2 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

The falcon only LOOKS like garbage (apparently). The ship itself isn't actually garbage in the movies, it's actually quite heavily modified to be ABLE to outfly stuff. It's not like han is such an amazing pilot that he's outflying everyone in a flying piece of trash that can barely get off the ground.

This is actually a bit misleading; in TESB, the Falcon is close to a character in the film, which blurs the line between 'skills' and 'equipment'. It's hard to say where the person begins and the hardware ends. But the effect is that what happens in the film is a decidedly human effort, even if it is shown in a very symbolic, allegorical or otherwise representational manner. So I think @Clancampbell has a point: if you reason from the films (not self-evident, but you could) then the influence of human decisions during the game should be the driving, er, force. As opposed to a "precalculated" systematic approach, I mean.

Also, keep in mind that Clancampbell only said "should be able to win" based on skillful flying, not "will usually or always win."

Right now, a list heavy on T-65s, TIEs, B-wings, A-wings ... can't really win against a competent opponent with a good list.

6 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Also, keep in mind that Clancampbell only said "should be able to win" based on skillful flying, not "will usually or always win."

Right now, a list heavy on T-65s, TIEs, B-wings, A-wings ... can't really win against a competent opponent with a good list.

I do agree that the ships of wave 1-3 suffer from when they were designed and could rightly use a rework. Several of them need more than just a fix title/card.

4 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

2. The game slowly loses the ability to provide a feeling of accomplishment. If I netlist Paratanni, Dengaroo or Commonwealth Defender and wipe the floor with homemade lists, what exactly is my own acchievement? The ability to use google? And how does that make the other players feel?

Ah, gaming in the 20th century. Back in the days when you waited for 30 days with baited breath for the InQuest magazine to show up at your door and then there was a single 2-page fluff article on you favorite game with maybe a couple of ideas.

Then, you had to go to a friend's house and just play the frickin' game to figure it out!!

3 hours ago, Panzeh said:

I don't really think you'll ever really see that in a game where you can pick your squads. That being said, they could do more to make pure one-action ships better by making them straight cheaper across the board and offering easier access to the action economy.

Just to be clear, is this what you are saying to do to early wave ships to bring them up to speed? I thought everyone was kinda peeved about action economy at this point.

4 hours ago, clanofwolves said:

1) Original trilogy ship loss on the competitive scene

2) Power creep

3) Increasing game complexity

4) Changing of game mechanics ("change of the game itself" -GreenDragoon)

4 hours ago, Clancampbell said:

So yes, we want cinematic dog fights and ship chases that this game has seemingly left behind.

I would argue that we could add a #5: Lack of storytelling options via game play (at least for the casual scene, if not to also to include them in tournament play).

16 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

I would argue that we could add a #5: Lack of storytelling options via game play (at least for the casual scene, if not to also to include them in tournament play).

Rather than a lack of storytelling options, I'd say a #5 should be a lack of variety in game modes. That applies to every aspect of the game, tournament and casual alike.