1 minute ago, Kdubb said:

So has it been discussed enough yet that it seems the tippy top boogie man list in every meta is consistently deemed “unfun” to play? Are we sure this isn’t just another way how scrubs try to demonize those players who choose to fly it? Because I refuse to believe that players willingly give up any chance at fun for 12 hours+ of their life just so they can say they won something of relatively little value in comparison to the time invested.

I can't speak for everyone, but I really enjoyed parattani, but am bored out of my mind with ghost fenn.

3 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

So has it been discussed enough yet that it seems the tippy top boogie man list in every meta is consistently deemed “unfun” to play? Are we sure this isn’t just another way how scrubs try to demonize those players who choose to fly it? Because I refuse to believe that players willingly give up any chance at fun for 12 hours+ of their life just so they can say they won something of relatively little value in comparison to the time invested.

I think what really annoys a lot of people is when the top list is also kind of easy mode, and random people who don't know the game super well can win really easily with it. I think that compared to other meta-bogeymen, Dash is decently """balanced""", but he attracts a lot of hate because so many, well, flat-out bad players win games (especially casual nights) with him.

I have to admit that when my dad 100-0'ed my Kylo theme list with Ghost/Fenn after a 3-year hiatus from even playing this game, I felt a little salty (my batrep is buried somewhere here inside the Krayt Subforum)...

9 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

So has it been discussed enough yet that it seems the tippy top boogie man list in every meta is consistently deemed “unfun” to play? Are we sure this isn’t just another way how scrubs try to demonize those players who choose to fly it? Because I refuse to believe that players willingly give up any chance at fun for 12 hours+ of their life just so they can say they won something of relatively little value in comparison to the time invested.

Honestly, that's completely possible.

But the difference here (whether this difference actually matters is unknown), is the top meta boogie men from before were arc-based. Even old deadeye scouts SUPER cared about their arc (for a primary portion of the game).

In this case, the meta bogeyman is apathetic about it's arc, and it's not the win condition.

As stated, whether that difference is actually important is unknown (it's important to me, but that doesn't mean it's important to the competitive community at-large).

I'm really looking at this from an mtg point of view. Lists this good should be 50% of the field, not 15%. The reason I hate ghost/fenn is that I don't want to play it, but I feel like I shouldn't handicap myself by playing a different list.

Randomly bought a Krayt dice tray yesterday before the podcast dropped. Who needs coupons?

3 minutes ago, hawk32 said:

I'm really looking at this from an mtg point of view. Lists this good should be 50% of the field, not 15%. The reason I hate ghost/fenn is that I don't want to play it, but I feel like I shouldn't handicap myself by playing a different list.

This.

We've been saying the meta moves slow, and appears to be pretty irrational. Comparing it to MTG super illustrates that.

9 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Honestly, that's completely possible.

But the difference here (whether this difference actually matters is unknown), is the top meta boogie men from before were arc-based. Even old deadeye scouts SUPER cared about their arc (for a primary portion of the game).

In this case, the meta bogeyman is apathetic about it's arc, and it's not the win condition.

As stated, whether that difference is actually important is unknown (it's important to me, but that doesn't mean it's important to the competitive community at-large).

I agree with all of this.

I also wanted to add a point here: getting to make crucial game decisions at PS10-11 is way powerful. So many meta bogeymen have it. Vader is actually just on the borderline of reasonably fair. Anything more than that is just sick.

PS10 bombs with tons of options for placement? Nope. PS11-boosting dual-twin-laser-turrets? Nope. Imagine if Kylo could take VI and PTL. Or if Whisper was a native PS9 and could take VI. No thank you.

So I think maybe the easiest way to define "bogeyman" status is that there's no guesswork - if all decisions are made with full knowledge of the game state, the game becomes incredibly unfun if you're the person who doesn't get to know everything that's going on when you make decisions. Because it's like playing chess with a Christmas-themed set and one person is red-green colorblind.

Tragedy Simulator + Genius plus Proton is probably the single largest NPE I've seen in the game. If that was not fixed, this game would be dead. In many situations there was literally *NOTHING* you could do to avoid it. If Nym wanted to bomb you, he was going to bomb you. The end. This game has been in play for almost 5 years with only FAQ's constricting the design space. It's not like CCG's where they cap the card interactions to be within so many releases for competitive play and they can tighten up the things that need to be play tested.

The interesting and possibly frustrating thing about the lists that end up consuming the majority of the meta is that they are usually tool box lists that are forgiving and accommodate a range of situations and matchups. NymMiranda and Fenn + Ghost are exactly that. Casual players can pick them up and be pretty competitive. If you want to win (and lets face it, most of us wouldn't be entering a competitive tournament to lose) you take a list that gives you the best chance to do that. That's where we are now. The design space and creep of the game has pushed us there.

EDIT - all that being said. I think the play testing for FFG has been sub optimal over the last year or two. I was playing Destiny for a while and they were FAQ'ing the 2 player set that came out last Force Friday a month after it was released. Plus a number of other cards just made that a **** show of action abuse and very negative combos that they later went back and corrected. Some of them should have been obvious but I think they are just rushing out content without really putting things through the proper paces.

18 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

So has it been discussed enough yet that it seems the tippy top boogie man list in every meta is consistently deemed “unfun” to play?

I don't believe that's true. Parattanni, Palp Aces, Imperial Aces, Triple Defenders, Brobots, Quad B-wings, Triple Interceptors, Swarms, even Triple Scouts weren't deemed "unfun to play." Some of them weren't even consistently called "unfun to play against."

Quote

Are we sure this isn’t just another way how scrubs try to demonize those players who choose to fly it?

Are you familiar with the logical fallacy "begging the question"?

Quote

Because I refuse to believe that players willingly give up any chance at fun for 12 hours+ of their life just so they can say they won something of relatively little value in comparison to the time invested.

Interestingly, I was told exactly this (without the value judgment attached to winning) by a very good player (you'd recognize the name) less than 48 hours ago. And if this player is doing it, then IMO, based on what I know of thise player, there's a significant number of people doing it.

Just now, Tlfj200 said:

This.

We've been saying the meta moves slow, and appears to be pretty irrational. Comparing it to MTG super illustrates that.

It really blows my mind. It makes me question why zach would try to play 4d chess (obv he's a better player than me)... just play what's best against the field. People trying to hard counter 15% of the cut (not even the full field) are going to be sad pandas. And if you think there are enough people putting thought into that to counter the counter you're just wrong.

56 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Interesting fact: 8 people played corran, but I don't have a single one of Nathan in here. Where did he play?

Also, 1 played VI and Hull upgrade, but he went 3-3. All others played PTL+EU and went 4-2 (3x), 5-1 (2x) or 6-0 (2x)

Edit: http://lists.starwarsclubhouse.com/get_tourney_details?tourney_id=3956
Did they really play with 8 and 11pt bids?!

I'll be honest, I primarily based that off Nathan being the only one I ever hear of playing Corran.

2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I don't believe that's true. Parattanni, Palp Aces, Imperial Aces, Triple Defenders, Brobots, Quad B-wings, Triple Interceptors, Swarms, even Triple Scouts weren't deemed "unfun to play." Some of them weren't even consistently called "unfun to play against."

Are you familiar with the logical fallacy "begging the question"?

Interestingly, I was told exactly this (without the value judgment attached to winning) by a very good player (you'd recognize the name) less than 48 hours ago. And if this player is doing it, then IMO, based on what I know of thise player, there's a significant number of people doing it.

All of this...

3 minutes ago, hawk32 said:

It really blows my mind. It makes me question why zach would try to play 4d chess (obv he's a better player than me)... just play what's best against the field. People trying to hard counter 15% of the cut (not even the full field) are going to be sad pandas. And if you think there are enough people putting thought into that to counter the counter you're just wrong.

Worth restating

14 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

Randomly bought a Krayt dice tray yesterday before the podcast dropped. Who needs coupons?

Sadly, I didn't make it in time...that's what i get for listening on Monday morning on the way to work i guess. Or, more accurately, for not going to Krayt Cup. A mistake I look to rectify next time!

13 minutes ago, hawk32 said:

People trying to hard counter 15% of the cut (not even the full field) are going to be sad pandas. And if you think there are enough people putting thought into that to counter the counter you're just wrong.

I'm not so sure. I've seen plenty of discussion and building to bring stress, for instance ... not for the minuscule effect it will have on Mauler Ghost, but for the enormous effect it could have on the Expertise lists brought against Mauler Ghost. Personally, I went one further, and took a list to MV that was all passive mods that didn't care about stress, because even 15 days ago I was seeing that coming. I built to beat Mauler Ghost, but I also built to beat what people were bringing against Mauler Ghost. (I went 5-1, with the loss being my first game of the day, first time flying the list ever, in which I missed literally every trigger my list has.)

2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I'm not so sure. I've seen plenty of discussion and building to bring stress, for instance ... not for the minuscule effect it will have on Mauler Ghost, but for the enormous effect it could have on the Expertise lists brought against Mauler Ghost. Personally, I went one further, and took a list to MV that was all passive mods that didn't care about stress, because even 15 days ago I was seeing that coming. I built to beat Mauler Ghost, but I also built to beat what people were bringing against Mauler Ghost. (I went 5-1, with the loss being my first game of the day, first time flying the list ever, in which I missed literally every trigger my list has.)

Or you could just be good. That counts for something still, right?

Just now, viedit said:

Or you could just be good. That counts for something still, right?

... Did I mention missing literally every trigger my list has? I'm not exaggerating. Every. Single. Trigger. And it has many.

(Honestly, I'm a mediocre-to-good player. Maybe -- maybe -- I could be better ... if I were willing to treat X-Wing like work, but I can barely bring myself to treat work like work.)

32 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Interestingly, I was told exactly this (without the value judgment attached to winning) by a very good player (you'd recognize the name) less than 48 hours ago. And if this player is doing it, then IMO, based on what I know of thise player, there's a significant number of people doing it.

This bears restating, as I've heard it a lot as well. Yes, people are doing this. Just because many people no longer care, doesn't mean everyone no longer cares, and some people value winning higher than others.

What is your counter list?

4 minutes ago, ScumDan said:

What is your counter list?

Asajj Ventress (37)
Lone Wolf (2)
Latts Razzi (2)
Glitterstim (2)
Glitterstim (2)
Countermeasures (3)

Bossk (35)
A Score to Settle (0)
"Mangler" Cannon (4)
Cluster Missiles (4)
Jabba the Hutt (5)
Dengar (3)
Contraband Cybernetics (1)
Guidance Chips (0)

Total: 100

View in Yet Another Squad Builder

(The Mangler Cannon needs to be rethought, as I only got 4 points worth out of it in one game. I'm not sure how to shuffle things around, though ... the Shadow Caster title loses a lot of value with Bossk being PS 7, for instance. This is super super weird, but if the Hound's Tooth title were 4 points, I'd add it in a heartbeat.)

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

Interesting fact: 8 people played corran, but I don't have a single one of Nathan in here. Where did he play?

Also, 1 played VI and Hull upgrade, but he went 3-3. All others played PTL+EU and went 4-2 (3x), 5-1 (2x) or 6-0 (2x)

Edit: http://lists.starwarsclubhouse.com/get_tourney_details?tourney_id=3956
Did they really play with 8 and 11pt bids?!

2 of those results are top 16 results from a texas player. I've only seen him run Dash Corran and he's really good with the list. I think the statement that you're not playing corran unless you know what you're doing is still valid.

3 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Asajj Ventress (37)
Lone Wolf (2)
Latts Razzi (2)
Glitterstim (2)
Glitterstim (2)
Countermeasures (3)

Bossk (35)
A Score to Settle (0)
"Mangler" Cannon (4)
Cluster Missiles (4)
Jabba the Hutt (5)
Dengar (3)
Contraband Cybernetics (1)
Guidance Chips (0)

Total: 100

View in Yet Another Squad Builder

(The Mangler Cannon needs to be rethought, as I only got 4 points worth out of it in one game. I'm not sure how to shuffle things around, though ... the Shadow Caster title loses a lot of value with Bossk being PS 7, for instance. This is super super weird, but if the Hound's Tooth title were 4 points, I'd add it in a heartbeat.)

That’s a pretty cool list and I see the thoughts you’ve put into it. Did you play with it against Imperial Aces? I’d reckon that this would be quite a tough matchup.

40 minutes ago, hawk32 said:

It really blows my mind. It makes me question why zach would try to play 4d chess (obv he's a better player than me)... just play what's best against the field. People trying to hard counter 15% of the cut (not even the full field) are going to be sad pandas. And if you think there are enough people putting thought into that to counter the counter you're just wrong.

I disagree, krayts on top.

I mean, my head isn't in a great space right now, so its likely I'm totally off, but I'm basically trying to guess what people will bring in that field. I specifically agree that plotting for a single list is a bad call. The options I'm considering are both broadly strong against the nature of lists I expect to see. I'm strongly considering not going, but i miss Zach, nick and Chico, so I'm gonna drag myself out there

49 minutes ago, hawk32 said:

I'm really looking at this from an mtg point of view. Lists this good should be 50% of the field, not 15%. The reason I hate ghost/fenn is that I don't want to play it, but I feel like I shouldn't handicap myself by playing a different list.

45 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

This.

We've been saying the meta moves slow, and appears to be pretty irrational. Comparing it to MTG super illustrates that.

There's a serious difference here, though. In Magic, making, and perhaps as importantly deploying game winning combos is the literal point of the game. Even if something is OP, its playijg the game (much like Paratanni). Ghost/Fenn is OP, but I expect if it were were as much X-wing as Paratanni, it would have the same kind of ridiculous representation that Paratanni did. If it were fun and required a touch more than a little skill, I bet we'd see even more of it.

Just now, Biophysical said:

There's a serious difference here, though. In Magic, making, and perhaps as importantly deploying game winning combos is the literal point of the game. Even if something is OP, its playijg the game (much like Paratanni). Ghost/Fenn is OP, but I expect if it were were as much X-wing as Paratanni, it would have the same kind of ridiculous representation that Paratanni did. If it were fun and required a touch more than a little skill, I bet we'd see even more of it.

I mean, that's my personal suspicion, because see anecdotally that ghost fenn is a REALLY small % of the field (usually 2-5 show up). But it's a hypothesis that Im not sure we can truly answer with this kind of data - only project rationalization on.