1 hour ago, Ken at Sunrise said:

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.

When I list build, I still keep it pretty dang simple. I still usually just throw VI at the EPT slot and add Engine Upgrade or something of the sort. I'm not looking for a killer combo, I just want to puff up my ships a little bit. And I have a ton of fun flying these ships around "nearly naked."

Every game that involves creating your own "team" (an X wing squad, mtg deck, etc) will have unbalanced matchups. It's impossible to avoid. If one player chooses to maximize winning potential, and the other builds something based around theme, of course the competitive player is going to win.

There is no way around this, short of taking away any creativity that goes into designing your team. It's foolish to blame a game system for a problem born out of competitors with different intentions behind their play.

A lot of people enjoy PLAYING on the competitive end of things, not just wining. If you take two "broken" lists that you feel too honorable to run, and pit them against eachother, often there will be a lot of complex and interesting gameplay behind the match. Instead of condemning people that enjoy a different type of play than you, just stick with likeminded folks. Quit cluttering the forum with whining about how unfair it is that you can't beat efficiency squads with casual squads.

Basically, X-Wing is what you make it.

There is a large competitive following for the game. But, that should not mean people who don't want to play the game that way should feel obligated to.

Does FFG put a bit more emphasis on competitive play? definitely. It makes more money, and it keeps the game moving forward. Should they do more to encourage casual play? Absolutely.

That said, what do we do when these two halves clash? We need to talk to each other. Telling someone that they are a bad person for running a competitive list is wrong. Telling someone they are bad at the game for running Luke is wrong. competitive players, bring a fun list to game night in case there is someone not on that level of play there. Casual players, maybe bring a competitive list with your trench run list and help those guys prep.

Both sides are there to play with plastic spaceships, and both sides have a right to play it the way they want to.

12 minutes ago, PiebeatsCake said:

Instead of condemning people that enjoy a different type of play than you, just stick with likeminded folks. Quit cluttering the forum with whining about how unfair it is that you can't beat efficiency squads with casual squads.

I think it's more telling of people with your point of view - who see condemnation and whining in posts from people wanting to chime in on the topic of the thread, which is 'why X-Wing doesn't seem fun for me anymore' - when I'm pretty sure I haven't read a single condemnation of competitive players. I've been very careful to repeat that my distaste for the way the game is trending lays NO BLAME on competitive players - on the contrary, I've said the game is perfectly designed and rich for folks who enjoy being ultra-competitive.

Why so much dog piling on folks who just want to love the game who used to enjoy it very much? Why be so defensive when no condemnation is actually taking place? I apologize if I've missed any posts that condemn competitive players...

And again - if finding like-minded folks were that easy to do, do you think we'd be having this conversation at all? I think that's kinda the point - all of our local scenes are fairly competitive. I'd wager that that's because FFG is only focusing on competitive play. I just don't understand why so many people have to get all knotted up over someone else's opinion...

3 minutes ago, macmastermind said:

when I'm pretty sure I haven't read a single condemnation of competitive players.

There have been several actually.

Both sides have had less than kind words thrown their way.

6 minutes ago, Timathius said:

There have been several actually.

Both sides have had less than kind words thrown their way.

I stand corrected then. That does suck...

55 minutes ago, PiebeatsCake said:

Quit cluttering the forum with whining about how unfair it is that you can't beat efficiency squads with casual squads.

That is not what most people are talking about. Most people who are dissatisfied with tourney vs. casual feel that casual is an UNDER SERVED portion of the X-Wing population/game that FFG should work more towards pleasing.

On list building; I think the issue is just the kind of complexity that has been introduced. There are a lot of ships out there with a lot of text spread across multiple cards with a lot of weird specifics that make them work. In practice, they're actually quite simple, but the piecemeal explanation of the abilities is a nightmare.

Take the now classic stressbot Y-Wing. In practice, all it does is make 3 attacks out of its front arc, two of which are capped at 1 damage, receive 2 stress and give the opponent 2 stress. The actual mechanical implementation of this is just a mess though, with a title that removes some of the abilities from one card to give it others and an astromech that cares about the distinction between making 3 attacks and declaring two attacks. It's stuff like that that creates unwanted complexity, despite the end result of creating a cool control ship that creates wanted complexity.

I've been playing games with the Norra or Quickdraw a lot lately and those titles are trying to cram so much text in because the game's base rules don't have options for attacks more complicated than a red number. The game is absolutely loaded with this kind of stuff because the core engine is too simple to diversify. Instead we get increasingly hodgepodged card combos to create activations that are really pretty simple in practice.

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

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.

Unfortunately, the only way for cockpit hours to mean less (head-to-head) is if the game were significantly more random. I don't think that's what you're after? It's already frustrating enough--for both casual and competitive players alike--when your brilliant, game-changing maneuver ends with nothing to show but blank dice.

Cooperative, of course, is another matter. Then, the cockpit skills of the whole group are shared, to an extent, and even large disparities aren't terribly important.

But for head-to-head play, the real solution, IMO, is to find a community that wants to enjoy the game in the same way that you do. Heck, I'd readily offer the same general advice to any gamer involved an any game system.

EDIT: Posts above reference how hard that can be. Which is fair. But a simple conversation when setting up a match can go a long way, I find, allowing gamers of different natural inclinations to enjoy a game together.

5 minutes ago, fiesta0618 said:

Unfortunately, the only way for cockpit hours to mean less (head-to-head) is if the game were significantly more random. I don't think that's what you're after? It's already frustrating enough--for both casual and competitive players alike--when your brilliant, game-changing maneuver ends with nothing to show but blank dice.

Cooperative, of course, is another matter. Then, the cockpit skills of the whole group are shared, to an extent, and even large disparities aren't terribly important.

But for head-to-head play, the real solution, IMO, is to find a community that wants to enjoy the game in the same way that you do. Heck, I'd readily offer the same general advice to any gamer involved an any game system.

Agreed.

Alternatively, set up an event that is not a tournament. An all in one day campaign, epic game, trench run, mario kart, HotAC, any of the scenarios out of the kits, scene from the movies..... The community, and FFG, have provided a ton of options outside of 100/6 death match.

you can not just expect people to not play to win in a tournament. Or skill not to matter in a head to head matchup.

1 minute ago, fiesta0618 said:

Unfortunately, the only way for cockpit hours to mean less (head-to-head) is if the game were significantly more random. I don't think that's what you're after? It's already frustrating enough--for both casual and competitive players alike--when your brilliant, game-changing maneuver ends with nothing to show but blank dice.

I think the problem with GIT GUD that doesn't get articulated well is the kind of training that's required. What I see is not a lack of willingness in players to learn to fly their ships and understand the mechanics of the game; its a lack of desire to keep running on the meta treadmill. It's rare that the game introduces new challenges that need to be met by learning to fly your list better. It's far more common for a new meta list to require scrapping what you've learned and go searching for new answers in other ships or upgrades (if the answers exist at all).

I've been playing the game since it launched and while there are fundamental skills I've picked up and grown over that time, I've never felt like I'm up to speed on the meta treadmill. A lot of that is just because by the time I'm feeling comfortable with a ship and really enjoying a list, it is completely obsoleted by new releases. It is very rare for a ship loadout to remain relevant for very long, and that's a very different kind of skill than the core maneuver and positioning game.

35 minutes ago, fiesta0618 said:

Unfortunately, the only way for cockpit hours to mean less (head-to-head) is if the game were significantly more random. I don't think that's what you're after? It's already frustrating enough--for both casual and competitive players alike--when your brilliant, game-changing maneuver ends with nothing to show but blank dice.

Cooperative, of course, is another matter. Then, the cockpit skills of the whole group are shared, to an extent, and even large disparities aren't terribly important.

But for head-to-head play, the real solution, IMO, is to find a community that wants to enjoy the game in the same way that you do. Heck, I'd readily offer the same general advice to any gamer involved an any game system.

EDIT: Posts above reference how hard that can be. Which is fair. But a simple conversation when setting up a match can go a long way, I find, allowing gamers of different natural inclinations to enjoy a game together.

Hell, no. . .I swear at my dice enough as is.

30 minutes ago, Timathius said:

Agreed.

Alternatively, set up an event that is not a tournament. An all in one day campaign, epic game, trench run, mario kart, HotAC, any of the scenarios out of the kits, scene from the movies..... The community, and FFG, have provided a ton of options outside of 100/6 death match.

Red = fan based

Green = FFG "sponsored"

Player will invent and expand in all games, but IMHO fans are doing almost ALL of the heavy lifting in the "casual" XWM department. This creates 2 problems:

1. These things are non-standard, not openly or obviously available, and not a way for FFG to promote their own game since they are unofficial.

2. People (bless their gaming hearts) are producing materials instead of playing the game.

EDIT: I forgot #3. I want one of these:

24 minutes ago, LunarSol said:

I think the problem with GIT GUD that doesn't get articulated well is the kind of training that's required. What I see is not a lack of willingness in players to learn to fly their ships and understand the mechanics of the game; its a lack of desire to keep running on the meta treadmill. It's rare that the game introduces new challenges that need to be met by learning to fly your list better. It's far more common for a new meta list to require scrapping what you've learned and go searching for new answers in other ships or upgrades (if the answers exist at all).

I've been playing the game since it launched and while there are fundamental skills I've picked up and grown over that time, I've never felt like I'm up to speed on the meta treadmill. A lot of that is just because by the time I'm feeling comfortable with a ship and really enjoying a list, it is completely obsoleted by new releases. It is very rare for a ship loadout to remain relevant for very long, and that's a very different kind of skill than the core maneuver and positioning game.

Right. I have gotten way better choosing maneuvers, not bumping, and the basics, but I'll never fly a list 50 times so I can play it in the dark while hungover with one arm tied behind my back. And then edit and repeat after the next Wave. Which is sometimes what I feel like GET GUD means.

23 minutes ago, LunarSol said:

I think the problem with GIT GUD that doesn't get articulated well is the kind of training that's required. What I see is not a lack of willingness in players to learn to fly their ships and understand the mechanics of the game; its a lack of desire to keep running on the meta treadmill. It's rare that the game introduces new challenges that need to be met by learning to fly your list better. It's far more common for a new meta list to require scrapping what you've learned and go searching for new answers in other ships or upgrades (if the answers exist at all).

I've been playing the game since it launched and while there are fundamental skills I've picked up and grown over that time, I've never felt like I'm up to speed on the meta treadmill. A lot of that is just because by the time I'm feeling comfortable with a ship and really enjoying a list, it is completely obsoleted by new releases. It is very rare for a ship loadout to remain relevant for very long, and that's a very different kind of skill than the core maneuver and positioning game.

I suppose another facet at play here is how you personally define your own success. If "success" means "win events, as large and as many as possible," then the meta-treadmill matters a great deal.

For myself, "success" means "do as well as I can with ships I enjoy flying and a list that I built and tuned myself." Occasionally, that nets me event wins; but even when I lose, my criteria for success allow me to shoulder a whole heap of losses and still feel good about my performance.

Bear in mind, I would categorize myself as "highly competitive." Every game I play, I'm looking for any maneuver, any action, any tactic that will increase my odds. But my pursuit of the "meta treadmill" is confined to which of my 18-20 regular, mostly-invariant lists that I think will do best at the moment. And even if the list doesn't do well, due to systematic weaknesses in the meta, I'm OK with it, as long I feel I acquitted myself well over the table.

For example, in my first Regional I went 3-3. Hardly anything to be proud of. But I was reasonably satisfied with it; one of my losses was to a hard-counter, but where savvy flying earned me a bit of MoV; another was purely down to lopsided dice; and only one loss--the very last game, when I was exhausted--was mostly due to my own mistakes. Put another way, I won 3 of the 4 games that I could have won that day. Didn't net me any prizes, and I would have liked to have done better, but I walked away feeling like a modest success rather than a case study in mediocrity. I daresay I was happier than many of the meta-chasers at 4-2 who walked away empty-handed, or even some of the guys who made the cut and lost early. All because of how I define success.

2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

When I list build, I still keep it pretty dang simple. I still usually just throw VI at the EPT slot and add Engine Upgrade or something of the sort. I'm not looking for a killer combo, I just want to puff up my ships a little bit. And I have a ton of fun flying these ships around "nearly naked."

Yep, it's the way I prefer to play. A few upgrades, a simple build and have fun.

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

That is not what most people are talking about. Most people who are dissatisfied with tourney vs. casual feel that casual is an UNDER SERVED portion of the X-Wing population/game that FFG should work more towards pleasing.

I do think it is more that tourney vs. casual. Having said that I do think tourney vs. casual is a big part of it. The forum gets a bit depressing with all of the nerf and out of balance posts. It makes one feel the game is in a worse state than it is. Hyper-competitiveness has, to many, been under-served and casual play pushed out. That is why I've always hoped for a book of scenarios with premade suggested builds. We can always use our own squads but if FFG had the top 50 missions with squads and goals you would have a ready to go game at a moments notice.

But, for me at least, it doesn't end there. X-Wing is no longer the simple game that I loved when I started playing. To be sure I can stop playing with most of the game components and I'll have a much simpler game. And we do when we build simpler squads. But because we chose to play with a partial game and only use some of the released expansions doesn't make the game simple. We are not using it fully. The game is complex, with a myriad of interactions each adding complexity and requiring an ever growing FAQ of clarifications. A one page diagram just for combat and actions that interrupt actions that interrupt actions, Occuim I'm looking at you. I wonder how many would have jumped in if a 20+ page FAQ was required to understand the cards at the game's release. Now we accept it as a normal part of the game and still deny they it is lost it's simplicity that attracted many.

There are, IMHO, many reasons to enjoy X-Wing and more than a few that have taken some of the enjoyment out of it. I like the theme and the little Star Wars space ships to I'm in.

For myself, I am into Star Wars for the models. (I am a collector.)

Though I would like to play the game, I have found that the game's complexity can be daunting for some people. I have never been able to teach this game to other players. I can explain a gateway game, like Ticket to Ride; however, a game like this, nope. I have considered going to game shops, where I can play the game. However, in my area (I live in Contra Costa County, one of the counties in the greater SF Bay Area), we have gone from two gameshops to one. One of them closed early this year. The other one used to host Star Wars game nights - this ended sometime in 2016. Now, the focus is on RPG games (D&D, Pathfinder) and LCG (Pokemon, Magic). The nearest stores to me are in Alameda County, miles away.

When I consider going that distance, the prospect of playing against seasoned players is intimidating. While they are progressing in their game, as they have more exposure, I would feel that I am constantly starting at zero each time. I do not like finding myself being in a position where I am not progressing. As well, i am worried that I am wasting their time, as they test their lists. Finally, I am not a competitive player - it just is not in me. I am there for the social interaction. (I have a friend who I play games with. We spend more time talking than playing games.)

Both shops - Endgame, Games of Berkely - host league nights. The only shop I know of where there was casual play, in the South Bay, is now hosting league nights. So, there is no gameshop that I know of within reasonable distance which has a casual X-Wing event. To me, league = competitive play.

2 minutes ago, Lakenheath 72 said:

I have found that the game's complexity can be daunting for some people. I have never been able to teach this game to other players. I can explain a gateway game, like Ticket to Ride; however, a game like this, nope.

I don't get this. X-wing is one of the simplest games ever to explain. I've taught the basics and had people playing in 5 minutes.

15 minutes ago, Lakenheath 72 said:

When I consider going that distance, the prospect of playing against seasoned players is intimidating. While they are progressing in their game, as they have more exposure, I would feel that I am constantly starting at zero each time. I do not like finding myself being in a position where I am not progressing. As well, i am worried that I am wasting their time, as they test their lists. Finally, I am not a competitive player - it just is not in me. I am there for the social interaction. (I have a friend who I play games with. We spend more time talking than playing games.

If I were in your place, I'd go that distance. All you need to do is have a chat with your opponents outlining some of the above. I don't know your community specifically, but in every one that I've been part of, players are more than happy to step away from the tournament mindset for a one-off game. I'd stake a bet that you could find a fun matchup with just a little bit of up-front communication.

42 minutes ago, Lakenheath 72 said:

Both shops - Endgame, Games of Berkely - host league nights. The only shop I know of where there was casual play, in the South Bay, is now hosting league nights. So, there is no gameshop that I know of within reasonable distance which has a casual X-Wing event. To me, league = competitive play.

FYI, I play at Endgame, and while there are a few players who play "casual-competitive" (including me, sometimes), as a whole the league nights are not intended to be showcases for competition. We do things like territorial-conquest campaigns, and while we also occasionally do ladder-league stuff, it is not cut-throat, I promise you.

So, four things:

(1) I work across the Bay from Endgame, so can come over after work on at least half my work days. If you let me know in advance (so I can build and pack a squad), and you make sure we'll have a table available (Endgame has a lot of events), I'll come across and we can play. I won't built anything above a 5 (or lower, if you want) on a "1-10 Metagame Strength" scale. I'm really not a fan of flying the big power lists.

(2) We're getting ready to start a new League "season." On Facebook (SF Bay Area X-Wing), contact Brian F. and ask him what the plan is for this season. And, again, if it's not to your liking, I'll be happy to play casual with you. PM me here or email me at jeff dot wilder at gmail dot com.

(3) It's significantly farther for you, but I have a fantastic set-up for playing X-Wing (including all the ships anybody would need to borrow) at my place in Daly City. With advance notice, I can host games easily, for two to six players. My house-mate, in particular, hates the competitive meta scene, so he'd love someone else to play casually.

(4) Even farther, but there is casual play on Thursday evening at Heretic Games in San Bruno. Not league, just people playing. I don't get there as often as I'd like to play, but it's good people (including, last I knew, a guy and his 8-10 year-old daughter, which is very cool).

4 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

That is not what most people are talking about. Most people who are dissatisfied with tourney vs. casual feel that casual is an UNDER SERVED portion of the X-Wing population/game that FFG should work more towards pleasing.

It might not be what you were saying, but there were plenty of comments in that vein.

1 hour ago, Lakenheath 72 said:

For myself, I am into Star Wars for the models. (I am a collector.)

Well... I guess I am in a way too. Most of my ships I've never put on a table for play. Actually I got into this game just to collect a couple of ships. Oops.

1 hour ago, Lakenheath 72 said:

I have found that the game's complexity can be daunting for some people. I have never been able to teach this game to other players. I can explain a gateway game, like Ticket to Ride; however, a game like this, nope.

1 hour ago, Forgottenlore said:

I don't get this. X-wing is one of the simplest games ever to explain. I've taught the basics and had people playing in 5 minutes.

Actually, originally I found it to be a simple game. Today it seems fairly complex. My wife who loved to play refuses to put a squad together and only likes squads with limited upgrades. Though she does enjoy/prefer other miniature games, more than X-Wing, only because of X-Wing's complexity.

I like Wilder's suggestions, and I will be looking into them over the coming weeks.

16 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

I have gotten way better choosing maneuvers, not bumping, and the basics, but I'll never fly a list 50 times so I can play it in the dark while hungover with one arm tied behind my back. And then edit and repeat after the next Wave. Which is sometimes what I feel like GET GUD means.

That's perfectly fine.

Problems occur when one doesn't want to put in that kind of effort, but at the same time still has a hard time accepting he will lose to those who do.

1 hour ago, LordBlades said:

That's perfectly fine.

Problems occur when one doesn't want to put in that kind of effort, but at the same time still has a hard time accepting he will lose to those who do.

Another issue is when the player that puts in insane amount of time and then plays a meta list at a "casual" tournament. It kills the fun for a lot of the community and is that WAAC attitude that retards gaming communities in general.

18 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

That is not what most people are talking about. Most people who are dissatisfied with tourney vs. casual feel that casual is an UNDER SERVED portion of the X-Wing population/game that FFG should work more towards pleasing.

I'm asking this honestly and without snark, because I'm genuinely curious. What would FFG need to do differently to better serve the casual players?

11 minutes ago, Cusm said:

Another issue is when the player that puts in insane amount of time and then plays a meta list at a "casual" tournament. It kills the fun for a lot of the community and is that WAAC attitude that retards gaming communities in general.

Tournaments are just classic prisoner's dilemmas. Sure, you could go to an event you expect to be small and local and casual and take something fun, but if any one other person shows up with a strong meta list... soooooo in the end a bunch of people just bring strong meta lists themselves.

The thing about X-Wing is that it's at it's best when the field is as even* as possible, but this requires a lot of up-front "Gentleman's Agreements" about what can and cannot be flown, and even if both players agree to go full out meta one can still accidentally bring a hard counter to the other player's build. In a tournament, it's impossible to know who all will show up or to police everyone's list choice, so you get the Prisoner's Dilemma. Sure, you could bring a fun interesting off-meta list, and if everyone else does too you'll all probably have a lot of fun. But if anyone brings a top meta list they'll have a bunch of fun stomping easier builds while everyone else suffers.


* this is true even for games like chess, where both sides are pre-set and symmetrical. If a grandmaster and a novice play a game of chess, neither will have any fun. That's why the chess community generally aims to track a ranking value for serious players, so players of roughly the same skill-ranges can play one another. Balance is everything, and for games like X-Wing it's doubly hard because you have not just player skill but also asymmetrical builds that can disrupt balance.