7 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

A small, dedicated, and predictable amount of variance means decisions fall on a probabilistic spectrum, and that can be interesting unto itself

Yea and if you dont want to deal with that you can just run low agility high HP stuff so your only basically rolling and modifying red dice and guessing C3P0 or taking a re-enforce.

**** if your super against rolling red dice you could put Vader on a stealth device phantom and only roll/modify green dice? Also homing missiles. Let your opponent choose.

17 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

I'm not sure that's a fair assessment.

If every ship simply did an expected/average damage, the game would be far more deterministic, edging increasingly closer to chess.

Chess is great, but not every game needs to be chess/deterministic. A small, dedicated, and predictable amount of variance means decisions fall on a probabilistic spectrum, and that can be interesting unto itself.

???

My assessment of what @Sunitsa wants, or my assessment of X-Wing?

9 minutes ago, gennataos said:

My assessment of what @Sunitsa wants, or my assessment of X-Wing?

I guess I'm not sure.

I just disagree X-wing would be categorized as ameritrash.

It's just guilty by FFG association.

In time you will know what it’s like to lose. To feel so desperately that you’re good at 1.0, but to fail all the same. Dread it. Run from it. 2.0 still arrives.

10 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

I guess I'm not sure.

I just disagree X-wing would be categorized as ameritrash.

I guess what Ameritrash means isn’t objective, but I’ve always considered them heavy on theme with a medium to high degree of luck. At its core, I think that’s what X-Wing is. I could be wrong.

But really it wasn’t meant as a direct categorization, just a comparison. The less dice variance impacts the game, the more Euro it gets to me. Knuckles Accuracy Corrector Ghost/Fenn is Euro as sheeeiiiitt.

5 minutes ago, gennataos said:

heavy on theme with a medium to high degree of luck. At its core, I think that’s what X-Wing is. I could be wrong. 

I definitely stand on the other side of that argument. Though "medium" and "high" degree of luck are not really objective measures we can debate on easily.

I dare you to break my League's planned escalation tournament format harder than I did (1.0 only, shame be upon us), they're going 75pts/105pts/140pts:

Round 1: Hera + Zeb, standard GhostFenn build without the engine upgrade.

Round 2: Add standard flight assist Fenn, Hera gets her engine back.

Round 3: Add Crimson specialist with tragedy simulator, protons, silos, and plating.

Sure, it doesn't have a bid, but how much of a nightmare would that be?

1 minute ago, Tlfj200 said:

I definitely stand on the other side of that argument. Though "medium" and "high" degree of luck are not really objective measures we can debate on easily.

But didn't you also mention once in an episode that you do not care at all that it's Star Wars? We once had this poll here and a majority plays (or at least started) Xwing because it involves Star Wars. In that sense I'd think you're in the minority regarding the point of "heavy on theme".

As for luck I don't know. I can see why there's disagreement here. Most of the games I play on vassal and that I put into lady luck I see that the result is pretty much what I could expect.

Don't know how to say it without sounding arrogant, but maybe that correlates with understanding of probabilities? And that's why you don't see luck as large part?

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

As for luck I don't know. I can see why there's disagreement here. Most of the games I play on vassal and that I put into lady luck I see that the result is pretty much what I could expect.

Don't know how to say it without sounding arrogant, but maybe that correlates with understanding of probabilities? And that's why you don't see luck as large part?

I mean, yes. The perception of luck, versus the actuality of it, can certainly be different.

I'm arguing from the game's core design features to mitigate and diminish variance given to the player. Within that, you get a much smaller, predictable amount of variance, allowing the game to not be deterministic (always a clear, correct set of answers, even if you'd need a super computer to solve it), while not having so much variance and aspects out of any players control as to devolve into monopoly.

It's the same reason people perceive many card games, like MTG, to be "luck," and yet, they consistently have the same top players. There's an aspect of randomness, and yet, the core of the game is around predictable variance/probabilities and players play around their risk tolerances, and aim to minimize the variance with decision making and mastering the aspects of the core gameplay.

Core-Set-Beer-and-Pretzels Xwing could definitely be described as an ameritrash game. Competive Xwing? Not so much.

17 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

I definitely stand on the other side of that argument. Though "medium" and "high" degree of luck are not really objective measures we can debate on easily.

Yeah, I can see that. If the core is just maneuvers and rolling dice for attack and defense, as I was thinking of the core,, then it’s pretty reliant on luck. Throw dice modding actions and abilities into the core, then the variance shrinks significantly.

Either way, is 2.0 here yet? Cuz that’s the game I wanna play.

2 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

I mean, yes. The perception of luck, versus the actuality of it, can certainly be different.

I'm arguing from the game's core design features to mitigate and diminish variance given to the player. Within that, you get a much smaller, predictable amount of variance, allowing the game to not be deterministic (always a clear, correct set of answers, even if you'd need a super computer to solve it), while not having so much variance and aspects out of any players control as to devolve into monopoly.

It's the same reason people perceive many card games, like MTG, to be "luck," and yet, they consistently have the same top players. There's an aspect of randomness, and yet, the core of the game is around predictable variance/probabilities and players play around their risk tolerances, and aim to minimize the variance with decision making and mastering the aspects of the core gameplay.

I agree (heh)

Though it looks like 2.0 should increase the luck again. Still, at its core I'd also see the luck as present but definitely not medium or high. Top players are way too consistent for this. Other characteristics of Eurogames where X-Wing fits are how theme does not impact gameplay (this seems to be adjusted with 2.0, too. Thinking about force users and calculate for example), and they often statisfy the funtype of "sensation" by providing nice models.

So is it a hybrid? Does it just not care about this classification?

I’d almost lean the other way, in regards to luck and variance. As builds become established with more and more reliable dice, we see list variety drop and there was a strong feeling that “anyone can make a cut with Ghost Fenn”. That leads me to believe the incredibly consistent game is luck based (skill does not decide Ghost Fenn mirror matches).

A game wity no dice mods (and therefore random rolling) and a game with no dice mods (because everything is modded so heavily that you pretty much just get the results to the number of dice you rolled) are both a game of luck. A game where being skillful provides you with better dice modification than an unskilled opponent should be everyone’s sweet spot that they are aiming for?

edit: that is to say, you both have points and I think I you kind of agree with each other and the truth is somewhere in the middle (heh)

edit again: I’m going to keep going. In a game that dice is too consistent there is a similar amount of luck, but it is concentrated on the matchups you get and the initiative bids of the matchups (or the initiative random roll off) and possibly crits drawn. The random luck is still there, just not in the attack and defense rolls which you can affect with decision making.

Double posting because of a brainstorm: reducing the luck of individual games has an inverse correlation to the results of tournaments. Someone smarter than me should try to explain why a more randomized game leads to less randomized tournament results.

Or, why I am wrong and I’m using anecdotal evedence of people winning regionals with Nym Miranda and less than six months experience.

8 minutes ago, AEIllingworth said:

Or, why I am wrong and I’m using anecdotal evedence of people winning regionals with Nym Miranda and less than six months experience.

I read this wrong and am taking it as a challenge. YOU WRONT BECUASE MIRANDA IS THE MOST FIAR ShIP IN GAME<YOUR JUST BAD AT GAME GET REKT SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Actually, probably ight because I think more random is the wrong word to describe what we have. Now, good players are going to be rewarded with actions and mods.

11 minutes ago, AEIllingworth said:

Double posting because of a brainstorm: reducing the luck of individual games has an inverse correlation to the results of tournaments. Someone smarter than me should try to explain why a more randomized game leads to less randomized tournament results.

Or, why I am wrong and I’m using anecdotal evedence of people winning regionals with Nym Miranda and less than six months experience.

11 minutes of your time, and far more articulate than I would be summarizing it.

55 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

11 minutes of your time, and far more articulate than I would be summarizing it.

You referred to this in a listener series, right? The bit about ten minutes in where they were talking about how everybody is looking for something different, from go to Yahtzee and how it wasn’t street fighter, it was marvel with lag stick out.

My philisophical idealistic mind now wants something with a moderate to high skill gap, but little legacy skill holdover and regular resets. This means people can still break in, but skill gets rewarded. I guess I can hope the app rebalancing moves the game that direction.

Also edit: I was making a false assumption, right? It’s not randomness, it’s difficulty. When there are no dice mods it is impossible to improve them, so it is easy and even. When everyone has modified everything, it is easy and even. When correct decisions reward you with dice mods, it is difficult and skill can rise. Impossible and simplistic games have the same result: even playing fields and random winners

18 minutes ago, AEIllingworth said:

You referred to this in a listener series, right? The bit about ten minutes in where they were talking about how everybody is looking for something different, from go to Yahtzee and how it wasn’t street fighter, it was marvel with lag stick out.

My philisophical idealistic mind now wants something with a moderate to high skill gap, but little legacy skill holdover and regular resets. This means people can still break in, but skill gets rewarded. I guess I can hope the app rebalancing moves the game that direction.

Also edit: I was making a false assumption, right? It’s not randomness, it’s difficulty. When there are no dice mods it is impossible to improve them, so it is easy and even. When everyone has modified everything, it is easy and even. When correct decisions reward you with dice mods, it is difficult and skill can rise. Impossible and simplistic games have the same result: even playing fields and random winners

A Johnson asked me to post this too, also relevant:

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/385876-lings-of-liberty-the-rise-of-the-patchzergs

Almost 400. Nice

More points speculation. How much does Soontir Fel cost to be good? He's so much less tough than he used to be, but he's also fighting against all arced ships, he's the highest PS, and he's got a built in weak PTL so his talent a lot is freem

If he's base 60 (before any upgrades) is that too okay?

Is 50 to little?

Is 70 D.O.A.?

How much is an extra hit point worth on him in the form of Shield/Hull Upgrade?

The skill gap thing is interesting. Is there consternation amongst circles of established “good” players about horrible meta lists closing the skill gap? Or has everyone been so steeped in it for so long, that it’s hard to tell who’s actually good anymore?

That last sentence might be most Krayt thing I’ve ever said or typed. I’m not sure how I feel about that.

I'm really worried that we're all so bad at the game at this point that costing Soontir at his actual value (in the hands of a skilled player) will make him too expensive to play. How do you account for the skill required to make use of a finesse pilot fairly with pricing?

or rephrased:

Do you cost Soontir at his value in the hands of an average pilot or his value in the hands of a good pilot?

29 minutes ago, Transmogrifier said:

I'm really worried that we're all so bad at the game at this point that costing Soontir at his actual value (in the hands of a skilled player) will make him too expensive to play. How do you account for the skill required to make use of a finesse pilot fairly with pricing?

or rephrased:

Do you cost Soontir at his value in the hands of an average pilot or his value in the hands of a good pilot?

At his value in the hands of a good player.

58 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

More points speculation. How much does Soontir Fel cost to be good? He's so much less tough than he used to be, but he's also fighting against all arced ships, he's the highest PS, and he's got a built in weak PTL so his talent a lot is freem

If he's base 60 (before any upgrades) is that too okay?

Is 50 to little?

Is 70 D.O.A.?

How much is an extra hit point worth on him in the form of Shield/Hull Upgrade?

I think the first time most players get caught in multiple arcs with Soontir and take damage they will switch to something with more health almost immediately.

But it should still probably be closer to 70 than 50.