playing people who are much better than he is or he's making tactical mistakes. If he's got really good spatial sense he probably looks like he's better than guys who are crashing into stuff left and right but if he isn't putting his ships in the right places even having great luck with the dice isn't going to consistently give him wins.

While bad luck can ruin the occasional game, 18 in a row due to dice alone is a little hard to accept. I'm sure the dice played a part but if this player is attributing every loss to dice, I'm not at all surprised he's lost 18 straight. If you're focused on the dice, you'll never realize the mistakes you made and won't grow as a player.

for me, bad luck is only really noticable when you're in a good situation and **** just doesn't work it out

if I draw Jakes and 3 B-wings with actions onto a space fringer at range 2 of them all, I expect more than 2 damage.

if I corner Corran with a range 1 Biggs and Bandit, I expect far more than nothing (stupid double 4 dice blank target-lock)

If Corran shows his dumb ass in front of range 2 V.I Cracken, a range 2 focus/lock B-wing, and a range 1 focus B-wing, he should just be ******* dead and not unscathed.

If I double stress vessery has his ass ioned for two turns, it should not take five ******* rounds to kill him

but really, other than that the dice shouldn't bother you. It's only when you've clearly outplayed your opponent and they manage to get off scott free consistently throughout the course of a game (or vice-versa, I hate getting bailed by bad dice when my opponent does something brilliant) that I start to lose my marbles. It doesn't happen super often, though, because there's always the impact of maneuvering and it has quite a say over whether or not we even get to throw dice

Unless you're flying versus turrets, ofc. One bout of bad dice can just fling you down past the point where you can exchange dice with it and have a reasonable chance of winning, because some ******* thought a 360 primary weapon "arc" was a good idea.

The lack of Shuttles keep surprising me.

I never bring less than 2 if I fly Imperials.

They only let me down *once*.

Both range 1 from a badly damaged Han (5 hull left), both with TL on Han, one with a focus on top of that.

First roll; 4x focus. (yeah; the one with the TL 'only') -> RR; Nothing but blancs and a focus.

Second shuttle managed to land only *ONE BLOODY HIT* despite having TL+focus. My opponent rolled his single green die. -> Evade.

That is when I moaned: "I am Jinxed, and dice hate me with a passion legendary even in hell."

Cost me a spot in the final.

Still need counseling for these rolls.

The lack of Shuttles keep surprising me.

I never bring less than 2 if I fly Imperials.

They only let me down *once*.

Both range 1 from a badly damaged Han (5 hull left), both with TL on Han, one with a focus on top of that.

First roll; 4x focus. (yeah; the one with the TL 'only') -> RR; Nothing but blancs and a focus.

Second shuttle managed to land only *ONE BLOODY HIT* despite having TL+focus. My opponent rolled his single green die. -> Evade.

That is when I moaned: "I am Jinxed, and dice hate me with a passion legendary even in hell."

Cost me a spot in the final.

Still need counseling for these rolls.

I love shuttles, but this meta isn't kind to them. I think the doom shuttle is as good as always, but I'm hesitant to bring any other shuttle build.

I love shuttles, but this meta isn't kind to them. I think the doom shuttle is as good as always, but I'm hesitant to bring any other shuttle build.

How do you mean? I love ramming 2 or 3 shuttles straight in the face of anything large and turreted.

Add something capable of keeping the flanks of your precious white space cows free/keep your opponent honest and you should have a good game.

shuttles face the stat advantage to roll with against turrets, but that dial will lose them attacks when faced with the hyper-mobility of the meta and swing the balance right back in the turret's favor

The doom shuttle still kicks all sorts of ass because it's hardy, unerringly accurate, and cheap. Running multiple shuttles is much trickier.

Now the "Rebel shuttle" (B-wing) still seems to be in absolute tip top form, so not all hope is lost

If I plop a swarm down and my opponent is flying 86 double phantom I'm done for. I went paper and he went super sharp scissors. I'm just blatantly not winning unless one or both of them get parked on asteroids.

That doesn't change the fact that it's still in the best interest of the bad player to fly a good list to maximize his chance of winning. Hence the rock paper scissors thing.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/134251-my-evolving-the-shark-series/

You know I think the whole rock/paper scissors thing is sorta healthy for the game.

The fact that a rock/paper/scissors game favors newer players (the majority) over skilled players (the minority) means it's actually in FFG best interest to create a rock/paper/sicssors game at the competitive level while maintaining the illusion that games are decided by skill.

I think this is completely wrong. You are assuming that new players like rock-paper-scissor mechanics. I think most people do not like it. If your mechanics are too random (list pairings) or unfair (skill doesn't matter) then new players will try a couple of games then leave.

I'm assuming that new players (and non-competitive players) dislike taking responsibility for their losses because it's easier to blame something else. When there is nothing to blame, players are forced to either take responsibility for their losses, keep losing, or stop playing, and many players would pick the latter. Just look at how many new players are quick to blame their loss on the dice, and how many articles and forum posts have to be written every year explaining to new players that the vast majority of matches are not actually dictated by dice rolls but by list building and skilled play.

A lot of you guys are reading my posts as black and white, and they're not. I said X-Wing isn't just a rock/paper/scissors game, I was merely explaining the merits of having a game be rock/paper/scissors, I said Paul Heaver is the current champion because of his skill, but also because of the list he chose to bring. Yes, it can be both! Winning because of skill and winning because of list selection are not mutually exclusive, they are complimentary. X-Wing matches are decided by a multitude of different factors including player skill, squad lists and sometimes, just sometimes, a little bit of luck.

You can't look at a game like X-Wing as being purely black or white, just about skill or just about list matchups or just about luck, you will miss out on the bigger picture if you only laser focus in on one of these factors.

Tvboy,

I'd think that the "non competitive" gamers would be LESS likely to avoid accepting responsibility for their own losses/failures on account of the fact that they usually have less ego riding on the game. To them, it is about more than who wins and who loses, it is about the shared SW experience and fun. At least that is MY observation of gamers for the past 30 years, or so. Your experience may differ.

Agreed, flying casual should be paramount. Something even my best friends who fly with me in sc's are starting to forget. I'm trying to help them by refusing to play meta getups. Started with lamda's everyone laughed. But I still got 2nd. Been doing bomber builds this year. Again everyone laughed and said I wasted 60 bucks buying four bombers.ended up winning all but the last two matches after they finally wrapped their heads aroundy build. Metas are powerful and easy mainstays, but other builds are just as powerful of not more. They're just not dreamed up yet or executed properly.

Much respect for Shuttle love. It's my favourite Empire ship.

I'm assuming that new players (and non-competitive players) dislike taking responsibility for their losses because it's easier to blame something else. When there is nothing to blame, players are forced to either take responsibility for their losses, keep losing, or stop playing, and many players would pick the latter. Just look at how many new players are quick to blame their loss on the dice, and how many articles and forum posts have to be written every year explaining to new players that the vast majority of matches are not actually dictated by dice rolls but by list building and skilled play.

A lot of you guys are reading my posts as black and white, and they're not. I said X-Wing isn't just a rock/paper/scissors game, I was merely explaining the merits of having a game be rock/paper/scissors, I said Paul Heaver is the current champion because of his skill, but also because of the list he chose to bring. Yes, it can be both! Winning because of skill and winning because of list selection are not mutually exclusive, they are complimentary. X-Wing matches are decided by a multitude of different factors including player skill, squad lists and sometimes, just sometimes, a little bit of luck.

You can't look at a game like X-Wing as being purely black or white, just about skill or just about list matchups or just about luck, you will miss out on the bigger picture if you only laser focus in on one of these factors.

I've often seen people complaining about the lack of variety in what they face. It's not just xyz is so powerful. It's that people only take rock, paper, or scissor. I've known people to quit competitive play for this reason. The game gets boring when everyone is running similar lists.

I'm assuming that new players (and non-competitive players) dislike taking responsibility for their losses because it's easier to blame something else. When there is nothing to blame, players are forced to either take responsibility for their losses, keep losing, or stop playing, and many players would pick the latter. Just look at how many new players are quick to blame their loss on the dice, and how many articles and forum posts have to be written every year explaining to new players that the vast majority of matches are not actually dictated by dice rolls but by list building and skilled play.

A lot of you guys are reading my posts as black and white, and they're not. I said X-Wing isn't just a rock/paper/scissors game, I was merely explaining the merits of having a game be rock/paper/scissors, I said Paul Heaver is the current champion because of his skill, but also because of the list he chose to bring. Yes, it can be both! Winning because of skill and winning because of list selection are not mutually exclusive, they are complimentary. X-Wing matches are decided by a multitude of different factors including player skill, squad lists and sometimes, just sometimes, a little bit of luck.

You can't look at a game like X-Wing as being purely black or white, just about skill or just about list matchups or just about luck, you will miss out on the bigger picture if you only laser focus in on one of these factors.

I've often seen people complaining about the lack of variety in what they face. It's not just xyz is so powerful. It's that people only take rock, paper, or scissor. I've known people to quit competitive play for this reason. The game gets boring when everyone is running similar lists.

Lol at quitting because of the lack of variety. It's a tournament where people are trying to win so of course you're going to see a ton of the same list. Expecting anything else is unrealistic. But tournament play isn't for everyone.