2 hours ago, MajorJuggler said:

In general this principle does apply (more on that below), but there is an extremely limited set of archetypes that are even capable of competing with the top lists. With the exception of advanced SLAM bombers, nothing really hard counters anything else, so the cyclical paper-rock-scissors dynamic that you describe largely does not exist.

Sorry for getting out of order.

The RPS model was referencing the early days. The game is sufficiently advanced at this point and that model no longer applies.

That answers will develop requires time, more than is present in one wave release. It also requires an even larger pool of resources to draw from.

2 hours ago, Jdling said:

While the theory is indisputable it requires your first point: rational players. A player who knowingly takes a bad list to a tournament is not acting rationally, and many other players just bring whatever their favorite player was using the week before. I love game theory and economics, but human nature and the bottom line is going to push things out of whack. I respect you for your ability to grind the numbers and the ability to explain it clearly. This is a designed meta, and as you said before, they will fix the underperforming ships with a later release, just like they planned to.

This is why I like to only look at lists that make the cut, as a general rule.

Fixes are only partial, unfortunately.

2 hours ago, Jdling said:

Sorry for getting out of order.

The RPS model was referencing the early days. The game is sufficiently advanced at this point and that model no longer applies.

That answers will develop requires time, more than is present in one wave release. It also requires an even larger pool of resources to draw from.

Actually, I should clarify that if the game were in a healthier state, then the RPS dynamic would be more in play. Right now it is much more about brute efficiency, even moreso than in the past, IMO.

Quote

A player who knowingly takes a bad list to a tournament is not acting rationally, and many other players just bring whatever their favorite player was using the week before.

Definitely the latter. Netlisting is, and always will be 'a thing' - if a squad has a proven pedigree of success, people will be encouraged to try using it. But a squad can work competitively for three reasons:

1. Because it's points efficient and generally "good", giving it a high theoretical efficiency - "akin to MajorJuggler's infamous jousting value"
2. Because it's used at close to the maximum of its theoretical efficiency on the table - remember that MajorJuggler has always annotated comments on jousting value with a disclaimer along the lines of "assuming your opponent is dumb enough to actually fly straight at you and trade shots in the open" or words to that effect (this is something the copycats often miss; how many games against how many opponents do you expect the average Systems Open/Nationals winner has had with their eventual squad or some evolutionary variation on it?)
3. Because it's a scissors/paper/stone matchup to the squads you're reliably expecting to face (an effective but risky choice - dependant on successfully "reading the metagame in advance" and susceptible to coming across some weird-*** squad you've not planned for in an early round)

We had a game night kit last night that underlined (2) and (3). About half the players turned up with (surprise surprise) Dengar and VI Tel Trevura with torpedoes, no plan other than "move forwards slowly, fire torpedoes at PS9, blow up enemy, explain how tactically awesome they are", and expected the squad they'd picked to win for them.

After a bit of debate over a pub tea, a friend of mine turned up with VI Horton Salm, VI Airen Cracken and Adaptability Wedge, also laden with ordnance. This, combined with smart manoeuvring, repeatedly resulted in Dengar exiting stage left in the first shooting phase with both torpedoes still in their tubes.

12 hours ago, spacelion said:

So guys since we are arguing in favor of MTG do you think it's a good idea to have a Type 2 competitive sanctioned format ??? No ??? Then what is this argument about

The OP said in his original post that MTG had only 2-3 viable decks as an argument to pretend its unreasonable to think that every ship should be competitive. What i said was #1: MTG meta is more than 2-3 decks, 2: you cant use MTG as an argument because it's a totally different game.

16 hours ago, Jdling said:

Would we have the same issue bring brought up if, with all waves available, it was mostly X-Wings seeing play? What about the guys that love bounty hunters? If you were at Star Wars Celebration you saw how much love the community has for Scum. Would their complaint that the Firespray isn't seeing play have any weight? Some say yes it would, as all ships need to see play, while others would say "The game isn't called Firespray-Wing".

I just said balance would be all factions proportionaly represented in the meta. Having just one ship perform and being omnipresent doesnt meet that requirement. Just like having 1 faction taking 80% of the top 10 and another one being totally absent isnt. Balance also doesnt mean nerfing scums to a point they are out of the meta.

Perfect balance would be each faction representing around 1/3 of the top positions AND having a good build variety. They nerfed Palp/defenders not because the Imperials were dominating but because a very limited part of their material was played. The same thing is happening with Miranda, Biggs, Sabine and the JMK. They are more than likely the next step needed to fix the game. I got a strong feeling that after they will need to fix Fenn, Asajj and Kanan if they really want a healthy meta.

Also the Xwing is a special case because it's probably the most iconic ship in Star Wars (with the Tie fighter).

16 hours ago, Jdling said:

I have never compared them relative to each other, only brought up the point that just like a healthy MTG format, a healthy X-Wing format only needs to have several viable builds, not every ship, or every card being playable.

"just like" does indicate a comparison. Also see my answer to @spacelion up there.

16 hours ago, Jdling said:

The meta of any game is constantly fluctuating. MTG sees it move faster as it has a regular release schedule, more moving parts, and a lot more players. When one build of any type starts to dominate the scene, the answers start to show up and push that build out. Once the threat is gone, those builds quit packing their answers to the threat, and all of a sudden the original returns. That is true for both X-Wing and MTG, as long as the answers are available in the format.

Well at least we agree that the 2 games are quite different. You are kinda contradicting yourself here because you said in your original post: " Competitive MTG has only 2 or 3 decks that are viable". Also there is no answer to the scums outside of the scums themself in Xwing at the moment. Nerf them and you would have a meta dominated by Miranda/Sabine/Biggs. All of that needs to be brought back to balance at the same time.

16 hours ago, Jdling said:

Are the needed fixes you are referencing a fix that makes the X-Wing playable, or a fix that makes all ships playable? I fully believe the first is going to happen. They have probably had a T-65 title in the works since Rogue One came out, but the developers are letting the meta shift away from it for a little while. If they didn't, every match would feel like every other match. Fat Han, Tie Swarm, Soontir, BBBBZ, etc. made the game vibrant for a while, then we all moved on to the next thing. The X-Wing will come back. However, the all ships playable isn't going to happen.

Why wouldnt all ship be playable? Or at least one pilot per ship? I agree that its not possible to make them equal but they dont have to be. As long as you can bring a ship to a tournament and not drastically reduce your chance to win, it's fine in my book.

It takes some careful planning but i believe it is quite possible. When i started (really not that long ago), Fat Han, Tie swarms, Soontir and many more ships/builds were on the (competitive) tables. Xwing was much closer to a balanced state than it is now.

As for the T-65 fix being in the work, FFG never said anything so far. We just dont know if its comming or not (and when).

You also seem to think (not in this quote but previously) that casual players dont care if the stuff they play is not competitive. From my observations thats not the case at all. In my local area many Imperial players switched to scums not long after the FAQ came out. At the moment what we see on the tables is mostly scums with a bit of Rebels and very few Imperials. I would say that less than 20% of our players are more than casual.

27 minutes ago, Thormind said:

The OP said in his original post that MTG had only 2-3 viable decks as an argument to pretend its unreasonable to think that every ship should be competitive. What i said was #1: MTG meta is more than 2-3 decks, 2: you cant use MTG as an argument because it's a totally different game.

I don't pretend. I think it is completely unreasonable, from a business perspective, a time and resource management perspective, and a desire for a shifting metagame perspective, for every ship to always be competative.

27 minutes ago, Thormind said:

I just said balance would be all factions proportionaly represented in the meta. Having just one ship perform and being omnipresent doesnt meet that requirement. Just like having 1 faction taking 80% of the top 10 and another one being totally absent isnt. Balance also doesnt mean nerfing scums to a point they are out of the meta.

Why wouldnt all ship be playable? Or at least one pilot per ship? I agree that its not possible to make them equal but they dont have to be. As long as you can bring a ship to a tournament and not drastically reduce your chance to win, it's fine in my book.

If they aren't all exactly equal, then players will gravitate to the best. Part of the game is list building, and that can't be ignored.

27 minutes ago, Thormind said:

"just like" does indicate a comparison. Also see my answer to @spacelion up there.

The comparison I stand by is that a healthy meta can exist with 2-3 builds dominating the lists. There is no other comparison to be made.

27 minutes ago, Thormind said:

Well at least we agree that the 2 games are quite different. You are kinda contradicting yourself here because you said in your original post: " Competitive MTG has only 2 or 3 decks that are viable". Also there is no answer to the scums outside of the scums themself in Xwing at the moment.

So what do you want? Every faction or every ship to be playable? You are arguing both. How am I contradicting myself?

27 minutes ago, Thormind said:

Perfect balance would be each faction representing around 1/3 of the top positions AND having a good build variety. They nerfed Palp/defenders not because the Imperials were dominating but because a very limited part of their material was played. The same thing is happening with Miranda, Biggs, Sabine and the JMK. They are more than likely the next step needed to fix the game. I got a strong feeling that after they will need to fix Fenn, Asajj and Kanan if they really want a healthy meta.

27 minutes ago, Thormind said:

Nerf them and you would have a meta dominated by Miranda/Sabine/Biggs. All of that needs to be brought back to balance at the same time.

Is the game that "broken" that we need to nerf everything from orbit? I trust that the developers will move the meta around and whatever new cool thing they drop will become a dominant force at the table. You can't have a static, equal meta and expect the game to grow.

27 minutes ago, Thormind said:

You also seem to think (not in this quote but previously) that casual players dont care if the stuff they play is not competitive. From my observations thats not the case at all.

In my area, they don't. They play their falcons and their Palp defenders and their swarms all the time. Because they play to have fun. Tournament time comes around and they break out the meta stuff.

8 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Definitely the latter. Netlisting is, and always will be 'a thing' - if a squad has a proven pedigree of success, people will be encouraged to try using it. But a squad can work competitively for three reasons:

1. Because it's points efficient and generally "good", giving it a high theoretical efficiency - "akin to MajorJuggler's infamous jousting value"
2. Because it's used at close to the maximum of its theoretical efficiency on the table - remember that MajorJuggler has always annotated comments on jousting value with a disclaimer along the lines of "assuming your opponent is dumb enough to actually fly straight at you and trade shots in the open" or words to that effect (this is something the copycats often miss; how many games against how many opponents do you expect the average Systems Open/Nationals winner has had with their eventual squad or some evolutionary variation on it?)
3. Because it's a scissors/paper/stone matchup to the squads you're reliably expecting to face (an effective but risky choice - dependant on successfully "reading the metagame in advance" and susceptible to coming across some weird-*** squad you've not planned for in an early round)

We had a game night kit last night that underlined (2) and (3). About half the players turned up with (surprise surprise) Dengar and VI Tel Trevura with torpedoes, no plan other than "move forwards slowly, fire torpedoes at PS9, blow up enemy, explain how tactically awesome they are", and expected the squad they'd picked to win for them.

After a bit of debate over a pub tea, a friend of mine turned up with VI Horton Salm, VI Airen Cracken and Adaptability Wedge, also laden with ordnance. This, combined with smart manoeuvring, repeatedly resulted in Dengar exiting stage left in the first shooting phase with both torpedoes still in their tubes.

A big part of the design problem with the game is that pilots like Soontir Fel, The Inquisitor, and Fenn Rau all have a higher straight-line jousting efficiency than generic TIEs, Z-95s, X-wings, and B-wings, unless you can consistently block them to prevent their actions. So there's some counter play there, but not much. I'm actually in the middle of analytically working out how often you need to block them as an opposing player to make it a fair fight, and it ain't pretty. Oh, and they also get reposition actions at PS9.... so unless you're a blocking fiend, these pilots are just flat-out better than the generic mooks. They're not actually arc dodgers, they're actually really good jousters that also happen to be able to arc dodge. This kind of "better jousting efficiency than everything else" actually tends to be the case for most of the "best meta stuff".

That being said, X-wing is definitely a skill game. Players control the geometry and target priority, which dramatically affects in-game tactical efficiencies.

2 minutes ago, Jdling said:

The comparison I stand by is that a healthy meta can exist with 2-3 builds dominating the lists. There is no other comparison to be made.

This is a dubious claim. If the only builds that were viable were Parattanni and Dash + Miranda, then according to your metric, that would be a healthy meta. I do not think you will find anyone else to agree with you, when put in those practical terms.

I'll bring it back to an earlier question: how often do you play competitively? How many different archetypes do you typically fly against? Wouldn't you get bored flying against just the same 2 lists over and over again?

Maybe they can make a new starter set with two Jumpmasters in it?

And a list of basic scenarios for Jumpmaster vs. Jumpmaster.

Then everyone can show up to a tournament with the ships they'll need. And only buy other ships for casual games.

15 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

This is a dubious claim. If the only builds that were viable were Parattanni and Dash + Miranda, then according to your metric, that would be a healthy meta. I do not think you will find anyone else to agree with you, when put in those practical terms.

Yes, it would be a healthy meta, because any growing game will eventually shift. A new release, a new FAQ, and it changes. I take the long view on these things. Yes, we are in an extended JM5K run, but even those builds aren't identical across that time, and as a player I like it as I pretty well know the capabilities of most of the builds I am going to see competativly. I am happy to disagree with the majority on that point, especially since the bulk of the people having this discussion are capable civil discourse on the matter.

I play as much competative as a job, three kids, and other hobbies allow. As I outlined above, seeing the same list repeatedly is fine by me. I know what they can do,and I know it will eventually change.

13 minutes ago, Jdling said:

Yes, it would be a healthy meta, because any growing game will eventually shift. A new release, a new FAQ, and it changes. I take the long view on these things. Yes, we are in an extended JM5K run, but even those builds aren't identical across that time, and as a player I like it as I pretty well know the capabilities of most of the builds I am going to see competativly. I am happy to disagree with the majority on that point, especially since the bulk of the people having this discussion are capable civil discourse on the matter.

I play as much competative as a job, three kids, and other hobbies allow. As I outlined above, seeing the same list repeatedly is fine by me. I know what they can do,and I know it will eventually change.

For me, a lot of the fun is in seeing a new list and trying to dissect it. Before even placing any rocks, I need to assess a bunch of different tactical tradeoffs based on what makes the opposing list "tick", and what our relative strengths and weaknesses are. It's a challenging and fun mental exercise.

A more diverse meta is also healthier for introducing player skill back in the equation, because the better players are more proficient at thinking on their feet. Once you overcome the basic hurdle of taking a decent list, then IMO what separates a 2-4 or 3-3 player from a 5-1 player is the ability to identify the squad's unique tactical nuances, and know the ideal time to shift targeting priorities as the game progresses. Both of these are much harder to figure out the first time you're sitting across from a list, why is why "weird new jank" sometimes does well initially, before people figure out how to play against it.

Basically, I have the total opposite approach: more ship and pilot variety is way more fun. Hence why I'm slowly putting together my own rule set.

56 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

For me, a lot of the fun is in seeing a new list and trying to dissect it. Before even placing any rocks, I need to assess a bunch of different tactical tradeoffs based on what makes the opposing list "tick", and what our relative strengths and weaknesses are. It's a challenging and fun mental exercise.

A more diverse meta is also healthier for introducing player skill back in the equation, because the better players are more proficient at thinking on their feet. Once you overcome the basic hurdle of taking a decent list, then IMO what separates a 2-4 or 3-3 player from a 5-1 player is the ability to identify the squad's unique tactical nuances, and know the ideal time to shift targeting priorities as the game progresses. Both of these are much harder to figure out the first time you're sitting across from a list, why is why "weird new jank" sometimes does well initially, before people figure out how to play against it.

Basically, I have the total opposite approach: more ship and pilot variety is way more fun. Hence why I'm slowly putting together my own rule set.

So we both look for the fun, but we find it in different ways.

Don't get me wrong, I love varied lists. The most fun I have ever had playing the game was running through a head to head campaign where all the builds were at based at 80 points, but often you had one guy bringing 120 to the table against your 90 (due to rules that aren't part of this discussion) and you had to build, place rocks, and fly your butt off to pull out a win. We didn't see a single meta build for the entire length of the campaign; 3 months and probably 60 total matches among all the players.

The original point I was making is that not all ships have to be balanced for the current state of the game to be healthy. Sure, we all want quadjumpers to do something cool/effective, but it won't break the game when they aren't.

To chase this a little farther: If all ships were balanced, would that be good for the game? I don't believe so, for several reasons.

1. The company needs to sell new products, and more powerful ships/upgrades allow that to happen. If my original purchase of 3 X-wings is always viable, then I don't need to buy new stuff, and the business model fails.

2. Tied to that, a meta that sometimes favors large ships, sometimes swarms, sometimes aces, etc., keeps me interested. What changes do I need to make to my build, and what purchases do I need to make? List-building is a lot of fun, and a level playing field for all ships lessens that aspect of the game. I believe this is purposeful by the designers. To once again refer to a game like MTG: When a set is designed for play, the first test plays are made with all cards at the same power level. This lets the designers get a feel for how that set will work. After that, they decide which aspects they want to see pushed for that season. Numbers are tweaked to get a few basic strategies pushed into the limelight for a while, and others are put on the back burner and only fringe playable. However, the next set that comes out will change that up and new things will be the focus. If jousting head-to-head is always viable, release after release, then people will get bored real quick.

Your point about evaluating your opponent and tactically adapting on the battlefield is well said, but bringing a decent list isn't a hurdle that has to be crossed to then play X-Wing. It is half of the joy of the game. Strategy (list building) and tactics (flying) both come into play and IMO they are of equal value. Don't take away the wins from the guy who is a great builder, but a so-so pilot. His skill needs a place to be recognized, and leveling out all pilots and cards removes his advantage in the game. That being said, I am a compulsive brewer, so I have a stake in this.

It should be abundantly clear that 'balanced' doesn't mean 'equal in point value' or 'equal in function'.

Ships should be balanced, again, as in there is a purpose for them potentially in any game, and they could serve as a component in forces that have an equal chance of winning. But no, a TIE fighter should not have the same capabilities as an x-wing.

I think most people understand this, even if MTG has next to nothing to do with X-wing as a game.

If any valuable lesson comes from Mark Rosewater and the excellent GDC presentation they linked above, it's that "Your playerbase is excellent at detecting problems within your game, but not so great at proposing solutions".

I find amazing how, most of the time, the community is lightning fast at detecting absolutely crap and absolutely amazing cards and combos just after being spoiled. However most fixes and solutions proposed fall quite flat, and nobody is ever satisfied, creating fix thread after thread.

21 hours ago, MajorJuggler said:

A big part of the design problem with the game is that pilots like Soontir Fel, The Inquisitor, and Fenn Rau all have a higher straight-line jousting efficiency than generic TIEs, Z-95s, X-wings, and B-wings, unless you can consistently block them to prevent their actions. So there's some counter play there, but not much. I'm actually in the middle of analytically working out how often you need to block them as an opposing player to make it a fair fight, and it ain't pretty. Oh, and they also get reposition actions at PS9.... so unless you're a blocking fiend, these pilots are just flat-out better than the generic mooks. They're not actually arc dodgers, they're actually really good jousters that also happen to be able to arc dodge. This kind of "better jousting efficiency than everything else" actually tends to be the case for most of the "best meta stuff".

That being said, X-wing is definitely a skill game. Players control the geometry and target priority, which dramatically affects in-game tactical efficiencies.

I think part of the problem also comes from turrets. Arc dodging is not possible vs them so you need to add survivability to aces if you want them to remain valid. This then becomes a vivious circle because it makes them more survivable vs ships they are not supposed to joust. I think crack shot solved that though.

IMO the real problem at the moment is the balance of power shift in favor of high and/or unblockable damage greatly affecting fragile ships. The Tie swarm problem isnt so much that they cant do damage. It's that ships dont survive long enough to get a chance to do the damage. The Tie Striker is another good example of this. Pre wave 8 that ship would have been really good. In the current state of the game it lacks survivability.

Action economy has also gotten out of hand. Most ship that perform well can do multiple things in one round or get a chance to make an action (or an equivalent) under conditions that would normally not allow them to do so. The original ships were not designed to handle that defensewise.

21 hours ago, Jdling said:

If they aren't all exactly equal, then players will gravitate to the best. Part of the game is list building, and that can't be ignored.

Not with an healthy meta where A might be slighty better than B but slightly worst than C. If you bring A you would have a better chance at winning if many players have C while still be reasonably good if B is predominant. Like @MajorJuggler said, theres a lot of skill involved in Xwing. As long as the power lvl difference remains reasonable a ship should be able to perform reasonably.

21 hours ago, Jdling said:

The comparison I stand by is that a healthy meta can exist with 2-3 builds dominating the lists. There is no other comparison to be made.

On that we completly disagree. I believe the number of players dissatisfied with the current state of the game points toward my point of view being valid. IMO in the end a meta is only heathy when a majority of players think it is. There was some complains before the FAQ but nothing compared to what we have now.

21 hours ago, Jdling said:

So what do you want? Every faction or every ship to be playable? You are arguing both. How am I contradicting myself?

You said you were not comparing MTG and Xwing but you've been doing it since your original post. Thats the contradiction.

What i want was said in my post:

21 hours ago, Thormind said:

Perfect balance would be each faction representing around 1/3 of the top positions AND having a good build variety.

.....

Why wouldnt all ship be playable? Or at least one pilot per ship? I agree that its not possible to make them equal but they dont have to be. As long as you can bring a ship to a tournament and not drastically reduce your chance to win, it's fine in my book.

Best example of a ship that is not competitive in itself but still saw a lot of play was the Lambda Shuttle. A ship can be useful (and played) without being powerful. It just need to have a potential role in some viable builds.

21 hours ago, Jdling said:

Is the game that "broken" that we need to nerf everything from orbit?

7 elements (Miranda, Sabine, Biggs, Kanan, JMK, Asajj and Fen) is hardly "everything". Thats an overstatement. The best solution would be to ajust them all at the same time but just making changes to some of them would still have a very positive impact on the game.

21 hours ago, Jdling said:

I trust that the developers will move the meta around and whatever new cool thing they drop will become a dominant force at the table. You can't have a static, equal meta and expect the game to grow.

Actually yes you can have a balanced meta with a proper design. Balanced does not mean static. It can still grow and evoluate. Many games do just that. A new element doesnt have to be OP in order to affect a meta. That's what create an infinite powercreep loop (like what we have now). Players naturally tend to gravitate towards new products assuming they are as effective (or close enough) as the existing material. Especially when it's from a beloved franchise like Star Wars.

22 minutes ago, Thormind said:

Actually yes you can have a balanced meta with a proper design. Balanced does not mean static. It can still grow and evoluate. Many games do just that.

Not calling you out on this, but can you give an example?

On ‎6‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 9:43 AM, Jdling said:

The head designer of Magic: The Gathering has this to say:

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/162222792693/agree-or-disagree-balance-is-a-bit-of-a

It is unreasonable to thing that every ship has to be competative. If you want X-wings on the table, play them and don't complain about it. Why would anyone else want to try to them out when all they hear you do is whine?

Competative MTG has only 2 or 3 decks that are viable, but casual has hundreds. Play what you want and stop clogging everyone's feed with your whining and wish list fixes that are not going to happen.

The issue is X Wing is supposed to be thematically tied to the movies and other Star Wars universe media. Magic is not. Yes not every single ship can be competitive, but it isn't too much to ask to make the competitive game ships match with the competitive movie ships. The X Wing game doesn't make any sense in the X Wing universe right now. Why would the Rebel Alliance and Resistance field effectively some of the worst ships in their available inventory as their front line fighters? Why would Darth Vader fly a fighter that is comparatively poor to other fighters within the Empire's own inventory? Why are missiles/torps almost never used in fighter vs fighter combat in any movie, instead favoring primary blaster/laser weapons, yet alpha strike ordnance is actually way better? Why during the battle of Endor didn't a handful of Y Wings just autoblaster & TLT down all the fighters the empire threw at them?

The answer is this isn't really a Star Wars game anymore. This is FFG space battles with virtually unknown ships, but for fun you can show up for a game with some ships your average Star Wars fan will actually recognize just so you can give the whole room a big laugh. LOL look at this dork bringing ships and pilots from a Star Wars movie to play a Star Wars game. Doesn't he know the rule that once a pilot says any lines on screen it means he will be a terrible pilot in this game?

5 hours ago, Joe Censored said:

The issue is X Wing is supposed to be thematically tied to the movies and other Star Wars universe media. Magic is not. Yes not every single ship can be competitive, but it isn't too much to ask to make the competitive game ships match with the competitive movie ships. The X Wing game doesn't make any sense in the X Wing universe right now.[...]

The answer is this isn't really a Star Wars game anymore. This is FFG space battles with virtually unknown ships, [...]

Star Wars is more than the movies, and many have reached Star Wars from many different entry points, especially the 90's and 2000's Expanded Universe. Keep in mind what Lucas said in the last celebration: "Star Wars was meant for twelve year olds". Many Star Wars fans became so after they were attracted by stuff other than the movies, like the Galaxies MMO, or videogames, or series, that were aimed at older ages.
Under the new direction, there aren't first class and second class citizens among the canon SW spaceships. They are canon or they aren't. An Assault Gunboat could be as much recognizable for a person who got into Star Wars with the 90's game TIE Fighter, as the X-wing (or more, since the X-wing makes just cameos in that game).

But you have a good point anyway . You feel there is something wrong with the game, and you blame the loss in theme. ("Your players are good at finding problems with your game")
Coming back to those lessons by Mark Rosewater, he mentions that the main concern with the game is that it has to be fun. If the game is not fun, then the game is not in a healthy state.

Fun is subjective, of course, but we can define it as the aggregate of what most players consider fun:

• It can be balanced pieces . Some people find it more fun if a larger subset of the pilots and upgrades in this game saw more table time, since it spices up squadbuilding (a third of the game) and keep it replayable.
• It can be thematic ships being used. Some people find it fun to play with the ships and pilots most prominently featured on the movies, instead of Mr Nobodies that do not trigger any emotion in them.
• It can be that you get to face a wide variety of rivals that keep the game fresh. Some people find it fun to take part in a competition and every match is a totally different world. Different ships and archetypes requiring different tactics and approaches, that keep the game from becoming monotone.
• It can be that you find it fair . Some people find it fun as long as they think they had a shot at victory, their dice weren't magically behaving much worse than their opponent (magic=action economy), or their opponent's ships having a seemingly unfair advantage over their own. It's okay to lose if they consider the game was fair; and victory tastes sweeter too. When they lose because the game was unfair to them (or win because they had an advantage over their opponent), they don't find it so much fun.
• It can be that the game appeals to your multiplayer preferences . Some people like competition, some people like cooperation, some like both.

In the end, what is a healthy meta?
We can go to the details and crunch numbers, but we must not forget that "A healthy game is a game that is fun".
Customers don't care about statistics, jousting values, efficiencies, squad archetypes, fixes, etc. Customers care about them having fun with the game. If they are having fun, they will keep investing in the game. If they see people having fun, they will join the game.

So a healthy meta, is a meta that keeps the game being fun.
Now... is the current one a healthy meta?
That is what the designers need to figure out and fix, because a game that is not fun is a game that people stop playing.

Quote

The issue is X Wing is supposed to be thematically tied to the movies and other Star Wars universe media. Magic is not. Yes not every single ship can be competitive, but it isn't too much to ask to make the competitive game ships match with the competitive movie ships. The X Wing game doesn't make any sense in the X Wing universe right now. Why would the Rebel Alliance and Resistance field effectively some of the worst ships in their available inventory as their front line fighters? Why would Darth Vader fly a fighter that is comparatively poor to other fighters within the Empire's own inventory? Why are missiles/torps almost never used in fighter vs fighter combat in any movie, instead favoring primary blaster/laser weapons, yet alpha strike ordnance is actually way better? Why during the battle of Endor didn't a handful of Y Wings just autoblaster & TLT down all the fighters the empire threw at them?

The answer is this isn't really a Star Wars game anymore. This is FFG space battles with virtually unknown ships, but for fun you can show up for a game with some ships your average Star Wars fan will actually recognize just so you can give the whole room a big laugh. LOL look at this dork bringing ships and pilots from a Star Wars movie to play a Star Wars game. Doesn't he know the rule that once a pilot says any lines on screen it means he will be a terrible pilot in this game?

Whilst I don't think it's quite that bad, I agree with the sentiment.

The problem is that in a Magic The Gathering new-plane-expansion, no-one is going to complain that "Temple Devotee" isn't as good in a fair fight as "Shambling Elemental" because you've got no mental feel for what they should do. Aside from the odd planeswalker you recognise from previous expansions, there's only limited continuity of units.

In X-wing, however, I know who Luke Skywalker is, and I feel like he should be a good choice. He might not be cheap, but he should at least be powerful.

The problem is that most of the archetypical big-screen and X-wing novels/comics names were used in the first couple of waves....which means they're at the wrong end of the power creep stick.

One thing that might be worth considering is something Imperial Assault, and especially the card games, have done - doing multiple versions of the same character - I believe the FFG star wars card games has several Luke Skywalkers, for example, with different effects and different levels of awesomeness, from annoying farm kid you really want to punch, to "Red Five", to "Commander Skywalker" to "Last of the Jedi". Setting a precedent of doing this (which they sort of have done with Han and Chewie) lets you tune the power of not just XYZ ship but the iconic characters that some players really do want to use, rational or not.

Quote

A big part of the design problem with the game is that pilots like Soontir Fel, The Inquisitor, and Fenn Rau all have a higher straight-line jousting efficiency than generic TIEs, Z-95s, X-wings, and B-wings, unless you can consistently block them to prevent their actions. So there's some counter play there, but not much. I'm actually in the middle of analytically working out how often you need to block them as an opposing player to make it a fair fight, and it ain't pretty. Oh, and they also get reposition actions at PS9.... so unless you're a blocking fiend, these pilots are just flat-out better than the generic mooks. They're not actually arc dodgers, they're actually really good jousters that also happen to be able to arc dodge. This kind of "better jousting efficiency than everything else" actually tends to be the case for most of the "best meta stuff".

Agreed. The stuff that makes it the best is action efficiency as well as manoeuvrability. Part of the issue - as noted above - is that turrets are a thing. VI Duchess is a good example of the problem - she gets a ludicrous PS10 plus what's effectively a zero cost advanced sensors + engine upgrade combo on a ship which has a pretty decent dial already. But no amount of fancy flying around lets you dodge turret fire, and she doesn't have the dice or tokens to survive actually being shot at, meaning in practice she tends to pull a few visually impressive moves then explode, and most people using a striker plump for the cheap kamikaze Pure Sabbac instead. The better pilots have the option of PS8+ dancing around like a loon but don't actually need to to that to work - soontir fel tends to focus/focus/evade far more than anything else when I see him.

I think that's probably why snap shot is something I've grabbed onto with both hands; it's not that it's that powerful (except where it's got special abilities tied to it like tactician, R3-A2, etc) but that it's reassuring that if I actually guess right what you're going to do and have you bang to rights in my firing arc with a 'mere mortal' pilot, I at least get to do something before you dart out of my arc of fire with a million free actions and then smugly declare what a brilliant pilot you are (not that I'm bitter, you understand ).

16 hours ago, Jdling said:

Not calling you out on this, but can you give an example?

Dice Masters was like that for a long time. Some cards were almost "must have" but the overall built variety was amazing. It changed for worst when they started to release some truly stupid (and OP) cards. Many players left and now the game is almost dead.

On 2017-06-28 at 8:25 PM, Jdling said:

The original point I was making is that not all ships have to be balanced for the current state of the game to be healthy. Sure, we all want quadjumpers to do something cool/effective, but it won't break the game when they aren't.

To chase this a little farther: If all ships were balanced, would that be good for the game? I don't believe so, for several reasons.

1. The company needs to sell new products, and more powerful ships/upgrades allow that to happen. If my original purchase of 3 X-wings is always viable, then I don't need to buy new stuff, and the business model fails.

2. Tied to that, a meta that sometimes favors large ships, sometimes swarms, sometimes aces, etc., keeps me interested. What changes do I need to make to my build, and what purchases do I need to make? List-building is a lot of fun, and a level playing field for all ships lessens that aspect of the game. I believe this is purposeful by the designers. To once again refer to a game like MTG: When a set is designed for play, the first test plays are made with all cards at the same power level. This lets the designers get a feel for how that set will work. After that, they decide which aspects they want to see pushed for that season. Numbers are tweaked to get a few basic strategies pushed into the limelight for a while, and others are put on the back burner and only fringe playable. However, the next set that comes out will change that up and new things will be the focus. If jousting head-to-head is always viable, release after release, then people will get bored real quick.

Your point about evaluating your opponent and tactically adapting on the battlefield is well said, but bringing a decent list isn't a hurdle that has to be crossed to then play X-Wing. It is half of the joy of the game. Strategy (list building) and tactics (flying) both come into play and IMO they are of equal value. Don't take away the wins from the guy who is a great builder, but a so-so pilot. His skill needs a place to be recognized, and leveling out all pilots and cards removes his advantage in the game. That being said, I am a compulsive brewer, so I have a stake in this.

There are several types of balance. I do not think that all ships need to be equally good, but they need to bring something to the table. I for one do not feel that the issue is the Quadjumper, it actually does add something to the game. The issue is the X-wing, before boost pack Khiraxz and Starviper, the A-wing (even though they also do bring something to the game), the generic Tie bomber, the Tie Punisher, the Scyk, named B-wings, the non-Vader Tie advances, the U-wing, the G1A, most Tie fighters and the non-Corran E-wings.

All ships must bring something to the game. It doesnt need to be the most awesome new superpower thing, but it needs to be something. it can be a special case like a very powerful range 1 attack, the ability to ignore negative range 3 effects, whatever, but ships either need to be competitive in their field (jouster, ace, pwt, torp boat, bomber, ...) or have a special trick up their sleeve. They should at least give the feeling that "if i do this right, they are playable". For instance, a meta where the iconic Tie swarms are not even decent, where the heavy BBBBZ is not decent, where Imp Aces just dies right out of the gate, that meta is not entirely healthy.

I fully accept the need to update ones fleet. I do. I feel that I am actually fine with the need to buy a couple expansion packs a year to keep my fave ships awesome. (For me in reality, I buy pretty much all ships and most of the time more then one... ). My beef is that there are too many ships that simply are not competitive, that doesnt even have that pack that keeps them good or even decent. That actually is very very poor game design and competitive or kitchen table, it will run people out of the game.

I never considered Mark Rosewater to be particularly wise. He takes MTG in lousy directions. Like putting mono white in nonsensical villainous roles block after block...I always thought that was dumb.

Joe Censored nailed it. There's a difference between extended lore ships showing up and where we are at, which is practically don't use anything you see in a Star Wars movie.

"Remember when Fat Han," arguments fail because of how distant in the past that now is.

On 6/29/2017 at 9:57 AM, Thormind said:

Dice Masters was like that for a long time. Some cards were almost "must have" but the overall built variety was amazing. It changed for worst when they started to release some truly stupid (and OP) cards. Many players left and now the game is almost dead.

Actually a fair comparison. Bard and a few others ruined tournament play because it was bring one of 3 options or die. Literally you were a fool to do otherwise. X wing isn't quite that bad yet but I see a definite comparable quality of the jumpmaster to the bard and they took their sweet time banning that OP card and lost many customers over it. The longer ffg takes to seriously fix the jumpmaster the more customers they will lose in organised play long term.

I also love the arguements that the aces pack and whatever else gives scum more options so less jm's. Come on I know you guys are smarter than that. The only way that opens up options against the jm is if it is just as good. You can have a million options and if jm is statistically best guess what most people will still bring. The jm is an unhealthy meta ship, period, and if other options are as good so people actually choose them sometimes then they are op too. The baseline in scum needs lowered and that means the peak point (jumpmaster) needs lowered. Some people applaud the palp nerf for opening up imperial list building, meet the scum palp.

Just want to point out that the most recent interview with the designers, posted by Team Covenant, makes it very clear they do not believe intentional power creep is an appropriate business model. Unintentional on the other hand...

1 hour ago, LordFajubi said:

I also love the arguements that the aces pack and whatever else gives scum more options so less jm's. Come on I know you guys are smarter than that. The only way that opens up options against the jm is if it is just as good. You can have a million options and if jm is statistically best guess what most people will still bring. The jm is an unhealthy meta ship, period, and if other options are as good so people actually choose them sometimes then they are op too. The baseline in scum needs lowered and that means the peak point (jumpmaster) needs lowered. Some people applaud the palp nerf for opening up imperial list building, meet the scum palp.

If that were true, why are people still bringing (and winning with, see the European Championship for example) let's say Rebels?

Either Rebels have ships that are just as good as the Jumpmaster, or people don't necessarily bring the absolute best, sometimes they settle for 'good enough stuff that I like to fly'.