18 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I think fun can be present in all of them so there's no reason to discuss it if it's the same. However: part of my reasoning is that in the mid/long term, the person who relies on good lists as crutch (and who exclusively netlists, to add in that topic) will be more frustrated once his "skill" vanishes overnight. So in that sense I believe that my way leads to a more sustained fun.

Yes, it's his choice. But it will be my problem once he's frustrated because DengarNym has been nerfed and he has no clue how to play anything else and quits. I think it's not "healthy" in the long term for the community, and for the fun of the individual player.

Can be, but not always for every person. Like I've said in a different thread, there are different skills involved with listing building and flying. If someone only really cares about the flying aspect, then they are more likely to look around at what's doing well and looks fun. And they aren't getting the game wrong. They are playing how they want to play. I know you prize list building as a essential part of the game and to an extant, I do too. But not everyone does. Heck, when I started in this game, I played the "different to be different" list building game and it sucked. Now I fly what I like (whether that is something I made up or a cool list I saw someone using) and I am happier. Why should I be forced to go back to that because other people think I am not learning enough?

I feel you are trying to dictate how people have fun. Will someone have a bad time if that one list they flew goes out of favor or get nerfed? Yeah. But that in itself is a lesson. And an actual good sport will shake it off and try something new. Your objections to players who get angry about their meta cheese list not autowinning for them or it getting nerfed is more a case against bad sports, not the lists themselves. Those types of players are gonna be a pain no matter what. The annoyance level will only change flavor if they were making their own lists.

You still have not addressed the point of people who do not have the time for listbuilding, but still want to fly. Are they a lessor X-Wing player because they only have time for one of the parts of the game?

i'm not saying your way doesn't have merits and is the right course of action for a good portion of the player base. But not everyone fits that mold. We are a wide and diverse player base with different expectations and wants from the game. Play how you want to play, give respect to the way someone else wants to play, ignore bad sports, and you have a a winning combo.

@Jeff Wilder - I respect that when you see some broken combination that you set it aside and try something else. I understand your view point entirely. I tend not to fly them because I don't find them fun, but that's my own view point. I respectfully disagree that players who use 'broken combos' to win are wrong or deserve to belittled for their choice. I'd actually point a finger back at FFG for creating the combo (yes, I know you do that too), not the player for using it. I don't take away from people who win with these meta power lists, but I'll applaud somebody for winning without one all the more.

5 minutes ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:

Can you at least give me an objective example of meta cheese?

A U-Wing is on that list in the link...

11 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

A U-Wing is on that list in the link...

Okay, i was going to put some effort into your request but..

9 minutes ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:

Okay, i was going to put some effort into your request but..

I think its still worth defining. Im just not sure Meta Juggler is a legite source for it since "cheesy" and tournament capable seem like two very different things.

I wouldnt spend to much time on it.

A personal **** list varys from person to person and is best discussed and understood 1 on 1.

Which is kind of my point overall.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to play casual, just talk it over with other people and do it.

At a tournament all bets are off and the only expectation is that people are nice to each other still.

2 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

I'd actually point a finger back at FFG for creating the combo (yes, I know you do that too), not the player for using it. I don't take away from people who win with these meta power lists, but I'll applaud somebody for winning without one all the more.

In that last sentence, you're literally taking away from people who win with meta-cheese ... you're applauding for them less. I'm not trying to "gotcha," I'm just pointing out that you're doing the same thing I do, just less openly. (And that's fine ... not everybody is -- or, God forbid, should be -- as confrontational as I am.

There's enough responsibility to go around for FFG and the meta-cheese players to shoulder some of it. How you want to apportion it is up to you; for me, honestly, it differs from day to day, how recently I got laid, and how much coffee I've had.

But yes, I will "shame" meta-cheese players. They are choosing it, even if FFG has enabled it. (I would argue that if you can be "shamed" by a cutting comment or a side-eye, you probably already feel you're doing something less than admirable, but whatever.) In fact, the meta-cheese players are part of the reason FFG produces -- mostly accidentally -- meta-cheese. Meta-cheese players demand power-creep, explicitly or implicitly.

Even more so, I will "shame" meta-cheese players in light of the stark realization i recently had that so many meta-cheese players have zero compunction about shaming "less competitive" players.

How many people got a big laugh from Travis (I assume Johnson?) mugging and making fun of other players for having opinions and making statements about the relative strength of components ... opinions and statements he clearly disagrees with, as a meta-cheese player? I've seen that a lot, but it was only recently that I realized that really well-liked players actually left the scene locally (only partially, probably) because of it. I, myself, was recently called a "scrub" on these very forums, despite my pretty decent tournament record, and despite the fact that I'm a competitive-personality player.

So suck it up, meta-cheesers. If you're really winners, you can take a little "shaming," can't you?

3 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

In that last sentence, you're literally taking away from people who win with meta-cheese ... you're applauding for them less. I'm not trying to "gotcha," I'm just pointing out that you're doing the same thing I do, just less openly. (And that's fine ... not everybody is -- or, God forbid, should be -- as confrontational as I am.

There's a difference between "Good job." and "Great job." Neither is implied shame.

Just now, LagJanson said:

There's a difference between "Good job." and "Great job." Neither is implied shame.

No, but one is less than the other, and you said "I don't take anything away." You're withholding something. If you want to split hairs and say that's different than "taking something away," sure. Knock yourself out.

Just now, Jeff Wilder said:

No, but one is less than the other, and you said "I don't take anything away." You're withholding something. If you want to split hairs and say that's different than "taking something away," sure. Knock yourself out.

But it is something different. Does an original list beating a known low tier list deserve the same praise as it beating a known high tier list? Winning is worth congratulations. Winning against the odds should get more. No judgements on people.

6 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

I think its still worth defining. Im just not sure Meta Juggler is a legite source for it since "cheesy" and tournament capable seem like two very different things.

I wouldnt spend to much time on it.

A personal **** list varys from person to person and is best discussed and understood 1 on 1.

Which is kind of my point overall.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to play casual, just talk it over with other people and do it.

At a tournament all bets are off and the only expectation is that people are nice to each other still.

As someone who plays with both types, and extremes of both types at that, I don't see what the fuss is about.. Not refuting anything you're saying, just wondering if it is that difficult to read (understand) the people you interact on a consistent basis and come to an agreement about what you want to play.

Human.. better?

1 minute ago, SabineKey said:

No judgements on people.

... Come on. The entire high-level competitive X-Wing scene is about judgments on people.

1 minute ago, Jeff Wilder said:

No, but one is less than the other, and you said "I don't take anything away." You're withholding something. If you want to split hairs and say that's different than "taking something away," sure. Knock yourself out.

Splitting hairs here but... I'm not taking away from their victory so much as applying more to something I feel is greater. I will still clap for a meta winner (and not the quiet polite claps - that is taking away) but a standing ovation for somebody who does something totally wild. If you feel the lack of the crowd rising to it's feet is taking away from an achievement, I can't very much make an argument to satisfy you.

2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

... Come on. The entire high-level competitive X-Wing scene is about judgments on people.

Nope.

Just now, LagJanson said:

I can't very much make an argument to satisfy you.

Honestly, it doesn't much matter. Believe it or not, I don't want everybody to be an annoyingly confrontational as I am. (I just feel like someone needs to be, and I'm particularly well qualified for it for several different reasons.)

3 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

... Come on. The entire high-level competitive X-Wing scene is about judgments on people.

You've been listening to the Krayts again..

Just now, Jeff Wilder said:

... Come on. The entire high-level competitive X-Wing scene is about judgments on people.

About their playing ability, yes. About their moral fibber? No. We judge how they played, not them as people. You can seperate a dislike for a list or card from the person using it. If someone is acting like a complete a$$, then yes judgment will happen. But that is based on how a person behaves, not the list they brought.

1 minute ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:

You've been listening to the Krayts again..

I can't help it. They make me laugh.

4 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

About their playing ability, yes. About their moral fibber? No. We judge how they played, not them as people. You can seperate a dislike for a list or card from the person using it. If someone is acting like a complete a$$, then yes judgment will happen. But that is based on how a person behaves, not the list they brought.

First, that's a funny Freudian slip.

Second, if you think that "the list they brought" is completely unrelated to "how a person behaves," you're just fooling yourself. For whatever reason.

Just now, Jeff Wilder said:

First, that's a funny Freudian slip.

Second, if you think that "the list they brought" is completely unrelated to "how a person behaves," you're just fooling yourself. For whatever reason.

I said moral fibber because that's what I see you implying. If that's not what you meant, I invite you to clear the air.

as for your second point, I could say the same about you. You don't know the whole reason someone brings a list. You assume it's just to win, and we all know the trick about assuming. That you can't accept that someone might just like a meta list for more than just its potency or even despite of it is you fooling yourself.

Chessy is just another word for "strong, but I don't like it, so I belittle you for using it"

3 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

I said moral fibber because that's what I see you implying. If that's not what you meant, I invite you to clear the air.

Whoosh.

Quote

You don't know the whole reason someone brings a list. You assume it's just to win, and we all know the trick about assuming. That you can't accept that someone might just like a meta list for more than just its potency or even despite of it is you fooling yourself.

Not at all. What you're ignoring is that some people actually consider the fun of both players in a two-player game to have some importance. Some people either outright don't care, or consider the other person's fun 100% the other person's responsibility.

In the recent discussions I've been having, here and (mostly) in my local community, one thing I've noticed, and remarked upon, is that the meta-cheese players do not talk about "fun" when they discuss this issue. It's all about "efficiency," "winning," "best chance to make the cut," and so on. It was a little funny when I pointed this out, because it was irrefutable: pages and pages of back and forth, on both sides, and literally the only people who expressed a desire for and a concern for "fun" were the not-meta-cheesers.

I found that very telling.

8 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Not at all. What you're ignoring is that some people actually consider the fun of both players in a two-player game to have some importance. Some people either outright don't care, or consider the other person's fun 100% the other person's responsibility.

In the recent discussions I've been having, here and (mostly) in my local community, one thing I've noticed, and remarked upon, is that the meta-cheese players do not talk about "fun" when they discuss this issue. It's all about "efficiency," "winning," "best chance to make the cut," and so on. It was a little funny when I pointed this out, because it was irrefutable: pages and pages of back and forth, on both sides, and literally the only people who expressed a desire for and a concern for "fun" were the not-meta-cheesers.

I found that very telling.

I find the fun in games is the competitive aspect. I like pushing myself to the best of my abilities, and just as importantly I like the same from my opponent. I have no problem with people who enjoy the game casually, but for me the most fun I have is in high level games. As a result, my lists tend to lean more towards "meta cheese," because beating someone, or losing to someone, because a less optimized list gets exploited, hinders my enjoyment of the game.

As for discussions around the competitive environment, of course they discuss efficiency and winning, because they're geared towards people who enjoy that aspect of the game.

9 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Whoosh.

Still waiting.

9 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Not at all. What you're ignoring is that some people actually consider the fun of both players in a two-player game to have some importance. Some people either outright don't care, or consider the other person's fun 100% the other person's responsibility.

In the recent discussions I've been having, here and (mostly) in my local community, one thing I've noticed, and remarked upon, is that the meta-cheese players do not talk about "fun" when they discuss this issue. It's all about "efficiency," "winning," "best chance to make the cut," and so on. It was a little funny when I pointed this out, because it was irrefutable: pages and pages of back and forth, on both sides, and literally the only people who expressed a desire for and a concern for "fun" were the not-meta-cheesers.

I found that very telling.

So, if someone else aren't willing to adapt and learn, the person who flies the "meta cheese" is the one that must change? Isn't that forcing another player to conform to what you want, something I've seen you speak out against? Both sides require consideration of the other. And in the end, the person who is having problems with meta cheese must look to themselves for solving the situation. Whether it is open communications with the other player, adjust lists to limit the impact of things they don't like, or find like minded people. I know this because I've made those choices and am happier for it. I have accepted that having fun is on me, not my opponent. And again, the times I don't have fun are based on the attitudes of the person across from me, not their list.

If the "meta cheese" player is a good sport, they will make concessions. But concessions only one way is entitlement. I will gladly work with someone who brings up a problem they are having and tries to discuss it like equals. My motivation slopes off the more they act like judge and jury.

Again, you ignore posters like me who are defending flying meta lists under the banner of fun. Your local shop doesn't represent every player, nor does this forum.

8 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Not at all. What you're ignoring is that some people actually consider the fun of both players in a two-player game to have some importance. Some people either outright don't care, or consider the other person's fun 100% the other person's responsibility.

In the recent discussions I've been having, here and (mostly) in my local community, one thing I've noticed, and remarked upon, is that the meta-cheese players do not talk about "fun" when they discuss this issue. It's all about "efficiency," "winning," "best chance to make the cut," and so on. It was a little funny when I pointed this out, because it was irrefutable: pages and pages of back and forth, on both sides, and literally the only people who expressed a desire for and a concern for "fun" were the not-meta-cheesers.

I found that very telling.

Fun is an interesting concept in itself. The most fun playing in the N.A. Championships was when I took my crazy list against FSR2. I lost, only killed Rex, but I found it a highly enjoyable experience.

I admit I took FSR2 to Nationals - first time I've taken a meta power list to a big event. I wanted to make sure I had just enough wins to get an alternate art card but I wanted a list that was fun for me to fly. Flying FSR2 at Canadian Nationals was fun to fly. Of course, I didn't castle in the corner (where does that get fun?) and engaged my opponents but I'm still flying a meta power list and having fun. All but one of my opponents were smiling and having fun. Now, it's anecdotal, not a realistic statistic in any way, but it seems fun is still a fair factor in these games. What made it fun? Was it me joking around with them and engaging them on a personal level? Was it the challenge the list presented them? I don't know, I never asked. Fun was still very much a factor in the day though.

1 hour ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:

As someone who plays with both types, and extremes of both types at that, I don't see what the fuss is about.. Not refuting anything you're saying, just wondering if it is that difficult to read (understand) the people you interact on a consistent basis and come to an agreement about what you want to play.

Human.. better?

Yea its not necessarily difficult to read as long as I ask them directly about it ahead of time. If its a super new player of course the experienced player has some responsibility to adjust and sort out how they want to learn.

Generally confusion on this with more experienced players is almost never a problem as long as I remember to directly ask people I dont know really well if they have are comfortable with the matchup or looking for something a bit different.

As long as I get that out of the way its fine and typically the game is a pleasant experience.

Its when they say yea no problem you can use that I dont care or if no conversation is had about self imposed balance that things can get a little wonky.

Occasionally they secretly they do care....alot....and get passive aggressive about the game as soon as it starts because "x" card bothers them.

Thats when I get confused.