Just now, VanorDM said:

And you get to say this why? Who made you the person who decides what other people find fun?

No it actually doesn't, at least not in tournament games. If I go to a tournament the amount of fun the other guy has is not my problem, or responsibility. If we're talking about casual games, then if something isn't fun for both parties then why are they playing it? If it's only fun for one person then why does the other person's fun count for more?

If someone is playing a list someone else finds frustrating or not enjoyable, then they have every right to ask not demand that they play something else. Just like the other person has every right to refuse. Which may end up mean neither person gets to play, but that's the nature of human interaction.

The problem is people here are asking that something they don't happen to like gets changed and the opinion of anyone who likes it simply doesn't matter. The only reason anything should ever be nerfed is because it's unhealthy for the game as a whole. Most times that also means whatever it is isn't much fun to play against, but that doesn't mean that just because someone finds something unenjoyable means it needs to be nerfed.

I didn't say you are responsible for your opponent's fun, but that the game developers are. Are you even reading at this point or just flaying at your keyboard ?

Just now, DreadStar said:

i am discussing the merits on doing adjusments to keep the game funnier or less frustrating for a chunk of the playerbase.

when you claim to speak for the majority, it is not a strawman to call you out for making that claim.

11 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

Die just like other ships? Not with pre-nerf x7 and Palpatine.

Homing Missiles are a good counter to that sort of list.

Just now, VanorDM said:

when you claim to speak for the majority, it is not a strawman to call you out for making that claim.

Where did i claim i spoke for the majority ? Quote.

1 minute ago, DreadStar said:

I didn't say you are responsible for your opponent's fun, but that the game developers are.

Really?

Quote

Or do you think people's fun playing a 1on1 game is not related to their opponent or opponent's list in any way ?

You don't mention the Dev's in that thread, and make it fairly clear that you're talking about the other guys list.

1 minute ago, DreadStar said:

Where did i claim i spoke for the majority ? Quote.

I did, in the post you quoted... If you're not claiming to speak for the majority then you have absolutely no argument at all. Because if a minority of the population don't like something then there's no reason to change it, since that means the majority does.

1 - Yep really. I am still waiting on a response to why "warping out the meta" is any different to "making the game less fun". Is it the spirit or something equally esotheric ?

2 - Do i need to specify that i am talking about game developers when we are talking about game's balance who are the only ones in control to pursue such changes if they deem it ? Context matters and it's important if you really want to understand what i am saying rather than twist it.

3 - And this is the strawman. I didn't, i said that a majority can think X way, not the majority feel X way. The difference should be obvious, specially since i am not talking about any specific case for you to lap on.

Well, point one is generally backed up with tournament data...

My only thing is that these threads are usually done by people trying to be amateur game designers. Who have no business in designing for this game.

10 minutes ago, Sithborg said:

Well, point one is generally backed up with tournament data...

My only thing is that these threads are usually done by people trying to be amateur game designers. Who have no business in designing for this game.

Yes, but why is it changed ? Because data over a large amount of time can tell you that X builds are very strong. But why are they too strong ? Do they limit options ? But why is it important to have more options ? Why is it important to change the meta ? The answer ranges widely, one of them is because if meta stalls, fun decreases over time. Perception of balance is very important for the fun in any competitive setting, and so do shaking things up.

About your other point, i largely agree.

54 minutes ago, VanorDM said:

Especially when a lot of it is nothing more then "Please nerf paper, scissors are fine."

I might be poking the dragon a bit; if so, my apologies in advance, but it feels like a Friday here. Anyway, what I think you meant to type might go better as, "please nerf paper, rocks are fine."

5 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

1 hour ago, VanorDM said:

Especially when a lot of it is nothing more then "Please nerf paper, scissors are fine."

I might be poking the dragon a bit; if so, my apologies in advance, but it feels like a Friday here. Anyway, what I think you meant to type might go better as, "please nerf paper, rocks are fine."

I'm pretty sure he meant exact what he said speaking as the Rock player.

The idea being that everyone thinks Rock is fine, if boring, so there is no discussion about rock needing to change. Now as a player of Rock I really what that flighty paper to just go away so that I can now beat it down to a pulp instead of getting blanketed by it. Of course I think the sharp edges of scissors are perfectly fine because they don't even scratch me; that I have little trouble beating them down doesn't mean there is anything wrong with them.

Now if you are Paper or Scissors you will completely disagree with Rocks assesment of things. Paper may agree that Rock is fine but finds Rock's idea that it needs to be nerfed asinine and that Scissors are the one that needs the nerf. Scissor on the other hand completely disagrees with Rock thinking that Paper is fine but Rock is really the one that needs to be nerfed despite seeming so perfect.

15 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

Anyway, what I think you meant to type might go better as, "please nerf paper, rocks are fine."

StevenO covered it pretty well, but I meant it like I said it, I think.

The issue quite often is someone who plays a given archetype in this case Rocks, doesn't care for paper since paper always beats it. So they want paper nerfed. Scissors on the other hand always loses to rock so the rock player thinks scissors are just fine.

26 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

I might be poking the dragon a bit; if so, my apologies in advance, but it feels like a Friday here. Anyway, what I think you meant to type might go better as, "please nerf paper, rocks are fine."

8 minutes ago, VanorDM said:

StevenO covered it pretty well, but I meant it like I said it, I think.

The issue quite often is someone who plays a given archetype in this case Rocks, doesn't care for paper since paper always beats it. So they want paper nerfed. Scissors on the other hand always loses to rock so the rock player thinks scissors are just fine.

I am just not sharp today, I guess. I see you and StevenO's point now to be sure. If I played rocks and I wanted to win, I'd want paper nerfed as it is the only thing that beats me; I would want people to leave my rock alone....plus, I don't care about scissors, I beat them all the time; I wouldn't even mention them. I think we said the same thing, just emphasis was on different points; I didn't mention scissors as they don't matter to the person quoted at all.

You guys are great....and far smarter.

Um, is it 5:00 somewhere yet?

8 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

I am just not sharp today, I guess. I see you and StevenO's point now to be sure. If I played rocks and I wanted to win, I'd want paper nerfed as it is the only thing that beats me; I would want people to leave my rock alone....plus, I don't care about scissors, I beat them all the time; I wouldn't even mention them. I think we said the same thing, just emphasis was on different points; I didn't mention scissors as they don't matter to the person quoted at all.

You guys are great....and far smarter.

Um, is it 5:00 somewhere yet?

And Paper REJOICES as Scissors suffer a nerf in that they are not sharp enough to cut through it like they once did!

Leaving Scissors out of the discussion makes them seem unimportant and to Rock they aren't. Now if Rock can just convince the powers that Paper need to be nerfed somehow they'll win more. Rock doesn't even care if the nerf to Paper is to make Scissor much better against Paper because Rock still beats scissors.

One could say that in a healthy metagame neither Rock, Paper, or Scissors will dominate globally but locally it is entirely possible. If a lot of Rock gets played the the smart players move to Paper to defeat Rock; this shifts the Rock meta toward Paper which then leads to a rise in Scissors which were getting pounded down in the Rock meta. Of course as Paper is cut to pieces by Scissors that allows Rock to move back into the meta. Thus things turn around unless they somehow achieve a perfect balance which may not take much to upset and start things moving again.

9 hours ago, Jadotch said:

If you want all things and everything to be equal, play Chess. (A great game in its own right! But that is not why I play X-Wing.)

Nonsense. Knights are clearly overpowered and need Nerfed. They are only worth 3 points, the same as a bishop, yet they are the only piece in the game that can jump over other pieces. That's using a 3rd dimension in an otherwise 2-D game! Plus, whoever heard of a 'bishop fork'?

2 hours ago, Scopes said:

The game is better because lists are gone? I don't agree.

And yes, those are lists that are not that exciting to play against, but to me that's not a reason to change them to the point that noone thinks they're good or competitive. Sometimes life is just messy. We power through it, no?

Of course, we should just let the game's infected wounds fester. God forbid FFG uses pen and ink errata to fix a problem with the game. Yeah, the game sucks, but we should just power through, right?

Those lists/ships changed the game to the point where they prevented more things than just themselves from being good or competitive, or they killed off the counters to other power builds and propelled that one to the top. If you kill/"kill" one list to save multiple, you've improved the game.

"kill" being in scare quotes because the Phantom, fat turrets, defenders, palpatine, etc. are still playable, they just aren't autopilot anymore. Some people with zero talent like to bemoan that their autopilot list is no longer competitive. Or they're flying a different autopilot list and magically never saw a problem with the one that got nerfed.

"The Phantom isn't broken." smiles and goes back to playing fat han

7 hours ago, Lampyridae said:

I'd rather you not Godwin's Law this. Knowingly invoked or not.

Godwin's Law only states that as an online discussion goes on, the chances of a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis approaches 1.

It wasn't meant as a discussion ender, and it makes no comment on if the comparison was a valid one.

The one that was used most certainly was a ridiculous comparison, but you can't just use it as a tool to stop a discussion you don't like. You know who else stopped discussions they didn't like? The Nazis.

I edited my original post to point out again that this thread never said suggestions/whining are forbidden. And yes sometimes required. What I am saying, and again, im pretty confident that a huge portion of forum readers agree as well, is that there is absolutely NO REASON not to make it a dedicated subforum.

You can post a 10000 threads a day, every single one of our aspiring game designers can post his own thread about an x-wing fix. Go do it THERE. You can have discussions, and if you think devs are taking your solutions into consideration, then by all means this is better, they ll know where to go to get community feedback.

I repeat, I have yet to see a single argument against this. The conversation has derailed to talking about whining itself. I am not here to discuss this, or its importance/necessity. I am waiting for an argument against creating a subforum. And I will also add, if whining/theorycrafting/suggesting is such an important and huge part of the game, why in the world should it not have a dedicated subforum? There ARE subforums already, its nothing new, so again, I am waiting for a single person to tell me why should we not use the forum structure we have, when there are zero negative consequences in doing so.

Please give us that! So tired of nerf posts on front page...

Question: for all of those who hate seeing the threads about balance ("nerfs") on the front page, what DO you like to see on the front page? Because I recently just did a quick survey of the first three pages of the forums, and less than 1/3 were threads about balance issues, but there really wasn't a ton of great content in the other 2/3 of posts either, exactly. And some of those threads were dozens of posts long threads about Rebels the cartoon show and a gunship joke that got unfunny four years and seven waves ago.


So, what would be everyone's opinion of ideal X-Wing Forum content? If we had a better idea of this, maybe community members could work toward generating better content.

7 minutes ago, haritos said:

I edited my original post to point out again that this thread never said suggestions/whining are forbidden. And yes sometimes required. What I am saying, and again, im pretty confident that a huge portion of forum readers agree as well, is that there is absolutely NO REASON not to make it a dedicated subforum.

You can post a 10000 threads a day, every single one of our aspiring game designers can post his own thread about an x-wing fix. Go do it THERE. You can have discussions, and if you think devs are taking your solutions into consideration, then by all means this is better, they ll know where to go to get community feedback.

I repeat, I have yet to see a single argument against this. The conversation has derailed to talking about whining itself. I am not here to discuss this, or its importance/necessity. I am waiting for an argument against creating a subforum. And I will also add, if whining/theorycrafting/suggesting is such an important and huge part of the game, why in the world should it not have a dedicated subforum? There ARE subforums already, its nothing new, so again, I am waiting for a single person to tell me why should we not use the forum structure we have, when there are zero negative consequences in doing so.

Because the people that whine about the complainers want to shove discussion they don't like into a dead subforum. No one would ever go there, all the threads would die after getting a handful of replies.

The reason it turned into a discussion about the nerfing/whining itself is because one side wants to silence the other because they absolutely cannot stand complaints no matter how valid they are. Instead of creating worthwhile content that can compete with the threads they disagree with, they'd rather just silence them.

18 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

So, what would be everyone's opinion of ideal X-Wing Forum content? If we had a better idea of this, maybe community members could work toward generating better content.

Well, the stuff that I have tried to ignite. Let's take the Raider, assume you want to use one of the three titles, and optimize a build.

It's not a list build per se, because we are only talking about the Huge ship in the list. OK, so you can say people aren't interested in Epic play, but why not look at the options. A lot of people have the ship because the "needed" Palpatine. Maybe, just maybe, after you've gotten a little creative with the ship design you might leave Palps at home with the babysitter and take the Raider out for a spin next weekend.

Talk about "Tier 4." What can be done with a pair of HWKs? Talk about ideas for the less used pilots. Leave Dash out of it. . .what are other ways to use a YT-2400? Don't talk about the perfect list. Theorycraft a single pilot, then let people assemble a list around that idea.

Talk about House Rules. How do you play that is not official? There were a lot of great ideas for squadrons in the "Streamlining Epic Play Thread." Come up with ideas for a space station. Mines that are placed instead of asteroids. Point defense satellites.

Talk about the game in terms of creativity, choice and concepts. (Hey, now it's like diamonds! Discuss the 3 Cs of XWM and make this game glitter!!)

56 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

no matter how valid they are.

If the complaint threads actually welcomed debate on the issue, then they may actually be worth reading. Instead they tend to react like you do and attack anyone who disagrees with them, calls them WAAC jerks or the like and dismisses anyone who dares to question their opinion.

But around here it's gotten to the point of being an echo chamber where about the only one who posts in the whine threads are the people whining, because any disagreement is shouted down. That or the people who would disagree have moved on because they're sick of the negative posts that seem to make up the bulk of the posts around here.

After a number of years here I'm to the point I simply don't even bother to read most of the sky is falling posts, because I've been there, done that and it's the same old argument over and over again.

But yes the latest round of nerfs have absolutely made it worse around here because everyone who has an ax to grind with some list they don't like feels if they shout loud and long enough the Dev's will cave in to their demands. The fact that such a thing will never happens make them even more pointless and not worth the time to read, which again reinforces the false sense of majority opinion that some people seem to think they have.

1 hour ago, Turbo Toker said:

Because the people that whine about the complainers want to shove discussion they don't like into a dead subforum. No one would ever go there, all the threads would die after getting a handful of replies.

The reason it turned into a discussion about the nerfing/whining itself is because one side wants to silence the other because they absolutely cannot stand complaints no matter how valid they are. Instead of creating worthwhile content that can compete with the threads they disagree with, they'd rather just silence them.

Here we go, another statement with zero backing up. It is amazing how many assumptions you managed to fill into 3 sentences. Man seriously, look at what you wrote. Then give us something concrete that is not based on your own bias and perception of the world.

7 hours ago, DreadStar said:

Ok, i am going to nitpick here. Not trying to be snarky or anything, but not liking something is a completely valid reason to wish it out of the game or its relevance toned down. Not liking something on a game is akin to"not finding it fun or exciting to play with or against", and we are talking about a game here, everything is related to fun, so if something is not fun for a good chunk of the player pool it's completely reasonable to throw it under a bus (ie: pre-nerf phantom). It's because they might feel their fun thinking/`playing Xwing is now less exciting than before and they will attempt to rationalize it and find answers, sometimes wrong and sometimes right, but most of the time innaccurate. If we weren't that antagonizing in the forums we could, in my opinion, silence most unproductive or unrealistic criticism/expectations about the game.

How much this forum might represent the whole Xwing community is another matter of course (and not an easy one), and i also find unreasonable to ask you for evidence that FFG does not read the forums. We know they do, but we don't know how much weight it has and probably will never know (hopefully).

I don't think youre being snarky and you bring up some valid points.

I think we are talking about different sides of the same coin. Also, I stand by my quote you listed. Here's why.

When I was heavily into chess I absolutely hated facing a Ruy Lopez or Poison Pawn Sicilian Defense. For some reason I really struggled against them. I never quit when faced with them but I often lost. And being sandbagged by a player with an 1800 USCF rating didn't do much for my pride. I never won a game vs this freshman but I watched and learned and got a lot better. I loved playing chess with the group of guys I hhng out with. No happy dances no "You suck" comments, etc.

Fasr forward 40+ years and now I'm playing X-wing. Ruy Lopez and the Poison Pawn have been replaced by Soontir Fel and a TLT Y-Wing. I play three or four times a week, multiple games. I don't want Fell or the TLT nerfed or gone. I need to adjust my thinking and play style to my opponent's build. This is something that some players, especially new ones, don't do. I play vs some great guys. No happy dance no ball busting for stupid moves. But to paraphrase an old quote, "A bad day playing X-wing is better than a good day at work". Also, a lot of players are really bad at anticipating an opponent's moves or they immediately clear a stress or add any number of bad moves. This makes a bad situation worse.

Now what does this Old Fart's rant have to do with anything you said? I look at X-wing overall. That's my side of the coin. Some of the nefers are looking at the game on the table and don't like what they see, call for a nerf and claim "it will save X-wing". Most have a very narrow view of the game. They don't like having their squads shredded, don't know why, claim something is OP and call for a nerf. That's their side of the coin.

I'm pretty sure that FFG knows they made some mistakes early on in the development of X-wing. The pre-nerf Phantom being one. Their view of the game is even broader than mine. If I'm looking at one side of the coin, they're looking at the collection. They know what's in development and they're trying to figure out how the new fits with the old. Nerfers look at NOW. Which in my opinion is short sighted.

Turbo Toker was the one who asked me to provide evidence that FFG doesn't follow the forums. Years ago the engineering firm I worked for farmed me out to another company. My desk was located in a bullpen with a whole slew of engineers. They were all working on different things but all of them had one thing in common, page numbered, bound engineering notebooks. Bound and numbered so pages couldn't be added or removed without it being obvious. Of course I had to ask, why. The answer was, in case of litigation, these notebooks would be key evidence of when and how ideas came about and a timeline of their development. My comments about FFG not following the forums was made from the designer's perspective. I'm sure someone from FFG peruses the forums but the designers don't.

Viewing the other side of the coin here's somethings I don't like. Over costed Rebels, Rebel generics without an EPT slot, freighters with agility that meets or exceeds that of fighters and, you get the idea. I understand the "why" of it but I'm not happy with all of it. If FFG designed that stat line like aircraft in the real world are designed the movement dials would be very, very boring.

I don't have a problem with people expressing their opinions on facets on the game. Maybe it's the way they present them in written word but a lot come off as whiny demands with the death of X-wing imminent. This especially applies to new players on game mechanics that have been around since the beginning.

One other thing I'd like to mention that's a bit off topic. Some players, especially new ones, develop bad habits. In poker they're called "tells". One obvious one is immediately doing a green maneuver after getting a stress. If your opponent keeps quiet about this you're going to lose a lot of ships and games and may blame your losses on an OP upgrade.

16 minutes ago, haritos said:

Here we go, another statement with zero backing up. It is amazing how many assumptions you managed to fill into 3 sentences. Man seriously, look at what you wrote. Then give us something concrete that is not based on your own bias and perception of the world.

Zero backing it up? This whole thread is (supposed to be) about creating a subforum to put all the nerf threads into.

And look at how many people in this thread hate complaining no matter how valid. They just don't want to hear things they disagree with.