Let's dispel this "I'm anti-proxy to help FFG" charade.

FFG is not worried about people proxying upgrade cards, because those people are buying ships. If FFG thought upgrade card proxies were a threat to their sustainability they'd do something. They haven't. They're selling a ton of ships (which is what they care about) and they want to retain customer loyalty by keeping their customers happy. Note the U-turn on needing Scum Dials in Most Wanted.

FFG is a sizeable corporation in the business of turning a profit and is pretty good at it, they can look after themselves. They don't allow proxies in official tournaments because that'd be a major mixed message (they don't want to tell people not to buy their products), but do they care about what casual players do with their ships? No. For all they care you could make your own upgrade cards with different rules on them (they actually encourage it). They're in the business of selling plastic ships here. Their profitability does not hinge on people buying StarVipers just to get Autothrusters.

Being anti-proxy is not about FFG. It is about you.

It's pretty much "I spent circa £70 on six TIE defenders I don't want because I felt pressured to have six physical cards, now I'm going to pressure you to do the same so I don't feel like an idiot." It's the human need to pressure others to conform to them so they feel happier about their own choices.

Or, "I spent money on this game I enjoy because it's a quality product, I like the models and I realize that FFG didn't design and distribute this game out of the goodness of their hearts, and if I enjoy it, I should maybe contribute to FFG being able to continue producing it."

I'm getting sick of sorting, lugging and putting away the cards.

I'm considering going all digital with Pilot Cards and Upgrade Cards.

Aren't there some iPad apps or websites that do that?

Or, "I spent money on this game I enjoy because it's a quality product, I like the models and I realize that FFG didn't design and distribute this game out of the goodness of their hearts, and if I enjoy it, I should maybe contribute to FFG being able to continue producing it."

Where the idea that a business needs a favor from its customers comes from is completely beyond me. Maybe you grew up in a small town where people needed to pay more at the local hardware store and avoid Lowes in order to keep the tiny local economy alive. Regardless, FFG is a copy that ships its products across the world. It does not need favors from you and, if it does, then the company is well on its way to locking its doors for the last time.

If FFG has trouble keeping the lights on, it will change its product. That is what companies do. Also, there is nothing that indicates that the number of ships that X-Wing players have purchased, that they otherwise would not have purchased, in order to get copies of upgrade cards results is a meaningful amount of profit for FFG.

Feel free to mail FFG a donation if you feel that it will allow them to include a better annual bonus provision in their next CEO's employment contract. Hopefully, most other players will continue to purchase the products that they see as valuable enough to spend the money on.

You are close. I will state it explicitly - having to purchase an addition product to make another product competitive is pay-to-win.

This argument again? Why is it whenever this comes up nobody seems to understand what Pay-To-Win actually is?

Pay-to-win is a term from MMOs where premium items are more powerful than standard items to the point of imbalance. It means what it says: you buy the item and you gain a significant advantage over players who didn't.

For, say, the TIE/x1 upgrades in the Raider to be Pay-To-Win they'd have to be unbalanced. They aren't. Buying the Raider gives you the option of a competitively viable TIE advanced, but it does not mean you'll crush all the players who didn't buy premium items with ease.

Of course, that's because those "standard players" don't exist in X-Wing.

To deem something Pay-To-Win, you must first define who you're paying to win against. It doesn't make sense in a vacuum.

Pay-To-Win requires a standard baseline. This is usually a player who only bought the base game in most scenarios or just has the basic subscription in an MMO or is a non-paying player in a F2P game. That baseline doesn't exist in X-Wing because you can't play a 100 point match with the Core Set. Pay-To-Win doesn't apply to X-Wing because it makes little to no sense in the context of X-wing's distribution model.

Let's take your (not inaccurate) definition of Pay-To-Win.

Pay-to-win only requires that a product be offered for sale that provides an advantage over other who do not purchase that product.

I can say this of every single expansion in the game.

Your argument is that Imperial Veterans is Pay-To-Win because it provides an advantage over a player that just buys the base TIE defender, yes?

This also applies to every expansion that provides a stronger ship than the basic TIE defender, which is almost all of them.

The nearest X-wing could ever get to true Pay-To-Win is a new release that's unbalanced to the point where it beats everything else with ease, that if you buy that ship, you're almost guaranteed to win skill nonwithstanding. Can you point me to that release?

Or, "I spent money on this game I enjoy because it's a quality product, I like the models and I realize that FFG didn't design and distribute this game out of the goodness of their hearts, and if I enjoy it, I should maybe contribute to FFG being able to continue producing it."

Firstly, FFG doesn't need us to look out for them. They've got a marketing team for that.

Secondly, what's buying the ships then?

In regard to x-wing being 'pay to win', I find that this is based on a somewhat flawed assumption: that the ships are required to play (and therefore buying ships is pay to play) but the cards are not (and therefore buying ships for cards is pay to win). In FFG's view, both ships and cards are required to play so in the strictest sense, buying any of them is 'pay-to-play'.

In the broader sense however, I do feel that x-wing has a pay-to-win element (up to a point). As far as I can think of, there is no truly competitive squad that can be built just out of a core set and the 100 points of ships that make up said squad. Therefore the more you pay (buying other ships that you don't intend to include in the squad), the higher your chance to win. The pay-to-win ceiling is however reached rather quickly in x-wing. The top tier squads rarely go over 300-350$ so as soon as you've reached that sum (assuming you spent it on building a top tier squad) spending more will not make you win more, just give you more options.

In the broader sense however, I do feel that x-wing has a pay-to-win element (up to a point).

Would you then be able to define which expansions those are?

there is no truly competitive squad that can be built just out of a core set and the 100 points of ships that make up said squad.

Considering there isn't 100 points worth of ships in a core set... Yes you're right.

But again, pay-to-win means gaining an advantage over people who aren't paying extra. Pay-to-Win means you get a +12 sword when the best you can get otherwise is a +6.

That simply does not apply to miniature games other than perhaps some cases with GW... Because unless the game is grossly imbalanced nothing you buy gives you a huge advantage over the 'stock player' which simply doesn't exist in this game like it does a MMO.

the higher your chance to win.

In order for that to actually be true, you'd have to list which expansions are OP'ed compared to the base line Tie Fighter relative to the points.

Let's dispel this "I'm anti-proxy to help FFG" charade.

FFG is not worried about people proxying upgrade cards, because those people are buying ships. If FFG thought upgrade card proxies were a threat to their sustainability they'd do something. They haven't. They're selling a ton of ships (which is what they care about) and they want to retain customer loyalty by keeping their customers happy. Note the U-turn on needing Scum Dials in Most Wanted.

FFG is a sizeable corporation in the business of turning a profit and is pretty good at it, they can look after themselves. They don't allow proxies in official tournaments because that'd be a major mixed message (they don't want to tell people not to buy their products), but do they care about what casual players do with their ships? No. For all they care you could make your own upgrade cards with different rules on them (they actually encourage it). They're in the business of selling plastic ships here. Their profitability does not hinge on people buying StarVipers just to get Autothrusters.

Being anti-proxy is not about FFG. It is about you.

It's pretty much "I spent circa £70 on six TIE defenders I don't want because I felt pressured to have six physical cards, now I'm going to pressure you to do the same so I don't feel like an idiot." It's the human need to pressure others to conform to them so they feel happier about their own choices.

Or, "I spent money on this game I enjoy because it's a quality product, I like the models and I realize that FFG didn't design and distribute this game out of the goodness of their hearts, and if I enjoy it, I should maybe contribute to FFG being able to continue producing it."

I agree with you 100%, but it doesn't have much to do with attitudes towards other players proxying.

I interpreted Blue Five's comment as the sentiment anti-proxy players have towards their peers.Some players don't like proxying because they've spent money and expect others to have done the same in validation of their own decisions.

Personally, supporting your LGS is a good reason to not proxy. But saying that proxying is bad because FFG suffers from it? I'm pretty sure they are 100% fine with it outside of official events.

It's kind of like when Sins of a Solar Empire was first released by Stardock (I think?). They knew it would get pirated to hell, so they just released it as a free download. If you wanted to play multiplayer or have up-to-date patches though, you had to buy a product key. At the time, this was considered a brilliant, fair strategy that hooked players while generating sales from players who actually liked the game.

It's similar to upgrades like Juke for example. I don't expect anyone to go out and buy additional TIE/fo expansions to try out a juke box list. Proxying, including Vassal, is perfectly fine to me. And when they decide to bring that list to a tournament, they either have to drop that list or buck up and make that purchase.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Definitely NOT! I learned my lesson the hard way when a player "changed" his upgrade mid game! No word of a lie.

X-Wing is either

• not Pay-To-Win because the expansions are balanced to one another and no expansion exists that is broken to the point of significant advantage (you pay for it and you win)

or

• entirely Pay-To-Win because every expansion provides an advantage relative to not buying it.

Either way, Pay-To-Win is a term that simply has no utility here, and I wish people would stop using it as a throwaway perjorative rather than articulating their true grievances correctly. Having to buy a very expensive Epic ship for a couple of cards to make your TIE/x1 playable is not Pay-To-Win. Bundling the small thing you want with the expensive thing you don't to get more money out of people who'd otherwise only buy one is called anti-consumer, not Pay-To-Win.

Definitely NOT! I learned my lesson the hard way when a player "changed" his upgrade mid game! No word of a lie.

Unless there's a lot of mutual trust I'd expect physical proxies or at least a printout. Proxying doesn't mean remembering which upgrades you have.

Did someone ever bought the newest (IMBA) stuff mixed a list together put it on the table and won instantly ?

This is what the PTW arguments sound to me. PTW in a tabletop dice game... SRSLY?

I don't get it.

In the broader sense however, I do feel that x-wing has a pay-to-win element (up to a point).

Would you then be able to define which expansions those are?

You have missed my point. My point was as follows:

If we are both fielding a squad made up of let's say ships A, B and C and I am restricted to only the cards that come with ships A, B and C while you get to pick any card currently in the game, in any expansion (which means you paid more), you will be able to build a much stronger squad than me, for any combination of ships A, B and C.

Not that some expansions are better than others (that's beside the point I'm trying to make), but that owning more expansions allows you to build stronger squads, even if you put the same ships on the table.

You have missed my point. My point was as follows:

If we are both fielding a squad made up of let's say ships A, B and C and I am restricted to only the cards that come with ships A, B and C while you get to pick any card currently in the game, in any expansion (which means you paid more), you will be able to build a much stronger squad than me, for any combination of ships A, B and C.

No, I got your point. If you look at it that way, then every expansion is Pay-To-Win.

And when every expansion is Pay-To-Win the term loses all meaning. Pay-To-Win is a way of calling out a premium item as unfair. It simply doesn't make sense in a piecemeal expansion model.

you will be able to build a much stronger squad than me, for any combination of ships A, B and C.

That's not really true. The person who paid more may have more options, but that doesn't mean those options are inherently better.

Edit: Well I guess in some cases that isn't true. The x1 title is inherently better, but that's because the Tie Advanced was a bad ship.

But that just means someone who doesn't own the Raider won't be able to make effective use of the Tie Advanced. That just means you likely won't use a Tie Advanced.

It still doesn't make it Pay to Win, it makes it Pay-to-have-a-ship-that-works in that case. But as Blue Five points out, the term pay-to-win simply doesn't apply here.

In fact given that upgrades are balanced by points, what you say isn't even remotely true. For what you are saying to be true would mean that some upgrades are inherently unbalanced in terms of points.

Only in a world without synergy. It's possible to build a 61 point Rhymer, that doesn't make it balanced against other ships that are 61 points with upgrades.

Regardless, we've now moved into discussing if everything is Pay-To-Win or if nothing is. In either situation it ceases to be a useful term.

you will be able to build a much stronger squad than me, for any combination of ships A, B and C.

That's not really true. The person who paid more may have more options, but that doesn't mean those options are inherently better.

In fact given that upgrades are balanced by points, what you say isn't even remotely true. For what you are saying to be true would mean that some upgrades are inherently unbalanced in terms of points.

Then please, give me an example beyond Omega Leader where what would be considered an optimal load-out (apart from stuff like naked Academies ofc) comes fully in the same package as the ship itself.

Also, without going too much into MajorJuggler's territory (he made some interesting posts about how undercosted Palpatine and C-3PO are in the nerf Palpatine thread for example), some upgrades are better than others. This can be inferred even by simply looking at how often certain upgrades appear in the top 8 or top 16 of tournaments for example.

Being anti-proxy is not about FFG. It is about you.

It's pretty much "I spent circa £70 on six TIE defenders I don't want because I felt pressured to have six physical cards, now I'm going to pressure you to do the same so I don't feel like an idiot." It's the human need to pressure others to conform to them so they feel happier about their own choices.

I don't think that's true for people who are generally against proxies. See my previous post:

If you can't afford it or don't want to pay for it, then you can't play with it. Just to be clear, I own no epic ships, no K-wing, and no Ghost, among several other expansions. That means no Palpatine, no Dorsal Turret, no Conn*r nets, no Extra Munitions, and no Twin Laser Turrets. I'm missing a lot of pieces and I just get by with out them. I don't build squads with those pieces because I know I don't own them. I have no special right to play with those pieces just because I want to. I've got to wait until I buy those ships.

comes fully in the same package as the ship itself.

That at most means as Blue Five pointed out, then every expansion is pay-to-win, since every expansion adds options to nearly every ship in the game, or at least can be used in nearly any list you make.

So if you're going to use that as a definition then we're back to "When everyone's super, no one is".

ome upgrades are better than others.

Again true Pay-to-Win is paying extra for a +12 sword when everyone else who doesn't pay extra is limited to a +6 sword.

you will be able to build a much stronger squad than me, for any combination of ships A, B and C.

That's not really true. The person who paid more may have more options, but that doesn't mean those options are inherently better.

In fact given that upgrades are balanced by points, what you say isn't even remotely true. For what you are saying to be true would mean that some upgrades are inherently unbalanced in terms of points.

Then please, give me an example beyond Omega Leader where what would be considered an optimal load-out (apart from stuff like naked Academies ofc) comes fully in the same package as the ship itself.

Also, without going too much into MajorJuggler's territory (he made some interesting posts about how undercosted Palpatine and C-3PO are in the nerf Palpatine thread for example), some upgrades are better than others. This can be inferred even by simply looking at how often certain upgrades appear in the top 8 or top 16 of tournaments for example.

Does intention matter? Those MMO play-to-win scenarios have developers intentionally making more powerful items to be purchased at a premium so players will pay the fee and the unbalance appears to be intentional (from what I've heard). But FFG's game designers are constantly trying to keep things as balanced as they can. Sometimes they make mistakes. However, I highly doubt they are strategically putting overpowered pieces in expansions to make them sell more. Palpatine is good for a certain list type, but that doesn't mean you need to field Palpatine to win. You could find other combinations that don't require an epic purchase.

Also, I'm confused at why pay-to-win matters at all. My understanding is that the purpose of a casual game is for both players to have fun. Yes, both are trying to win the game, but at the end of the day, fun is the ultimate goal -- not winning. Playing to win sounds like competitive play to me, and we all know that competitive play at official tournaments require cards, so there is no question on whether proxies are appropriate or not.

This argument again? Why is it whenever this comes up nobody seems to understand what Pay-To-Win actually is?

Pay-to-win is a term from MMOs where premium items are more powerful than standard items to the point of imbalance. It means what it says: you buy the item and you gain a significant advantage over players who didn't.

For, say, the TIE/x1 upgrades in the Raider to be Pay-To-Win they'd have to be unbalanced. They aren't. Buying the Raider gives you the option of a competitively viable TIE advanced, but it does not mean you'll crush all the players who didn't buy premium items with ease.

Of course, that's because those "standard players" don't exist in X-Wing.

To deem something Pay-To-Win, you must first define who you're paying to win against. It doesn't make sense in a vacuum.

Pay-To-Win requires a standard baseline. This is usually a player who only bought the base game in most scenarios or just has the basic subscription in an MMO or is a non-paying player in a F2P game. That baseline doesn't exist in X-Wing because you can't play a 100 point match with the Core Set. Pay-To-Win doesn't apply to X-Wing because it makes little to no sense in the context of X-wing's distribution model.

Balance is a matter of perspective. Look at the game as a whole and the TIE Advanced with the title is balanced. But, to arrive at that conclusion you must ignore the TIE Advanced without the title as it must, if the better version is balanced, be unbalanced. Look at the two versions of the TIE Advanced side by side and no reasonable person will suggest that the two are balanced.

That standard baseline is the TIE Advanced, which is the only expansion that I have said is 100% pay-to-win. You either get the standard TIE Advances from the expansion, or you get the super TIE Advanced from the Raider expansion.

You seem to be trying to label the game as a whole - X-Wing either is or is not pay-to-win. But, games do not have to, in their entirety, fit into that definition. Games can, and many do, have components that are pay-to-win. X-Wings shining example is the TIE Advanced. Consider two players side by side. One has the TIE Advanced and the other has the TIE Advanced with the title. All other things being equal, which one will win if they play each other? If that second player wins consistently with his ship that is better than his opponents because he paid more for an extra product, then what would you call that other than pay-to-win?

Pay-to-win only requires that a product be offered for sale that provides an advantage over other who do not purchase that product.

I can say this of every single expansion in the game.

Your argument is that Imperial Veterans is Pay-To-Win because it provides an advantage over a player that just buys the base TIE defender, yes?

This also applies to every expansion that provides a stronger ship than the basic TIE defender, which is almost all of them.

Then do it.

What advantage does an Khiraxz expansion provide over players who only have the X-Wing expansion?

What advantage does a Syck Interceptor expansion provide over players who only have the TIE Fighter expansion?

What advantage does the VCX expansion provide over players who only have the Aggressor expansion?

I agree with you about the TIE Defender. A game that releases content and then subsequently release more powerful option is pay-to-win to a certain extent.

Arrrrgh! My pc locked up after much typing.

When I say that no argument can be made, it should be clear that I mean no reasonable argument can be made.

That is stupid.

Go do some research. It is a simple concept and I have already explained it.

I just want to point out that you are being rather insulting and condescending. There is no need for it in a civil discussion.

X-Wing is either

• not Pay-To-Win because the expansions are balanced to one another and no expansion exists that is broken to the point of significant advantage (you pay for it and you win)

or

• entirely Pay-To-Win because every expansion provides an advantage relative to not buying it.

Either way, Pay-To-Win is a term that simply has no utility here, and I wish people would stop using it as a throwaway perjorative rather than articulating their true grievances correctly. Having to buy a very expensive Epic ship for a couple of cards to make your TIE/x1 playable is not Pay-To-Win. Bundling the small thing you want with the expensive thing you don't to get more money out of people who'd otherwise only buy one is called anti-consumer, not Pay-To-Win.

Well, you said what I was trying to say much better. Maybe it's good that I did have to reboot?

What advantage does an Khiraxz expansion provide over players who only have the X-Wing expansion?

What advantage does a Syck Interceptor expansion provide over players who only have the TIE Fighter expansion?

What advantage does the VCX expansion provide over players who only have the Aggressor expansion?

1) Crack Shot and Predator

2) Stealth Device

3) Cluster Mines, Conner Net, Predator, Reinforced Deflector Shields, and Thermal Detonators.

I have yet to see anyone point out an expansion that gives someone a truly unfair advantage when playing X-Wing.

I mean there are expansions that have a large boost to some ships, but those are ships that underperform in the first place. So the expansion really does nothing more then bring those ships on par.

I suppose you could try and argue that someone who owns 1 or 2 Imperial Veteran packs has an unfair advantage over someone who is also flying Defenders without it.

But that's a pretty nonsense argument since Defenders aren't the only choice someone has. I mean that's like saying guns are pay-to-win in a knife fight.

You could say that someone who owns more expansions has more options than someone who owns fewer... But that is again not pay-to-win, because more options aren't inherently better.

Again pay-to-win means in a closed environment someone can spend real money to buy an item that is inherently better than anything anyone can earn via ingame accomplishments. Which means the term is completely meaningless in regards to X-Wing.

I've spent a lot of money on X-Wing. I never play with things I don't have. I love playing. When someone plays a list for a few weeks and not get the cards. Drives me nuts. Am I the only one who feels this way? I hope not. Buy the dang ships peeps. I do.

I own 4 or more of almost every ship, (TIE Fighters, Interceptors, A-Wings, B-Wings more because of expansions), 2 of every other small ship, at least 1 of every other large and 1 of every Epic. But oddly enough I still do not have enough cards to field some of the squads I play. If it is a tournament game then we need to follow the rules and the rules, I believe, do not allow proxies.

But for casual games I don't believe it matters. I avoided proxies for the longest time but finally gave in. Personally I prefer to print out my squad from one of the on-line squad builders. Why use the cards at all? We're playing for fun anyway.

So I'm good with proxies, it doesn't matter to me.

I have no interest in buying the Ghost, so if I want to use dorsal turret I'll proxie it. I spend a great deal of money on this game, but I refuse to buy ships I don't intend to ever play with for one card. That's just silly.

Agreed, that goes for most all the posts here. The game is so fun; I've proxied ships early on of which I only owned one (like the TIE Advanced), but I'm slowly getting the fleet I like.....I'll not however, buy a ship I cannot like (houndstooth comes quickly to mind) for a card. Nope. Never.