8 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Well, no, objectively it's a bad mechanic as well.

No, that's your opinion. Nothing more.

11 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

The Aggressor may be agility 3 but its dial is not amazing - it's basically a Y-wing with no red straight but no green turns from R2 astromech/unhinged astromech.

Barrel roll makes quite a difference, too, but between the option of barrel roll and its reliance on green dice and flimsy hull (compared to a Y-wing, anyway!) it's likely to be throwing unmodified shots far more often.

Don't forget though, the Aggressor has access to Twin Ion Engine Mk. II. That's a lotta added green. Comes at the loss to something like Lightweight Frame, but that could be enough if you intentionally fly it on the outskirts to minimize exposure to enemy forces.

1 hour ago, Rat of Vengence said:

Nope. Complainers want the game to be the way *they* want it, according to *their* style of play and *their* idea of what is fun. They don't seem able to accept that there could be alternate opinions, and when people come back with reasons why there isn't a problem, they then complain some more.

Like is happening in this thread.

RoV

Want the game to be the way *they* want it?

Like the saints that want to continue pushing their NPE garbage onto others?

3 minutes ago, SaltMaster 5000 said:

Want the game to be the way *they* want it?

Like the saints that want to continue pushing their NPE garbage onto others?

In answer to the first; yes.

In answer to the second; I have no intention of pushing Nonyl Phenol Ethoxylate anywhere.

:P

RoV

33 minutes ago, SaltMaster 5000 said:

Want the game to be the way *they* want it?

Like the saints that want to continue pushing their NPE garbage onto others?

NPE is not "I don't like this aspect of the game" that's literally just your opinion and preference.

I personally have no issues flying against TLT's they are not an NPE you just don't like them. You are allowed not to like them. However, if we removed everything in the game that someone did not like we would end up playing checkers but without the checkers... just a board where you sit at and yell at the other person about how they are causing you a NPE.

Like almost all problems for you SaltMaster 5000 they can be dealt with by flying better, or your solution asking for them to be nerfed or removed instead of learning how to counter them. Either solution works but mine is fun and yours is just whining bs.

9 minutes ago, Icelom said:

NPE is not "I don't like this aspect of the game" that's literally just your opinion and preference.

I personally have no issues flying against TLT's they are not an NPE you just don't like them. You are allowed not to like them. However, if we removed everything in the game that someone did not like we would end up playing checkers but without the checkers... just a board where you sit at and yell at the other person about how they are causing you a NPE.

Like almost all problems for you SaltMaster 5000 they can be dealt with by flying better, or your solution asking for them to be nerfed or removed instead of learning how to counter them. Either solution works but mine is fun and yours is just whining bs.

There is no better way to rub it in than to say to someone that's having a negative play experience that they're not actually having a negative play experience and that they just need to get better.

Next time I play against someone that's new or having a bad time, I'll tell them that.

This type of garbage opinion holds the game back. Every time that there is something broken in this game, the negative play experience defense squad shows up to defend their right to ruin the game for others.

1 minute ago, SaltMaster 5000 said:

There is no better way to rub it in than to say to someone that's having a negative play experience that they're not actually having a negative play experience and that they just need to get better.

Next time I play against someone that's new or having a bad time, I'll tell them that.

This type of garbage opinion holds the game back. Every time that there is something broken in this game, the negative play experience defense squad shows up to defend their right to ruin the game for others.

So if a new player played you with TLT's you would sit there ******* that they are using a broken mechanic and it's a negative play experience?

Again it's not a negative play experience, it's just a part of the game you dislike.

In my opinion, TLT's are not broken, in your opinion they are. That does not make them a negative play experience just because you personally don't like them.

So when you play against a new player who is having a rough time against you, you just say "don't worry I am using broken game mechanics there is literally nothing you can do to improve at this game" because I sure as hell don't, I discuss with them ways to improve their game and deal with the thing that just beat them. Basically, i tell then "they just need to get better" but in a nice a way as possible because its the **** truth. "yep it sucked losing to those TLT y-wings don't worry you will learn over time how to deal with them, I can give you some tips if you would like"

I sure as hell do hope you tell them that they will get better, I hope to hell you don't just reaffirm their bad experience.

you saltmaster, you hold this game back.

6 minutes ago, Johen Dood said:

It's akin (albeit loosely) to having a discussion with a holocaust denier. How do you engage meaningfully with someone whose only reaction to others complaints is: *sticks fingers in ears* LALALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU EVERYTHING IS FINE, NOTHING IS WRONG, GIT GUD OR SOMETHING LEL. It really does bring the game down.

"albeit loosely" is an understatement.

Apparently, your opinion that TLT's are broken and negative play experience is more meaningful than my opinion they are not? maybe your statement there is a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black no?

1 hour ago, Icelom said:

That does not make them a negative play experience just because you personally don't like them.

Uhh, not to take the side of Saltman here but what constitutes NPE if not someone's personal negative play experience? Isn't that kind of the definition of that phrase?

1 minute ago, HammerGibbens said:

Uhh, not to take the side of Saltman here but what constitutes NPE if not someone's personal negative play experience? Isn't that kind of the definition of that phrase?

Yes, but I think he was using it as a generally NPE for the game itself not just for him. So you are right and I could be way off base.

This entire thread (and this forum in general) continually reinforces my conviction that there are apologists out there for everything. I've seen it with other games, and I see it here multiple times a day. The argument basically boils down to this:

"I really wish this aspect of the game were different. I find it boring/unfun/broken/unbalanced and I feel the game could be better."
"How dare you. You just suck at the game. Git gud."
"No, it's not that I can't deal with the issue when I play, I just think that it could be better or more fun.
"Well I think differently, so you're wrong. You have to play my way because it's the rules. Suck it up, complainer. You're bad and you should feel bad. Play something else if you don't like it."
<Devolves into an argument about the nature of an NPE and whether it is subjective or objective>

I used to play Twilight Imperium 3rd edition religiously. (Still would if I weren't so busy with kids and my business) I was constantly arguing with guys on the forums about some pretty major flaws in the original game (which were, incidentally, corrected by the designers in the expansion, even before the expansion with some free FAQ rules). One of my most vocal opponents was a friend... we liked each other, but he was as close to a "game rules fundamentalist" as I have ever met, and we could never see eye-to-eye because he believed the game as-written was sacrosanct. Anybody who criticized its flaws was wrong, regardless of any logic, reason, or arguments they could make. Whenever I think back, I marvel that we got along. It was probably because he never accused me of being bad at the game and trying to cover for my deficiencies by complaining.

He organized a PBEM (play-by-e-mail) game, and I was one of the players. I proceeded to abuse every single flaw I had pointed out in the game (undercosted fighter units, the Imperial Strategy Card clock mechanics), and won easily, without even breaking a sweat. It was my magnum opus argument, a practical demonstration of the issues I had with the game, and why they were a problem. Even as he awarded me victory, it didn't sway him at all. Even if he ever could accept that the game was flawed, he would only argue that as the best abuser of the flaws, I deserved the win. And while that might be true, it just didn't compute in his brain that the game would be less repetitive, richer, deeper, and more nuanced it was balanced in such a way that there was more than one optimal strategy.

Saltmaster, I really like the cut of your jib. I don't think I've seen a post yet where I haven't thought, "This guy knows what's up." But don't ever think you'll convince these guys of anything. They'll just write you off as a baddie and give you crap because you had the temerity to criticize their precious game.

1 hour ago, Icelom said:

So if a new player played you with TLT's you would sit there ******* that they are using a broken mechanic and it's a negative play experience?

Again it's not a negative play experience, it's just a part of the game you dislike.

In my opinion, TLT's are not broken, in your opinion they are. That does not make them a negative play experience just because you personally don't like them.

So when you play against a new player who is having a rough time against you, you just say "don't worry I am using broken game mechanics there is literally nothing you can do to improve at this game" because I sure as hell don't, I discuss with them ways to improve their game and deal with the thing that just beat them. Basically, i tell then "they just need to get better" but in a nice a way as possible because its the **** truth. "yep it sucked losing to those TLT y-wings don't worry you will learn over time how to deal with them, I can give you some tips if you would like"

I sure as hell do hope you tell them that they will get better, I hope to hell you don't just reaffirm their bad experience.

you saltmaster, you hold this game back.

No, what I'll instead do is tell them how TLT is perfectly fine and that the negative play experience they're having is subjective and just their opinion, and that they should just get good.

Because TLT isn't broken and turrets take skill and thought to use, right?

Bwahaha! You guys are hilarious. You state your opinion as fact, and state your feelings as being how everyone should feel, and when people point out that there are some who don't agree, you cry that people aren't accepting your opinion!

If there's a ship that just has no blind spot like the Falcon, I dislike it really.
I got into the game for the outmaneuvering your opponent bit and the turret always felt antithetical to that.

TLT though, sprinkle one or two into a list and I don't mind it because there is a blind spot.

10 minutes ago, Rat of Vengence said:

Bwahaha! You guys are hilarious. You state your opinion as fact, and state your feelings as being how everyone should feel, and when people point out that there are some who don't agree, you cry that people aren't accepting your opinion!

Do you think the game objectively has even 1 bad mechanic?

36 minutes ago, mkevans80 said:

This entire thread (and this forum in general) continually reinforces my conviction that there are apologists out there for everything. I've seen it with other games, and I see it here multiple times a day. The argument basically boils down to this:

"I really wish this aspect of the game were different. I find it boring/unfun/broken/unbalanced and I feel the game could be better."
"How dare you. You just suck at the game. Git gud."
"No, it's not that I can't deal with the issue when I play, I just think that it could be better or more fun.
"Well I think differently, so you're wrong. You have to play my way because it's the rules. Suck it up, complainer. You're bad and you should feel bad. Play something else if you don't like it."
<Devolves into an argument about the nature of an NPE and whether it is subjective or objective>

1

I can take your fake argument and simply reverse all the statements to counter your argument if you would like?

"I find this aspect of the game to be manageable and good for the game."
"How dare you. That aspect is clearly broken and desperately needs to be fixed!"
"No, it's not that it's broken, there are plenty of ways to counter play it and I think that it is a good part of the game and does not need to be changed or removed."
"Well I think differently, so you're wrong. We have to alter the rules in order to fit my play style or what I think is fair. Suck it up. You're bad and you should feel bad. Why should I have to see or face anything that I dislike even if others like it or don't think it's an issue."
<Devolves into an argument about the nature of an NPE and whether it is subjective or objective>

Your argument serves no purpose and brings nothing to this debate. Saltmaster does not like half the things in this game and thinks his opinion on them trumps everyone else's.

All I am saying is if you don't personally like something that does not mean it's an overall negative play experience or that it needs to be nerfed/removed. You have to learn to deal with things you don't like, in life and in games because it's a big world out there with lots of different opinions.

5 minutes ago, HammerGibbens said:

Do you think the game objectively has even 1 bad mechanic?

I think there's game mechanics that some people like better than others, that work for some play styles better than others, heck that even work for some ships better than others. But objectively bad? No, because I've yet to meet a player of this game (myself included) who can be truely objective about this. Most of the posts in this thread amply demonstrate that.

I understand there are aspects of the game not everyone likes, or not everyone enjoys. But people need to understand that presenting their opinions and preferences as indisputable facts isn't going to float.

RoV

32 minutes ago, mkevans80 said:

This entire thread (and this forum in general) continually reinforces my conviction that there are apologists out there for everything. I've seen it with other games, and I see it here multiple times a day. The argument basically boils down to this:

"I really wish this aspect of the game were different. I find it boring/unfun/broken/unbalanced and I feel the game could be better."
"How dare you. You just suck at the game. Git gud."
"No, it's not that I can't deal with the issue when I play, I just think that it could be better or more fun.
"Well I think differently, so you're wrong. You have to play my way because it's the rules. Suck it up, complainer. You're bad and you should feel bad. Play something else if you don't like it."
<Devolves into an argument about the nature of an NPE and whether it is subjective or objective>

I used to play Twilight Imperium 3rd edition religiously. (Still would if I weren't so busy with kids and my business) I was constantly arguing with guys on the forums about some pretty major flaws in the original game (which were, incidentally, corrected by the designers in the expansion, even before the expansion with some free FAQ rules). One of my most vocal opponents was a friend... we liked each other, but he was as close to a "game rules fundamentalist" as I have ever met, and we could never see eye-to-eye because he believed the game as-written was sacrosanct. Anybody who criticized its flaws was wrong, regardless of any logic, reason, or arguments they could make. Whenever I think back, I marvel that we got along. It was probably because he never accused me of being bad at the game and trying to cover for my deficiencies by complaining.

He organized a PBEM (play-by-e-mail) game, and I was one of the players. I proceeded to abuse every single flaw I had pointed out in the game (undercosted fighter units, the Imperial Strategy Card clock mechanics), and won easily, without even breaking a sweat. It was my magnum opus argument, a practical demonstration of the issues I had with the game, and why they were a problem. Even as he awarded me victory, it didn't sway him at all. Even if he ever could accept that the game was flawed, he would only argue that as the best abuser of the flaws, I deserved the win. And while that might be true, it just didn't compute in his brain that the game would be less repetitive, richer, deeper, and more nuanced it was balanced in such a way that there was more than one optimal strategy.

Saltmaster, I really like the cut of your jib. I don't think I've seen a post yet where I haven't thought, "This guy knows what's up." But don't ever think you'll convince these guys of anything. They'll just write you off as a baddie and give you crap because you had the temerity to criticize their precious game.

Thank you.

The problem I have with the negative play experience defense squad is that often it's not that they're entrenched on one particular issue, it's that they're entrenched on everything and opposed to the idea of complaining at all.

Everything involving this game involves someone's opinion. Then they claim to hold tournament data as sacrosanct objective truth. And when you point out to them that Fenn Rau and Attanni Mindlink are top of the meta and need to be nerfed, it doesn't phase them. That Asajj is essentially fat Han but at only 2/3rds the cost.

And even though they claim to hold data above all else, (including everyone's enjoyment of the game,) they then make arguments with the smallest data set possible: the list of squads that have won worlds.

"The Phantom never won Worlds, it isn't broken".

And when fat turrets ruled the game, arguments would be made that the meta was the most diverse it ever had been because there was great variety among all the turret ship pilots.

I see no other option but to just run these broken things myself and make ironic comments about it taking a lot of skill to play. I put a sticker that says, "Takes Talent" on my 4 straight template because I play x7 Defenders often. When I played Inaldra, Fenn, Dengar I would say, "Mindlink isn't broken" when I'd lean allllll the way across the table to assign focuses to my 2 actual ships.

It's funny because the opinions of the Negative Play Experience Defense Squad are jokes.

Just now, Rat of Vengence said:

But objectively bad? No

Wow, not one single mechanic in the entire game you think they made a mistake on and is objectively bad?

I suppose I disagree just based on the fact that they release FAQs all the time, but wouldn't call my stance indisputable. Same with the stance on TLTs: not quite indisputable, but I've yet to see an argument to sway me that TLTs or PWTs add value to a game that I understand to be about dogfighting in space. I think both mechanics are implemented in such a way as to take value from the aspects of the game that I not only enjoy best, but that the game, in my opinion, markets itself as.

5 minutes ago, SaltMaster 5000 said:

It's funny because the opinions of the Negative Play Experience Defense Squad are jokes.

When you say things like this, I have no respect for you. Not going to bother discussing things with you anymore, if everyone with a contrary opinion to you is a joke then you are lost.

1 minute ago, HammerGibbens said:

Wow, not one single mechanic in the entire game you think they made a mistake on and is objectively bad?

I suppose I disagree just based on the fact that they release FAQs all the time, but wouldn't call my stance indisputable. Same with the stance on TLTs: not quite indisputable, but I've yet to see an argument to sway me that TLTs or PWTs add value to a game that I understand to be about dogfighting in space. I think both mechanics are implemented in such a way as to take value from the aspects of the game that I not only enjoy best, but that the game, in my opinion, markets itself as.

There's a difference between bad mechanics and ships/upgrades/combinations that are overpowered/underpowered. The mechanics are good, the implementation is sometimes flawed.

I have no trouble with the existence of PWT or TLT at all. It's a fun challenge to work out how to take them down. They can be fun to fly (not that I've ever had more than 2 in a squadron) to avoid being taken down. If you think manouvre and dogfighting don't help take them down, it might explain why you dislike them so much. Or not. You are entitled to your opinions of course

22 minutes ago, HammerGibbens said:

Wow, not one single mechanic in the entire game you think they made a mistake on and is objectively bad?

I suppose I disagree just based on the fact that they release FAQs all the time, but wouldn't call my stance indisputable. Same with the stance on TLTs: not quite indisputable, but I've yet to see an argument to sway me that TLTs or PWTs add value to a game that I understand to be about dogfighting in space. I think both mechanics are implemented in such a way as to take value from the aspects of the game that I not only enjoy best, but that the game, in my opinion, markets itself as.

It's like someone arguing that Merzbow is just as good as the Beatles. I want you to listen to a Merbow song and say the phrase, "art is subjective" over and over.

Or that some skill less ******* randomly splattering paint onto a canvas makes art that is just as good as the Mona Lisa or Religious Procession in the Kursk Province.

"Who are you to judge that a man farting to the tune of Bohemian Rhapsody is any 'lesser' than Beethoven's 6th Symphony? That's just like your opinion, man."

Subjectivity enters into it and plays a large role of course, but at a certain point you move out of the gray area and into black or white. Citizen Kane may not be the best movie ever made, but it's certainly not in the gray area.

Turrets are one of these things that ignore fundamental aspects of the game, just like Merzbow ignores fundamental things about good sounding music. Or random paint splattering ignores fundamental things about good paintings.

Just now, Rat of Vengence said:

There's a difference between bad mechanics and ships/upgrades/combinations that are overpowered/underpowered. The mechanics are good, the implementation is sometimes flawed.

I think that's a bit nitpicky, but all right, we can continue the argument from that basis instead.

Quote

If you think manouvre and dogfighting don't help take them down, it might explain why you dislike them so much.

Well, that isn't what I said exactly, I said they

Quote

...are implemented in such a way as to take value from the aspects of the game...

which they absolutely do. They reduce the impact that predictive flying would have against similar lists that don't have PWTs/TLTs. I still understand what I need to do to win against them, I just don't find the experience as rewarding as when it's all arc-locked ships on a table. Does manoeuvre and dogfighting help take them down? Yes absolutely. But do they take some of the value away from manoeuvre and dogfighting? Yes absolutely. It's okay to take away some of that value some of the time, it doesn't have to be all jousting and arc dodging all the time.

I think there's a place for turrets in this game still, but the current PWT and TLT mechanics, or "ship/upgrades/combinations that are overpowered" I think need some work because they are objectively bad at the moment, and should exist in the space of the game while still staying true to the core aspects of the dogfighting game (which I think the developers agree with, hence all of the in-arc bonuses recent turret waves have been receiving).

3 minutes ago, HammerGibbens said:

I think that's a bit nitpicky, but all right, we can continue the argument from that basis instead.

Well, that isn't what I said exactly, I said they

which they absolutely do. They reduce the impact that predictive flying would have against similar lists that don't have PWTs/TLTs. I still understand what I need to do to win against them, I just don't find the experience as rewarding as when it's all arc-locked ships on a table. Does manoeuvre and dogfighting help take them down? Yes absolutely. But do they take some of the value away from manoeuvre and dogfighting? Yes absolutely. It's okay to take away some of that value some of the time, it doesn't have to be all jousting and arc dodging all the time.

I think there's a place for turrets in this game still, but the current PWT and TLT mechanics, or "ship/upgrades/combinations that are overpowered" I think need some work because they are objectively bad at the moment, and should exist in the space of the game while still staying true to the core aspects of the dogfighting game (which I think the developers agree with, hence all of the in-arc bonuses recent turret waves have been receiving).

This I don't understand TLT's can be flown against they do have that lovely range one bubble. They take good flying to deal with, I can't see your issue with them coming from your perspective of "predictive flying".

I am not the biggest fan of primary weapon turrets due to the flying being the most fun part of the game (i don't usually fly them) but I find them to generally be the weaker ships and go down very fast to my style of fleet building. But TLT's can be straight up outflown.

Nice. This discussion is cooking with oil now.

just a thought. Let's say the first two ships in the start set are a tie agressor and Ywing, and one of the included upgrades is TLT.

Tell me how that game grows and is marketed. "Fly space ships in circles while rolling dice!"

Turrets, while not a broken mechanic, have largely been a poor one throughout the history of the game, especially those reaching out to range 3.