1 minute ago, Darth Meanie said:

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 than 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.

The first step would be to create a casual format and see the level of interest. Then they would know how many casual ships to make given the audience casual events are getting.

32 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.

Nailed it.

9 hours ago, Makaze said:

Can you uh... maybe point us to this holy grail of game design? I'd love to see this shining and perfect example of balance and longevity that other games can only grovel before

Malifaux 2.0.

With four waves and an endless slew of complicated models, every single Master is good.

I'll admit that it's good because the game is designed very well, around OBJECTIVES that give victory points, rather than just being a brute smashface deathmatch - though some of those objectives do involve killing, so if you want to aim for that you can! - so a player can sculpt his force around objectives and win without killing.

But the models themselves are carefully designed and considered, and everything is good. Some things are slightly behind or ahead of the curve - but the power ratio difference is a matter of single digits percentage-wise, rather than being in the multiple tens as in X-Wing.

Their design intent is to NEVER invalidate something. A model like Fel's Wrath would never have come out of the Malifaux team, and neither would have something like the recent TIE Striker which completely removed any reason to fly an Interceptor.

Bloodbowl was also like this, especially the Living Rulebook version maintained and changed by the players over the course of fifteen years. Each team was designed to have a unique identity, and there were several teams intentionally designed to be above and below the power curve to help newbies out and to give experienced players a challenge.

Rather than it being a stupid accident that slipped through playtesting and went uncorrected for six months or several years.

The thing is, though, that those games all did something that FFG seems to be terrified of: They admitted that their first edition was broken. After it was released, the game flaws were shown - Bloodbowl used to be played until one side scored three points, but because of the combat mechanics it might be impossible to do so and the games could go on forever! Malifaux 1e... *shudder*

Right now X-Wing is IMHO broken in three fundamental ways:

1) Each new wave invalidates older models, and this is a game where the first appeal IS the models

2) An excessive focus on 100/6 rock deathmathes from the company means that the only releases reckoned good are the ones which fit into THAT format

3) The point cost system is almost entirely at random and has little sense to it - even the new releases, TIE/x7 would be fine at 0 points (and I play exclusively Empire and love the Defender so I ain't hatin' here)

I was happy with the modest amount of power creep in GW's Lord of the Rings game. Though it is possible to point to some examples in that game, it was very modest. Its design space was different from X-Wing's, of course, and the two games should not be compared simplistically, but I think it is good to see what lessons can be learned from games that are better able to combine old and new units.

One thing they might consider is to use optional army lists, perhaps in updateable PDF format. LotR started as a system where basically any good guy could team up with any other good guy, and GW later published a system of themed army lists on top of that.

8 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

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.

What, exactly, would a Casual ship look like? What would casual ships do that competitive ships do not?

5 hours ago, iamfanboy said:

Bloodbowl was also like this, especially the Living Rulebook version maintained and changed by the players over the course of fifteen years. Each team was designed to have a unique identity, and there were several teams intentionally designed to be above and below the power curve to help newbies out and to give experienced players a challenge.

Rather than it being a stupid accident that slipped through playtesting and went uncorrected for six months or several years.

I think blood bowl is a hot mess of a game and only played out of a vain sense of nostalgia. I've played it and it has all the rotten hallmarks of GW games- push-your-luck mechanics, tiresome, grindy gameplay, and excessive amounts of luck on everything. The team balance issues were not by intention and simply a result of bad game design.

12 minutes ago, Panzeh said:

I think blood bowl is a hot mess of a game and only played out of a vain sense of nostalgia. I've played it and it has all the rotten hallmarks of GW games- push-your-luck mechanics, tiresome, grindy gameplay, and excessive amounts of luck on everything. The team balance issues were not by intention and simply a result of bad game design.

When and how did you play it, though? The era of community development really polished the game into one that stands up to high levels of competition well. The only problem the game has is how easy losses can be blamed on bad luck, because the actuak reasons you lost can not be easily seen without a good understanding of the game.

My last opponent felt like he lost his lead because of a turn where I punched 4 of his players off the pitch (13th turn) - but actually he had been lucky on most armour breaks before which would have allowed him to take much larger an advantage had he scored more agressively.

I won't say luck doesn't matter in Blood Bowl, but a good player can have a huge influence over how much it affects him.

Yeah, Blood Bowl is a game of variance management.

41 minutes ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

When and how did you play it, though? The era of community development really polished the game into one that stands up to high levels of competition well. The only problem the game has is how easy losses can be blamed on bad luck, because the actuak reasons you lost can not be easily seen without a good understanding of the game.

My last opponent felt like he lost his lead because of a turn where I punched 4 of his players off the pitch (13th turn) - but actually he had been lucky on most armour breaks before which would have allowed him to take much larger an advantage had he scored more agressively.

I won't say luck doesn't matter in Blood Bowl, but a good player can have a huge influence over how much it affects him.

You can absolutely play blood bowl in a way that minimizes variance but at that point it becomes a tiresome cage and stall game and if i wanted to stand around blocking off zones of control, i'd play a real hex and counter wargame where a failed attack doesn't end a turn.

I think the problem is that, at the moment, the game has become boiled down to the hard mathematical formula of killing your opponent more efficiently without yourself being killed. The smart people of the world can nail down the type of ships that are viable in a short amount of time. The game comes down to basically being only so many competitive list types that even have a chance of winning. It's just the nature of how the game is at the moment. There are a few things that can be done to change that....if that's what FFG wants to do. I know some people think it's absolutely fine right now. That's OK. There are others that don't like it and do want a change. It creates friction, but no one is right or wrong.

I think a seasonal ban list might not be the right way to go. To be honest, most of the time it's not that certain cards are over powered. It's certain card combos are overpowered. Instead of banning a card outright, it would be smarter to ban certain combos. Ban Palpatine on a Lambada or ban Palp with /x7 title. Something like that. Ban Dengar with Manaroo, but you are fine to play those ships separate. It's no fun to say a certain card/ship can't be used at all. The only exception I would give is Advanced Cloaking Device, but that's just because I'm a hater.

The other method that I can think of would be to create missions/objectives. I think it totally changes the game when you change how to win. What would cause you to win before will probably not work right in the new mission. There are ways to build missions that can bring a balance to the game. Will there be a new meta? Of course. There is no way to escape "meta". Will there be netlists? Sure. Will they be the only viable options, though? Heck no. I feel that there is a way to bring about a broader game where more ships are viable with missions. I see this where T-65's and Tie Punishers are viable ships.

1 hour ago, Panzeh said:

What, exactly, would a Casual ship look like? What would casual ships do that competitive ships do not?

The easy answer? The T-65 X-wing. It's a middle of the road ship. It has good maneuverability that's not as good as an A-wing, but good. It has good firepower that's not as good as a Ghost, but good. It has good survivability. In other words, middle of the road ships that are not experts at one thing or the other can come back in a game like that. At the moment, only the extreme ships are good. Ships that are amazing at dishing out damage. Or ships extreme about avoid damage. Or ships that are extreme about avoiding arcs. These are the only competitive ships right now. A casual ship would be a ship that is OK at a lot of things, but not expert at any. It can be useful in many situations.

The problem, to my mind, is that right there's very little left that isn't just the maths. The Activation Phase is now so powerful (allied with squadbuilding to maximise it) that what happens in the Planning and Combat Phases are much less important than they used to be.

I don't think the planning or combat phase is any less important. If anything, the smaller margin of error now makes positioning to focus fire on invincible ships more important. What is happening is the differential between competitive and non-competitive ships is widening.

10 hours ago, AceWing said:

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.

What about the other end of the spectrum for new players? Say a player who gets into this game based off the love of the movies. He wants to fly Luke and Wedge and Biggs because that's cool to him and he fondly remembers the battle of Yavin. He gets a few casual games in and does reasonably well, because that list could, in a casual setting. Then he goes to a tournament and gets routed off the table by a bunch of ships he doesn't even recognize. Then he's told if he wants to compete he's going to have to buy these better ships. How long do you think that player is going to stick around?

Leaving the financial aspect aside, why would he want to play ships he doesn't know when he got into this game to fly some X-wings and Tie fighters?

.

6 minutes ago, Clancampbell said:

What about the other end of the spectrum for new players? Say a player who gets into this game based off the love of the movies. He wants to fly Luke and Wedge and Biggs because that's cool to him and he fondly remembers the battle of Yavin. He gets a few casual games in and does reasonably well, because that list could, in a casual setting. Then he goes to a tournament and gets routed off the table by a bunch of ships he doesn't even recognize. Then he's told if he wants to compete he's going to have to buy these better ships. How long do you think that player is going to stick around?

Leaving the financial aspect aside, why would he want to play ships he doesn't know when he got into this game to fly some X-wings and Tie fighters?

Why should everyone get everything in a high level tournament? The guy still SHOULD do reasonably well with a 3x list at most local tournaments and kits. The "meta" lists really start to come out at the regional level. Even then, a good player with a practiced list COULD go 3-3 at a regional, get in that top 64, get the card and have a fun day. That is a very reasonable expectation.

I dont know why you are insisting that a new player should be able to take any list and hope to win a large event. I consider myself a fairly good player who practices a lot and keeps a close eye on the meta and I have a wonderful day if I even make the cut. Winning a regional is baller work, and new players (while very possible) should not set their hopes and dreams on winning a regional, even if they take a meta list.

This is a VERY unreasonable expectation, and if you think this is how it should be, then I completely understand why you are unhappy with the game as it stands.

21 minutes ago, Clancampbell said:

What about the other end of the spectrum for new players? Say a player who gets into this game based off the love of the movies. He wants to fly Luke and Wedge and Biggs because that's cool to him and he fondly remembers the battle of Yavin. He gets a few casual games in and does reasonably well, because that list could, in a casual setting. Then he goes to a tournament and gets routed off the table by a bunch of ships he doesn't even recognize. Then he's told if he wants to compete he's going to have to buy these better ships. How long do you think that player is going to stick around?

Leaving the financial aspect aside, why would he want to play ships he doesn't know when he got into this game to fly some X-wings and Tie fighters?

...For the mechanics of the game? You can play any number of Star Wars games. It's the mechanics of the game that bring people back. I really don't care if such a player exists and leaves the game. If he's that casual he can play with X-Wings and TIE Fighters all he wants on his own. Such a player doesn't need to dictate to the tournament community that X-Wing should be played that way.

Well, yeah, but Netrunner is another great example of FFG buying in game mechanics they don't fully understand and then ******* them up. I was quite close to trying Destiny but when I realised it was Lucas Litzsinger designing it I decided I'd been burned by him too much in the past. With X-Wing they stole the movement from Wings of War and tacked the action/combat system on that has been imbalancing it increasingly ever since.

2 minutes ago, AceWing said:

...For the mechanics of the game? You can play any number of Star Wars games. It's the mechanics of the game that bring people back. I really don't care if such a player exists and leaves the game. If he's that casual he can play with X-Wings and TIE Fighters all he wants on his own. Such a player doesn't need to dictate to the tournament community that X-Wing should be played that way.

If you really believe that then why is this game called X-wing? FFG is trading off the Star Wars name. People don't start this game because of the mechanics. I would have never played this game had it not been Star Wars. The name brings people in. Honestly, I don't know if I'd still be around if this was just a generic sci-fi ship combat game. I'm sure others feel the same.

28 minutes ago, Luke C said:

Why should everyone get everything in a high level tournament? The guy still SHOULD do reasonably well with a 3x list at most local tournaments and kits. The "meta" lists really start to come out at the regional level. Even then, a good player with a practiced list COULD go 3-3 at a regional, get in that top 64, get the card and have a fun day. That is a very reasonable expectation.

I didn't play for 3 months and took a list with 2 ships I'd never flown before to Regionals a couple of weeks ago and went 3-3. It was indeed the "meta" lists that gave me trouble as I was not practised in how to deal with them. Vs Bigss/2k-wings it was close but I eventually lost after time had been called (we played out the last turn) and Dash/Ghost was also a relatively close loss ending 100-75. I'm pretty sure I'd have ended 5-1 with some practice on how to deal with these lists as they were close. Whilst list building is a big part of x-wing now; it's not the be all and end all. Flying well and having a plan on how to deal with things really does come into it a lot more than most people think.

1 hour ago, heychadwick said:

The easy answer? The T-65 X-wing. It's a middle of the road ship. It has good maneuverability that's not as good as an A-wing, but good. It has good firepower that's not as good as a Ghost, but good. It has good survivability. In other words, middle of the road ships that are not experts at one thing or the other can come back in a game like that. At the moment, only the extreme ships are good. Ships that are amazing at dishing out damage. Or ships extreme about avoid damage. Or ships that are extreme about avoiding arcs. These are the only competitive ships right now. A casual ship would be a ship that is OK at a lot of things, but not expert at any. It can be useful in many situations.

The t-65 X-wing is a slightly upgraded z-95 with a much higher point cost. It is an utterly one-role ship. It's pretty bad at that one thing.

4 minutes ago, Smutpedler said:

I didn't play for 3 months and took a list with 2 ships I'd never flown before to Regionals a couple of weeks ago and went 3-3. It was indeed the "meta" lists that gave me trouble as I was not practised in how to deal with them. Vs Bigss/2k-wings it was close but I eventually lost after time had been called (we played out the last turn) and Dash/Ghost was also a relatively close loss ending 100-75. I'm pretty sure I'd have ended 5-1 with some practice on how to deal with these lists as they were close. Whilst list building is a big part of x-wing now; it's not the be all and end all. Flying well and having a plan on how to deal with things really does come into it a lot more than most people think.

What ships did you take?

13 minutes ago, Clancampbell said:

If you really believe that then why is this game called X-wing? FFG is trading off the Star Wars name. People don't start this game because of the mechanics. I would have never played this game had it not been Star Wars. The name brings people in. Honestly, I don't know if I'd still be around if this was just a generic sci-fi ship combat game. I'm sure others feel the same.

Exactly right. It's Star Wars that brought me in. And you (AceWing) yourself stated that the vast majority of X wing games (if not all players) are casual.

Now with my friends I can do whatever we want like say "ok that cheesy Parratani list you ran last week was totally lame. Why don't you play something different?"

I think the 100/6 is very limited and there are much better ways to play X Wing. FFG should realize this and support missions better. A campaign set would be a great place to start.

2 hours ago, Panzeh said:

What, exactly, would a Casual ship look like? What would casual ships do that competitive ships do not?

OK, some back of the envelope ideas (i.e., I don't claim to have point values or perfect balance):

TIE Scout: A TIE fighter with 1 Attack and the Coordinate Action. Useful for helping ordnance carriers or alpha strikes.

Passenger Shuttle: Carries VIPs that have overall modifiers to how the battle plays or are worth points if they survive/are protected. 0 Attack.

Z-G Stormtrooper Squad: Can attack any ship it manages to come in base to base with

Telgorm Assault Shuttle: Introduces boarding rules.

Bespin Cloud Car: Introduces aerospace combat rules.

Battle of Hoth (2x T-47 and AT-AT starter kit): Because why the fudge not?

Point Defense Satellite: Essentially a starship that can't move.

A Space Station: Essentially a Huge Ship that doesn't move.

All of these would suck in 100/6. All of these would rock in thematic, Sunday afternoon, 200+ point battles.

1 hour ago, AceWing said:

I don't think the planning or combat phase is any less important. If anything, the smaller margin of error now makes positioning to focus fire on invincible ships more important.

I'm not sure that's true though.

Countess Ryad/PTL costs ~70% more than a Rookie Pilot with Int.Astromech, but is approximately 800% more effective at jousting one-on-one. If you spend 44pts on two Rookie Pilots then Ryad is still more effective and should destroy the two X-Wings before they can destroy her. That's even before you get into the benefits of the white k-turn/Barrel Roll in potentially enabling Ryad to maintain fire on the X-Wings more reliably than they can fire on the Defender. And even if the X-Wing 'wins' the Planning Phase and gets unanswered shots on the Defender it's going to miss 85% of the time because of Focus/Evade.

What happens in the Activation Phase (Focus/Evade/TL) very definitely devalues the impact of both the Planning Phase and the Combat Phase going well/badly - if the Planning Phase goes badly you don't really care, and you're fixing the Combat Phase so that it's can't really go badly at all.

11 hours ago, Luke C said:

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.

Again, I have asked you to directly explain to me why these systems would not work based on the gameplay mechanics of X-Wing, and you continue to refuse to answer any question I pose to you. If you don't want to contribute helpful, meaningful discussion to this conversation, leave. I do not have the patience to continue to explain myself over and over again when none of the points I bring to light are directly answered in a way that brings legitimate evidence or critical thought. I and many others have given numerous, concrete reasons why there is a problem with the game, and we have also given numerous fixes to these issues. You do not admit that there are problems with the game, and you do not directly respond to the evidence we have provided to show you with concrete certainty that there is a problem with the game. If you don't think the game should change in any way, then maybe it's time you started your own thread on that topic. Because here, we believe that there is at least one problem in one form or another, and we're trying to have a very open and meaningful discussion about how to solve it.

10 hours ago, AceWing said:

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.

To your first point, you really have no problems with new players getting upset that they don't have a hope to win with the ships they want to be good with? Let me know how well the player base grows in the long run if that's your outlook on the matter, because having to pay to win at a game is bull no matter what form of game we're talking about.

To your second point, thank you for agreeing that multiple formats should exist. However, this is not a disconnect between casual and competitive players. Many of us here could be considered competitive, and we're wanting changes to be made so that we can bring elements of skill back into the game that were in the game at the start, but that have now eroded away with the latest waves. I find it baffling that somehow you still believe a metagame is the way to bring fun and good game design, because there's a ridiculous amount of examples of games where the meta goes off the walls and kills the fun and skill. I stated in my previous comment that there should be other formats specifically for competitive and league play for a reason. Many people who are not you, who also play in the environment you do, would again like some actual skill to factor into the game again. Don't create a divide between 'casual' and 'competitive' players, because unless anyone here is planning to go pro, we're all on equal footing as to how we can interpret and discuss the game.

Your third point, that I'm wanting to "contort" X-wing to my vision? My vision for the game is that it's actually based on skill, so that every single ship is viable at one task or another, and that everyone has the potential to create competitive squadrons no matter what wave they're using. That's called a skill based game, and if you don't think that's possible, I'd like you to google a game called Counter-Strike. You might have heard of it because it remains a skill game where every single weapon has a purpose. Are all weapons perfectly balanced? No, they aren't. Can each and every last one of them defeat an enemy if used by someone who has the skill and knowledge of how to use those weapons properly? Absolutely. That game would be considered "static" by you, and yet it's still the most popular multiplayer video game to this very day, and also continues to grow. At the end of the day, what I'm saying X-Wing should be is balanced, and I'm not the only one. Also, just because you haven't seen a proposed change you want to play, does not mean that they aren't good ideas and that they can't work. If you, or anyone else that has a problem with the suggestions being discussed, don't like these ideas because they break cheap combos being used and stop gimmicky strategies from being implemented, then good, that's the point of balancing a game, and that means we're actually coming up with some great ideas then.

Also, you think that we're "game-haters?" And that most players must somehow "not agree that the game has numerous problems," and that "problematic players" are "far more unhealthy than the game mechanics themselves?" So because most of us here have problems with the game as it stands, we're now considered haters? And we're unhealthy to the game? Despite the fact that we've been having fairly calm and intelligent discussion on this thread about how we'd like to see the game fixed because we enjoy the game so much? So because someone has a problem with the game and doesn't consider it's broken mechanics perfect, they are a hater? Continue playing games with this kind of attitude, and you'll only serve to drive more people away. There is such a thing as constructive criticism, and the only ones not providing that on this thread are those who rush to defend this game to very death, and would rather fault every last player who has a problem with the game, than to take a single moment to provide specific feedback with respect to the game mechanics.

6 minutes ago, Luke C said:

Why should everyone get everything in a high level tournament? The guy still SHOULD do reasonably well with a 3x list at most local tournaments and kits. The "meta" lists really start to come out at the regional level. Even then, a good player with a practiced list COULD go 3-3 at a regional, get in that top 64, get the card and have a fun day. That is a very reasonable expectation.

I dont know why you are insisting that a new player should be able to take any list and hope to win a large event. I consider myself a fairly good player who practices a lot and keeps a close eye on the meta and I have a wonderful day if I even make the cut. Winning a regional is baller work, and new players (while very possible) should not set their hopes and dreams on winning a regional, even if they take a meta list.

This is a VERY unreasonable expectation, and if you think this is how it should be, then I completely understand why you are unhappy with the game as it stands.

Yes, wanting every ship to be useful and allowing players an opportunity to win with every ship as long as they have the skill necessary to use them is a VERY unreasonable expectation indeed. What would we do without our elitist meta-system that assures victory to the elite members of the game, who have memorized the perfect combos to beat everything into oblivion? -obvious sarcasm should be obvious-

It's amazing how you fail, no, refuse to comprehend that we're not saying any new player should be able to take any deck and win with it just like that. We're saying that he should have the POTENTIAL to win with a reasonably constructed squadron of basic ships. A well-practiced, experienced player should assuredly be ABLE to beat an opponent running the current meta ships if he can outfly his opponent. The meta SHOULD NOT BE PREVALENT in the first place. A player SHOULD be able to take first place if they're that good of a player. Are there going to be better combos and squads than others? Yes, we want that! What we don't want is for that to be the ONLY factor when it comes to competitive play.