17 hours ago, player346259 said:

The last episode was frankly unbearable. It's understandable if you have a down time or don't enjoy the current episode, but all my whining gets really old, really fast..

If you don't enjoy the podcast at the moment, I recommend to recharge your batteries by listening to something else and come back later.

There is a lot of people who are enjoying the podcast, and none of them is interested in listening or reading my same complains all over again.

The above quote has been edited for comedic purposes.

Complaints about complaining? You're allowed to, but I get to mock it.

Good times

.

12 minutes ago, Panzeh said:

Let's just ban every action economy upgrade. Sounds good!

Yeah. No. How about the ones that are oppressively better than all other options and discriminatory about who they're available to.

2 minutes ago, player346259 said:

I agree on most of the points, but I would like to point out that the X-Wing developers are in my humble opinion doing an extraordinary good job at balancing and diversifying the game, and responsing to the problems in it.

Especially if you compare it with other FFG games.

I have played Star Wars LCG, Conquest LCG and Netrunner, and all these 3 games are/were having much more massive balancing issues.

For me, the tournament result statistics from recent regionals are showing an amazing diversity of ships, squadrons and playstyles.

Maybe some people can't appreciate how good is the stuff they are getting?

Well it's definitely fundamentally true that FFG can't balance games for ****. Star Wars and Netrunner they at least stole other designer's perfectly good systems that got them through for a while before the weight of FFG incompetence dragged them down too badly.

13 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Yeah. No. How about the ones that are oppressively better than all other options and discriminatory about who they're available to.

Well, what kinds of action economy cards would you find acceptable?

1 hour ago, MajorJuggler said:

I like the idea of adding objectives. However the victory conditions in many objective scenarios can still devolve into "solution by deathmatch", so you still need the game to be well balanced. Mathematical analysis is ultimately only a method of predicting (useful for design) and explaining (useful for post-mortem analysis after a wave releases) what's actually going on in high level tables. Even if MathWing analysis didn't exist, the same ships would end up seeing success on the top tables anyway. In that sense, MathWing isn't stunting the game, it's just telling you what the real problem is.

100% agree that math is imperative for design and post-mortem (which is essential design testing for redesign). BUT (yeah, there's always one. . .) my point would be that Mathwing should not be so obvious that the players can use it easily to determine success or failure. Mathwing should be a hidden element of the game, NOT a way to build lists.

To use an analogy, as an end user, I don't want to be able to see the guy in the pixel-capture suit; I want to see the only the orc, even if I know there is a guy in a pre-CGI suit.

38 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Attani entered the fray pretty much as soon as cost-effective scum ships with good green moves became available. Push The Limit has been in the fray since it was printed, carried by any cost -effective ship with good green moves. And it's about the way these two upgrades in particular discriminate against half the ships in the game that don't have the greens to use them. That's a bad thing. The 'late blooming' of Attani Mindlink basically serves to prove why it's a problem, not that it's fine as it is.

And bans have had significant positive effects in Magic pretty much every single time they've been used.

Yeah, not what I've heard from the magic players. JTMS was a reasonable ban, since then, wotc has been under heavy fire from the community due to many unnecessary bans in modern and now standard.

Non-PTL/Attanni ships are nowhere near the predicament you place them in. For one thing, you've labeled all Defenders under PTL ships just due to one Ryad build, which is in no way the only defender we see. PTL is rarely more than one copy in a list.

The idea that these cards are oppressive is naive. Just a few waves ago, people were remarking that PTL had been completely pushed out of the meta. It has only shown up in these numbers very recently, and there will surely be a meta shift that pushes it right out again. Banning whatever is on top will not improve the game, just put a new thing on top.

18 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Yeah. No. How about the ones that are oppressively better than all other options and discriminatory about who they're available to.

... I can't take this seriously. How can you label this oppressive when we've had Whisper and torp scouts around?

18 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Well it's definitely fundamentally true that FFG can't balance games for ****. Star Wars and Netrunner they at least stole other designer's perfectly good systems that got them through for a while before the weight of FFG incompetence dragged them down too badly.

Have you played other games? I think you've no idea how good you have it. You can always take a break from blogging and playing if you're burned out, no need to bash our hobby on the forums just for the sake of it.

Games fine. This is all funny to me.

15 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

100% agree that math is imperative for design and post-mortem (which is essential design testing for redesign). BUT (yeah, there's always one. . .) my point would be that Mathwing should not be so obvious that the players can use it easily to determine success or failure. Mathwing should be a hidden element of the game, NOT a way to build lists.

To use an analogy, as an end user, I don't want to be able to see the guy in the pixel-capture suit; I want to see the only the orc, even if I know there is a guy in a pre-CGI suit.

We live in the age of internet which means tons of intelligent people have an easy time sharing ideas. If there is math behind the game (and I highly doubt you can build a game like x-wing without math), it's a matter of WHEN, not IF someone figures it out and puts it on the internet.

I have high hopes for the system open and especially the Coruscant event this year. I sure hope FFG learned from last year and gets the space to cast at least one table for the entirety of the event. The Hangar Bay events sound amazing. More Epic is good! Non-standard formats are a wonderful idea. And then last year in London? They **** the bed and we get no pay-off whatsoever. I never even saw the lists or an article about who won and how. Was a complete failure. Do better and prove how much fun things are when the meta gets shaken around a bit.

11 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

We live in the age of internet which means tons of intelligent people have an easy time sharing ideas. If there is math behind the game (and I highly doubt you can build a game like x-wing without math), it's a matter of WHEN, not IF someone figures it out and puts it on the internet.

Well then, X-Wing is played by a lot more gearheads than I am used to. People talk about the points/cost of a card as much as they talk about game mechanics. My point is that Mathwing needs to be an endoskeleton to dissect for, not an exoskeleton to observe.

12 hours ago, LordBlades said:

In that context, if you step into a store during the cut of a tournament as a casual SF fan, odds are the only ship you will immediately recognize is the Lambda Shittle. Everything else you're likely to see is either from Rebels (Lancer, Protectorate) or EU (JM5k, Defenders, K-Wings, E-Wings)

You're seeing a lot in E-Wings in tournaments? I didn't think they were that common?

2 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Well then, X-Wing is played by a lot more gearheads than I am used to. People talk about the points/cost of a card as much as they talk about game mechanics. My point is that Mathwing needs to be an endoskeleton to dissect for, not an exoskeleton to observe.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it is, by my reading of that analogy, anyway.

38 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

100% agree that math is imperative for design and post-mortem (which is essential design testing for redesign). BUT (yeah, there's always one. . .) my point would be that Mathwing should not be so obvious that the players can use it easily to determine success or failure. Mathwing should be a hidden element of the game, NOT a way to build lists.

To use an analogy, as an end user, I don't want to be able to see the guy in the pixel-capture suit; I want to see the only the orc, even if I know there is a guy in a pre-CGI suit.

I don't know that this is happening though. I don't know of many players outside of myself (or even any?) that have been able to use MathWing to consistently and accurately predict how well ships and pilots will be before they release. I'm an odd duck in that I'm fundamentally more of a designer/developer than a player though. And I have been relatively quiet for the last year or so on new ship predictions, so the playerbase by and large is figuring these things out on their own. Case in point, I was playing Parattanni for a couple months exclusively, but only recently stopped to run the underlying math on it, after I was done taking it to Regionals.

[edit]

That said, X-wing is fundamentally "MoneyBall" and the currency is squad points, so of course people that play competitively will try and optimize their builds. It's not hard to get a decent general feel for how useful a combo should be pre-release, but confidently predicting it is another thing entirely. It's much easier to just toss it on the table (or vassal) to test the hypothesis.

30 minutes ago, PiebeatsCake said:

Have you played other games? I think you've no idea how good you have it. You can always take a break from blogging and playing if you're burned out, no need to bash our hobby on the forums just for the sake of it.

In this case "good game balance" may be relative to how well all the other game companies do. The tabletop industry has an even more difficult job at balancing than the digital games industry; the latter can simply tweak balance later on the fly, whereas physical printed copies are effectively set in stone. You don't really know how good something is until it gets thoroughly playtested by the public gauntlet of high level tournaments. Even the balance folks at Blizzard rely far more heavily on in-field data than they do on analytical mathematical models.

I don't really want to get into the argument over whether FFG is better than Company X, Y, or Z. However, here is what I was alluding to earlier: it takes a certain level of technical expertise and aptitude to be able to get game balance right the first time on initial release. However, the games industry as a whole does not pay very well, so individuals with that could design and balance games well generally aren't because they would take a massive pay cut to do so. FFG is no exception to this rule; if anything they pay below market rates for their designers (another discussion entirely). Being able to use mathematical tools to balance games well out of the gate is almost certainly well beyond the credentials and pay grades of anyone working at FFG.

24 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

I don't know of many players outside of myself (or even any?) that have been able to use MathWing to consistently and accurately predict how well ships and pilots will be before they release. I'm an odd duck in that I'm fundamentally more of a designer/developer than a player though. And I have been relatively quiet for the last year or so on new ship predictions, so the playerbase by and large is figuring these things out on

That said, X-wing is fundamentally "MoneyBall" and the currency is squad points, so of course people that play competitively will try and optimize their builds. It's not hard to get a decent general feel for how useful a combo should be pre-release, but confidently predicting it is another thing entirely. It's much easier to just toss it on the table (or vassal) to test the hypothesis.

Well, there do seem to be a lot of people who think they know the math of the game (q.v., "Can I get a price check on. . ." series of threads).

I mean, the conversation is not "how can I use this torpedo" but rather "is it worth buying this torpedo." One is fun, the other is bland (and often simply opinionated/non-quantitative) analysis.

Maybe, for me, part of the problem is that I am a scientist by trade, so when I go home, I want touchy-feely hobbies: photography, music, and ZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM PEW-PEW-PEW!!!!!

7 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Well, there do seem to be a lot of people who think they know the math of the game (q.v., "Can I get a price check on. . ." series of threads).

I mean, the conversation is not "how can I use this torpedo" but rather "is it worth buying this torpedo." One is fun, the other is bland (and often simply opinionated/non-quantitative) analysis.

Maybe, for me, part of the problem is that I am a scientist by trade, so when I go home, I want touchy-feely hobbies: photography, music, and ZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM PEW-PEW-PEW!!!!!

One of the quotes I like from the Intensify Forward Firepower podcast (which is awesome by the way) that I like is that "we" spend more time talking about the bad to mediocre cards and how they could be good than talking about the good cards. (Paraphrasing)

I love trying to give an alternate take on how things can be played, when they may be viable but a lot of people do like the hard line of this is good this is bad. I think a balance needs to be struck weather that be within a podcast or by there being multiple podcasts on offer.

Kris

14 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Well, there do seem to be a lot of people who think they know the math of the game (q.v., "Can I get a price check on. . ." series of threads).

I mean, the conversation is not "how can I use this torpedo" but rather "is it worth buying this torpedo." One is fun, the other is bland (and often simply opinionated/non-quantitative) analysis.

Maybe, for me, part of the problem is that I am a scientist by trade, so when I go home, I want touchy-feely hobbies: photography, music, and ZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM PEW-PEW-PEW!!!!!

I don't think people putting a price on things is necessarily "I know math better than FFG" but more "This is what I think would be a fair point cost for X." I don't agree with most of them, but opinions are fine and a little discussion makes this forum lively and interesting.

"How can I use this torpedo" is going to result in a lot of opinion as well. I mean, unless the answer is "Spend a target lock to roll several dice in an attack."

6 minutes ago, KrisSherriff said:

One of the quotes I like from the Intensify Forward Firepower podcast (which is awesome by the way) that I like is that "we" spend more time talking about the bad to mediocre cards and how they could be good than talking about the good cards. (Paraphrasing)

I love trying to give an alternate take on how things can be played, when they may be viable but a lot of people do like the hard line of this is good this is bad. I think a balance needs to be struck weather that be within a podcast or by there being multiple podcasts on offer.

Kris

Agree with this. I could discuss predator but i'd probably get in a couple sentences and a bunch of people nodding in agreement. "Solid upgrade, worthwhile on some ships, not so much on others. Stacks well with focus effects." Bad upgrades are more interesting to discuss.

2 hours ago, heychadwick said:

I have to admit that I was talking with 2 friends after some games last night. One of them is fed up with the game right now. He even plays things on the more casual scene, but the latest power creep is definitely a thing. There are just some really broken stuff out these days. There are some ships that really just don't have much of a place in the meta these days. Even for casual X-wing, it's gotten a bit silly as some of the OP bleeds into non-tournaments. Expertise with TLT's was the case last night. It's just frustrating to a lot of people.

It is just anecdotical evidence. So I will make rebuttal with anecdotical evidence myself. There in Poland, at least near Warsaw, X-Wing exploded - last store tourney grouped so much people that there were no free spots left. And it hapens recently week after week, also ships sells instantly and regionals and store tourneys are popping up everywhere.
So no, X-Wing is not dying, it is in great spot right now - some people just have a problem dealing with reality that battles of vanilla X-Wing and TIE Fighters from 1st and 2nd wave are gone. There are many more options and interesting alternatives - hell, list building became art in itself right now.

59 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Well then, X-Wing is played by a lot more gearheads than I am used to. People talk about the points/cost of a card as much as they talk about game mechanics. My point is that Mathwing needs to be an endoskeleton to dissect for, not an exoskeleton to observe.

From my experience this holds true about most games. People will try (and given how much collective number crunching internet enables succeed more often than not) to find the pieces of the game that give them the most bang for their points because, in a game with a winner and a loser, most people prefer to be the winner or simply because they can, and because number crunching is fun.

58 minutes ago, Ken at Sunrise said:

You're seeing a lot in E-Wings in tournaments? I didn't think they were that common?

Corran Horn is still a solid Rebel ship, that seems to pop up in lists more often than probably 80% of all the other Rebel ships in my experience. After Miranda and Biggs, the top ships I'd expect to see in a Rebel list are Corran, Dash or Lothal Rebel.

14 hours ago, Marinealver said:

Back to X-wing and I have said this before the X-wing business and continuation models is heavily subject to Accreation. Now sure FFG does a good job making sure models from previous Waves still make it into the top meta (Y-wings, TIE Defenders) but as far as many pilots and upgrade cards they are sort of stacked on the bottom of the pile because they were never good to begin with or a better upgrade that does almost the same thing only better (and often at a cheaper cost) comes up and you never see those Wave 1 an 2 upgrades again.

Pilots might be harder to fix (outside of pilots with good abilities on bad platforms, like wedge), but upgrades can definitely come intot he meta. Look at deadeye, which was never used until u-boats became a thing. Or Determination, which has pretty much been a dead card since it released, but has the potential to see use if kylo becomes really big.

5 hours ago, LordBlades said:

To be even more pedantic, we have yet to see an actual Defender 'in the flesh' in Rebels

The be even MORE pedantic, its in the trailer for the remainder of season 3

:

55 minutes ago, KrisSherriff said:

One of the quotes I like from the Intensify Forward Firepower podcast (which is awesome by the way) that I like is that "we" spend more time talking about the bad to mediocre cards and how they could be good than talking about the good cards. (Paraphrasing)

I love trying to give an alternate take on how things can be played, when they may be viable but a lot of people do like the hard line of this is good this is bad. I think a balance needs to be struck weather that be within a podcast or by there being multiple podcasts on offer.

Kris

Whenever I'm analyzing a card, either for myself or for some post on here, the question I always ask myself is "how can this card be good" instead of "is this card good". You start exploring some interesting territory that way, even if you don't always discover something fruitful.

I mean personally, I like the point building aspects of the game. They're the strategy layer over the tactical layer. It reminds me of some flight sims I've played in the past, or elements of combat games now where you don't know what the opposition will be always so you have to pick the loadout you're comfortable with and will be useful to you. You still need to be able to actually play it on the field. Maneuvering is still tricky and important - though once you've played enough games it probably becomes second nature to you - but don't take that aspect for granted us newbies still sometimes have no idea what we're doing. The tactical level - maneuvers, when to use what upgrades, what actions you take are very important and comfortably flying a list can still get you pretty far - we had a Han+Jake list in top 4 last Worlds, remember - in a time rife with Dengaroo and Defenders. But if the game is nothing but tactical superiority, where you just maximize dice and agile ships or you run agile large-base turrets - a problem I've heard people complain about when talking about early waves. You can just put a lot of guns on target and roll dice, or get out of the way of enemy firing lines and hit them from any angle. Of course, the "loadout" strategic style can go too far too, that's the problem like U-Boats where one loadout will do well against everyone because the only response is to fort up and pray.

So, while obviously some players favor the tactical and some the strategic, I think the best place for the game itself to head is kind of in the middle, where both are important but players who are great at either can try and push through a little. Don't give up on FFG improving that tactical aspect though. New maneuvers add different tactics, and new waves recently always seem to have a couple tricks up their sleeve - like seismic torpedoes, rigged cargo chute, and the stuff in Wave X like a ship which cannot shoot or be shot, or the ability to muck around in the place forces step.

That said, clearly in the early game the developers had ideas on what would be powerful and need to be restricted, and those do not always add up to how the game has come out now. I mean, mathematically we usually agree there's no reason why Xs cost so much, other than that at the time they didn't want you to run five rookie Xs. Maybe when there were only 3 other ships it was a bad time, but now the game has moved it's parameters. I don't know if FFG now more broadly plans for the human impact element (playtesting can only do so much) or if they kind of wing it and know the FAQ can take care of anything which goes too crazy in any direction. But as a designer or writer you have to come to accept players (I/E other human minds) will likely latch onto different things than you intended and as players we should also be aware unless we've spoken to one recently we don't necessarily no all the thought and planning and intent when it came to cards. And I really don't think for FFG's actual designers it's just "sell more ships".

I think what I am hearing is that some folks want X-wing chess. Or maybe X-wing Starcraft. What I mean is that they miss the feeling that both players walk into the game on more or less even footing and the victory goes to the player that made the best use of the available assets.

Maybe an event could be run that looks like a Wave 2 X-wing decathlon. Some variation of the OutRider cup but with list restrictions that create cinematic squads of OT ships.

1 hour ago, Biophysical said:

Whenever I'm analyzing a card, either for myself or for some post on here, the question I always ask myself is "how can this card be good" instead of "is this card good". You start exploring some interesting territory that way, even if you don't always discover something fruitful.

This is absolutely what I love doing. Sure, I enjoy flying good lists, but I enjoy figuring out good lists even more. I like "Love Boats" (Dengaroo) so much not because it was the list to beat for a while, but because it's such an interesting and unusual combination of cards. Same goes for my "Meat Popsicles" variant of the long-time popular dual IG88 lists (Brobots): it's the combos that count, it's unique, it fits my playstyle, and it works. What becomes sad is when creativity can't compete; when discovering a novel interaction, even one that's more than the sum of its parts, still falls flat on its face in competition because the power curve has simply left it behind.