9 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

?????

Wait, I cast counterspell.

Would that be the old Interrupt kind, or the newer "add it to the stack" Instant kind?

56 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

I believe that balanced game means any 100 pt list should have a reasonable chance to beat another. Of course, if you are trying to make an abysmal squad (all HWKs with no upgrades), then you won't win, but the base idea remains.

No, it doesn't, you contradicted it yourself...

11 hours ago, LagJanson said:

A balanced game means an equal point list should have a reasonable chance at defeating another list of the same point value, if in a equal setting and mission goal environment when played by equal players.

I think that this is naive idea that would very much make for a worse game. Here's why: the folks who piece together a 100 point grandfather clock deserve to be on better footing before the game even starts than the folks who stick a 100 point shovel into the slop bucket of their hangar and call it a list. The fact that you can get that 100 point grandfather clock online does nothing to change that it's a precision machine built to function. The fact that rando slop could pull off some wild moves and slay the beast is awesome, but it should have to win despite being outclassed.

Listbuilding is putting together parts specifically to create, enhance, and exploit synergies while minimizing weaknesses. It's part of the game, and if it meant nothing then the game, for me, would have much less value. If there were no valid decisions to make during listbuilding, you're playing a completely different game.

1 minute ago, E Chu Ta said:

I think that this is naive idea that would very much make for a worse game. Here's why: the folks who piece together a 100 point grandfather clock deserve to be on better footing before the game even starts than the folks who stick a 100 point shovel into the slop bucket of their hangar and call it a list. The fact that you can get that 100 point grandfather clock online does nothing to change that it's a precision machine built to function. The fact that rando slop could pull off some wild moves and slay the beast is awesome, but it should have to win despite being outclassed.

Listbuilding is putting together parts specifically to create, enhance, and exploit synergies while minimizing weaknesses. It's part of the game, and if it meant nothing then the game, for me, would have much less value. If there were no valid decisions to make during listbuilding, you're playing a completely different game.

Ah, but I never said that 100 points couldn't do something better than another 100 points. If you can sucker somebody into playing on your terms to your advantage, you deserve the win. Jousting a finely tuned 'alpha strike' list with a list that can't handle fire power of that magnitude deserves the win, but yes sometimes the second list can come up on top anyway. Clock, meet shovel. Not disagreeing with you here, at all.

List building in itself is indeed about creating synergies and advantages. Where it falls down is when you can buy clock parts cheaper than they are worth. I think the overall system FFG has created is both simple and flexible and it works quite well. I'm arguing point costs, and nothing more. I'm not even saying it should be perfect, by it's very simplistic nature, that is an impossibility.

1 hour ago, Herowannabe said:

Oh I absolutely think there's a problem. Like I said, 30 pts of <fill in the blank> should be roughly equal to 30 pts of <fill in the blank with something else> in an ideal world. We do not live in an ideal world.

That being said, I personally don't think that the problem is as bad as some make it out to be. I feel that by and large the game is balanced, with 90% of the ships/cards out there being balanced with each other, while a few outliers are exceptionally good or are lagging behind a bit. Two of those that are lagging behind (Starviper and Kirahxz) are about to get a huge boost in the upcoming guns for hire expansion pack.

I agree with you but the 5% of OP material is taking 80% of the top spots in competition (random numbers, just to show my point). Thats a big unbalance IMO. Correct that 5% and yeah, we probably get back to a much healthier meta.

The game has always had ebb and flows, but good list-building and piloting (practice) made up for ship abilities and discrepancies with the exception of a few outliers, some of which never took the top prize even with their power (obvious being Phantoms, Palpatine, Biggs, Sabine, etc.) have started to be reigned in. Palp and the X7 fix has been flattened. The Empire is a balanced faction within itself, with the other two having some "easy to choose" powerful outliers that are awaiting the re-balance.

Ebb and flow....until the Jumpmaster with that d*** Attani card. That is neither an ebb or flow. That's a f*****g water cannon.

The great nerfing began; when will the final axe fall? In days.

2 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

Victory here is not determined by raw points efficiency, but rather differing points efficiency depending on how well a player can leverage their ship's strengths. An ISD is a goddamn monster if you get its front arc in medium/close range

Just to rattle a different saber, this is an element missing in X-Wing. Ship's strengths cannot be effectively leveraged in a game which has one and only one scenario. Everything, no matter it's title or intended role, needs to be effective during a dogfight in an asteroid field.

Modifying the battlefield needs to be a thing. "Where do I put my share of rocks" is not enough. Minefield mapper is a bold move in that direction (allowing a major alteration to the field pre-play), as have been seismic torpedoes and cargo chute (allowing modification mid-game). The game needs way more elements like this that move the emphasis of cunning strategy away from the ships themselves and into the realm of tricks and unpredictable tactics.

As a far fetched idea, what is a player was able to pay points to deploy extra asteroids. . .and then turn them into booby traps with seismic torps?

seismic torps would need to be guaranteed damage first

like they always should've been

wtf, FFG

2 hours ago, heychadwick said:

I believe that balanced game means any 100 pt list should have a reasonable chance to beat another. Of course, if you are trying to make an abysmal squad (all HWKs with no upgrades), then you won't win, but the base idea remains.

Soon you will all realize the true power of a Wild Space Fringer with Outrider and Tractor beam backed up by 4 Rebel Operatives!

6 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

seismic torps would need to be guaranteed damage first

like they always should've been

wtf, FFG

Fine, create the new "Advanced Seismic Torpedoes" since the game needs a bunch of new rules for battlefield mods anyways. My point still stands: diversity on the 3x3 mat will create diversity in 100 point lists. And allow for a different (better?) kind of balance not based on straight math, because now there would be more than one equation.

3 hours ago, E Chu Ta said:

No, it doesn't, you contradicted it yourself...

No, I didnt. I said the base idea is the game is balanced via points with some rare exceptions of a support only ship not given any support ability.

26 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

No, I didnt. I said the base idea is the game is balanced via points with some rare exceptions of a support only ship not given any support ability.

You said any 100 point squad should be able to win. Then gave an example of a 100 point squad that should never win.

The difference between any sloppy mess one could think to throw together and an "abysmal squad" made to be bad still supports the importance for list building. Any ol' trash should be able to beat the "worst squad ever actual crime against nature." If you flatten the curve so that is no longer the case, then why bother playing anymore. Is that what balance should be?

I support a game in which nude HWKs are trash. I support a game where you can work with the pieces to make a tuned up HWK a functioning, valid squad member.

...I still can't get Dace Bonearm to work, though, and I really want to...

24 minutes ago, E Chu Ta said:

You said any 100 point squad should be able to win. Then gave an example of a 100 point squad that should never win.

The difference between any sloppy mess one could think to throw together and an "abysmal squad" made to be bad still supports the importance for list building. Any ol' trash should be able to beat the "worst squad ever actual crime against nature." If you flatten the curve so that is no longer the case, then why bother playing anymore. Is that what balance should be?

I support a game in which nude HWKs are trash. I support a game where you can work with the pieces to make a tuned up HWK a functioning, valid squad member.

...I still can't get Dace Bonearm to work, though, and I really want to...

I think it is important to always add to the "100 pts should be able to beat any other 100 pts" discussion, this- "...when both lists are constructed with equal skill." I'm pretty sure Heychadwick, even if he did contradict himself, was intending to make this point when indicating the capability of making bad lists too.

if skill on the table and in listbuilding are even, then in a balanced game, one can presume the match would come down to the last shot of the game, go to a salvo, or be determined by who had the better dice rolls.

There are a few things keeping us from this type of game, even if FFG did implement a much more refined design system- human error, a limited costing system, a limited ship value system (attack/agility being stuck with 0-4 values), and upgrade slot values always being in flux as new upgrades are introduced which may synergize with a certain chassis better than another.

Now just because these limits exist, does this mean we should just say "the game is good enough"?

No way. A strong game is always seeking to be as balanced as possible, even if there is the knowledge it will never be completely balanced, because that also means it can always be BETTER balanced.

5 hours ago, heychadwick said:

I believe that balanced game means any 100 pt list should have a reasonable chance to beat another. Of course, if you are trying to make an abysmal squad (all HWKs with no upgrades), then you won't win, but the base idea remains.

5 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

I think it is important to always add to the "100 pts should be able to beat any other 100 pts" discussion, this- "...when both lists are constructed with equal skill." I'm pretty sure Heychadwick, even if he did contradict himself, was intending to make this point when indicating the capability of making bad lists too.

if skill on the table and in listbuilding are even, then in a balanced game, one can presume the match would come down to the last shot of the game, go to a salvo, or be determined by who had the better dice rolls.

There are a few things keeping us from this type of game, even if FFG did implement a much more refined design system- human error, a limited costing system, a limited ship value system (attack/agility being stuck with 0-4 values), and upgrade slot values always being in flux as new upgrades are introduced which may synergize with a certain chassis better than another.

Now just because these limits exist, does this mean we should just say "the game is good enough"?

No way. A strong game is always seeking to be as balanced as possible, even if there is the knowledge it will never be completely balanced, because that also means it can always be BETTER balanced.

That doesn't sound like what he said.

It sounds like what he said is that most ["any"] 100 pt lists should be roughly equal in power.

22 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

That doesn't sound like what he said.

It sounds like what he said is that most ["any"] 100 pt lists should be roughly equal in power.

What someone intended to say isn't always what is actually said. I don't think he actually believes any 100 point list should be even with another, especially when he points out immediately how awful a 100 point list could be.

3 hours ago, Kdubb said:

What someone intended to say isn't always what is actually said. I don't think he actually believes any 100 point list should be even with another, especially when he points out immediately how awful a 100 point list could be.

I think that HWKs should be updated to 2 attack dice, though. Then I think 5 HWKs might actually stand a chance. I used them as an example if how bad some ships are in current state. I also mean if you are trying to find the worst possible use for 100 pts in an attempt to prove the theory wrong that any list should be able to have a decent chance than you can do it.

Imbalance has to exist.

It is, after all, the reason to buy new things: that the old shiny doesn't work quite as well as it should. Particularly in a game as constrained as X-Wing is, where they couldn't introduce a piece that scans holonet broadcasters or can give double evades to an escorted shuttle, but have the one scenario: 100/6 - so everything has to be a slight improvement on that 100/6 scenario.

However.

Even setting aside the Jumpmaster, there exists a profound gap between Waves 1-5 and 7+. Just different design decisions, many of which were bad and few of which can be fixed by a Title card (HWK-290A: treat red dial maneuvers as green?) Some of them WERE fixed by Title cards, like the TIE/x1, but were STILL rendered 'worse than' choices by later additions.

This might not be a problem in any other game, but X-Wing is an already-existing intellectual property, with well-established ships that have existed for 30 years or MORE. Most people are attracted to X-Wing to fly X-Wings and TIE Fighters - or other ships seen on the silver screen and countless other sources - NOT Jumpmasters or Wookiee Gunships or TIE Pizzaslices that had all of 2 minutes of screentime (if that!)

That simple fact - of preexisting attachment - means that if the game does not keep those already existing and loved ships valid, then it has failed from a design standpoint. They can add all the fancy new ships they want, but if a guy who loves B-Wings or TIE Interceptors cannot realistically fly them then it has lost that player's affection.

I know I'm getting a lot of Armada players interested for just that reason....

11 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

Most people are attracted to X-Wing to fly X-Wings and TIE Fighters - or other ships seen on the silver screen and countless other sources - NOT Jumpmasters or Wookiee Gunships or TIE Pizzaslices that had all of 2 minutes of screentime (if that!)

2

I actually disagree with you on that point... there are people like me excited to fly all kinds of things.

I would kill to have a v-wing in this game because I really like the lego set I have for it... I want to fly that way more then I want to fly an x-wing or tie fighter. I don't really like x-wings and generic tie/ln because they are so bog standard I love the obscure ships that I remember from reading a random thing or a lego set, I love playing those obscure ships and making them more real by flying them in x-wing. (of my close personal friends that play x-wing (not people I met playing x-wing) half of the 4 of them play only scum and own nothing else, they were not drawn into fly x-wings and tie fighters they were drawn into play as bounty hunters and scoundrels)

The people I play with are board with the older ships not because they are weaker in the game more just because we have all played the **** out of them and fun to play something new and exciting.

No one is excited right now to break out a T-65 because most have played with it a bunch already, we are excited to play the new stuff we have not been able to play with much.

Add to the fact esthetics of the ships can play a huge roll in what they want to play or are attracted to play. I don't fly k-wings because I find them hideous but I find a way to get a tie advanced prototype or tie/fo in because I think they are **** sexy.

Things like X-wings and Tie/ln's have solid ships that I break out every once and a while, they are not crap, they are just not new and flashy. They may be under-represented (not sure on that) in play but i think that has a lot more to do with the fact they are old and not sexy anymore then they are total crap.

If they game was 100% balanced I would argue we would still have an over-representation wins from new ships because the very active good players get board of old stuff and want to try new stuff. Because at the end of the day the game is about having fun.

This forum is worse for the game than anything people on this forum complain about in the game. If I listened to what this forum stated was overpowered or unplayable I would have way less fun and probably win alot less. For example I personally am trash with jump masters, I don't like the ship at all (I can't win with them) and have never really felt like they are that hard to deal with on the other side of the board, my lists tend to be very strong against 2 ship lists I like lots of damage from lots of small ships. If people would just try stuff out and think for themselves they would probably do a lot better personal play style has a huge impact on what ships are good and bad as well and you don't really know how good or bad a ship is for you until you give it a good run. I stopped using pre-nerf Palpatine because for me it was a waste of points as I kept saving him for perfect opportunities and never using him, it's not that pre-nerf palp was bad it's that he was bad for my and my playstyle.

For me personally the game is really well balanced, there are some weaker ships in my eyes but that's to be expected because every person is going to have a different playstyle so some ships won't be for everyone. There is no way the game should be perfectly balanced from one person's perspective because that means it's horribly unbalanced from someone else's perspective, people just have to face the fact that not all ships are right for them, that does not mean they are not right for someone else.

I come back to this forum every month or so read and post for a few days, end up getting down on how crazy negative it is and sware off it until the draw of x-wing makes me try and suck in all info from everywhere so I come back and repeat my self-inflicted suffering. I hate this forum, and i need to learn to sware of it.

13 minutes ago, Icelom said:

I actually disagree with you on that point... there are people like me excited to fly all kinds of things.

I like the mechanics of the game and all the starship designs myself; it's a very elegant game engine with a fair bit of lore behind it. I hadn't thought about TIE Defenders in the better part of two decades when I started the game, and now they're one of my favorite designs - ordered me a TIE/D lego set a few years back and loved putting it together.

However.

I am not most players.

I'm especially not a 14-year-old kid excited to be pushing around Luke Skywalker and Han Solo only to get my *** handed to me by a couple of ships that look like lumpy turds, or a 50+ man who saw ANH in the theatres, played the old WEG rpg back in the 90s, and is fanatical about the squints.

The current design philosophy of "Everything before K-Wings suck aside from stuff that is broken because of newer ships" alienates those players. It doesn't have to, either.

1 minute ago, iamfanboy said:

I like the mechanics of the game and all the starship designs myself; it's a very elegant game engine with a fair bit of lore behind it. I hadn't thought about TIE Defenders in the better part of two decades when I started the game, and now they're one of my favorite designs - ordered me a TIE/D lego set a few years back and loved putting it together.

However.

I am not most players.

I'm especially not a 14-year-old kid excited to be pushing around Luke Skywalker only to get my *** handed to me by a couple of ships that look like lumpy turds, or a 50+ man who saw ANH in the theatres, played the old WEG rpg back in the 90s, and is fanatical about the squints.

The current design philosophy of "Everything before K-Wings suck aside from stuff that is broken because of newer ships" alienates those players. It doesn't have to, either.

Perhaps, but I bet 14year olds are more excited to fly stuff out of rebels then they are to be flying as Luke, I am not 14, but if I was I would probably want to be flying as Sabine in the shadow caster not luke in an x-wing. That is probably why there is so much Sabine in this game, she is extremely popular with kids.

My 4 year old, who as seen none of the movies, only knows star wars from my lego or Admiral Ackbar.

I think you are confusing 14-year-olds from when the OT came out with ones currently.

I saw the original trilogy in theaters (after the original release but way before the prequils) and I got into it hard, my favorite characters were not luke or vader, they were 4-lom and IG-88, and Dengar... As a kid those were the badass characters, I consumed all books and what not I could find about them. In fact, i don't know anyone in my peir group that if they had to pick a favorite star wars character would pick luke skywalker. Also, everyone I know who knows star wars knows who dengar is.

I think you are giving Luke more credit than he deserves.

Now I also don't think anything before k-wing sucks, tons of good ships their that's for sure, even tons of good x-wings.

1 hour ago, iamfanboy said:

Imbalance has to exist.

It is, after all, the reason to buy new things: that the old shiny doesn't work quite as well as it should.

Imbalance does have to exist, but this is NOT the reason. It has to exist due to the frailties of the human mind and the xwing system. There are plenty of examples of games that do not use power creep to expand their game which still see amazing success. This is one of the points Lagjanson is trying to make- many players seem to believe that the new releases MUST be power creeped to sell, but this is not true. Even if it is the case with many releases (jumpmaster, lancer, fang), it is not needed for the game to continue to sell, and the designers have gone on the record to say they never intend to make a release intentially stronger than previous releases.

46 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

Imbalance does have to exist, but this is NOT the reason. It has to exist due to the frailties of the human mind and the xwing system. There are plenty of examples of games that do not use power creep to expand their game which still see amazing success. This is one of the points Lagjanson is trying to make- many players seem to believe that the new releases MUST be power creeped to sell, but this is not true. Even if it is the case with many releases (jumpmaster, lancer, fang), it is not needed for the game to continue to sell, and the designers have gone on the record to say they never intend to make a release intentially stronger than previous releases.

More powerful ships coming into the game is fine really, if they are priced appropriately. Fenn, Dengar... I find their abilities very interesting. I think they bring good things to the game, but I think they come at too much of a bargain price.

Anyway, people probably think my outlook is pretty negative at this point but it's really not. Well, not about the game anyway. I find ways to enjoy it, be it casual or the tourney scene. I poked a bear with this thread and likely got way more attention than I deserved.

8 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

More powerful ships coming into the game is fine really, if they are priced appropriately. Fenn, Dengar... I find their abilities very interesting. I think they bring good things to the game, but I think they come at too much of a bargain price.

Anyway, people probably think my outlook is pretty negative at this point but it's really not. Well, not about the game anyway. I find ways to enjoy it, be it casual or the tourney scene. I poked a bear with this thread and likely got way more attention than I deserved.

But you really didn't poke it that hard, and it sure shouldn't be a surprise to so many people. All you basically said was "balance is ships/upgrades being as valuable as the cost associated with them". This really shouldn't be anything new.

Well, there's a design concept called "perfect imbalance" that's a solid design concept for most games. Like I stated, though, I think it's not a good idea in X-Wing because the ships that people want to play most are the oldest and most obsolete. It's something that has to be kept in mind by the designers: This isn't just a blank slate game where they can make up a new ship and people will buy it with no regrets about the plastic they're leaving on the shelf.

I mean, look at the number of "Fix the X-wing" threads. And B-Wings. And TIE Interceptors. And it's kinda sad that the best TIE Fighters currently in the meta are being flown by the Rebellion, not the Empire.

OK, so here's my own take on it:

I believe a balanced game would be a game with varied competitive options for listbuilding. This theoretical game would regularly produce 10-12 different lists (as in: different concepts, not only one or two slightly different upgrades) on each tournament's top16. This variety should only increase further and further as the game gets more and more ships, pilots and upgrades added to its roster. This is not what we have seen in the game. Each wave you can usually count on one hand the dominant list types, (in fact, there's usually one or two that are extra strong at any given time, eg. tie swarm; biggs walks the dogs; fat han; double phantom; palp aces; triple scout; paratanni; miranda+biggs).

I believe this to be unhealthy for two main reasons: it takes away some of the fun of playing, because playing a non-dominant list type puts you at a disadvantage, and it takes away a lot of the fun of watching, because you're watching the same lists going at it over and over again.

What to do, then? I believe the key to balance lies right there in the point values. It's the main tool embedded in the game rules meant exclusively to balance things. If the balance is off, the problem lies in the point value.

This does not mean that *any* 100-point squad should have equal odds of defeating any other 100-point squad. Clearly, finding the best combinations within the point limit is one of the main puzzles that lie in the game and that should lead to success. The problem, however, is that at any given time, a handful upgrades, in a certain combination, rise above the rest. Again, having 20 really good combinations to base squads on, out of hundreds of pilots and upgrades wouldn't be bad; having three or four that are so strong that they eclipse all others, however, is.

Going back to the point values, FFG needs to do two things:
a) improve their methods for calculating and balancing costs, prior to release, to avoid new problematic combos; and
b) find a better way to adjust the point values of cards that are already out there, or any problematic cards that slip through the cracks.

They have been trying to address "a", based on what they've been saying in interviews, so, that's good. Let's see how they fare. They have also been trying to address "b" with "fix" releases: free or negative-point upgrades, or especially tailored upgrades. These, however, require the player to buy yet another product, and also carry ("staple") that "fix" card around, which is messy. Both are suboptimal solutions.

So, here's what I think they might need to do, in the long run, if they want to improve the meta's health (according to my own metric: diversity of winning squads): they need a way to make point values more fluid. They've already errata'd several cards' effects, changing the point values would simply be another step, easier and more elegant, imo. Maybe have twice-yearly card point value revisions, at a set and foreseeable date, so that anyone involved in competitive play can prepare for it. Very casual players who do not follow the online announcements are already out of the loop of FAQs anyway, and I suspect they might not be willing to buy repeat copies of a given ship they already own just to get a "fix" card, so they're already stuck with the printed cardboard, as is.

This "fluid" card price policy would do wonders to help the game and keep it diverse and alive, imo. For every new price revision, players would go back to the drawing board and start experimenting with new lists. It would be akin to releasing a new wave, but old upgrades and ships would also be revitalized as needed.

This, I believe, would be a good compromise to keep the game under control. Ultimately, tho, I would prefer a full-on revision, commonly referred to as X-Wing 2.0. Release it after the new trilogy's material has already been included in the game, maybe by 2020 or 21. Make new ship models for the old ships, but also sell us card+cardboard packs so we can upgrade our current collection. Include new rules, new pilots, additional dice types, anything is possible. I, for one, hope the game's lifespan can be extended indefinitely, but the current release and balance systems do not seem to allow that.

That was quite rambly, wasn't it? Sorry, I'm very tired.