39 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

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?

The easiest answer is make stuff for color and theme, and not worry about whether it duplicates design space or adds a new mechanic. Give players Blue Squadron Pilot, Phoenix Squadron, the other Inquisitors, and don't aim those designs at "how it will shake up the meta."

Because as soon as they talk about the meta and the diversity they are seeing in the top 20 and where the next Wave will take all of that (and they always do), then I know that are not thinking about me, but rather about 3x3 folding tables in a convention hall somewhere.

41 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.

I disagree.

A tournament is a tournament. You can't really expect people to 'try to win,but not really try to win more than I'm comfortable with'. This is firmly stepping into militant casual territory IMO.

3 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

The easiest answer is make stuff for color and theme, and not worry about whether it duplicates design space or adds a new mechanic. Give players Blue Squadron Pilot, Phoenix Squadron, the other Inquisitors, and don't aim those designs at "how it will shake up the meta."

But seriously, how would Blue Squadron Pilot in an X-Wing be any different than Red Squadron Pilot or Rookie Pilot? There really isn't any design space there for anything except a name change. I'm guessing that even anti-meta players wouldn't be very excited about Blue Squadron Pilot that was a generic PS4 X-Wing at 23 points (ie, just Red Squadron renamed). Would a PS3 22pt generic Blue Squadron Pilot be at all interesting or exciting? I mean, if casuals want to fly Blue Squadron pilots right now, just use Rookie/RedSqd pilot cards and paint some X-Wings blue...

Now, if you do also look for unused design space, like giving Blue Squadron Pilot an EPT, you would be exploring unused new design space and even some meta players would be thinking about what could be done with a 23-25 point generic X-Wing EPT (probably not much, but you get the idea). Similarly, if Phoenix Squadron Pilot was in-game different from Prototype Pilot and Green Squadron Pilot, you've explored new design space.

So, I must be missing something, because in a way your suggestion just sounds a lot like "give us the stuff we already have but with new names," but I can't imagine that would really satisfy anyone to just duplicate that design space.

1 minute ago, LordBlades said:

I disagree.

A tournament is a tournament. You can't really expect people to 'try to win,but not really try to win more than I'm comfortable with'. This is firmly stepping into militant casual territory IMO.

There are also so many different events you can run besides a tournament. If you don't want to play in a competitive event. Don't go to an event that by its very nature is competitive. Instead, make a casual event like a narrative or any of the other suggestions I put above.

22 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

The easiest answer is make stuff for color and theme, and not worry about whether it duplicates design space or adds a new mechanic. Give players Blue Squadron Pilot, Phoenix Squadron, the other Inquisitors, and don't aim those designs at "how it will shake up the meta."

Because as soon as they talk about the meta and the diversity they are seeing in the top 20 and where the next Wave will take all of that (and they always do), then I know that are not thinking about me, but rather about 3x3 folding tables in a convention hall somewhere.

10 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

But seriously, how would Blue Squadron Pilot in an X-Wing be any different than Red Squadron Pilot or Rookie Pilot? There really isn't any design space there for anything except a name change. I'm guessing that even anti-meta players wouldn't be very excited about Blue Squadron Pilot that was a generic PS4 X-Wing at 23 points (ie, just Red Squadron renamed). Would a PS3 22pt generic Blue Squadron Pilot be at all interesting or exciting? I mean, if casuals want to fly Blue Squadron pilots right now, just use Rookie/RedSqd pilot cards and paint some X-Wings blue...

Now, if you do also look for unused design space, like giving Blue Squadron Pilot an EPT, you would be exploring unused new design space and even some meta players would be thinking about what could be done with a 23-25 point generic X-Wing EPT (probably not much, but you get the idea). Similarly, if Phoenix Squadron Pilot was in-game different from Prototype Pilot and Green Squadron Pilot, you've explored new design space.

So, I must be missing something, because in a way your suggestion just sounds a lot like "give us the stuff we already have but with new names," but I can't imagine that would really satisfy anyone to just duplicate that design space.

Clearly you didn't read what I wrote.

The obvious thing to do with Blue Squadron x-wings would be to give them an EPT; the x-wing doesn't currently have an EPT generic.

There's really little point in releasing palette/name swaps without mechanical changes. That's not the business model FFG use, and I doubt very much that changes in the foreseeable future.

4 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

I disagree.

A tournament is a tournament. You can't really expect people to 'try to win,but not really try to win more than I'm comfortable with'. This is firmly stepping into militant casual territory IMO.

I have seen some of the best players bring non meta, list that look almost silly and place at the top table of regionals. I have seen successful local players that rely on meta list and have never cracked the top 16 of a regional. Too many players are good with good list but do not really improve their game and poor showings at major events reflect this. I love my local community but there are some players here that will never step away from meta list and I have seen new people turn away from playing because of them.

18 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Clearly you didn't read what I wrote.

But that's what I'm asking: what would a satisfying Blue Squadron Pilot X-Wing generic look like? Is it just a name change to Red Squadron Pilot?

8 minutes ago, Timathius said:

There are also so many different events you can run besides a tournament. If you don't want to play in a competitive event. Don't go to an event that by its very nature is competitive. Instead, make a casual event like a narrative or any of the other suggestions I put above.

Our community has tried, but they get no turn out for anything besides regular format.

1 minute ago, Cusm said:

Our community has tried, but they get no turn out for anything besides regular format.

Then build the desire for it. If people are really as tired of tournaments as you say, then getting interest in other events/ formats should be easy.

30 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

But that's what I'm asking: what would a satisfying Blue Squadron Pilot X-Wing generic look like? Is it just a name change to Red Squadron Pilot?

Given that RSP is PS 4 with no EPT, it could easily be differentiated by +1 PS, -1 PS, or add an EPT. Bam, "new" design space.

OTOH, maybe it is exactly the same, and the choice is for flavor.

Or, it is exactly the same, and Squadron mechanics are added to the game, and RSP = BSP unless you actually play the Squad card, in which case they have different squadron-based special abilities.

But for me, it would be satisfying simply that Blue Squadron Pilot EXISTS officially.

2 hours ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

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?

In my mind, there are two things they could do.

One, hold tournaments that use significant constraints in an effort to promote a theme. For example, "OT Ships Only" or "Small ships only" or "Master of the T-65" or "No Turrets" or, heck, "Turrets Only." You will still have fierce competition within those constraints, of course, but these constraints shift the meta so that different ships come to the fore. And players who love those ships will be glad to see them have their time in the sun.

Two, sponsor and hold events that are NOT tournaments. For example, everyone who comes to an event is assigned to a Faction, and the whole event consists of pre-set scenarios between Faction players. Most successful Faction wins. Or, an event based on cooperative play, a la Aturi Cluster.

The key is, material for all of the above ideas already exists. What is lacking is FFG promoting them and holding events for them. This is important because, as the creators and arbiters of the game, people look to FFG to define what is "official." What FFG promote is "official," while everything else is "homebrew." Or, at least, that is the perception. And since FFG's events are exclusively Tournaments using Standard format, "Standard Tournaments" are the only "official" gameplay format we have...and so that is where most communities orient themselves.

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

The easiest answer is make stuff for color and theme, and not worry about whether it duplicates design space or adds a new mechanic. Give players Blue Squadron Pilot, Phoenix Squadron, the other Inquisitors, and don't aim those designs at "how it will shake up the meta."

I do think that would be the easiest. But they do need to push missions and possible campaigns more. Even a collection of single missions would generate a lot of Star Wars theme and not having to connect them would make the project easier.

2 hours ago, fiesta0618 said:

In my mind, there are two things they could do.

One, hold tournaments that use significant constraints in an effort to promote a theme. For example, "OT Ships Only" or "Small ships only" or "Master of the T-65" or "No Turrets" or, heck, "Turrets Only." You will still have fierce competition within those constraints, of course, but these constraints shift the meta so that different ships come to the fore. And players who love those ships will be glad to see them have their time in the sun.

Two, sponsor and hold events that are NOT tournaments. For example, everyone who comes to an event is assigned to a Faction, and the whole event consists of pre-set scenarios between Faction players. Most successful Faction wins. Or, an event based on cooperative play, a la Aturi Cluster.

The key is, material for all of the above ideas already exists. What is lacking is FFG promoting them and holding events for them. This is important because, as the creators and arbiters of the game, people look to FFG to define what is "official." What FFG promote is "official," while everything else is "homebrew." Or, at least, that is the perception. And since FFG's events are exclusively Tournaments using Standard format, "Standard Tournaments" are the only "official" gameplay format we have...and so that is where most communities orient themselves.

Both of those suggestions require that players have a vast array of ships to draw from. These formats would only really cater to players that have a lot of the toys, but don't want to participate in a cutthroat competition.

That is such a small portion of their customers that it doesn't make any sense for FFG, or FLGS's to spend the time/money to promote/hold.

28 minutes ago, benbaxter said:

Both of those suggestions require that players have a vast array of ships to draw from. These formats would only really cater to players that have a lot of the toys, but don't want to participate in a cutthroat competition.

That is such a small portion of their customers that it doesn't make any sense for FFG, or FLGS's to spend the time/money to promote/hold.

I think most players would be happy to play in any tournament. That means standard play and any one with odd restrictions. At least, that's my area. While many people like standard tournament play, they aren't against trying something different every now and again.

1 hour ago, benbaxter said:

Both of those suggestions require that players have a vast array of ships to draw from. These formats would only really cater to players that have a lot of the toys, but don't want to participate in a cutthroat competition.

That is such a small portion of their customers that it doesn't make any sense for FFG, or FLGS's to spend the time/money to promote/hold.

First of all, don't most players have a lot of ships to draw from??

Secondly, why would you NOT cater to the segment of your audience that purchases the most product??

4 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

OTOH, maybe it is exactly the same, and the choice is for flavor.

Very, very few people are going to buy another X-Wing just because it's called Blue Squadron Pilot but in every way identical to a Red Squadron Pilot X-Wing. Even if the ship had a different color, it's still not going to sell well if it doesn't actually offer something different.

Edit: I don't mean it has to be big change or shake up the meta, just a small cost/ps/EPT slot type change would be enough. But it needs to be different in some way.

22 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Secondly, why would you NOT cater to the segment of your audience that purchases the most product??

You should read what he said again, because that's not what he said. Sure the people in question would buy a lot of product, but there's also very few of them so in terms of overall sales, you're really dealing with a fairly small amount.

It's like getting a dollar from 5 people vs getting a quarter from 50.

12 minutes ago, VanorDM said:

Very, very few people are going to buy another X-Wing just because it's called Blue Squadron Pilot but in every way identical to a Red Squadron Pilot X-Wing. Even if the ship had a different color, it's still not going to sell well if it doesn't actually offer something different.

You should read what he said again, because that's not what he said. Sure the people in question would buy a lot of product, but there's also very few of them so in terms of overall sales, you're really dealing with a fairly small amount.

It's like getting a dollar from 5 people vs getting a quarter from 50.

Well, you are kinda choosing the "leasts" in my answers. There will be no release ever that only sports 1 card, so odds are the ship package will offer more than just Blue Squadron Pilot. You are also changing the topic from "supporting casual" to "moving product."

And, to go back to my first response, are there players out there who only have 5 or 6 ships and could not play in "ship-limited theme events?" And if they only have a few ships because they are so attuned to the meta, forsaking all the other ships, would those people even want to play in such an event?

Just now, Darth Meanie said:

You are also changing the topic from "supporting casual" to "moving product."

Making product that on one actually wants doesn't support casuals.

Just now, Darth Meanie said:

And, to go back to my first response, are there players out there who only have 5 or 6 ships and could not play in "ship-limited theme events?"

Are there any players out there that only have 5 or 6 ships? None I've ever met. But the point was, that if you're going to set up an event that requires a large collection and limit it to only those people who won't play in competitive matches... You're still talking about a fairly small group of people.

21 minutes ago, VanorDM said:

Making product that on one actually wants doesn't support casuals.

Are there any players out there that only have 5 or 6 ships? None I've ever met. But the point was, that if you're going to set up an event that requires a large collection and limit it to only those people who won't play in competitive matches... You're still talking about a fairly small group of people.

I any event, my response was meant to attend to "what would make me feel like I was being supported as a casual" as opposed to "how can FFG sell product to the casual market." Of course, not mutually exclusive, but I also never claimed to be a marketing expert. . .only an end user whose opinion was solicited.

First, I have no idea what numbers constitute a "fairly small group of people." Secondly, I guess I'll get back to you after Gen Con. I would love to play in Shuttle Tydirium's ship-limited campaign; we'll see how many others agree with me.

You all are arguing in circles now. A couple answers to "how could casual be better supported" have already been given 10 days ago, back around pages 7-8. Here is what I said on the subject

On 4/7/2017 at 1:07 AM, Forgottenlore said:

It takes a lot of work to make a decently balanced scenario (DagobahDave's trench run has been around for, what, 5 years, and they are currently revising it again?) plus scenarios frequently need a lot of paraphernalia that needs to be hand made if its not provided. turbo Laser turrets, At-Ats, tokens for weird effects, new obstacles, variant play mats... Take a look through the files for the Aturi Cluster campaign and imagine needing to create a even a quarter of that stuff for a new scenario, say, every other week. FFG could produce a ton of content like that; linked campaign scenarios, a pilot experience system, tokens for ground assets to be bombed or whatever. A once a year release of a scenario book (including some alternate game formats) and occasional thematic expansion packs could include all sorts of fun, interesting things that simply have no place in a 100/6 tournament format and would be a HUGE boost to casual styles of play.

2 hours ago, benbaxter said:

Both of those suggestions require that players have a vast array of ships to draw from. These formats would only really cater to players that have a lot of the toys, but don't want to participate in a cutthroat competition.

I'm puzzled how a tournament format with constraints specially caters to players with large collections, any more so than a Standard tournament without constraints...?

Similarly, a pre-set scenario need not be "You must use exactly these ships." It can be something as simple as a mission with an (asymmetrical?) objective other than "Murderize everything," where you want to avoid (or require, depending) factional mirror-matches. Again, I'm not seeing how large collections are favored in such a case, any more than Standard already does.

19 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

You all are arguing in circles now. A couple answers to "how could casual be better supported" have already been given 10 days ago, back around pages 7-8. Here is what I said on the subject

Ah, Forgottenlore's forgotten lore. It's you're own fault picking a handle like that, ya know

16 hours ago, benbaxter said:

Both of those suggestions require that players have a vast array of ships to draw from. These formats would only really cater to players that have a lot of the toys, but don't want to participate in a cutthroat competition.

That is such a small portion of their customers that it doesn't make any sense for FFG, or FLGS's to spend the time/money to promote/hold.

People can lend ships to one another, that's one. Two, a format like "small ships only" is hardly restrictive. Three, "people might not have the ships" is a fairly silly excuse, they can always buy more or the limits must be fairly broad to allow various choices.

20 hours ago, Cusm said:

I have seen some of the best players bring non meta, list that look almost silly and place at the top table of regionals. I have seen successful local players that rely on meta list and have never cracked the top 16 of a regional. Too many players are good with good list but do not really improve their game and poor showings at major events reflect this. I love my local community but there are some players here that will never step away from meta list and I have seen new people turn away from playing because of them.

"Whatever happens we have got the Maxim gun and they have not".

A good player with a bad squad can beat a bad player with a good squad. A good player with a bad squad will simply lose to another good player with a good squad. Sometimes the weapons are so asymmetric that player skill simply can't overcome even awful players.

People are going to use the best tools for the job, you cannot blame them for picking what's best. This is why FFG should (continue to) listen to complainers, they want to lessen the impact of simply bringing better tools and having a significant advantage.