5 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

I think you should promote it a bit more. Just my 2 cents

I agree, this is the first I’ve heard of it

Jake Farrell + Crack Shot
Lieutenant Blount + Crack Shot
Bandit Squadron Pilot
Wedge Antilles + Servomotor S-foils + Crack Shot
Braylen Stramm + Jamming Beam + Crack Shot

remember when this super sick list took 2nd place at worlds

remember when nobody ever tried to copy it ever because it seemed harder to fly than 3 force aces and everyone just copied that instead

1 hour ago, svelok said:

remember when nobody ever tried to copy it ever because it seemed harder to fly than 3 force aces and everyone just copied that instead

I mean, it's not like those 3 Force aces are the list that actually won worlds over that Rebel list, or anything.

Which list is easier to play is not the only factor at work here, and I'd wager not even one most people will register. People will netdeck the winning list; they're much less likely to netdeck the runner up. I don't recall seeing much of Nand Torf's Torp Miri runner-up after Worlds 2017, for example, while Dengar-Tel started showing up everywhere.

6 hours ago, DR4CO said:

I mean, it's not like those 3 Force aces are the list that actually won worlds over that Rebel list, or anything.

Which list is easier to play is not the only factor at work here, and I'd wager not even one most people will register. People will netdeck the winning list; they're much less likely to netdeck the runner up. I don't recall seeing much of Nand Torf's Torp Miri runner-up after Worlds 2017, for example, while Dengar-Tel started showing up everywhere.

Disagree strongly. There are enough savvy players in X-Wing for a single list that does well somewhere to make a splash, especially if it did so on stream.

11 hours ago, svelok said:

Jake Farrell + Crack Shot
Lieutenant Blount + Crack Shot
Bandit Squadron Pilot
Wedge Antilles + Servomotor S-foils + Crack Shot
Braylen Stramm + Jamming Beam + Crack Shot

remember when this super sick list took 2nd place at worlds

remember when nobody ever tried to copy it ever because it seemed harder to fly than 3 force aces and everyone just copied that instead

One of them is the most recent successful version of an archetype that people have played since there were three aces that fit in one list, and it has at least two of the stronger ships in the game. The other one is a list in a faction people consider weaker (especially after January), is not super intuitive to understand how it works or wins compared to an ace list or a swarm list, uses ships with less obvious value (aka 2-die attackers), and features names like Lt. Blount.

Also, it won Nationals in Chile and Spain, which seems like a reasonable splash to make.

It’s a good list, but personally, I don’t play it because eww rebels I think there are better versions of this list in First Order (and maybe another faction or two), and those I definitely do play.

Put even more simply: one of them looks like Triple Imperial Aces, the other one looks like Tuesday Night Jank.

5 minutes ago, DoubleDown11 said:

Also, it won Nationals in Chile and Spain, which seems like a reasonable splash to make.

huh

friendship with the anglosphere ended, now the hispanosphere es mi mejor amigo

DTs list getting to final table at worlds is the coolest thing that has happened in 2.0.

11 hours ago, svelok said:

Jake Farrell + Crack Shot
Lieutenant Blount + Crack Shot
Bandit Squadron Pilot
Wedge Antilles + Servomotor S-foils + Crack Shot
Braylen Stramm + Jamming Beam + Crack Shot

remember when this super sick list took 2nd place at worlds

remember when nobody ever tried to copy it ever because it seemed harder to fly than 3 force aces and everyone just copied that instead

I played against it at LVO, it is a dope list but doesn't have big🍊 or big🟣 to cover up mistakes so I understand why people don't want to play it.

1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

DTs list getting to final table at worlds is the coolest thing that has happened in 2.0.

Can we pin this post or frame it somewhere?

Not this thread, but you'll know if it applies to you:

Why all the never ending talk about game design? We're all bad at it. Even the professional designers are sometimes bad at it. That does not mean we would do a better job, rather the opposite.

Points, ship/pilot/upgrade legality, specific mechanics, hypothetical new things. Why?

The only time they are interesting to me is when they help realize that something might already be there, waiting to be used.

19 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Points, ship/pilot/upgrade legality, specific mechanics, hypothetical new things. Why?

I am a firm believer that its fun to talk about design, format, gameplay mechanics, and in game tactics 🙂 Just talk about all of it, its fine. None of its better than any of the rest. All of its not particularly useful.

To cheer you up, here have some pointless occasionally incorrect ramblings about Trip Aces stuff that we all already mostly know.

Pre-amble to more detailed break down of Trip Ace Specific Engagement Type Visuals ( which mostly involve not making unnecessary decisions and waiting to decide on engage based on opponents turn 0-3 decisions ).

Examples of the Archetype:

• Vader Whisper GI
• Vader Whisper Soontir
• Vader Soontir GI
• Vader Soontir Duchess
• Soontir GI Duchess
• Soontir GI Rex
• Soontir Whisper Redline
• Vader Whisper Redline
• etc.

Things That Trip Aces Typically Do:

• Engage:
  • Tends to Partial Joust effectively with 1 or 2 flanking elements
  • Occasionally Full Jousts effectively against 2-5 ships but matchup dependent
  • Able to attack from 3 angles and disengage from the threatened angle via reposition
  • Tends not to commit to any flight paths in the early game unless an obvious flank or favorable partial joust is available
  • Able to change/adjust its engagement path on the fly, where it starts going isn't where it has to end up unless it goes to fast to early
  • Tends to want to avoid flying its ships into corner traps unless it earns a full multi round flank
  • Usually leverage Gas Clouds to improve joust trades or more commonly as disengage escape routes
  • When "jousting" it tends to have ways to perform essentially "white" kturns or sloop via Passive Mods or Held Locks from prior rounds
  • Usually has some way to either avoid kturning entirely or to perform actions while stressed
  • Tend to have action options after moving through obstacles
  • Usually have some type of Pre-Movement ability, either in system phase like Whisper or in activation like Precog etc.
  • Usually have "alpha" strike capability to directly carve out full or half points on a target(s) in the early game
  • Init Kill stacks in all phases of the game Early/Mid/End
  • Biggest threat is if it sets up a mid game where all 3 aces are in space attacking from multiple angles with the opponents list either split up or all in the center of the board ( This is when Recycling happens )
    
• End Game Preferences
  • Preserves MOV throughout by disengaging & recycling presented targets
  • Holds on to MOV really well after giving up half points
  • Tends to keep a piece out of combat entirely if necessary, or to force a flank
  • Builds a end game scenario that is acceptable for remaining Ace(s) to "solo"
  • Is not afraid to make trades if its building that acceptable end game. Vader's HP is a resource etc.
  • Tends to have really good control over what a trade will look like thanks to reliable offensive/defensive mods.
  • Becomes a question of how many arcs you want to be in for that initial trade.
  • Stack Passive mods on Def to mitigate multiple shots in one rd & blocking risk
  • Intentionally bump into things that could shoot them so they only have to defend against 1-2 shots instead of 3 etc.
  • Usually is ok with doing close to Zero Damage during a game if it suffers little damage in return.
  • Does not have to do meaningful damage to win games ( tends to be less true against some swarms )
  • Able to "snipe" mov at the very end of a game and can quickly flip scores in a matter of 1-2 rds.
  • Against lower init swarms its ok with spreading damage out to init kill 2 ships in a rd etc. Building those multi init kill rds is usually intentional.
    
• "Resource Management"
  • Force Charges as a Resource
    • Tries to stay in a rythm of keeping full or near full charges for offensive rather than defensive use
    • Willing to disengage to fully recharge force for a return joust or flanking run
  • Stress as a Resource
    • Most aces actively try to avoid taking stress
    • i.e. Soontir will take stress if he has to for avoiding shots or to fully token stack while in arc(s) etc.
    • Trick is that stress takes away from an aces "dial budget" and disengage options
    • Communicates a bunch of available dial options ( though not all of them since white moves are still possible )
    • Restricts K-Turn / Sloop / Talon Options
    • Avoiding stress is relevant to basically every ace in some capacity, some more than others
    • Part of managing stress as an ace involves setting up good angles of attack
  • Repositioning & Mobility as a Resource
    • I think of boosts and barrel rolls as another resource that spends my available focus/lock/evade budget that turn
    • Usually a big benefit to setting your dials well over multiple rounds to avoid having to reposition in the first place
    • Looks like this:
      • Avoid having to reposition to take shots
      • Avoid having to reposition to be out of arc
      • Avoid having to reposition to range control unless its helping you deny an opponent a TL
      • Avoid having to reposition to not hit obstacles the next turn
    • Edge Cases like Pre-movement Abilities
      • Don't go places that close down your decloak or precog/advsensor/super options
      • Its ok if you get forced into those spots, that happens. But dont opt into them without being prompted to.
    • Where aces engage changes how many reposition options are available
      • If you engage in/next to rocks that can make an opponents list more predictable but also makes the aces more predictable
      • Any ship (opposing or otherwise) serves a similar function to close off reposition options.
    • Alot of times having an arc dodging option closed off is more impactful than being blocked and defending against 1 less shot
  • Hit Points as a Resource
    • Ace players tend to be very conscious of how to spend HP in a favorable trade that
      • Sets up future turn init kills or immediately init kills a target
      • Sets up a multi turn flank via jousting that the opponent is baited into committing to in an effort to get half/full pts on a target
      • Sets up an acceptable end game scenario for remaining 1-2 aces.
    • Alot of times giving up half points on an ace can change an opponents behavior to where they will unnecessarily chase that target taking bad shots
      
• Archetype Matchups (More details to follow):
  • Against the Trip or Double Ace Mirror with a deeper bid or more i6s is worst case scenario
    • Mostly decided by who moves last with more/better things
    • Has options to deal with moving first against the mirror ( mainly kill their i6s so your i6s can move after their i5s )
    • Or force and win a joust that they choose to opt into.
  • Against Very Specific Swarms
    • More of a concern for less offensive trip ace variants that are not able to push out damage quickly
    • Some ace variants will have to take actual risks that compromise ideal defensive preferences
    • Usually requires accepting that something will take damage and that trading 1 ace is not game ending in and of itself.
    • Again gets back to understanding just how much 2 aces can lift against a swarm list.
    • I.e. 2 reasonably kit out aces can usually manage 5-6 lower init ships, less happy to manage 7-8
    • Control matters a great deal here, as tractor/ion/discord/bombs etc. can flip the script quick
    • In these games think of control as an ordinance alpha, if you avoid it they brought double digit points they didnt get to use
  • Against Beef
    • Unless the beef is hyper defensive or can k-turn with mods or function as a turret equivalent this matchup is the most favorable
    • 3-6 ships moving first are easy prey for basically any Empire Trip Ace list
    • Exceptions include things that move laterally or stall to force jousts and turtle beef that functions as a turret blob
    • 5x is an example of a middle ground list where the Trip Ace player should enter the matchup expecting to have to trade at some point
    • For the most part these tend to be inherently solvable game from the very beginning but cant play it to cagey in spots
  • Against the Ace + Mini Swarm
    • Quality of the matchup varies alot based on the specifics though it tends to favor the Trip Ace list
    • End games can unravel quickly if the one Ace gives up full or half to soon
    • Multi Ace variants are a little more problematic, i.e. a # of Ace + Mini swarm lists sometimes actually have 2 i5+ pieces
    • 3-5 lower init ships + 1 Ace can threaten 2 of the Trip Ace Aces
    • 3-4 lower init ships can threaten 1 of the Trip Ace Aces
    • 1-2 lower init ships + 1 Ace can threaten 1-2 of the Trip Ace Aces
    • 1-2 lower init ships are usually irrelevant against any 1 of the remaining Trip Ace Aces
    • Init kills matter a great deal as fast enough damage to the mini swarm can turn the game into Ace + 3 vs 3 Full Aces which is unfavorable

Insert Here ** In Progress MS Paint Visuals of typical Trip Ace Engagement Options (There are 3-5 ish total regardless of archetype being faced) and Engage+1 Scenarios vs Swarms/Beef/Mirror/Ace+Swarm

@Boom Owl, Holy blog post, Batman!!

Give that owl a cookie.

@GreenDragoon,

For my part, I especially enjoy design discussion. I'm a software developer, game modder, and practicing board game designer.

Talking about these things is literally all I do when I'm not working in surgeries at the hospital.

I think you nailed it on the head when you said that discussing design is valuable only when it uncover some existing thing that fulfills those objectives.

Edit: It's All about articulating what we like don't like, enjoy and don't enjoy about the game so that we can focus on what's most fun for us.

For me right now, that translates into playing some more scum and villainy instead of my main faction because I can find more enjoyment in those design spaces over shoehorning other ships or factions into a play style that they are not optimized to handle.

This then translates into me giving FFG more of my money for conversion kits etc, but I'm happy with that if it means at least some people get to do this thing for a living.

3 minutes ago, Bucknife said:

Give that owl a cookie rodent.

fixed. 😄

3 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Not this thread, but you'll know if it applies to you:

Why all the never ending talk about game design? We're all bad at it. Even the professional designers are sometimes bad at it. That does not mean we would do a better job, rather the opposite.

Points, ship/pilot/upgrade legality, specific mechanics, hypothetical new things. Why?

The only time they are interesting to me is when they help realize that something might already be there, waiting to be used.

I know why they're doing it, but I don't care.

1 hour ago, Bucknife said:

For me right now, that translates into playing some more scum and villainy instead of my main faction because I can find more enjoyment in those design spaces over shoehorning other ships or factions into a play style that they are not optimized to handle.

This then translates into me giving FFG more of my money for conversion kits etc, but I'm happy with that if it means at least some people get to do this thing for a living.

Same team.

Truth be told, I bought a Firespray and Fang Fighter at a local(ish) 2.0 release event and arguably, from a competitive standpoint, should have never bounced off. Boba/Fenn is everything I've dreamed Rey/Poe would be.

I seem to see more events going with the reverse hangar bay/"pick your poison" format (you bring two lists, your opponent chooses which you get to play). There's some interesting meta-strategy in this format.

1. Do you bring two lists of roughly equal power? Or do you pick one list you want to play, and one list you think your opponent will just take a hard pass on?
2. Do you bring two lists with the same strengths and weaknesses, or closer to the opposite?
3. How do you evaluate your opponent's lists to choose which one you fly against? What are you looking for as red flags (or big flashing "pick me" beacons)?

---

For me, I would say:

1. Originally I was trying to pick two equivalent lists, but outside of the established top tier stuff, I find it hard to really accurately gauge this in a vacuum. In one of these, I thought I brought two roughly equivalent lists, but 5-out-of-6 opponents picked one and expressed relief at not having to play the other. I think my approach now is to bring something I like and something I think they won't like so that I get to play with my favourite toys.
2. I think at first I wanted to bring two lists with the same rough archetype (e.g. I brought RAC/Whisper and Fat Rey/friends). I've wavered on this but I think this might still be the right call, as it lets you reliably pick your opponent's list without having too much variance in the list you're bringing to go against it.
3. If I have two lists with the same strengths/weaknesses, I first look for big silver bullet type stuff (e.g. my hull-heavy fat turrets were basically right out on any heavy TIE/x1 or other crit-themed list). Otherwise I just look for janky/inefficient builds and try to pick whichever list seems to have the most of that. Ships with extraneous upgrades, ace lists that I outbid with both of my lists, lists with sub-par pilots are all candidates for my pick.

1 hour ago, DoubleDown11 said:

I seem to see more events going with the reverse hangar bay/"pick your poison" format (you bring two lists, your opponent chooses which you get to play). There's some interesting meta-strategy in this format.

I love it! I think it is vastly superior as format. One reason is that, no matter the result, you had to pick your poison! Maybe paying for underestimating a list, maybe getting rewarded for choosing right.

1 hour ago, DoubleDown11 said:

Do you bring two lists of roughly equal power? Or do you pick one list you want to play, and one list you think your opponent will just take a hard pass on?

I think you nailed it, both are good approaches. Bonus points if you have two roughly equal lists that you want to play.

1 hour ago, DoubleDown11 said:

Do you bring two lists with the same strengths and weaknesses, or closer to the opposite?

Closer to the opposite. If they are the same then one will be worse, and you should then be forced to play only that (ignoring matchup specific strengths).

There is a rock paper scissors approach, but I look at it in a different way:

My main list has some types of bad matchups. For 5A, that is 3 agility ships and lots of HP. So I will always veto the 3 agility arcdodgers and bring a heavy jouster list. That way, my opponent has to give me my preferred list or a likely loss. I almost took a vulture swarm as second list btw. Would have been the better choice I think.

1 hour ago, DoubleDown11 said:

How do you evaluate your opponent's lists to choose which one you fly against? What are you looking for as red flags (or big flashing "pick me" beacons)?

Really depends a lot on your lists. I realize I answered that already, but to generalize the answer:

know your good and bad matchups. That plus your own preferred list will give you a good idea what to veto.

Last round I was offered FO aces or a rebel beef version. No matter which one I got, I had a very good matchup against the rebel list. Very different target priorities, mind you, but likely with the same result

9 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

There is a rock paper scissors approach, but I look at it in a different way:

My main list has some types of bad matchups. For 5A, that is 3 agility ships and lots of HP. So I will always veto the 3 agility arcdodgers and bring a heavy jouster list. That way, my opponent has to give me my preferred list or a likely loss. I almost took a vulture swarm as second list btw. Would have been the better choice I think.

But what if your opponent brought a pair of 3-agility Arc Dodger lists?

The advantage to bringing two of essentially the same list is that your opponent can't counter it. Bring FO and Imperial arc dodgers, and you'll end up flying one, and having similar strengths and weaknesses against any opponent. You'll potentially be able to force your opponent into an unfavorable match (like 5A).

Disadvantage is that you're kind of out-of-luck if your opponent has two lists which counter you. However, if your opponent has two counters to Agi3 Arc dodgers, and I brought A3AD and, say, four T-70s, they can just pick to fly against A3AD comfortable that they'll get one of the two hardcounters.

I guess I'd be more inclined to fly two similar lists.

//

Time allowing, a sweet format would be a conquest best-of-3. Against each opponent, you have to win with both of your two lists.

On 5/26/2020 at 11:01 AM, GreenDragoon said:

Not this thread, but you'll know if it applies to you:

You called?

Quote

Why all the never ending talk about game design? We're all bad at it. Even the professional designers are sometimes bad at it. That does not mean we would do a better job, rather the opposite.

How the game was/is created in an integral part of what the game is. One of the things I like about tossing my ideas up here is to see how well they stand up. I actually learn a lot by posting my imaginations.

Quote

hypothetical new things. Why?

The only time they are interesting to me is when they help realize that something might already be there, waiting to be used.

Basically you answered your own question.

Also, I guess I'd rather see folks post "this is my idea for a new ship we don't have" than "c'mon FFG, make this ship I want." The former at least takes a little initiative on the topic.

I miss seeing @weisguy119 out here. His campaign-level creations and imaginings are what I really enjoy. Somebody who is playing XWM outside the box.

7 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

But what if your opponent brought a pair of 3-agility Arc Dodger lists?

I think that's a mistake - of course not against me, but I'm betting on rational choices 😛

I think the trouble you encounter is if your opponent also brought two lists with the same strengths and weaknesses, you might just be choosing between two bad match-ups.

There's a prisoner's dilemma meta-game here. If we can all just agree to always take two lists with very different strengths and weaknesses, everyone will be on the same footing and we'll all be fine.

starts finding two most similar lists possible

How do you legalese the two separate lists rule?

As soon as you say "two different factions" I think you turn off too many single-faction players to be viable as the tournament standard

6 minutes ago, svelok said:

How do you legalese the two separate lists rule?

As soon as you say "two different factions" I think you turn off too many single-faction players to be viable as the tournament standard

Traditional Hangar Bay usually has a stipulation about neither of the two lists can have the same unique pilots/upgrades, doesn't it?

Although, people will immediately get around that with generic lists. "My droid swarm has all generics, this one all have struts, the other one droid doesn't!"

15 minutes ago, DoubleDown11 said:

I think the trouble you encounter is if your opponent also brought two lists with the same strengths and weaknesses, you might just be choosing between two bad match-ups.

There's a prisoner's dilemma meta-game here. If we can all just agree to always take two lists with very different strengths and weaknesses, everyone will be on the same footing and we'll all be fine.

starts finding two most similar lists possible

Hyperspace makes it difficult with aces. But let's say you bring two swarm lists. If your opponent has two lists, A is strong against swarms and B is weak. Then you veto A and get a great matchup. The only time it will be a bad matchup is when he has two that are good against swarms.

So, if you bring two very similar lists that are both strong, e.g. vulture and FOcho/ Infernoswarm before the nerf, then you should do well in most games? Hm... is that actually the rational choice then?

My counter is that one swarm is very much inferior. And particularly hyperspace is balanced enough that *the weaker version of the archetype* does not have a very favorable matchup anymore.

On 5/26/2020 at 12:01 PM, GreenDragoon said:

Not this thread, but you'll know if it applies to you:

Why all the never ending talk about game design? We're all bad at it. Even the professional designers are sometimes bad at it. That does not mean we would do a better job, rather the opposite.

Points, ship/pilot/upgrade legality, specific mechanics, hypothetical new things. Why?

The only time they are interesting to me is when they help realize that something might already be there, waiting to be used.

Because it's fun 😉

Power Creep Thought Experiment

-

So, let's build a hypothetical game to try and understand how power creed can happen because, I feel like most people don't quite get exactly what role accretion plays. Power Creep is legitimately hard to avoid even if you have a good design team, and here's a thought experiment to try and help understand the problem.

-

We have a hypothetical card game where the players make a deck of 10 cards (mechanics and number of factions aren't important) and our first expansion will have 20 cards per faction. We want to start off strong, so we have 2 slightly above curve cards per faction that really help to define faction identity, nothing too over the top, but we do want these defining cards to see play. We also want 4 cards that are pretty situational or very combo dependent and will probably be below curve in most situations. The other 14 cards are going to be our go-to base curve cards to round out the factions.

-

Unless we put serious effort into making the 2 faction-defining cards not easily played together, all decks will have both of them. Of the four situational combo- cards, most decks will only have 1, maybe 2 on a stretch. So the most likely breakdown will be:

Cards Available per faction:

Good- 10%

Medium- 70%

Bad- 20%

Cards Used per faction:

Good- 20%

Medium- 75%

Bad- 5%

-

Here, we already see the core of the problem i.e. opportunity cost. Players will trend towards the strongest elements making them universally over-represented regardless of how much of the game as a whole actually has of them.

-

But, for the next four expansions, we know how this works, so we're going to adjust the ratio to add more of the situational elements and limit the faction-defining cards with 1 of the above curve cards, 6 of the below curve cards and everything else in the middle, so after each faction has a 100 cards, the breakdwon will be:

Good- 6%

Medium- 60%

Bad- 34%

So we're weighted lower with overall content than we were originally, but what will a deck look like? Again, unless we really try to make the faction-defining cards not easily played together, we're going to see likely between 4-6 (I'll call it 5), I'm saying .5 bad cards because there's a chance it combos with a much better card or counters a much better card which allows to still get good value despite being generally below curve. So our breakdown of used cards would be:

Good- 50%

Medium- 45%

Bad- 5%

-

Despite an effort to weight overall available options lower on the curve, the natural tendency to use the best options, combined with a limited opportunity-cost of what players can field, results in the overall power level of a deck going up dramatically, despite the power level across all elements going down. And this is how unintentional power creep happens and it's hard to avoid. If you add elements over time, not all of them will be equal, the trash will be discarded and the gems will be added to existing good elements. This is also why game designers should, ideally, build themselves ways to correct power levels (things like apps or digital point costs) because it will inevitably get out of hand and you need a way to reign it in.

I look at game (re)design discussions as a high-brow way of complaining about the game.

[edit] - That may not be accurate, but that's how I see it. "I don't like thing X, what if thing X was more like thing Y?"