2 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

I'm just going to go ahead and ignore him I think, he's just trolling now.

I think he means this: http://randolphw.github.io/echolocation/

I just checked, because I am slightly sad...

Miranda's "3-bank/3-bank adv slam/1-bank leebo-boosting" comes in almost exactly 4-length's worth behind Ventress' "5-straight/5-straight burnout slamming". So Ventress is much faster, but less repositiony.

4 minutes ago, Lampyridae said:

The YT-2400 would*, but we're apparently discussing how broken the K-Wing is since it's so fast. The JokeMaster can't SLAM and boost, it's one or the other because it's a mod slot.

*And add the barrel roll as tangential component

I thought we were just going off on a two page tangent about ship speed tbh.

I'm struggling to remember how it relates to TLTs any more.

Just now, thespaceinvader said:

I thought we were just going off on a two page tangent about ship speed tbh.

I'm struggling to remember how it relates to TLTs any more.

Apparently the TLT is broken because it's all the K-Wing's fault for being such an amazing bomber by TLT-SLAMMing everything to death*. That's what I can gather.

*Apparently in the same turn and Miranda cures cancer

Just now, banjobenito said:

I just checked, because I am slightly sad...

Miranda's "3-bank/3-bank adv slam/1-bank leebo-boosting" comes in almost exactly 4-length's worth behind Ventress' "5-straight/5-straight burnout slamming". So Ventress is much faster, but less repositiony.

Ventress can also be repositiony, and her 3 turn SLAM 3 turn beats out Mira's 3 bank slam 3 bank as well. And she can get the boost on the end with PTL.

The K wing isn't the most manoeuvrable ship int he game but its dial offers it plenty of speed and flexibility for its purposes, either for kiting with the TLT (3 bank is fine for that) or for bombing (3 speed SLAM 3 speed is by far and away the most flexible bombing in the game.

Here'as what we're all going to do. We're going to go find our respective Shadowcaster and K-wing models and put them on a flat, long stretch of floor. Then, we're going to race them across the floor for a few turns, parallel to each other. Then come back online and we can all agree which ship is faster:

The Shadowcaster always does a 5 straight maneuver then a boost.
The K-wing always does a 3 straight then a SLAM for another 3 straight.

Noe let's do this and end the bizarre discussion.

4 minutes ago, Astech said:

Here'as what we're all going to do. We're going to go find our respective Shadowcaster and K-wing models and put them on a flat, long stretch of floor. Then, we're going to race them across the floor for a few turns, parallel to each other. Then come back online and we can all agree which ship is faster:

The Shadowcaster always does a 5 straight maneuver then a boost.
The K-wing always does a 3 straight then a SLAM for another 3 straight.

Noe let's do this and end the bizarre discussion.

Shadow Caster wins by having a large base.

Now let's get back to TLTs being dull irritating dicefests.

3 minutes ago, Astech said:

The Shadowcaster always does a 5 straight maneuver then a boost.
The K-wing always does a 3 straight then a SLAM for another 3 straight.

That's not hard, the Shadowcaster moves 10 and the K-Wing moves 8.

More accurately, the shadow caster kills the k wing in about turn 3 because the k wing's not shooting and not bombing it and the shadow caster has a mobile arc.

4 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

I'm not sure what you're not understanding here.

There are two scales in question.

One goes from 0 (so underpowered it's not even worth getting the thing out of the box/binder right now) to 10 (so overpowered it wouldn't be worth bringing anything else right now).

TLTs sit somewhere around a six for me on this scale (a bit OP, but not a lot, definitely beatable), jumps are more like an 8 (strongly OP, still beatable with the right list, but a tough matchup. Meta defining). 5 would be 'perfectly balanced'. It's really tough to get everything in the game to hit a 5 simultaneously.

The other goes from 0 (so irritating and/or dull that I'd rather concede the game than play against it) to 10 (I'm really happy to see someone setting it up because I know I'll enjoy playing against it). 5 would be neutral, I have no opinion either way This scale is much more subjective and personal to the player, I make no secret of that. it also varies depending on the list I'm running.

TLTs sit somewhere around 2 on this scale for me, K Wing bombers/TLTs are a 1, Miranda sits at a 1 or even a 0 if I'm not having a good day. There's literally no ship I want to see across from me less. Jumps sit around a 5 or a 6. Pre-deadeye nerf they were more like a 2 with most lists, but a 5 or 6 with a list specifically designed to kill them. They're powerful, but there are things you can do against them - get behind them, block their white sloops, protect the ship they have TLed, 2-round them where previously you had to PS kill them in the first round of firing if they had arc and range on something, etc etc etc. TLTs have a lot fewer options for counter play, because unless you donut them (and K wings don't even have that...) they WILL be able to shoot at the best possible target in range if you're shooting at them and don't kill them, and they WILL be able to do consistent damage on average.

It is possible for something to be more powerful than something else, but less irritating to fly against.

Or to put it even more succinctly: I came here to play a game of tactical manoeuvring, not a game of yahtzee. Even if the tactical manoeuvring game is harder and I'm more likely to lose it, I prefer it to the dice-off.

There's a reason most of my proposed balance fixes for TLTs add some element of having to actually fly well and make good tactical decisions to use them to their fullest - because that's the aspect of the game I most enjoy and most want to encourage.

Self-quoting in a desperate attempt to bring the discussion back to TLTs...

On the first scale I personally think TLTs are a 7. Very strong but beatable with a well built list.

On the second scale they're a 0 for me, unless they're Miranda or a ghost, in which case a 10. In those cases I have a very easy time killing both with my lists and playstyle (Fenn Rau, Stress and Tractor...).

I hate TLTs en masse because I know my opponent is looking for easy wins, which just pushes my buttons.

3 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Self-quoting in a desperate attempt to bring the discussion back to TLTs...

I'll pile on.

I agree that cards should be evaluated on two axes, power-level and fun. TLT is worth more than 6 points and, in my own subjective opinion is a real chore to play against. For ease of discussion, I'd suggest resetting the second scale so that a 10 on both is "bad." Maybe PC for power-creep and NPE for negative play experience. PC is context dependent but can be calculated fairly objectively. NPE is 100% subjective and consensus will be difficult. Especially tricky is convincing anyone that the squad they love to fly is absolute torture to fly against.

TLT scores

PC= 7 or 8 A card does not need to be featured on all the top tables in order to be power-creep! Let me say that again. Winning tournaments is not, in any way, a valid argument for the relative strength of a card.

NPE= 8 This is everything I do not enjoy about the game. A range three turret was an all-around bad idea.

Precisely what I feared in wake of the FAQ - FFG's willingness to make errata like this opens the door for every disgruntled player who doesn't like a card to insist it needs changing in the same way, and every empty complaint about a 'NPE' given greater validity than simply being ignored.

This is no exception. TLT's have settled into their place in the game and are a reliable source of low damage, yet have key weaknesses that are not difficult to exploit, such that a 'spam' list of them is not a real threat (as it is too easily hard-countered), and the bordeom factor on both sides (given that four TLT's is a boring list both to play against and to play yourself) is enough of a self-limiter.

TLT's are nowhere near a game-defining piece and do not require alteration. Balance is delicate and the slightest ill-advised push in the wrong place could have far-reaching implications that most of us would not be able to see - which is why we are not the ones designing the game.

There was no valid reason to change the card when it was released, let alone now.

On 3/26/2017 at 6:45 PM, Talamare said:

It needs to be nerfed.

Wrong. We need to find something to counter it.

At the end of the day, NPE boils down to a feeling of helplessness in a game in which you've invested time and effort. Unfortunately what is NPE for the opponent is desirable for the player: reliability.

But here are some really annoying NPEs:

Ghost Kanan. Roll one less dice just for a focus? Super irritating. It's functionally less effective than a free evade result but more irritating.
Captain Rex. Same deal, but due to the restrictions you feel like you have an option. Just shoot Rex.
Zuckuss. Reroll all those evades?
The Emperor. Pre-nerf, you felt helpless. Now, you feel like you have your opponent has a choice beyond "do I deal a crit with Vader or a crit with Fel?"
Bombs. It takes skill to place them but there is no way to avoid that damage.

AHMs on the other hand are devastating but require skill and luck to push through.

And that's why I dislike TLTs. Because of the feeling that what I'm doing as the player opposite them makes little or no difference - either I roll an equal number of evades somehow, or I take one damage. I can't use mitigation effects, I can't spend my evade token to reduce the damage I'm sucking down, etc etc.

Unless I've got a token stack and autothrusters it's a dice game. And dice games take away agency.

4 minutes ago, AwesomeJedi said:

Wrong. We need to find something to counter it.

TLT is part of the reason 2AGI ships are becoming worthless. They are what die fastest to them. :/

56 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

There's a reason most of my proposed balance fixes for TLTs add some element of having to actually fly well and make good tactical decisions to use them to their fullest

I wouldn't have an issue with a change to all turrets that increase the amount of tactics required to use them to their fullest. If that means FFG takes a small hit and releases some sort of turret pack that changes all PWT turrets into mobile arcs, and perhaps some of the secondary ones as well that wouldn't bother me. It would require some way of converting existing ships and reprinting all new runs of those ships with the updated rules/tokens.

Of course you're going to have to consider a point cost reduction for all those ships as well.

But if we could change all turrets into something a bit more tactical kind of like what they did to Palp that could be very good for the game and something FFG may want to consider paying the price for, to improve the health of the game, which would mean more sales down the road.

Double post.

14 minutes ago, MalusCalibur said:

...the bordeom factor on both sides (given that four TLT's is a boring list both to play against and to play yourself) is enough of a self-limiter.

This seems a strange way to limit something in any game. "It might be overpowered, but it's so boring to play that nobody will do it." So you're relying on two bad qualities to make the game good. It's not a logic that I subscribe to.

19 minutes ago, MalusCalibur said:

TLT's are nowhere near a game-defining piece and do not require alteration. Balance is delicate and the slightest ill-advised push in the wrong place could have far-reaching implications that most of us would not be able to see - which is why we are not the ones designing the game.

Honestly, I don't have a very high opinion of the designers' abilities to create a finely balanced game. They seem to be relying on playtesting to do the finetuning, and it appears that, practically, playtesting continues for a while after an expension is released. So we are in fact contributing to the design process.

Said process is done with skill, but I don't think it is science-level. More like trial and error engineering.

And as a general point: I hope the design of X-Wing is ultimately about creating a deep, enjoyable game, rather than 'good balance' or a 'diverse meta'. The latter two should be means to an end. If we see some upgrade completely dominating the competitive meta, then that is a clear sign that something is wrong, but the reverse is not true. It would be wrong to believe that an upgrade that is not dominating is by definition not a problem.

For example, if Dengar is overpowered in terms of game balance but not seen too much at tournaments because the character is, to be honest, a total douchebag that a lot of SW fans do not want to identify with, then the designers should not rest assured that nothing is wrong. The balance problem would be there in spite of the fact that we might not see too many Dengars around.

Agreed, I think one of the big reasons we don't see Punishers is because they are so **** boring and ugly at the same time. The K-Wing is goofy, ugly and unusual. X-Wings are still stubbornly flown by Rebels like me because they are X-Wings dammit.

6 minutes ago, Verlaine said:

This seems a strange way to limit something in any game. "It might be overpowered, but it's so boring to play that nobody will do it." So you're relying on two bad qualities to make the game good. It's not a logic that I subscribe to.

And yet, it seems to work. Quad TLTs are still a solid way to get a decent record for the day if that's all you care about, but people still don't play them that much.

Maybe the Aggressor will change that by giving them some tactical choices (do I barrel roll or focus, primarily) but we shall see...

1 minute ago, Lampyridae said:

Agreed, I think one of the big reasons we don't see Punishers is because they are so **** boring and ugly at the same time. The K-Wing is goofy, ugly and unusual. X-Wings are still stubbornly flown by Rebels like me because they are X-Wings dammit.

The reason we don't see Punishers is because they're too expensive, no more, no less.

7 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

And yet, it seems to work. Quad TLTs are still a solid way to get a decent record for the day if that's all you care about, but people still don't play them that much.

Well, it 'works' if you just look at the numbers and then conclude that there is nothing wrong because the number of TLTs is within acceptable boundaries. But the goal is not to see acceptable % for all upgrades, that's just a means to an end. The goal is to produce a good game. And an upgrade that is very good but too boring to see much play does not make a better game, quite the opposite.

TLTs might be fine, I don't have a strong opinion here. It's the reasoning that I am opposed to.

I think it serves to suppress the quad TLT list whilst still allowing the more interesting uses. FOr a given value of more interesting, of course...