6 minutes ago, ForceM said:

Sotl is incorrect. They pay quite some attention to the forum, and it's good that way, because we are the best playtesters they have.

lol, no.

5 minutes ago, Draconis Hegemonia said:

lol, no.

lol, yes?

Every major nerf was largely requested by this forum. And also every ship that received a title/fix/buff was on the top list of requests in this forum.

They might not moderate aggressively or interfere in discussions, but they do listen and eventually, they often act accordingly.

7 minutes ago, ForceM said:

lol, yes?

Every major nerf was largely requested by this forum. And also every ship that received a title/fix/buff was on the top list of requests in this forum.

They might not moderate aggressively or interfere in discussions, but they do listen and eventually, they often act accordingly.

The forums aren't some bubble on their own. I have heard a lot of people in real life talk about the issues with the cards that were nerfed at the local game store. It's not like some guerrilla group of forum guys made this stuff up and complained loud enough until it was nerfed. The people on the forums are just some of the people around the world that were talking and chatting about how it wasn't right. It's like some minor group would complain loud enough and they will change the game. Well, there have been tones of complaining about all sorts of things (like Fat Turrets) that never got nerfed.

What if Expose just went full on retarded mode?

Action: Your agility value is set to 0. Increase your Attack Value by whatever your Agility value was.

/jk, that could easily be broken as hell rofl

18 minutes ago, ForceM said:

lol, yes?

Every major nerf was largely requested by this forum. And also every ship that received a title/fix/buff was on the top list of requests in this forum.

They might not moderate aggressively or interfere in discussions, but they do listen and eventually, they often act accordingly.

It's a difference of opinion on cause and effect here. It would be faulty to align FFGs changes with the forums discussions simply because we know the forums did have a lot of discussion concerning the nerfed cards.

The forums discussed the cards a lot because they were issues. That doesn't mean FFG only fixed them because the forums complained about them. I like to think decisions like this go a little like this-

Tournament results show an issue? yes/no

Trusted play testers see issues? yes/no

Designers see issue? yes/no

General public see issues (forum talk, facebook groups, local shop discussion, etc.)? yes/no

If all are checked yes, then it's time to make a change. And just a note- our portion of the "general public" voice is probably not as large as we would like to think, although that may be made up by the fact that the information is so readily available here.

16 hours ago, Kdubb said:

But don't you think that all elements in the game should be usable at the top level in some way? I'm not saying every card should be amazing in every build, but I do think every card should be able to find at least SOME niche role in the competitive game, even if it is not immediately apparent how it can best be utilized immediately upon release.

I really, REALLY dislike the idea that I am buying a dead card because it was intentionally designed to be a dead card simply so I could "figure out" that it's a dead card. That's like a restaurant having bad dishes on its menu because they want the customers to learn what bad food tastes like so they can better appreciate their other dishes. It's a ludicrous idea to think that somehow helps the restaurant.

I'm not saying that I don't think FFG does do this (cards like R3 Astromech really make you wonder), but I think it is an atrocious strategy if they are. If there was evidence that they are doing this, it would quickly become my biggest issue with their design practices.

I don't understand why this would be better than just making all the cards as balanced as possible. Let the list building skill be separated by good combos and bad combos and pairing the right upgrade with the right pilot. That seems like a million times better way of allowing your players to show their creativity and innovation than throwing a stack of a 100 cards at the players to sift through to find the 8 that aren't designed to be bad as the other 92 are placed in a binder never to be seen again.

First, it is absolutely impossible that all elements will be top tier all the time. I don't know why everyone insists on subscribing to this fallacy. . .in any collection of items, no matter how cohesive, there will be points just above and just below the mean. And in hyper-competitive play (ergo, "the meta"), players will only choose those points above the mean no matter how small the variance is.

Second, I highly doubt FFG creates dead cards on purpose, I'm just saying, when the idea doesn't pan, let it lie and move on. And, in the era of net-listing, nobody is going to accidentally taking failed ideas.

Third, of course this is the goal. And I doubt the ratio would ever be that bad. Also, cards that are great in 100/6 will suck in other formats, and vice versa.

My notion, however, is that when an upgrade card needs a fix (because it's harder to do this with pilots), sometimes I would prefer a "reissue" of a completely new and "better" card than an endless list of errata that needs to be kept table side.

25 minutes ago, ForceM said:

lol, yes?

Every major nerf was largely requested by this forum. And also every ship that received a title/fix/buff was on the top list of requests in this forum.

They might not moderate aggressively or interfere in discussions, but they do listen and eventually, they often act accordingly.

Oh my gosh, you must be right, there is no other possible explanation.

But... wait...
I have a private forum in gmail with some of my acquaintances, for years we have been discussing here issues such as international terrorism, or global warming, and now... WAM!

Every major problem dealt with by "the big brother" was largely requested by my forum...

I see clear now, obviously the CIA, the NSA, the Bildberg Club, the skulls and bones, the Illuminatys, the MJ12, the Anunakis... and all the other reptilians have been spying on my personal forum and acting accordingly.

I'm scared, surprised and flattered at the same time...

But... wait.

If things are like that. Why FFG have ignored the gunboat's thing?
Surely we have threads about palp, zuckuss, manaroo or x7 in this forum, but any of them (or all of them together) were close to nothing compared to magnitude of the GUNBOAT thing. And FFG does nothing?

Well, the NSA do noyhing about my obnoxious neighbour, even after all the time I complained about him in my personal forum, so... maybe is the same kind of thing.

1 minute ago, Darth Meanie said:

Third, of course this is the goal.

This is all I am concerned with on such an issue. I don't prescribe to the idea that a perfectly balanced game is possible, but I do believe it should always be sought for. I drew the conclusion from some earlier comments that some believed it was an acceptable design practice to make bad cards so player skill level could be determined by who can weed them out and who can't. My comment was focused on pointing out how much I hated that idea. If you design some cards that are intended to do good things but they simply fall short, that's fine. Like said, it's impossible to make every element usable due to human error and other restraints. But designing bad cards on purpose is one of the silliest things I have ever heard of for a game like this.

2 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

First, it is absolutely impossible that all elements will be top tier all the time. I don't know why everyone insists on subscribing to this fallacy. . .in any collection of items, no matter how cohesive, there will be points just above and just below the mean. And in hyper-competitive play (ergo, "the meta"), players will only choose those points above the mean no matter how small the variance is.

Second, I highly doubt FFG creates dead cards on purpose, I'm just saying, when the idea doesn't pan, let it lie and move on. And, in the era of net-listing, nobody is going to accidentally taking failed ideas.

Third, of course this is the goal. And I doubt the ratio would ever be that bad. Also, cards that are great in 100/6 will suck in other formats, and vice versa.

My notion, however, is that when an upgrade card needs a fix (because it's harder to do this with pilots), sometimes I would prefer a "reissue" of a completely new and "better" card than an endless list of errata that needs to be kept table side.

I think you're misunderstanding what we are saying. The point I think we're trying to make is that which points are above and below the mean should change based on squad composition. There shouldn't be any cards that are top tier all the time (or bottom tier either), but rather that all cards can be top tier in the right situation. Any card should have the opportunity to be top tier if you bring the right squad. As it is right now, there are a plethora of cards that have never been and will never be top tier. They should be replaced or fixed just like a few top-tier-always-and-forever cards just got smacked down a notch.

Put another way, the choice when playing Imperial shouldn't be "what else do I bring with Palp and OGP" but rather "do I want to bring a shuttle in my squad, and if so should I add Palp?"

23 hours ago, Kdubb said:

feel free to complain about your own choice

I, for one, truly despise Opportunist. There's more clauses in that card than in most tax forms.

23 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

FFG pay minimal attention to these forums, which is exactly as it should be.

If they paid attention to these forums, we'd already have the Gunboat, for all factions, with a title that says, "At the beginning of the game, you win the game".

16 minutes ago, Kharnvor said:

I think you're misunderstanding what we are saying. The point I think we're trying to make is that which points are above and below the mean should change based on squad composition. There shouldn't be any cards that are top tier all the time (or bottom tier either), but rather that all cards can be top tier in the right situation. Any card should have the opportunity to be top tier if you bring the right squad. As it is right now, there are a plethora of cards that have never been and will never be top tier. They should be replaced or fixed just like a few top-tier-always-and-forever cards just got smacked down a notch.

Put another way, the choice when playing Imperial shouldn't be "what else do I bring with Palp and OGP" but rather "do I want to bring a shuttle in my squad, and if so should I add Palp?"

While I don't disagree with the theory, I really don't think this will every happen for this game. There are not enough components, not enough design space within those components, and (IMHO, most importantly) no variance at all in the way the game is played for evaluating top tier (100/6) (which is a very simplistic milieu in and of itself).

Ergo, there is only ONE right situation (100/6), so cards either work in that situation or they are deemed subpar. This creates an artificial and stymied ruler upon which to judge cards, and also creates a single MO in which to list build.

If players are going to want to see a broader base of effective cards, we need a broader base in which the game is played competitively. That will fix a lot of the "subpar" components of the game, or at least give designers more niches to design fixes into.

12 minutes ago, Kumagoro said:

we'd already have the Gunboat, for all factions, with a title that says, "At the beginning of the game, you win the game".

The GUNBOAT MOX!!

8 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

While I don't disagree with the theory, I really don't think this will every happen for this game. There are not enough components, not enough design space within those components, and (IMHO, most importantly) no variance at all in the way the game is played for evaluating top tier (100/6) (which is a very simplistic milieu in and of itself).

Ergo, there is only ONE right situation (100/6), so cards either work in that situation or they are deemed subpar. This creates an artificial and stymied ruler upon which to judge cards, and also creates a single MO in which to list build.

If players are going to want to see a broader base of effective cards, we need a broader base in which the game is played competitively. That will fix a lot of the "subpar" components of the game, or at least give designers more niches to design fixes into.

I agree. The slavish devotion to 100/6 is, IMO, severely limiting the potential of the game. Epic and Hangar Bay are attempts to broaden the scene, but in order to truly break it open they need to be as desirable to play (read tournament and prize support) as 100/6. They need equal treatment under Organized Play. It will not be easy.

27 minutes ago, Kharnvor said:

It will not be easy.

Really, it's not that hard. I think that a majority of players would welcome something new. Just like the cards; try it, if it was a bad idea, toss it.

I know M:TG is not an exact match, but it is relevant due to its longevity. Leaving aside the different formats, even in standard M:TG you can really win in 4+ different ways:

Deplete 20 life, deplete your opponents library via discarding, deplete via rolling cards, poison counters, or just play until the library is spent.

I mean, just off the top of my head, one (probably crazy over-the-top) way to change the parameters of 100/6:

Condition: Death Mark

Choose one of your opponents ship's valued at 33 points or more. If you destroy that ship, you automatically win.

But man, wouldn't that jank people's list building strategies!

I was more thinking that Epic would be tough to tighten up for competitive play as opposed to adding conditions to 100/6. Missions or secondary objectives in 100/6 would be awesome.

I'm clearly not a HtH deathmatch kinda guy. World of Tanks, Warthunder, COD, League of Legends, Overwatch, pretty much all MOBAs just don't do it for me. They are repetitive and get old fast. 100/6 all day every day is the same.

2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Really, it's not that hard. I think that a majority of players would welcome something new. Just like the cards; try it, if it was a bad idea, toss it.

I know M:TG is not an exact match, but it is relevant due to its longevity. Leaving aside the different formats, even in standard M:TG you can really win in 4+ different ways:

Deplete 20 life, deplete your opponents library via discarding, deplete via rolling cards, poison counters, or just play until the library is spent.

I mean, just off the top of my head, one (probably crazy over-the-top) way to change the parameters of 100/6:

Condition: Death Mark

Choose one of your opponents ship's valued at 33 points or more. If you destroy that ship, you automatically win.

But man, wouldn't that jank people's list building strategies!

It would jank people's list building strategies in the worst way. You just cut out every pilot over 33 points. That sounds way worse than 100/6 as is. lol.

1 hour ago, Kdubb said:

It would jank people's list building strategies in the worst way. You just cut out every pilot over 33 points. That sounds way worse than 100/6 as is. lol.

Well, swarms are not a new strategy for Imperials, but we could see all the new Scyks getting a lot more love

Also, you could make the Condition say, 10-15 points. You go into the fray a little weaker than your foe, but with an auto win option.

Seriously, it's that "Hmmmmm. . . can I pull this off" notion that we are talking about. You have to balance (a) I'm going in with a point handicap, (b) if there is no big ship I've shot myself in the foot and (c) I'm may have a chance at an alternate route to victory.

I'm only pulling 33 out of hat. . .a serious look at the meta would probably produce a better point value. . .something that threatens Manaroo, JM5K, Fat Han, and Palp Shuttle builds. Don't nerf 'em, just put a bullseye on them!!

9 hours ago, Kdubb said:

It's a difference of opinion on cause and effect here. It would be faulty to align FFGs changes with the forums discussions simply because we know the forums did have a lot of discussion concerning the nerfed cards.

The forums discussed the cards a lot because they were issues. That doesn't mean FFG only fixed them because the forums complained about them. I like to think decisions like this go a little like this-

Tournament results show an issue? yes/no

Trusted play testers see issues? yes/no

Designers see issue? yes/no

General public see issues (forum talk, facebook groups, local shop discussion, etc.)? yes/no

If all are checked yes, then it's time to make a change. And just a note- our portion of the "general public" voice is probably not as large as we would like to think, although that may be made up by the fact that the information is so readily available here.

That's a theory like any other. If you know more about these factors and their weighting as a matter of fact then by all means it might be like that.

But then the so called trusted play testers and designers, have from time to time released some poorly balanced stuff without noticing (not that i would blame them for anything since it is pretty difficult to spot some "broken" combos in a limited amount of time with limited personnel), and after a release, how much further real playtesting is even done?

I would think the two main factors behind such changes are indeed tournament results over a longer time period (and remember, a tool like List Juggler or the like were not even in place since the beginning either) that show an anomaly, and indeed not far behind the general public, the customers that get vocal in places like this forum because they think they have spotted something that they deem too strong/weak/changeworthy.

Don't underestimate the influence of an angry forum mob. FFG is not this successful because they tend to ignore popular demand on principle. It's not the only factor of course, but i guess it's more important than you might think.

FFG has demonstrated that they will fix cards that are OP broken and errata them if necessary, and they could have ascertained this by tournament results, playtesting, listening to the forums and podcasts, or all of the above...

They have shown love for underperforming ships... some are success stories like the defender and some fall a little short like the xwing/TIE bomber fixes. but they are at least attempts to fix the problem.

But one thing they will never do is put any effort into fixing a useless (for tournament play at least) upgrade card unless it is a whole class of cards like ordnance.

Why is everybody brining up the Gunboat as a proof that FFG doesn´t react to forum whining? Nobody suggested that ship design is affected by forum talk. Just the nerfs of existing cards.