12 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Because that makes them worse than without those restrictions. I.e., bad compared to the current (and more so 1.0) version.

It's the realization that we as players should want them to be bad. Being bad makes the game good. Hence quotation marks.

Why should we want aces to be bad and not balanced?

2 minutes ago, IridiumR6 said:

Why should we want aces to be bad and not balanced?

"Bad" as defined in the first sentence, meaning with restrictions. I don't think you read the context of the reply.

Balancing can usually be achieved through points, but uses an entirely different lever than restrictions.

We need more upgrades like Bossk and Greedo where you decide during listbuilding that you will pay something other than points for an ability.

28 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

I left the thread for seven hours.... and I have an actual job that I sometimes tend too.

That said, this thread went from bashing swarms, fragile aces to literally pumping fat turrets. I agree @Tlfj200, this is simply a weird tilt to the weeks end. Happy Friday all.

...now where's my pint?

Happy Friday the 13th mind you

33 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Because that makes them worse than without those restrictions. I.e., bad compared to the current (and more so 1.0) version.

It's the realization that we as players should want them to be bad. Being bad makes the game good. Hence quotation marks.

Yeah, I cannot agree to that. I don’t want them bad. I want them balanced. There is a difference.

24 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

"Bad" as defined in the first sentence, meaning with restrictions. I don't think you read the context of the reply.

Balancing can usually be achieved through points, but uses an entirely different lever than restrictions.

We need more upgrades like Bossk and Greedo where you decide during listbuilding that you will pay something other than points for an ability.

But that is not the definition of bad. Bad is the opposite of good, not less good.

A 72 point Poe that has (in a vacuum) even odds of beating 3 TIE fighters (also 72 points) isn’t bad. That same Poe that has less of a chance of winning against 3 TIES is bad. The first example is what I want and strive for. Balance. The second example is something I oppose vehemently.

Which example are you trying to get to?

8 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

But that is not the definition of bad. Bad is the opposite of good, not less good

We’re breaking bad. Bad as in it’s not too good which isn’t bad.

I think...

Just now, LagJanson said:

We’re breaking bad. Bad as in it’s not too good which isn’t bad.

I think...

And it is partly because of the confusion you just inflicted on yourself that I oppose the use of the misuse of the term bad when discussing balance.

1 minute ago, SabineKey said:

And it is partly because of the confusion you just inflicted on yourself that I oppose the use of the misuse of the term bad when discussing balance.

That sounds bad too

4 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

That sounds bad too

In what way?

19 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Yeah, I cannot agree to that. I don’t want them bad. I want them balanced. There is a difference.

So, you don't want restrictions?

12 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Which example are you trying to get to?

See, I don't think you read carefully enough because the answer is neither. Explicitly so, even.

Restrictions + points adjustment. Different levers. Not restrictions with points being equal.

16 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

But that is not the definition of bad. Bad is the opposite of good, not less good.

Bad is always relativ. Bad compared to what? That means that, of course, there can be different levels of bad. We are capable of nuance. Generally.

A particular Hearthstone card review has stuck with me ever since I heard it: "This card is not unfair enough to see play."

At least to me, "bad aces" are any aces which aren't unfair enough to see play.

3 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

In what way?

The confusion bit. Not the misuse of words, which I most definitely never do.

21 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

So, you don't want restrictions?

Where did I say that? Does wanting to be more accurate wording mean I don’t want restrictions?

To be clear: I want restrictions that make the game better. I don’t want one that make things unplayable, or impose restrictions I don’t think are necessary. I want restrictions that make Jedi Aces a balanced and fun part of X-Wing.

Thus I have voiced my support without using the word bad because it doesn’t fit.

21 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

See, I don't think you read carefully enough because the answer is neither. Explicitly so, even.

Restrictions + points adjustment. Different levers. Not restrictions with points being equal.

Right. Different levers who’s job is the same: balance. Making something balanced so that 80 points of one thing and 80 points of another isn’t just about changing points, but also how restrictions are applied. If you have a better way to evaluate different things objectively to see if they are balanced, I would love to hear it.

21 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Bad is always relativ. Bad compared to what? That means that, of course, there can be different levels of bad. We are capable of nuance. Generally.

If so, then why are you so opposed to alter your wording to better convey your message?

17 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

A particular card game review has stuck with me ever since I heard it: "This card is not unfair enough to see play."

At least to me, "bad aces" are any aces which aren't unfair enough to see play.

Cool. You say bad, I think of all the ships and pilots who don’t see play because they are actually bad. So forgive me if I voice opposition to seeing anything made bad.

19 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

The confusion bit. Not the misuse of words, which I most definitely never do.

I agree. Confusion is bad. I’m hoping to clean some up.

34 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

We are capable of nuance

No, we absolutely are not

22 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Where did I say that? Does wanting to be more accurate wording mean I don’t want restrictions?

"I don't want them bad"

That means "not less good", which means "no restrictions compared to now".

22 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

To be clear: I want restrictions that make the game better. I don’t want one that make things unplayable, or impose restrictions I don’t think are necessary. I want restrictions that make Jedi Aces a balanced and fun part of X-Wing.

So we all agree and it's just about semantics and framing the message then. I said it like this:

Quote

It's the realization that we as players shouldwant them to be bad. Being bad makes the game good.

22 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Right. Different levers who’s job is the same: balance.

Yes. We're agreeing. That's why I told you you misunderstood and your example was a false dichotomy.

22 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

If so, then why are you so opposed to alter your wording to better convey your message?

I understood what he (=BoomOwl) meant. Many people here understand what ["bad" ace] means. That makes it good enough. It's not like this was going to be a widely circulated breakthrough in xwing theory.

22 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

"I don't want them bad"

That means "not less good", which means "no restrictions compared to now".

Except that’s not the definition of bad. The definition is: “of poor quality or a low standard” and “not such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome.”

You can have restrictions without it being bad. You missed the nuance.

22 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

"I don't want them bad"

That means "not less good", which means "no restrictions compared to now".

So we all agree and it's just about semantics and framing the message then. I said it like this:

Considering your unwillingness to use other terms and continue to use a term you yourself described as subjective when it is obviously not working, I am worry we don’t agree. What’s more important, accurately explaining yourself or people agreeing with your definition of bad?

22 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Yes. We're agreeing. That's why I told you you misunderstood and your example was a false dichotomy.

Not seeing it. How is wanting things to balance point wise, a main factor of the game, not get the point across? How do you better evaluate balance?

22 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I understood what he meant. Many people here understand what ["bad" ace] means. That makes it good enough. It's not like this was going to be a widely circulated breakthrough in xwing theory.

Is that all that matters? That people who agree with your definitions understand?

And while you say it’s not circulating, did you know that others take this wording and examples else where, spreading it? If it was just here, then I’d leave it be. But it’s not. And I am not convinced some people using it don’t actually mean the definition of bad I showed above.

So, with me feeling confusion, why is my advocation for less subjective language undesirable?

5 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Except that’s not the definition of bad. The definition is: “of poor quality or a low standard” and “not such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome.”

You can have restrictions without it being bad. You missed the nuance.

We move in circles now. All has been said that needs to be said.

6 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

What’s more important, accurately explaining yourself or people agreeing with your definition of bad?

To be understood by the target audience.

8 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Is that all that matters? That people who agree with your definitions understand?

Yes?

3 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

We move in circles now. All has been said that needs to be said.

To be understood by the target audience.

Yes?

Ah. I see I am not the target audience. Even though you are the one who engaged with me first, and I was talking with someone else, I am not the target audience.

Good to know.

21 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Is that all that matters? That people who agree with your definitions understand?

Of course it is not ALL that matters. I can guess what adjusted definition of "all" you used here. Because of context and previously established meanings that some form of a collective "we" agreed to.

I'm all for precise language (different "all" here, funny how that works), but we should be flexible enough to expand meanings and incorporate expressions when useful. The short "bad ace" conveys a specific meaning in just 6 letters. That's very useful.

9 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Ah. I see I am not the target audience. Even though you are the one who engaged with me first, and I was talking with someone else, I am not the target audience.

Good to know.

I mean, it's even worse. You did understand perfectly well, but seem to be on a crusade against using "bad" in this way.

2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Of course it is not ALL that matters. I can guess what adjusted definition of "all" you used here. Because of context and previously established meanings that some form of a collective "we" agreed to.

I'm all for precise language (different "all" here, funny how that works), but we should be flexible enough to expand meanings and incorporate expressions when useful. The short "bad ace" convey a specific meaning in just 6 letters. That's very useful.

I mean, it's even worse. You did understand perfectly well, but seem to be on a crusade against using "bad" in this way.

22 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

why is my advocation for less subjective language undesirable?

19 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

So, with me feeling confusion, why is my advocation for less subjective language undesirable?

It's also context. This thread is at least half s**tposts, and complaining about how young folks talk on the internet is kinda

6 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

It's also context. This thread is at least half s**tposts, and complaining about how young folks talk on the internet is kinda

I’m aware. Then it’s used outside this thread, not as s**t posts.

Look. If you want to use your definitions, go for it. I shouldn’t impede that and I do apologize. However, as worded, I cannot agree with the need for “bad aces”. I heartily disagree that we “should want them to be bad”. I want them balanced.

tldr:

3 hours ago, Brunas said:

Is Luke Gunner the giantdad of xwing?

No, but quite possibly the Zweihander