12 minutes ago, fiesta0618 said:

That suits the competitive player fine. But the casual player might be daunted by a list as "strong" as the one the competitive player brings; or if it's a non-standard build, one that was nonetheless designed to hang with the strongest lists. It can create a feeling of "pressure to perform" that they don't want from their games, or a feeling of helplessness at the outset. Some people just don't relish facing obvious uphill climbs in a gaming environment. Everyone is different.

Speaking as a competitive player myself, my usual solution to this is to play a B-list that is similar, but not as synergistic or well-oiled, as the one I had in mind. I still get to practice all of the strategic and piloting skills that I need for high-end play, but even a flawless performance on my part is less likely to leave my opponent feeling blown away--which is an experience that nobody likes, even the most determined casuals.

I agree. I like building my own lists and flying different stuff, but I don't like feeling as though I'm fighting with one hand behind my back.

If you want to succeed and compete on a somewhat level playing field in a competitive game, you should either be playing a top-tier list that you practice a bunch with, or you should fly and practice the crap out of an unorthodox list that is still powerful, even if it is not a top-tier list. I don't think that those should be the only two options to play a fair-seeming game of x-wing.

14 minutes ago, DerekT said:

Some people like getting blown away. It's a chance to see a new squad in action, see new strategies, to learn, and to grow as a player. And yeah, everyone is different. Some people don't want to get better, ...and I don't see why anyone should really be concerned with catering to them.

I want to stress, again, that there is nothing objectively wrong with your opinion. Just bear in mind that this approach leverages your local community without contributing to it positively. It lets you "get yours," but at the risk of doing so at someone else's expense.

To say it another way, I think that, as a competitive player, it is a positive move to take the initiative to identify when your opponent is NOT looking for something competitive. Competitive players are pretty easy to satisfy--we'll play any game against anything anytime. Even if it's a scrub game against a scrub player, we're getting our reps. You allude to this yourself.

What to do then varies, after having determined that your prospective opponent does not want a high-end "competitive" game. Maybe you pick a different list, maybe you don't play them and look for a like-minded opponent. Maybe you play them anyway, despite everything; that's well within your rights and nobody can realistically argue otherwise, but it's hard to dispute that it isn't a particularly friendly thing to do.

1 minute ago, fiesta0618 said:

I want to stress, again, that there is nothing objectively wrong with your opinion. Just bear in mind that this approach leverages your local community without contributing to it positively. It lets you "get yours," but at the risk of doing so at someone else's expense.

To say it another way, I think that, as a competitive player, it is a positive move to take the initiative to identify when your opponent is NOT looking for something competitive. Competitive players are pretty easy to satisfy--we'll play any game against anything anytime. Even if it's a scrub game against a scrub player, we're getting our reps. You allude to this yourself.

What to do then varies, after having determined that your prospective opponent does not want a competitive game. Maybe you pick a different list, maybe you don't play them and look for a like-minded opponent. Maybe you play them anyway, despite everything; that's well within your rights and nobody can realistically argue otherwise, but it's hard to dispute that it isn't a particularly friendly thing to do.

So we've got one side willing to play against anything at any time, and another side that insists on their opponents playing a different way than what they wanted. ...Somehow the latter is supposed to be "casual"?

26 minutes ago, DerekT said:

Some people like getting blown away. It's a chance to see a new squad in action, see new strategies, to learn, and to grow as a player. And yeah, everyone is different. Some people don't want to get better, ...and I don't see why anyone should really be concerned with catering to them.

I doubt it, I doubt it, and your lack of empathy towards other players of this game is pretty evident.

12 minutes ago, DerekT said:

So we've got one side willing to play against anything at any time, and another side that insists on their opponents playing a different way than what they wanted. ...Somehow the latter is supposed to be "casual"?

Yes, indeed. Competitive behavior is emergent in human communities, and by its very nature competition pushes at the boundaries of the containing system. When you play competitively, the entire system is part of your domain. It's just that the portions of the system far from the extreme boundaries are usually dismissed as "not strong enough." For example, a skilled competitive player can do some amazing things with "subpar" lists, just because they have the knowledge, experience, and learned ability to push that list to its limits and squeeze every drop of performance from it. Nonetheless, that list is still not likely to perform strongly at a high-end competitive event, in which EVERYONE is pushing at the system's constraints and have chosen lists that natively live closer to the boundary.

Casual play, whether by deliberate choice or by chance, does not do this. The space it encompasses is--counter-intuitively--MORE constrained, not less. So it is an act of courtesy for us, as part of the pre-game chat, to discuss how close to the system boundaries the game should go, in order to align our expectations.

4 minutes ago, fiesta0618 said:

Yes, indeed. Competitive behavior is emergent in human communities, and by its very nature competition pushes at the boundaries of the containing system. When you play competitively, the entire system is part of your domain. It's just that the portions of the system far from the extreme boundaries are usually dismissed as "not strong enough." For example, a skilled competitive player can do some amazing things with "subpar" lists, just because they have the knowledge, experience, and learned ability to push that list to its limits and squeeze every drop of performance from it. Nonetheless, that list is still not likely to perform strongly at a high-end competitive event, in which EVERYONE is pushing at the system's constraints and have chosen lists that natively live closer to the boundary.

Casual play, whether by deliberate choice or by chance, does not do this. The space it encompasses is--counter-intuitively--MORE constrained, not less. So it is an act of courtesy for us, as part of the pre-game chat, to discuss how close to the system boundaries the game should go, in order to align our expectations.

And everyone is free to establish their own house rules (whether at home or playing at a store) for casual play. Literally nothing stops that.

Where the argument gets absurd is people saying FFG owes them professional support for their house rules.

11 minutes ago, DerekT said:

And everyone is free to establish their own house rules (whether at home or playing at a store) for casual play. Literally nothing stops that.

Where the argument gets absurd is people saying FFG owes them professional support for their house rules.

Actually such an absurd argument that I haven't seen anyone here using it, except you, of course.

The thread is about whether FFG could be preparing a campaign for X wing.
Not about "FFG shouldn't provide professional support to house rules" nor "FFG shouldn't provide professional support to anyone who doesn't play as I like to play".

16 hours ago, Timathius said:

Ah I see competitive players are ruining the game not competitive play. So, instead of disliking a style of play you are blaming people who enjoy it for ruining it gotcha. Makes it a lot better.

Blame is a strong word. Competitive players are acting in a logically consistent manner and in line with the stated rules of the game by wanting to minimize variance and so maximize the impact of their skill, even so those actions can be negative for the game at large. But while their actions may be the cause of problems with the system it's improper to ascribe blame to them, rather it points to flaws within the structure of the rules and compoinents. Either there's something driving them to act that way which should be fixed or acting that way shouldn't have a negative effect on the system.

Or to put it more succinctly... Don't hate the playa hate the game

45 minutes ago, DerekT said:

And everyone is free to establish their own house rules (whether at home or playing at a store) for casual play. Literally nothing stops that.

Where the argument gets absurd is people saying FFG owes them professional support for their house rules.

People can get together on their own and play for a prize at the end. FFG doesn't need to provide a venue and prizes. Now it is the same for all.

And professionally supported house rules aren't house rules any more, are they? They are an established part of the game that all players can have mutual access to and mutual understanding of.

1 hour ago, DerekT said:

So we've got one side willing to play against anything at any time, and another side that insists on their opponents playing a different way than what they wanted. ...Somehow the latter is supposed to be "casual"?

As you say before "all (the other person) should expect from you is to play by the rules, take their moves in a reasonable time, and maintain a basic level of decorum, beyond that, it's his fault if he can't find enjoyment in the game, because he's the unique and olny responsible for his ow fun."
If anyone doesn't want to play this way, then is the kind of person who doesn't want to get better... and you don't see why anyone should really be concerned with catering to them.

But thats no bad, is not empathy lacking, because you are willing to play against anything at any time, and the is the other who not, you are the good guy, yhe hero. But your'e willing only if you can play in your own terms, of course.

And if there are people who doesn't like to play allways this way, and they think that a campaign could be great and fun and usefull... well, is not for you, and you are the good guy, not the restrictive scoundrel who denies to be stomped by a pattarani just because he want to use T-65, and doesn't want to get better, so... No campaign for you, use the scenarios you allready have and let FFG concentrate only in the competitive play.

11 minutes ago, Makaze said:

Blame is a strong word. Competitive players are acting in a logically consistent manner and in line with the stated rules of the game by wanting to minimize variance and so maximize the impact of their skill, even so those actions can be negative for the game at large. But while their actions may be the cause of problems with the system it's improper to ascribe blame to them, rather it points to flaws within the structure of the rules and compoinents. Either there's something driving them to act that way which should be fixed or acting that way shouldn't have a negative effect on the system.

Or to put it more succinctly... Don't hate the playa hate the game

That's exactly right, which is why I used the Admin Law term "captured." When I say that FFG has been captured by competitive play, that is a criticism of FFG, not of competitive play. (For the actual Admin Law analogy, we would say that (illustrative) the EPA has been captured by the petroleum industry. It doesn't mean that the petroleum industry is acting unlawfully or even unethically ... it just means that instead of regulating things for the benefit of the environment, the EPA has fallen into regulating things for the benefit of the petroleum companies. (Again, this is illustrative only.))

FFG, instead of designing for the benefit of all players, has fallen into designing for the benefit of competitive play. (Meaning that they have consciously decided to increase reliability of upgrades and ships, which lessens variance, which pleases competitive players at the expense of more casual players.) This, BTW, is not an opinion. This is fact. Whether it's a fact that pleases you, displeases you, or about which you don't have much of an opinion ... well, that's probably heavily influenced by how important you consider it -- how much prestige it holds -- to consistently do well at X-Wing tournaments.

3 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

That's exactly right, which is why I used the Admin Law term "captured." When I say that FFG has been captured by competitive play, that is a criticism of FFG, not of competitive play. (For the actual Admin Law analogy, we would say that (illustrative) the EPA has been captured by the petroleum industry. It doesn't mean that the petroleum industry is acting unlawfully or even unethically ... it just means that instead of regulating things for the benefit of the environment, the EPA has fallen into regulating things for the benefit of the petroleum companies. (Again, this is illustrative only.))

FFG, instead of designing for the benefit of all players, has fallen into designing for the benefit of competitive play. (Meaning that they have consciously decided to increase reliability of upgrades and ships, which lessens variance, which pleases competitive players at the expense of more casual players.) This, BTW, is not an opinion. This is fact. Whether it's a fact that pleases you, displeases you, or about which you don't have much of an opinion ... well, that's probably heavily influenced by how important you consider it -- how much prestige it holds -- to consistently do well at X-Wing tournaments.

And for me the very fact that FFG is captured by competitve play is a point of praise, not a point of criticsm.
What is the point of official ruling of casual games? In those games anything can be regulated in friendly manner, without competitve tensions, by houseruling - because these games are without point of winning but instead their point is to "fooling around" or whatever.

Only casual thing that FFG could seriously attempt is some kind of campaign, similiar to Armada.

It's barely relevant. It's only relevant in so much as it might very tangentially support the OPs clear crusade to change the game to how 'he' wants it designed.

1 hour ago, Embir82 said:

And for me the very fact that FFG is captured by competitve play is a point of praise, not a point of criticsm.
What is the point of official ruling of casual games? In those games anything can be regulated in friendly manner, without competitve tensions, by houseruling - because these games are without point of winning but instead their point is to "fooling around" or whatever.

Only casual thing that FFG could seriously attempt is some kind of campaign, similiar to Armada.

You misunderstand what a 'casual' gamer is. That's not really your fault, though. Casual is not a very good descriptive term. It implies that a player is not invested in the game they are playing.

I think the most accurate way to describe what I mean, and what I think many others mean by 'casual' would be 'Not tournament oriented'. That's kind of a mouthful, but it better describes what casual players are, or more accurately, what they aren't. Casual play is play that is not intended to be part of or practice for tournament dominance. A casual player might attend a tournament, but not expect to win, or be trying fully to win. They prioritize their enjoyment of the game over their tournament success. Think of the term casual as a catch-all for people not interested in the competitive metagame.

This is not to say that a casual player doesn't care if they win, or that they are just fooling around. My experience is that casual players want to win, and they want to play well-made, balanced games. Sometimes they want to play thematic games. Sometimes they want to play something more abstract or zany, like x-wing mario kart. But they're always trying to win, and every game is well-served by a well-constructed and widely known rules structure.

1 hour ago, Embir82 said:

And for me the very fact that FFG is captured by competitve play is a point of praise, not a point of criticsm.
What is the point of official ruling of casual games? In those games anything can be regulated in friendly manner, without competitve tensions, by houseruling - because these games are without point of winning but instead their point is to "fooling around" or whatever.

Only casual thing that FFG could seriously attempt is some kind of campaign, similiar to Armada.

Ugh, seriously, it's like pulling teeth. Let's try bullet points.

We, The People of Non-Standard (sometimes known as "Casual") Play, In Order to Form a More Perfect Game. . .

1. Would like Epic to be a more considered part of the design process.

2. Would like elements of the game designed that expand beyond the Standard Game Format

3. Would like a fully fleshed Campaign Box

4. Would like these products to exist to create a Standardized Set of Rules so that All Non-Standard Play My Be Played Equally and Understood By All

5. We DO NOT expect TOs to show up in our living rooms to conduct assessments of Fair Play

6. We WILL continue to house rule and experiment despite Non-Standard-Game-Format products being made available.

7. We DO NOT wish to banish "Standard Play"

8. We want these things for All, and thus we want these things from FFG.

On ‎4‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 5:42 AM, Stay On The Leader said:

https://www.shutupandsitdown.com/review-android-netrunner-terminal-directive/

Give the first half of this a read, see if any of it sounds familiar or you have similar experiences.

I stopped playing Netrunner because of side games. This elegant game was utterly ruined and successfully bypassing a server's ice and getting to an agenda or something now only had a 1/3rd chance of success. I came up against that a few times and was like, "nope nope nope nope" and I stopped playing. And there was even someone who was telling me how side games didn't ruin the game and that there was strategy to it. Reminds me of what it was like to play X-Wing during wave 5.

A friend would repeatedly ask me if I wanted to play Netrunner, and I'd ask him if side games were still a thing. He'd say that they were, or that there was a hard counter card for them, or that no one plays side games anymore because there was something even more broken that hard countered all the side game players.

And then I'd see a card like Faust that was some obnoxious runner card that could just weaken any server's ice strength for credits (or something) and after having not played for a while, I'd say, "Well clearly that ruins the game".

The same thing happened to me with Warhammer Conquest. Excellent game, utterly ruined by cards like Warpstorm, Exterminatus, orbital drop platforms and the Tau leader that retreated as soon a battle started so that way you could just get the resources of all the ******* planets without actually having units there.

My friend and I came to the conclusion that FFG likes to take excellent games and utterly ruin them with trash game mechanics, and instead of actually banning cards and fixing the problem, they'll just pile another NPE on top of the problem. See: Fat turrets and Autothrusters.

The conclusion that the author comes to, that this is in part due to internet play, is false. If constant, repeated play is going to show you the game's flaws and point out what builds are best, that's because the game is flawed. Internet play is just a mechanism to reveal the truth.

Parallels can be drawn to X-Wing, with many players choosing to hate discussion of the meta and Mathwing and netlisting for pointing out the flaws/best builds instead of the actual game itself.

As a community though, it appears to be quite focused on the competitive side to the extend of ignoring house rules threads. I´ve created three threads in my time here, two or which presented ideas as house rules (a furball and an x wing thread), one as how it could be possible to apply a fix (Slave 1). The two house rule threads were looked at (132 for the recent X wing thread) and ignored. The Boba one was actively posted in.

Honestly, I like GW´ s laisse faire attitude to the game, and the encouragement of house rules, the story of the battle being the real objective. I also like the relative balance of this game in comparison, due to FFG´ s supervision. As a community though, surely we should be able to embrace both sides of the game. I´ d love to participate in tournies but I live at least a few thousand road miles from the nearest one (in South America) so I´ m happy to house rule in my local environment.

They don´ t need to be mutually exclusive....

24 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

I stopped playing Netrunner because of side games. This elegant game was utterly ruined and successfully bypassing a server's ice and getting to an agenda or something now only had a 1/3rd chance of success. I came up against that a few times and was like, "nope nope nope nope" and I stopped playing. And there was even someone who was telling me how side games didn't ruin the game and that there was strategy to it. Reminds me of what it was like to play X-Wing during wave 5.

A friend would repeatedly ask me if I wanted to play Netrunner, and I'd ask him if side games were still a thing. He'd say that they were, or that there was a hard counter card for them, or that no one plays side games anymore because there was something even more broken that hard countered all the side game players.

And then I'd see a card like Faust that was some obnoxious runner card that could just weaken any server's ice strength for credits (or something) and after having not played for a while, I'd say, "Well clearly that ruins the game".

The same thing happened to me with Warhammer Conquest. Excellent game, utterly ruined by cards like Warpstorm, Exterminatus, orbital drop platforms and the Tau leader that retreated as soon a battle started so that way you could just get the resources of all the ******* planets without actually having units there.

My friend and I came to the conclusion that FFG likes to take excellent games and utterly ruin them with trash game mechanics, and instead of actually banning cards and fixing the problem, they'll just pile another NPE on top of the problem. See: Fat turrets and Autothrusters.

The conclusion that the author comes to, that this is in part due to internet play, is false. If constant, repeated play is going to show you the game's flaws and point out what builds are best, that's because the game is flawed. Internet play is just a mechanism to reveal the truth.

Parallels can be drawn to X-Wing, with many players choosing to hate discussion of the meta and Mathwing and netlisting for pointing out the flaws/best builds instead of the actual game itself.

I agree it's endemic to FFGs design philosophy to inevitably break their games and that, once broken, they are reluctant to try and fix them.

35 minutes ago, Babaganoosh said:

You misunderstand what a 'casual' gamer is. That's not really your fault, though. Casual is not a very good descriptive term. It implies that a player is not invested in the game they are playing.

I think the most accurate way to describe what I mean, and what I think many others mean by 'casual' would be 'Not tournament oriented'. That's kind of a mouthful, but it better describes what casual players are, or more accurately, what they aren't. Casual play is play that is not intended to be part of or practice for tournament dominance. A casual player might attend a tournament, but not expect to win, or be trying fully to win. They prioritize their enjoyment of the game over their tournament success. Think of the term casual as a catch-all for people not interested in the competitive metagame.

This is not to say that a casual player doesn't care if they win, or that they are just fooling around. My experience is that casual players want to win, and they want to play well-made, balanced games. Sometimes they want to play thematic games. Sometimes they want to play something more abstract or zany, like x-wing mario kart. But they're always trying to win, and every game is well-served by a well-constructed and widely known rules structure.

Good description. I want to play and I want to play well and I try to win. I also want to play an interesting and "fair" game. I want to play for the sake of playing. I don't need tourney prizes or what have you to be invested in the game and want to win. I'm unlikely to ever use the phrase "a game not worth the candle."

I have so much else to say about this but don't really quite know where to begin. I'll just leave it at most of the guys around MtG when I was doing that were like how DerekT is coming across to me here. They'd throw around "git gud" and were always talking about how unplayable stuff was and patting themselves on the back for how awesome they were and running down not net-listed decks. But they never wanted to play games with the Duel Decks or the Intro/theme decks. They'd beat you badly a few times and you'd say, "I can't beat that deck. Do you have something else? No? I got some intro decks straight outta the box. Let's play those." And they decline and go sit around. Or they'd give you the something else they had that was actually kind of awful so they could beat up on that.

It's the "we need this stuff sell" attitude that drives all of this, be it Netrunner or X-Wing. This is why one review translates so well to another. Why would some one buy the new data pack if it contained more of the same? It needs to have a killer or two cards in it for people to get excite about and buy the thing. Otherwise sells hurt. The same is true of ships. Why would anyone buy a Protectorate Starfighter when no one even knows what the hell that ship is? A few minutes on a Disney XD cartoon isn't going to drive sells. 5 red dice, with autotrusters, lots of green nice, a nice dial and hey, toss on mind link for two foci per turn, that will sell the ship.

Of course, why would FFG bother to make a new ship that simply does not sell? If you don't make the new stuff powerful, no one will buy it but if you make the new stuff powerful, you'll ruin the game and no one will buy it.

They instead need to focus on doing interesting things with their games, like the new campaign box for netrunner rather than just making stupidly over powered cards. Lets hope that works out well for them. The condition cards for X-Wing seem to be them trying to do interesting things rather than over powered things.

In the end there are just too many people who just can't help themselves so they put together the broken combos that any smuck can put together and hit that 'I win' button rather than try to make the game interesting and fun.

6 hours ago, fiesta0618 said:

That suits the competitive player fine. But the casual player might be daunted by a list as "strong" as the one the competitive player brings; or if it's a non-standard build, one that was nonetheless designed to hang with the strongest lists. It can create a feeling of "pressure to perform" that they don't want from their games, or a feeling of helplessness at the outset. Some people just don't relish facing obvious uphill climbs in a gaming environment. Everyone is different.

Speaking as a competitive player myself, my usual solution to this is to play a B-list that is similar, but not as synergistic or well-oiled, as the one I had in mind. I still get to practice all of the strategic and piloting skills that I need for high-end play, but even a flawless performance on my part is less likely to leave my opponent feeling blown away--which is an experience that nobody likes, even the most determined casuals.

Casual player here. I'd put it differently, viewed from the opposite direction. If I face a good player, I expect to be blown away by manoevering and him anticipating opportunities. At least that's how I understand this game. It wouldn't help if I came with a top tier list and he just assembled some junk. So, I won't be daunted by a list because it is strong. (In any case, it takes not more than an afternoon for a newbie to find out about the current meta in a good forum like this one.) I care about the level of practicing, tournament experience, and just plain skill that somebody might have achieved.

Casual play is not the same as a preference for non-standard (epic, campaign, ...). I discovered this game as one of the most well-designed two-player games (gameplay-wise), therefore I'm enjoying it. I do enjoy standard-mode gameplay. Since I don't get to play often, competitiveness is simply out of question. Since I couldn't optimize my performance anyway, I'd enjoy as well epic, campaign, or anything that is as well designed as the game itself. The driving force are the game's basic rules and the depth and variety that they allow.

9 hours ago, macmastermind said:

My point is this: My local groups think like most X-Wing players think - that they have to build and practice the best lists all the time because they want to compete and do well at tournaments. If I go to the squad builder right now and tinker around and put something that looks cool together, I can BET ON THE FACT that I will be destroyed tonight when I go to the shop to run it.

You're right - those top lists were invented by someone. Someone who could afford to spend countless hours and brain work putting together the next meta-breaker. My point ISN'T that that's impossible to do. My point is that it is impossible for ME to do, because I don't want to be that guy.

I want to fly Luke. Because he's a childhood hero. And I want to fly him with Han and Chewy. Or maybe I want to fly the Lothal Rebels together. My point is - I want to find someone else who just wants to run something thematic and fun. Not someone who will WRECK me EVERY TIME with competitive lists that reduce the game to it's mathematical components...

SORRY for all the CAPS for EMPHASIS. I need more caffeine...

Have you considered the possibility that you simply lack the experience to perform well with your lists?

Obviously the top lists are going to be heavily optimized and analyzed, which makes flying with them easier. But that doesn't mean your home brew lists are bad! You may be at a slight disadvantage, but your number one disadvantage is that you're flying a new list. Maybe your list works, but your setup/approach gets you blown out of the water. Maybe you could swap around a couple of points of upgrades and keep your theme but synergies a little better.

I'm not a top tier player by any means, but I build random jank and run it for fun on Vassal all the time and rarely get wrecked outright due to list design. If you insist on only running T-65s I can see you having trouble, but that's not so much because they're always bad (tons of successful builds have included one or more X-wings!) as it is because they have a pure jousting profile that lacks flexibility beyond that.

Here's a 100% thematic Luke/Han that won't win any tournaments, but absolutely gives you a shot at taking down most lists you encounter. Luke doubles down on his green maneuvers/defense and Han is going to spit reliable reds while being a nightmare to burn down.

7 hours ago, Mep said:

It's the "we need this stuff sell" attitude that drives all of this, be it Netrunner or X-Wing. This is why one review translates so well to another. Why would some one buy the new data pack if it contained more of the same? It needs to have a killer or two cards in it for people to get excite about and buy the thing. Otherwise sells hurt. The same is true of ships. Why would anyone buy a Protectorate Starfighter when no one even knows what the hell that ship is? A few minutes on a Disney XD cartoon isn't going to drive sells. 5 red dice, with autotrusters, lots of green nice, a nice dial and hey, toss on mind link for two foci per turn, that will sell the ship.

Of course, why would FFG bother to make a new ship that simply does not sell? If you don't make the new stuff powerful, no one will buy it but if you make the new stuff powerful, you'll ruin the game and no one will buy it.

They instead need to focus on doing interesting things with their games, like the new campaign box for netrunner rather than just making stupidly over powered cards. Lets hope that works out well for them. The condition cards for X-Wing seem to be them trying to do interesting things rather than over powered things.

In the end there are just too many people who just can't help themselves so they put together the broken combos that any smuck can put together and hit that 'I win' button rather than try to make the game interesting and fun.

The problem is with the game, not netlisters. Netlisters are just a symptom of Parattanni or Miranda Dash or whatever being overpowered.

The views that you've expressed are what I'm talking about in the last two paragraphs of my most recent post in this thread. Instead of criticizing FFG for breaking their game and not fixing it when it's broken, you instead direct criticism at players for hitting the 'I win' button and choosing the best tools for the job in a competitive game.

I'd also like to agree with you on that this stems from FFG wanting to make money and power creeping the game. But when that goes too far, you end up in a situation where instead of buying 8 TIE Fighters, you literally just buy a Phantom and a Decimator and play with nothing else because little else is viable. That happened with the Phantom and fat turrets, and was starting to happen with Parattanni and Palp Defenders before the nerfs.

So I'd like to put forth the idea that the economic argument can be used to balance the game.

20 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

The problem is with the game, not netlisters. Netlisters are just a symptom of Parattanni or Miranda Dash or whatever being overpowered.

The views that you've expressed are what I'm talking about in the last two paragraphs of my most recent post in this thread. Instead of criticizing FFG for breaking their game and not fixing it when it's broken, you instead direct criticism at players for hitting the 'I win' button and choosing the best tools for the job in a competitive game.

I'd also like to agree with you on that this stems from FFG wanting to make money and power creeping the game. But when that goes too far, you end up in a situation where instead of buying 8 TIE Fighters, you literally just buy a Phantom and a Decimator and play with nothing else because little else is viable. That happened with the Phantom and fat turrets, and was starting to happen with Parattanni and Palp Defenders before the nerfs.

So I'd like to put forth the idea that the economic argument can be used to balance the game.

The reality is there are always going to be small people that just can't help themselves, so yes, FFG can be held accountable for taking advantage of this. There seems to be a bit of a change in trying to make their games a little different to attract buyers rather than just flat out power creep, which is good, though they still rely on that too to drive sales of their newest products. Most of their customers are repeat buyers, so they won't be selling 8 TIEs to the guy that already owns them, instead they need to sell the newest ship. They do need to be mindful of growth and replacing lost customers, so they do need to make sure the game gets balanced, after they sold enough of the newest ships to cover the development costs that is. Now if people could help themselves, maybe FFG wouldn't be so inclined to take advantage of them and make the game a bit more balance from the start.

8 hours ago, Mep said:

The reality is there are always going to be small people that just can't help themselves,

Calling people "small" for running competitive lists is just as bad as someone calling someone who runs only x-wings/ or unoptimized lists a "noob" or saying they are bad at the game. This kind of mindset has no place in this community, on either side. This divide in the player base needs to stop. Competitive and casual players have just as much of a right to enjoy the game in their way as the other.

Also, can you find a different game with more balance and as large of a community as x-wing? The answer is no. GW games are horrendously balanced, war machine is close but not as good balance wise and has far smaller community, Wild West exodus, gates of Antares, even infinity. All of these can not match x-wing in balance and mass market appeal.

Finally, last time I checked FFG was a business that was out to make a profit and pay its employees (not a lot). But I also know how much the profit margins are on a game like this, and it isn't much. So please, keep your "FFG IS ONLY DOING THIS TO MAKE MONEY AND IS PURPOSEFULLY DESTROYING THE GAME TO DO SO AND TRYING TO WRING US DRY WITH DIRTY BUSINESS PRACTICES" to yourself please.