Just now, Jeff Wilder said:

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 was talking about personality types, since that was the context of the conversation. They player base has been pretty normal socially. At least at the stores I go to, just about everyone talks to everyone else. Of course YMMV.

37 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 would say some are for sure. But it is a minority at this point. I also go out of the way to make sure I introduce myself and encourage new players.

I of course understand that there is trepidation in entering a new social circle, but do you really think the reverse of your example is not also true? Dude(t) goes online sees that they can run paratanni with just buying three boxes. Then he goes to a shop and gets a game set up and pulls them out, and his opponent goes "oh you're going to run that?! You're that kind of player!?"

CAACs are just as bad for the game as WAACs

I encourage both styles of play, which it is extremely evident you don't.

5 minutes ago, DerekT said:

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?

Second part first. I don't know if you are new to the boards or new to the game as a whole, but I dare say a little time online will give you a great idea what hot at the moment. Tournament lists will change as the game evolves, so it's a moving target. But, in a broad sweep I would generalize that in every ship pack there is 1 tournament pilot and 3 others. So, anytime you choose one of those other 3 pilots, you have just accepted underdog status.

And if you build an underdog/non-tournament list, you can only expect to not lose (or have a reasonable chance in winning) if you have a social contract with the your opponent that they are ALSO playing something that is not Tier 1.

4 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Second part first. I don't know if you are new to the boards or new to the game as a whole, but I dare say a little time online will give you a great idea what hot at the moment. Tournament lists will change as the game evolves, so it's a moving target. But, in a broad sweep I would generalize that in every ship pack there is 1 tournament pilot and 3 others. So, anytime you choose one of those other 3 pilots, you have just accepted underdog status.

And if you build an underdog/non-tournament list, you can only expect to not lose (or have a reasonable chance in winning) if you have a social contract with the your opponent that they are ALSO playing something that is not Tier 1.

I think you are over complicating asking the question "what are you flying".

if they say a tourney list reply "honestly looking for a casual game, do you have anything else?"

19 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

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.

That's a strawman argument - the game lacking women is not correlated to whether the game is social.

Football lacks women, and it's highly social.

Also, the game *is* social, if you're going to stores to play with other people.

If you're staying at home to play with friends, then many of your previous statements make very little sense, and you can likewise play whatever you want and not worry about a 'meta'.

1 minute ago, Timathius said:

I think you are over complicating asking the question "what are you flying".

if they say a tourney list reply "honestly looking for a casual game, do you have anything else?"

I don't even get this though. What's not "casual" about flying a tier 1 list?

To me casual is just about what's at stake in the game. Regular tournament playing for a Ketsu Onyo alt art promo after getting loaded at Chuy's happy hour? That's pretty casual. Don't see what playing casual has to do with the strength of the squad.

8 minutes ago, Timathius said:

CAACs are just as bad for the game as WAACs

I encourage both styles of play, which it is extremely evident you don't.

... Not just "evident." "Extremely" evident.

Okay, then.

5 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

... Not just "evident." "Extremely" evident.

Okay, then.

Edit: Sorry. That was very rude.

26 minutes ago, DerekT said:

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?

6 minutes ago, Timathius said:

I think you are over complicating asking the question "what are you flying".

if they say a tourney list reply "honestly looking for a casual game, do you have anything else?"

Well, I was trying to answer the above question.

2 minutes ago, DerekT said:

I don't even get this though. What's not "casual" about flying a tier 1 list?

To me casual is just about what's at stake in the game. Regular tournament playing for a Ketsu Onyo alt art promo after getting loaded at Chuy's happy hour? That's pretty casual. Don't see what playing casual has to do with the strength of the squad.

Because if the other guy isn't, he's dead meat.

4 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

... Not just "evident." "Extremely" evident.

Okay, then.

do you disagree that you have made it abundantly clear you despise competitive play?

Also, it seems you ignored the rest of my post. Do you disagree that extremism on either side of the spectrum is bad for the health of the game?

1 minute ago, Darth Meanie said:

Well, I was trying to answer the above question.

Because if the other guy isn't, he's dead meat.

Well that's not true in a lot of cases. I beat a tier one list with swarm leader Wedge and 3 snap crack A-wings the other day.

Player ability still really matters in this game. But I really do see your point in that it's usually an uphill battle.

1 minute ago, Darth Meanie said:

Because if the other guy isn't, he's dead meat.

Bullarky. Double Upsilons + Omega is very "casual" and I've defeated a very good Paratanni player with it pre-FAQ. I've seen all sorts of meta lists lose to all sorts of "fun" lists.

1 minute ago, Timathius said:

do you disagree that you have made it abundantly clear you despise competitive play?

Vehemently. (Maybe even extremely vehemently.)

Quote

Also, it seems you ignored the rest of my post. Do you disagree that extremism on either side of the spectrum is bad for the health of the game?

I gave the rest of your post the attention it warranted.

I have never met a "CAAC" player. Ever. To be fair, I have only met one or two "WAAC" players.

I believe that both of these are labels made up purely for the sake of building up and ripping into strawman arguments. I have never -- extremely never -- seen them used in any other way.

4 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Vehemently. (Maybe even extremely vehemently.)

I gave the rest of your post the attention it warranted.

I have never met a "CAAC" player. Ever. To be fair, I have only met one or two "WAAC" players.

I believe that both of these are labels made up purely for the sake of building up and ripping into strawman arguments. I have never -- extremely never -- seen them used in any other way.

Quote

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."

But X-Wing has been "captured" (to use an Administrative Law term) by competitive players. I don't think there's any going back. I'm personally 95% sure Wave 11 will be the last ships I get, barring checking out X-Wing 2.0 when it comes. It'll likewise be 95% casual play for me ... which, unfortunately, probably means almost none (except HotAC on VASSAL).

Maybe not quite "CAAC", but you were complaining about the game getting "captured" by competitive players (and thanks for the lesson about the regulatory and administrative state, TIL). If you don't like how your local scene is going, just work to organize a better scene.

3 minutes ago, DerekT said:

Maybe not quite "CAAC", but you were complaining about the game getting "captured" by competitive players

It's fantastic of you to recognize that wishing for more balance in the game between competitive and casual doesn't "quite" make me a CAAC player. (I mean, sure, almost, but not, you know, all the way CAAC. Whew. Thank goodness.)

The casual versus competitive debate seems to come up in just about every multiplayer game I've played, Dungeons & Dragons, Magic: the Gathering, X-Wing Miniatures. Strangely, I've always straddled the middle. I enjoy both. I think you can also find each within the other.

My view is this:

1. If you have a group of friends that you play with (or a regular group at your LGS and your LGS doesn't offer prizes), great! You can discuss with each other what kinds of games you'd like to have. At the worst, you should know what your opponents are running and be able to build to suit. My friend who got me into the game often tells me what he's planning to run out of excitement, for example.

2. Most stores seem to run their events as tournaments. Therefore, if I go to a store, I go because I want to compete. I build the best list I can with what I have available. I also expect to lose. This is because I usually have less funds available than my opponents to build quality lists, because I'm a mediocre-to-average list builder, and because I'm a mediocre-to-average player. The mental test of preparation and play is still fun, though!

1 minute ago, Jeff Wilder said:

It's fantastic of you to recognize that wishing for more balance in the game between competitive and casual doesn't "quite" make me a CAAC player. (I mean, sure, almost, but not, you know, all the way CAAC. Whew. Thank goodness.)

That's because "any cost" would include "being proactive and working to make a better casual play community." But I assume you either can't handle that or else just strenuously object to it. For other players though, there's plenty of room for continued casual play, whether at stores or at home. Pickup, private, lots of options. Whether you want to go for an alpha strike and suffer if it doesn't go through, or do the senator shuttle escort mission and say "Nothing's going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch." And if FFG doesn't create more official guidelines for casual play, that's fine. Players are smart. You're smart, you can figure it out. I mean, FFG doesn't give us directions to the bar at their game center, but no one's saying that at all their time at worlds they never had a drink. No sir, three rounds a game.

Just now, Jeff Wilder said:

It's fantastic of you to recognize that wishing for more balance in the game between competitive and casual doesn't "quite" make me a CAAC player. (I mean, sure, almost, but not, you know, all the way CAAC. Whew. Thank goodness.)

You seem to be deliberately ignoring any examples that counter your arguments and instead resorting to pulling the victim card.

You entered this thread saying competitive play had seized the game and was in your opinion ruining it. You are now trying to say you don't despise competitive play.

You said that competitive players drive away new players. But then ignored an example of someone who hates net lists/ competitive play doing the same thing.

do you actually have anything meaningful to contribute? Or are you just going to now italicize "meaningful to contribute"?

10 minutes ago, TheHumanHydra said:

The casual versus competitive debate seems to come up in just about every multiplayer game I've played, Dungeons & Dragons, Magic: the Gathering, X-Wing Miniatures. Strangely, I've always straddled the middle. I enjoy both. I think you can also find each within the other.

My view is this:

1. If you have a group of friends that you play with (or a regular group at your LGS and your LGS doesn't offer prizes), great! You can discuss with each other what kinds of games you'd like to have. At the worst, you should know what your opponents are running and be able to build to suit. My friend who got me into the game often tells me what he's planning to run out of excitement, for example.

2. Most stores seem to run their events as tournaments. Therefore, if I go to a store, I go because I want to compete. I build the best list I can with what I have available. I also expect to lose. This is because I usually have less funds available than my opponents to build quality lists, because I'm a mediocre-to-average list builder, and because I'm a mediocre-to-average player. The mental test of preparation and play is still fun, though!

THIS is what I am trying to get across. There is room for both aspects of the game. Hating one side or the other for them doing what they enjoy is just ridiculous.

10 minutes ago, TheHumanHydra said:

The casual versus competitive debate seems to come up in just about every multiplayer game I've played, Dungeons & Dragons, Magic: the Gathering, X-Wing Miniatures. Strangely, I've always straddled the middle. I enjoy both. I think you can also find each within the other.

My view is this:

1. If you have a group of friends that you play with (or a regular group at your LGS and your LGS doesn't offer prizes), great! You can discuss with each other what kinds of games you'd like to have. At the worst, you should know what your opponents are running and be able to build to suit. My friend who got me into the game often tells me what he's planning to run out of excitement, for example.

2. Most stores seem to run their events as tournaments. Therefore, if I go to a store, I go because I want to compete. I build the best list I can with what I have available. I also expect to lose. This is because I usually have less funds available than my opponents to build quality lists, because I'm a mediocre-to-average list builder, and because I'm a mediocre-to-average player. The mental test of preparation and play is still fun, though!

I've found most players -- especially the very competitive players -- are very generous about letting people borrow things for tournaments. Some stores will also allow proxies for upgrade cards.

But even without that, don't assume that limited supplies means you can't put together a very dangerous squad. I managed to take Captain Kagi to the top table of a store championship. There's a lot of interesting stuff out there which might not be able to win 7 straight games of swiss, but which still have a fair chance of going 2-1 at a random monthly tournament.

7 minutes ago, Timathius said:

You seem to be deliberately ignoring any examples that counter your arguments and instead resorting to pulling the victim card.

It's difficult to express how amusing this is, for several reasons.

Quote

You entered this thread saying competitive play had seized the game and was in your opinion ruining it. You are now trying to say you don't despise competitive play.

Actually, I didn't say competitive play is ruining the game. I said insistence on extreme reliability in the game was ruining the game. (That insistence is being disproportionately driven by competitive players, but competitive players are not the only people who participate in or even enjoy competitive play.)

Quote

You said that competitive players drive away new players. But then ignored an example of someone who hates net lists/ competitive play doing the same thing.

First, I didn't say that. Second, I feel no need to respond to everything someone says. even when I agree, disagree, or (especially) don't particularly care.

Quote

do you actually have anything meaningful to contribute? Or are you just going to now italicize "meaningful to contribute"?

My initial contribution was an attempt to point out reasons why gamers might be reticent in stating their preferences when attending a new group for the first time. The response to that was a bizarre (and -- I'm sure of it now -- defensive) claim that "gamers aren't particularly shy or socially awkward."

You're absolutely right that, given that absurd defensive response, it was optimistic -- excuse me, extremely optimistic -- of me to expect any sort of productive dialogue. My bad.

49 minutes ago, DerekT said:

I don't even get this though. What's not "casual" about flying a tier 1 list?

To me casual is just about what's at stake in the game. Regular tournament playing for a Ketsu Onyo alt art promo after getting loaded at Chuy's happy hour? That's pretty casual. Don't see what playing casual has to do with the strength of the squad.

So, since you use "casual" and "tournament" for the same scenario of play. . .

39 minutes ago, DerekT said:

Bullarky. Double Upsilons + Omega is very "casual" and I've defeated a very good Paratanni player with it pre-FAQ. I've seen all sorts of meta lists lose to all sorts of "fun" lists.

. . .and use my attempts at clarification against me, I'll just assume you're trolling at this point.

27 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

It's fantastic of you to recognize that wishing for more balance in the game between competitive and casual doesn't "quite" make me a CAAC player. (I mean, sure, almost, but not, you know, all the way CAAC. Whew. Thank goodness.)

Never go full CAAC.

2 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

Never go full CAAC.

We all know people who go off half-CAACed all the time, though.

And I live in San Francisco. I know plenty of guys who enjoy full CAAC.

Just now, Darth Meanie said:

So, since you use "casual" and "tournament" for the same scenario of play. . .

. . .and use my attempts at clarification against me, I'll just assume you're trolling at this point.

Because I think casual has more to do with your mindset and approach to the match, not how the store has structured the play.

Weekly game nights can be casual while still organized as a tournament, and tournament prep can be played very seriously despite being at someone's home.

Yes, that's not how the terms are typically used, but it's probably a more useful way to look at things if you're discussing player experience.