16 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Which I think is what a lot of people are trying to do.

It's all subjective, of course. What I find perplexing is that when significant errata has been made in the past it has almost without exception led to (what I think many people subjectively consider to be) a more interesting metagame and yet a number of people are utterly resistant to even considering any future changes.

Which speaks to how sparing FFG are with errata and how well-judged most of their rule changes have been. It doesn't make every Han, Luke and Vader's constant banging on about their own pet peeves any more legitimate or any less wearying.

1 minute ago, VanorDM said:

Tournament data which is what FFG actually uses to base their decisions upon.

The fact that something is not fun and/or boring is not the reason why FFG makes changes, they make changes because those things are warping the meta. The fact that people don't like them is a symptom of the issue, but is not itself reason enough for FFG to change something.

Fair enough.

I think though that it's maybe not the best practice. There are many similar games that failed or never caught on as much as X-Wing. The reason for this, as a recent thread showed (Would you play if it wasn't Star Wars?) is in part how the players feel about the game compared to others. So X-Wing is a game where the feelings of the players are more important than the hard facts.

Tournament results are certainly valuable pieces of data but they don't always tell the whole story. Even the most base of complaining and whinging helps give color to those results by providing not the what but the why. If a given archetype/ship isn't showing up on the top tables then is it because?

• It's underpowered
• It's not fun to play
• It's on average fine but has a few incredibly bad matchups
• It itself is fine but there is a purely better alternative

What and how people are complaining about things helps you decide how to fix it. That doesn't mean you consider the forum opinions (and certainly not the suggestions) to be a statistically significant dataset but it's better than none of that data at all. Even non constructive feedback can be constructive when taken in aggregate.

When I started the game I didn't realise so much 'X is nerfed', 'is X competitive' and general 'meta' chat there was going to be.

To be honest I would much rather everyone talked about to fly and more game-based tactics than just list building and which ships you can't use. But I am a total noob.

Just now, ayedubbleyoo said:

To be honest I would much rather everyone talked about to fly and more game-based tactics than just list building and which ships you can't use. But I am a total noob.

If you build it, they will come!

Be the change you want.

19 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Fair enough.

I think though that it's maybe not the best practice. There are many similar games that failed or never caught on as much as X-Wing. The reason for this, as a recent thread showed (Would you play if it wasn't Star Wars?) is in part how the players feel about the game compared to others. So X-Wing is a game where the feelings of the players are more important than the hard facts.

But then you have to deal with conflicting feelings. I think parts of the recent nerfing went too far, while others think they are just right. Who's feelings are more important? I don't like the Stressbot and think it should go away, but another person thinks it should get a buff because it's not doing well enough. Who is right?

In the end, going with hard facts means that at least FFG doesn't have to figure out who's feelings are more valid. There is already talk of them showing favoritism. How much worse would that be if they were going by people's feelings instead of tournament data?

25 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

If you build it, they will come!

Be the change you want.

I'll try, once I know anything!

Actually the experience of playing people in my local store has been really good.

Just now, SabineKey said:

But then you have to deal with conflicting feelings. I think parts of the recent nerfing went too far, while others think they are just right. Who's feelings are more important? I don't like the Stressbot and think it should go away, but another person thinks it should get a buff because it's not doing well enough. Who is right?

In this case the customers, probably a combination of current and potential market. Also when I say best practice, I mean for FFG, not necessarily as customer.

X-Wing is not a success because it's a good game. It's a success because it's a sufficiently good enough Star Wars game.
Any development that reduces the "Star Wars"-part will cost them, and that's entirely feelings-based. Same with "fun". A great game that's no fun is useless.

So X-Wing needs to be fun to play, and it needs to bring the Star Wars feeling. The rest is a plus, but not as necessary as those two. Both criteria are dependent on feelings, not on hard facts. And in both cases the majority decides.

It's not what I wish it to be myself, but I'm quite convinced of this by now.

1 hour ago, sf1raptor said:

I just have to say it. I'm getting sick and tired of hear that this or that is destroying this game, or that "x" squad is way too strong, especially if it's just an annoying squad to beat. Look, I don't play tournament and fly whatever the heck I want to, but I also like to see what's popular. Then I see the almost mandatory "x" is to strong thread, look at some of it, and wonder why. I know some cards have had problems, but stuff like TLT is beatable (I'm a VERY aggressive pilot in this game) and I still don't see the big problem with /x7 pre FAC. And that's all I've got.

Maybe we should take the "X" out of X-Wing and call it "Everything's O-K-Wing."

1 hour ago, VanorDM said:

I know it's also the reason a lot of fairly popular posters are not here at all anymore.

Although, in general, I will say the tenor of these boards is A LOT more civil than it was about 6-8 months ago. And, to all my fellow forumites, I like to say a big "thank you" for that.

1 hour ago, Piscopas said:

I'm sick of Twi'lek pin-up girls slapped on the side of everything,

That's odd. I kewl with it.

1 hour ago, VanorDM said:

Even that can get old after a while. Especially when it's every week we see two to three topics on the same thing.

Plus most stuff here is so highly subjective that it really isn't constructive. The fact that someone finds a given type of list or lists with a given upgrade in it boring to play against is not constructive.

What frustrates me the most are the criticism thread about stuff that hasn't even be released yet. Ergo, the infamous DOA proclamations.

1 hour ago, Space Dragn said:

Agreed. There is simply not enough threads around that I actually want to read.

I have asked for a Casual/Epic subforum before. I really think it would be nice to have a spot for people to talk about the game and the fun they are having with it as a private little chat corner.

49 minutes ago, IG88E said:

If you do not respond to threads like that than they will go down in 1-2 days. Just don't feed them.

Especially anything started by Shadow345.

42 minutes ago, VanorDM said:

Lately it seems like I skim the main board here and find maybe 2-3 topics actually worth reading and fewer actually worth responding to.

Yep. But usually the 2-3 topics are fairly engaging, at least for a couple of days until it gets sidetracked by the usual mumbo-jumbo.

26 minutes ago, ayedubbleyoo said:

To be honest I would much rather everyone talked about to fly and more game-based tactics than just list building and which ships you can't use. But I am a total noob.

Agreed. I have never played a game before where everyone talked about the meta and acted like they were a designer. There are too few threads about simply being the end-user.

TBF Shadow345's last thread spawned one of the most constructive discussions and outcomes this place has ever seen

1 hour ago, Stay On The Leader said:

We should never be tired of constructive criticism.

But how much constructive criticism is there actually? *See latest thread on the boards "tlt is destroying x-wing."* period. no justification. just hyperbole.

8 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

In this case the customers, probably a combination of current and potential market. Also when I say best practice, I mean for FFG, not necessarily as customer.

X-Wing is not a success because it's a good game. It's a success because it's a sufficiently good enough Star Wars game.
Any development that reduces the "Star Wars"-part will cost them, and that's entirely feelings-based. Same with "fun". A great game that's no fun is useless.

So X-Wing needs to be fun to play, and it needs to bring the Star Wars feeling. The rest is a plus, but not as necessary as those two. Both criteria are dependent on feelings, not on hard facts. And in both cases the majority decides.

It's not what I wish it to be myself, but I'm quite convinced of this by now.

Okay, but that still doesn't address the slippery slope feelings are.

Take the feels like Star Wars aspect. There are people here who think that if it's not in the movies, it's not Star Wars. But, you also have people who are into all the other Star Wars media and like some of their favorite ships and characters are represented in this game. Heck, I've heard several people say they got into X-Wing because of the Scum faction and the ships it brings to the table. Both are valid points of view, but are opposing.

and the fun aspect is super iffy. I would argue that strong mechanics and reasonably balanced play makes a game fun. I'm a Star Trek fan too, but I'm not into Attack Wing because everything I've seen makes it look like a mess. Not unplayable, but not well balanced. I also have some more feeling based issues with Attack Wing (omg, the scale), but I think I could overcome that if I thought the mechanics were good enough.

In the end, all FFG can rely on is making sure the mechanics work well enough. The Star Wars feel and fun are dependent on each individual playing.

22 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Maybe we should take the "X" out of X-Wing and call it "Everything's O-K-Wing."

Yes!

Just now, SabineKey said:

Okay, but that still doesn't address the slippery slope feelings are.

Take the feels like Star Wars aspect. There are people here who think that if it's not in the movies, it's not Star Wars. But, you also have people who are into all the other Star Wars media and like some of their favorite ships and characters are represented in this game. Heck, I've heard several people say they got into X-Wing because of the Scum faction and the ships it brings to the table. Both are valid points of view, but are opposing.

and the fun aspect is super iffy. I would argue that strong mechanics and reasonably balanced play makes a game fun. I'm a Star Trek fan too, but I'm not into Attack Wing because everything I've seen makes it look like a mess. Not unplayable, but not well balanced. I also have some more feeling based issues with Attack Wing (omg, the scale), but I think I could overcome that if I thought the mechanics were good enough.

In the end, all FFG can rely on is making sure the mechanics work well enough. The Star Wars feel and fun are dependent on each individual playing.

I don't mean to say that mechanics are meaningless. But apparently they are less important - because X-Wing is more successfull than the others.

As for the slippery slope: you are completely right. That's why I said FFG would have to base it on the "majority", where this majority is made of current and potential players.
Even if feel and fun are dependent on each individual playing, there probably exists a bell curve-like distribution of these feelings (or a bit more complicated, but you get the idea), and FFG would try to get as many as possible. And that's done by mechanics.

Personally I believe that additional game modes would be able to statisfy more customers, like the OT Tournament that's happening soon in Toronto.

59 minutes ago, VanorDM said:

Tournament data which is what FFG actually uses to base their decisions upon.

The fact that something is not fun and/or boring is not the reason why FFG makes changes, they make changes because those things are warping the meta. The fact that people don't like them is a symptom of the issue, but is not itself reason enough for FFG to change something.

If complaints, or even constructive criticism was enough, TLT's would've been changed some time ago, since there's been no one single upgrade that has as many complaints that I can think of... But instead we're getting yet another ship that has them included. That's pretty strong evidence that FFG doesn't care much about what's said here, because if they did the Tie Aggressor wouldn't have one.

It's entirely possible FFG puts some stock in forum complaints if they are backed by people also 'complaining' with their pocket.

If people complain but the game keeps growing at a steady pace then I think it's all white noise to FFG.

However if people complain and they also stop buying or buy less to an extent that's noticeable in their data, then I'm pretty sure they'd look into the cause.

2 hours ago, sf1raptor said:

Look, I ... fly whatever the heck I want to, but I also like to see what's popular.

So, you want to have your cake and eat it too?

1 hour ago, ayedubbleyoo said:

When I started the game I didn't realise so much 'X is nerfed', 'is X competitive' and general 'meta' chat there was going to be.

To be honest I would much rather everyone talked about to fly and more game-based tactics than just list building and which ships you can't use. But I am a total noob.

I think it's very hard to describe the table situations which dominate what you describe with the tools we have on this forum, whereas it's easy to have an in-depth discussion on ships and upgrade cards.

19 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

So, you want to have your cake and eat it too?

I'm intrigued. Could you explain why you think this is what he is saying?

8 minutes ago, Panzeh said:

I think it's very hard to describe the table situations which dominate what you describe with the tools we have on this forum, whereas it's easy to have an in-depth discussion on ships and upgrade cards.

I'll give you that. The couple times I tried I felt like I was writing a lab report about the experiment I just did in chemistry class. Too long, too fussy, and without all the details not easy to communicate.

Of course, there could also be threads about "I did this Gozanti build and here's what worked and didn't" rather than a complete battle report.

2 hours ago, NH Gunsmith said:

Fair enough. But there seems to be a lot that isn't constructive as well, just complaining for the sake of complaining.

Preach it. Oh, and yes to the OP.

1 hour ago, Stay On The Leader said:

TBF Shadow345's last thread spawned one of the most constructive discussions and outcomes this place has ever seen

True, but he had absolutely no part in doing that. It was a complete troll thread (hence why shadow345 never responds besides a simple opening thread sentence) that the rest of the community turned into something positive with good discussion. The rest of the community made that thread decent. Although someone has to start the fire in order for others to put it out.

2 hours ago, IG88E said:

If you do not respond to threads like that than they will go down in 1-2 days. Just don't feed them.

1 hour ago, SabineKey said:

I think we see more today because people think FFG buckled to part of the forums cries for nerfing the big four, therefore if they yell what they wanted nerfed loud enough and often enough, it will be taken care of too. This is unfortunate as FFG looks at tournament results for indications of game health, not here.

There are too many of these "X is ruining X-Wing" thread along with the "X NEEDS to be nerfed for the sake of the game" type threads.

Ignoring them would be great except that then feeds into "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" where all you are seeing is the opinions of those who think whatever is overpowered. If 100 people are to say X is BROKEN and no one else says anything to the contrary then they must be correct, right? OF COURSE NOT! Maybe there are only 100 people who think X is broken and ALL of them say something yet everyone else just stays away from those radicals which unfortunately leaves those vocal few in the majority of expressed opinion.

I should probably leave politics out of it but the last US election really shows why you need to speak up if you disagree even if it seems everyone else is onboard with another viewpoint. Less than 1/3 of the possible US voters are responsible for the outcome of the election because at least that many more remained silent on the issue instead of backing someone else who most likely had more agreeable, but far less publicised views.

56 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

So, you want to have your cake and eat it too?

Not quite. There are some builds, like Party Bus, that I like and/or rebuilt into what I like to fly, like turning the Party Bus into what I call the Crit Bus. I also like seeing how people are using new ships or ships I'm thinking about getting.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

X-Wing is not a success because it's a good game. It's a success because it's a sufficiently good enough Star Wars game

I want to make this my signature.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

I don't mean to say that mechanics are meaningless. But apparently they are less important - because X-Wing is more successfull than the others.

As for the slippery slope: you are completely right. That's why I said FFG would have to base it on the "majority", where this majority is made of current and potential players.
Even if feel and fun are dependent on each individual playing, there probably exists a bell curve-like distribution of these feelings (or a bit more complicated, but you get the idea), and FFG would try to get as many as possible. And that's done by mechanics.

Personally I believe that additional game modes would be able to statisfy more customers, like the OT Tournament that's happening soon in Toronto.

The problem with going with a majority is that you rarely actually get the majority, but instead get caught up in the vocal minority. Look at politics for examples of this. As shown in some of the comments here, not everyone is participating in discussions because they view the discussions as mostly whining and name calling. Some of my personal friends whose opinion on X-Wing I value highly don't comment much anymore because they view most of the threads as garbage fires.

And finally (probably not a popular opinion, but I'm going with it anyway), people on a forum are not a good design committee. While there are individuals on here that have a good head for aspects of the game, have experience in game design, etc., there are more who have no background in game design and have a poor understanding of what the mechanics are intended to do. I've seen tons of posts saying that things would be better if x was changed to this, and they haven't even tested it.

In the end, I fear that trusting the majority would end in mob rule from people with questionable qualifications and more costs for FFG, who would have to better moderate the forums, and hire more analysts to compile and interpret the data.

Now, a point I'm sure someone would point out is that tournament results is also a limited sample base as it is focuses on just the competitive player base. This is true, but the more casual player base has already proven to be fine with changing things in the rules to suit how they want to fly.

I do agree more game modes would be a good thing. I recently went to a generics only tournament and found the atmosphere to be excited at having to build lists differently. While I think it is good to have a standard, unrestricted base tournament style, more options is a good thing.