3 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

I'm surprised that the community is still as positive about the game as I perceive it. Personally I'm bummed out more than I ever was. The ships you mention and more (hello favorite movie character Whisper) bring us straight back to 1.0

This brings up a question...

How do we remember 1.0?

Because 1.0 to me was more heavily modded (More Blank modification), everyone R1 takes a guaranteed damage (HARPOONS), get in range and get shot (turrets), end up in front of a ship and take guaranteed damage (ps10 Tragedy Simulator), PS8 slamming with unlimited Regen... while doing damage (Miranda), Unlimited Regen in general (R2D2)...

Do these mechanics still exist? Yes, but they are toned down so much (save R2D2 crew). You have to bring new/different mechanics into the game, otherwise it's going to get stale and die faster than power creep will kill it.

That said, force is undercosted. As are most ps5+ ships.

8 minutes ago, Clutterbuck said:

I've been chewing on something, and I'm curious what thoughts others might have on the matter. People find the mobile fortressing strategy unpalatable, as it makes for a bad game experience. Rules language about creating and exploiting a stalemate provides justification for calling this strategy out of bounds. Fair enough. But the unpalatable strategy/bad game experience applies also to "score some points and run." Some have tried to make the case that that is "real X-Wing" or should count as dog fighting, but I'm pretty sure it is just as foreign to whatever the idealized form of X-Wing would be as is the mobile fortress. There is no rules language that I know of that can be stretched to try to declare the run away as out of bounds, though. What avenue, if any, is there to address this bit of unpalatability? The only thing I can conceive of is to change the tournament rules/structure in such a way as to make this a bad decision, though I'm not sure what form that might take.

A problem is that the “idealized form of X-Wing” isn’t actually universal. For example, you have people who view it as a narrative venture in which the struggle must end in one side’s total destruction, while others view it more in the parameters of a game with a time limit, thus ending with people still on the board and/or using strategies based on the time limit are acceptable. I believe there are more points of view to have and there is merit to be had by all. I’ve heard no end of “this element doesn’t belong in a dogfighting game” from game mechanics, to ship sizes, and even characters. I even have a few myself. But there is nearly always someone with an opposing view when it comes to the ideal form of X-Wing.

As for running away, that depends on your views of the game. If you wish to de-incentives that strategy, a more alluring option must be provided. There are a couple of suggestions I’ve liked at least the preliminary idea of (such as Regen doesn’t undo half points, and objectives), though also others I vehemently oppose (giving bids to opponents for free).

12 minutes ago, Smikies02 said:

This brings up a question...

How do we remember 1.0?

Because 1.0 to me was more heavily modded (More Blank modification), everyone R1 takes a guaranteed damage (HARPOONS), get in range and get shot (turrets), end up in front of a ship and take guaranteed damage (ps10 Tragedy Simulator), PS8 slamming with unlimited Regen... while doing damage (Miranda), Unlimited Regen in general (R2D2)...

Do these mechanics still exist? Yes, but they are toned down so much (save R2D2 crew). You have to bring new/different mechanics into the game, otherwise it's going to get stale and die faster than power creep will kill it.

That said, force is undercosted. As are most ps5+ ships.

I agree. When I say brings us back to 1.0 I mean it leads down the path back to 1.0, but we're of course still heaps and bounds away from that degeneracy

14 minutes ago, Smikies02 said:

As are most ps5+ ships.

I'm curious how much this is true, vs. there being a few i5 ships that stand out and see play a lot. Does anyone care enough to go categorize all the pilots and come back?

I'd add "initiative" as a column to ATC, but there's already so many and it's probably already overcrowded...

36 minutes ago, Clutterbuck said:

I've been chewing on something, and I'm curious what thoughts others might have on the matter. People find the mobile fortressing strategy unpalatable, as it makes for a bad game experience. Rules language about creating and exploiting a stalemate provides justification for calling this strategy out of bounds. Fair enough. But the unpalatable strategy/bad game experience applies also to "score some points and run." Some have tried to make the case that that is "real X-Wing" or should count as dog fighting, but I'm pretty sure it is just as foreign to whatever the idealized form of X-Wing would be as is the mobile fortress. There is no rules language that I know of that can be stretched to try to declare the run away as out of bounds, though. What avenue, if any, is there to address this bit of unpalatability? The only thing I can conceive of is to change the tournament rules/structure in such a way as to make this a bad decision, though I'm not sure what form that might take.

To some extent, many games devolve to a point where one list can't realistically beat another list - whether both players realize this is another matter.

However, what is more on the minds of everyone is really just hyper maneuverable, high-initiative aces with passive mods that can score points, then basically punish any further commitment by the opponent the rest of the game.

Some ability to address this is via points: part of the problem is that lists can bring too much of this - meaning you really only get this when you have a critical mass of all of this all this stuff.

6 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I'm curious how much this is true, vs. there being a few i5 ships that stand out and see play a lot. Does anyone care enough to go categorize all the pilots and come back?

so i grabbed my dataset since sept. bundled ships with 13+ appearances and averaged the conversion rate of ships grouped by PS (1-2, 3-4, 5-6)

generics (1-2) have a average 30% conversion vs aces/midrange ships who both average about 21%

Just now, RynoZero said:

so i grabbed my dataset since sept. bundled ships with 13+ appearances and averaged the conversion rate of ships grouped by PS (1-2, 3-4, 5-6)

generics (1-2) have a average 30% conversion vs aces/midrange ships who both average about 21%

ONE FACT the anti-word brigade doesn't want you to hear!

2 minutes ago, RynoZero said:

so i grabbed my dataset since sept. bundled ships with 13+ appearances and averaged the conversion rate of ships grouped by PS (1-2, 3-4, 5-6)

generics (1-2) have a average 30% conversion vs aces/midrange ships who both average about 21%

🤨 Would controlling for Trade Fed Drones alter the I1-2 conversion rate findings?

Just now, Hiemfire said:

🤨 Would controlling for Trade Fed Drones alter the I1-2 conversion rate findings?

actually its the Uwings you want to throw out the airlock.

but you can play with the numbers here

1 minute ago, RynoZero said:

actually its the Uwings you want to throw out the airlock.

but you can play with the numbers here

for serious, filter ATC to U-Wing.

It's kind of terrifying.

4 minutes ago, RynoZero said:

actually its the Uwings you want to throw out the airlock.

but you can play with the numbers here

Interesting. Heff and Benthic are looped in with the Generics. Reasoning?

Edit: Never mind. You're basing it on Init instead of limited vs not limited. Interesting.

38 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I don't remember what I said but I agree

sorry travis said. wrong krayt with a vader profile pic

Just now, Hiemfire said:

Interesting. Heff and Benthic are looped in with the Generics. Reasoning?

Grouping by initiative, not generic/unique, right?

2 hours ago, Brunas said:

we deserve our fate

59 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I'm not sure anymore. Or rather, I'm not sure that costing force appropriately is the best option.

you can also over cost it (my preference)

59 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Removing the passive mod, or at least changing it to one of the many different ideas, would be better than simply costing it appropriately. Because my notion of "appropriate" is quite high.

same team. but i know we can get easy errata making it prohibitively expensive to use, and there's also precedent for changing how a mechanic works in the rules (tractor).

Basically, they've got a lot of safety valves that make it difficult to ever get as bad as 1e. Even if there are flaws in the machine, its much harder for it to blow up.

4 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Grouping by initiative, not generic/unique, right?

I just caught that. The use of the term "generic" for everything below I3 instead of just non-limited pilots threw me.

Just now, Hiemfire said:

Interesting. Heff and Benthic are looped in with the Generics. Reasoning?

Just now, Brunas said:

Grouping by initiative, not generic/unique, right?

correct, perhaps not a perfectly accurate label to give them but were doing math at the speed of a forum thread.

but yes, Vultures need rocks to castle. Uwings castle where they please.

2 hours ago, skotothalamos said:

is there another strategy to this game?

Kill stuff first.

Decent number of ships in this game know they're doomed, but get their points worth first. Maybe the destination is the same, but the path is different.

1 hour ago, Brunas said:

It's kind of terrifying.

Quad Uwing is basically fortress of legend.

Also reposting my AMA question since I think its part of the way to address ace balance. Basically we dont need turrets, bombs, control, or new bid rules to save us from good aces. We just need developers who understand ace counter play is possible if they vigilantly keep its fundamentals available to players who get it. This cant be done strictly with pt increases. It has to be part of their design principles unless mechanical power creep is the preferred balancing method. If they dont take this moving first counterplay stuff seriously, good 360 equivalent turrets and bombs become inevitable.

2 hours ago, Clutterbuck said:

I've been chewing on something, and I'm curious what thoughts others might have on the matter. People find the mobile fortressing strategy unpalatable, as it makes for a bad game experience. Rules language about creating and exploiting a stalemate provides justification for calling this strategy out of bounds. Fair enough. But the unpalatable strategy/bad game experience applies also to "score some points and run." Some have tried to make the case that that is "real X-Wing" or should count as dog fighting, but I'm pretty sure it is just as foreign to whatever the idealized form of X-Wing would be as is the mobile fortress. There is no rules language that I know of that can be stretched to try to declare the run away as out of bounds, though. What avenue, if any, is there to address this bit of unpalatability? The only thing I can conceive of is to change the tournament rules/structure in such a way as to make this a bad decision, though I'm not sure what form that might take.

The only current win condition is damaging or destroying enemies, so that leaves you an issue that damaging enemies and not getting damaged are the only available strategies. The other problem is time. Ideally, tiebreakers when time runs out should be indicative of who would've won the game had it not gone to time since going to time is the game being unresolved (time is a component of the tournament packet so that we all don't spend all day for just to play two rounds , not the rule book or core game experience). The number of games going to time right now is concerning, breaking down even the best factions for not going to time, you still end up with over a third of games going to time with the average being around half. That likely indicates the time limit is too low (minimum 10-15 extra minutes is likely necessary to get more consistent finishes).

Regardless, it is an issue. You should never get to the point where The only winning move is not to play.

Did we ever get the definition of an ace? Was it something like “a ship that would rather no shots than trade shots”?

This seems relevant: ships that prefer no shots to trading shots lead to wins at time and low scores, even more so when both lists employ that strategy. When two lists want to trade shots (one is wrong and) games end quicker and more list based than decision based. One against the other strategy seems like the sweet spot for fun and interesting games, so we need both strategies viable for a fun game.

1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

• Blocking (Denies mods and shots sets up locks for future attacks to hit harder). Landing "close" to them or physically blocking them to open up a favorable k-turn option next turn.
• Pressure them to take stress from repositions and k turns (Gives more clues next turn on dial options, typically forces them to make a choice between mods, mobility, and next turns dial.)
• Use of Rocks and Obstacles ( prevent dial options and reposition choices ). Engaging near obstacles can make the opponents ship more predictable. Critical when moving first.

1. R2-A6, precog, SNR say lol. Passive dice mods via force charges means sometimes getting blocked is preferred because it reduces incoming shots.

2. Stressless double reposition and a dial that has both 1-turns AND 5-straights say lol.

3. Gas clouds and ftc say lol.

1 hour ago, AEIllingworth said:

Did we ever get the definition of an ace? Was it something like “a ship that would rather no shots than trade shots”?

This seems relevant: ships that prefer no shots to trading shots lead to wins at time and low scores, even more so when both lists employ that strategy. When two lists want to trade shots (one is wrong and) games end quicker and more list based than decision based. One against the other strategy seems like the sweet spot for fun and interesting games, so we need both strategies viable for a fun game.

I gave it a few episodes back

42 minutes ago, catachanninja said:

I gave it a few episodes back