37 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

That is exactly why my time and enthusiasm investment in X-Wing is diminishing. It's been a slow process that started around Wave 5, but has accelerated since Wave 8.

Every time I see someone waxing on about how "RNG bad, reliability good," part of me just winces and mutters, "That's exactly what's killing the game."

Very true! RNG is good for a games health. SOME mitigation is good for strategy but too much rapidly becomes a turn off to the majority of players, because it makes the game too skill-rewarding and means more and more players lose hope of ever winning games.

2 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Very true! RNG is good for a games health. SOME mitigation is good for strategy but too much rapidly becomes a turn off to the majority of players, because it makes the game too skill-rewarding and means more and more players lose hope of ever winning games.

It's like FFG just hard nerfed my Ability Toucan.

8 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Very true! RNG is good for a games health. SOME mitigation is good for strategy but too much rapidly becomes a turn off to the majority of players, because it makes the game too skill-rewarding and means more and more players lose hope of ever winning games.

So, I'm really interested in this argument/attitude, because I don't understand it at all. To me, X-Wing would be strictly better if we removed all dice from it and it became entirely a positional game with some flavor variance thrown in so all games weren't the same. I nearly exclusively played palp aces when it was strong, because I could completely ignore what the dice said every turn.

I don't mind the variance and don't tend to be one for dice salt or anything, they're just a necessary evil to me to make tracking damage not require decimals as well as add some variance so we're not playing the exact same rounds over and over again.

Unless you're trolling in which case well played.

26 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Very true! RNG is good for a games health. SOME mitigation is good for strategy but too much rapidly becomes a turn off to the majority of players, because it makes the game too skill-rewarding and means more and more players lose hope of ever winning games.

SOME rng is good.

But flying better means not needing to barrel roll or boost for your shot, soyou actually have that focus or target lock (or both).

Basically, most people don't lose because of their dice - they lose because of the choices they made on the board. And THAT is good for the game.

I don't want to play star wars monopoly, and I don't want to play star wars chess - but x-wing should (and is) far more chess-like than monopoly-like.

10 minutes ago, Brunas said:

So, I'm really interested in this argument/attitude, because I don't understand it at all. To me, X-Wing would be strictly better if we removed all dice from it and it became entirely a positional game with some flavor variance thrown in so all games weren't the same. I nearly exclusively played palp aces when it was strong, because I could completely ignore what the dice said every turn.

I don't mind the variance and don't tend to be one for dice salt or anything, they're just a necessary evil to me to make tracking damage not require decimals as well as add some variance so we're not playing the exact same rounds over and over again.

Unless you're trolling in which case well played.

Game design for mass appeal needs RNG, and in the past games without a sufficient level of variance have failed to find a big market (it's the main reason 'VS System' died first time round - if you weren't a maths graduate you weren't going to win anything).

Extremes of variance create exciting game situations and memorable moments, they give anybody a chance to beat anybody. Games without this become very good at rewarding the better player but the flip side of that is that they're quite punishing to the 95% of players who by definition aren't the top 5% of players.

When M:tG created a set that was too skill-intensive for draft they deliberately inserted an overpowered rare that was amazing in draft into the set as a wildcard to insert more variance as something that the best players would lose to.

Its a pretty well understood goal of mass market games.

19 minutes ago, Brunas said:

So, I'm really interested in this argument/attitude, because I don't understand it at all. To me, X-Wing would be strictly better if we removed all dice from it and it became entirely a positional game with some flavor variance thrown in so all games weren't the same. I nearly exclusively played palp aces when it was strong, because I could completely ignore what the dice said every turn.

I don't mind the variance and don't tend to be one for dice salt or anything, they're just a necessary evil to me to make tracking damage not require decimals as well as add some variance so we're not playing the exact same rounds over and over again.

Unless you're trolling in which case well played.

This blog nails it, judging from my speed read of it:

http://hyperluminalgames.com/?p=10005

4 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Game design for mass appeal needs RNG, and in the past games without a sufficient level of variance have failed to find a big market (it's the main reason 'VS System' died first time round - if you weren't a maths graduate you weren't going to win anything).

Extremes of variance create exciting game situations and memorable moments, they give anybody a chance to beat anybody. Games without this become very good at rewarding the better player but the flip side of that is that they're quite punishing to the 95% of players who by definition aren't the top 5% of players.

When M:tG created a set that was too skill-intensive for draft they deliberately inserted an overpowered rare that was amazing in draft into the set as a wildcard to insert more variance as something that the best players would lose to.

Its a pretty well understood goal of mass market games.

I'm still not sure I follow - sure, some people may like games with lots of variance, but it doesn't need to be there to be successful. Just looking at the top online games (granted, these are video games, but the example should still follow) there really aren't many with notable variance. Counterstrike, WoW, League of Legends, etc don't rely on variance as a mechanic and are getting by just fine.

Will read the link in a bit, gotta head out for now. Thanks.

3 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

When M:tG created a set that was too skill-intensive for draft they deliberately inserted an overpowered rare that was amazing in draft into the set as a wildcard to insert more variance as something that the best players would lose to.

Out of curiosity, what set was that? I haven't paid attention to magic for years.

3 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

Out of curiosity, what set was that? I haven't paid attention to magic for years.

This was the chappy.

The problem with X-Wing's variance is that there's little granularity in it. On most attacks, you're looking to do 1, maybe 2 damage if you get lucky, but failure generally causes no effect on the game state (unless they had to use a token to generate the failure AND there are additional shots lined up on the model, which is fairly rare due to the low ship count). If, to win the game you need a low probability event to occur, every time you get a "try" at it that fails, you've made no progress towards success as your next try has the same odds as your first.

This is where game variance runs into problems. It's easy for a game designer to build an ability that succeeds about a third of the time with the idea that the player will have 3 chances to use it over the course of the game so that it will succeed about once per game. The problem is, that's not how probability, particularly low probability operates. It might happen the very first time; it might happen twice in a row and then not again for the next 20. What works better is a system where success does 3ish damage or so and failure does 1 damage. That way strings of bad luck still advance the game state in some way.

4 minutes ago, LunarSol said:

The problem with X-Wing's variance is that there's little granularity in it. On most attacks, you're looking to do 1, maybe 2 damage if you get lucky, but failure generally causes no effect on the game state (unless they had to use a token to generate the failure AND there are additional shots lined up on the model, which is fairly rare due to the low ship count).

If this is rare, then I'd suggest that perhaps you're playing poorly. Early shot to strip tokens with follow-up to punch through damage has long been a winning approach. Rather than being rare, it's something you should be seeing in the majority of combat rounds.

That depends a lot on the lists present. It's definitely what you should be aiming for, but in a game of around 3 ships/attacks there's lots of combats where it doesn't happen; particularly if one side has maneuver actions. It's more common after sides start suffering losses or when an early swing in luck results in a model NOT spending their tokens, but there are plenty of attacks in the game that do nothing to the game state for whatever reason. That's not entirely a bad thing, but its where the game's dice curve falters and why we've seen so much passive red dice fixing introduced into the engine over the years.

1 hour ago, Forgottenlore said:

Demonstrably false. The original designer of the game has stated in interviews that their goal was a quick little beer and pretzels game that was not meant to be taken seriously. The phenomenal popularity of the tournament mode of play caught everyone by surprise. Also...

Is an arrogant and condescending statement that exemplifies the type of bad player most of this thread has been complaining about.

Ok, I've been called to the mat twice (correctly) for being overly salty. Sorry. But, is the original designer's notions being followed anymore? Or as was pointed out somewhere above, has the thrust of this game been coopted by a small segment of the crowd to cater to a single form of the game, leaving the beer and pretzels folks out of the loop.

Because, to get back to the OP, you can't take a "build a list and explore it's possibilities" approach out of the basement without a social contract at the gaming store. As in, an opening question of "do you intend to kick my ass with a tournament list or are we here for B&P play?"

1 hour ago, Tlfj200 said:

I don't want to play star wars monopoly

Yeah but when your opponent lands on Coruscant and you have a star destroyer in orbit, you get loads of credits!!

17 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Ok, I've been called to the mat twice (correctly) for being overly salty. Sorry. But, is the original designer's notions being followed anymore? Or as was pointed out somewhere above, has the thrust of this game been coopted by a small segment of the crowd to cater to a single form of the game, leaving the beer and pretzels folks out of the loop.

Because, to get back to the OP, you can't take a "build a list and explore it's possibilities" approach out of the basement without a social contract at the gaming store. As in, an opening question of "do you intend to kick my ass with a tournament list or are we here for B&P play?"

What makes something not a "tournament list"? Are triple imperial aces tournament list? Han and Jake? Double Upsilon Omega Leader? Rau, Old T, Sarco, Kaato mindlink? Dengar/Bossk? Wedge/Norra/Biggs?

Is it only lists that have won major tournaments which are "tournament lists"? Or is it anything that does not objectively suck?

3 hours ago, Timathius said:

One thing I would say to that is I have seen the same thing. But the person, never said a word. I had to ask them later what happened.

If they would have simply said something most of us would have pulled out a different list.

But think about it: a big percentage of us gamers are somewhat shy or otherwise socially awkward. (I mean, we're nerds, right?) We've decided to drop by the local game store for a night of X-Wing, which may or may not have taken a tiny bit of courage, depending on how shy or socially awkward we are. And then, when we get there, people who already know each other are talking serious tournament jargon and playing very competition-oriented lists.

Ideally, the new guy would speak up. But ... can you really not understand why he doesn't?

When I'm at a casual X-Wing night, I try to greet people I don't recognize, ask their names, ask what they're flying, and offer a game (if I'm packing a suitable list). But I'm a fake extrovert. Most people don't do this ... and I say that without judgment, because I can understand that, too. But I would like to encourage folks to do it.

2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

But think about it: a big percentage of us gamers are somewhat shy or otherwise socially awkward. (I mean, we're nerds, right?) We've decided to drop by the local game store for a night of X-Wing, which may or may not have taken a tiny bit of courage, depending on how shy or socially awkward we are. And then, when we get there, people who already know each other are talking serious tournament jargon and playing very competition-oriented lists.

Ideally, the new guy would speak up. But ... can you really not understand why he doesn't?

When I'm at a casual X-Wing night, I try to greet people I don't recognize, ask their names, ask what they're flying, and offer a game (if I'm packing a suitable list). But I'm a fake extrovert. Most people don't do this ... and I say that without judgment, because I can understand that, too. But I would like to encourage folks to do it.

I think you're infantilizing the players a bit. There's nothing about liking Star Wars or miniatures or gaming that makes you any more likely to be shy or socially awkward. Quite the opposite probably if you've voluntarily chosen an inherently social game among all the other options and have chosen to go out to a game store instead of playing kitchen table games at home (which lots of people choose to do).

If you don't like the kind of gameplay style your local group has, that's not the group's problem to solve, it's your problem.

Just now, DerekT said:

There's nothing about liking Star Wars or miniatures or gaming that makes you any more likely to be shy or socially awkward. Quite the opposite

Uh... are you serious???

Just now, Stay On The Leader said:

Uh... are you serious???

Uh... yeah. Liking Star Wars has nothing to do with your social skills.

18 minutes ago, DerekT said:

What makes something not a "tournament list"? Are triple imperial aces tournament list? Han and Jake? Double Upsilon Omega Leader? Rau, Old T, Sarco, Kaato mindlink? Dengar/Bossk? Wedge/Norra/Biggs?

Is it only lists that have won major tournaments which are "tournament lists"? Or is it anything that does not objectively suck?

See all those big names there? How about anything that doesn't include them. Furthermore, there are probably millions of lists that "objectively suck" because the game is stacked against them.

Moreover, if a player wants to play with 4 Red Squadron X-Wing pilots, TIE Punishers, or numerous other pilot cards, those lists should not "objectively suck" in the first place. I could ask the reverse question. If I bring 4 x-wings without Biggs, does that list "objectively suck" and I deserve to lose? What if I like X-Wings? Why should I not be able to explore those pilot cards in the game?

10 minutes ago, DerekT said:

I think you're infantilizing the players a bit.

I think I've been playing the game since the beginning, and have seen nothing particularly different about X-Wing gamers than other gamers ... namely that a significant percentage are shy or socially awkward. It's not just my area -- the SF Bay -- because I've played in Minnesota, Indiana, Kentucky, Florida, and Washington, as well as in several regions of California.

Calling X-Wing an "inherently social game" is pretty absurd, especially given the truly "inherently social" games like D&D and Pathfinder, which of course have always had, and continue to have, the same significant percentage of shy or otherwise socially awkward players.

Quote

If you don't like the kind of gameplay style your local group has, that's not the group's problem to solve, it's your problem.

If you don't see how dismissive this is, I'm not sure what else to say. (And I'm making absolutely no judgments on its truth value. I'm simply pointing out that this sort of statement is exactly part of the issue.)

2 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

See all those big names there? How about anything that doesn't include them. Furthermore, there are probably millions of lists that "objectively suck" because the game is stacked against them.

Moreover, if a player wants to play with 4 Red Squadron X-Wing pilots, TIE Punishers, or numerous other pilot cards, those lists should not "objectively suck" in the first place. I could ask the reverse question. If I bring 4 x-wings without Biggs, does that list "objectively suck" and I deserve to lose? What if I like X-Wings? Why should I not be able to explore those pilot cards in the game?

Do you "deserve" to lose? No. Are you likely to lose? Sure. But if you like a list because it's an underdog list then you should expect to not win very often.

But seriously, how do I know if something is or isn't a tournament list? Am I limited only to pilots that have never done well as part of any list?

3 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I think I've been playing the game since the beginning, and have seen nothing particularly different about X-Wing gamers than other gamers ... namely that a significant percentage are shy or socially awkward. It not just my area -- the SF Bay -- because I've played in Minnesota, Indiana, Kentucky, Florida, and Washington.

Calling X-Wing an "inherently social game" is pretty absurd, especially given the truly "inherently social" games like D&D and Pathfinder, which of course have always had, and continue to have, the same significant percentage of shy or otherwise socially awkward players.

If you don't see how dismissive this is, I'm not sure what else to say. (And I'm making absolutely no judgments on its truth value. I'm simply pointing out that this sort of statement is exactly part of the issue.)

The game necessarily involves interacting with another living player standing across the table from you. You interact with that person. It's social. And while I've only been playing the game for about 2 years now, I've noticed nothing particularly different about X-Wing players from the general population. It's by far just a bunch of normal dudes.

Just now, DerekT said:

And while I've only been playing the game for about 2 years now, I've noticed nothing particularly different about X-Wing players from the general population. It's by far just a bunch of normal dudes.

Really? What's the percentage of female players? (Or are women and girls not part of the "general population"?)

Given that yoou've apparently not noticed that part of the "general population" being absent from X-Wing, I guess I'll take the rest of your failure to observe the game's player-base to be genuine, as opposed to defensiveness.

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm a regular user if Boardgamejock.com.