The answer is that Hyperspace is probably fine.

1 hour ago, Cuz05 said:

Actually, let's not.

Take 6 Nantexans with 70-60% of their talents removed. Do they still massively (and rightfully), punish lazy aces with their continuous coverage and matching Init on the I4 components?

Quite possibly. Those talents will not be firing off all the time in these matches and could probably considered little bit win more.

Given the amount of things that look to be arriving that will also punish lazy aces, perhaps this balance is returning anyway.

However, 6 Crack and a smattering of Predator, combined with the dial and roll at I4 to use them, pushes them a decent amount above anything that isn't an ace.

So. That. Screw aces, I don't care. That's not why I am hopping on the complaint bus.

Also mcschobes, troll all you like, it's water of a ducks back here. Just makes you look a bit, I dunno, desperate? Bored? I don't want to insult you in a dismissive and patronising way, but it isn't easy.

Peace, love, all good things to all people. Outski.

Challenge accepted. I really don't believe that they do.

If you want to buy a bunch of i4, talentless nantexes to play against triple aces, by all means, proceed governor.

16 minutes ago, S4ul0 said:

What are you talking about? Maybe the CS is a problem for lazy Aces, but the turret + reposition are easy three attack dice against low Initiative pilots.

I actually agree with this. I think what @Chumbalaya was noting is that this, for us, is head sim, because we havent even seen anyone have that problem yet. People are just jousting (naively).

But yes, this is an issue. We are trying to actually agree, but then we are presented with ace pictures of "tHeRe wAs nOtHiNg wE cOuLd dO!" and we have a huge thinking emoji for a response.

16 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

Labouring a point, take the humble Scyk. One of the reasons I like them so much, (apart from 3ag for when I F up, ofc),

Unrelated, but quoting because I like it.

"There it is"

6 minutes ago, Npmartian said:

I was not aware this thread had a bar of any kind.

The realist of talk.

1 minute ago, pheaver said:

Chumby, you could look at Oli's game vs them, where he played Dash Jake Wedge and beat them. I liked how he played, and his commentary shows his thinking of how to play against them. It was only an hour or so long, so a pretty easy watch.

As for the Nantexes, I think I'm in agreement with everyone else that they (and crack shot) are a little underpriced. I wonder how 6 naked i4s would do against the standard triple ace list. I think it'd be a fair fight.

But yes, the level of bullying that happens since they get to absolutely CRUSH anything lower init than them is pretty terrifying. I was super happy with my Sabine + 4 wookiee list, but I can't do better than a 200-100 loss vs the Nantexes right now. If they didn't have crack and a reroll, I think I'd be more confident in it being a game.

Back on topic - we're trying to agree.

But no, at no point do we feel that 6 naked nantexes just lazily win against aces. The idea that aces should have to work, or wouldn't lose ships is a travesty.

If you play triple aces, you should expect to lose a ship every game.

Your opponent can always turn into one of your ships in a three-wide flank, and if they have 4+ ships, the idea that your ace "earned" the right to live is... well, a very interesting assumption. The actual thought is that your high initiative and other flanks will put the opponent's list out of position, and you can win the points/attrition game, as they have to manuever/k-turn back into position to even threaten further shots.

However, what I actually see is that people saying "I can't believe I died there!" and "I don't think I should have died there" and "you were lucky"

Pretty much what @Tlfj200 said. I see lots of complaints about what appear to be head sims, but the actual games I'm looking at don't reflect any of it. I just see naive jousting and aces robbed by suffering consequences for a change.

I will check out Oli's game, though. Thanks @pheaver

2 minutes ago, Brunas said:

How long have you thought that? On a long enough timeline it's hopefully going to end up being true, but there are a lot of unplayable ships in the game.

Hey man, i use a lot of those unplayable ships!

I honestly don't think too much about how many points something costs. If I can build a viable squad around it, it just doesn't matter.

Sometimes you need something else undercosted, to balance the squad, but sometimes it just comes down to the kind of approaches and boxes you can pull together.

When they reduce that unplayable ship to a point that my viable squad receives a bunch of new toys, i hear alarm bells sounding in the wider meta.

People often overthink their components. It really is just dice and dials at the end of the day.

I dont really do CIS, my boy kinda does, the PACE at 38 was obviously too much, but it is still 3ag with access to 3 red and an amazing dial. The main problem it had, was that CIS lack the variety you need to make something a little overcosted really work.

Clearly, we now have the answer to that particular problem.

Just now, pheaver said:

Chumby, you could look at Oli's game vs them, where he played Dash Jake Wedge and beat them. I liked how he played, and his commentary shows his thinking of how to play against them. It was only an hour or so long, so a pretty easy watch.

As for the Nantexes, I think I'm in agreement with everyone else that they (and crack shot) are a little underpriced. I wonder how 6 naked i4s would do against the standard triple ace list. I think it'd be a fair fight.

But yes, the level of bullying that happens since they get to absolutely CRUSH anything lower init than them is pretty terrifying. I was super happy with my Sabine + 4 wookiee list, but I can't do better than a 200-100 loss vs the Nantexes right now. If they didn't have crack and a reroll, I think I'd be more confident in it being a game.

That's a good watch.

Any one of the Nantex advantages (low cost I4, PTA, two talents) is pretty good. When you combine multiple advantages, it goes from pretty good to *really* good.

23 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

Hey man, i use a lot of those unplayable ships!

I honestly don't think too much about how many points something costs. If I can build a viable squad around it, it just doesn't matter.

Sometimes you need something else undercosted, to balance the squad, but sometimes it just comes down to the kind of approaches and boxes you can pull together.

When they reduce that unplayable ship to a point that my viable squad receives a bunch of new toys, i hear alarm bells sounding in the wider meta.

People often overthink their components. It really is just dice and dials at the end of the day.

I dont really do CIS, my boy kinda does, the PACE at 38 was obviously too much, but it is still 3ag with access to 3 red and an amazing dial. The main problem it had, was that CIS lack the variety you need to make something a little overcosted really work.

Clearly, we now have the answer to that particular problem.

This is not how points work.

If you can add undercosted things to "balance" the squad, your squad is still bad, because you could have just filled it with undercosted things in the first place. I think we'll disagree strongly enough on the definition of viable squad to the point where this whole conversation is meaningless, but if you're willing to concede that some things are undercosted relative to others, I will assert that any squad that is not completely full of undercosted components is nonviable.

If a component/ship turns a squad from viable to nonviable, it is unplayable.

28 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

I think what @Chumbalaya was noting is that this, for us, is head sim, because we havent even seen anyone have that problem yet. People are just jousting (naively).

Have you tried with or against spamtex?

Because so far you and @Chumbalaya say at the same time:

- that people reporting their horrible games are just head-simming,

- and also you two head sim it to be ok, plus pick two images of random games to support that head sim.

43 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

The idea that aces should have to work, or wouldn't lose ships is a travesty.

If you play triple aces, you should expect to lose a ship every game.

Has anyone here posited that Aces shouldn't need to work for their victory or that they shouldn't lose ships to Nantex? I've yet to see this put forward. If that is what people think we are saying, they are misinterpreting.

What we are saying is that they, as Heaver said, "get to absolutely CRUSH anything lower init than them is pretty terrifying." That's a little more than 60% of pilots in the game, while having a strong anti-ace game. Triple Aces aren't worried about losing 1 ship to Nantex; they are worried about losing all ships. According to Dee Yun, after taking out mirror matches the Nantex lists had an 88% win percentage, which is bonkers good.

It would be cool if there were some sort of audio format where we could discuss this in depth with some tone. The forum format is really not helping some of this.

Just now, catachanninja said:

It would be cool if there were some sort of audio format where we could discuss this in depth with some tone. The forum format is really not helping some of this.

Something to fix all the discord.

1 minute ago, 5050Saint said:

Something to fix all the discord.

2 minutes ago, catachanninja said:

It would be cool if there were some sort of audio format where we could discuss this in depth with some tone. The forum format is really not helping some of this.

Oh I don't know, we all get a word in this way, lol.

I think the emotional reaction is being way overstated and generally applied to others rather than felt for oneself. It think it's an internet fear manifesting and hoo-ing round the place like a ghost, but not actually touching anything.

5 minutes ago, catachanninja said:

It would be cool if there were some sort of audio format where we could discuss this in depth with some tone. The forum format is really not helping some of this.

I'm watching mitchs stream tonight but we've gotta set a beers and yelling time

2 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

Oh I don't know, we all get a word in this way, lol.

There's definitely instances of person A says X about (1), but person B interprets X to be about (2) or X as X^2 going on though, which i suspect are the main culprits here.

3 minutes ago, catachanninja said:

There's definitely instances of person A says X about (1), but person B interprets X to be about (2) or X as X^2 going on though, which i suspect are the main culprits here.

Hey, don't algebra me man, I didn't opt in for that!

21 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Have you tried with or against spamtex?

Because so far you and @Chumbalaya say at the same time:

- that people reporting their horrible games are just head-simming,

- and also you two head sim it to be ok, plus pick two images of random games to support that head sim.

I haven't played since March. Nobody to play at home and I don't like online play so I'm stuck.

The reason I'm more interested in pictures than anecdotes is because of how imperfect memory can be. If you tell me that Nantexans dump trucked your swarm, I believe you but that doesn't really tell me much. If you show me your deployment and first engage, I get a much better idea of how it went down and what could be done differently to get a better result. Since I've only got the two pictures that's all I can really use, which is why I've been asking for more for however many pages. Based on what I've seen so far there are definitely ways to improve your chances just by changes in play.

3 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

Hey, don't algebra me man, I didn't opt in for that!

You also didn't opt in for a squad as ludicrous as spamtex and yet here we are 🤷🏻‍♂️

1 minute ago, Chumbalaya said:

I haven't played since March. Nobody to play at home and I don't like online play so I'm stuck.

The reason I'm more interested in pictures than anecdotes is because of how imperfect memory can be. If you tell me that Nantexans dump trucked your swarm, I believe you but that doesn't really tell me much. If you show me your deployment and first engage, I get a much better idea of how it went down and what could be done differently to get a better result. Since I've only got the two pictures that's all I can really use, which is why I've been asking for more for however many pages. Based on what I've seen so far there are definitely ways to improve your chances just by changes in play.

Thanks, that invalidates a lot of what you said. Even more.

Every time I try to deescalate this thread, there's always someone.

We all agree that Nantex are too good, yeah? There's no reason to be a jerk about it.

Also, we all (myself included) suck at flying aces, and have gotten super lazy with them thanks to force and token stacks. I don't think we all agree on that, but if you don't, you're wrong.

2 minutes ago, pheaver said:

I don't think we all agree on that, but if you don't, you're wrong.

Hey! I'm not good enough to ever be lazy. I work hard at my average results.

Does anyone take photos of games? Record them? It feels like everyone's just yelling past each other.

I came into this tread after 6 months to ***** because I was told it's getting heated. But now it's time for me to calm everyone down?

6x Nantex with Crack Shot is a squad I'd be interested in, as it fits my "thing" of 'a bunch of identical ships capable of killing high-initiative ships with passive/multiple defensive mods'.

So let's talk about it. How does 6x Nantex deploy? How does an "Ace" (2-3 high-initiative ships with passive/multiple defensive mods) list deploy vs it? How does a "Swarm" (Or really any lower-initiative mostly-generic squadron) deploy and break out vs this list? How does the Nantex squad obtain and maintain bullseyes? how does the other squad avoid them?

Pictures and videos preferred, the game is a visual medium.

Non-Crackshot+predator nantex is a very different story. This squad would be reliant on intimidation to be able to seriously injure a high-initiative ships with passive/multiple defensive mods. It also only exists in Hyperspace, where a lot less shenanigans. Also in hyperspace I'll probabally just be running something with Target lock for the offensive consistency anyways.

31 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Have you tried with or against spamtex?

Because so far you and @Chumbalaya say at the same time:

- that people reporting their horrible games are just head-simming,

- and also you two head sim it to be ok, plus pick two images of random games to support that head sim.

See, the interesting part is I don't need to have played a game to dissect a game.

I can look at a game in progress and dissect it.

If that weren't the case, we all would have to play every single list, ever, to know anything. But we don't, because there are similarities across things.

When we see aces going through rocks and removing their dial options, allowing their opponent to know where they will be, we don't have to do a bunch of sleuth work.

12 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Thanks, that invalidates a lot of what you said. Even more.

See... it actually doesn't nearly as much as you keep saying it does.

Aces didnt change. And swarms didn't change. And the nantex vs aces match is surprising similar (bodies versus aces).

You can keep being mad all you want - you're very good at it.

Would you like to tell @pheaver he's also invalidated too? All three of us actually said similar things.

I'll wait.

34 minutes ago, 5050Saint said:

Has anyone here posited that Aces shouldn't need to work for their victory or that they shouldn't lose ships to Nantex? I've yet to see this put forward. If that is what people think we are saying, they are misinterpreting.

What we are saying is that they, as Heaver said, "get to absolutely CRUSH anything lower init than them is pretty terrifying." That's a little more than 60% of pilots in the game, while having a strong anti-ace game. Triple Aces aren't worried about losing 1 ship to Nantex; they are worried about losing all ships. According to Dee Yun, after taking out mirror matches the Nantex lists had an 88% win percentage, which is bonkers good.

And yet, what we get are pictures of ace games. That's actually been the point so far.

We keep agree on the lower initiative part, then someone throws up an ace game and says there was nothing the aces could do, as we see them fly through rocks or corner themselves. It's very odd.

8 minutes ago, pheaver said:

Every time I try to deescalate this thread, there's always someone.

We all agree that Nantex are too good, yeah? There's no reason to be a jerk about it.

Also, we all (myself included) suck at flying aces, and have gotten super lazy with them thanks to force and token stacks. I don't think we all agree on that, but if you don't, you're wrong.

Are you kidding me? Take a good long look at your friends in here.

2 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Would you like to tell @pheaver he's also invalidated too? All three of us actually said similar things.

I'll wait.

Why would I?

"But yes, the level of bullying that happens since they get to absolutely CRUSH anything lower init than them is pretty terrifying. I was super happy with my Sabine + 4 wookiee list, but I can't do better than a 200-100 loss vs the Nantexes right now. If they didn't have crack and a reroll, I think I'd be more confident in it being a game."

4 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Are you kidding me? Take a good long look at your friends in here.

I didn't say you were always the someone. Sometimes it's Travis, and sometimes it's Jeremy. It's rarely always one person. I was just getting frustrated that we were on a path to talking about the stuff that's actually helpful content, but it always seems someone derails it with inflammatory statements that then get more inflammatory statements and so on.