5 minutes ago, SabineKey said:why is my advocation for less subjective language undesirable?
Practically speaking: Because it takes more words to say the same when it's largely the same audience here all the time. They know or pick up the meaning form the context. It is knowable. In this specific case it's also useful because the six letters contain a much more extensive concept. Which isn't difficult compared to 6 six letters, but hey, it's something.
Generally speaking, peeking behind the curtain: Groups very often create their own language and mannerisms to subconciously signal their affiliation. "Krayts" became a meme in itself, and "they" are responsible for everything bad under the X-wing sun (not an actual sun). I have no clue who is actually a real Krayt (not actual Krayt dragons, I liberally use it as shortcut for "Members of the Carolina Krayts X-Wing group and confirmed associates"), but I know about several regulars in this thread, myself included, that are most definitely not Krayts.
We use so much subjective language that I would like to know why you are so opposed against the usage of "bad" in that context.
Who actually feels better, the person who says "I feel good" or the person who says "I feel better"?
8 minutes ago, SabineKey said:as worded, I cannot agree with the need for “bad aces”.
I'll bite anyway. If I understand @Boom Owl correctly, then the short explanation of ["bad" ace*] as expression is something along the lines of:
"well balanced ace with restrictions that require meaningful decisions from the player(s)". Such a hypothetical ace (I call it "pink ace" for now. That's subjective language again) is considerably worse than current Anakin, Vader, Kylo, and other examples. That makes a pink ace worse than these mentioned examples of Anakin, Vader, or Kylo. Compared to those, the pink ace is bad. A bad ace. Or ["bad" ace]. This ace is not, however, actually bad in the conventional meaning of the word when we compare it to the rest of the game. Then the pink ace is actually balanced. But calling the ["bad" ace] a ["balanced" ace]** is probably even worse. The reason for that is that percieved balance of the game and actual balance of the game are not the same. That makes "balanced" an incredibly subjective term and as such entirely useless for these discussions. Plus, easily misunderstood because everyone(tm) wants balanced aces. But nobody wants aces to be actually bad, as in "below the general power curve of the game". That somewhat frees up the term "bad" when talking about goals of game balance. Nothing should be bad, after all.
Hence ["bad" ace].
*and I'm not going to define ace here, that's a whole other beast. Not actual beast, just a metaphorical one.
**that's now another definition I just made. Note the brackets
23 minutes ago, SabineKey said:I heartily disagree that we “should want them to be bad”. I want them balanced.
I don't know if it's actually disingenuous on your part, or if it was so confusing on my part. Giving you the benefit of the doubt: “should want them to be bad” was a shortened way to say:
It's the realization that we as players should want ships generally known as aces to have restrictions that require meaningful decisions from the players. Those restrictions allow FFG to leverage another balancing factor besides points (see for example Luke Gunner, which might only exist as either imbalanced or overpriced) by demanding decisions, and decisions always give the opportunity to make the wrong one.
And the second part "Being bad makes the game good.": This in turn leads to a better balanced game with a narrow power curve/spread and that in turn often leads to a more fun game where the card-game-aspect of list building matters less (not: none!) and choices during the game matter more (not: only!).
1 minute ago, Bucknife said:tldr:
I don't know who is who, and at this point I'm too afraid to ask!
