Keep in mind that threads complaining about fixes take up just as much space as threads asking for them. Let's talk about something else already, folks...

16 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

There are 40+ ships in this game. They will never all be 100% balanced.

If you fix one, then a different one won't see enough play, and then THAT one will need a fix.

If you like a ship, put it on the table. Figure it out. And if everyone did that, there would be a huge variety of ships on the table, we could all stop breathing the pure oxygen of the meta, see a metric crap ton of variety, play for fun, and win some/lose some.

No. Titles all around!

2 hours ago, VanorDM said:

You're right it will never happen, but you don't let perfect become the enemy of better. Just because you can't achieve perfection doesn't mean you stop trying to improve things. Also I know full well that there will never be a perfectly balanced game, the fact that you accuse me of such nonsense makes me believe you don't even really get the points I'm making...

Wrong again, and the problem with your statement should be self evident, in fact I bolded it. If people have a favorite ship but it doesn't do well in the current meta, they want it improved. Because they have a given ship they want to play with, for a host of possible reasons.

Myself I love X-Wings, have since ANH came out, I love how they look, I love the concept behind them, ect... So naturally I'd prefer it if X-Wings weren't a bad choice when building a list for a Store Championship or any other tournament. However the format again has nothing to do with it, what matters is people's preference. The fact that a given ship doesn't work well in the current meta is not a flaw in the format it is a flaw in how the game as a whole is balanced.

The fact that someone may want the Tie Interceptor or Y-Wing to do better in a 100/6 match doesn't mean there's a flaw with the format, it means that those ships don't perform as well as some other ship, which once again isn't about the format, it's about how much someone wants to win.

If I'm playing for fun and winning is a secondary or even lower priority the list I fly will be quite different the if winning is more important. Likewise the list I'd fly when I want to win is going to depend on the format I'm playing. I wouldn't expect a list that does well in 100/6 will do well in team epic, and in general ships and upgrades that do well in one format tend to not do as well in other formats.

While I certainly agree with the top statement, we are going to have to disagree in the latter two.

Even when Imp Aces were doing well, I struggled with TIE Interceptors because in Epic they have a really hard time arc-dodging with multiple enemy ships. IMHO, the X-wing is a great ship that does not need a fix. It has been the workhorse of my epic games multiple times. YOU find it flawed because you want it to do well in the meta at 100/6. The format has everything to do with it.

One of us says the Interceptor had it's moment of glory, the other does not. One of us says the x-wing is underpowered, the other does not. So, which is right, efficacy at 100/6, or efficacy at Epic? Or, more importantly, why does it have to be both?

2 hours ago, BadMotivator said:

I think a mixture of both is needed. I think maybe we should move from 100/6 to maybe 150/6 or 200/6. But we also need to have some changes be made to older ships.

Stuff like t65s and interceptors need some loving.

Like a title for interceptors that says,

Interceptor Mk2: 2 points: You may equip an additional title card. When you execute a (90 degree turn) maneuver, you may rotate your ship 90 degrees.

White or green talon rolls would be an interesting niche for interceptors to fill.

At this point, FFG and 100/6 players are working towards a game where every single ship must have an auto-include title and a possible auto-include upgrade just to be "viable." The FAQ is already 20 pages long.

At what point do the fixes themselves kill the game? Especially for trying to get new players into the game.

This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

Having played a competitive campaign centered around objectives and missions, with various squad point values and win conditions, it's not some magical fix that makes the game perfect. It just changes the best ship for a particular job (in many of the missions, to the K-wing for this specific campaign) and rewards the more cost effective ships over the less cost effective ones. Changing the points used or switching to a mission based format would certainly change the meta, but it wouldn't suddenly make under-performing ships competitive.

I'm fine if FFG wants to keep putting out fixes for ships that are below the power curve, the more ships that can be used competitively the better in my opinion. Just because it will never be perfect doesn't mean it's bad to want it improved.

2 hours ago, Chumbalaya said:

This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

For that to happen, I would have to give a **** about your opinion. Frankly, you're just not giving me much to work with.

Moreover, 20 people at the top disagree with you.

1 hour ago, mdl0114 said:

Having played a competitive campaign centered around objectives and missions, with various squad point values and win conditions, it's not some magical fix that makes the game perfect. It just changes the best ship for a particular job.

I never claimed it was. OTOH, it is a "fix" that has yet to be explored by the powers that be. And since it has never been tried at the level of Worlds or the like, you are all making a false supposition that it will make no difference at all. No one has any idea whether it will improve the meta or leave things unchanged.

8 hours ago, VanorDM said:

With the major tournaments already taking two or more days, an increase in points is not going to happen, not for things like Regionals and the like.

The problem is, if you want to play 150 or 200 point games, nothing is stopping you, but some people just don't seem to want to play anything other than the standard tournament format, even if they don't like it. At my group we play all kinds of formats and have a lot of fun with them.

So if you don't like 100/6 then be the change you want to see, but accept that the 100/6 format does in fact work very well for large tournaments, and as such is going to be the format used for them.

Just going by experience with other table top wargames, 100/6 level games of X-wing are super fast. Most other wargames typically last 2 hours or so, and they are more than capable of running major tournaments over the course of a single day. Though they are actually running scenarios instead of straight up "kill each other".

Besides, I actually doubt that adding 50 points would seriously slow down high level play. The most time intensive list would be something like a TIE swarm, and at most you're talking about adding 4 more TIEs. But realistically people will more likely add 1 more large ship, or another tricked out ace. Which would bring the typical squadron size up from 3ish to 4ish.

Competitive Xwing could easily support a larger point format. You've just been somewhat spoiled with the tiny format being around for so long you've become entrenched.

I mean, Armada is objective based, right? They definitely have a meta. Wasn't their worlds final a mirror match between list archetypes?

Imperial Assault is objective based too and their worlds top 16 didn't look too diverse.

All I have to go on for the effect of scenarios on X-Wing is the one scenario campaign I was in. It was not an improvement, there was still a large gulf in the effectiveness of various ships. If FFG wants to try it, no problem, but doing or not doing scenarios shouldn't affect FFG making fixes.

Ships that aren't good won't become good with scenarios, there's nothing the Kihraxz did pre-fix that would make it a better choice than the Protectorate in any format, for example. So call for different formats all you want, I wouldn't mind seeing what FFG could put together (though personally I want a published official campaign more than scenarios). But scenarios or not, there are still ships that don't match up well against the competition and it's ok for people to want to see that improved upon.