22 hours 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.

The objective in almost every game is to WIN, the point of playing is to have fun.

I would believe that no ones turns up at the table looking to lose or throw the game, they are looking to WIN, however the fact that they turned up AT ALL is because they are wanting to have fun games.

21 hours 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.

I respect your opinion, nontheless I disagree with some of your points.

"They prioritize enjoyment of the game over their tournament success" - it is a false statement; you wrote it as if tournament success wasn't enjoyable. You must realize competitive players are playing for fun, but in their case fun means building optimal list, competing and wining - How is this not fun? You create false division there: fun/competitivness.

As for the last two bolded parts - these are just truisms and it in no way relate to casual players only. I don't know how competitve player wouldn't benefit from well made, balanced rules and I don't know any competitive player that doesn't focus on this aspects when picking game. As it is, X-Wing is so succesful, among other things, because it is balanced and well made game, with really good official tournament support.

Definition of casual as person who is not "tournament oriented" is also not good, I know many competitive X-Wing players who uses strongest lists, always check the current meta, yet rarely plays in tournaments.

What am I trying to say is that only thing that can differentiate causal and competitve player at this point are their goals when playing game - for competitve player it is winning, and player like this finds optimizing, list building and practicing fun, for casual it is just playing the game and living through the experience - thus my description of "fooling around".

Believe me, if FFG would publish campaign based mode for X-Wing there would show up competitve players for this kind of play - who would optimize best way to win this kind of game mode.

27 minutes ago, Embir82 said:

You must realize competitive players are playing for fun, but in their case fun means building optimal list, competing and wining -

27 minutes ago, Embir82 said:

What am I trying to say is that only thing that can differentiate causal and competitve player at this point are their goals when playing game - for competitve player it is winning, and player like this finds optimizing, list building and practicing fun, for casual it is just playing the game and living through the experience - thus my description of "fooling around".

These 2 statements are touching on a point I have been trying to make for a few years now. From my perspective, the difference between "Casual" and "Competitive" players is when they start competeing. List building, obstacle placement, even deployment. For the "competitive" player, these things are all part of playing the game. The competition starts with these elements (or even before) and they are practicing skills and devising optimal choices for them. at the other end of the spectrum, the "casual" player, these same elements may not be part of playing the game, but part of setting up the game. It's not a competition with your opponent to open the game box, and (to these players) its not a competition to design a list to play with, that's just part of the prep that is necessary to set up the game before it starts.

When you look at things from this perspective, a lot of the discussions about casual v competitive make a lot more sense (and also point out how inaccurate the names are). Casual players can be every bit as competitive as the most die-hard tournament player, but they don't start actually competing until a certain point, before that they use other criteria to make decisions about the game.

4 hours ago, Timathius said:

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.

Not going to argue with you over if the sky is blue, it's just the way it is.

Bigger men don't play with lists that are obviously broken and will be getting a nerf soon because they just can't help themselves, it's just the way it is.

As you pointed out, the margins aren't great on this game. So they need to sell the new ships to make back their development costs. FFG is owned by an investment group that expects them to turn a profit and they are going to act in a manner to turn a profit which includes making new products exciting to buy. Power creep is something that is generally seen in all their products. It's just the way it is.

And yes, there is nothing wrong with running a competitive but not obviously broken list. In fact if you are at a regional, it is rude to not be trying to compete as you are just handing all your opponents points not otherwise deserved. It's just the way it is.

There is a big difference between being competitive and playing something that is obviously broken just so you can win. When too many of the small people show up playing the obviously broken stuff, especially at noncompetitive events, the community comes to an end. If you read the netrunner review you will see that is exactly what happened. It's just the way it is.

That "I'm gonna play broken stuff so I can win" mindset is what has no place in this community. FFG actually does, eventually, fix these broken elements of their game, at least for x-wing, so this sort of thing doesn't get too out of hand. However, there is a reason why they need to be fixed to begin with.

Also, we all at times, fall victims to ourselves and do the small petty things. It's just the way it is. Example, repeating "it's just the way it is" just to be small and petty.

We can all learn something from Netrunner and its downfall and try to be bigger men.

You guys are confusing casual and hardcore from normal and win-at-any-costs type players. Casual players, while some may not have to win, certainly don't play to suck. EVERYONE likes to win. What they don't do is invest the time, energy and money into traveling to big tournaments. They may however drive down the street to play in the local tournament and be competitive. Now your hardcore players will invest the time, energy and money into traveling to regionals and the open series. Those players will invest the time and energy in practicing the game more so than what your typical casual player will. By doing so they get better at the game. The difference between the casual and hardcore players is time, energy and money. The label "competitive" is the problem here, as most people simply don't play to suck regardless of how much time, energy and money they put into it. However there are those who just can't help themselves and will play broken lists. I think you are combining the hardcore and win-at-any-costs type players together, which is unfair, because you do have some players which are both very good, hardcore and can help themselves. You also may be combining inexperienced players with more veteran players, both of which may be casual. The more inexperience player may not connect the dots between type of obstacles they choose, their placement and how that effects their list. A more casual yet veteran player will.

X-wing is a competitive game. To play it, you are competitive. The difference is how much time and energy they have put into the game and how far are they willing to go to win.

26 minutes ago, Mep said:

Not going to argue with you over if the sky is blue, it's just the way it is.

Bigger men don't play with lists that are obviously broken and will be getting a nerf soon because they just can't help themselves, it's just the way it is.

As you pointed out, the margins aren't great on this game. So they need to sell the new ships to make back their development costs. FFG is owned by an investment group that expects them to turn a profit and they are going to act in a manner to turn a profit which includes making new products exciting to buy. Power creep is something that is generally seen in all their products. It's just the way it is.

And yes, there is nothing wrong with running a competitive but not obviously broken list. In fact if you are at a regional, it is rude to not be trying to compete as you are just handing all your opponents points not otherwise deserved. It's just the way it is.

There is a big difference between being competitive and playing something that is obviously broken just so you can win. When too many of the small people show up playing the obviously broken stuff, especially at noncompetitive events, the community comes to an end. If you read the netrunner review you will see that is exactly what happened. It's just the way it is.

That "I'm gonna play broken stuff so I can win" mindset is what has no place in this community. FFG actually does, eventually, fix these broken elements of their game, at least for x-wing, so this sort of thing doesn't get too out of hand. However, there is a reason why they need to be fixed to begin with.

Also, we all at times, fall victims to ourselves and do the small petty things. It's just the way it is. Example, repeating "it's just the way it is" just to be small and petty.

We can all learn something from Netrunner and its downfall and try to be bigger men.

It's FFG's fault for breaking their games, not the players'.

Netrunner died because of how broken it is. Maybe if they did something about side games and Faust (and whatever else is/was broken), the game wouldn't be so bad.

Those Netrunner data packs have what, like 60 cards in them? Playsets of them all, so about 20 unique cards in each pack?

Instead of just banning those handful of problem cards, they'll just let those cards ruin the game. Because if we ban a card no one will be able to play it anymore, nevermind the 5 things the one OP card has effectively shut out from the game. No, no! That would just be terrible if cards were banned!

What is their fix? Some sort of Most Wanted list with changed card costs that still leave problems in the game but just makes them more expensive? A rotation scheme that bans all of the cards in multiple sets instead of just hand picking the few problems out of the game?

Your argument is true, but when FFG takes power creep too far it can end up ruining the game and all of a sudden no one wants to play it anymore.

Maybe rational players should come together and create a balance coalition independent of FFG that players and venues can choose to adopt. But until there is a framework for bans/restrictions, you can't fault people for bringing competitive lists to competitive events, it's within the rules. And often it's not their fault, another player brings top tier and they have no other option but to escalate to top tier themselves or lose every game.

@Turbo Toker Yes, when FFG won't, the community must, or it won't be a community any more. NOTrunner is a good example when both FFG and the players just can't help themselves. When there is a card that is so clearly broken it should never have been printed, don't play it. FFG is responsible for the printing of the card, the player for playing the card.

Why there isn't a ban list for netrunner is mind boggling. I guess an all out ban of the first two cycles is fine but not the problem cards. They are getting in a new developer, hopefully one with the courage and dedication to fix the game.

Fortunately for X-wing, horribly broken stuff never gets made and the game is managed much better. Being their tent pole game, they sort of have to, so Manaroo gets to be range 1 but Faust just costs one more influence. FFG clearly can manage a game when they want to. Netrunner is such a cool game it just doesn't make any sense what happen there.

2 hours ago, Mep said:

Not going to argue with you over if the sky is blue, it's just the way it is.

Bigger men don't play with lists that are obviously broken and will be getting a nerf soon because they just can't help themselves, it's just the way it is.

As you pointed out, the margins aren't great on this game. So they need to sell the new ships to make back their development costs. FFG is owned by an investment group that expects them to turn a profit and they are going to act in a manner to turn a profit which includes making new products exciting to buy. Power creep is something that is generally seen in all their products. It's just the way it is.

And yes, there is nothing wrong with running a competitive but not obviously broken list. In fact if you are at a regional, it is rude to not be trying to compete as you are just handing all your opponents points not otherwise deserved. It's just the way it is.

There is a big difference between being competitive and playing something that is obviously broken just so you can win. When too many of the small people show up playing the obviously broken stuff, especially at noncompetitive events, the community comes to an end. If you read the netrunner review you will see that is exactly what happened. It's just the way it is.

That "I'm gonna play broken stuff so I can win" mindset is what has no place in this community. FFG actually does, eventually, fix these broken elements of their game, at least for x-wing, so this sort of thing doesn't get too out of hand. However, there is a reason why they need to be fixed to begin with.

Also, we all at times, fall victims to ourselves and do the small petty things. It's just the way it is. Example, repeating "it's just the way it is" just to be small and petty.

We can all learn something from Netrunner and its downfall and try to be bigger men.

1) x-wing has only had a couple lists that were border line broken

2) People playing competitive lists has nothing to do with how good or bad of a person they are. However, stereotyping and name calling do.

3) The problem is your expectation that everyone should play the game you want, not the game that actually is.

Yep, there is an entire FAQ full of fixes to broken elements of this game. Ever wounder why they call it a fix? Because it fixes something that was broken. X-wing is a competitive game and unless your first move is flying off the board, you are playing a competitive list. It is the nature of the game. Some ships/cards are imbalanced and putting a bunch of them together isn't being competitive, it is simply flying a list or combo that will soon be featured on the FAQ. In fact, playing an imbalanced or flat out broken list/deck/etc. is being noncompetitive. The man that can put together a list with sub par ships and still win is being far more competitive than the man that plays the FOTM and still finds a way to lose.

It's got nothing to do with how I want the game to be played, which I never defined let alone brought up. It has nothing to do with stereotyping or name calling. It has everything to do with games going south and communities ending when the publisher messes up and breaks their own game and people not being able to help themselves (by saving their game and community) and just needing to win by losing big. It happens a lot sadly in many different games.

X-wing actually isn't in that bad of shape, unlike Netrunner, which is being used as a cautionary tale here. FFG's strategy with X-wing at least seems to be to make the broken stuff, let them run their course, then fix them in order to mix things up and keep things fresh rather than try to find a more perfect balance. So far it is working for them but all to often that particular strategy blows up a game.

On 4/7/2017 at 8:33 PM, RampancyTW said:

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

Of course - that's kind of the point I'm making. I've been playing the game since it came out, so I'm more than familiar with the mechanics and rules and I've had plenty of practice with all sorts of lists. The kind of experience you're talking about would require me to be that guy I don't want to be (studying every release, looking for every synergy I can find to maximize my chance to win).

If I field 2 falcons and I see TLTs, I can not win. Doesn't matter if they're on Hawks or Y-Wings or Miranda. Cannot win. There are lists that can not win against other lists. When that happens, it is what it is.

But 2 falcons is fun to run if it's thematic - TLTs are math, designed to melt low agility ships (when did you ever hear Wedge yell "Wow, that got him! Glad I decided to mount that twin laser turret"?). I'd rather scoop that match and find another opponent. No hard feelings.

My problem is - my local room is full of TLTs (or insert latest game-breaker here), so without a direct counter or another meta list, games aren't fun. So, the point is still this: in a room full of people who are practicing for their next tournament, there is no room for a guy like me who wants to enjoy the game for theme.

And if you and others have had a good time running thematic non-meta lists, that's really great for you. It has never happened like that for me or anyone I've talked to locally. There's a small group of us who just stopped going to league night - didn't know why until this notion came up. It's too competitive and too calculated. It's not fun for us anymore...

Of course I've used hyperbole at times to describe my point (I've beaten a regional champion with 4 ion-cannon Y-wings before). Theme lists don't always lose - but winning the game isn't the entirety of the fun when you're a casual type. Letting the game unfold like a story is the fun - and when the story is a one-sided algebra problem, it's way less fun...

There ARE 2 distinct patrons of X-Wing Miniatures. I'm just in the less popular camp, unfortunately for me...

30 minutes ago, macmastermind said:

And if you and others have had a good time running thematic non-meta lists, that's really great for you. It has never happened like that for me or anyone I've talked to locally. There's a small group of us who just stopped going to league night - didn't know why until this notion came up. It's too competitive and too calculated. It's not fun for us anymore...

Interestingly, I stopped going to our league nights for the opposite reason. I get much better games on Vassal. maybe we can just trade lives and we would be happier in the xwing world.

7 hours ago, macmastermind said:

Of course - that's kind of the point I'm making. I've been playing the game since it came out, so I'm more than familiar with the mechanics and rules and I've had plenty of practice with all sorts of lists. The kind of experience you're talking about would require me to be that guy I don't want to be (studying every release, looking for every synergy I can find to maximize my chance to win).

If I field 2 falcons and I see TLTs, I can not win. Doesn't matter if they're on Hawks or Y-Wings or Miranda. Cannot win. There are lists that can not win against other lists. When that happens, it is what it is.

But 2 falcons is fun to run if it's thematic - TLTs are math, designed to melt low agility ships (when did you ever hear Wedge yell "Wow, that got him! Glad I decided to mount that twin laser turret"?). I'd rather scoop that match and find another opponent. No hard feelings.

My problem is - my local room is full of TLTs (or insert latest game-breaker here), so without a direct counter or another meta list, games aren't fun. So, the point is still this: in a room full of people who are practicing for their next tournament, there is no room for a guy like me who wants to enjoy the game for theme.

And if you and others have had a good time running thematic non-meta lists, that's really great for you. It has never happened like that for me or anyone I've talked to locally. There's a small group of us who just stopped going to league night - didn't know why until this notion came up. It's too competitive and too calculated. It's not fun for us anymore...

Of course I've used hyperbole at times to describe my point (I've beaten a regional champion with 4 ion-cannon Y-wings before). Theme lists don't always lose - but winning the game isn't the entirety of the fun when you're a casual type. Letting the game unfold like a story is the fun - and when the story is a one-sided algebra problem, it's way less fun...

There ARE 2 distinct patrons of X-Wing Miniatures. I'm just in the less popular camp, unfortunately for me...

Whoa, slow down here. None of these assertions are really true. I run tons of Janky/otherwise "non-competitive" lists to moderate success against competitive lists by knowing the strengths and weaknesses of those lists and having practice flying them. This isn't an issue of list-crafting, this is an issue of actual practice time with any given lists.

If you field 2 Falcons and see TLTs, you can absolutely win. You have to fly such that you can get into range 1 and set yourself up for the next turn, but you HAVE a PWT, and the PS advantage. Build 2 Falcons with Engine Upgrade or Expert Handling and all of a sudden those TLTs will be melting faster than they can whittle down your own ships. Once that first one is off the board, their ability to burn you down reduces drastically. Good flying will win you that damage race.

I really think your own mindset is your number one barrier, here. When you see TLTs and assume "I lose," you're setting yourself up for failure. If I see TLTs across from me and I'm fielding 3 T-70s without autothrusters, I devise a plan to get into range 1 of at least one of the TLTs and burn one of them off the board before they fire. I'm going to lose at least one X-wing by the end of the second round of fire unless I get lucky, but by that time they're down to 2.5 TLT carriers. If I can get a single fresh X-wing against 1.5 TLTs, I'm winning that every. Single. Time.

If you give up on all of your lists before they have a chance to succeed, of COURSE you're going to lose all your matches against players using lists with more obvious strengths and synergies. Your defeatism is hurting you a ton.

Two Falcons. Fun.

It was an ugly, boring game of math, but I've seen double Decimators vs quad TLTs do better than expected. Get in range 1 of one of them with each Decimator, focus fire down another and they couldn't concentrate on one enough to kill it. The TLTs eventually fell behind and lost simply because once they lost a ship their rate of damage dropped significantly.

1 minute ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

Two Falcons. Fun.

The fluffiest of lists!

15 hours ago, RampancyTW said:

If you give up on all of your lists before they have a chance to succeed, of COURSE you're going to lose all your matches against players using lists with more obvious strengths and synergies. Your defeatism is hurting you a ton.

You're absolutely correct about a defeatist attitude. I gave you one example of a challenging match one might face. You need to think more conceptually to understand my point. If I don't have the time or energy to know everything about all of the components, I'm rarely going to know how to avoid getting slaughtered.

Do you think the defeatist attitude arrived for me at the beginning? I have 3 full Plano 732s packed solid with multiple copies of every ship ever released for this game. I was trying my best to keep up with the competitive mindset for the first 3 years. What I learned was that I don't have the energy or the desire to work that hard, after losing game after game in a competitive setting. It was heart-breaking, but it can't be helped. Countless tournament match losses and logic led to the defeatist attitude. I don't expect to win with a defeatist attitude. But not having it didn't help me win either, for a very long time. A lack of knowledge isn't a defeatist attitude, it just inevitably leads to one...

It just doesn't matter that much to me. I'm glad you've had success. I appreciate what you're saying. But you can't take a single case and make your entire argument stick. There is NO WAY to be competitive in this game without knowing what everything in the game does, and understanding it all well enough to fly comfortably with each new challenging mechanic. I abandoned Armada for the same reason. I don't have the resources to commit to knowing what everything in the game does - and that leads inevitably to failure.

You're not going to convince me that knowing and understanding all of the synergies in the game is just some slight advantage. This game's design is beautiful for the ultra-competitive. It absolutely rewards those who are willing to drill hundreds of vassal games to improve their skills. If you agree that these statements are true, then wouldn't you have to agree that those who don't take the game to those extremes will be at a severe disadvantage (through no fault of the game or their opponent)?

Is it not enough that in lieu of finding other people who want to play like I do that I walk away from the game? I'm not blaming anyone for that but myself, because I don't want to put in the work to stay relevant. It would be nice if FFG would throw folks like me a bone and allow a cooperative mechanism that's been tested and is supported, but I don't blame them for focusing on what is working for them.

@macmastermind I understand you perfectly. I stopped running competitively not because I couldn't hack it, but because I did not enjoy the training that being competitive required. It was no longer "fun" to me to spend that much time and pain and sweat.

Fortunately, running culture supports amateurs and casuals very well. X-wing doesn't do so great at this, at least in the material produced by FFG. Still, there are some options...might I recommend Heroes of the Aturi Cluster?

Sorry if this has been brought up.

But in 12 pages did anyone say: 'When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning' - Dr. Reiner Knizia

25 minutes ago, fiesta0618 said:

@macmastermind I understand you perfectly. I stopped running competitively not because I couldn't hack it, but because I did not enjoy the training that being competitive required. It was no longer "fun" to me to spend that much time and pain and sweat.

Fortunately, running culture supports amateurs and casuals very well. X-wing doesn't do so great at this, at least in the material produced by FFG. Still, there are some options...might I recommend Heroes of the Aturi Cluster?

has been said several times

Also, Shuttle Tyderium is going ALL OUT on their new campaign. I encourage everyone to check it out.

Late response: The thing that caught in the NetRunner review was when he said that even if he stopped playing competitively the NetRunner today isn't the same game he loved so much.

This seems to the true, for me at least, with X-Wing. I love it, I had it out just this weekend. But it has grown in complexity, and convoluted explanations and clarifications. An FAQ that changes the text on cards. I know I sound negative, but I found I enjoy X-Wing more when I stopped purchasing new expansions and playing with very few upgrades.

43 minutes ago, Timathius said:

has been said several times

Also, Shuttle Tyderium is going ALL OUT on their new campaign. I encourage everyone to check it out.

What is this? Another campaign? Do tell! I would love another. HotAC was lots of fun.

3 minutes ago, Scopes said:

What is this? Another campaign? Do tell! I would love another. HotAC was lots of fun.

enjoy!

5 minutes ago, Timathius said:

enjoy!

Ok, is this a campaign? If so, they need to rapidly change the name. An "audio drama" is a narrative story, like an audiobook or a radio play. It has nothing to do with gaming.

Just now, Forgottenlore said:

Ok, is this a campaign? If so, they need to rapidly change the name. An "audio drama" is a narrative story, like an audiobook or a radio play. It has nothing to do with gaming.

It is an audiodrama that is setting up for a narrative event.

4 hours ago, macmastermind said:

You're absolutely correct about a defeatist attitude. I gave you one example of a challenging match one might face. You need to think more conceptually to understand my point. If I don't have the time or energy to know everything about all of the components, I'm rarely going to know how to avoid getting slaughtered.

Do you think the defeatist attitude arrived for me at the beginning? I have 3 full Plano 732s packed solid with multiple copies of every ship ever released for this game. I was trying my best to keep up with the competitive mindset for the first 3 years. What I learned was that I don't have the energy or the desire to work that hard, after losing game after game in a competitive setting. It was heart-breaking, but it can't be helped. Countless tournament match losses and logic led to the defeatist attitude. I don't expect to win with a defeatist attitude. But not having it didn't help me win either, for a very long time. A lack of knowledge isn't a defeatist attitude, it just inevitably leads to one...

It just doesn't matter that much to me. I'm glad you've had success. I appreciate what you're saying. But you can't take a single case and make your entire argument stick. There is NO WAY to be competitive in this game without knowing what everything in the game does, and understanding it all well enough to fly comfortably with each new challenging mechanic. I abandoned Armada for the same reason. I don't have the resources to commit to knowing what everything in the game does - and that leads inevitably to failure.

You're not going to convince me that knowing and understanding all of the synergies in the game is just some slight advantage. This game's design is beautiful for the ultra-competitive. It absolutely rewards those who are willing to drill hundreds of vassal games to improve their skills. If you agree that these statements are true, then wouldn't you have to agree that those who don't take the game to those extremes will be at a severe disadvantage (through no fault of the game or their opponent)?

Is it not enough that in lieu of finding other people who want to play like I do that I walk away from the game? I'm not blaming anyone for that but myself, because I don't want to put in the work to stay relevant. It would be nice if FFG would throw folks like me a bone and allow a cooperative mechanism that's been tested and is supported, but I don't blame them for focusing on what is working for them.

You're not alone. This is me, as well.

2 hours ago, fiesta0618 said:

@macmastermind I understand you perfectly. I stopped running competitively not because I couldn't hack it, but because I did not enjoy the training that being competitive required. It was no longer "fun" to me to spend that much time and pain and sweat.

Fortunately, running culture supports amateurs and casuals very well. X-wing doesn't do so great at this, at least in the material produced by FFG. Still, there are some options...might I recommend Heroes of the Aturi Cluster?

It's the fallacy of the GIT GUD mentality. I didn't buy this game to train like a marathoner; I bought it to have fun on weekends. If people say I'm not winning and or having fun because I still suck for not having logged enough cockpit hours, well, then, I really think it is something that needs to be corrected.