discord died, press F to pay respects

what were we talking about?

1 hour ago, Kieransi said:

discord died, press F to pay respects

what were we talking about?

Ensnaring your own ships is the last bit I got

1 minute ago, jagsba said:

Ensnaring your own ships is the last bit I got

1 hour ago, Kieransi said:

discord died, press F to pay respects

weak internet banished

heaver's ensnare vs howard's force aces final, wave 5 is Cool and Very Fun

Who won? Missed it.

it's starting right now

What if there was a rule that said you had to take two ships less than i5 for each ship i5+?

11 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

What if there was a rule that said you had to take two ships less than i5 for each ship i5+?

this would be interesting. I also think force limitations like in Legion might be cool

like, make all the i6 and all the high-reposition i5s be "ace units" and say that you can have at max 1 ace unit per squad

3 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

this would be interesting. I also think force limitations like in Legion might be cool

Force limitations where you're capped at a certain # of force per list

38 minutes ago, svelok said:

weak internet banished

heaver's ensnare vs howard's force aces final, wave 5 is Cool and Very Fun

yeah we only pay Comcast $80 a month, needed to get a more epic lootbox. thanks @ISP oligopoly

14 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

What if there was a rule that said you had to take two ships less than i5 for each ship i5+?

I think it takes away people’s freedom to play what they enjoy, reduces archetype options, and ultimately would simply just change the problem rather than fix it.

2 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

I think it takes away people’s freedom to play what they enjoy, reduces archetype options, and ultimately would simply just change the problem rather than fix it.

It's like poetry

2 minutes ago, jagsba said:

It's like poetry

Care to explain how and why it confused you?

1 minute ago, SabineKey said:

Care to explain how and why it confused you?

Restrictions are interesting and good

22 minutes ago, jagsba said:

Force limitations where you're capped at a certain # of force per list

limitation being 3, yes?

19 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

I think it takes away people’s freedom to play what they enjoy, reduces archetype options, and ultimately would simply just change the problem rather than fix it.

only for certain competitive play

8 minutes ago, jagsba said:

Restrictions are interesting and good

Then why didn’t you just say that? Would have saved time then a cryptic reply and misused reaction.

And while I do prefer this direct response, I must criticize it for not having an actual answer to my last point. I do not see how the suggestion actually fixes anything, it just changes the problem. If you feel I am missing something, I would love to have a conversation about this.

By the way, I put a Corran/Kyle/Wulff list onto the virtual mat. The list needs some more points and I suspect that January might bring the 4-6 it needs.

Does Corran prefer Afterburners (like Vader) or does he prefer Hull/Shield to up the threshold by one?

2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

only for certain competitive play

As long as that means there is a way to Worlds that doesn’t use this limitation, then my concerns are less problematic.

also I agree that restrictions are good. The problem of no restrictions is that it makes mono-spam lists legal. I'm talking archetypally here.

A common example of monospam that is bad is massed TIE Interceptors. It creates matchup dependence - in 90%+ of matchups, five Sabers are not great, but in those 10% against lower initiative that cares about positioning, they're a monster. Pentuple Soontir, no thanks.

5 X-Wings is similar. Whether or not it would be good, we don't want to see it, and thus the poor Blue Squadron Rookie is doomed to be overpriced.

Triple ace is an archetype that should not exist. It is similar to monospam of anything else in that some matchups will be really bad and some will be really good. This is not ok in my opinion because I want to play the game, not lose in the matchup pairing phase.

That being said, there are people who disagree fundamentally with that. I have talked to a lot of people who basically said that they don't want games purely determined by luck and skill, they want the listbuilding and matchups to factor into it. So idk what you think of that, but personally I hate rock/paper/scissors and thus hate spam of any one thing, so I think triple aces (or triple trajectory bombers, or quadruple passive sensor proton torpedoes, or any other archetype spam) should not exist.

1 minute ago, Kieransi said:

matchups

The least explored and discussed topic of xwing

7 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Then why didn’t you just say that? Would have saved time then a cryptic reply and misused reaction.

Because any chance is to quote @catachanninja is a chance worth taking. And I stand by my reaction.

7 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

And while I do prefer this direct response, I must criticize it for not having an actual answer to my last point. I do not see how the suggestion actually fixes anything, it just changes the problem. If you feel I am missing something, I would love to have a conversation about this.

I mean, I don't see how changes the problem instead of fixing it.

33 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

I think it takes away people’s freedom to play what they enjoy, reduces archetype options, and ultimately would simply just change the problem rather than fix it.

This is the way.

14 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Does Corran prefer Afterburners (like Vader) or does he prefer Hull/Shield to up the threshold by one?

Socrates was a huge afterburners fan, but Plato thought it wise to pay for more HP, and so the age old question continues. Given the lack of good link actions on the E-wing I’m inclined to lean afterburners but extra hull or shield could be just as useful.

6 minutes ago, jagsba said:

Because any chance is to quote @catachanninja is a chance worth taking. And I stand by my reaction.

I mean, I don't see how changes the problem instead of fixing it.

Then perhaps you should put into words what confuses you, like your second point. It would make explaining myself easier. 😀

From watching your posts and behavior, you have a problem with high initiative Aces, particularly force capable ones. Applying @Biophysical‘s suggestion still means I can take B7 Obi & Mace both with regen, and have points left over for a R5 Wolffe, or a CTL Ahsoka with say Chopper on board. Thus, Jedi Aces mutate, and are not fixed. I also seem to recall you expressing dislike for Rz-2s. The current 5A list I’ve seen only has one i5, thus unaffected by this suggestion.

Now, if I have misunderstood your stances or the purpose of this suggestion, I do apologize. I welcome correction and comment.

16 minutes ago, FlyingAnchors said:

This is the way.

Good line.

As a thesis with no backing explanation, I do admit to finding it less than illuminating.

22 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

also I agree that restrictions are good. The problem of no restrictions is that it makes mono-spam lists legal. I'm talking archetypally here.

A common example of monospam that is bad is massed TIE Interceptors. It creates matchup dependence - in 90%+ of matchups, five Sabers are not great, but in those 10% against lower initiative that cares about positioning, they're a monster. Pentuple Soontir, no thanks.

5 X-Wings is similar. Whether or not it would be good, we don't want to see it, and thus the poor Blue Squadron Rookie is doomed to be overpriced.

Triple ace is an archetype that should not exist. It is similar to monospam of anything else in that some matchups will be really bad and some will be really good. This is not ok in my opinion because I want to play the game, not lose in the matchup pairing phase.

That being said, there are people who disagree fundamentally with that. I have talked to a lot of people who basically said that they don't want games purely determined by luck and skill, they want the listbuilding and matchups to factor into it. So idk what you think of that, but personally I hate rock/paper/scissors and thus hate spam of any one thing, so I think triple aces (or triple trajectory bombers, or quadruple passive sensor proton torpedoes, or any other archetype spam) should not exist.

Fair, but as I read your logic, it seems to also make the idea of Swarms likewise problematic. Do you think the TIE Swarm has a place in the game? And if yes, why?

34 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

A common example of monospam that is bad is massed TIE Interceptors.

You are dead to me.

25 minutes ago, FlyingAnchors said:

Socrates was a huge afterburners fan, but Plato thought it wise to pay for more HP, and so the age old question continues. Given the lack of good link actions on the E-wing I’m inclined to lean afterburners but extra hull or shield could be just as useful.

Frederick the Great was a fan of burners, though, and he knew more about fighting than both of them.