10 minutes ago, LUZ_TAK said:

I thourougly enjoy no variance, pure skill games (top of the list: Go/Baduk/Weiki), even if I suck big time at most of them. It's just not what I want for X-wing. I like cinematics over chess-like calculations and 10-step-chain-combos.

I like the game we have now, or better with even with less... clutter? Like the "revealed maneuver" ruling fiasco and the like.

But, to each its own.

Don't get me wrong, I think Xwing is in a great spot in that regard. I also enjoy that we're not living in the dice-free dark times of late 1.0 anymore. I want variance. I don't want extreme variance.

33 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

• Do you get bailed out despite making a mistake?
• Do you get punished despite making the right call?
• Do you get roughly what you deserve based on the choices (hidden info part and taken actions)?

When dice bail out, my victory rings a touch hollow. When dice punish objectively stronger play versus my opponent, it feels bad.

That said, zero variance is hard for me to imagine. Like...has anyone ever tried testing an x-wing variant where everyone always gets exactly average results? Like, each defence die is 0.375, plus 0.25 if you focus. Etc. Damage can be dealt in decimal increments. Does "good flying" look substantially different in this game? If not, what do we lose with decreased variance?

Just now, Ablazoned said:

Like...has anyone ever tried testing an x-wing variant where everyone always gets exactly average results?

I could swear I've heard of people doing some tournament of exactly this before but for the life of me I can't remember where.

1 minute ago, Ablazoned said:

When dice bail out, my victory rings a touch hollow. When dice punish objectively stronger play versus my opponent, it feels bad.

That said, zero variance is hard for me to imagine. Like...has anyone ever tried testing an x-wing variant where everyone always gets exactly average results? Like, each defence die is 0.375, plus 0.25 if you focus. Etc. Damage can be dealt in decimal increments. Does "good flying" look substantially different in this game? If not, what do we lose with decreased variance?

See above, I would not want zero variance myself. 1.0 was not fun with it.

But I've wanted to try that for a long time now, never got around to do it though. If nothing else it should be great practice. Especially then you do not want extreme cases.

We played a game on the eve of UK System Open. First shot was a 3% chance to erase an A-Wing. That means the rest will be largely a waste of time - unless you want to redefine the goal and see what you can do with 80% of a list in an already bad matchup.

10 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

10 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

See above, I would not want zero variance myself. 1.0 was not fun with it.

Was it zero variance in itself that was unfun? Or was it the facts that:

1. Magic dice were strictly limited to a narrow set of builds and pilots, many of whom were not iconic in the lore and

2. Zero variance, high-output defence dice mean very little progress is often made throughout a whole match

3. Output was typically not dependent on positioning/tactical disposition

No-variance die could be an optional mod for Fly Casual, for example. I would never play it.

21 minutes ago, LUZ_TAK said:

No-variance die could be an optional mod for Fly Casual, for example. I would never play it.

Can I ask why? That sounds great to me. Fly Casual is not exactly difficult anyway, but it can give a bit of a feeling for a list. No variance would improve that even more.

1 hour ago, ClassicalMoser said:

Oh no, I mean you get to choose your dice results for each roll. You can choose to blank out on this roll to get 3 hits on the next one, etc. With a sufficiently limited deck size (3-4 dice) it becomes tricky because once you use up your good evade cards, you're very vulnerable until you run your hand out and your opponent can play into that.

But again that would be a super super different game, and probably too easily optimized.

Oh, yeah, I don't like that at all.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

You say variance adds emotion. For me, that emotion is largely negative. I hate it when the dice rob my opponent. For example, I played and won against Oli, but he was so much better it should not have been close. Except that dice happened.

Mostly, I just have a few specific dice variance-y games in my head, and mostly I think back on them as good memories. That probably has more to do with the people I was playing with more than anything. Also, I'm typically quite lucky, so the games where my luck goes bad are often kind of funny to me.

My average X-Wing is more

rather than

so it's just best for me to have good humor about it.

Indeed, when my opponent's dice go completely bad, I do feel guilty.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

I want variance. I don't want extreme variance.

Narrowing the variance can increase enjoyment. Mark Rosewater talked about the development of such a card in this article:

Quote

This card was hard to get right. It started off as "Man of Impeccable Timing" and the gag was that he was very weak, but if you could get in just once (perhaps with his impeccable timing), then he was great. The problem is that cards with that kind of delta are not very fun at common, and not very fun at all. We kept playing around with numbers that would make it work with renown 2, but found that the 3/2 haste version and renown 1 was just the more fun version.

I think this would also help with cards that are hard to balance for play, or swing strongly between garbage and great.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

See above, I would not want zero variance myself. 1.0 was not fun with it.

I think what got unfun wasn't that 1e had low variance, but 1e had high modification. Higher mods do reduce variance, but it's possible to reduce variance while keeping modifications at a relatively low level.

It's like, double or triple the dice pool and you reduce variance in a really different way than 1e Autothrusters. Double or triple pools, or using "statistical averages" and allowing fractional damage, that reduces variance, but keeps the average effect about the same. Autothrusters just brought up the average.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

...but he was so much better it should not have been close. Except that dice happened.

I actually kinda love when I'm teaching a friend X-Wing and they clobber me...

I know they feel great, and that means they'll probably play again!

Now, I usually get the opposite effect when I teach someone and then smash them. They say things like, "oh, I guess that was pretty fun. The ships are cool."

47 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Can I ask why? That sounds great to me. Fly Casual is not exactly difficult anyway, but it can give a bit of a feeling for a list. No variance would improve that even more.

I like dice variance in X-wing. I like having, every now and then, an impossible shot lande true and an ambushed ship to miracoulously get away. It adds to the excitment and my enjoyment of the game.

https://illiteracyhasdownsides.com/2020/06/13/how-to-get-worse-at-starcraft-ii/

Quote

I thought that the learning curve was an inevitability, but I realized that it was actually a conscious choice: do I do something that’s uncomfortable that will eventually push me to be better? Or do I prioritize winning right now, even if it doesn’t help me later?

Sharing this because part of it might apply to X-Wing, too. I know it does for me.

We did it!

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2020/6/26/x-wing-points-update/

1 minute ago, Boom Owl said:

We did it!

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2020/6/26/x-wing-points-update/

You are evil.

7 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

https://illiteracyhasdownsides.com/2020/06/13/how-to-get-worse-at-starcraft-ii/

how is sc2 not a dead game? I remember sc2 being a dying game already when I was playing 8 years ago

11 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

We did it!

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2020/6/26/x-wing-points-update/

Monday though

7 minutes ago, svelok said:

how is sc2 not a dead game? I remember sc2 being a dying game already when I was playing 8 years ago

eh

on one hand it died with Life and MOBAs. But it is also way more exciting now and the players are generally more skilled. That is, more builds, more special stuff. I personally think that 2013-2014 was peak SC2. WoL was cute (and awesome!) in restrospect. HotS was simply amazing until the matchfix scandals.

I'm back to xwing after a long covid lockdown induced hiatus, what's the hottest take on 5a after hot shots? It has come to my attention I might be undervaluing the archetype, so I need to play it

1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

We did it!

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2020/6/26/x-wing-points-update/

**** you

why did I open this thread again ffs

3 hours ago, svelok said:

how is sc2 not a dead game? I remember sc2 being a dying game already when I was playing 8 years ago

Solved metas are pretty boring....

But some people like winning even if they're bored.

23 minutes ago, Bucknife said:

Solved metas are pretty boring....

But some people like winning even if they're bored.

How is the meta solved? Blizzard keeps changing the health of bunkers.

Unironic Hi @Sunitsa. We missed you.

1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

Unironic Hi @Sunitsa. We missed you.

Same team, hi Sunitsa

3 hours ago, Sunitsa said:

I'm back to xwing after a long covid lockdown induced hiatus, what's the hottest take on 5a after hot shots? It has come to my attention I might be undervaluing the archetype, so I need to play it

**** you

why did I open this thread again ffs

5A bad. Invest in Poe+ 3.

(Welcome back! wait for Monday points update for the hot takes to roll in, you picked a perfect time to return. Although if Dion has the space jams in meta wing, maybe some 5A stats in there?)

7 hours ago, Sunitsa said:

I'm back to xwing after a long covid lockdown induced hiatus, what's the hottest take on 5a after hot shots?

Not viable in extended.

One of the worst matchups is against Boba, and Boba dominated hyperspace. So, basically no 5A around since January.

And today I learned about Levenshtein distances. That could be adopted to compare list similarities and group archetypes.