It is kinda true that any time you don't enjoy something there's an immediate "this is fine" bandwagon - just because you don't enjoy something doesn't mean you're angry about it or freaking out. Something something internet being bad at conveying emotions
Carolina Krayts is the best X-Wing podcast
1 minute ago, jagsba said:yeah, you don't fly aces, the only true form of x wing
EXCEPT WHEN I DO!!!!!!!!!111
9 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:I mean, im not sure it's narrow bias to say if someone is simply not enjoying the game.
Like, it doesnt mean the game has to be CHANGED, but it's cool if someone doesn't enjoy the current meta or game, right?
🤨 I was addressing a contradictory statement (1 in the quote below) and the idea that going to time is not a "conclusion" to the game (2 in the same quote). My previous quoting didn't show that fully. They doubled down in reply.
29 minutes ago, Makaze said:I'm not sure that's actually the best solution. Defining those things is difficult, enforcing those definitions is virtually impossible. Your earlier comment on incentivation on the other hand was spot on. 1 The best way to prevent slow play is not the legislate it away, rather it's to make it not worth doing. If winning at time is worth less than a total wipe in terms of making cut (however that looks, lots of people have had lots of suggestions) then people will naturally alter their behavior to set their dials faster, run away less, and 2 in general bring the game to a conclusion
Edited by Hiemfire
3 minutes ago, catachanninja said:EXCEPT WHEN I DO!!!!!!!!!111
I choose to forget those instances.
2 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:So subjective and narrowly biased that only one of the end states covered by the regs is "valid"... I think introspection and being proactive with contacting judges when you suspect someone is intentionally stalling is more in order than changing the rules to fit that narrow bias.
To be clear I'm not complaining about slow play, like I said above I don't actually think it's as widespread as it feels
I'm straight up complaining about games going to time which is more a function of game mechanics and scoring incentives, I enjoy a game that reaches a definitive conclusion which would be actually 3 of the 4 above in my mind. That is obviously my opinion and not a definitive statement, but it's what satisfies me and makes me want to play X-Wing instead of some other activity
3 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:🤨 I was addressing a contradictory statement (1 in the quote below) and the idea that going to time is not a "conclusion" to the game (2 in the same quote). My previous quoting didn't show that fully. They doubled down in reply.
How is that contradictory? Trying to create ironclad rules preventing slow play is a fools errand both because it's unlikely to actually work and i'm not convinced it's actually a real problem. But if you did want to fix it, and incidentally also fix too many games going to time which I do think is a real problem, then it should be done by rewarding players for not going to time so that they'll change their own behavior, list compositions, and speed
Of course that does assume that going to time is a negative, you may not agree and that's cool too
5 minutes ago, Makaze said:How is that contradictory? Trying to create ironclad rules preventing slow play is a fools errand both because it's unlikely to actually work and i'm not convinced it's actually a real problem. But if you did want to fix it, and incidentally also fix too many games going to time which I do think is a real problem, then it should be done by rewarding players for not going to time so that they'll change their own behavior, list compositions, and speed
Of course that does assume that going to time is a negative, you may not agree and that's cool too
To "Make it not worth doing" the tournament regs need to be "legislated" to either punish going to time or award not doing so. That is the contradiction.
1 minute ago, Hiemfire said:To "Make it not worth doing" the tournament regs need to be "legislated" to either punish going to time or award not doing so. That is the contradiction.
Jesus...
Rule 1: You cannot do X, if you do X then you will be punished
Rule 2: Here is a scoring structure*
*That scoring structure among other things doesn't happen to reward you for doing X
One of those rules is attempting to legislate away X, the other may as a side effect discourage X but it is not explicitly mentioned, targeted, or will stop it entirely. If you want to be super pedantic and technically classify any rule change that has any effect on something as legislation about it then OK whatever man. Let me amend my statement to say that directly legislating away slow play is a poor idea for a variety of reasons. Fixing it through indirect legislation that discourages players from even wanting to engage in it is a better solution. Though again... slow play not a super huge problem in my mind
1 hour ago, LagJanson said:This renders certain ships types and list types to near unusable status since your expectations of doing well have decreased. Bye bye classic TIE Fighters.
2 minutes ago, ThinkingB said:
And thus bias is revealed. Reverse the image to the current game state and enjoy.
4 minutes ago, LagJanson said:And thus bias is revealed. Reverse the image to the current game state and enjoy.
post history is quite... a thing as well.
People are entitled to opinions, and he plays some bad actors is a factor for his type of response, but for the health of the game itself a more complicated solution is probably required than a simplistic one we the players reflexively shout at each other.
6 hours ago, catachanninja said:The reputation side effect of this thread is hilarious to me. Most of yall are too young to remember when "like farming" was a thing here, and people resented people with likes that fell into arbitrary parameters because there were "cliques of people that just like everything the other posts, and that's not fair to the rest of us"
the idea that someone would put literally any meaning next to the post number or "reputation" counter is hilarious. And sad. Mostly sad, I guess.
18 minutes ago, Brunas said:the idea that someone would put literally any meaning next to the post number or "reputation" counter is hilarious. And sad. Mostly sad, I guess.
Confused reacts are meaningful.
18 minutes ago, Brunas said:the idea that someone would put literally any meaning next to the post number or "reputation" counter is hilarious. And sad. Mostly sad, I guess.
How to describe the absurdity of Reddit in 25 words or less.
21 minutes ago, Brunas said:the idea that someone would put literally any meaning next to the post number or "reputation" counter is hilarious. And sad. Mostly sad, I guess.
I thought it would unlock these 'titles' that some older posters have under their username.
Apparently it doesn't anymore, at least not at up to 6000. No reason to post anymore!
4 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:Confused reacts are meaningful.
I want to thank all 10 people for their contribution by the way! Here's to another 10!
24 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:Confused reacts are meaningful.
I agree
1 hour ago, jagsba said:this feels like arguing a focus is better than a target lock.
no
The funny thing is that given a blocked Jedi and a blocked Boba, the Jedi has the higher defense on almost all permutations. No, I'm not going to bring in focus, as we're talking about passive mods. And speaking of passive mods, gas clouds increase the defensive disparity between blocked boba and blocked jedi. But you are right on offense: boba and Jedi have in most permutations the same offensive output. But the game is both offense and defense, and if we move past the blocked discussion, dodging on a zippy small base is a great way to buff defense.
Now let's consider the 2 sequel force users: Kylo with optics and Rey. In nearly all permutations, the both of them with a focus and force have a better damage output than Boba reroll focus.
Plus, modifying to near-guaranteed benefit is a lot less stressful than reroll and pray. Especially if there are only 3/8 of rerolling a non-evade to an evade but the odds of a jedi finding that result altogether dead is 3/8.
We can get into further discussions of force management and optimal Boba play, but in most game states, the broken nature of force favors the Jedi over rerollers.
20 minutes ago, player3010587 said:The funny thing is that given a blocked Jedi and a blocked Boba, the Jedi has the higher defense on almost all permutations.
Boba with 1 rerolls: 1.08 evades; 0 tokens spent
Boba with 2 rerolls: 1.32; 0 tokens spent
Jedi with 1 force: 1.19 evades; 0.56 tokens spent
Jedi with 2 force: 1.25 evades; 1.5 tokens spent
Ignoring token burning, jedi seem slightly better, but its not a huge difference
you're also adding a bunch of arguments on why jedi are better than boba (which i generally agree with) that aren't part of the initial assertation which was
2 hours ago, player3010587 said:No, he and a Jedi are species in the genus of passive modders. Reroll =/= focus manipulation. ... Repeated rerolling a blank into a blank isn't nearly as good as force. Sure, blank to blank happens in the minority, but force has a 100% conversion rate. ... But his passive reliability is not the same as that of a Jedi's.
just looking at rerolls vs force, it's not obvious which one is better until you start adding qualifiers like boba needing his ability to proc, or adding rey or AO into the mix.
It's not horribly written. I'm impressed. And I spent all day (and yesterday) reviewing regulatory policy, so I'm feeling particularly picky about being precise.
An the Fundamental Event doc got updated too: https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/ed/29/ed29d996-4241-4e6f-94c5-a6a1e396717a/fundamental-event-document_21_final.pdf
56 minutes ago, jagsba said:
i feel personally attacked by quite a few of these
ALL
PROFANITY
IS
NECESSARY
also, pretty much 10/10 except the collusion rules are going to be a dumpster fire disaster.
Just now, Brunas said:also, pretty much 10/10 except the collusion rules are going to be a dumpster fire disaster.
I looked at those and started mentally ticking off the number of very public people in the XWM community that I've heard stating they did something that falls into how they define that.