5 hours ago, Brunas said:

Hottest take: just ban generics. Even with things like TIE Swarms people just want to play the named pilots. That's fine! I think I agree - no one wants to play AS Obsidian Squadron Pilot. Save them for the solo player or co-op vs AI that's in alpha or whatever.

Am I not real?

3 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

I want to play generics. Two of my favorite squads in 2.0 were Lulo+4 Greens, and Snap+4 Blues. Other favorites include 5 (now 6) strikers or interceptors, Droid swarms, the fun sloane swarm (ie not rac and not aggressor), and of course the ace+gang lists like Poe+3 or Holo+3. I wish I could have my ace+Jousty ace+gunboat squad from 1.0 back.

That does not mean generics are 100% ok the way they are now.

Would you have preferred playing Lulo + 4 different named low initiative As with different abilities, though? I was late night posting so the core point got missed (by me), but the attempt was that named pilots are basically just cooler than generics, and in an ideal world we'd just have more named pilots.

32 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

I'm curious about the comment that 8 TIE/fo is boring. I bolded a couple sections in your post because I believe 8 TIEs are a great example of a list that requires blocking, kill boxes, and target priority. How is that list boring? (Although I do think the TIE/fo should go back up to 26 points)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The 8 TIE/fo are boring because their efficiency. You need too mucho effort to destroy one of this ships. They are too cheap.

Althought you play that squad like I want to play the game, they are free bodys and could use a loose formation, making your opponent's day a bad one because he needs to remove those tough ships early or/and run to don't be overwhelmed.

There are a lot of bumps (most of them unintentionally) and few turns.

A classic TIE swarm have several limitations that can be exploited, for example the Howlrunner range or the low health.

I think the 8 TIE/fo (or 5 TIE/sf with passives or the Wookies) are very one sided. One player puts the squad on the table and the other tries to win the match. I like the challenges, but when we play a lot of this type of games, X-Wing becomes boring and sometimes frustrating.

1 minute ago, Brunas said:

Would you have preferred playing Lulo + 4 different named low initiative As with different abilities, though? I was late night posting so the core point got missed (by me), but the attempt was that named pilots are basically just cooler than generics, and in an ideal world we'd just have more named pilots.

I wouldn't.
I don't like the card interaction aspect of the game. I like poisitioning and the more of my list is words the less I'm happy.

I didn't come here to play card games. If I wanted to do that I'd gain 300 pounds and get into magic or something.

4 minutes ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

Am I not real?

no

Just now, Kaptin Krunch said:

I wouldn't.
I don't like the card interaction aspect of the game. I like poisitioning and the more of my list is words the less I'm happy.

I didn't come here to play card games. If I wanted to do that I'd gain 300 pounds and get into magic or something.

Sure, but the people that are into ONLY the raw positioning aspect of the game seem to be the extreme minority.

4 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Would you have preferred playing Lulo + 4 different named low initiative As with different abilities, though? I was late night posting so the core point got missed (by me), but the attempt was that named pilots are basically just cooler than generics, and in an ideal world we'd just have more named pilots.

Not really, no.

Now if you'd ask if I would mind a named, unique John Doe pilot without an ability, then that would be fine for me.

Mechanically the same as a triple dotted generic would be three unique pilots of same initiative and no abilities. If your comment was going in that direction then I'm in.

Just now, S4ul0 said:

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The 8 TIE/fo are boring because their efficiency. You need too mucho effort to destroy one of this ships. They are too cheap.

Althought you play that squad like I want to play, they are free and could use a loose formation making your opponent day a bad one because he needs to remove those tough ships early or/and run to don't be overwhelmed.

There are a lot of bumps (most of them unintentionally) and few turns.

A classic TIE swarm have several limitations that can be exploited, for example the Howlrunner range or the low health.

I think the 8 TIE/fo (or 5 TIE/sf with passives or the Wookies) are very one sided. One player puts the squad on the table and the other tries to win the match. I like the challenges, but when we play a lot of this type of games, X-Wing becomes boring and sometimes frustrating.

so first up, 8 FO is kinda bad. It's not realistic to get that firepower on target, and even then, it doesn't hit that hard. It's single modded 2 die shots. The list is unironically improved by running 6 of then and Lt. LeHuese as he offers the ability to have shots that can actually hit hard, and he covers the weakness of "Hey the low health ones won't get to shoot before they die". The problem there is that France, 3 FOs, and Kylo is a better list than France+6. Now you have a high initiative ship that has everything "Ace" players want. High init repositioning, passive mods, access to double mods, defenses to mitigate shots. If you want to lower the squad size limit to 7 ships, implement a force org chart, sure, whatever. But the FO isn't too good because of 8 of them in a list by any means.

With the howl swarm, the answer is that using groups with Howlrunner fly in Unga-bunga-block-formation so often that you're effetively fighting vs a 1 ship list that can shoot multiple times. the thing the 4th health offers is just "Hey you cannot yolotrade completely safely that often with your "ace"" . Also, Howl swarm hasn't been notably used in forever so honestly, I think you're just remembering 1.0.

Wookiees are different- Would you play Wookiees without the 180 or Reinforce? The answer is "**** no". Those things just drive in circles and shoot because they are turrets.

5x SF with passives? That **** isn't even remotely the same. Block or engage in range 3 and the list ******* crumbles before you. It farmed players that just put their ships down and expected to win the ace-vs-ace games on list strength alone.

11 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Not really, no.

Now if you'd ask if I would mind a named, unique John Doe pilot without an ability, then that would be fine for me.

Mechanically the same as a triple dotted generic would be three unique pilots of same initiative and no abilities. If your comment was going in that direction then I'm in.

Oh, interesting! Apparently there are a non-zero number of people who prefer having the options for generics. I wonder what the breakdown is of (non-tournament) players who ever include any generic pilot in their list vs always using named pilots. Obviously I don't have any insight into it, other than assuming it's very low.

5 hours ago, Brunas said:

Hottest take: just ban generics. Even with things like TIE Swarms people just want to play the named pilots. That's fine! I think I agree - no one wants to play AS Obsidian Squadron Pilot. Save them for the solo player or co-op vs AI that's in alpha or whatever.

33 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Would you have preferred playing Lulo + 4 different named low initiative As with different abilities, though? I was late night posting so the core point got missed (by me), but the attempt was that named pilots are basically just cooler than generics, and in an ideal world we'd just have more named pilots.

I actually think named "leader" + generics is a pretty cool archetype, but I think that's a valid point. I'm not sure if presented with ace + generics or ace + cool named dudes, all things being relatively equal power-wise, that I'd pick the generics.

13 minutes ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

so first up, 8 FO is kinda bad

I didn't say they are too good lists. I said that are one sided and boring.

But hey, they are good lists to win against average players so I don't agree with you.

Can you sing, master @Boom Owl?

Come, sing me a song.

3 hours ago, S4ul0 said:

I love play generics too, but I want to win because I created good opportunities (blocks, kill boxes, objetive selection, etc.) not because I put pure efficiency on the table (and my opponent cannot overcome to that).

I think I've understood this the least of anything posted in the past like 500 pages

55 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

ships being 'bad', yet stuck where they are because of spam breakpoints

Do you have examples?

Like, the canonical example was 5X, and then they broke the 5X breakpoint and... nothing happened and nobody plays it and it's mediocre? Out of curiosity I just checked on i1 Defenders, and basically nobody played them either, but of the 11 people that did 3 made their cuts.

36 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

A lot of it is probably that there are a lot of still-bad generics, and buffing them the same way all the other generics got buffed isn't going to work, isn't going to make things better. I think there's got to be a place where it stops, where the power level should be re-centered rather than just inflated, so why not here?

I thought I said this already but I don't see it so maybe that was a fever dream, but one thing is that you're just having a different conversation here. The overall game power level thing is just an entirely orthogonal topic.

33 minutes ago, S4ul0 said:

The 8 TIE/fo are boring because their efficiency. Althought you play that squad like I want to play the game, they are free bodys and could use a loose formation, making your opponent's day a bad one because he needs to remove those tough ships early or/and run to don't be overwhelmed.

A classic TIE swarm have several limitations that can be exploited, for example the Howlrunner range or the low health.

Wait, no, I understand this the least. Non-formation swarms are not fun to play against but formation swarms are?

I would be altogether too happy to never see a TIE brick ever again! Six ships that set one dial are way less interesting than 6+ ships that set an equal amount of dials and every single one matters.

9 minutes ago, Chumbalaya said:

Can you sing, master @Boom Owl?

Come, sing me a song.

8 minutes ago, S4ul0 said:

I didn't say they are too good lists. I said that are one sided and boring.

But hey, they are good lists to win against average players so I don't agree with you.

I find Boba with Maul crew and Slave 1 as a one-sided list that's too good for play vs average players. If it's moving last he can hedge every single move with a complete disengage. Ask mike (is mike on the forums?) abut how you can fly boba and never reasonably dial in a straight move. Then, to add insult to injury, this ship that chooses its dial at init 5 is actually *Really Good* at jousting.
Also it has a buttgun, and is basically a turret. With boost and slave 1 choices that rear arc coveres insane amounts of ground.

Similarly with most force powered aces. It's going to result in one sided games vs a mediocre player until it's the meme of the guy with the dollar on the fishing hook. "Oh you almost got me that time, you lost another ship. I'm sure 2x X-wings with 3 health each can catch vader/soontir, and they definitely won't get yolojousted if they do"

39 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Nerf them aces too.

A lot of it is probably that there are a lot of still-bad generics, and buffing them the same way all the other generics got buffed isn't going to work, isn't going to make things better. I think there's got to be a place where it stops, where the power level should be re-centered rather than just inflated, so why not here?

I think we are on the same team here. Trying to balance the game by buffing the generics en masse was a pretty bad idea. There seems to be enough sarcasm and hyperbole that inferring actual intent is kinda tricky.

I agree with this: "Dropping generic prices went too far. For November points rebalancing, FFG should raise the prices on nearly everything unless there is a very good reason not to."

I disagree with this: "Mass generics is bad for the game and shouldn't be playable in competitive X-Wing."

11 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Farewell, Boom, son of Owl... I release you from my service. Go now and die in what way seems best to you.

1 hour ago, Brunas said:

named pilots are basically just cooler than generics

Shut your filthy mouth. The only way named pilots are cooler than generics is if the names are things like Saber 2, Black 3, Red 6, etc. I don't want some lame wookiepedia backstory for my nameless heroes.

41 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

I think we are on the same team here. Trying to balance the game by buffing the generics en masse was a pretty bad idea. There seems to be enough sarcasm and hyperbole that inferring actual intent is kinda tricky.

I agree with this: "Dropping generic prices went too far. For November points rebalancing, FFG should raise the prices on nearly everything unless there is a very good reason not to."

I disagree with this: "Mass generics is bad for the game and shouldn't be playable in competitive X-Wing."

I think the generic buff was a great experiment. You saw the level where there was a generics that was actually good enough to beat an ace meta much of the time. Every experimental system needs to know where its boundaries are, and we now know that there is a point cost that's too cheap for an initiative 4 turret with bullseye bonus.

The fact that people actually also want all the other borderline competitive (not borderline broken) generics to be nerfed before the obviously broken passive mod aces get nerfed shows that many people just hate and fear generics intrinsically. (Not talking about you).

24 minutes ago, svelok said:

Wait, no, I understand this the least. Non-formation swarms are not fun to play against but formation swarms are?

Do you understand what means play against?

I don't like play against lists where there are so much arc coverage that almost every position is a bad position and the game is about trading ships.

And I don't like play against lists that the dice have a lot to said about those trades.

I'm talking about my preferences but I'm trying to be objective.

I think the game is now more slow and more dicey and that is because the generic drop.

38 minutes ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

I find Boba with Maul crew and Slave 1 as a one-sided list that's too good for play vs average players.

I am not defending Boba nor Jedi Aces.

If one guy says something against the generics is a pro Ace player?

My favourite Squad is a 5 Saber TIE Interceptors (one Turr Phennir), all with Predator.

The generic spam is not always bad for me.

1 minute ago, Biophysical said:

The fact that people actually also want all the other borderline competitive (not borderline broken) generics to be nerfed before the obviously broken passive mod aces get nerfed shows that many people just hate and fear generics intrinsically. (Not talking about you).

Focusing on"generics" is a - sorry - lazy way to dismiss the entirely justified criticism of individually broken pieces by focusing of one possible common feature that is not actually relevant. Like much discrimination it just picks out one that is outstanding. And like much discrimination it is the wrong one.

Terex and Sloane should not be as defining as they are, to name two obvious examples.

2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Focusing on"generics" is a - sorry - lazy way to dismiss the entirely justified criticism of individually broken pieces by focusing of one possible common feature that is not actually relevant. Like much discrimination it just picks out one that is outstanding. And like much discrimination it is the wrong one.

Terex and Sloane should not be as defining as they are, to name two obvious examples.

Those are two good pieces, sure. They are neither as widespread or consistently good as passively modded 2-3 ship high initiative lists.

9 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

Those are two good pieces, sure. They are neither as widespread or consistently good as passively modded 2-3 ship high initiative lists.

That's testable and - at least for sloane - demonstrably false for the only events we had.

e: I don't know why I get sucked back into this. Inbefore the inevitable "galaxies doesn't count". Well it's the best we have and it tells a clear story

5 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

That's testable and - at least for sloane - demonstrably false for the only events we had.

You have data thats not a tiny handful of squads? We have a ton of instances of Boba, Trip Jedi, Trip Imperial aces doing well.

Basically, all the data you have save two tournaments is from the Nantex meta, and high initiative passive mods have been good the whole of 2.0.

12 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

You have data thats not a tiny handful of squads? We have a ton of instances of Boba, Trip Jedi, Trip Imperial aces doing well.

Basically, all the data you have save two tournaments is from the Nantex meta, and high initiative passive mods have been good the whole of 2.0.

If you remove half the data and then complain about amount of data... does not seem fair to me.

How much is necessary for you to make a trend visible? To support the hunch that sloane is really good?

And how do you justify that a squad doing well *among Spamtex* is supposed to be worse without one of the most broken lists we've seen yet?

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

If you remove half the data and then complain about amount of data... does not seem fair to me.

How much is necessary for you to make a trend visible? To support the hunch that sloane is really good?

And how do you justify that a squad doing well *among Spamtex* is supposed to be worse without one of the most broken lists we've seen yet?

I totally admit that Sloane is really good, just not as good as most high passive mod ace lists. By your metric, Boba is even worse than Sloane because it was widespread competitive when Nantex were not nerfed, and even won a tournament. We've known Boba is this good for ages, yet one peek of Sloane making ships that have been pretty bad competitive and she's got to be nerfed.

I'm not saying that she's not good. I'm not saying that she shouldn't be looked at closely, but I don't see how she can be priority over the continually dominating passive mod, repositioning, high initiative ships.