2 hours ago, baranidlo said:

High variance is good for casual games, because it creates the excitement and can be fun, and also because it levels the field, so the worse players are motivated to participate.

However in highly competitive complex games you usually want to have the least amount of variance possible (although zero variance is also not desirable, because it usually means the game will be kind of stiff and boring..).

I have to agree with @Sunitsa here that during its "better" days, 1.0 was more suitable for highly competitive play, with decreased variance and increased focus on squad building and meta-game / strategy phase.

See , I think we both agree 2.0 has more variance than 1.0... where we disagree is both how much is in 2.0, and how much was in 1.0.

2 hours ago, baranidlo said:

Good that you mention Fenn here, because I think it's a good example of what designers have kind of botched in 2.0.

The "true Aces" type of ships have been so comprehensively nerfed in 2.0 up to the point where they are almost always suboptimal choise in list building.

They now have basically zero "safe space" except if they manage to dodge all arcs, or are completely out of combat. And dodging all arcs is simply not practically possible against many lists when played by competent players.

So what it means now is that if you make a choice to play such ships, you need to accept that the dice variance will play a huge role in your games.

I mean, I disagree with most of this assessment (but not your feelings, which I think are allowed, and similar to my first experience with 2.0 actually).

You are correct that range 3 is not a "safe space" for fenn (or pretty much any ship), but I disagree this is a design flaw. In 1.0, range 3 shots were almost meaningless. People rolled dice as mostly a formality of rules requirements - the chances of hitting a tokened autothrustered ship was nearly zero.

Adding some danger back to range three doesn't see like a bug, but a feature - I realized coming into 2.0 that man, I picked up a lot of what I think of as "bad habits" by sitting in arcs and simply expecting to not die. That doesn't exactly feel like dog fighting, or risk management.

I also agree that if you play such ships as "aces" that you have to accept some dice variance will play a role, but I definitely disagree on the magnitude.

Further, the "true aces" type in 1.0 was literally just token stacking - almost no one was actually dodging arcs. That's why we make fun of "arc dodging" - everyone just sat in arcs and took no damage. At the end of 1.0 (I'll stop at worlds, where everyone still thought 1.0 was relevant), the main aces played was Quickdraw and Ryad - neither of which were actually arc dodging - they were "arc dodging" (i.e. simply token stacking and trading shots well).

2 hours ago, baranidlo said:

Which is a pity, because I think these are some of the most interesting ship types in the game, and their limited viability gives way to the more safe and boring choices. Which usually means flying bricks with very limited maneuverability but lots of health, which simply don't really care about defensive dice.

See, I definitely disagree here. We're not seeing this pan out - Fenn has been relevant (he might have a harder time now due to RZ-2s, if anything).

This will sound harsh, but I suspect what you mean is they have limited viability for you, but I don't think you can simply sweep your hand and announce a whole swath of the game dead, even if they died in your local area.

2 hours ago, baranidlo said:

So you have not created a more interesting environment with high defense dice variance, you have instead created a more limited environment and forced players to go for the more boring options.

There is a reason why 4 or 5 ship rebels with Leia is the best list right now, and why the most competitive-minded players flock to that!

I mean, more than 3 ships were basically dead for years in 1.0. Only in its dying throws, where the devs clearly didn't care, did 5X even have a shot.

Your disinterest in 4-5 ship builds is fine, but I don't think it's fair to cast your preferences as a 'fact' of how interesting games are. People really enjoy those kinds of builds, and they, at best, seem competitive, not overpowering.

Also, the last point - seeing a 4-5 ship build win does not mean all of the most competitive players "flocked" to it - some did. Even in extended, where I regularly hand-wave the game away, that's not true, and it's not true in hyperspace either. There is a large swath of other builds that compete.

2 hours ago, baranidlo said:

No, with high dice variance the game is not more nuanced.

I see much more regularely that games are decided by dice than it was in 1.0.

If you have two highly skilled players, who make pretty much always the optimal or nearly optimal moves in the game, then the outcome is usually decided by very tiny details (this applies to any game pretty much).

In 2.0 these very tiny details are very often the dice rolls.

So, I believe you that you "regularly" see more games decided by dice than in 1.0 for two reasons:

First, that's technically true, as most games in 1.0 for the last few years were decided at the list building stage. And that has been mostly untrue in 2.0 (quad phantoms and dash/roark were the times this felt like games being decided in list building, and FFG already addressed one of those hard, and a little bit on the other).

Second, in particularly, what you're describing sounds a lot like what a lot of us experienced coming to 2.0: punishment for bad decisions. It just seems like either you disagree they;'re bad decisions, or simply do not want them to be bad decisions - but they're bad decisions.

Like, every time you repositition in 2.0, except in a few ship chassis, this comes at the cost of modification (which directly translates to more variance). That's a cost, and an interesting one, because it means your maneuvers matter more because every time you have to adjust for your maneuvers with an actions it comes with a cost.

Also, and this will also sound harsh, I'm not sure your example of "two highly skilled players" pans out. Turns out we all have highly skilled players, and we aren't experiencing that. Further, even "highly skilled players" will regularly tell you that they cannot consistently take "the optimum moves" every game, because of both 1) they don't always even agree on what the optimum moves are, and 2) fatigue.

It honestly sounds like your experience is a lot of people crashing lists into each other, which I do admit will increase dice variance, but will not concede is how 2.0 must be played.

4 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I have an extended small tournament tomorrow nd obviously I will bring Awings. But what are good, fun ace lists for empire or rebels?

I never had as little clue as now for extended

For Empire, lists probably should have at least one phantom:

• soontir/whisper/X
• 3 imdar + Vader
• Some sort of sloane carrier

Rebels: Rebel beef is good

• 4B zeb
• 3Z,BB, U with leia or something
• There's probably a lot more good rebels, but no one is actually experimenting in extended, and I'm not playing it

41 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

See , I think we both agree 2.0 has more variance than 1.0... where we disagree is both how much is in 2.0, and how much was in 1.0.

I mean, I disagree with most of this assessment (but not your feelings, which I think are allowed, and similar to my first experience with 2.0 actually).

You are correct that range 3 is not a "safe space" for fenn (or pretty much any ship), but I disagree this is a design flaw. In 1.0, range 3 shots were almost meaningless. People rolled dice as mostly a formality of rules requirements - the chances of hitting a tokened autothrustered ship was nearly zero.

Adding some danger back to range three doesn't see like a bug, but a feature - I realized coming into 2.0 that man, I picked up a lot of what I think of as "bad habits" by sitting in arcs and simply expecting to not die. That doesn't exactly feel like dog fighting, or risk management.

I also agree that if you play such ships as "aces" that you have to accept some dice variance will play a role, but I definitely disagree on the magnitude.

Further, the "true aces" type in 1.0 was literally just token stacking - almost no one was actually dodging arcs. That's why we make fun of "arc dodging" - everyone just sat in arcs and took no damage. At the end of 1.0 (I'll stop at worlds, where everyone still thought 1.0 was relevant), the main aces played was Quickdraw and Ryad - neither of which were actually arc dodging - they were "arc dodging" (i.e. simply token stacking and trading shots well).

See, I definitely disagree here. We're not seeing this pan out - Fenn has been relevant (he might have a harder time now due to RZ-2s, if anything).

This will sound harsh, but I suspect what you mean is they have limited viability for you, but I don't think you can simply sweep your hand and announce a whole swath of the game dead, even if they died in your local area.

I mean, more than 3 ships were basically dead for years in 1.0. Only in its dying throws, where the devs clearly didn't care, did 5X even have a shot.

Your disinterest in 4-5 ship builds is fine, but I don't think it's fair to cast your preferences as a 'fact' of how interesting games are. People really enjoy those kinds of builds, and they, at best, seem competitive, not overpowering.

Also, the last point - seeing a 4-5 ship build win does not mean all of the most competitive players "flocked" to it - some did. Even in extended, where I regularly hand-wave the game away, that's not true, and it's not true in hyperspace either. There is a large swath of other builds that compete.

So, I believe you that you "regularly" see more games decided by dice than in 1.0 for two reasons:

First, that's technically true, as most games in 1.0 for the last few years were decided at the list building stage. And that has been mostly untrue in 2.0 (quad phantoms and dash/roark were the times this felt like games being decided in list building, and FFG already addressed one of those hard, and a little bit on the other).

Second, in particularly, what you're describing sounds a lot like what a lot of us experienced coming to 2.0: punishment for bad decisions. It just seems like either you disagree they;'re bad decisions, or simply do not want them to be bad decisions - but they're bad decisions.

Like, every time you repositition in 2.0, except in a few ship chassis, this comes at the cost of modification (which directly translates to more variance). That's a cost, and an interesting one, because it means your maneuvers matter more because every time you have to adjust for your maneuvers with an actions it comes with a cost.

Also, and this will also sound harsh, I'm not sure your example of "two highly skilled players" pans out. Turns out we all have highly skilled players, and we aren't experiencing that. Further, even "highly skilled players" will regularly tell you that they cannot consistently take "the optimum moves" every game, because of both 1) they don't always even agree on what the optimum moves are, and 2) fatigue.

It honestly sounds like your experience is a lot of people crashing lists into each other, which I do admit will increase dice variance, but will not concede is how 2.0 must be played.

Sure man, for somebody who's saying that I should not hand-wave things away, you are doing a lot of hand-waving and ad-hominem yourself.

I don't have any intention or motivation to argue with you, but I have won multiple Regionals in 1.0 and one (albeit smaller) Nationals in 2.0, so I do know WTF I'm talking about.

But sure, you do continue with your echo chambering and hand waving.

Have a good day.

2 hours ago, baranidlo said:

levels the field, so the worse players are motivated to participate.

This was 1.0's defining feature. In some ways it was actually not a bad thing either.

1 minute ago, baranidlo said:

I don't have any intention to argue with you, but I have won multiple Regionals in 1.0 and one (albeit smaller) Nationals in 2.0, so I do know WTF I'm talking about.

ok.

1 minute ago, Tlfj200 said:

ok.

I see that coming and engaging in this forum thread again, was a mistake (again).

I expected a bit more intelligence from you, my mistake.

Won't happen again.

3 hours ago, Brunas said:

I'm not sure why everyone was so dismissive to this - you're allowed to not like the same thing.

There's plenty of people that don't like the increased variance in 2e - and to be clear, there is increased variance in 2e. That being said, we were pretty close to dice being more or less irrelevant in 1e, so whether or not it's good to have moved from that is a matter of personal taste.

I actually think on the list of 1.0 woes, easy offensive mods is maybe the 4th or 5th in line behind mega defense/regen, no consequences high PS repositioning, point fortressing, amd zero counterplay stuff like action bombs/imperial jamming. I didn't really have an issue with double modded attacks if they weren't combined with easy repositioning. I say double offensive mods if you made the right maneuver call isn't something I hate, so expect I agree with @Sunitsain that particular aspect.

All that being said, there's a predictability that comes from a lot of single modded dice being thrown. Each individual throw is higher variance, but collectively, the result is still fairly predictable. Some times it doesn't work out, but even with double mods you sometimes reroll into blanks.

So 2.0 feels really high variance if you focus hard on 2 or some 3 ship lists, because the mods for those are typically not as good as they were in 1.0.

My opinions are 1.0 are well documented, but let me repost this, because I think it's excellent, generally, and encapsulates my feelings on the decreasing variance in 1.0 as time went on:

Just now, baranidlo said:

I see that coming and engaging in this forum thread again, was a mistake (again).

I expected a bit more intelligence from you, my mistake.

Won't happen again.

Appealing to authority, as if none of us also "know what we're talking about."

I mean, congrats on your wins, but you'll find your "credentials" don't go as far in here as you might think.

I mean, you started the long post, and I answered in kind. It's fine you don't like my answers - you're allowed.

It's fine you don't like the variance in 2.0 - you're allowed.

It's fine you liked the decreased variance in 1.0 - you're allowed.

But as for the more specific examples - that is a topic of discussion. I'm not arguing with your feelings - they're yours. I'm just noting the difference in variance, and how I disagree on both its magnitude, and also its effect on the "skill" of the game.

2 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Appealing to authority, as if none of us also "know what we're talking about."

I mean, congrats on your wins, but you'll find your "credentials" don't go as far in here as you might think.

I mean, you started the long post, and I answered in kind. It's fine you don't like my answers - you're allowed.

It's fine you don't like the variance in 2.0 - you're allowed.

It's fine you liked the decreased variance in 1.0 - you're allowed.

But as for the more specific examples - that is a topic of discussion. I'm not arguing with your feelings - they're yours. I'm just noting the difference in variance, and how I disagree on both its magnitude, and also its effect on the "skill" of the game.

I don't have problems with different opinions if they are based on some facts or at least some logical thoughts.

I do have a problem if you base your argument on the fact that if I have a different opinion from yours, then I don't have a clue what I'm saying and I must be obviously a bad player.

On the topic at hand - the amount of variance in game is indeed subjective and I don't have problem if other people view it differently.

As @Biophysical has pointed above, it might also very well depend on what ship arch types you are favouring.

2 minutes ago, baranidlo said:

I don't have problems with different opinions if they are based on some facts or at least some logical thoughts.

I do have a problem if you base your argument on the fact that if I have a different opinion from yours, then I don't have a clue what I'm saying and I must be obviously a bad player.

On the topic at hand - the amount of variance in game is indeed subjective and I don't have problem if other people view it differently.

As @Biophysical has pointed above, it might also very well depend on what ship arch types you are favouring.

You’re clearly not a bad player - you won some 1.0 regionals.

good thing you put that in here to buff your argument.

3 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

You’re clearly not a bad player - you won some 1.0 regionals.

good thing you put that in here to buff your argument.

I never use to bring up credentials in my arguments, and it was not part of my original post.

It was you who switched the topic to question of personal skill, where it became possibly relevant, so I did mention it.

Again, coming to this thread is like entering a den of snakes.

Some of you guys really should learn how to discuss things in a rational and constructive way..

@baranidlo, what I think is happening is we both have different experiences, or even the SAME experience, and came to different conclusions.

there’s no way I can say your preference for variance is ‘wrong’ - all I can say is that maybe 2.0 is not for you, and honestly, that’s a shame.

You can feel it’s less skillful, and you might be right - we can’t really measure skill in either 1.0 or 2.0 - we can only identify the skillful parts of each edition (and not really measure them against each other).

im sorry you don’t seem to like 2.0, and find it to be less skillful 😞

1 minute ago, baranidlo said:

Again, coming to this thread is like entering a den of snakes.

I mean, you knew what’s in here.

2 minutes ago, baranidlo said:

Some of you guys really should learn how to discuss things in a rational and constructive way..

Ok.

3 minutes ago, baranidlo said:

I never use to bring up credentials in my arguments, and it was not part of my original post.

It was you who switched the topic to question of personal skill, where it became possibly relevant, so I did mention it.

Again, coming to this thread is like entering a den of snakes.

Some of you guys really should learn how to discuss things in a rational and constructive way..

I have discussed opposing viewpoints with @Tlfj200for a while. I haven't seen ad hominem attacks or irrational arguments in that time, even though we've disagreed plenty. I also haven't really seen it in this exchange. It's possible tone was read into someone who you're arguing with on the internet without the benefit of body language and actual tone.

2 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

I have discussed opposing viewpoints with @Tlfj200for a while. I haven't seen ad hominem attacks or irrational arguments in that time, even though we've disagreed plenty. I also haven't really seen it in this exchange. It's possible tone was read into someone who you're arguing with on the internet without the benefit of body language and actual tone.

It’s fine - I suspect my tone (or apparent tone) sounded harsh. I even premised some parts with ‘this may sound harsh but’, which is usually a precursor to being mean.

i just have a tendency to be very direct, so I try and premise my statements that way, but in text in particular it can be read harsher than I want it to be, regardless of what I meant (even if I meant to be harsh, it sounds harsher).

Regarding Aces and Variance.

2 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

It’s fine - I suspect my tone (or apparent tone) sounded harsh. I even premised some parts with ‘this may sound harsh but’, which is usually a precursor to being mean.

i just have a tendency to be very direct, so I try and premise my statements that way, but in text in particular it can be read harsher than I want it to be, regardless of what I meant (even if I meant to be harsh, it sounds harsher).

I know you're a big boy . I wasn't trying to defend your honor, although it certainly can be interpreted that way.

7 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

I know you're a big boy . I wasn't trying to defend your honor, although it certainly can be interpreted that way.

No, I appreciate it!

Difusing is better than escalating.

Tacking on to the discussion of Ace play in 2.0, I think that Aces are actually decently strong in 2.0. It is just that Ace play in 2.0 means being able to control your engage. Having a strong engagement is probably the best way to win games and Aces are much better at controlling when/how that happens. If you are not good at setting up good engages, then generics are the better answer because you by default have a good engage with point and shoot.

Aces aren't arc dodgers, they're engage dodgers.

3 minutes ago, Scott Pilgrim2 said:

Aces

What’s an ace, again?

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

I have an extended small tournament tomorrow nd obviously I will bring Awings. But what are good, fun ace lists for empire or rebels?

I never had as little clue as now for extended

Phantoms are probably "technically" correct for good lists.

For fun, I've enjoyed playing around with 4-ship "ace swarm." A bit lower init aces than a standard 3-ship build, but you get an extra ship. Kinda splitting the difference in list style. Something like Soontir (Predator), Seventh Sister (Hate, FCS -- turns out full-arc Crack Shot every other turn isn't bad), Countdown (Crack Shot), Pure Sabacc (Crack Shot), Bid (5). Pretty much any of the pieces could be swapped out for at least generic Phantoms (Trick Shot Sigma?) or a cheap support Reaper or Lambda (even ST-321 Sai is only 51 points).

This little discussion just furthers my theory that people were basically playing 2 different games in 1.0 X-Wing. Players like @Sunitsa or @baranidlo came here to play a card game where the outcome was determined by upgrade combinations and nigh guaranteed dice results. It seems like I came here to play a game of positioning where decisions on the table matter more. It might be why they aren't happy with 2.0 as it is a very different beast.

Not putting a value judgment on it, people can like what they like. I just find it interesting.

9 minutes ago, Chumbalaya said:

This little discussion just furthers my theory that people were basically playing 2 different games in 1.0 X-Wing. Players like @Sunitsa or @baranidlo came here to play a card game where the outcome was determined by upgrade combinations and nigh guaranteed dice results. It seems like I came here to play a game of positioning where decisions on the table matter more.

Not... entirely correct, I would think.

My interpretation, and that is all that it is, is that the game they want to have has set outcomes to punish less optimal plays and list choices. There is a certain strategy involved in game play. It’s not a bad game either, but 1.0 X-Wing fumbled into that territory with power creep instead of solid design. 2.0 reversed out of that territory.

High Variance and Positioning Matters are not actually things you can debate against each other. With the removal of 360 degree turrets positioning matters more, with the points expansion and higher ship counts positioning (not arc dodging but making sure you don't run into their ships or your own) also matters more because there is less space on the table. The people arguing against variance are technically correct in that lower variance is better for competition, but I also agree with @Tlfj200 that the actual impact of the higher variance is a little overblown. I can think of only a handful of games that I've played where the variance truly was the largest factor in deciding the outcome of the game.

The worst part of 1.0 was that in list building phase your goal had to be reducing the amount of variance as much as possible, which actually limited the number of competitive list choices you had. In both Extended and Hyperspace formats we have probably the most diverse field of competitively viable ships and lists that I've ever seen in X-Wing, and we can largely attribute this to you aren't limited to building card combos into your list to lower the variance.

I too actually struggle with listening to @Tlfj200 though because I think the frequent mentions of Extended being nothing but a token stacking dumpster fire are hyperbolic. Even pre-points change (which has shaken up the landscape tremendously) there was an insane number of viable lists for a competitive gaming format. Token stacking isn't inherently bad unless its the only viable list building option, and clearly that is not the case. In fact, token stacking is also less important for the same reason that positioning is more important: higher ship counts mean more shots, which means more opportunities to spend tokens.

TLDR:

Positioning and arc-dodging are not mutually inclusive and I think a lot of people miss that.

Token stacking is not inherently bad, but is terrible for the game if it is the only way to compete. I don't think anything in 2.0 has reached that point.

Variance is higher in 2.0 but it's effect is less than most people think it is.

Both formats are fun, it is okay to prefer one and it is okay for other people to prefer the other.