Why aren't the gemeric Gunboat pilots caled Tau and Nu?
Custom Card League: The Four Custom Ships Coming to Vassal!
Would you consider adding the 2 top voted Rebel ships too? So all factions get covered? (besides, that RVN-290 looks super fun)Great questions!
The DQ's ships - the ARC-170s did well but would not quite have won a top 4 spot. The Mandalorian protector did very well and would have taken the TIE Avenger's spot in the top four. The TIE/SF did well, but not well enough to be competitive for the top 4 spots.
The top voted rebel ships, aside from the ARC-170s, were your StealthX Vander, and the RVN-290.
Everyone; please submit tweaked versions of these ships in this thread!
I did actually have a request to do something like this already, and I ended up deciding not to (at least this time around). Originally I was concerned with how long it would take for me to make up the images used for these ships in the vassal extension (my thinking was that 4 ships +cards may have already been ambitious), but I also realized that it is probably a good idea to keep the number of ships being developed at one time to 4 or less, so we can concentrate on discussing those ships and end up with the best possible final designs in the vassal extension. We might already be stretching ourselves thin with four ships.
I decided not to have a faction quota for the CCL because I was worried that we might be saddled with a bad design because we needed one ship in each faction. If there were no rebel ships, except for a very unpopular design, and then we had to play with that design, it might have sucked. Fortunately, we had a lot of great entries, and this would not have been a problem... but I am also loathe to change the rules in the middle of a competition, so we have the winners we have. I'm far from disappointed, personally!
In the hypothetical next season of the CCL, I'll probably change the system to something like: Highest voted ship per faction, plus one more ship with the most votes overall out of all the remaining entries, regardless of faction. That way we'll get one ship per faction and have some wiggle room for great ship designs that happen to be in the same faction as a slightly better design.
Edited by BabaganooshHow about an Avenger "free title" that gives the sabine pre-move boost, but not count as an action?
That would give it ridiculus maneuverability, the dial can be slower to compensate, and by not being an action stress doesnt shut it down, but conversely it doesnt open up PTL/green maneuver triple action shenanagans.
I'd recommend increasing the cost of the Gunboat by a few points and baking in the double tap on 3 points or less cannons as a zero cost title. That puts a tax on Mangler and HLC in line with the far greater benefit they provide to a two dice ship.
Advanced Engines
Tie Avenger only
Before revealing your dial, you must perform a 1 straight or 1 bank, as if boosting. If boosting would be blocked, you must gain a stress token instead.
Edited by Rakaydosimperial small ship with a 1 forward?!?!? BLASTPHEMY
Would you consider adding the 2 top voted Rebel ships too? So all factions get covered? (besides, that RVN-290 looks super fun)Great questions!
The DQ's ships - the ARC-170s did well but would not quite have won a top 4 spot. The Mandalorian protector did very well and would have taken the TIE Avenger's spot in the top four. The TIE/SF did well, but not well enough to be competitive for the top 4 spots.
The top voted rebel ships, aside from the ARC-170s, were your StealthX Vander, and the RVN-290.
Everyone; please submit tweaked versions of these ships in this thread!
I did actually have a request to do something like this already, and I ended up deciding not to (at least this time around). Originally I was concerned with how long it would take for me to make up the images used for these ships in the vassal extension (my thinking was that 4 ships +cards may have already been ambitious), but I also realized that it is probably a good idea to keep the number of ships being developed at one time to 4 or less, so we can concentrate on discussing those ships and end up with the best possible final designs in the vassal extension. We might already be stretching ourselves thin with four ships.
I decided not to have a faction quota for the CCL because I was worried that we might be saddled with a bad design because we needed one ship in each faction. If there were no rebel ships, except for a very unpopular design, and then we had to play with that design, it might have sucked. Fortunately, we had a lot of great entries, and this would not have been a problem... but I am also loathe to change the rules in the middle of a competition, so we have the winners we have. I'm far from disappointed, personally!
In the hypothetical next season of the CCL, I'll probably change the system to something like: Highest voted ship per faction, plus one more ship with the most votes overall out of all the remaining entries, regardless of faction. That way we'll get one ship per faction and have some wiggle room for great ship designs that happen to be in the same faction as a slightly better design.
You keep talking about how much work it would be if it were 6 ships instead of 4, but I still strongly disagree, other people are doing the designing work. There are so many artistic people on these threads that the vassal ship bases should be very easily done; that's not a reasonable excuse at all. If you had 2 ships per faction I would much more inclined myself to assist in that part. You've already changed the rules by disqualifying ships without president or warning. You're already opening up multiple threads to deal with different parts of the process, it wouldn't hurt one bit to have a thread for 2 Imperial ships, another for 2 Scum ships, and a third for 2 Rebel ships. Suggesting that's we'd have to play with a bad Rebel ship design is putting no faith in the people who you expect to help you develop the 4 ships.
The first X-Wing Custom Card League starts now. We’ll be developing the rough equivalent of one wave worth of X-Wing content: ~4 Ships, ~15 unique pilots, and ~20 new upgrade cards, all submitted, developed and voted on by members of the community.
As I explained before, you've split it up so that there are four ships and (15/4) 3.75 unique pilots per ship type, and 5 new upgrades per ship type.
If you were to up that to 6 ships, then the unique pilots per ship type could go up to 4 per, and the new upgrades per ship type could go to 24, an addition of 4 cards total, with only a drop of one upgrade per ship type, 4 instead of 5. I don't see that as an unworkable difference.
"~4 ships" is not an absolute 4 as you wrote it,
it means maybe, so NO rules are actually broken.
Edited by gabe69velasquezMy only concern with no rebel ships is it means anyone that wants to play rebel for the tournament is stuck with existing ships with custom upgrades (or pilots maybe), they can't take a custom ship. But that's up to baba as the organizer and the person who came up with the idea in the first place 
. Personally I'll probaby be playing scum, so it doesn't affect me as much.
My only concern with no rebel ships is it means anyone that wants to play rebel for the tournament is stuck with existing ships with custom upgrades (or pilots maybe), they can't take a custom ship. But that's up to baba as the organizer and the person who came up with the idea in the first place
I wonder how many people are no longer interested in participating at all now that there are no custom Rebel ships.
Edited by gabe69velasquezWIP:
Dial might look strange, but it is a cross of her predecessor's and successor's: TIE Advanced and TIE Defender. Could add some s-loop or t-roll. Input is most welcome.TIE Avenger custom expansion pack:
Title: adds the canonical tractor beam and explores the famous high recharge rate of the ship. I'm in doubt is the regen should be triggered by strait maneuvers or slow maneuvers (maybe slow are more lore-accurate?).
Needs more upgrade cards.
Dial needs some changes for sure. I advocated s-loop using 3 turn instead of bank and I still think it is a nice solution.
It definetely needs 1 white turn, red doesn't really work with this super-agile fighter.
Interesting idea with shield regeneration, but in my opinion it could be used only if it has 1 or 2 shields from the start, it is just too strong with this capability, plus it always was worse shielded than Defender.
If you keep shield the recharge please consider changing 1 straight from green into red on its dial and make it the requirement to recharge the shields - this way there will be a visable, serious price for re-charging the shields and it would nicely simulate the fighter shifting energy from engines to regenerate its shields.
Edited by OdananHow about an Avenger "free title" that gives the sabine pre-move boost, but not count as an action?
That would give it ridiculus maneuverability, the dial can be slower to compensate, and by not being an action stress doesnt shut it down, but conversely it doesnt open up PTL/green maneuver triple action shenanagans.
other people are doing the designing work.
Who is doing the work implementing it into the Vassal extension? You act like putting pictures and text onto cards using a templated website is difficult.
As far as the suggestion for the Avenger having a mandatory boost action at the beginning, this is an awful idea, as it will force the ship to bump, therefore losing its subsequent action, and its subsequent maneuver as well creating situations where opponents could automatically block it. Anything that takes player choice out of the action and maneuver phases (that isn't a secondary situational effect like an ion token or a damage card) is not good for the game.
You keep talking about how much work it would be if it were 6 ships instead of 4, but I still strongly disagree, other people are doing the designing work. There are so many artistic people on these threads that the vassal ship bases should be very easily done; that's not a reasonable excuse at all. If you had 2 ships per faction I would much more inclined myself to assist in that part. You've already changed the rules by disqualifying ships without president or warning. You're already opening up multiple threads to deal with different parts of the process, it wouldn't hurt one bit to have a thread for 2 Imperial ships, another for 2 Scum ships, and a third for 2 Rebel ships. Suggesting that's we'd have to play with a bad Rebel ship design is putting no faith in the people who you expect to help you develop the 4 ships.
Well, what if the best Rebel ship had more negative votes than positive votes? Plenty of submitted ships did have overall negative scores. Considering that I had no idea how many ships we would get as submissions when I started this project, it was a distinct possibility that if I reserved one ship slot for each faction, that we would end up with an unpopular ships taking the place of a popular one. What would happen in terms of participation if we implemented one of those ships on a technicality? It happened to not be the case, but please remember that this is a highly experimental project.
In terms of the total number of ships we're working on, balancing 4 new ships over the space of a couple of weeks seems like plenty of work to me. If we knock this out of the park, then I'll probably expand to more ships next time. But I think it's more likely that the more ships we try to do at once, the more flawed they will each be. If we try to do ten ships, we would end up with ten mostly unbalanced ships, I think. 4 is an ambitious number of ships to attempt, if you ask me.
other people are doing the designing work.
Who is doing the work implementing it into the Vassal extension? You act like putting pictures and text onto cards using a templated website is difficult.
I've never worked with making vassal extensions; I expect that making cards is easy, but in terms of making the images that replace the ship models, I had no idea how difficult that would be going into this project. I hear it's not so hard, but that's not the limiting factor as I see it now.
The more difficult design work is the process of tweaking and balancing the new cards to be as close to balanced as possible before they are implemented in vassal. That work is being spread out, theoretically, among the community. But individual people can only do so much, right? If we tried to do 100 new cards, I don't think they would all get the attention they need to make them innovative, interesting, and most importantly balanced. The total brainpower we can bring to bear is finite (and hard to estimate). If we want this project to be a success, it would behoove us to make the best quality cards possible, so that the vassal tournament isn't a total disaster.
Going for 'fewer' cards gives us a better chance to make high quality cards. Although frankly we're developing a lot of cards this time around; maybe too many.
Who is doing the work implementing it into the Vassal extension? You act like putting pictures and text onto cards using a templated website is difficult.other people are doing the designing work.
As far as the suggestion for the Avenger having a mandatory boost action at the beginning, this is an awful idea, as it will force the ship to bump, therefore losing its subsequent action, and its subsequent maneuver as well creating situations where opponents could automatically block it. Anything that takes player choice out of the action and maneuver phases (that isn't a secondary situational effect like an ion token or a damage card) is not good for the game.
The TIE/x2 title will work differently so. (maybe just give the boost option, or trigger boost if other condition is met)
I've never worked with making vassal extensions; I expect that making cards is easy, but in terms of making the images that replace the ship models, I had no idea how difficult that would be going into this project. I hear it's not so hard, but that's not the limiting factor as I see it now.
Yeah, but don't forget it's a red hard-1. The B-wing gets one, and that ship turned slower in the games if memory serves. And the gunboat will not benefit from a system slot (for advanced sensors or FCS) to retain action economy while doing red maneuvers. Also keep in mind that it only has one set of white turns (2-turns). It's dial is pretty middle-of-the-road in my opinion, which seems about right. I would probably add one more K-turn; maybe a 4 speed. I don't like ships with just one flip-around maneuver because it can make them too predictable in certain situations.
Perhaps, I always felt the B-Wing got a raw deal though, it had a bit more history showing it off as a slow but quite turny craft. The Gunboat always felt brute. Sure it's red, but still an option.
You can count on me for making the vassal images for the Gunboat and Avenger.I've never worked with making vassal extensions; I expect that making cards is easy, but in terms of making the images that replace the ship models, I had no idea how difficult that would be going into this project. I hear it's not so hard, but that's not the limiting factor as I see it now.
Awesome! I'll be glad to have the help.
Well, what if the best Rebel ship had more negative votes than positive votes? Plenty of submitted ships did have overall negative scores. Considering that I had no idea how many ships we would get as submissions when I started this project, it was a distinct possibility that if I reserved one ship slot for each faction, that we would end up with an unpopular ships taking the place of a popular one. What would happen in terms of participation if we implemented one of those ships on a technicality? It happened to not be the case, but please remember that this is a highly experimental project.
Well since you bring that up, I was going to highlight using your formulas how subtracting negative from positive is unfair, but I got busy with the actual cards. I should have just been like or no opinion, and not subtracted.
Which reminds me Is there a reason you're not disclosing the google analytics?
This is the link and it says you need permission to see the votes.
If it were unlocked it would look something like this example:
Oh I do not like a bomb being on that V-Wing one bit.
Why not? Looks to be lore-accurate according to wookiepedia:
Armament
- Twin laser cannons(2)[1]
- Some were equipped with Flak guns and Proton bombs [4]
Battlefront 2 (a game that gets far more acclaim than it deserves) had a really bad habit of misrepresenting ships just to pile them into gameplay roles, that's where the cannon/bomb stuff comes from.
Yeah, that.
I'm sorry, those bombs have got to go. I know, I'm being almost pointlessly demanding, but it was hardly a standard feature on that vessel. They were the poor man's ETA-2 in the GAR, essentially.
Though they were really **** nice
Well, what if the best Rebel ship had more negative votes than positive votes? Plenty of submitted ships did have overall negative scores. Considering that I had no idea how many ships we would get as submissions when I started this project, it was a distinct possibility that if I reserved one ship slot for each faction, that we would end up with an unpopular ships taking the place of a popular one. What would happen in terms of participation if we implemented one of those ships on a technicality? It happened to not be the case, but please remember that this is a highly experimental project.
Well since you bring that up, I was going to highlight using your formulas how subtracting negative from positive is unfair, but I got busy with the actual cards. I should have just been like or no opinion, and not subtracted.
Which reminds me Is there a reason you're not disclosing the google analytics?
This is the link and it says you need permission to see the votes.
If it were unlocked it would look something like this example:
I'm curious the reasoning behind the formula being unfair. Seems to me like it's nice to have an option to say you don't want a ship vs just "no opinion".
Well, what if the best Rebel ship had more negative votes than positive votes? Plenty of submitted ships did have overall negative scores. Considering that I had no idea how many ships we would get as submissions when I started this project, it was a distinct possibility that if I reserved one ship slot for each faction, that we would end up with an unpopular ships taking the place of a popular one. What would happen in terms of participation if we implemented one of those ships on a technicality? It happened to not be the case, but please remember that this is a highly experimental project.
Well since you bring that up, I was going to highlight using your formulas how subtracting negative from positive is unfair, but I got busy with the actual cards. I should have just been like or no opinion, and not subtracted.
Which reminds me Is there a reason you're not disclosing the google analytics?
This is the link and it says you need permission to see the votes.
If it were unlocked it would look something like this example:
Oh, I didn't know I could publish results like that. I thought I would have to transcribe them all to make them public. The option to publish results is not super obvious; they should be public now; try to check them.
As to the scoring formula, obviously it's a little late to change for the first round of ship voting but I'm open to suggestions to change it for new rounds of voting. (I'll point out that I did ask if anyone had any pointers for the formula before voting was over)
My thinking when cooking up the formula was to measure the overall enthusiasm vs. dislike for each entry. Dislikes are very important because that is how people signal that they think a card does not fit in the game thematically or mechanically. No opinion is more for when you don't have a strong opinion about the card fitting thematically or mechanically, and I think that's an important distinction. I could probably have done without dividing everything by total votes, since most people voted one way or another for everything.
Edited by BabaganooshNice work Odanan.
Drat. Maybe next time! Top 4 from how many entrants?
Edited by ThatJakeGuyWhen I was putting together my initial concept for the V-Wing cards, one of the main things on my mind was "How can I make this ship feel different from the A-Wing and TAP, considering that they have identical numerical stats?"
The bomb slot was an idea toward that - it's something that we haven't seen on a light interceptor before, which opens up some new gameplay options - but it definitely is loosely accurate at best. Battlefront is a particularly terrible source for these things.
I'm not wedded to the idea of keeping it on the design - I think there is plenty to stand on without it.
Perhaps a title would be the best way to represent the Battlefront V-Wing. If it added a Bomb slot and a Hull point for 3 points it would be a much heavier ship.
Well, what if the best Rebel ship had more negative votes than positive votes? Plenty of submitted ships did have overall negative scores. Considering that I had no idea how many ships we would get as submissions when I started this project, it was a distinct possibility that if I reserved one ship slot for each faction, that we would end up with an unpopular ships taking the place of a popular one. What would happen in terms of participation if we implemented one of those ships on a technicality? It happened to not be the case, but please remember that this is a highly experimental project.
Well since you bring that up, I was going to highlight using your formulas how subtracting negative from positive is unfair, but I got busy with the actual cards. I should have just been like or no opinion, and not subtracted.
Which reminds me Is there a reason you're not disclosing the google analytics?
This is the link and it says you need permission to see the votes.
If it were unlocked it would look something like this example:
Oh, I didn't know I could publish results like that. I thought I would have to transcribe them all to make them public. The option to publish results is not super obvious; they should be public now; try to check them.
As to the scoring formula, obviously it's a little late to change for the first round of ship voting but I'm open to suggestions to change it for new rounds of voting. (I'll point out that I did ask if anyone had any pointers for the formula before voting was over)
My thinking when cooking up the formula was to measure the overall enthusiasm vs. dislike for each entry. Dislikes are very important because that is how people signal that they think a card does not fit in the game thematically or mechanically. No opinion is more for when you don't have a strong opinion about the card fitting thematically or mechanically, and I think that's an important distinction. I could probably have done without dividing everything by total votes, since most people voted one way or another for everything.
Apparnetly my clawcraft was really polarizing. 70 upvotes (which was amongst the highest), but also 68 downvotes, and only 11 (the lowest number, tied with 1 other) no opinions.
I'd be curious to hear people's opinions on why they downvoted, whether for fluff reasons, thought it was unbalanced, would have preferred a different faction, just didn't like it, etc.