50 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.

9 minutes ago, 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.

Trust me - he's completely serious about the double ups.

We never hear the end of it.

13 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

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.)

Ah I see competitive players are ruining the game not competitive play. So, instead of disliking a style of play you are blaming people who enjoy it for ruining it gotcha. Makes it a lot better.

Quote

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.

You did, I bolded to help.

1 hour 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.

Quote

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

So it actually was, I apologize. but that was several posts ago, since then you have been extremely combative. The rest of the thread was very laid back and healthy discussion up until you entered. You seem to be more concerned with trying to make the narrative fit your anger that the game isn't exactly what you want it to be than healthy discussion. I am sorry that you can no longer enjoy the game anymore, I really am. But trying to blame competitive players for it, simply because they are doing what they enjoy, makes very little sense to me. They are not inherently making it any more difficult for new people to enter than someone playing HoTAC or X-Kart at store.

21 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Trust me - he's completely serious about the double ups.

We never hear the end of it.

They're not bad!

8-1 lifetime tournament record with them.

But I mean, I think they do go to highlight how a Tier 1 list against a "fun" gimmicky double shuttle list is not a total runaway for the Tier 1 squads. It's enough HP to withstand bombs and alpha strikes, FCS+Gunner is scary to aces, white turns keep them in the fight, they have blocking power, and Omega Leader is a very good ship if he can survive until the mid-end game.

You can fly something that's fun to you and still compete with the top squads. I don't get where the "omg, you'll lose every time" attitude comes from.

2 hours 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?

No problem. And definitely not. I totally agree that tournament play (which is related to, but separate from "competitive" play) has definitely come to dominate the game's ... paradigm?, and that it is partly FFGs fault for focusing so heavily on the 100/6 format.

1 hour 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.

Not necessarily. I've been an active member of this board since wave 3 (90% of my post count is probably the x-wing boards), and I'm generally pretty clueless as to what is dominating the meta at any given time. For example, I'm seeing lots of references to Paratanni in this thread, but I have no idea what specific build is being referenced (or even what ship that is, honestly). I only just discovered that k-wings have a powerful build currently, but again, no idea what it is. This is because the threads that discuss those things are not of interest to me. Just reading the message boards is no guarantee that you will know what the current hot lists are.

On the subject of the social awkwardness of gamers...

i suspect there might might be a generational thing going on. Back when I was in high school only the social misfits were into sci fi or fantasy, wearing a Star Wars shirt was likely to get you beat up not make friends. The people who played hobby games were the outcasts and gaming was the ONLY social outlet they had (the stereotype of smelly gamers started from this, because it was kinda true). These days, the geeks won, and being a huge Star Wars fan is socially acceptable, and so more of the socially comfortable population gravitate to these hobbies.

1 minute ago, Forgottenlore said:

On the subject of the social awkwardness of gamers...

i suspect there might might be a generational thing going on. Back when I was in high school only the social misfits were into sci fi or fantasy, wearing a Star Wars shirt was likely to get you beat up not make friends. The people who played hobby games were the outcasts and gaming was the ONLY social outlet they had (the stereotype of smelly gamers started from this, because it was kinda true). These days, the geeks won, and being a huge Star Wars fan is socially acceptable, and so more of the socially comfortable population gravitate to these hobbies.

That is a very good point, I straddle that line and have really noticed the same.

1 hour ago, DerekT said:

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

Yes, that's not how the terms are typically used,

Yep. Using your own personal definitions for terms is likely to obfuscate the conversation. . .

33 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

Not necessarily. I've been an active member of this board since wave 3 (90% of my post count is probably the x-wing boards), and I'm generally pretty clueless as to what is dominating the meta at any given time. For example, I'm seeing lots of references to Paratanni in this thread, but I have no idea what specific build is being referenced (or even what ship that is, honestly). I only just discovered that k-wings have a powerful build currently, but again, no idea what it is. This is because the threads that discuss those things are not of interest to me. Just reading the message boards is no guarantee that you will know what the current hot lists are.

Same with me, but it is because I don't care as well. My point was that you could do the research find out if you wanted to. I simply googled Fat Han once upon a time to understand what was being talked about. There are a lot of places besides these boards to learn what is "tournamenty" at the moment.

25 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

On the subject of the social awkwardness of gamers...

i suspect there might might be a generational thing going on. Back when I was in high school only the social misfits were into sci fi or fantasy, wearing a Star Wars shirt was likely to get you beat up not make friends. The people who played hobby games were the outcasts and gaming was the ONLY social outlet they had (the stereotype of smelly gamers started from this, because it was kinda true). These days, the geeks won, and being a huge Star Wars fan is socially acceptable, and so more of the socially comfortable population gravitate to these hobbies.

I find it incredibly amusing. Dressing like a dork is now "cosplay," everyone knows what Dungeons and Dragons is (and no one thinks its demonic anymore), Pokémon is completely mainstream (and a spin-off of Magic, IIRC), and Big Bang Theory has the most overpaid actors in TV. It's almost impossible to be countercultural and a nerd these days

13 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

I find it incredibly amusing. Dressing like a dork is now "cosplay," everyone knows what Dungeons and Dragons is (and no one thinks its demonic anymore), Pokémon is completely mainstream (and a spin-off of Magic, IIRC), and Big Bang Theory has the most overpaid actors in TV. It's almost impossible to be countercultural and a nerd these days

Indeed. I can consciously recognize that everything I like is now popular instead of something to conceal because of the shame, but my subconscious reactions are still conditioned by those early days.

6 hours ago, DerekT said:

Shouldn't the top people in a national championship be the exception? The "rule" can't be that everyone is the best.

Yeah, but you used that statement to demonstrate that one isn't forced to bring a list they didn't create in order to have any shot at a tournament win. The general rule is that you have to pick a net list. The exception is you - who can win without one.

I guess, in other words, "Git Gud" isn't really an answer... Right?

12 minutes ago, macmastermind said:

Yeah, but you used that statement to demonstrate that one isn't forced to bring a list they didn't create in order to have any shot at a tournament win. The general rule is that you have to pick a net list. The exception is you - who can win without one.

I guess, in other words, "Git Gud" isn't really an answer... Right?

I guess I'm lost on your point.

Dengaroo was invented. Attani lists were invented at some point. Bro bots. Several versions of palp aces. Wes corran Biggs.

The lists go on. All of these were designed by someone originally at some point.

You CAN create a list yourself and win. You CAN copy a list and win.

Do you want the secret sauce in between?

...

...practice (and a little luck).

So yes, in other words: 'gut gud'

8 minutes ago, macmastermind said:

Yeah, but you used that statement to demonstrate that one isn't forced to bring a list they didn't create in order to have any shot at a tournament win. The general rule is that you have to pick a net list. The exception is you - who can win without one.

I guess, in other words, "Git Gud" isn't really an answer... Right?

Looking at the results for Naboo Open, the top 8 included 8 different squad types. Hoth Open's top 8 also had 8 different squads, many of which weren't in the top 8 at Naboo. Tatooine Open's top 8 had 7 different squads, and a couple of those didn't appear at Naboo or Hoth.

So ...no. It doesn't look like you're required to netdeck to have a chance. There's a huge variety of squads that have a legitimate chance of winning a major tournament.

3 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

I guess I'm lost on your point.

Dengaroo was invented. Attani lists were invented at some point. Bro bots. Several versions of palp aces. Wes corran Biggs.

The lists go on. All of these were designed by someone originally at some point.

You CAN create a list yourself and win. You CAN copy a list and win.

Do you want the secret sauce in between?

...

...practice (and a little luck).

So yes, in other words: 'gut gud'

Well, with the IG-2000 title, no one really had to discover Brobots.

6 minutes ago, DerekT said:

Well, with the IG-2000 title, no one really had to discover Brobots.

One might think that, but I heard there's some determination bro bots afoot.

He DEFINITELY invented that.

Netdecking is probably not a very helpful term for this particular conversation, since many people do stumble upon the same ideas. If we're talking about just the struggle to be competitive, then it doesn't really matter if you came up with it on your own, it's just a question of whether or not you're required to fly one of the Power Squads.

And that comes down to how widely we define the powersquads. If it's just Paul's List, Grassholes, Old Duncaroo, Paratanni, and Kanan/Biggs (let's call these the Power 5), then you definitely don't need to fly one of them.

Looking at the last 4 big tournaments with results on List Juggler (Hoth, Tatooine, Naboo, and Brazilian Nationals), among the top 8 at those tournaments (so 32 total squads) there were 20 different squads. Only 11 belonged to the Power 5. That's only about a third.

Among the top 4 at the same tournaments (so out of 16 slots) there were 11 different squads. 8 were Power 5, and 8 were not.

Are the Power 5 particularly strong? Sure. Are they the only thing you can fly and have a chance to win? No. The tournament results just don't bear that out. So I don't get the complaints that players have no real option beyond those.

Now, if by the Power Squads/Netdecks people mean the much broader list of 20-30 squads that have done well lately... I don't know what to say. There's only so many decent combinations, but I think having 2-3 dozen to choose from is pretty good, especially when many of them have season-to-taste elements to them. You can't just throw Herobot and Expose on Biggs and expect to do well, but I think we'd have a lousy game if you could. If all squads were relatively equal in strength, then squad building would be irrelevant, and that's much less fun.

5 minutes ago, DerekT said:

Now, if by the Power Squads/Netdecks people mean the much broader list of 20-30 squads that have done well lately... I don't know what to say. There's only so many decent combinations, but I think having 2-3 dozen to choose from is pretty good, especially when many of them have season-to-taste elements to them. You can't just throw Herobot and Expose on Biggs and expect to do well, but I think we'd have a lousy game if you could. If all squads were relatively equal in strength, then squad building would be irrelevant, and that's much less fun.

And this list diversity is likely to only get better as more ships are introduced to the game (assume there isn't another curve ball like the JM5K).

I think it's time that FFG begins looking at diversity of play style as a way to broaden the game.

2 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

And this list diversity is likely to only get better as more ships are introduced to the game (assume there isn't another curve ball like the JM5K).

I think it's time that FFG begins looking at diversity of play style as a way to broaden the game.

How would you want to see them get involved in something other than organized tournament play? Game stores already run casual nights, and you don't need FFG to do kitchen table games.

It makes sense for them to be involved in the competitive scene, because it necessarily needs structure and organization. You don't need FFG to step in and tell your buddy it's Battle of Endor night for your theme game.

8 hours ago, heychadwick said:

I wish most people didn't think the default way to play was 100/6 at tournament level.

FFG encourages this thinking.

There's a ton of tournament play support and very little casual play support.

Hell, 100/6 is even called 'Standard Play'.

Like it or not, that's how ffg sees the game.

59 minutes ago, DerekT said:

and you don't need FFG to do kitchen table games.

It makes sense for them to be involved in the competitive scene, because it necessarily needs structure and organization. You don't need FFG to step in and tell your buddy it's Battle of Endor night for your theme game.

36 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

FFG encourages this thinking.

There's a ton of tournament play support and very little casual play support.

Hell, 100/6 is even called 'Standard Play'.

Like it or not, that's how ffg sees the game.

This is the exact attitude I was getting salty about and was called to task for about 2 pages ago. And now you both reinforce my previous viewpoint that casual x-wing is considered sub par at worst or a DIY project at best.

I paid money to get involved in this game, too. Just because it never goes beyond the kitchen table doesn't mean I don't deserve professional support.

1 hour ago, DerekT said:

How would you want to see them get involved in something other than organized tournament play? Game stores already run casual nights, and you don't need FFG to do kitchen table games.

It makes sense for them to be involved in the competitive scene, because it necessarily needs structure and organization. You don't need FFG to step in and tell your buddy it's Battle of Endor night for your theme game.

This rationale come up a lot and it's really not at all accurate. 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.

Getting back to the original topic and that netrunner campaign and how it applies to x-wing...

A lot of people seem to have missed the point of the post. They guy wasn't really talking about the so-called casual/competitive divide at all, he was merely pointing out the flaw that inevitably crops up in any popular game based on regular expansions; the fact that, as more game is released, more design errors gradually creep into the game and, one way or another, the game is eventually "solved", leading to a drab, monotonous meta and he was reviewing an interesting attempt to combat that trend.

What I found far more interesting as far as X-Wing is concerned is the details he gave about how the netrunner campaign actually works. He says it is similar in some ways to the recent "Legacy" games (like Risk:Legacy and Pandemic:Legacy) with stickers and such making permanent alterations to cards. Several people, especially early in the thread, somehow took that as a reason to talk about FFG releasing a product with stickers to errata cards. While that is an interesting idea (one that probably will never happen though), that isn't remotely what was the review was talking about. What this netrunner campaign is apparently doing to changing cards (and sometimes destroying them) to evolve the ongoing story of the campaign. In X-Wing terms it would be like the HotAC pilot experience system, except instead of a "character sheet" type thing that you recorded your progress on, you would actually make permanent modification to your pilot cards. Once the campaign is done you can't really use your Green Squadron pilot anymore because you have modified his A-Wing card to be PS 8, have Wedge's pilot ability and an Astromech slot. That's an extreme example, and probably not what will happen, but that is the type of sticker he was talking about. Not "the correct wording for palpatine so you can fix your cards that have been errata'd"

I find this idea interesting because FFG just did something similar (though a lot less extreme) in Armada with the Corellian Conflict campaign. In CC the poster map of the sector the 2 sides are fighting over is meant to be permanently modified in various ways. In essence, unless you take steps to make it reusable first, you can only play the campaign once per purchase (although the bulk of the content can simply be used in Armada's "standard" play). So we seem to have the start of a pattern here. First they came out with CC, which used a little bit of this legacy style of release, now they are coming out with another campaign (for a game that WAS specifically designed with organized play in mind) that seems like it takes the idea eve further. This sounds to me that FFG are testing the waters, "will this type of thing work for a campaign", "will the fans accept it"," are there any hidden pitfalls". Given all that, I would probably put some money down that we ARE going to get an X-Wing campaign in the near future, and there is a good chance that it will feature this legacy style of release and some parts of it (though who knows how much) will not be meant to be reusable. I find that a lot more interesting than another circular debate about casual vs competitive.

One thing that confused me in the review though, was that he kept talking about the campaign as being meant for new players of netrunner. Anybody here following this product's news? Is there a reason he thinks this? Because, based on his description, it sounds much more like a product aimed at veteran players who are getting burned out by the default play format. The whole thing seems more geared towards "here is a new way to play, different from the same old same old you are used to" rather than "didn't think the game sounded like fun before? Here is a different format that you will enjoy".

10 hours ago, DerekT said:

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

Well, the argument is not post hoc ergo propter hoc, but it looks like there is a correlation. Jeff basically said that at a meeting of X-Wing players, you're likely to find a large number of people who are not highly outgoing, not that one is the cause of the other.

Quote

This is the exact attitude I was getting salty about and was called to task for about 2 pages ago. And now you both reinforce my previous viewpoint that casual x-wing is considered sub par at worst or a DIY project at best.

I paid money to get involved in this game, too. Just because it never goes beyond the kitchen table doesn't mean I don't deserve professional support.

Nowhere in their posts do they call it subpar. They call it the standard, which it is.

FFG already support casual play, by releasing products.

You might want to stop reading more into it, for that way leads to anger.

As a casual player, I would definitely be among the target audience for an XWing campaign (legacy style or not), if it materializes.

If the campaign is not to be aimed at veterans who own everything, it has to solve one problem: how many / which ships do you need? Looking at HotAC, even for two-three players only, a lot of expansions is required or has to be proxied. They could put necessary stuff in a box, but then it will become rather expensive. I don't play Armada, but I assume that there the basic game has more content than the XWing starter boxes, so the campaign can be cardboard-only.

1 hour ago, Canopus said:

As a casual player, I would definitely be among the target audience for an XWing campaign (legacy style or not), if it materializes.

If the campaign is not to be aimed at veterans who own everything, it has to solve one problem: how many / which ships do you need? Looking at HotAC, even for two-three players only, a lot of expansions is required or has to be proxied. They could put necessary stuff in a box, but then it will become rather expensive. I don't play Armada, but I assume that there the basic game has more content than the XWing starter boxes, so the campaign can be cardboard-only.

As a tournament player, I would also be among the target audience for an XWing campaign...

We both play X wing right? I don't think anyone will complain about more ways to play the game.

As an X-Wing player I would not be in the target audience for a campaign expansion because I'm not interested in it.

I'm sure FFG would bundle in a new ship & pilots and an extremely powerful crew card to mean I had to buy it anyway, though.