1 minute ago, viedit said:

Hard to price that appropriately. Look at the Punisher for example. Generic cutlass is i2 and 36 points. Deathrain is i4 and 44. For just two points over Deathrain you get the hyperstupid Redline at i5 for 44 points.

For just two points over Deathrain, Redline will straight up murder it. How do you square that? When 2 or 3 points can basically tell a lesser ship it no longer gets to play, you are beyond points adjustment and into core mechanics territory.

I didn't say it was easy, nor did I deny a core mechanic may be wrong. I was just asking if that would feel more balanced.

The problem is that X-Wing is at it's core still a casual game and points are not generated on a pure mathematical basis. The abilities are free and the initiative pricing does not seem to be much more than "this feels like" territory. You're approaching an improbability to find exact balance in this, but point changes can reign in things to a rough 'feels good' zone, if applied correctly.

Deathrain is out exactly because of the problems highlighted. It's too cheap to get Redline instead. Redline can initiative kill Deathrain, move after with perfect knowledge and get target locks and all that. Those are advantages well and above three points, eh?

I'm actually quite willing to trial different methods of managing initiative. It's certainly what the player base is screaming about now. Playing where all fire is simultaneous between all units (no matter their initiative value) is an easy option to implement, getting rid of the initiative kill problem. I expect though it's not the problem, but another symptom.

Nerf Words.

Make init costed so that each point is more valuble than the last.

8 minutes ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

Nerf Words.

Make init costed so that each point is more valuble than the last.

i'm just here to make chad andrew mad at this point

EXPONENTIAL

@punkUser

time to run off into the sunset

The more I think about it, the more the whole "those points you bid die the moment the first dial is set" would address many concerns with bidding wars and how initiative can have an overwhelming impact. The cost would be real to get to move last. Points also need to be fixed at some point, but you people still seem to (mostly) have faith that FFG can do it, so I'll go with that.

I'll also beat the drum that while FFG is adding more obstacle types, they should be changing the standard 3 per player to 4 (or more) and having set up be at range 1 of the edges instead of 2. People would have to git gud at picking their moves (or just use more seismics everywhere, I guess). Darting around in in asteroid fields is much more exciting than the honourable joust.

Just now, drjkel said:

Points also need to be fixed at some point, but you people still seem to (mostly) have faith that FFG can do it, so I'll go with that.

This is kind of an interesting point, and probably why we're more excited than most for points.

It's more of a litmus test - either FFG does a good job with points, or a large portion of the playerbase probably moves on. So, continuing to play X-Wing presupposes that FFG does good things with points.

2 hours ago, RStan said:

He is the hero I prefer though..... Han > Rey as Falcon pilot.

Han with Rey Gunner is definitely better than Rey Pilot.

Han is super nice versus Trip Upsilons when you can place yourself behind them basically.

1 minute ago, Brunas said:

This is kind of an interesting point, and probably why we're more excited than most for points.

It's more of a litmus test - either FFG does a good job with points, or a large portion of the playerbase probably moves on. So, continuing to play X-Wing presupposes that FFG does good things with points.

I don't have a horse in that game anymore. Playing casually, my only objective is to make a list where my sons have a 50-50 chance of beating me (which currently sits at 170 points). If they mess the point review up, I'll adjust the target accordingly. It really does work better as a casual game where you're not trying to optimize for easy wins.

We're missing a resistance conversion kit (SO many T-70s, I wish they could be useful) and we'll probably not buy wave 2 and up unless either son expresses a wish to play in tournaments again, so it's cheap to wait and see.

I still check airfare to most big tournaments that are not too far, I miss being allowed to use the degenerate stuff. Krayt Cup would be ridiculously expensive to move little plastic ships around...

Another one of these ideas I really liked was NOT @Brunas' idea of ordnance being fired at initiative 0.

29 minutes ago, drjkel said:

the whole "those points you bid die the moment the first dial is set" would address many concerns with bidding wars and how initiative can have an overwhelming impact.

IMO the points should still be safe until the first points are scored. Otherwise a 7pt bid always loses e.g. 200-7, and castling/avoiding the fight to force an engagement would become a new problem.

3 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Another one of these ideas I really liked was @Brunas' idea of ordnance being fired at initiative 0.

This is a very interesting idea, and I like it. Adds to the risk/reward of using munitions too.

Just now, GreenDragoon said:

IMO the points should still be safe until the first points are scored. Otherwise a 7pt bid always loses e.g. 200-7, and castling/avoiding the fight to force an engagement would become a new problem.

But I thought castling was banned now and that running away when you're up on points is a perfectly valid way to win a match. I'm confused

To be honest, I'd be fine with that. If someone cares enough to bid, it has to be because it's worth it above everything else.

Sidebar: when podcasts started to legitimately argue that castling, running away, or point fortressing, etc. were good strategies that should be used when appropriate is when I realized most people are not in this game for fun (insofar as winning is not the only source of fun). Even Bruno's current series on mindgames is ridiculously depressing when taken into the context of grown men (mostly) pushing around plastic ships vying to win tiny plastic or cardboard prizes (you should all learn French and tune in). I keep being surprised at what is "justified" to score that win.

6 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Another one of these ideas I really liked was @Brunas' idea of ordnance being fired at initiative 0.

IMO the points should still be safe until the first points are scored. Otherwise a 7pt bid always loses e.g. 200-7, and castling/avoiding the fight to force an engagement would become a new problem.

1 minute ago, LagJanson said:

This is a very interesting idea, and I like it. Adds to the risk/reward of using munitions too.

THAT'S NOT MY IDEA, DON'T CREDIT IT TO ME, I HATE IT

only half joking, it's not my idea, and I do hate it

2 minutes ago, Brunas said:

THAT'S NOT MY IDEA, DON'T CREDIT IT TO ME, I HATE IT

only half joking, it's not my idea, and I do hate it

Chris 'Designer of init 0 Torps' Allen.

1 minute ago, Brunas said:

THAT'S NOT MY IDEA, DON'T CREDIT IT TO ME, I HATE IT

only half joking, it's not my idea, and I do hate it

hahaha, why?

I think it would be interesting. Torpedoes are mainly a problem on high initiative ships, and mainly for initiative kills.

So, everyone is in agreement that I0 munitions was a Kraytvention?

You could fluff it up by talking about the time to fire and travel being much slower than lasers. Those torps weren't exceedingly fast in the movies, ya know!

Keeping the lock for every munition feels like a massive mistake to me. Having a guarantee of a single mod every time is rough and makes them just plain better than primary weapons (since they generally have more dice and deny R3 bonuses).

3 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

hahaha, why?

I think it would be interesting. Torpedoes are mainly a problem on high initiative ships, and mainly for initiative kills.

It's a confusing roundabout method of solving the high initiative ships are too good problem

5 minutes ago, drjkel said:

So, everyone is in agreement that I0 munitions was a Kraytvention?

You could fluff it up by talking about the time to fire and travel being much slower than lasers. Those torps weren't exceedingly fast in the movies, ya know!

Keeping the lock for every munition feels like a massive mistake to me. Having a guarantee of a single mod every time is rough and makes them just plain better than primary weapons (since they generally have more dice and deny R3 bonuses).

I first saw it suggested here:

1 minute ago, Brunas said:

It's a confusing roundabout method of solving the high initiative ships are too good problem

I can see that. It is a confusing way, yes. If it was included from the start we might think differently.

Could the "high initiative ships are too good problem" actually be fixed through points only? Or do you need to reach prohibitively expensive prices where they suddenly tip from awesome to horrible?

Shooting first and moving last are massive, and they often have abilities that compound on that. How much would you pay for Redline/Poe/whatever?

3 minutes ago, drjkel said:

Could the "high initiative ships are too good problem" actually be fixed through points only? Or do you need to reach prohibitively expensive prices where they suddenly tip from awesome to horrible?

Shooting first and moving last are massive, and they often have abilities that compound on that. How much would you pay for Redline/Poe/whatever?

Many solutions are now impossible to implement. For example, giving the good abilities to lower I ships, or not compressing the initiative to 6 instead of 9. (also, speaking of new "core set problems"...)

But with what we have now, points is all we get. And it could be enough.

26 minutes ago, Quack Shot said:

Han with Rey Gunner is definitely better than Rey Pilot.

I originally believed that. Now that I’ve finally been playing Rey pilot...I’m less sure.

If by points you mean the Rebel Fenn treatment, sure. I guess. But just making something so crazy expensive that it isn't worth taking just seems a bit ham fisted way of approaching things.

1 minute ago, viedit said:

If by points you mean the Rebel Fenn treatment, sure. I guess. But just making something so crazy expensive that it isn't worth taking just seems a bit ham fisted way of approaching things.

That wasn't really the intent. It was raising the points to a level where it's "fair"

32 minutes ago, drjkel said:

Sidebar: when podcasts started to legitimately argue that castling, running away, or point fortressing, etc. were good strategies that should be used when appropriate is when I realized most people are not in this game for fun (insofar as winning is not the only source of fun). Even Bruno's current series on mindgames is ridiculously depressing when taken into the context of grown men (mostly) pushing around plastic ships vying to win tiny plastic or cardboard prizes (you should all learn French and tune in). I keep being surprised at what is "justified" to score that win.

This is kind of interesting too. I, personally, have the most fun when trying to find the best strategy. In my opinion, it's a problem with the game if that's the best strategy, and if it's the best strategy someone is going to be willing to do it, so we're all stuck with it. I think it's a losing battle to try and police behavior within the rules, as there will always be someone shameless enough to ignore the community consensus and do it anyways.

Also, having the community fight over what's acceptable behavior in the rules seems like a slippery slope that leads to hurt feelings and fighting.

All that being said, I come from video games, where whatever the game rules are is literally unchangeable so the best way to get things fixed is to get the community to break it so hard something has to be done immediately...

angry

29 minutes ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

Chris 'Designer of init 0 Torps' Allen.

reacts

24 minutes ago, drjkel said:

So, everyone is in agreement that I0 munitions was a Kraytvention?

only

47 minutes ago, Brunas said:

This is kind of an interesting point, and probably why we're more excited than most for points.

It's more of a litmus test - either FFG does a good job with points, or a large portion of the playerbase probably moves on. So, continuing to play X-Wing presupposes that FFG does good things with points.

They don't even need to get the points to "fair"- if they can increase the point change frequency to 3-4 months, then they can 'safely'overcorrect and whipsaw the meta a bit with no real consequences.

Chaos metas are best metas, knowledge is poison.

Just now, Kaptin Krunch said:

They don't even need to get the points to "fair"- if they can increase the point change frequency to 3-4 months, then they can 'safely'overcorrect and whipsaw the meta a bit with no real consequences.

Chaos metas are best metas, knowledge is poison.

I agree

...bottom text? longer message here? I'm just out of reactions, looking for a way to post I agree.