I wish there was a tab for questions and ideas that involve non standard formats of play. . .just sayin'.

No.

Pretty sure thats the mission control forum

[Deleted duplicate post]

If we have a sub forum for casual play, that means whenever we bring up anything about casual games in the main forum, then we will be told to take that kind of discussion to the casual sub forums (that no one ever will go to) and leave the "real" conversations in the main thread.

Pretty sure thats the mission control forum

Been there. Mostly looks like a series of threads about how FFG hasn't updated the software. Not so useful.

No.

Fine. If it exists, OTOH, you are welcome to not visit.

no, because then it looks like you're keeping your distance

I agree with heychadwick.

I think that if you're interested in casual feedback, you need to just make that explicit in your topic and/or opening post and then ignore those who ignore your request.

For the tournament players, I can see how frustrating it is to have casual players ask for non-tournament feedback. If you're asking for list advice, for example, you are asking to make your list better. A better list is a stronger list, which pushes you toward winning. At that point, popular opinion sways the responses and you get a bunch of the meta lists and meta advice coming your way. It's not easy to know just how casual casual is, but it's easy to see 'competitive' because it means you're trying win. Casual isn't really a play style other than not-competitive, so we're really defining it by what it is not, rather than what it is. That causes a lot of confusion. Plus, a lot of people with an interest in casual play do go to tournaments, but don't consider themselves super competitive. I, for example, love to attend store championships when I can, but I'm not really interested in going to regional championship tournaments.

FFG has shown that they're interested in promoting casual play, so my hope is that with their help, the forum members can make the forums more inclusive of non-tournament players.

I agree with heychadwick.

I think that if you're interested in casual feedback, you need to just make that explicit in your topic and/or opening post and then ignore those who ignore your request.

For the tournament players, I can see how frustrating it is to have casual players ask for non-tournament feedback. If you're asking for list advice, for example, you are asking to make your list better. A better list is a stronger list, which pushes you toward winning. At that point, popular opinion sways the responses and you get a bunch of the meta lists and meta advice coming your way. It's not easy to know just how casual casual is, but it's easy to see 'competitive' because it means you're trying win. Casual isn't really a play style other than not-competitive, so we're really defining it by what it is not, rather than what it is. That causes a lot of confusion. Plus, a lot of people with an interest in casual play do go to tournaments, but don't consider themselves super competitive. I, for example, love to attend store championships when I can, but I'm not really interested in going to regional championship tournaments.

FFG has shown that they're interested in promoting casual play, so my hope is that with their help, the forum members can make the forums more inclusive of non-tournament players.

I guess for me the defining features would be:

1.) I'm not playing 100 points on a 3x3

2.) I'm playing a mission/scenario

3.) I'm using Epic ships

Technically, the tactics are completely different and the advice should therefore be different. If you are playing 100 points on the dining room table, then yes, there isn't much of a change in advice.

It would just make the search-foo a little easier and eliminate all of the 100-pt meta- talk that doesn't matter as much.

I agree with heychadwick.

I think that if you're interested in casual feedback, you need to just make that explicit in your topic and/or opening post and then ignore those who ignore your request.

For the tournament players, I can see how frustrating it is to have casual players ask for non-tournament feedback. If you're asking for list advice, for example, you are asking to make your list better. A better list is a stronger list, which pushes you toward winning. At that point, popular opinion sways the responses and you get a bunch of the meta lists and meta advice coming your way. It's not easy to know just how casual casual is, but it's easy to see 'competitive' because it means you're trying win. Casual isn't really a play style other than not-competitive, so we're really defining it by what it is not, rather than what it is. That causes a lot of confusion. Plus, a lot of people with an interest in casual play do go to tournaments, but don't consider themselves super competitive. I, for example, love to attend store championships when I can, but I'm not really interested in going to regional championship tournaments.

FFG has shown that they're interested in promoting casual play, so my hope is that with their help, the forum members can make the forums more inclusive of non-tournament players.

I guess for me the defining features would be:

1.) I'm not playing 100 points on a 3x3

2.) I'm playing a mission/scenario

3.) I'm using Epic ships

Technically, the tactics are completely different and the advice should therefore be different. If you are playing 100 points on the dining room table, then yes, there isn't much of a change in advice.

It would just make the search-foo a little easier and eliminate all of the 100-pt meta- talk that doesn't matter as much.

I see. If that's what you're looking for, then I do think there is merit in having a subforum. Personally, I wouldn't call it 'casual,' though. Even in these alternate formats, you can still find broken combos and repetitive metas. The reason it hasn't happened yet is because these formats don't get played as much. With missions, you can sometimes powerbuild in such a way that one side just can't win. I can imagine that even in an 'alternate formats' subforum we'll have people suggesting squads that others view as cutthroat and some people will still say they want to play something more casual.

Given FFG's recent acknowledgement of casual play and their reminder article about alternate formats, it probably does serve their purposes best if those topics remain visible to all players in the main forum. But I totally agree that a subforum would make it easier for us to search for information about these alternate formats.

Some how I think most here are casual flying so if something do "pro" section, but rather not anything!

I wish there was a tab for questions and ideas that involve non standard formats of play. . .just sayin'.

I would enjoy reading those threads but why would you need another forum and not either this general forum or the rules forum?

Why would casual play need a subforum? Just kick all the tournament stuff to where it belongs: organized play.

I just did a search for "Epic Play" and pretty easily found dozens of threads about epic play, so I think my desire to have it all in one place is pretty moot. The search system is crude but it should be adequate to find the threads we're looking for. I'm backing off from the subforum thing for the time being.

I wish there was a tab for questions and ideas that involve non standard formats of play. . .just sayin'.

I would enjoy reading those threads but why would you need another forum and not either this general forum or the rules forum?

Again, chaff. Most of the main board threads are about 100 points, "fix my favorite ship", speculation about up coming waves, and the like. I kinda don't care about all that, and if I have questions about 300 point games I'll have one place to look, sans filters.

OTOH, users could agree on a searchable tag that would allow easy search foo.

OTOHOH, non-members can't search. What if Epic Play is what gets them into the game?

I mean, why have a "Battle Reports" forum? You could argue that it's just X-Wing, keep it in the main forum. . .