26 minutes ago, Razgriz25thinf said:

ARC-170: Norra relies on R2-D2, Braylen needs Biggs to survive. I've never seen Norra used successfully without Regen.

Attack Shuttle: Name the last time you saw an attack shuttle.

B-Wing: Name the last time you saw a B-Wing.

E-Wing: Do i even need to say it? Corran is absolute trash tier garbage without regen. He's 50 points riding on 3 agility and 5 HP. Regen is the only thing that makes Corran work.

K-Wing: will die off completely with your nerfs. Miranda can't regen well, nor can Ks bomb well anymore. Those are the only good things K-Wings can do.

T-70: Poe relies on regen as a part of his schtick; Without it hes 40+ points for not a particularly huge amount of offense or defense. Name the last time you saw Jess.

TIE Fighter: It's fun; but i wouldn't currently call it competitive, not compared to the Rebel giants. Especially considering without a good Sabine, it loses it's primary option to contribute when it has the captured TIE mod. Why bother with it when it has no generics, when that'll be all the Rebel faction will have left.

U-Wing: Lmao ok. If it's bad now and Rebels are considered the lesser of the 3 factions at the moment, what makes you think anyone's gonna use it post-rebel nerf?

VCX-100: It could do ok without Biggs; But when it's the only good thing Rebels have and we have to run 2 at once, you're gonna call for it's nerf down the line

X-Wing: What would we even use? The terrible options we abandoned years ago for being terrible?

YT-1300: Without a regen wingman, unviable

YT-2400: Without a regen wingman, unviable

Y-Wing: With a gimped TLT, no sabine, no pilots with EPTs, not particularly viable in any way. Can't bomb, can't torp, can't turret. Why bother.

Z-95: Lmao ok i havent used Z-95s in almost 2 years.

Heh, I look at this list, seeing all the mentions of regen, and can't help but think "And Palp and x7 were called crutches".

5 minutes ago, any2cards said:

It frustrates me so much when so many members of this forum espouse the opinion that every single ship, pilot, upgrade, etc. must be exactly equally competitive ...

This would be such an incredibly boring game if it were so ...

To be clear ... not every "object" within this game has to be utilized an equal amount for this to be "balanced" or "correct". Nor does everything have to be equally effective or viable ...

Equally competitive doesn't necessarily mean equal in every way. A good example of this is the Z-95 and Tie Fighter. They are different, but of similar enough value they both feel fair at 12 points.

In my perfect world, every card in the game would perfectly represent the cost you pay for it. I'm aware this is a pipe dream, but I do believe the closer we get to that point, the more diverse a game we have.

Do I believe it is possible? No. Human error and a restrictive costing system disallows it. Do I think the designers should strive for it? Absolutely.

I apologize if that frustrates you though. :/

...

25 minutes ago, any2cards said:

It frustrates me so much when so many members of this forum espouse the opinion that every single ship, pilot, upgrade, etc. must be exactly equally competitive ...

Not nearly as much as it frustrates me that everyone insists that everything must be competitive, period.

How 'bout we design some **** for this game just so that it is fun to play, without a burning need to see it at the top tables at the end of the year.

There's a concept called "perfectly imbalanced" that I came across in my StarCraft days. It especially works in 3 faction set ups like SC2 and X-wing, in that not every unit in each faction needs to be absolutely god-tier. Faction powers are made up of everything within, not one or two mega units, and not every unit within each faction needs to see regular, constant play, if it can be leveraged in specific situations instead.

The demise of SC2 as a premier eSport came as a result of Blizzard chasing this concept with patch after patch, balance after balance. They forced every unit to a point of being equally playable, which actually sucked all of the fun and diversity out of the game, and left it with a rock/paper/scissors scenario.

I'm perfectly OK with cycling a few ships to the competitive fringe and back again as waves come and go, but artificially forcing every ship to be competitive in the same manner is only going to go one direction. I'd rather not go through all that again.

Fascinating. I just listened to the Shuttle Tydirium Podcast, and they shared a story about playing casual games in the back of a store while a tournament was going on up front. The short of it is that the tournament players were all stressed and arguing while the casuals were laughing and having a good time. I see striking similarities in this thread, and am disappointed by so much derision.

Anyway, I have a really hard time reading the meta, so I don't have much to contribute. But I do agree with the comment above about dual VCX squads. TLT is mostly oppressive when spammed, and I think we'll see efficient large ships spammed in just as annoying a way as quad TLT if it gets soft nerfed. The question is: will there be enough counterplay to make the matchups enjoyable? I don't have the answer.

And while I'm at it, let me just share something that really bothers me in discussions about nerfs. People often say something along the lines of, "X doesn't need a nerf because Y counters it." Well, good for Y! But every other squad has an absolutely miserable time against it, and that constraint on squad building, if oppressive enough (like the pre-nerf phantom) should be addressed. I look forward to seeing how the meta settles in the coming weeks. I fear that the first thing to start winning will be copied ad nauseum. I just hope that whatever it is has enough counters/counter play that savvy players will be able to combat it with novel squads.

22 minutes ago, NakedDex said:

There's a concept called "perfectly imbalanced" that I came across in my StarCraft days. It especially works in 3 faction set ups like SC2 and X-wing, in that not every unit in each faction needs to be absolutely god-tier. Faction powers are made up of everything within, not one or two mega units, and not every unit within each faction needs to see regular, constant play, if it can be leveraged in specific situations instead.

The demise of SC2 as a premier eSport came as a result of Blizzard chasing this concept with patch after patch, balance after balance. They forced every unit to a point of being equally playable, which actually sucked all of the fun and diversity out of the game, and left it with a rock/paper/scissors scenario.

I'm perfectly OK with cycling a few ships to the competitive fringe and back again as waves come and go, but artificially forcing every ship to be competitive in the same manner is only going to go one direction. I'd rather not go through all that again.

I'm curious about this and would be interested if you could expound a little bit more.

So what was the issue that SC2 had that SC didn't? Did SC2 try to buff every thing that saw less than medium play, and nerf everything that saw more than medium play, while SC just let things be from start to finish?

No...."just right" is a fleeting concept. They will release more unplaytested crap and we will be back to the same point.

No.

No on so many levels. Your "just right" is almost certainly going to be different from someone else's. The idea that something can be done so "no reasonable player" will argue with it is just wrong because reasonable arguments can be made for plenty of things even when you don't agree on them. I see mention that "many people think X is wrong" so that means it should be changed but I have a very hard time thinking of any time "many" actually means "all" so you are just upsetting one group to appease another. Besides all of that your "perfect game" where everything is "just right" would only last a fleeting moment as strategies change and then new materials are released.

I once asked "If we just removed everything that some group objected to how long before there would be nothing left to play?" and the answer is that it probably wouldn't take very long. The idea of getting things "just right" falls flat for many of the same reasons.

Just now, StevenO said:

I once asked "If we just removed everything that some group objected to how long before there would be nothing left to play?" and the answer is that it probably wouldn't take very long. The idea of getting things "just right" falls flat for many of the same reasons.

Well, r3 astro would probably still exist because I doubt, even if it was the only card in the game, there'd be people calling it OP

40 minutes ago, Shot in the Dark said:

No...."just right" is a fleeting concept. They will release more unplaytested crap and we will be back to the same point.

Stop. It is clear that FFG works very hard at trying to create balance, and moreover works even harder to make sure that elements that fell out of balanced are readjusted.

1 minute ago, DeathstarII said:

Well, r3 astro would probably still exist because I doubt, even if it was the only card in the game, there'd be people calling it OP

That could be but it wouldn't take long before you're selections are down to the point that no one would want to play. As things get cut new things emerge that can be seen as "too strong so they need to be cut" and you can soon be down to the chaff that no one even thinks about looking at these days..

I love all the rebel & scum - "I dunno man, things feel really balanced right now we don't need nerfs, the meta's wide open!" Like everything's just hunky-dory when Imperials just flat out disappear from the game. 3 Imps out of 72 in the last three top 24s, what a joke.

I am not sure if we are 1 set of erratas away before FFG gets things right, but I am certain that we are not one set of erratas away before people stop complaining about something being broken.

2 hours ago, Razgriz25thinf said:

ARC-170: Norra relies on R2-D2, Braylen needs Biggs to survive. I've never seen Norra used successfully without Regen.

Agreed that norra pretty much always has regen, but changes or nerfs don't necessarily mean complete removal (see all 4 of the big nerfs in the last FAQ, which all still fulfill the same function but more limited)

ive seen Braylen used quite successfully without Biggs. See the top 8 at Endor where a player from my area had Braylen and TARN of all pilots

Quote

Attack Shuttle: Name the last time you saw an attack shuttle.

Last weekend when I flew 2 of them in a tournament. And commonly docked on the ghost

Quote

B-Wing: Name the last time you saw a B-Wing.

Blair Bunke. Second place at Endor.

Quote

E-Wing: Do i even need to say it? Corran is absolute trash tier garbage without regen. He's 50 points riding on 3 agility and 5 HP. Regen is the only thing that makes Corran work.

Agreed

Quote

K-Wing: will die off completely with your nerfs. Miranda can't regen well, nor can Ks bomb well anymore. Those are the only good things K-Wings can do.

Depends on the nerfs. Even without Sabine kwing a are the best bombers available

Quote

T-70: Poe relies on regen as a part of his schtick; Without it hes 40+ points for not a particularly huge amount of offense or defense. Name the last time you saw Jess.

Agreed on Poe. Jess has seen some play with swarm leader since it released.

Quote

TIE Fighter: It's fun; but i wouldn't currently call it competitive, not compared to the Rebel giants. Especially considering without a good Sabine, it loses it's primary option to contribute when it has the captured TIE mod. Why bother with it when it has no generics, when that'll be all the Rebel faction will have left.

I've done quite well with captured tie Ashoka so far. And again I'll point to system opens, where Hera with a docked attack shuttle and captured tie Ashoka made second at Yavin

Quote

U-Wing: Lmao ok. If it's bad now and Rebels are considered the lesser of the 3 factions at the moment, what makes you think anyone's gonna use it post-rebel nerf?

Yah I agree the uwing isn't great

Quote

VCX-100: It could do ok without Biggs; But when it's the only good thing Rebels have and we have to run 2 at once, you're gonna call for it's nerf down the line

I've flown the ghost a TON since it first released quite successfully and never once have I flown it with Biggs. And once again, Hera as runner up at Yavin

Quote

X-Wing: What would we even use? The terrible options we abandoned years ago for being terrible?

Mostly true, though again, Tarn in the top 8 at Endor (albeit the exception to the rule)

Quote

YT-1300: Without a regen wingman, unviable

disagree regen wingman is necessary, but I don't think the falcon is particularly amazing atm

Quote

YT-2400: Without a regen wingman, unviable

Does quite well alongside a lothal rebel

Quote

Y-Wing: With a gimped TLT, no sabine, no pilots with EPTs, not particularly viable in any way. Can't bomb, can't torp, can't turret. Why bother.

The stresshog couldn't care less if you nerf tlt. It's there for the stress.

Quote

Z-95: Lmao ok i havent used Z-95s in almost 2 years.

Definitely been less then spectacular for a while. On the other hand, the palp and x7 nerfs do a lot to make 2-attack primaries less useless again

"Right" is definitely a very subjective idea. I think autothrusters, TLT and attanni are probably the big three problem cards now but for as many upgrade cards as people have disdain for there's thrice as many pilots that probably need to be reigned in imo. When you look at the fact that they've basically nerfed jumpmasters 3 times now with agromech, deadeye and now Manaroo you can start to see something's likely amiss there. Simply comparing it on paper to the g1-a, which came out in the same freaking wave, and it's pretty clear one outclasses the other.

We made these comments on our last show but I don't think Sabine is really that bad because you're having to invest a large number of your points into making her worthwhile when a lot of stuff is not too wary of bombs and also because bombs up to now have been pretty underwhelming. TLT's don't bother me as much as other people but being able to field 4 I think is a problem simply because so many other lists are just pretty much auto-loss to it so I think maybe a new upgrade type that limits you to two of a certain upgrade in a squad would be a possible, simple fix. Regen I can understand being annoying to play against but I agree it's a staple of the Rebellion and if you take it away that faction's gonna lose out on a lot of their options.

It's true that anything you remove/buff is just gonna cause a ripple effect with the meta and soon people will find other cards to complain about so let's give the designers/play testers a little credit. Pheaver made a great comment when he was on Mynock a few weeks ago that when you compare today's meta to the first couple years of X-Wing it's not even close how much more wide open the game is now. I talked to the Imperial Assault world champion last week and according to him at least IA is much more narrow in terms of competitive list viability. I still think FFG should experiment with ban lists during store championship season just to see what kind of affect it has on the game but I think you could make a pretty strong argument this is the golden age of X-Wing.

18 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Stop. It is clear that FFG works very hard at trying to create balance, and moreover works even harder to make sure that elements that fell out of balanced are readjusted.

However, FFG did not undergo a radical change overnight. It's still largely the same people with largely the same understanding of game mechanics.

Yes, FFG is doing their best to create a balanced game, but they were also doing their best to create a balanced game when they released Palpatine, x7, Jumpmaster, Zuckuss etc.

IMO it's only a matter of time until the next meta-defining card pops out because FFG, with the current approach and resources (manpower and time) makes these mistakes from time to time.

Nope. Regardless of what FFG does some group will not be happy. To them the game won't be balanced. Or "just right".

"The pursuit of perfection is folly" or so I was once told.

I don't understand the continuing need to call for nerfs. The game is far from broken. The vast majority of posters are not game designers and some of the suggestions posted, as well meaning as they may be, would hurt the game rather than help it.

The game is approaching it's 5th birthday and is in great shape. Yes there are ships that we wish were better (X-wing) or not so strong (Miranda) but short of the top levels of competition everything is playable.

14 minutes ago, Johen Dood said:

I love all the rebel & scum - "I dunno man, things feel really balanced right now we don't need nerfs, the meta's wide open!" Like everything's just hunky-dory when Imperials just flat out disappear from the game. 3 Imps out of 72 in the last three top 24s, what a joke.

While I understand and share your concern about recent Imperial performance, I would encourage you to give them more time. We're just a week and a half from when the FAQ went into effect. Once people get a feel for how Palp and x7 work now, we might see them return (emphasis on might, no assurances). Plus, there are other builds, featuring the likes of the SF, that are showing promise and might be good enough to go for top table.

I don't want to pass these off as assurances that everything is fine. The recent system opens were worrying. But we are still in an adjustment period. Give people time, and we may see the Empire rise again without aid.

Heh, and if they don't, I do have a pitchfork.

There is some decent discussion going on here, but I did want to reiterate my original question. Again, I honestly didn't intend this to be a "NERF THESE CARDS" discussion, but instead an inspection of what would the game look like if these cards were currently in a situation similar to Palp and x7- that is, getting put in a place where it is hard to argue they are overpowered seeing as they just saw a change to their power trending downward.

In the case these changes were made, is the game better, or worse? And if worse, what are the new problem cards that make it so?

In other words, I'm trying to identify if we can see what would be the next round of cards players would complain about even before it gets to the point they are the newest boogie man, and if the trend would ever see an end, or if there is literally always going to be the next card down we will see as "OP". I have seen some solid arguments that yes, no matter the changes, there WILL always be a card that is perceived as an issue, but can we pinpoint what it would be if certain changes were to take place?

2 hours ago, Kdubb said:

In my perfect world, every card in the game would perfectly represent the cost you pay for it. I'm aware this is a pipe dream, but I do believe the closer we get to that point, the more diverse a game we have.

I like this because it really is the whole point of having a points cost system. Of course certain upgrades will always be better on particular ships and therefore more cost efficient. However...

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

How 'bout we design some **** for this game just so that it is fun to play, without a burning need to see it at the top tables at the end of the year.

I also like this idea of 'fun to play' ****. Nerfs aren't fun. Especially to folks who have their favourite mechanic Nerfed into irrelevance. Nor are extensive FAQs. I'd rather see points cost adjustments than all of this changing of rules and text.

Palpatine too powerful (I don't think so, but many did): Try him at 10 points instead of 8.

Still too powerful? Okay, 12 points.

Rookie Pilot is never, ever used? Well, I'd try flying 8 of them at 10 points each (gotta have some 'mechs on there!).

Etc.

8 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

I'm curious about this and would be interested if you could expound a little bit more.

So what was the issue that SC2 had that SC didn't? Did SC2 try to buff every thing that saw less than medium play, and nerf everything that saw more than medium play, while SC just let things be from start to finish?

Oh man, it's a loooooong story, and a big ol' can of worms to many people. I'd be happy to go into it, but I could literally spend pages on the topic.

The tl;dr synopsis is probably simply that SC (aka Brood War) didn't have the level of tinkering due to when it was being played at competitive levels. SC2 launched and went straight to Battle.net with dedicated servers as part of the package. As a result, regular patches kept coming out to balance the game as more people generated more statistics directly to Blizzard servers. Early on, it wasn't too bad, but there have been instances of entire mechanics being removed from the game later on in the name of balance (some welcomed, most not). Some powerhouse units were nerfed into the ground and buffed back up with tweaks, and some basic units were overbuffed and nerfed back a dozen times over.

Much of this was driven by the fact that eSports was taking off as a legitimate spectator event, pulling in sponsorship from big names, and filling arenas with third-party tournaments from big supporter bases. There was a lot of pressure on Blizzard to keep what was now a worldwide competitive event balanced and even, so the players would be the stars, rather than the factions they were using (especially since most players became synonymous with certain factions at high level play, and anyone changing was huge news, which is another interesting parallel with X-wing). Much of that came from lower-ladder players who constantly (and vociferously) decried nerfs against their preferred race, and buffs to others, regardless of how much it may have been needed. Most, however, came from keeping the game "competitive" for the top 5% of players in the world (literally the figure Blizzard quoted).

That constant tweaking in the name of a level high-tier playing field eventually devolved the game, rather than evolved it further. It's still a strong eSport, but it's nowhere near the lofty heights it once was. Even the Twitch viewing figures of it has gone from it being perpetually top three daily, to it being a surprise if it's top ten.

Somewhat backing all this up is the news that Blizzard is releasing a HD remake of Brood War, but have made it clear they're not touching a thing. All timings, hitboxes, etc, are all exactly as they were. It just looks slicker than it did back in the day. This alone has rekindled a lot of love for the game, in both the professional gamers and the casuals, which says a lot about the state of SC2.

Like I said, I could talk for days about this, but the reason I brought it up at all is I see striking parallels between it and X-wing, in particular since the release of the third faction. All I can say is my history with SC2 has given me a lot of patience with FAQ "balance patches" in X-wing. If they were brought out as often as people cried for them, this game would have died a death many, many waves ago.

1 hour ago, SabineKey said:

While I understand and share your concern about recent Imperial performance, I would encourage you to give them more time. We're just a week and a half from when the FAQ went into effect. Once people get a feel for how Palp and x7 work now, we might see them return (emphasis on might, no assurances). Plus, there are other builds, featuring the likes of the SF, that are showing promise and might be good enough to go for top table.

I don't want to pass these off as assurances that everything is fine. The recent system opens were worrying. But we are still in an adjustment period. Give people time, and we may see the Empire rise again without aid.

Heh, and if they don't, I do have a pitchfork.

Yeah will do. Currently trying to get a competitive TIE/D list off the ground. Vessery with Expertise is proving powerful.

2 minutes ago, Johen Dood said:

Yeah will do. Currently trying to get a competitive TIE/D list off the ground. Vessery with Expertise is proving powerful.

Expensive, but oh man, does it hit like a truck. What cannon?