3 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

I wasn't aware I made any specific requests, unless you mean "try something new." Obviously you view this entire thread through the rose-colored glasses of "everybody is having fun playing X-Wing except Darth Meanie cuz he's a stick in the mud and needs a Life Coach." Hopefully you and FFG are right about that, because Mynock's podcast was about "this is the moment of our discontent."

Sorry but transforming a 100 vs. 100 deathmatch game into a narrative themed scenario based game is a fairly specific request, not just "try something new".

And if you read back through the thread I don't think I've ever said everything is peachy keen and perfect or that some changes wouldn't be welcome. Rather I'm saying that a lot of the suggestions tossed out as seemingly obvious and blatantly simple solutions will in fact do nothing or have the opposite effect that their cheerleaders think they will. That specifically your complaints seem more rooted in your attitude and approach to the game than in anything FFG is or is not doing in terms of development.

16 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Rather than fighting in the trenches of the forums I thought it best to just take the time to clearly lay out my thoughts in a blog dedicated to the subject.

http://stayontheleader.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/the-state-of-x-wing-part-i-phantom.html

I had been thinking about how to bring a rotation to X-Wing back when Hearthstone started doing it as a hypothetical for fun thing and had a lot of the same ideas and concerns. Another issue I encountered were upgrade slots, where sometimes you don't have any upgrades introduced in timeframe that remains. The time has come where FFG at least has to consider it. I am confident that they can find something apropriate by applying experiences from other living games, learning from mistakes there, and listening to the community. They'd only have to actually do it!

33 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Rather than fighting in the trenches of the forums I thought it best to just take the time to clearly lay out my thoughts in a blog dedicated to the subject.

http://stayontheleader.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/the-state-of-x-wing-part-i-phantom.html

I appreciate that. I think we agree on a lot more than I think and we just have differing conclusions about where to go. I should write something out myself.

I also want to apologize for making caustic posts toward you in this way. It was uncalled for.

35 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Rather than fighting in the trenches of the forums I thought it best to just take the time to clearly lay out my thoughts in a blog dedicated to the subject.

http://stayontheleader.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/the-state-of-x-wing-part-i-phantom.html

Well, you certainly have a handle on the problems. . .I'm interested to read about your solutions

One thing you touched on that I would say I really wish is that the designers talked to the community more about where they are taking the game and why they think certain choices are good ideas. I'm not asking for explanation or justification, just a little behind-the-scenes insight.

20 minutes ago, Makaze said:

Sorry but transforming a 100 vs. 100 deathmatch game into a narrative themed scenario based game is a fairly specific request, not just "try something new".

And if you read back through the thread I don't think I've ever said everything is peachy keen and perfect or that some changes wouldn't be welcome. Rather I'm saying that a lot of the suggestions tossed out as seemingly obvious and blatantly simple solutions will in fact do nothing or have the opposite effect that their cheerleaders think they will. That specifically your complaints seem more rooted in your attitude and approach to the game than in anything FFG is or is not doing in terms of development.

If you mean how I crush my 11 year old nephew playing X-Wing. . .he quit playing over a year ago out of boredom. We used to play Team Epic, and we both played the Imperials. But because there are no clear rules for anything but 100/6, we could not get a handle on what that meant for the game when you scale things up. I came out to these forums to try to figure things out, but other than a handful of people's anecdotal experiences, there is nothing from FFG other than "try our game at 300 points!! You can use BIG ships." I have come to understand the differences between Team Epic, Epic, and Standard, but it was too late to keep my nephew and his dad in the game.

1 hour ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Rather than fighting in the trenches of the forums I thought it best to just take the time to clearly lay out my thoughts in a blog dedicated to the subject.

http://stayontheleader.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/the-state-of-x-wing-part-i-phantom.html

Interesting read. I'm one of those players that's solidly in the "theme" camp. Your points there were like you were speaking with my voice, and I've said similar, if not the same, things on these message boards. I'll admit, you lost me a bit with the concept of "churn". It isn't very clear what you mean, at least to me.

Honestly, I kind of wish FFG would lose their star wars license, and just put out a generic sci-fi ship combat game. That would probably cut all the consternation around here by about half. They'd probably lose a percentage of the player base, myself included, but it is what it is.

Finally, and I'm being as nice as I can, there were a couple of grammatical errors in your article. While I understood what was being said, it's just kind of annoying. Sorry to be nit-picky, it's just a pet peeve of mine. Good read overall though!

13 minutes ago, Clancampbell said:

Honestly, I kind of wish FFG would lose their star wars license, and just put out a generic sci-fi ship combat game. That would probably cut all the consternation around here by about half. They'd probably lose a percentage of the player base, myself included, but it is what it is.

mmm... Battlestar Galactica. But I agree with you that many people are way more about star wars than they are about x-wing.

4 minutes ago, Luke C said:

mmm... Battlestar Galactica. But I agree with you that many people are way more about star wars than they are about x-wing.

Why do people always say this? BSG -- the rebooted, good series -- uses relatively realistic space-flight physics. Doing that in Flightpath would be ... pretty difficult.

1 minute ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Why do people always say this? BSG -- the rebooted, good series -- uses relatively realistic space-flight physics. Doing that in Flightpath would be ... pretty difficult.

Cause I like the IP, and many people will be less fanboy than Star Wars, so when he viper mk 15 comes out, and the viper mk 4 is played less, people will probably whine less, which would make me happy. However that was just a slight digression and I don't intend to derail this thread anymore.

29 minutes ago, Clancampbell said:

Honestly, I kind of wish FFG would lose their star wars license, and just put out a generic sci-fi ship combat game. That would probably cut all the consternation around here by about half. They'd probably lose a percentage of the player base, myself included, but it is what it is.

Ouch. But ain't that the cold harsh truth!

Back in 2013 my brother presented the game to me. I'd been clean for 13 years at that point. . .I'd broken my monstrous 1990s collectable game addiction (M:TG, Decipher's SWCCG, ICE's ME:CCG) and gotten off all the cardboard crack.

The LAST thing I wanted was to start another collectible game. But it was STAR WARS!!

So yeah, you could play this game with any old model and stat card, X-Wings and TIE Fighters be damned. And I could get back on the wagon.

4 hours ago, Makaze said:

The last 20 pages have been about a whole host of meandering things, not just your specific request...

Xwing is already just that to a lot of people, a fun game to play with friends over a couple of beers. The only thing stopping you from enjoying it like that is you.

Not entirely correct. If the newer ships continue powercreep in the same speed as they do right now, you cannot field thematic battles with older releases like T65, Hwk, Khiraxzes, Vipers etc together with later released ships, as these just steamroll over the older ships, being made for hypercompetitive 100/6.

31 minutes ago, Managarmr said:

Not entirely correct. If the newer ships continue powercreep in the same speed as they do right now, you cannot field thematic battles with older releases like T65, Hwk, Khiraxzes, Vipers etc together with later released ships, as these just steamroll over the older ships, being made for hypercompetitive 100/6.

I think we might be seeing things a bit differently- to me, the problem is the older ships. To you, the problem is the newer ones.

IMO the newer ships are more interesting, more complex, more customizable, and offer more options, whereas the older ones tend to be one-note and just don't have the cost to really match up. At least in thematic games you can worry less about points and can house rule more.

16 minutes ago, Managarmr said:

Not entirely correct. If the newer ships continue powercreep in the same speed as they do right now, you cannot field thematic battles with older releases like T65, Hwk, Khiraxzes, Vipers etc together with later released ships, as these just steamroll over the older ships, being made for hypercompetitive 100/6.

That's my whole point though. If we're talking beer and pretzels X Wing, which it seemed Meanie was referring to and I certainly was in that comment, and you're both interested in having a thematic battle then neither of you should be running a tweaked out tier one tournament list. On the other hand if only one of you is interested in that then the problem doesn't lie with X Wing...

Power creep is a real problem and there are several plausible if imperfect suggestions in this thread to partially counteract it, but the solution isn't to say "I like to run bad lists, I demand that FFG force my opponents to run bad lists too"

2 minutes ago, Panzeh said:

I think we might be seeing things a bit differently- to me, the problem is the older ships. To you, the problem is the newer ones.

IMO the newer ships are more interesting, more complex, more customizable, and offer more options, whereas the older ones tend to be one-note and just don't have the cost to really match up. At least in thematic games you can worry less about points and can house rule more.

Completely agree. Although there have been several releases lately that push the power curve too high (x7 and J5K scream to mind) for the most part the problem lies with the old ships lacking newer mechanics and upgrade slots.

4 minutes ago, Makaze said:

That's my whole point though. If we're talking beer and pretzels X Wing, which it seemed Meanie was referring to and I certainly was in that comment, and you're both interested in having a thematic battle then neither of you should be running a tweaked out tier one tournament list. On the other hand if only one of you is interested in that then the problem doesn't lie with X Wing...

Power creep is a real problem and there are several plausible if imperfect suggestions in this thread to partially counteract it, but the solution isn't to say "I like to run bad lists, I demand that FFG force my opponents to run bad lists too"

Completely agree. Although there have been several releases lately that push the power curve too high (x7 and J5K scream to mind) for the most part the problem lies with the old ships lacking newer mechanics and upgrade slots.

Of course some of the newer releases come with cool stuff. But some are pretty gross already without ANY upgrades, thus being problematic when played together with older releases. Esp. with kids this can be a problem. Let's say a kid really wants to fly the batwing, as it likes the looks of it, or the Fang with Fenn Rau as it finds the Rebels series cool. In a shematic skirmish, even without any power combos they will roll over earlier releases. Not very funny for the adult or kid on the side which fields the earlier releases.

2 hours ago, Panzeh said:

I think we might be seeing things a bit differently- to me, the problem is the older ships. To you, the problem is the newer ones.

IMO the newer ships are more interesting, more complex, more customizable, and offer more options, whereas the older ones tend to be one-note and just don't have the cost to really match up. At least in thematic games you can worry less about points and can house rule more.

I'm with you in that I like where the newer ships are right now. So, for me the problem is that the "classics" are the Jurassics

2 hours ago, Makaze said:

That's my whole point though. If we're talking beer and pretzels X Wing, which it seemed Meanie was referring to and I certainly was in that comment, and you're both interested in having a thematic battle then neither of you should be running a tweaked out tier one tournament list.

the solution isn't to say "I like to run bad lists, I demand that FFG force my opponents to run bad lists too"

We never run net lists or meta lists, because we don't even play 100/6.

I certainly don't want to build "bad lists;" I enjoy list building as part of the game.

I'm not even attached to classic ships vs. EU ships.

But unless you start saying "run all old waves" or "run all new waves" then this happens:

2 hours ago, Managarmr said:

Of course some of the newer releases come with cool stuff. But some are pretty gross already without ANY upgrades, thus being problematic when played together with older releases. Not very funny for the adult or kid on the side which fields the earlier releases.

And the player who went retro is dead meat.

Maybe what X-Wing 2.0 needs to be is a release that, in one fell swoop, rebalances all of the older ships to today's meta. Because the thought of waiting 2-5 years to see all the first ships "fixed" one at a time is annoying.

Cusp is the right word for it.

I have the feeling that the best way to do a 2.0 is to release a boxed set, maybe one for each faction, that includes all the relevant cards of that faction and upgrades for that faction. An upsell would probably be to include different upgrades in different boxes (Veteran Instincts might be in the Rebel box and so on).

On ‎19‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 9:15 PM, Panzeh said:

Well, if you think you have some kind of evidence that missions suddenly fix everything with the game, you can bring that, too...

No, no. That's not how it works. You've made a subjective statement claiming it as objective fact. It's now up to you to provide the supporting evidence for that claim.

Like I said, we'll wait.

6 hours ago, Managarmr said:

Not entirely correct. If the newer ships continue powercreep in the same speed as they do right now, you cannot field thematic battles with older releases like T65, Hwk, Khiraxzes, Vipers etc together with later released ships, as these just steamroll over the older ships, being made for hypercompetitive 100/6.

But that's not true.

Why can't FFG just update the older ships and make them more "action efficient / action freebie?"

I get why people love the new hotness, because you get to fly a ship than can do more things (action gimme) and attack more (attack gimme /d) so why not fly it?

But really choosing an action is getting to be irrelevant when you get a free evade/ share a focus, give one away and then get one back and wind up with a free target lock for some goddamn reason.

1 hour ago, Chumbalaya said:

But that's not true.

So, 28pts Fenn Rau vs 28pts Talonbane is a piece of cake for Talonbane?

1 hour ago, BlodVargarna said:

Why can't FFG just update the older ships and make them more "action efficient / action freebie?"

I get why people love the new hotness, because you get to fly a ship than can do more things (action gimme) and attack more (attack gimme /d) so why not fly it?

But really choosing an action is getting to be irrelevant when you get a free evade/ share a focus, give one away and then get one back and wind up with a free target lock for some goddamn reason.

They do upgrade ships. The Mist Hunter is a straight upgrade to the B-Wing. Are people upset that the upgrade is now called Mist Hunter and not B-Wing?

I wish FFG would just make Atanni Mindlink two points so everyone would shut up about it already.

15 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Rather than fighting in the trenches of the forums I thought it best to just take the time to clearly lay out my thoughts in a blog dedicated to the subject.

http://stayontheleader.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/the-state-of-x-wing-part-i-phantom.html

Extremely well written and great article, well done :)! I agree with what you write. I think there is one more point for the heated fatique. The pace of which new releases hit us, is currently so fast, that I myself hardly get to fly the new stuff before new ships comes out and makes old lists void. No time to "git gud" the old fashioned way.

28 minutes ago, Dwing said:

Extremely well written and great article, well done :)! I agree with what you write. I think there is one more point for the heated fatique. The pace of which new releases hit us, is currently so fast, that I myself hardly get to fly the new stuff before new ships comes out and makes old lists void. No time to "git gud" the old fashioned way.

The pace of releases is literally no faster than its ever been in the game, and actually slower than a few years ago. 2014 had 2 waves, 2 epic ships and 2 aces packs. 2015 had 2 epic ships and 2 waves. 2016 had 2 waves and 2 aces packs

And currently we got wave 10 and the only thing currently on the horizon is the croc and included scyk update. No new (non-epic) ships currently announced, which means wave 11 is months away still unless they surprise release. Same for any aces packs.

On 20.02.2017 at 5:47 AM, Makaze said:

You guys pushing so hard for the missions really don't seem to get how games, especially highly competitive ones, and their metas work. Here's the thing, I'm all for bringing missions to X Wing. Generic Armada style missions that provide an alternate means to win or bonuses on top of kills and allow players some influence in mission choice so that lists can be tailored to them. It would be a massive undertaking and extremely difficult to get right, frankly likely more difficult than they are capable of, but if done well it would probably be good for the game overall. So I'm not arguing against their inclusion.

But they won't do anything like what you're hoping they will. For a given mission and wave release there will be a handful of ideal setups (at most as missions allow even tighter list specialization) and people will absolutely find it. More likely than not that ideal setup will include the same ships that are present now in the meta because they are simply better. A 6 hp ship, with green 3-5 K turns, that can take 3 actions a turn is just flat out better than a T-65 and therefore will also be better at accomplishing missions. Action economy helps with everything including accomplishing mission objectives, not just killing 100 points of ships on the other side of the table. Manaroo, attani, x7s, Miranda, all the usual suspects will be there for the party with bells on. And if you try to force people to list build in certain specific ways via draconian mission restrictions then you've just lost the people that actually enjoy list building and anyone else that doesn't own that specific set of ships. Good luck having that be more popular or even more than a blip on the radar next to 100/6 which it will be competing with for people's limited leisure time and store play space.

Anyways missions or no missions there will still be a meta, the best ships will still hit the table, and the same people will still be winning events

The fun begins when you play several different missions in the course of a tournament, and you need to take all of them into account when building your list.

27 minutes ago, costi said:

The fun begins when you play several different missions in the course of a tournament, and you need to take all of them into account when building your list.

In my opinion the good ships are already really good at moving around and using what they have to do missions. You could use missions to legislate that people must run 5+ ships in their list but that would probably narrow the field more than expand it.

IMO, if you're going to have missions be a thing, you have to re-work X-wing a lot to have upgrade cards/pilot abilities that interact with them ala Armada/IA. Just plonking them in the existing game ends up either narrowing the field or being pointless.