38 minutes ago, Deffly said:
(42) Ric Olié
(43) L'ulo L'ampar
This might go down as a #$% take, but... I'm not angry about Ric. I don't think Lulo should be as high as 43 but if you asked be if I would rather have Ric, duchess, or an X/U/ARC it's a pretty real question?
3 minutes ago, Brunas said:This might go down as a #$% take, but... I'm not angry about Ric. I don't think Lulo should be as high as 43 but if you asked be if I would rather have Ric, duchess, or an X/U/ARC it's a pretty real question?
I'd take Ric over M any day of the week if he was in FO
One more thing about recent FO wierdo performance in Polish Grands: I was inspired by Evan Pomerantz who went 23rd Swiss in Worlds (ended top64) playing QD +2xTIEsf + 3xTIEfo. I replaced QD with Avenger who better fits my playstyle.
So it turns out FO generics are surprisingly good, probably better than named pilots.
6 hours ago, Deffly said:FO players are rare, only the dedicated players play (good and bad). The good dedicated players can make the cut because they know the list inside out.
But because there really is only a handful of better than average FO lists, everyone and their dog has practiced against these lists soo many times already that the other players in the cut have a natural advantage with experience.
Question:
My hypothesis is the best lists in first order is closer to what @Oldpara played, which is to say larger ship count and generics. What we see is people playing 2 aces + support (basically, wannabe empire).
Is first order just wannabe empire right now?
Edit: sort of how we saw the initial resistance lists were wannabe rebel lists when resistance first dropped, except it looks like first order never move on.
Edited by Tlfj20036 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:Is first order just wannabe empire right now?
Thematic
45 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:Question:
My hypothesis is the best lists in first order is closer to what @Oldpara played, which is to say larger ship count and generics. What we see is people playing 2 aces + support (basically, wannabe empire).
Is first order just wannabe empire right now?Edit: sort of how we saw the initial resistance lists were wannabe rebel lists when resistance first dropped, except it looks like first order never move on.
Current Reasonable FO Lists:
- SF SF SF SF SF SF ( Witness muh time on target )
- Thing + SF SF EP EP EP ( Seems ok )
- Kylo Tavson+ ( Good Enough for Swiss )
- Kylo + 4 ( I still believe, kinda )
I think its a bit of a trap to compare FO to much to Empire/Republic.
So many cards in those two factions that will be adjusted up in Jan.
I dont want FO costs to look more like Empire/Republic costs.
My biggest concern is how much 1 cheap ship with a rear arc (SF) can distort correct list building within a faction.
Its usefulness is partly driven by how many undercosted Aces are running around but its also just a general ease of use thing.
Not surprising to me that extra arcs are massively valuable. Still frustrating that the pt balance between forward locked ships and extra arc ships is off.
I liked the topic on this week's content cast. It's one that merits discussing.
My personal opinion (short version) is that there's nothing to win in this game beyond bragging rights, and winning because of dial slip, obvious dial reversal, missed trigger with no new info, etc., isn't really worth bragging about.
I feel like I was on two sides of it this past weekend at the St. Louis GC with mixed results.
Game 1 of Swiss, my opponent had the wrong bank dialed in on as gunboat, sending it within kissing distance and directly pointed at the board edge. He asked for nothing, but I told him to do what he had planned on doing. He had no new info, and it was an easy decision.
Game 3 of the cut (the winner would get a Worlds invite), an opponent missed his R2 regen trigger by a moment. It was an obvious regen situation and he had no new info, so I gave it to him, and it had definite game implications.
On the other hand, game 6 of Swiss, with cut implications on the line, I was a little behind and my opponent was taking a long time to set dials (I expected no foul play, just slow). I asked him to speed up and I think due to tiredness and frustration with how the game had been going I was ruder than I had any right to be. Was it bullying my opponent? I don't know, but I wish I'd had those moments back and acted differently.
So different situations, different actions, different results. I'd hope I will act positively in the future when the opportunity comes up and make better decisions when feeling tired and grumpy.
Ensnare won St. Louis? 
3 minutes ago, Biophysical said:I asked him to speed up and I think due to tiredness and frustration with how the game had been going I was ruder than I had any right to be. Was it bullying my opponent? I don't know, but I wish I'd had those moments back and acted differently.
I know this one. I have no intent on being rude but I know I have had voice tone issues when tired.
5 minutes ago, Biophysical said:Game 1 of Swiss, my opponent had the wrong bank dialed in on as gunboat, sending it within kissing distance and directly pointed at the board edge. He asked for nothing, but I told him to do what he had planned on doing. He had no new info, and it was an easy decision.
This is one I would like to say I would do. I can't honestly say I trust myself to do it in the heat of the moment. I don't recall being faced with THIS scenario but have hit similar. I was playing a squad mate and he flew his ship off the map in a key game that would decide which of us made cut. He dialed in exactly what he wanted to, trying to squeeze a risky play to catch me by surprise and misjudged the edge of the map by tiny distance. We discussed it at the time, particularly if it was what he meant to do. I actually asked if the dial had twisted on him, and I'd like to say I would have given that to him had it been true. As it was intended, he didn't ask for favors and I didn't offer. I later gave him the templates he probably should have won. Also a good amount of teasing, because, that's what we do. Still feels bad.
22 minutes ago, Biophysical said:On the other hand, game 6 of Swiss, with cut implications on the line, I was a little behind and my opponent was taking a long time to set dials (I expected no foul play, just slow). I asked him to speed up and I think due to tiredness and frustration with how the game had been going I was ruder than I had any right to be. Was it bullying my opponent? I don't know, but I wish I'd had those moments back and acted differently.
So different situations, different actions, different results. I'd hope I will act positively in the future when the opportunity comes up and make better decisions when feeling tired and grumpy.
I have also asked opponents to speed up. Whether you were too direct, or your tone was off, I cannot comment, but the idea of asking shouldn't be off the table, if that makes sense.
2 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:Ensnare won St. Louis?
Wait, which movie is this from? I legit don’t remember this scene.
1 minute ago, LagJanson said:I know this one. I have no intent on being rude but I know I have had voice tone issues when tired.
This is one I would like to say I would do. I can't honestly say I trust myself to do it in the heat of the moment. I don't recall being faced with THIS scenario but have hit similar. I was playing a squad mate and he flew his ship off the map in a key game that would decide which of us made cut. He dialed in exactly what he wanted to, trying to squeeze a risky play to catch me by surprise and misjudged the edge of the map by tiny distance. We discussed it at the time, particularly if it was what he meant to do. I actually asked if the dial had twisted on him, and I'd like to say I would have given that to him had it been true. As it was intended, he didn't ask for favors and I didn't offer. I later gave him the templates he probably should have won. Also a good amount of teasing, because, that's what we do. Still feels bad.
The key is, to the extent possible, differentiating intention (decisional mistakes) versus component failures (procedural mistakes).
Like I said, or at least I tried to say - I didn't want to imply this to be a carte blanche pass to give all things back all the time, but merely to note to try not to "pounce" on these procedural or component failures. Like, I've literally been the player that has tried to do maneuvers near a board edge and flown off the board simply because I "needed" that maneuver to fit, whether it fit or not. I knew it my go off the board - it happens.
1 minute ago, Tlfj200 said:The key is, to the extent possible, differentiating intention (decisional mistakes) versus component failures (procedural mistakes).
Like I said, or at least I tried to say - I didn't want to imply this to be a carte blanche pass to give all things back all the time, but merely to note to try not to "pounce" on these procedural or component failures. Like, I've literally been the player that has tried to do maneuvers near a board edge and flown off the board simply because I "needed" that maneuver to fit, whether it fit or not. I knew it my go off the board - it happens.
Like, a good example is my 2016 NOVA top 4 match against @pheaver - there's one point in the match I do a 1-turn with a scout, and it barely clips a rock. I absolutely knew that could happen, and knew it was even likely (though also knew that maybe I might clear), but basically, I needed to do the 1-turn for the NEXT turn's positioning - whether I got to shoot that turn was a bonus.
But man, we also can remember seeing some clearly dial failures, rather than decisional mistakes, and that's sort of the point, right?
16 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:I have also asked opponents to speed up. Whether you were too direct, or your tone was off, I cannot comment, but the idea of asking shouldn't be off the table, if that makes sense.
It's not that. I asked him to speed up, which I felt was legitimate, then he spent a while* sorting his dials in his hands, and I said something like "c'mon man, you're not even setting dials right now". The guy, who I didn't know, was totally gracious the whole time, and a very good sport despite me getting frustrated at various points in that game.
*It felt like a long time, but I also guarantee you that everything felt like a long time to me by that point.
23 minutes ago, LagJanson said:
This is one I would like to say I would do. I can't honestly say I trust myself to do it in the heat of the moment. I don't recall being faced with THIS scenario but have hit similar. I was playing a squad mate and he flew his ship off the map in a key game that would decide which of us made cut. He dialed in exactly what he wanted to, trying to squeeze a risky play to catch me by surprise and misjudged the edge of the map by tiny distance. We discussed it at the time, particularly if it was what he meant to do. I actually asked if the dial had twisted on him, and I'd like to say I would have given that to him had it been true. As it was intended, he didn't ask for favors and I didn't offer. I later gave him the templates he probably should have won. Also a good amount of teasing, because, that's what we do. Still feels bad.
There's a big difference between "the closeness of the game made someone take risks that didn't pay off" and "oops, wrong direction", I think. It can feel bad, because its "free" damage, but that's actually playing the game.
18 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:But man, we also can remember seeing some clearly dial failures, rather than decisional mistakes, and that's sort of the point, right?
It certainly is. I still don't know that I trust myself. It's not like I go around with "gotcha" calls. I've fed forgotten actions and opportunities to my opponents when it clearly disadvantages me, but... the dial off the board tips that mental elation. It's an instant game changing event that clouds judgement and I know my reactions aren't inline with my normal patterns.
Just now, Biophysical said:There's a big difference between "the closeness of the game made someone take risks that didn't pay off" and "oops, wrong direction", I think. It can feel bad, because its "free" damage, but that's actually playing the game.
I agree. I probably shouldn't have put the example, because it clouds the point. I greatly respect your call to let him have it back.
Edited by LagJansonI like this topic because I literally wrote a thing on this topic and it was a prior krayt cast.
12 hours ago, Kaptin Krunch said:With this weekend's continuing trend of abysmal FO performance-
As the generics are already almost as cheap as they can be for the SFs without gunner, and gunner having abysmal conversion and win rates on said generics, is anyone else anticipating that the cost of SF gunner will go down in January? That or actually cheaper FOTP is all I am expecting to be made cheaper in FO.
12 hours ago, Pleugim said:I'm not sure how much SF gunner would have to come down to be worth equipping. It may make Quickdraw happy, but Backdraft doesn't want the card and I'll take an Advanced Optics equipped generic over the locked-front 3 die gun for the flexibility of both arcs being active and the consistency.
I don't think I run into enough situations where the bonus attack SF Gunner provides would be a thing, but maybe I need to pay more attention to that and I'd change my mind if they really slashed the cost.
My thing with Special Forces Gunner is that the Zeta with Gunner for 42 is a really fair seeming ship. Essentially the same statline as a T-65, but instead of a 2-dice mode to boost, there's a 2-dice mode to get rear shots. It's a bit different, but pretty comparable value. At very least, Zeta with Gunner shouldn't be *cheaper* than a T-65. Presuming the humble X-Wing remains at 41, anything other than a 1 point buff to the SF Gunner price would seem a bit excessive (unless partly offset by base ship price increases).
1 minute ago, theBitterFig said:
My thing with Special Forces Gunner is that the Zeta with Gunner for 42 is a really fair seeming ship. Essentially the same statline as a T-65, but instead of a 2-dice mode to boost, there's a 2-dice mode to get rear shots. It's a bit different, but pretty comparable value. At very least, Zeta with Gunner shouldn't be *cheaper* than a T-65. Presuming the humble X-Wing remains at 41, anything other than a 1 point buff to the SF Gunner price would seem a bit excessive (unless partly offset by base ship price increases).
Aces and generics are on a wildly different power levels
Generics are balanced against eachother, and aces to aces- But not inbetween.
Just now, Kaptin Krunch said:Aces and generics are on a wildly different power levels
Generics are balanced against eachother, and aces to aces- But not inbetween.
But that's what I'm saying. Zeta or Omega with Gunner is pretty similar in power level to a Blue or Red T-65. Maybe like 1 point difference, but pretty close.
49 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:Ensnare won St. Louis?
Is there a list fortress up for it?
The outlook people have on FO is almost the exact same people have on the clone wars factions in legion. They are incomplete factions so people view them as weak, when in reality the individual components are costed fine. They are just waiting for more stuff to come out.
12 minutes ago, catachanninja said:Is there a list fortress up for it?
Not yet. What we know:
Sun Fac + 6 Won (Crack Fac + strut roger rogers) vs Jedi
Jedi "Mirror" in Top 4 before Final
Soontir AS Redline Vermiel showed up ( Thanks Duncan... )
7b Obi Broadside Autoblasterion Arc Torrent Torrent went 6-0
Trip Aces are pretty good
3-3 Cut + Tournament Win = Elite Company
44 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:The key is, to the extent possible, differentiating intention (decisional mistakes) versus component failures (procedural mistakes).
Like I said, or at least I tried to say - I didn't want to imply this to be a carte blanche pass to give all things back all the time, but merely to note to try not to "pounce" on these procedural or component failures. Like, I've literally been the player that has tried to do maneuvers near a board edge and flown off the board simply because I "needed" that maneuver to fit, whether it fit or not. I knew it my go off the board - it happens.
I hit an odd situation a few weeks ago where a player with several TAPs had a clearly rehearsed opening set, and after executing the first TAP on the second turn, goes, “wow, that’s not where I thought he would be. I guess I need to boost so that I stay in the right general place.” Reveals his next dial, executes, then realizes based on board positioning that he swapped the dials.
Both ships had a reasonable position, facing generally toward the expected engagement, and there was no combat that turn, so it wasn’t really a big deal, but I immediately called the judge because I didn’t want to make the call on whether he should reverse his maneuvers and execute the “correct” ones instead.
Ultimately it was moot because the guy color coded dials to ship bases with stickers, at which point I immediately gave it to him and we rewound.
I learned there that my first instinct isn’t to give it to the other player, but to tell JUDGE and verbally comment that I don’t want to make decisions.
18 minutes ago, PaulRuddSays said:I learned there that my first instinct...
Liked because this is ultimately what I'm talking about.