1 hour ago, Makaze said:

The thing I find odd is that Netrunner has a mechanism, in the form of rotations, for dealing with several of the problems described in the article. Maybe it's not working, rotation was implemented relatively late and core expansions don't rotate which creates a larger than average card pool. Or maybe it's more an issue with specific cards than core structure.

Rotation hasn't started yet, we're in the middle of the 7th pack cycle and when the first pack of the 8th cycle releases, cycles 1 and 2 will rotate out of standard play. That's only 240 cards leaving out of what will be a cardpool still over 1000 cards though, so the card pool size problem isn't really being alleviated much. A bigger problem though is that a lot of the really problematic cards are from the last two cycles, which are going to stay in the game for at least a couple years still, if FFG isn't willing to properly ban them. That and the problem cards from the Core Set; Like you said the core set and all of the deluxe expansions(including the tournament legal cards from Terminal Directive) won't rotate out as it stands now. And this is a problem because the Core Set has a few cards that are definitely problem cards. Some of the deluxes too, but to a much lesser extent. There've been rumors for a while that rather than a Netrunner 2.0, we'd end up seeing a Core Set 2.0 that unlike the X-wing TFA core set would actually replace the Netrunner Core Set, but I'm not sure how much stock I put in those rumors.

There's the Most Wanted List, where they attach an influence penalty to certain cards to try to curb their use, but even with the rumored revisions to that the cards are still playable, and unless they change the actual mechanism we're probably just going to get Mono Anarch decks with no influence splashes becoming a thing. It's really frustrating for me at the moment because at least in its current iteration, despite all of the Anarch faction cards already on the list, the end result has only been to push marginal, tier 1.5 and 2 Anarch decks out of being able to function while the faction in general stays dominant. I don't really think the rumored next revision of the MWL will do much to change that either.

Netrunner also has an issue with the Restricted List as well, which I don't understand. I wish both games would use it more.

14 minutes ago, Sithborg said:

Netrunner also has an issue with the Restricted List as well, which I don't understand. I wish both games would use it more.

It's not a restricted list in the traditional sense. In Netrunner, you pick a faction (3 different runner factions, 4 different corps), then pick an ID in that faction. Each individual ID has a different amount of Influence(most are 15), which you can spend during deck construction to import cards from other factions. Every faction aligned card(and certain neutrals) has an influence cost that is, theoretically anyway, based on both strength of effect or theme-ing, or both. For example, the Weyland Corp's thing is doing meat damage to the runner, so their card Scorched Earth that is both powerful and thematic costs 4 of the maximum possible 5 influence to import each copy.

The Most Wanted List was introduced about a year ago to try to curb certain power cards, the idea being that either things that were getting splashed too much, or cards that otherwise limited design space, would be put on the list. Rather than directly restricting the number of copies, cards on the MWL have a -1 initiative points penalty applied to them. Not that they cost one more influence, each copy included in any deck, including in-faction, reduces your ID's available influence to spend by 1 to a minimum of 1.

There have been two problems with it so far really. The first is that it hasn't actually done much to curb the dominance of the top decks, they've just forgone some extra tricks and used more in faction cards. It's had a much greater impact on hurting the Criminal and Shaper runner factions, for the few cards from each that are included than the massive list of Anarch cards has done to hurt Anarch, for instance. Even then it's pushed Anarch deck construction more and more to a few specific identities that were already the top tier while kicking 1.5 and 2nd tier decks out of the meta entirely.

The other problem is that updates to it are way too slow. The first iteration was either January or February last year, and the most recent update to it was back in early July. Combine that with their policy, at least at the time, to not puts cards on it that haven't been out for at least 6 months so as not to kneejerk anything has left what were almost immediately discovered to be problem cards to be unaffected for really long stretches of time.

15 minutes ago, Otacon said:

Rotation hasn't started yet, we're in the middle of the 7th pack cycle and when the first pack of the 8th cycle releases, cycles 1 and 2 will rotate out of standard play.

Gotcha. I (like Quinns) haven't played since early 2016 and it seems ages ago that they announced rotation and there were the overwrought cries of doom about how this was the end of Netrunner because corps could never possibly win again once JHow rotates out. I just sort of assumed it had happened by now.

2 minutes ago, Otacon said:

It's not a restricted list in the traditional sense. In Netrunner, you pick a faction (3 different runner factions, 4 different corps), then pick an ID in that faction. Each individual ID has a different amount of Influence(most are 15), which you can spend during deck construction to import cards from other factions. Every faction aligned card(and certain neutrals) has an influence cost that is, theoretically anyway, based on both strength of effect or theme-ing, or both. For example, the Weyland Corp's thing is doing meat damage to the runner, so their card Scorched Earth that is both powerful and thematic costs 4 of the maximum possible 5 influence to import each copy.

The Most Wanted List was introduced about a year ago to try to curb certain power cards, the idea being that either things that were getting splashed too much, or cards that otherwise limited design space, would be put on the list. Rather than directly restricting the number of copies, cards on the MWL have a -1 initiative points penalty applied to them. Not that they cost one more influence, each copy included in any deck, including in-faction, reduces your ID's available influence to spend by 1 to a minimum of 1.

There have been two problems with it so far really. The first is that it hasn't actually done much to curb the dominance of the top decks, they've just forgone some extra tricks and used more in faction cards. It's had a much greater impact on hurting the Criminal and Shaper runner factions, for the few cards from each that are included than the massive list of Anarch cards has done to hurt Anarch, for instance. Even then it's pushed Anarch deck construction more and more to a few specific identities that were already the top tier while kicking 1.5 and 2nd tier decks out of the meta entirely.

The other problem is that updates to it are way too slow. The first iteration was either January or February last year, and the most recent update to it was back in early July. Combine that with their policy, at least at the time, to not puts cards on it that haven't been out for at least 6 months so as not to kneejerk anything has left what were almost immediately discovered to be problem cards to be unaffected for really long stretches of time.

I understand how Netrunner and the MWL list works. They use the MWL instead of a restricted list. I think only SWLCCG uses the Restricted list, and I'm not really sure why. I can understand why they chose to use the MWL for Netrunner, but I feel that the Restricted List works a lot better than mass errata for this game.

" Our prize for getting good at the game was realizing that every deck we made wasn’t competitive. "

This one hit home for me. It's really rough opening a listbuilder for scum and thinking, "Okay, so I either run Jumpmasters, Mindlink, or Fenn Rau, or I accept that my chances of building something equally competitive is less than 1%". That really always sucks for someone who enjoys listbuilding as much as I do (although I don't think I'm particularly good at the game, but I am aware of what performs and what doesn't).

Also, why do things like this always become a calling card for the fictional divide between casual and competitive players? I really detest the whole "Just play casual, because we don't care about what's good and what's bad! We just have fun!" thing (almost as much as I detest the "run a netlist because winning is all that matters" mentality).

The issue with the "casuals don't care about balance" mindset is that it turns a blind eye towards a better solution. A solution where players don't ever have to knowingly handicap themselves and their opponent for an enjoyable experience. A solution where the game is balanced in such a way that anyone with a strong understanding of the game mechanics can build a functional list that can compete because every card is priced appropriately and fairly. A solution where someone who pops into casual night with a list they just cooked up doesn't have to roll their eyes when they get stuck playing the guy who is preparing for a tournament.

The costing system means everything should be able to be costed at least closely to its true value. The issue is that this is difficult to do consistently, and when FFG doesn't cost something correctly, it derails that balance. With X-wing, and apparently with Netrunner, the issue increases as more game elements are introduced, and more combos are available. To me, this means the question should really be for FFG "How close can we get to a perfectly balanced game where each piece is usable in some form, both casually and competitively, and how do we get there?", and for us as players, "How can we influence FFG in such a way that they are willing to make the necessary changes to create a more balanced game which promotes the list building experience?".

The constant flood of nerf threads can get tiresome, but many of them do have a point worth listening to, even if some proposed solutions are poor- that change can produce a better game.

If FFG wants to keep Xwing in as balanced a state as humanly possible, they are going to have to accept that they will need to continue to make a number of changes to assure this game is open to player creativity as much as possible at both the casual and competitive level. In my opinion they have been a little light on these changes, but to others, they have been too heavy. This is where a divide really comes in, as there are negatives to making continual changes to a game that is printed and purchased as physical elements. So, in the end, it really is a give and take.

7 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

Also, why do things like this always become a calling card for the fictional divide between casual and competitive players? I really detest the whole "Just play casual, because we don't care about what's good and what's bad! We just have fun!" thing (almost as much as I detest the "run a netlist because winning is all that matters" mentality).

It's usually because someone comes in here crapping on someone that DOES play a netlist. Netlisting is not actually "wrong". Some do not need to be a beautiful, unique snowflake in list design to enjoy the game. [Also, you didn't make this argument - others did; I'm just noting how this kind of discussion arises].

I *do* agree entirely with your statements about balance - I think everyone [hopefully] wants a balanced game, where more playstyles are viable (gett beyond that statement and we usually find people have conflicting ideas of what "balance" means). It's what Chris Allen and I have been discussing: game design and balance. It's super interesting, and definitely difficult.

8 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

Also, why do things like this always become a calling card for the fictional divide between casual and competitive players? I really detest the whole "Just play casual, because we don't care about what's good and what's bad! We just have fun!" thing (almost as much as I detest the "run a netlist because winning is all that matters" mentality).

Ahh, the militant casual. The flip side of the competitive *******. Because while they claim to be casual, they really do care about winning.

Just now, Sithborg said:

Ahh, the militant casual. The flip side of the competitive *******. Because while they claim to be casual, they really do care about winning.

Wait... Do casuals not care about winning? Then why do they fly the ships at their opponent and shoot them?

The true casual doesn't get bent in a twist by losing. The militant casual does.

9 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

It's usually because someone comes in here crapping on someone that DOES play a netlist. Netlisting is not actually "wrong". Some do not need to be a beautiful, unique snowflake in list design to enjoy the game. [Also, you didn't make this argument - others did; I'm just noting how this kind of discussion arises].

I *do* agree entirely with your statements about balance - I think everyone [hopefully] wants a balanced game, where more playstyles are viable (getting beyond that statement and we usually find people have conflicting ideas of what "balance" means). It's what Chris Allen and I have been discussing: game design and balance. It's super interesting, and definitely difficult.

Honestly, I have never been part of a community where casual players are the abusive side before.

There is this strange Elitist casual mentality that says "I am better than you because I don't care about winning". But to be honest, the worst games I have experienced at tournaments have been from people who espouse fly casual. They then turned around and rules lawyer more than any of the "uber competitive" players I have ever played against. They don't care about winning or tournaments or rankings, until they lose and they throw massive fits.

obviously the vast majority of players are casual and this community is amazing. I have just seen this Elitist Casual (could be read militant) that I have never encountered before

1 minute ago, Sithborg said:

The true casual doesn't get bent in a twist by losing. The militant casual does.

Being a sore loser is totally different than not caring about the outcome of the game. It's totally possible to want to win, enjoy the experience along the way in a losing effort, and graciously accept a loss.

I'm not sure if I'm following what you are getting at. Apologies if I'm misreading your comment altogether.

I was having this exact issue with X-Wing. I haven't played in a year because I got fed up with my opponent reducing the game to math. I'm like, "Ezra coming out stressed because he's just a cocky kid" - and my opponent goes 'ok, he's gonna remove one die from your defense, and he's gonna deal you a stress and then I'm going to add so-and-so because I'm so-and-so away from so-and-so and inside your firing arc, blah, blah, blah...'

I don't care who you are. Game after game of this cold math isn't fun. Might as well not even have little ships - you can do math with generic wooden tokens and notebook paper...

I just want to build something thematic and play against something thematic. If I get stomped, it's thematic - and it's easy to make that loss fun. I just can't have fun running a ship whose pilot's name I can't pronounce, but he's SOO GOOD tho...

Anyway - this sentiment struck a chord with me. I have almost the entire X-Wing collection and I hadn't played in a year and didn't really know why until now...

Just now, Kdubb said:

Being a sore loser is totally different than not caring about the outcome of the game. It's totally possible to want to win, enjoy the experience along the way in a losing effort, and graciously accept a loss.

I'm not sure if I'm following what you are getting at. Apologies if I'm misreading your comment altogether.

Oh there are plenty of people like that. In fact, I would call the majority of the players of this game in that category.

But, I have soured on the competitive/casual "divide", because the militant casual is just as bad as the competitive *******.

2 minutes ago, macmastermind said:

I was having this exact issue with X-Wing. I haven't played in a year because I got fed up with my opponent reducing the game to math. I'm like, "Ezra coming out stressed because he's just a cocky kid" - and my opponent goes 'ok, he's gonna remove one die from your defense, and he's gonna deal you a stress and then I'm going to add so-and-so because I'm so-and-so away from so-and-so and inside your firing arc, blah, blah, blah...'

I don't care who you are. Game after game of this cold math isn't fun. Might as well not even have little ships - you can do math with generic wooden tokens and notebook paper...

I just want to build something thematic and play against something thematic. If I get stomped, it's thematic - and it's easy to make that loss fun. I just can't have fun running a ship whose pilot's name I can't pronounce, but he's SOO GOOD tho...

Anyway - this sentiment struck a chord with me. I have almost the entire X-Wing collection and I hadn't played in a year and didn't really know why until now...

Have you tried setting up thematic games and scenarios with your group? If you are in Maryland I would be more than happy to help you set some up.

2 minutes ago, Timathius said:

Have you tried setting up thematic games and scenarios with your group? If you are in Maryland I would be more than happy to help you set some up.

I'm guilty of giving up too soon. lol

But I plan to start asking the facebook group for volunteers.

2 minutes ago, Timathius said:

Have you tried setting up thematic games and scenarios with your group?

This is the kind of thing I'm migrating towards. I've been playing Heroes of the Aturi Cluster a lot, and that's fun too, but that leaves so many of my ships unplayed.

I've joined an epic league locally to try my hand there for a casual experience. I play 100 point xwing still but I don't "train" or practice against meta lists unless that's what I happen to run into. Frankly, I know I'll lose if I go up against a practiced player with a net list because I cant get enough practice time in my schedule to let me learn a net list I didn't create, and they probably can.

14 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

Being a sore loser is totally different than not caring about the outcome of the game. It's totally possible to want to win, enjoy the experience along the way in a losing effort, and graciously accept a loss.

I'm not sure if I'm following what you are getting at. Apologies if I'm misreading your comment altogether.

So, I think he and I are saying kind of the same thing. In X-Wing there seems to be a very vocal group of players that are CAAC (Casual At All Costs). I have seen people attack competitive players online and in person simply for being competitive. Let me be clear, not for cheating, not for being bad opponents, and not for rules lawyering. Simply for playing the game consistently at the competitive level.

I have gotten a ton of flak for my rankings. Not for them not being accurate or biased or anything, simply for creating them because they "make the game more competitive, cut throat, and discourage creativity in list building." Which I find pretty ridiculous because I know how many people actually go to the page . That said, I have also gotten a lot of support and that means the world to me so thanks to all those who do!

The worst part is I have seen some of these people play. They rules lawyer, they are cut throat, and they get extremely upset about not winning even against non meta lists.

2 minutes ago, Timathius said:

I have gotten a ton of flak for my rankings. Not for them not being accurate or biased or anything, simply for creating them because they "make the game more competitive, cut throat, and discourage creativity in list building." Which I find pretty ridiculous because I know how many people actually go to the page

To be fair, I criticize your rankings because they're bullarky. And because you're ugly in the face -- though you really can't help that.

Just now, macmastermind said:

I'm guilty of giving up too soon. lol

But I plan to start asking the facebook group for volunteers.

There are lots of people out there who also want to play thematic games and scenarios. If you don't already, you should also tune in to the Shuttle Tydirium podcast; we give that side of the game a lot of attention and thought. We'll also be running an X-wing narrative event and other thematic games this year at Gencon. For those who can't make it, we'll also be releasing the rules after Gencon, and running a global campaign through the podcast.

12 minutes ago, Sithborg said:

Oh there are plenty of people like that. In fact, I would call the majority of the players of this game in that category.

But, I have soured on the competitive/casual "divide", because the militant casual is just as bad as the competitive *******.

I also reject the notion of any sort of hard divide between casual and competitive players. Everyone's on a spectrum of competitive-casual, really.

I haven't met anyone who meets your definition of 'militant casual', though. The casual players that I interact with (who are some of the most enthusiastically 'casual' players out there) lose plenty of games and don't seem to mind it too much. Maybe I just haven't met the kind of guys you're referring to, though.

That said, I have always said that a matchup between a very casual and very competitive player is a recipe for a not-so fun game. If a match doesn't have a sense of fairness, right from the outset, then it isn't likely to be very engaging for either player. I don't think most people have fun curbstomping a janky casual list with a top tier meta stuff, and it certainly isn't very good tournament practice. Those people are really playing two different games.

6 minutes ago, DerekT said:

To be fair, I criticize your rankings because they're bullarky. And because you're ugly in the face -- though you really can't help that.

I had to like this for your use of the word Bullarky. But I did not enjoy doing it.

12 minutes ago, macmastermind said:

I'm guilty of giving up too soon. lol

But I plan to start asking the facebook group for volunteers.

Well, if you need help shoot me a message. I have been in wargames for a quite a while and might have some suggestions. Other than heroes of the arturi cluster which you should definitely do regardless!

Ideally, casual players should be self-organizing into their own groups, so that we don't have the problem of mismatch between players gearing up for tournaments and players looking for a nice fun game of spaceships. Trouble is, competitive games are standardized and supported, while casual games are generally non-standardized and unsupported. Without standardization and support, it's harder to just go to the store and find a casual game.

Casual is really a huge catch-all, too. It's actually kind of useless as a descriptive term. All it really means is not competitive. There's many shades of casual play.

5 minutes ago, Babaganoosh said:

Ideally, casual players should be self-organizing into their own groups, so that we don't have the problem of mismatch between players gearing up for tournaments and players looking for a nice fun game of spaceships. Trouble is, competitive games are standardized and supported, while casual games are generally non-standardized and unsupported. Without standardization and support, it's harder to just go to the store and find a casual game.

Casual is really a huge catch-all, too. It's actually kind of useless as a descriptive term. All it really means is not competitive. There's many shades of casual play.

I agree, FFG should 100% be supporting casual play more.

I think we are trying to find an identifying term (elitist/militant/CAAC) because you're right the vast majority of casual players are awesome. Just like the majority of competitive players are also pretty awesome. Except Derek, he is stupid and nobody should like him.

1 minute ago, Babaganoosh said:

Ideally, casual players should be self-organizing into their own groups, so that we don't have the problem of mismatch between players gearing up for tournaments and players looking for a nice fun game of spaceships. Trouble is, competitive games are standardized and supported, while casual games are generally non-standardized and unsupported. Without standardization and support, it's harder to just go to the store and find a casual game.

Casual is really a huge catch-all, too. It's actually kind of useless as a descriptive term. All it really means is not competitive. There's many shades of casual play.

You can just bring your fun list to a tournament. You might run into one of the Tier 1 Power Lists, but if it's just one round out of 3-4, who cares? It can be fun to try your weird list against the power stuff -- and sometimes you'll win. So long as you don't get upset about being at the bottom of the ranking, what's the problem?