On 2/21/2017 at 3:52 PM, Darth Meanie said:

So then what's the big deal? You'll probably spend money on this game anyway even if they don't do a revision/2.0/2nd Ed. Wouldn't it be nice to spend those dollars on a better version of the game?

can't make a better version of an already good game.

if I have to start having a war machine style hit box chart , consult the rule book to pencil in what pilot/pilot ability im taking, and read up on every single ships different mechanics I would seriously consider finding another game to play.

would rather buy a campaign box.

14 minutes ago, ViscerothSWG said:

I'm ready for X-Wing Forums 2.0. I practically never come here anymore as the WHITE makes my eyes bleed after a couple minutes.

Now this I can get behind. #makeforumsdarkagain

#myeyesburn

On 2/21/2017 at 1:43 PM, Jeff Wilder said:

Interestingly, I have used the same miniatures through four revisions of D&D.

I haven't made it through the post yet but when I got to this I was wondering "what FOUR revisions of D&D are you talking about?"

I know the DnD skirmish game when through some minor revisions a few sets in but it didn't actually change how any of the miniatures were used. Much later WotC made changes to all of the stat card cards which I'd have called a true DDM 2.0.

When it comes to X-Wing getting updated an X-Wing 1.5 probably wouldn't be world ending. A 2.0 version would indicate massive changes that probably require altering pilot cards and base tiles which would make updating it MUCH more complicated for everyone.

1 minute ago, StevenO said:

I haven't made it through the post yet but when I got to this I was wondering "what FOUR revisions of D&D are you talking about?"

AD&D, AD&D2nd, D&D3rd, D&D3.5. And, actually, I also used them in Dungeons and Dragons Miniatures (but not DDM 2.0, which, ironically, sucked balls), Basic/Expert D&D, and (currently) Pathfinder. I also used many of them for Mutants & Masterminds and GURPS.

My point was (and remains) that a 2.0 of X-Wing does not necessarily mean invalidation of the X-Wing models. In fact, I think doing that would be game-suicide.

7 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

AD&D, AD&D2nd, D&D3rd, D&D3.5. And, actually, I also used them in Dungeons and Dragons Miniatures (but not DDM 2.0, which, ironically, sucked balls), Basic/Expert D&D, and (currently) Pathfinder. I also used many of them for Mutants & Masterminds and GURPS.

My point was (and remains) that a 2.0 of X-Wing does not necessarily mean invalidation of the X-Wing models. In fact, I think doing that would be game-suicide.

So you're only looking at something made to supplement the game instead of pieces purchased for the game itself. Even when "updating" DDM to the 2.0 version you only needed a new card for each miniature where in X-Wing you may need to see updates for every card but also for the cardboard tiles and such which is more involved.

There shouldn't be any question that an X-Wing 2.0 would need to find a way to recycle the current X-Wing models but I'm afraid the problem with that is how you would do it when the model can easily be argued is the LEAST important part of the actual game? You'd have to have a bunch of "paper/cardboard only" expansions or a monsters "update kit" to update various things which is probably what would kill the game for many more even if they could somehow reuse the eye candy that is the actual ship models.

X-Wing 2.0 could just be the board game version of X-Wing with the option of dressing it up with models from the successful earlier version.

If FFG releases a X-Wing 2.0 then most likely I'll be done with X-Wing. Hopefully, this version will continue on for at least 2~3 years more with ships from the final movie of the new trilogy.

A Star Wars land base game with AT-ATs would perk my interest though.

11 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

can't make a better version of an already good game.

off course it is possible to iterate on the experiences gained by thousands of users since 2012. There is a lot of small and big tweaks that could be adressed. At the very least a point and stat rebalancing along with integration of titles into base stats. would be good instead of all those clunky titles and add-on point rebalancing.

There is a really good analysis here that points out a lot to be desired: http://stayontheleader.blogspot.dk/2017/02/the-state-of-x-wing-part-i-phantom.html?m=1

I'll say the same thing I've said the last 25 or so times this has come up...

If I can upgrade everything I own for ~$60 I'd be fine with it. A single dollar past that and I'm out and FFG will lose a ton of customers like me in the process, all for the sake of something that may or may not be a better game.

If my collection was made invalid I'd be done with FFG period.

On 21/02/2017 at 2:49 AM, Shadow345 said:

Just clean the game up.

Nope.

19 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

can't make a better version of an already good game.

In the late 1940s, engineers had pretty much maxed out the output and thrust ratios of the internal combustion engine and the propeller.

Luckily, no one thought "we can't make a better version of the airplane."

44 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

In the late 1940s, engineers had pretty much maxed out the output and thrust ratios of the internal combustion engine and the propeller.

Luckily, no one thought "we can't make a better version of the airplane."

slight, albeit real difference between increased efficiency and the value judgement of better.

e.g. The jet turbine plane is faster, stronger and generally more efficient than a propeller plane. This does not mean that the Jet turbine is necessarily better.

1 hour ago, Luke C said:

slight, albeit real difference between increased efficiency and the value judgement of better.

e.g. The jet turbine plane is faster, stronger and generally more efficient than a propeller plane. This does not mean that the Jet turbine is necessarily better.

I'm not sure what qualities you're looking for in an airplane, but I suppose if you're more concerned about the paint job, it is a judgement call.

Point being, of course, that just cuz X-Wing is good, we can make it better. Or at least, FFG should try.

1 minute ago, Darth Meanie said:

I'm not sure what qualities you're looking for in an airplane, but I suppose if you're more concerned about the paint job, it is a judgement call.

Point being, of course, that just cuz X-Wing is good, we shouldn't be looking for better.

Well I was using your example (which was relatively bad for my point), you could probably do the same for conventional to atomic bombs.... but i digress. However I do agree with you, that xwing is not perfect.

2 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Or at least, FFG should try.

Sure they should try, but that doesn't mean they have to make a 2.0 to do it.

Also if 2.0 means that everything I own is effectively useless, and I'd have to buy everything over again, that means it is in no way better, it is much, much worse.

FFG could put serious time into rebuilding X-Wing mechanically from the ground up, heavily playtesting the mechanical changes, redesigning all the components, finding a way to start their ship release from scratch without alienating the vast majority of their playerbase and somehow managing to stay just as profitable as 1.0.

Or they could keep pumping out new waves and ace packs, band aid the balance with new cards and FAQs when they need to and carry on as usual. 1.0 isn't exactly failing sales wise.

2.0 would be better mechanically no doubt but let's be honest here: would it more money than more 1.0? I very much doubt it.

I think an x-wing 2.0 could work. With the benefit of hindsight, and development in other games, implementing new dice type, and some mechanic changes, the game could be upgraded. With a minimum expenditure and replacement required.

As is, the models are (mostly) fine, adding a new attack die, we'll call an orange die, that has a several sides with two hits, and maybe only one side with a blank. Make this die the "cannon and ordnance" die and you have just altered the game.

Now this is not necessarily perfect as proposed, but if this heavy attack die is not just used for upgrade weapons, but can replace two red dice with an orange.

If turreted ships had the mobile arc that could be interesting, but this different from each person, and certain points of view.

many of the upgrades we have seen come to light are based on fixing the game: autothrusters vs turrets, munitions failsafe and guidance chips to help improve ordnance, and so on.

As long as the upgrade to 2.0 doesn't invalidate what people have bought already, I think it will happen.

Quote

As long as the upgrade to 2.0 doesn't invalidate what people have bought already, I think it will happen.

And, remembering that design work isn't free, how do you do that while still making at least the same amount of money as if you continued with 1.0?

2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

In the late 1940s, engineers had pretty much maxed out the output and thrust ratios of the internal combustion engine and the propeller.

Luckily, no one thought "we can't make a better version of the airplane."

your plane example is bad, and you should feel bad, not only because aircraft are a constant and ever changing technology, and also because jet technology began in the 1930's long before the Germans decided to experiment and improve it, and well before the prop plane had even been perfected, but also because there's a mythos that "my version 2.0 will erradicate all the problems with X-wing and everything will play perfectly" when reality says it will just create a whole new set of problems. Example: almost any 40K rule book in 7th edition. Either an army is buffed to being broken, or nerfed so that it's not even fun in a casual game. You can't tell me the same stands for X-wing because I still see porkins on the table from time to time, and no it's not me flying him. a month ago I saw an 8 tie fighter swarm. people still fly ships from wave 1, even though they may not be top tier in terms of the competitive scene. Not to mention X-wing's core mechanics play in a very nice, simplified, way without the excessive clutter. It's a nice casual system that appeals to a wide audience. Despite some minor problems with some power creep (tie defenders raised the bar of what a title could do for a ship) and effectiveness with two attack dice ships because of tankier ships and red dice mitigation, the game plays very well. And I might add that just because a few elements are unbalanced right now does not mean the game should be completely overhauled.

X-wing is more like a wheel, It still has allot of tread on the tire and doesn't need to be changed. It certainly doesn't need to be replaced with Tank treads, like some people are suggesting.

His jet example is fine.

This statement however -

Quote

can't make a better version of an already good game.

- is one I struggle to describe in a polite manner. It's simply wrong. To not be able to be improved it'd have to be a perfect game and that it certainly isn't. Does perfection even exist?

X-Wing can easily be improved, it's simply not the most profitable thing for FFG to do right now. Anything can be improved, it's simply a question of having the means.

A new die type? That really sounds like something that could alienate people especially if it became a requirements. Maybe we could see them as a supplement to go with some new model but throwing new dice is going to be trouble especially when anything that used the new dice should need to include the new dice.

Now if a new die were introduced I'd almost like to see a "half die" which I guess I'd make blue and probably put two blanks, focus, evade, and hit symbols on. It could be used in offense or defense and has a 1/4 chance of a "good" result used either way with another 1/4 chance of getting that Focus result.

It would suck if an x-wing 2.0 caused all of my cards to be worthless. Especially my hard earned alt art tourney prize cards. That would totally piss me off.

4 hours ago, VanorDM said:

Sure they should try, but that doesn't mean they have to make a 2.0 to do it.

Also if 2.0 means that everything I own is effectively useless, and I'd have to buy everything over again, that means it is in no way better, it is much, much worse.

Why does everyone jump to the wood chipper fallacy?

1 hour ago, PanchoX1 said:

It would suck if an x-wing 2.0 caused all of my cards to be worthless. Especially my hard earned alt art tourney prize cards. That would totally piss me off.

Wood chipper fallacy 2.0.

It would be financial suicide for FFG to make us all to start over.

2 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

your plane example is bad, and you should feel bad , not only because aircraft are a constant and ever changing technology, and also because jet technology began in the 1930's long before the Germans decided to experiment and improve it, and well before the prop plane had even been perfected, but also because there's a mythos that "my version 2.0 will erradicate all the problems with X-wing and everything will play perfectly" when reality says it will just create a whole new set of problems. Example: almost any 40K rule book in 7th edition. Either an army is buffed to being broken, or nerfed so that it's not even fun in a casual game. You can't tell me the same stands for X-wing because I still see porkins on the table from time to time, and no it's not me flying him. a month ago I saw an 8 tie fighter swarm. people still fly ships from wave 1, even though they may not be top tier in terms of the competitive scene. Not to mention X-wing's core mechanics play in a very nice, simplified, way without the excessive clutter. It's a nice casual system that appeals to a wide audience. Despite some minor problems with some power creep (tie defenders raised the bar of what a title could do for a ship) and effectiveness with two attack dice ships because of tankier ships and red dice mitigation, the game plays very well. And I might add that just because a few elements are unbalanced right now does not mean the game should be completely overhauled.

X-wing is more like a wheel, It still has allot of tread on the tire and doesn't need to be changed. It certainly doesn't need to be replaced with Tank treads, like some people are suggesting.

Oh, I feel terrible. Mostly, though, because you are over-interpreting the hell out of my analogy. My only point, which really wasn't meant to be an analysis of aviation in the early 20th century vis-à-vis the game of X-Wing, was just that if something is GOOD, one can either rest on one's laurels, or try to make it GREAT (or at least better).

A thing about taking something "good" and making it "great" is what is the cost of doing that? If something works great 90% of the time (so we'll call it good overall) is it worth doubling its cost to make to it works great 95% of the time?

While it doesn't just apply to X-Wing I'm afraid there are far too many things that work extremely well for the vast majority of people at a low cost but in the never ending quest to make something "better" you drive up the cost but because it is better you then throw out that lower cost option that worked for so many people before. Once that happens you move on to the next "better" thing and repeat the entire process for a marginal improvement in outcome but a massive increase in cost.

The problem is that X-Wing was not created -- it wasn't even envisioned -- to become what it has become.

As wave after wave is released, the fact that the foundation is canted becomes more and more obvious. You can "fix" a canted foundation, but the way you do that is to build the next floor slightly canted itself. And then if that's off, you cant the next floor, and so on, and the instability becomes worse and worse.

To be what it has become -- and continue to grow and thrive in a healthy way -- X-Wing needs a rock-solid and even foundation. The game needs keywords. It needs language templating. It needs multiple modes of play. It needs playtesting plans. It needs fairly rigorous mathematical modelling. And on and on.

IMO, right now X-Wing is a Jenga tower casually built atop a sunflower seed. IMO, the game is teetering.

10 minutes ago, StevenO said:

A thing about taking something "good" and making it "great" is what is the cost of doing that?

2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

To be what it has become -- and continue to grow and thrive in a healthy way -- X-Wing needs a rock-solid and even foundation. The game needs keywords. It needs language templating. It needs multiple modes of play. It needs playtesting plans. It needs fairly rigorous mathematical modelling. And on and on.

IMO, right now X-Wing is a Jenga tower casually built atop a sunflower seed. IMO, the game is teetering.

What is the cost of not doing that?