Normally a great fan of your podcast guys.
But this episode was a pain. You should definitely agree on some conversation rules. It would be much more of a true discussion when we can hear other opinions too.
Sad point is that I mostly agree with 90% of Dee's insight.
I will say that this episode had me thinking about things and what's on the horizon for X-wing. I feel like FFG has gotten more active about trying to balance the game with various fixes. They are also working to bring out new stuff for ships that aren't used much (like C-ROC and Wave 11 stuff for things like Scyks, Punishers, etc.). They worked for a while to limit the power of PTL arc dodgers with a few upgrades. There was the Great Nerfing that recently happened. I feel like the Worlds results shows that there is some tilt going on in the game. The way I see it, though, is I expect some nerfs to Jumpmasters are going to be coming out soon. Some thoughts if that happens:
I feel like a Biggs nerf is coming. I also wouldn't be surprised by a TLT nerf.
There is the idea "if it's not broke, don't fly it" with tournament X-wing. What if FFG is trying to remove all the broken stuff? I'm trying to think of how the game would look if you removed all the really OP stuff. I hear that Imperials have nothing competitive to fly. I hear that it's near impossible to fly a non-Biggs Rebel list that is competitive. Everyone flew Mindlink and Jumpmasters. So....what if they somehow made all the offending stuff not as OP? Maybe we are just about to see the last big nerf from FFG that will remove the last broken / Over Powered stuff in the tournament game?
I feel like FFG is trying to bring the power level of the game down a bit. If they combine this with giving some fixes for some of the under-used ships in the game, then maybe we will see a much more balanced game? Maybe it's not all about making every ship as powerful as the most broken ships, but it's a combo of improving/nerfing everything until it's about the same power level?
13 minutes ago, heychadwick said:I feel like FFG is trying to bring the power level of the game down a bit.
Really? If so, this would be a big change of direction.
The game has been moving toward "shorter and bloodier" for quite a while now (I think I pinpointed the start of it, retroactively, at the new damage deck). Pretty sure if you look back at my posts, you'll see that I was the first -- or at least way up there -- in pointing out how amped the offensive side of the game was getting.
Even of the Great Nerfing, only Zuckuss was, indisputably, a change in favor of defense ... and that was unavoidable, because Zuckuss was just flat-out broken. Pre-nerf Palpatine was primarily (not exclusively) defensive, pre-nerf TIE/x7 was defensive, pre-nerf Manaroo was primarily (not exclusively) defensive. All of the nerfs are primarily in favor of offense.
I don't think FFG is lowering the power-level of the game. (I think they're still ramping it up.) I do think FFG is trying to sand out the spikes, though (as you conclude later in the paragraph, so maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of "power level;" if so, ignore me), which is better than nothing.
34 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:Really? If so, this would be a big change of direction.
The game has been moving toward "shorter and bloodier" for quite a while now (I think I pinpointed the start of it, retroactively, at the new damage deck). Pretty sure if you look back at my posts, you'll see that I was the first -- or at least way up there -- in pointing out how amped the offensive side of the game was getting.
Even of the Great Nerfing, only Zuckuss was, indisputably, a change in favor of defense ... and that was unavoidable, because Zuckuss was just flat-out broken. Pre-nerf Palpatine was primarily (not exclusively) defensive, pre-nerf TIE/x7 was defensive, pre-nerf Manaroo was primarily (not exclusively) defensive. All of the nerfs are primarily in favor of offense.
I don't think FFG is lowering the power-level of the game. (I think they're still ramping it up.) I do think FFG is trying to sand out the spikes, though (as you conclude later in the paragraph, so maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of "power level;" if so, ignore me), which is better than nothing.
Yes, I think you did miss the understanding and perhaps I'm not using the best words. My mistake for the confusion. I don't disagree that they have been amping the offensive side of the game. When I say "power level", I don't mean offensive. I mean removing the "broken" or "Over Powered" things in the game. Sanding out the spikes is a good way to put it. I'm going along the lines that tournament players will play the most powerful and broken things in tournaments. I don't blame them as it's all about winning, right? I think if you look at what is the most broken/OP stuff left, you clearly see that Jumpmasters, Attanni Mindlink, and Fenn Rau are the things people take to win. They are the spikes, so to speak. I think if at least 2 of those can be "dealt" with one way or another, then there is only Fenn Rau left.
As for Fenn Rau, I almost think he can be taken care of through a number of ways. If Mindlink were dealt with for not being as powerful as it is (I won't even go into how) then Fenn Rau is still pretty poweful, but I wouldn't say he was OP. I also think that it would mean other types of lists would make it back into the game that would be able to handle Fenn Rau if flown right. I'm kind of thinking about more ships. It can mean Tie Formation or it can even just be more ships that could fire at him (Rebel Jank list, for example). If you are able to get multiple shots on Fenn Rau not at R1, then he starts to suffer (unless his dice are crazy).
<entering speculation>
There was another thread in the past week that asked about X-wings and how were they doing. I read it expecting the worst, but even the OP was saying that he was having surprising luck with 4 X-wings. People reported using T-70's and T-65's in games and many times didn't include Biggs. Several people reported winning Store tournaments with them. Not Championships or huge events, but double digits. I have been thinking for a while that what really killed the low PS jousters were the Arc Dodgers, be they Turret Wing or Soontir Fel. If those ships are not seen so much these days, what is stopping them from coming back? So many tournament lists are used to 2-3 ships and handling them that when you start to add in 4-6 ships that have more than 2 attack die, you start to see some of the current meta not work out well.
I'm just imagining a game where there aren't any really broken / OP / Spike ships or pilots out there. Oh, there will be powerful combos, but imagine the game where aren't required to have something super broken to win a game. It would be so cool when people ask "what is competitive for Imperials" and the answer is "almost anything".
3 hours ago, Tupacca said:I agree that parts of this podcast were a tad awkward. I understand x-wing can bring out peoples passions, but i felt like 80% of the podcast was Dee just shooting down Ryan before he had even finished a sentence. . . . something to consider.
Nonetheless, your podcast is my favorite and I will continue listening.
Long live xwing`!
Yeah, one of the many reasons I really don't follow the mynock squadron. I know it seems like each podcast group is supposed to have some strategy member but for the Mynock's panel it is lacking something to be desired is the nicest way I can put it.
Still Mynock has its audience, I am just not a part of that audience by far.
There's always a disconnect when it comes to nerf talks. From a design standpoint, discussing problems with the game is entirely legitimate.
Competitively, I'm right there with BioPhysical. Fly Better. Find a way to beat the brokenness, even if it means joining the brokenness and tweaking it to be even better.
These should be discrete, separate conversations, but they bleed over. When people complain about complainers by telling them to get better/gud, that's not helpful. Conversely, when players blame 'brokenness' for their losses, that's not profitable.
Design-wise, Biggs is a tough one. I appreciate the "if you nerf him, Rebels collapse" perspective, but is perpetuating a corrupted platform the correct choice? I'd rather bite the bullet, take my medicine, and then look forward to FFG beefing up Rebel content to match the other factions.
1 hour ago, Marinealver said:Yeah, one of the many reasons I really don't follow the mynock squadron. I know it seems like each podcast group is supposed to have some strategy member but for the Mynock's panel it is lacking something to be desired is the nicest way I can put it.
Still Mynock has its audience, I am just not a part of that audience by far.
No need to be nice. I consider 'nice' and 'polite' to be dirty words. I hope you saw my apology post, and I take everything to heart. Constructive criticism is always greatly appreciated. What would make you a listener?
3 minutes ago, Mynock Delta said:Competitively, I'm right there with BioPhysical. Fly Better. Find a way to beat the brokenness, even if it means joining the brokenness and tweaking it to be even better.
... Which is fine if you're willing to be part of the problem.
Look, it's just not fun for me to fly the broken cards. When I'm flying against other players who are flying broken cards, it's (slightly) more palatable, but when I'm flying broken cards against "the guy attending his first tournament" or "the guy who really loves Firesprays" or "the guy that loves synergy lists," then flying broken cards is just not fun. It's not fun for them to get tabled in 15 minutes, and frankly it's not fun for me doing the tabling.
The response to this from meta-apologists is that "people should know better if they're going to play competitively," but that's just bull$#!+. By implication, by being a points-based system, X-Wing promises reasonable game balance. Not perfect game balance ... reasonable game balance. If a relatively novice player avoids the completely obvious trap cards and builds a list, that list should not be blown out of the water by a broken meta list ... except on the basis of in-game skill and in-game luck.
FFG is breaking the promise to players by having the balance be so out of whack, and it doesn't make a player "less than" if he or she doesn't want to actively participate in that broken promise, even if that player still wants to play in competitive events.
QuoteThese should be discrete, separate conversations, but they bleed over. When people complain about complainers by telling them to get better/gud, that's not helpful. Conversely, when players blame 'brokenness' for their losses, that's not profitable.
That's a false equivalency. There are plenty of genuinely good players who just can't bring themselves to play the broken cards, even at Elite level tournaments. And when they lose to the broken cards, that is at least sometimes because of the brokenness of the cards they're playing against. It's actually dishonest to claim otherwise.
Being a great X-Wing player who plays broken cards and thus wins tournaments doesn't make you a better X-Wing player than great X-Wing players who don't play broken cards, lose to broken cards, and don't win tournaments.
But I absolutely guarantee there will be sputtering defensive responses to the above truism.
QuoteDesign-wise, Biggs is a tough one. I appreciate the "if you nerf him, Rebels collapse" perspective, but is perpetuating a corrupted platform the correct choice? I'd rather bite the bullet, take my medicine, and then look forward to FFG beefing up Rebel content to match the other factions.
Me, too. What Rebels need are two or three 23-30 point serious threats in the vein of Pure Sabaac, Omega Leader. Give Rebels that, while at the same time nerfing Biggs to "once per round," and you've got a new horizon for Rebels.
18 hours ago, Biophysical said:I know that people say Rebel ships are designed around Biggs. But are we really sure they are in a meaningful way? Is Kanan on the Ghost, decked out, unplayable in a way that Rear Admiral Chiraneau is not? They have similar defensive profiles. RAC is a better arc dodger, but Kanan can reduce incoming damage. Kanan also hits harder in most circumstances against most targets, but is a few more points than a decked out RAC build, although technically comes with a second ship. Kanan is certainly less scary without Biggs, but is he unplayable? Hera made a dent at Yavin supported by Asohka instead of Biggs. Similarly, are ARCs truly unplayable without Biggs for protection? Yes, they can be focused down, but what if Rebels had a ship like Pure Sabacc, throwing mad offense for a very cheap price? Something like that screaming on a flank would either take a lot of heat off of an ARC, or get a couple turns weapons free on an enemy squad.
18 hours ago, MacchuWA said:This is exactly the issue though. Rebels can't have cheap, high damage output ships because Biggs mean they can't be counterplayed effectively. Imagine Fenn Rau (or something equivalent) in a rebel squad, for example. Even if he had been designed as a rebel flanker, you have to account for the fact that he's still potentially throwing two or three massive attacks with zero chance of taking him out until you've dealt with Biggs.
It's a catch-22. You can't design those kinds of ships because of Biggs, but you can't get rid of Biggs because the rebels lack those kinds of ships.
What if FFG designs cards around Biggs to give Rebels more power.
Rebels Small Ship Only
Unique
"When attacking, you may roll 1 extra attack die. You MUST treat other friendly ships at range 1 as being at range 2."
Now, we can have a flanker like Jake, or Attack Shuttle Sabine or Snap Wexley throwing an extra die, and cant be saved by Biggs. Jess cant use it with her ability, etc. Thoughts?
2 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:There are plenty of genuinely good players who just can't bring themselves to play the broken cards, even at Elite level tournaments. And when they lose to the broken cards, that is at least sometimes because of the brokenness of the cards they're playing against. It's actually dishonest to claim otherwise.
I like to think of myself as a good player. I also pretty much only run non-meta/tier 2 lists of my own design.
I generally have good success with them, but I always wonder how good I could be if I used the best lists in the game at any one time.
Maybe it means winning a store championship instead of finishing top 4 at best, or making the day 2 cut at regionals instead of an average finish, or making it to one of the top levels in vassal leagues or tournaments.
It causes me to have a love/hate relationship with xwing sometimes knowing that some losses are because my lists can't overcome bad dice as well as meta lists, or i massively outfly a player but still lose because of awesome their list is.
5 hours ago, Mynock Delta said:Design-wise, Biggs is a tough one. I appreciate the "if you nerf him, Rebels collapse" perspective, but is perpetuating a corrupted platform the correct choice? I'd rather bite the bullet, take my medicine, and then look forward to FFG beefing up Rebel content to match the other factions.
So....people are saying Imperials have "nothing competitive" now. If you remove the OP-ness of Jumpmasters, Attanni Mindlink, and do something with Fenn Rau (maybe just deal with Mindlink), then what is it that Scum have left? Do Rebels really "need" him? I kind of see it that everyone is kind of being taken down to the "nothing is competitive" concept, which basically means nothing is horribly broken / Over Powered. So, that means that most things are OK now. Right?
FWIW I just listened to the Gold Squadron Podcast roundup from Worlds and I think they did a great job of using the listjuggler data when it was relevant. I've not listened to them before but I thought it was a good show, good discussion..