19 hours ago, Scott Pilgrim2 said:That's why I bring at least two lists to casual night that include one 'fun' list (usually X-Wings). I also take the time to explain any interactions beforehand to get them thinking about what to avoid/take advantage during the game.
That is how I have traveled from then on out. I like the idea of having something with some interactions that I can explain to get them thinking about the possibilities.
So on that topic of bringing multiple lists to game nights, what does a list have to be to qualify as "fun"?
In the shoebox I bring to game nights, I have a (slightly wonky) Dash/Poe (my meta list), a triple Imperial Aces list (my slightly more wholesome meta list), a Rey/Wedge list (not sure what that is?), and a triple Rho HLC GUNBOAT list (my fun list).
But does the triple HLC GUNBOAT list actually count as fun, or does SLAM, Crackshot, dice creep, and tankiness make it degenerate? What about Rey/Wedge? When I built it, I thought it was pretty wholesome because it cares about arcs and has an X-Wing (the bad one (tm)) in it, but now I'm not so sure...
1 minute ago, Kieransi said:So on that topic of bringing multiple lists to game nights, what does a list have to be to qualify as "fun"?
In the shoebox I bring to game nights, I have a (slightly wonky) Dash/Poe (my meta list), a triple Imperial Aces list (my slightly more wholesome meta list), a Rey/Wedge list (not sure what that is?), and a triple Rho HLC GUNBOAT list (my fun list).
But does the triple HLC GUNBOAT list actually count as fun, or does SLAM, Crackshot, dice creep, and tankiness make it degenerate? What about Rey/Wedge? When I built it, I thought it was pretty wholesome because it cares about arcs and has an X-Wing (the bad one (tm)) in it, but now I'm not so sure...
On the surface I think it is as simple as being something that you can enjoy playing and losing with.
1 minute ago, AT Leader said:On the surface I think it is as simple as being something that you can enjoy playing and losing with.
I would say anything that that is not top tier. Or even just look at what they want to play - if they have a PS8+ Ace with boost, Dash is fine. Just give them the counter strategy and pair Dash with someone who is not Miranda/Poe. Dash + two A Wings is fun.
I mean, that's what makes sense intuitively. I just feel like there should be some sort of formula or somthing, other than just looking at something and saying "oh, that doesn't look fun" or "not the meta, so it must be fun".
And saying "it's not the meta so it's fine" doesn't hold true in some very casual environments.
Like my Rey/Wedge - not strictly "meta", but also doesn't really seem fun for a lot of lists to play against.
And the above list was unironically sort of an NPE for one of the local casual players to play against (he didn't actually care because it was a good game still, but I felt sad). I would've thought for sure that this was fine, but against some lists, it's actually not fun.
Also, on the topic of "fun" lists, until the Reaper arrives, how can we make Jam useful/NPE? It seems really underpowered right now, but I feel like Jam is one of those things that's like Ion - if it's actually good, it becomes an NPE very quickly.
How's this? Use a bumpmaster to block, use the REKT droid to shoot scramblers at the bumpmaster, Jam all the stuff it bumped.
34 minutes ago, AlexW said:I've said this before, but objectives can certainly help "hide" imbalances in the game (I'm not saying it's a bad thing). However, one of the things about games that you mention is that they have a lot fewer eyes on the cards and the game, both in terms of population and reps, which is also helps a game to feel more balanced. Even with that, Armada has had its share of issues and it's not just a bad ship or rule, but those issues are generally less pronounced because of the smaller population (I can't speak to Runewars or Legion as I haven't played them and Legion is certainly in a honeymoon phase). If Armada had several 100+ player regionals I bet we'd see the issues the game has magnified.
Sure, a million monkeys pounding away at a game will find its weaknesses faster than a thousand monkeys, agreed.
However, I think that when you say, "'hide' imbalances in the game", I think its important to define what you mean. For instance, will a game Condition that prevents range 3 attacks for several rounds hide that maybe TLTs or Harpoons are under-priced when compared to similar upgrade cards? Sure, it could seem that way. But are they really badly under-priced if 1 out of 6 games they fail to be as powerful as expected? Do you want to build a list like that? If we are talking about how a couple objectives, conditions, or deployments that take a list that was dominant and causes it to no longer be so, than its not actually hiding anything, that list simply is not a good fit for the game anymore if playing with those objectives is the normal state of the game.
And that's the rub. People are looking at Objective play and saying, "Well, yeah, XYZ isn't overpowered there anymore, but that's just covering up how imbalanced it is in Standard play."
If Objective play is the Standard, then its not covering it up. It just nerfed that ****.
And of course a meta will eventually develop with enough monkey's banging away. But if the possible permutations of a game continue to shift, say with 216 significant possible combinations (6 objectives, 6 deployments, 6 conditions), you aren't likely to find a particular list that dominates all game types. At most, you are going to find something that sucks the least against most possible combinations, and that's ok. That's were we want to be.
1 hour ago, LagJanson said:Yeah, never thought it was a silver bullet. Just wondered myself whether a solution might lay down that road somewhere. Didn't put the next thought into place... which @Tlfj200 ultimately stated in his return argument, but not in the way that triggered that next thought. There's enough out there to break any format if given the time to analyze things. I'm overly enthusiastic!
At the moment, my group wants me to pull cans off the shelf... I admit it gets a bit tiring on me to constantly research these ideas and see if it'll work.
This.
I've got a few planned ahead, but it is tiring to keep thinking of new formats that can't be broken in very obvious ways. Our OT tournament not banning Rey (on purpose) proved that she does not belong there, for one thing. I don't think any Rey had any loss that day.
My "Ban the top 50 upgrades (from Regionals)" in a week is likely to yield a whole lot of swarms. I don't know if that counts as better, we shall see. On a side note, 50 is probably too many, but Timewalk Asajj could have been made too easily without cutting that deep and I couldn't have resisted that siren's call. I also wish MetaWing had a way to check more than one tournament category, I wanted Regional+National+SOS to really nuke the cream.
At this point, finding the motivation to think up a new one every month or two is tiring. Running them isn't as fun since I barely play outside of those events so I don't spend my days thinking about X-wing anymore and making calls on weird interactions that never happen in the real meta isn't any easier than the ones on meta lists, just with less pre-existing analysis out there.
Armada just got its two week FAQ! (More like four weeks?) It has me pretty hopeful, they fixed flotillas in about three different ways: Activation spam (now max 2), relay(actually needs to be in range instead of Palp range) and running away (tabled when you are out of real ships). They also toned down the four biggest power cards/combos: three titles and Colonel Jendon.
This is is pretty much the FAQ you guys wanted for x-wing back in listener 1? 2? that fundamentally changes the tournament format, though it just cranked the dial from about 15 down to 11.
I wasn’t as sour on x-wing as a lot of people seem to be, but I am happy to report that this looks like they are still trying and responsive and as bad at timing as ever.
Edited by AEIllingworth53 minutes ago, Kieransi said:I mean, that's what makes sense intuitively. I just feel like there should be some sort of formula or somthing, other than just looking at something and saying "oh, that doesn't look fun" or "not the meta, so it must be fun".
And saying "it's not the meta so it's fine" doesn't hold true in some very casual environments.
Like my Rey/Wedge - not strictly "meta", but also doesn't really seem fun for a lot of lists to play against.
And the above list was unironically sort of an NPE for one of the local casual players to play against (he didn't actually care because it was a good game still, but I felt sad). I would've thought for sure that this was fine, but against some lists, it's actually not fun.
Nothing wrong with bringing solid pilots. I look at it also as an opportunity to try out new things. Last casual night I flew the TIE Silencer - it's a not a weak ship, I just never flew it before.
Or even try out high risk/reward plays - there are many things you can do at casual nights to improve your competitive play, even with not top tier lists.
3 hours ago, LagJanson said:@Brunas - How has general opinion been on the Objective format? I've still only tried a couple of games, and while I've enjoyed them, I've been totally unable to get much traction in selling this to my local group to run as a tournament. I've received two complaints:
- Complexity that they introduced confused players...
- Hilariously, the other comment was like "I don't feel the objective was more than an excuse to get in and fight." Which I told him it was precisely the point - so that it shut down refusal to engage and running away for time.
1. Is pretty much my main concern. We tried to add as absolutely little new stuff as possible, but even adding anything loses players.
2. Makes me happy though, haha.
But yeah, others already said it - objectives were very good at fixing the problem of players fortressing/pseudo-fortressing by refusing to ever engage. Small side effect is turrets are slightly worse on some objectives. But, we're in the situation now where some of the best jousters are also turrets, so it's really just standard format problems anyways 
Oh, someone said earlier - there's probably an overpowered monster NPE in objectives, but because of the smaller playerbase it hasn't been found yet, to my knowledge. I have no reason to think our format is somehow magically immune to dominant strategies.
Edited by BrunasI'd say if you're going to bring a "fun" list to a casual night bring a list that's pretty fast. Hyper-defensive ships, regen while running away, high PS advanced sensors arc dodging, and formations of supporting ships in the fairship/ego variety that just don't die would be top of my avoid list. If you're playing somebody newer or more casually a faster game where ships blow up seems like it would be better for that than a game where ships never get shot or don't die. Just one option though.
Just now, mdl0114 said:I'd say if you're going to bring a "fun" list to a casual night bring a list that's pretty fast. Hyper-defensive ships, regen while running away, high PS advanced sensors arc dodging, and formations of supporting ships in the fairship/ego variety that just don't die would be top of my avoid list. If you're playing somebody newer or more casually a faster game where ships blow up seems like it would be better for that than a game where ships never get shot or don't die. Just one option though.
I agree, slow games are the worst. I used to use this one a lot:
But it actually won way too much and became an NPE. Nobody wanted to fly against it.
24 minutes ago, Kieransi said:I agree, slow games are the worst. I used to use this one a lot:
I think this is why some lists haven't become big where we live: they require people to fortress, or bomb walls and rely on going to time, which we don't do. We don't even play with a timer (although we should with some people) so going to time isn't something that can happen. Means that people fly to kill things, not to just survive.
2 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:I think this is why some lists haven't become big where we live: they require people to fortress, or bomb walls and rely on going to time, which we don't do. We don't even play with a timer (although we should with some people) so going to time isn't something that can happen. Means that people fly to kill things, not to just survive.
I would like to give us credit for being wholesome, but I wonder if our local meta being like that is simply because we get bored easily? Like, I don't want to play an X-Wing game that lasts more than an hour. If I'm going to play a long game, I'd rather play Armada, Rebellion, or Axis and Allies.
On that topic: would X-Wing be more fun if instead of 100/6 it was 50/4 and played on a 2x2 mat? And games only lasted 45 minutes?
1 minute ago, Kieransi said:I would like to give us credit for being wholesome, but I wonder if our local meta being like that is simply because we get bored easily? Like, I don't want to play an X-Wing game that lasts more than an hour. If I'm going to play a long game, I'd rather play Armada, Rebellion, or Axis and Allies.
On that topic: would X-Wing be more fun if instead of 100/6 it was 50/4 and played on a 2x2 mat? And games only lasted 45 minutes?
I dunno. I like having bigger squads.
I just hate turret-spam bomb, regen wing.
2 minutes ago, Kieransi said:On that topic: would X-Wing be more fun if instead of 100/6 it was 50/4 and played on a 2x2 mat? And games only lasted 45 minutes?
Oh god... Can you imagine a large base turret setting up shop in the middle of a 2x2 map? Ok, so first terrible instinct aside, I've actually played this at the office during lunch break. It wasn't bad, since we weren't trying to break anything, but I much rather more flexibility and larger scale play.
1 minute ago, Tlfj200 said:I dunno. I like having bigger squads.
I just hate turret-spam bomb, regen wing.
Agreed, some ships wouldn't even really be useable at 50 points. But I sometimes wonder if 100 points is exactly the worst amount for some of the "degenerate" play styles we see? Like, I know most of our current meta-bogeymen are worthless in Epic. And they probably wouldn't be great in a 50-point game, because they'd be the only ship of yours on the board and thus easier to counter-play. I guess Miranda and Kylo would still be a problem. I dunno.
3 minutes ago, LagJanson said:Oh god... Can you imagine a large base turret setting up shop in the middle of a 2x2 map? Ok, so first terrible instinct aside, I've actually played this at the office during lunch break. It wasn't bad, since we weren't trying to break anything, but I much rather more flexibility and larger scale play.
So what if X-Wing was like Destiny and had two or three different formats?
For the more casual, easily bored players (like me) a 50/4 2x2 format, for players like you, a 150/8 4x3 format, and for Armada/Legion-type players, the 300/12 6x3 format of Epic?
You could also ban certain ships from lower formats. For example: Epic ships aren't currently allowed in 100/6. So make Ghosts, Lancers, Jumpmasters, Decimators, and Falcons illegal in 50/4!
9 minutes ago, Kieransi said:I would like to give us credit for being wholesome, but I wonder if our local meta being like that is simply because we get bored easily? Like, I don't want to play an X-Wing game that lasts more than an hour. If I'm going to play a long game, I'd rather play Armada, Rebellion, or Axis and Allies.
On that topic: would X-Wing be more fun if instead of 100/6 it was 50/4 and played on a 2x2 mat? And games only lasted 45 minutes?
I have played in a 50pts store kit tourney before. It was very fun, although some imbalances were very much still present. There was also a couple guys whose game was over in literally 1 round of shooting. They jousted, explosions, done.
Its...interesting, and fun, but I wouldn't say better.
1 minute ago, kris40k said:I have played in a 50pts store kit tourney before. It was very fun, although some imbalances were very much still present. There was also a couple guys whose game was over in literally 1 round of shooting. They jousted, explosions, done.
Its...interesting, and fun, but I wouldn't say better.
47 point kylo and a dream (and a bid)
7 minutes ago, Kieransi said:Agreed, some ships wouldn't even really be useable at 50 points.
...
I guess Miranda and Kylo would still be a problem. I dunno.
Shades of Yoda, but in the darkest timeline: No, there is another...
Dengar, Asajj, Dash, Kylo, Miranda ... it’s not a short list. Thweek with a bid? ?
Just now, Tlfj200 said:47 point kylo and a dream (and a bid)
35 point Soontir and a dream (and a bigger bid!)
1 minute ago, sirjorj said:35 point Soontir and a dream (and a bigger bid!)
u rite.
21 minutes ago, Kieransi said:Agreed, some ships wouldn't even really be useable at 50 points. But I sometimes wonder if 100 points is exactly the worst amount for some of the "degenerate" play styles we see? Like, I know most of our current meta-bogeymen are worthless in Epic. And they probably wouldn't be great in a 50-point game, because they'd be the only ship of yours on the board and thus easier to counter-play. I guess Miranda and Kylo would still be a problem. I dunno.
The game is tested for 100 points, so that's probably the best it's going to get. Sure, some of the current problems aren't an issue in epic, but other things become a lot bigger deal. For example, Imperials can have ridiculously effective alpha strikes.