1 hour ago, Stoneface said:

Ok,I'm a little confused. You claim a NPE experience but you won. I'll take a hard fought loss over an easy win any day. What exactly was causing the bad experience?

Despite all the <expletives deleted> people in this thread claiming I'm just a whiney baby who doesn't like to lose or have a hard time... you don't have to lose to have a NPE. For example, I will probably never play Quad TLT's, even if doing so guaranteed that I would never lose again, because I think they're boring asf. Just like you, my favorite games are usually ones that are hard fought, win or lose. The fact that I won that game by such a narrow margin and still hated it immensely is a testament to how terrible I think Kylo Ren is for the game. The condition card is frustrating to play against, needlessly complicated, and it amplifies a bad aspect of the game (Blinded Pilot crit). It's just bad design through-and-through, and has no redeeming quality that I can see.

If you want a rundown of why I had a bad experience, read through some of my posts again, particularly the original one. It's all there, including the part where I won.

4 minutes ago, mkevans80 said:

Despite all the turd- um, special people in this thread claiming I'm just a whiney baby who doesn't like to lose... you don't have to lose to have a NPE. I will never play Quad TLT's, even if doing so would guarantee that I never lose again. My favorite games are close and hard fought too, just like you. I simply find Kylo Ren's condition card to be frustrating to play against, needlessly complicated, and it amplifies a bad aspect of the game (Blinded Pilots). It's just bad design and has no redeeming quality.

If you want a rundown of why I had a bad experience, read through some of my posts again, particularly the original one. It's all there, including the part where I won.

I missed the part of you winning. I've been frustrated before and it had nothing to do with conditions. BMST, Ventress and others proved to be VERY irritating. Nothing I'd call NPE.

I'll have to tell you about the only true NPE experience that I've had in two years of play and it happened last Thursday.

A new player walked into our flgs carrying a box of X-wing. We introduced ourselves but our first games were underway so the new guy sat down to watch. I finished first so I asked if he wanted a game and he agreed. He started to unpack his stuff and my first thought was "I'm going to get creamed". He pulls out Whisper, Echo and I think a Tie/FO. The only build I brought was a scum build I call "Three Nines Fine". Kavil, Cobra and Fenn. As we're setting up, I ask how long he's been playing. His response floored me. This was his FIRST GAME! Unless this guy is a Savant at X-wing he's going to get thumped. He brought the hardest two ships to fly for his first game. To make a long story short, I lost a shield. I apologized to him both before and after the game. To me, and probably him, this was a NPE game.

Being frustrated by new game mechanics is understandable. Labelling this frustration as NPE is, IMO, over reacting.

I really don't understand why people are arguing over what constitutes a NPE. A few posts up, I defined what I view as a NPE... that is, when one or both players in a game have a frustrating or boring experience. Nobody has come forth with a different definition with a convincing argument.

NPE can mean different things to different people. My definition is broad, and I don't understand why people insist that my definition is less valid than theirs.

22 minutes ago, mkevans80 said:

I really don't understand why people are arguing over what constitutes a NPE. A few posts up, I defined what I view as a NPE... that is, when one or both players in a game have a frustrating or boring experience. Nobody has come forth with a different definition with a convincing argument.

NPE can mean different things to different people. My definition is broad, and I don't understand why people insist that my definition is less valid than theirs.

See, people have opened up that term to such broad... MEANINGLESS definition.

It isn't enough to just for something to be boring for it to be NPE. It's when something locks you into that boring state. It isn't enough to frustrate the other player, it's when the other player is frustrated because you're locking him into only having punishing options or no options at all.

Example with Magic the Gathering
Someone using 'Fog' to prevent all attacks 2 turns in a row is boring, it's not NPE.
Someone using 'Annihilate' to kill your creature just before it deals damage is frustrating, it's not NPE

Why is your definition more valid than mine? Who coined the term? Is there an objective definition? Because Negative Player Experience sounds like an experience had by a player that is negative. No?

Quite easy. NEP means to me such an awful game that you open your Imperial Assault boxes and start thinking about giving X Wing "some time to think about our relation".

I guess the point is I, or anyone else, cannot control what you perceive as a negative experience. It is purely subjective.

I assume the point of the original post was that you thought this card gave a NPE, and wanted support from your peers who also think this card leads to NPE - possibly to drive a change to it, or possibly for moral support. After all many people having the same subjective opinion, starts to create a perceived "fact" - in this case that Kylo leads to NPE.

A quick perusal of this topic suggests that some people think the card is bad for gaming experience, some think its great and adds something, but most (as is normally the case) don't really care either way.

One could reasonably conclude therefore that Kylo being a NPE is still very much a subjective opinion. One you are entitled to, but one that I cannot argue against, just as you cannot argue against my subjective opinion that Kylo is fine and adds something to the game.

Not really sure what else I could say then... other than I hope you have fun playing. I will be :-).

(for what its worth I also think blinded pilot is OK to be in the game too).

I'll take the kylo/RAC combo over the Manaroo/attani or Manaroo/Dengar every day of the week.

RAC/Kylo punishes two ships list, 'fat' lists and low-agility ships, and even then you have to suffer the crit

To me a NPE is something that I cannot do anything about, like you can try bumping or single stressing a manaroo/attani combo list and you can still see them with one/two focus and a target lock.

I don't think Kylo/RAC is going to rock the meta enough, but even if it does it would mean four+ ship list getting viable again

On 12.3.2017 at 5:27 PM, boomaster said:

Maybe I've missed something with RAC and Keyan as they aren't pilots I fly. But Chirpy lets you flip a focus to a crit (at 1 - 2), it's not auto bypassing shields. If Keyan died with 4 shields left.... were you taking the crits direct from Kylo's ability? And if you were... why weren't you cancelling at least the first one with a shield?

Kylo's ability bypasses shields.

The crit just needs to be uncancelled, not an uncancelled hull hit, and you take the condition effect. Which is that he gives you a selected pilot crit going directly to hull. 3 of them and it's a dead B-Wing that did not shoot twice!

Well i really detest Kylo crew too with RAC. You just can't prevent the crit from happening. Kylo/Gunner/Merc Copilot... Nothing you can do on Agi 1 ships, and Agi 2 will struggle really hard too.

There are undoubtedly good counters to Kylo though, but none of them are really great choices against any other lists. And if one of your ships is unprotected, Kylo can prettymuch delete it without taking return fire for 2 turns. Which is huge in today's meta.

Initially i thought Kylo would be totally OP. And i think he will be played a lot now that other Imp builds got a tad weaker. But the meta will produce some hard counters and unlike Palpy, Kylo will be gone pretty fast again...

6 hours ago, Stoneface said:

Ok,I'm a little confused. You claim a NPE experience but you won. I'll take a hard fought loss over an easy win any day. What exactly was causing the bad experience?

He's commenting that he card makes the game less fun. A game can be bad even if you win: if I win tic tac toe, I can still argue that it's a stupid game.

If you're a game reviewer, you wouldn't be worth your salt if the judgement in the review depended on winning or losing the game. A lot of messages on this board are written from the perspective of review ("this card brings down the quality of the game") but read from the perspective of game balance ("here is how you defeat the card, why are you complaining?"). But X-Wing is not automatically fun just because it is balanced. It's fun if the gameplay is good.

31 minutes ago, Verlaine said:

If you're a game reviewer, you wouldn't be worth your salt if the judgement in the review depended on winning or losing the game. A lot of messages on this board are written from the perspective of review ("this card brings down the quality of the game") but read from the perspective of game balance ("here is how you defeat the card, why are you complaining?"). But X-Wing is not automatically fun just because it is balanced. It's fun if the gameplay is good.

Brilliant analogy!

On 3/12/2017 at 11:15 AM, mkevans80 said:

There were a lot of fun things about the game. The highlight for me was Nien Numb ending a turn stress free even though he Talon Rolled onto debris then popped Rage, all because he was in-arc of his target at range 1.. that's 4 stress removed in one turn! I also did some pretty nifty things with my U-Wing. Love the pivot ability.

However, Kylo Ren was... not fun, to put it mildly.

So you won a game, spent time with a friend, had fun with your squad, had a tough time in dealing with Kylo. Sounds great!

When I first read your OP I thought, this is a humble brag. All. Day. Long. But now that I've read some of your thread retorts, I see you need to blow your nose and put your big-boy pants on.

I posted the stuff about the game highlights because I wanted to show that I'm not all sour grapes.

All these guys telling me to grow up, when they are the ones so compelled to come here and blast somebody for having the temerity to share an unpleasant experience about their precious game. Who's the child? I've been on forums long enough to know that it's to be expected when you add anonymity to any conversation.

3 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Brilliant analogy!

Agreed, that was the best comment I've seen here so far.

7 minutes ago, mkevans80 said:

Agreed, that was the best comment I've seen here so far.

Thanks both, though I want to make it clear that I actually like Kylo Ren, although I can imagine the problem some have with combining him with RAC. I just feel that your view should be described fairly.

I played Ren (crew) on an Upsilon, next to Omega Ace. Pushing those crits through required some things exactly falling into place, so maybe that is easier to stomach because it requires more planning and choices. In any case, I enjoyed it.

8 hours ago, Talamare said:

See, people have opened up that term to such broad... MEANINGLESS definition.

It isn't enough to just for something to be boring for it to be NPE. It's when something locks you into that boring state. It isn't enough to frustrate the other player, it's when the other player is frustrated because you're locking him into only having punishing options or no options at all.

Example with Magic the Gathering
Someone using 'Fog' to prevent all attacks 2 turns in a row is boring, it's not NPE.
Someone using 'Annihilate' to kill your creature just before it deals damage is frustrating, it's not NPE

So what would you consider to be NPEs in Magic?

Getting mana screwed?
Having four spells in a row countered?
Getting milled to death?
Losing on Turn 3 to a blitz aggro deck?
Your opponent having protection against all of your colors?

5 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

So what would you consider to be NPEs in Magic?

Getting mana screwed?
Having four spells in a row countered?
Getting milled to death?
Losing on Turn 3 to a blitz aggro deck?
Your opponent having protection against all of your colors?

The "Time Elemental deck" in MTG, that's my exemplary NPE. It had cards that made sure the opponent simply could not take a turn. Not sure what that says about the definition (do we really need one?) but it really exemplifies the feeling.

14 minutes ago, Verlaine said:

Thanks both, though I want to make it clear that I actually like Kylo Ren, although I can imagine the problem some have with combining him with RAC. I just feel that your view should be described fairly.

You don't have to feel the same way as somebody else to understand where they're coming from...something a lot of people around here could really stand to internalize.

6 hours ago, Verlaine said:

He's commenting that he card makes the game less fun. A game can be bad even if you win: if I win tic tac toe, I can still argue that it's a stupid game.

If you're a game reviewer, you wouldn't be worth your salt if the judgement in the review depended on winning or losing the game. A lot of messages on this board are written from the perspective of review ("this card brings down the quality of the game") but read from the perspective of game balance ("here is how you defeat the card, why are you complaining?"). But X-Wing is not automatically fun just because it is balanced. It's fun if the gameplay is good.

The analogy is a good one I think. Using words or phrases like 'NPE' which means different things to different people can cause a lot of confusion as evidenced by the number and type of comments. Also using "Steaming pile of NPE" in the title is a good way to tick your readers off from the start. Not a good way to begin a review, imo. You've already antagonised your readers.

Something else to remember. Since no one can see the OP's facial expressions or hear voice inflections, all we have to go by is the words chosen and how they are presented. If you have ever read the book, "The Virginian", you'll understand the reference.

3 hours ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

So what would you consider to be NPEs in Magic?

Getting mana screwed?
Having four spells in a row countered?
Getting milled to death?
Losing on Turn 3 to a blitz aggro deck?
Your opponent having protection against all of your colors?

I can give you examples of what WOTC considers NPE:

Countering anything your opponent wants to do. They've rowed back a LONG way from the days of Forbidian. Counterspells cost more, have more restrictions, and fewer are printed.

Destroying your opponents lands to prevent him from playing his cards. LD was rarely a top tier strategy but as it was very frustrating to play against it hit hanmered about the same time. These days they make fewer LD spells, especially at 3 mana, and big resource denial cards like Armageddon and Winter Orb have long been consigned to the past. They stop you playing Magic, that's bad.

3/4 turn kill rush decks, when they are able to do so consistently they tend to get quickly removed. Older formats tolerate them a bit better because things like Legacy tend to be 'spikier' formats where everything is pretty close to NPE. Most sane players, even the competitive ones, hate Legacy for this reason

Non-interactive combo decks.

Most 'lock' decks that prevent the opponent from acting and playing their game while slowly killing them.

Mana screw is not considered NPE by WOTC, it's actually considered a positive design feature. Many people think that's BS but I tend to agree with them - the impact in individual games is NPE but the overall impact on the game'a health is a big positive.

3 hours ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

So what would you consider to be NPEs in Magic?

Getting mana screwed?
Having four spells in a row countered?
Getting milled to death?
Losing on Turn 3 to a blitz aggro deck?
Your opponent having protection against all of your colors?

I can give you examples of what WOTC considers NPE:

Countering anything your opponent wants to do. They've rowed back a LONG way from the days of Forbidian. Counterspells cost more, have more restrictions, and fewer are printed.

Destroying your opponents lands to prevent him from playing his cards. LD was rarely a top tier strategy but as it was very frustrating to play against it hit hanmered about the same time. These days they make fewer LD spells, especially at 3 mana, and big resource denial cards like Armageddon and Winter Orb have long been consigned to the past. They stop you playing Magic, that's bad.

3/4 turn kill rush decks, when they are able to do so consistently they tend to get quickly removed. Older formats tolerate them a bit better because things like Legacy tend to be 'spikier' formats where everything is pretty close to NPE. Most sane players, even the competitive ones, hate Legacy for this reason

Non-interactive combo decks.

Most 'lock' decks that prevent the opponent from acting and playing their game while slowly killing them.

Mana screw is not considered NPE by WOTC, it's actually considered a positive design feature. Many people think that's BS but I tend to agree with them - the impact in individual games is NPE but the overall impact on the game'a health is a big positive.

23 hours ago, mkevans80 said:

My apologies, but since we're apparently insulting each other now, I thought your original question had to be coming either from a total newbie or a troll. I wasn't even sure you were serious. Hence my condescending tone.

Yes, I bumped him repeatedly with Cassian to deny him actions, but he had Dauntless title so he could use Kyo anyway, and Gunner to improve his chances of hitting even without target locks or focus tokens. I'd have to go back and check, but I'm pretty sure I stated that in the OP or in one of my earliest replies.

Yes, I did that. I'd say no offense, (but you're already offended) but this question is almost as bad as your original one. If I wanted to keep him from chasing all three of my ships, I'd have had to spread them out across the board. This would have allowed him to him focus down one ship at a time while my other ships were attempting to get into flanking position. He also had two other ships that I had to worry about, and he kept them close to RAC. He would have made short work of me if I hadn't grouped up to focuse my fire. Doing so is the only reason I won the game... because I poured enough fire into his ship early on that I was able to take him out around the time he finished off Keyan. If I had tried to come at him from different angles, he would have been able to kill one of my ships easily while my other two were getting into position, and it would have been a slaughter.

With the game in question, my opponent had no repositions available to RAC. He also had a fairly limited range of available moves because he was always stressed from using Dauntless. Therefore, my PS-disadvantage was not an issue at all in terms of positioning or actions. The problem was that he could shoot first. However, given that I like playing pilots that are PS 8 or lower (and find VI boring), I am bound to get beat in PS from time to time. Especially when I'm playing a fun, non-tournament worthy build like the "Anger Management" list I had put together for this match.

I will say that the paramount importance of PS in X-Wing is a big peeve of mine... a personal NPE, if you will. When Pilot Skill is by far the most important factor, only a few ships are ever worth taking. I was getting pretty tired of seeing Veteran's Instincts everywhere all the time. It was worst when every ace on the board was PS9, and many of those had VI too. Seriously, do we really need PS11 Vaders flying around?! The has meta shifted enough lately that it's not nearly that bad, and I'm thrilled. VI is boring and repetitive, and I am glad I don't see it as often as I used to. Even if all the non-PS9+ aces are the same (Ryad, Vessery, Miranda), I'll take it.

As for your final point about how you'd never have taken a B-Wing... well, I like to use all of my ships. I own 3 B-Wings. Might as well play them once in a while. They do often die too quickly for my liking, but in most games, I actually get them to shoot a few times... When they're not being blinded and crit to death through shields by a bullsh*t card that should never have been designed.

TLDR

You played, you won.... you still had a negative experience (despite winning) due to the specific mechanic of a card which you have rightly called into question. Yet we're up to 8 pages..... the only up side is that neither of you used "top tier" meta lists.

3 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

I can give you examples of what WOTC considers NPE:

Countering anything your opponent wants to do. They've rowed back a LONG way from the days of Forbidian. Counterspells cost more, have more restrictions, and fewer are printed.

Destroying your opponents lands to prevent him from playing his cards. LD was rarely a top tier strategy but as it was very frustrating to play against it hit hanmered about the same time. These days they make fewer LD spells, especially at 3 mana, and big resource denial cards like Armageddon and Winter Orb have long been consigned to the past. They stop you playing Magic, that's bad.

3/4 turn kill rush decks, when they are able to do so consistently they tend to get quickly removed. Older formats tolerate them a bit better because things like Legacy tend to be 'spikier' formats where everything is pretty close to NPE. Most sane players, even the competitive ones, hate Legacy for this reason

Non-interactive combo decks.

Most 'lock' decks that prevent the opponent from acting and playing their game while slowly killing them.

Mana screw is not considered NPE by WOTC, it's actually considered a positive design feature. Many people think that's BS but I tend to agree with them - the impact in individual games is NPE but the overall impact on the game'a health is a big positive.

That's a pretty good breakdown of changes to MTG although you left out Stasis. They haven't completely done away with counter magic but they have increased the cost and made if far more difficult to "skip" playing stuff on your turn as they've curbed a lot of the other control elements and good draw cards spells for blue.

Isn't mana screw more an issue of variance/randomness like those pesky green dice? Not so much a design feature as something that "happens."

When WOTC held a reality-style contest to get a job designing Magic cards one of the first questions to answer was to explain why Mana screw was a good thing.

They see the intricacy of balancing lands and colours in multicolour decks as a useful controls on deckbuilding and as a skill testing element to design your Mana to minimise screw. They also see screw as a wildcard that can affect any game and allow players to win matchups against better players or decks designed to beat them.

WOTC sees a certain level of variance as desirable, going so far as to deliberately add a bonkers overpowered card to a set when playtesting suggested it was too skill-intensive and the best player won too often.