2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:
Reread what I wrote. I am in no way was saying that older stuff is especially competitive or that there is no power creep, quite the opposite in fact. I'm saying that the over representation of later waves is an expected consequence of the combination of expansion model and decision not to/inability to make direct changes to older cards.
Just now, Makaze said:Reread what I wrote. I am in no way was saying that older stuff is especially competitive or that there is no power creep, quite the opposite in fact. I'm saying that the over representation of later waves is an expected consequence of the combination of expansion model and decision not to/inability to make direct changes to older cards.
Sure. But the question cycles always back to the misunderstanding between the descriptive "what is" and the normative "what ought to be".
So is that a good thing in your opinion?
My alternative how you can combine powercreep with old models are things like crackshot, new EPTs for A-wings, new combinations, new titles, and so on.
It works for some ships. So why is that not a feasible way to grow and change the game?
3 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:This is an interesting argument.
I agree with the assertion that it is impossible to release 10 waves of ships and keep them all balanced enough that none will be abandoned by an educated player-base. I further agree that by the nature of upgrade cards, power-creep is almost inevitable: bad cards won't get used, power cards will get used, and balanced cards will eventually get supplanted by power cards.
That said, I do think it's possible to retro-design to keep balance, including reversing power-creep. FFG has a difficult time with this, though, because of decisions regarding errata and so forth that they only now seem to be revisiting. (I think they are coming around to a good place in their thinking, and I think they have learned a lot about design. This is primarily why I would like to see X-Wing 2.0. I think it will be a better, more stable, game, more easily kept in balance.)
One possible way to do this would be to release cards in a player-base-wide Beta test. Give them to playtesters for however long, then give them to the playerbase (not tourney legal) for six months. Then reevaluate and release. I'm not saying this doesn't have logistical problems -- it does -- but it is an actual workable model for keeping a game reasonably balanced.
FFG HAS done things to reverse power creep. See the phantom decloak change and r4/deadeye nerfs for uboats.
2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:That's an interesting take-away. But you'll see that they are heavily reliant on newer upgrades.
From TLT-Ys past Vader /x1, Crack-BlackSqd TIEs, Biggs, Lambdapilots and so onSo it's more surprising that they have such a low representation, not the other way around.
As I pointed out above, I don't personally see older ships using new cards as a problem. I'm more worried about whether a ship is flyable at all, not whether it's flyable with exactly the same upgrades and list as it was used in 3 years ago.
1 minute ago, VanderLegion said:As I pointed out above, I don't personally see older ships using new cards as a problem. I'm more worried about whether a ship is flyable at all, not whether it's flyable with exactly the same upgrades and list as it was used in 3 years ago.
I agree. In fact that's how I'd like to see the game grow with.
It does change the argument that older waves are fine however. But maybe I misunderstood you
Just now, VanderLegion said:FFG HAS done things to reverse power creep. See the phantom decloak change and r4/deadeye nerfs for uboats.
Yes. Unfortunately, those are both really crappy changes, representing FFG's always going for "simple" over "superior." (They do illustrate the ability to recognize problems and try to fix them, which is good and is more to the point you were making.)
Just now, GreenDragoon said:I agree. In fact that's how I'd like to see the game grow with.
It does change the argument that older waves are fine however. But maybe I misunderstood you
I never really said all the older waves were fine. Plenty of older ships aren't really used right now, but a lot of them were NEVER all that great in the first place. That's less a power creep issue and more an original balance issue. I was just pointing out that there were ships from almost every wave repressented in cuts at tournaments, not that every ship in old waves was usable or good.
Just now, Jeff Wilder said:Yes. Unfortunately, those are both really crappy changes, representing FFG's always going for "simple" over "superior." (They do illustrate the ability to recognize problems and try to fix them, which is good and is more to the point you were making.)
What was wrong with the decloak change? And the deadeye change is *exactly* what most of the playerbase was asking for. Hell, u-boats are even still flyable (and good) without deadeye.
8 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:I never really said all the older waves were fine. Plenty of older ships aren't really used right now, but a lot of them were NEVER all that great in the first place. That's less a power creep issue and more an original balance issue. I was just pointing out that there were ships from almost every wave repressented in cuts at tournaments, not that every ship in old waves was usable or good.
sorry then
You are completely right, most ships have 1 or maybe 2 pilots that are frequently used. And some are still useful.
The whole design is a bit flawed. But FFG is IMO not on the right track by out-creeping the more iconic StarWars ships for less known EU/Legends ships.
5 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:Sure. But the question cycles always back to the misunderstanding between the descriptive "what is" and the normative "what ought to be".
So is that a good thing in your opinion?
My alternative how you can combine powercreep with old models are things like crackshot, new EPTs for A-wings, new combinations, new titles, and so on.
It works for some ships. So why is that not a feasible way to grow and change the game?
Good? No, just inevitable to some degree. And don't get me wrong there are lots of ways FFG could and should be improving it, slowing that trend, making the outliers both weak and strong less pronounced. But it's always going to happen to some degree and will only become worse as the card/ship pool widens.
Part of the problem is that while they can do some things via titles, upgrades, etc. that's only one single lever they're pulling and it only goes one way, up. Pulling everyone else up to the level of the top tier ships with cards like that involves a lot of upgrades and accelerates the power creep. Plus it makes a game that some people are already calling too complicated more complicated, you have to remember to always put that always take title on and remember to do the thing it says during the game.
21 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:What was wrong with the decloak change? And the deadeye change is *exactly* what most of the playerbase was asking for. Hell, u-boats are even still flyable (and good) without deadeye.
The decloak change nerfed all Phantoms except Whisper into oblivion. (If interested, you can find the change I would have rather seen in other threads.)
The Deadeye change fixed a narrow problem -- JumpMasters are too good -- with an over-broad fix -- Deadeye doesn't work on Large ships anymore ... because Deadeye was broken? (If interested, you can find the change I would have rather seen in other threads.)
22 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:The decloak change nerfed all Phantoms except Whisper into oblivion. (If interested, you can find the change I would have rather seen in other threads.)
The Deadeye change fixed a narrow problem -- JumpMasters are too good -- with an over-broad fix -- Deadeye doesn't work on Large ships anymore ... because Deadeye was broken? (If interested, you can find the change I would have rather seen in other threads.)
I feel like that's solely down to PS. Echo and the generics aren't meh because of their ability (Echo's ability is great) but rather because they can't get to PS 9 and so have a much harder time regaining the ACD recloak before getting ripped to shreds with only their 2 green dice. To me that points to a problem with ACD and the fact that the Phantom is priced around both having it and having it activate.
Agreed, J5Ks themselves were the problem there. 2 torp slots, large base barrel roll, that amazing dial, a PWT, astromech and a crew, an EPT on the generic... priced low enough that you can get 3 of them fairly kitted out in a list... it's bonkers. Having said that the issue at hand was a three legged stool of deadeye + R4 + crazy chassis. They knocked one of the legs off and somewhat unsurprisingly choose the one that was least used. Whether to call that "lazy" or "low impact" is up for debate
Edited by Makaze4 minutes ago, Makaze said:I feel like that's solely down to PS. Echo and the generics aren't meh because of their ability (Echo's ability is great) but rather because they can't get to PS 9 and so have a much harder time regaining the ACD recloak before getting ripped to shreds with only their 2 green dice. To me that points to a problem with ACD and the fact that the Phantom is priced around both having it and having it activate.
Completely agree on the Phantoms. The decloak change didn't kill other phantoms. Generics were never overly popular, and echo was to a degree, but always less so than whisper. I actually think echo could be pretty good nowadays with the shift downward in pilot skill.
15 minutes ago, Makaze said:I feel like that's solely down to PS. Echo and the generics aren't meh because of their ability (Echo's ability is great) but rather because they can't get to PS 9 and so have a much harder time regaining the ACD recloak before getting ripped to shreds with only their 2 green dice. To me that points to a problem with ACD and the fact that the Phantom is priced around both having it and having it activate.
Agreed, J5Ks themselves were the problem there. 2 torp slots, large base barrel roll, that amazing dial, a PWT, astromech and a crew, an EPT on the generic... priced low enough that you can get 3 of them fairly kitted out in a list... it's bonkers. Having said that the issue at hand was a three legged stool of deadeye + R4 + crazy chassis. They knocked one of the legs off and somewhat unsurprisingly choose the one that was least used. Whether to call that "lazy" or "low impact" is up for debate
I don't think FFG really wanted to totally demolish the only viable generic ordnance carrier in the game.
3 minutes ago, Panzeh said:I don't think FFG really wanted to totally demolish the only viable generic ordnance carrier in the game.
The fact that the J5K is the only viable ordinance carrier in the game as opposed to the TIE Bomber, Punisher, or Y-Wing which ostensibly should be all about ordinance speaks volumes...
8 hours ago, AceWing said:No matter what, you can't play with all your ships forever.
IN TOURNAMENTS. Otherwise, you're good.
6 hours ago, Clancampbell said:Then I've wasted my money on this game. So I'm supposed to accept that all those $15 ships I bought last year was wasted money. Time to buy all new again this cycle. That's a joke.
Did you have fun playing X-Wing last year? Were you planning on never spending another penny on X-Wing in 2017?
It's like saying the $15 you spent on beer tonight was a complete waste cuz you just took a piss.
6 hours ago, Luke C said:Your xwings are NOT obsolete, but you just cant fly 4 of them competitively anymore. NOTHING is stopping you from playing a casual game and playing with your toys. NO ONE is stopping you from bringing whatever you please to a regional. If you practice a lot, you might even surprise a lot of people. HOWEVER, its not the most optimal squad to bring in this environment.
I think you said this before 
5 hours ago, AceWing said:I really am at a loss responding to you guys anymore because, and I don't mean this insultingly, you seem to have COMPLETELY unrealistic expectations. I don't want to play wave after wave rehashing what occured in Wave I. I like that the game with its abilities and tactics evolve.
And I don't want to constantly see FFG reaching backwards to try to bring everything forwards. Some ships aren't great, weren't great, and will never be great again. Sell them off, fly casual, or limit yourself to top tier meta. Just stop expecting everything to fly at 100% forever.
Edited by Darth Meanie33 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:
Did you have fun playing X-Wing last year? Were you planning on never spending another penny on X-Wing in 2017?
It's like saying the $15 you spent on beer tonight was a complete waste cuz you just took a piss.
Yes I had fun to a degree last year. Didn't enjoy the tournaments so much but over all yes. That is not in dispute.
Sure, I was planning on spending some cash on x-wing this year, already have. What I don't like is feeling like I have too to remain competitive.
The beer analogy doesn't work. Beer is a consumable, x-wing ships aren't. With proper care the ships could last forever.
3 minutes ago, Clancampbell said:The beer analogy doesn't work. Beer is a consumable, x-wing ships aren't. With proper care the ships could last forever.
Games are entertainment, and therefore a consumable. If you want an investment that retains value, try real estate or gold.
3 minutes ago, Clancampbell said:Yes I had fun to a degree last year. Didn't enjoy the tournaments so much but over all yes. That is not in dispute.
Sure, I was planning on spending some cash on x-wing this year, already have. What I don't like is feeling like I have too to remain competitive.
The beer analogy doesn't work. Beer is a consumable, x-wing ships aren't. With proper care the ships could last forever.
Ok let's do a tool analogy then. I bought a finishing nailer last year. I used it twice, it will probably sit on my shelf forever. However if I need it or if a friend needs it, I got one they can use.
not everything has to be useful all the time, your "bad ships" might be brought out once a year for a random casual match. It's a finishing nailer, worth having when you want to play with them.
51 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:I don't want to constantly see FFG reaching backwards to try to bring everything forwards. Some ships aren't great, weren't great, and will never be great again. Sell them off, fly casual, or limit yourself to top tier meta. Just stop expecting everything to fly at 100% forever.
I don't think you understand what I was saying. That's what I've been saying in multiple threads.
1 minute ago, AceWing said:I don't think you understand what I was saying. That's what I've been saying in multiple threads.
I think I did. . .I was trying to back you up by saying it in a different way from my POV.
9 minutes ago, Clancampbell said:Sure, I was planning on spending some cash on x-wing this year, already have. What I don't like is feeling like I have too to remain competitive.
Also, what you just said actually brings this thread back to its roots. . .the unhealthy dichotomy between X-Wing for fun and X-Wing for tourney.
3 hours ago, Makaze said:The fact that the J5K is the only viable ordinance carrier in the game as opposed to the TIE Bomber, Punisher, or Y-Wing which ostensibly should be all about ordinance speaks volumes...
ORDNANCE. For the love of god the word is ORDNANCE!
(#xwingpetpeeves; #rantover)
4 minutes ago, Dr Zoidberg said:ORDNANCE. For the love of god the word is ORDNANCE!
(#xwingpetpeeves; #rantover)
What if it is sort of a plain ol' typical missile? Then is it ordi-nance?
Also, can I add to this WOOKIEE??!!. For the love of SW, if you're a fan, stop spelling cookie with a W.
Edited by Darth MeanieOn 2/12/2017 at 3:00 PM, CosmicCastawayA90 said:I wholeheartedly agree with DagobahDave's comment, seasonal ban lists and card limits would be a great start to bringing ships like the X-Wing back into the fold. In my personal opinion, I think a better idea would be a suggestion I've seen tossed around a little bit, that being a suggested required percentage of a player's forces consisting of low-level ships. For example, there could be rules that make a requirement that a percentage of a player's forces would have to consist of ships like X-Wings or Ties, making the grunt ships a necessity in combat. Mechanically this ensures that jack of all trades ships like the X-Wing have a role, and thematically it makes sense that X-Wings and Ties would make up a larger portion of either faction's forces than A-Wings or Tie Bombers.
It seems to me that simply playing around with the Squad Point system already in place in the game would be the key to balancing the early wave ships.
On 2/13/2017 at 0:38 PM, CosmicCastawayA90 said:I think heychadwick's got a great idea as well, more official and competitive mission types would be a fantastic addition. When I looked at X-Wing, I saw unlimited potential in competitive game modes that could be created. As a new player, I was very surprised to hear that the one competitive way to play this game is a straight up Deathmatch.
What if there was a competitive mode that mimicked Capture the Flag? Or maybe threw in an objective that requires bombers to destroy it in order to gain a match point? Heck, this kind of design would compliment the suggestion of required and limited unit types that I described in my previous comment perfectly. I feel that something should be done to add an additional factor to competitive play, aside from having the knowledge to wipe the board in the most efficient way. With the way the most popular ships are being used, it seems to me like this game is turning into Chess. If you've memorized the most efficient steps to play the game, you can win time and time again. In this instance instead of the movement of pieces on a board, it's the card combinations and shiptypes that can lead to victory before the game is started. Throw in a flag to capture in Chess, or some other additional variable to the game, and now those perfectly memorized strategies a player might have had in their head get shaken up a bit.
On 2/14/2017 at 6:50 PM, CosmicCastawayA90 said:You're not wrong, splitting the community is always a risk with any game that has multiple modes. But I really agree with your view that in the end, it'd bring more people to play the game. Heck, why not have a game mode that is strictly Tie Fighters vs. X-Wings? I think that'd be a pretty awesome way to get newcomers like myself more involved in the game outside of playing with friends and family. A "vanilla" mode such as that would tick off a lot of the checkmarks regarding the issues people have with the game the way it is now:
*The ships are easily recognizable.
*Ties vs. X-Wings can be fairly balanced (depending on the numbers of Ties and X-Wings) and would give an easy way for players to learn the core concepts of the game.
*Fans of how the game was played in the past would have an avenue to officially play the two classic ships from Star Wars.
*Flight skill now has it's meaning restored.
*Those same fans of the earlier waves could now have a direct means of more easily teaching new players themselves, and potentially strengthen the community as a result.
*And finally, the game mode would put "X-Wing" back into X-Wing Miniatures.
This would essentially be X-Wing's version of Dust II. A game-mode that every knows, that a large audience is drawn to, that could stick around for decades.
To those saying that it's impossible to design a game without power creep with continued expansions, you're wrong. It's absolutely possible to minimize power creep and metas through solid game design. If you truly believe that power creep is inevitable, and that the first waves of any game like this are going to be useless, you haven't been reading the comments of this thread, nor have you played enough games that actually have good game design. So in response, I would like anyone to tell me directly why none of these ideas I've suggested in past pages (quoted above) are viable. I'd also invite you to search for other suggestions on this thread and directly state why they wouldn't work.
There are incredibly simple ways to balance out this game, yet so many people have stated that the game doesn't need fixing, or that it simply can't be fixed. Seasonal Ban lists, requiring a certain percentage of forces being standard ships while limiting the copies of other types of ships, creating more missions for competitive and tournament play, adding an official vanilla mode for those who would like to go back to X-Wings and Ties. These are just a few of the numerous ideas given on this thread that would be absolutely viable without requiring new ships or cards. Many of these ideas would future-proof the design of the game and give an additional factor of balancing. Those of you who truly believe that the game can't be balanced or fixed, well, many of us on this thread have at least given some incredibly solid foundations to start that process. Go ahead and tell me that my suggestions are wrong, that they won't work, but tell me with logic, evidence, and a decent analysis of the pillars of gameplay mechanics X-Wing is based on.
18 minutes ago, CosmicCastawayA90 said:
To those saying that it's impossible to design a game without power creep with continued expansions, you're wrong. It's absolutely possible to minimize power creep and metas through solid game design. If you truly believe that power creep is inevitable, and that the first waves of any game like this are going to be useless, you haven't been reading the comments of this thread, nor have you played enough games that actually have good game design. So in response, I would like anyone to tell me directly why none of these ideas I've suggested in past pages (quoted above) are viable. I'd also invite you to search for other suggestions on this thread and directly state why they wouldn't work.
There are incredibly simple ways to balance out this game, yet so many people have stated that the game doesn't need fixing, or that it simply can't be fixed. Seasonal Ban lists, requiring a certain percentage of forces being standard ships while limiting the copies of other types of ships, creating more missions for competitive and tournament play, adding an official vanilla mode for those who would like to go back to X-Wings and Ties. These are just a few of the numerous ideas given on this thread that would be absolutely viable without requiring new ships or cards. Many of these ideas would future-proof the design of the game and give an additional factor of balancing. Those of you who truly believe that the game can't be balanced or fixed, well, many of us on this thread have at least given some incredibly solid foundations to start that process. Go ahead and tell me that my suggestions are wrong, that they won't work, but tell me with logic, evidence, and a decent analysis of the pillars of gameplay mechanics X-Wing is based on.
They aren't simple suggestions. Who gets to decide on the banned list? Why do I have to fly generics? Why is it more fun? Unlike games like magic which do have cards that literally break the game xwing is not like that. Palp and zuccus are strong, but they aren't in every list.
go fly xwing vs tie fighter whenever you want. It will never take off as a national format.
10 minutes ago, CosmicCastawayA90 said:To those saying that it's impossible to design a game without power creep with continued expansions, you're wrong. It's absolutely possible to minimize power creep and metas through solid game design. If you truly believe that power creep is inevitable, and that the first waves of any game like this are going to be useless, you haven't been reading the comments of this thread, nor have you played enough games that actually have good game design. So in response, I would like anyone to tell me directly why none of these ideas I've suggested in past pages (quoted above) are viable. I'd also invite you to search for other suggestions on this thread and directly state why they wouldn't work.
There are incredibly simple ways to balance out this game, yet so many people have stated that the game doesn't need fixing, or that it simply can't be fixed. Seasonal Ban lists, requiring a certain percentage of forces being standard ships while limiting the copies of other types of ships, creating more missions for competitive and tournament play, adding an official vanilla mode for those who would like to go back to X-Wings and Ties. These are just a few of the numerous ideas given on this thread that would be absolutely viable without requiring new ships or cards. Many of these ideas would future-proof the design of the game and give an additional factor of balancing. Those of you who truly believe that the game can't be balanced or fixed, well, many of us on this thread have at least given some incredibly solid foundations to start that process. Go ahead and tell me that my suggestions are wrong, that they won't work, but tell me with logic, evidence, and a decent analysis of the pillars of gameplay mechanics X-Wing is based on.
Excessive errata is frustrating for players, especially new players because the product they bought isn't accurate and they often find this out at inopportune times, like a tournament they paid entry for. The tournament scene is well-balanced. All we've lost are ships that haven't been good in a long time. Good riddance.
I actually agree that there should be multiple formats. There is a clear disconnect between casual and competitive players. For instance, I don't give a **** about theme. I appreciate you likening current standard to Chess because I actually think it's far more skill intensive now than many past metagames. I think epic should be a supported format and some thematic something-or-other with objectives could be a format. Casual players could get their own kits and play whatever they like.
If you have a "vanilla" format, I believe what you'll find is it's very boring to play an already-solved metagame. My argument against the changes all the game-haters are arguing for is reducing the game back to an already solved state. I don't care about flying wave-whatever style X-Wing anymore. I already did that.
Additionally, you're just claiming it's easy to contort X-Wing into your vision of what it should be. Despite all your complaints, the game continues to grow. Most players must not agree that the game has numerous problems. I've found problematic players far more unhealthy than the game mechanics themselves.
Fun games aren't static, they're dynamic with new and powerful strategies. I haven't seen a proposed change I would want to play. What FFG needs to recognize is the majority of any game's player base is casual. They need to expand the number of formats to appease the casual players or lose them to complaints they'll carry with them to every single game they play.
28 minutes ago, AceWing said:What FFG needs to recognize is the majority of any game's player base is casual. They need to expand the number of formats to appease the casual players or lose them to complaints they'll carry with them to every single game they play.
As a casual player, I would argue this one step further. . .they need to do more than appease, they need to design for the casual player. Other than Huge ships (which happen less than once a year, and also seem to be a vehicle for issuing a small ship fix), it's clear that all other ships are NOT designed for the casual player. As I've said before, what we get is "trickle down X-Wing." I'd like to see small and large ships designed as Epic or Casual only.
Edited by Darth Meanie