Should X-wing have remained a game where Tie Fighters and X-Wings were the only ships in play, endlessly dog-fighting in a 3x3 square around six asteroids?

I think most of us would say, no. We recognize that adding more ships to each faction was a good thing. It created something that was necessary for longevity: variety.

It may be that some of those who had learned to play the game when there were only Tie Fighters and X-Wings, had to adjust their play style as newer ships came into play. For some that was a good thing, but for others, as the game out-grew the previous skill-set, they felt the game was diminishing because it demanded more from them than their previous skill-set could meet. In order to remain competitive, they needed to grow - and frankly, that is an investment that they aren't comfortable being forced to make in order to continue enjoying the game they already had mastered.

There are legitimate beefs, of course, when new expansions are introduced - since each expansion will (necessarily) have some impact on the way the game is played, and on the skill-sets required to remain competitive. Thankfully, the designers clearly care about the evolution of the game - and they seem to hover over it like mother hens, tweaking it as needed to ensure, as best as they can, that with the increase in the variety of ships, they are not inadvertently robbing existing ships of a place in a competitive build.

I liken this to how television first began. At first we watched live shows in black and white on very low resolution screens. Then entertainment began to be become episodic like mini-movies, the lone ranger, leave it to beaver, and the like. Then Wham! color TV and an increase in resolution. Suddenly we have Betamax, then VCRs, then giant LaserDisks, then DVDs - today we don't even buy hard copies - we just buy digital online, and download it. There were flops along the way, Betamax (the better technology) failed to gain the ground, and VCRs became the standard. LaserDisks were too bulky, so DVDs became the standard, etc. etc.

When shows began to become serialized (taped), there were some people who cried out against it. You need live entertainment, otherwise you're taking away something vital!. When color came in - there were some who felt that black and white was more artisitic - that the color itself wasn't "real" enough, and was too distracting - we should stay with black and white. When the ability to tape shows came out - there were those who thought that this was going to destroy the whole thing, and when DVDs came out, people likewise felt the sky was falling. But it wasn't.

Now, obviously the metaphor has its flaws - the game graveyard is full of games that changed for the worse, and I understand that some people are concerned about this new thing or that new thing being the harbinger of doom - and that love the game enough to lift their voices to call this thing or that thing into check - that is a good thing (especially as the game designers do seem to pay attention to what is going on).

So I say change is good, and discussion is good too. I think that the sky isn't always falling, but it may tilt once in a while. I see that Fat Turrents, for example, have caused a lot of players to step up their game - and to develop and employ new strategies when playing with, or against such builds. Is this change a good thing? I think so - as long as the turrets remain balanced. I do believe it takes less skill to fly a turret - but so what?

Maybe Phantoms were a bit much - but they seem to be okay now. Maybe Advanced Ties were too ineffective - but the new title looks like it'll fix that.

It seems the designers are on top of this, so I am okay with change... for now.

Define your axes of change. Some are 'good' some are 'bad'. Change is inevitable. Change of goals is a constant choice.

Yes. Change is always terrible and you should hate and fear it.

Me? I don't mind change or growth. But there are extremes and too much of a good thing. Change for the sake of change may not be good. It can lead to breaking other things which will need fixing which leads to power creep which needs FAQ'd which leads to obsoleting other things which needs buffing which leads to........

The game already has so many combinations that a casual player may not know that 'a' usually pairs with 'b'; there are so many combinations they are hard to spot unless you're heavily involved. Now I'm buying Star Vipers to boost TIE interceptors, and CR-90 for C-3PO on a Falcon and a Raider for the TIE Advanced. Me? So far I've been okay with that. I like the ships (well most of them anyway) but it is getting a little much and some are asking when will it end.

Hopefully it will end before the game suffocates under it's own weight. Hopefully we can have a distinction between Epic and 100 point matches. Hopefully when Wave VII comes out there will be enough counters and tokens to properly field.

Me? I wouldn't mind some ships filling different roles than perpetual dog fighting. I'd love see Senator models and and asteroid base. See I'm not afraid of change. But that doesn't mean all change is good.

Change good or bad? It doesn't matter. Change is inevitable.

What is alive changes. You can also read that sentence in other ways:

If you want stay alive, keep changing.

If you aren't changing, you aren't alive.

Apply it to lifestyles, business, games, cultures, languages, evolution, etc. It's one of those philosophical thingies that people have been discussing about basically since we learned how to pee standing.

If the question is "Is all change good?" or "Is all change bad?", the answer to both is No.

The devs need to keep the game changing. Otherwise it dies. That we cannot avoid.

Of course, some changes will be better, some will be bad. But one bad change can be corrected with a good one later on.

As long as the devs acknowledge their errors and fix them, we will be fine. As long as you keep on changing, there is hope.

If anything, keep in mind Thrawn's dialog with the ensign:

Thrawn: "Do you know the difference between an error and a mistake, Ensign?"

Colclazure: "No, sir."

Thrawn: "Anyone can make an error, Ensign. But that error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it."

In most mmorpgs that include combat, though you have a multitude of classes, you often see the four-some teams - the tank, the healer, and a couple of damage guys often a mix of a sniping sort, and a melee sort, etc.

Notwithstanding, you sometimes see a group of tanks, or a group of healers, etc.

Different roles, various ways of combining roles - some more effective than others. Adding new roles typically does not hamstring a game - it just makes it a little different.

I think the same principles apply to miniature games. Different ships play different roles in various strategies (swarms, fat turrents, gank and spanks, etc.) It keeps the game lively. Stagnation isn't necessarily healthy, and change isn't always for the better - but change isn't something we rail against just because we like the game the way it is. (That's my opinion at least).

"The secret of change is to focus all of your energy, not on fighting the old, but on building the new" ~ Socrates

Change is bad when its a bad change!

Change over time is vital, if a thing does not evolve it stagnates and dies.

Ugh I had forgotten how bad that book was. If anybody said that to me I'd punch them in the face. Whoops, sorry, I made a mistake. No admiral would maintain any semblance of respect with such a stupid semantic argument. There'd be mutiny.

Thrawn: "Do you know the difference between an error and a mistake, Ensign?"

Colclazure: "No, sir."

Thrawn: "Anyone can make an error, Ensign. But that error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it."

It's not a semantic argument. It's saying "react to the unexpected or Rukh here is going to kill you."

If the game didn't change I would have gotten bored with it already.

No.

Ugh I had forgotten how bad that book was. If anybody said that to me I'd punch them in the face. Whoops, sorry, I made a mistake. No admiral would maintain any semblance of respect with such a stupid semantic argument. There'd be mutiny.

Thrawn: "Do you know the difference between an error and a mistake, Ensign?"

Colclazure: "No, sir."

Thrawn: "Anyone can make an error, Ensign. But that error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it."

It's not a semantic argument. It's saying "react to the unexpected or Rukh here is going to kill you."

Seriously?

They aren't discussing about semantics there, man.

The tractor beam operator made a mistake. Thrawn asked what happened. Then the guy denied having made a mistake and blamed the manual, his officer and everything else rather than admit that he made a mistake.

Thrawn's point was that anyone can make mistakes, and that is okay as long as you accept that you screwed it up, and learn from your mistakes, so that there is not a second time making the same mistake. You correct your mistake.

If you deny your mistakes, you will keep on making them.

That is why Thrawn has to correct it himself. By appointing a new tractor beam operator.

Change is good, but I think there needs to be a point where the developers draw a line under a game and say "RIght, it's about as good as it's going to get, so let's stop ******* with it"

Change is good, but I think there needs to be a point where the developers draw a line under a game and say "RIght, it's about as good as it's going to get, so let's stop ******* with it"

If only Lucas had received this advice...

Ugh I had forgotten how bad that book was. If anybody said that to me I'd punch them in the face. Whoops, sorry, I made a mistake. No admiral would maintain any semblance of respect with such a stupid semantic argument. There'd be mutiny.

Thrawn: "Do you know the difference between an error and a mistake, Ensign?"

Colclazure: "No, sir."

Thrawn: "Anyone can make an error, Ensign. But that error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it."

It's not a semantic argument. It's saying "react to the unexpected or Rukh here is going to kill you."

Seriously?

They aren't discussing about semantics there, man.

The tractor beam operator made a mistake. Thrawn asked what happened. Then the guy denied having made a mistake and blamed the manual, his officer and everything else rather than admit that he made a mistake.

Thrawn's point was that anyone can make mistakes, and that is okay as long as you accept that you screwed it up, and learn from your mistakes, so that there is not a second time making the same mistake. You correct your mistake.

If you deny your mistakes, you will keep on making them.

That is why Thrawn has to correct it himself. By appointing a new tractor beam operator.

Every time I read this I would love to have a Noghri on standby anytime some idiot starts talking again: ´I can´t help it! It is not my responsibilty! The government should take responsibility! Others do this too! My fault, it is your fault! It is the fault of foreigners! I never learned about this! What you are asking is something I have not done before! You can´t demand I take responsibility or the time to think this over!´

All real quotes during work. I would love to make a hand-gesture and calmly say: ´Rukh..´

If not possible, Force Choking would be a very nice alternative...

Be careful what you wish for... the Rukh may turn on you...

Be careful what you wish for... the Rukh may turn on you...

True, therefore I must keep his native environment green and flourishing!