9 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

I think you're being unduly harsh in your criticism of the developers. My take on the interview was they no longer have the time to devote to the game because of other commitments that were forced upon them.

I have no knowledge of the time frame that they're slave to but considering the frequency of releases I imagine they've pulled many long nights. I also got the impression that they weren't happy about the situation that was probably forced upon them.

Adding new content and trying to keep it fresh and different enough is no easy task considering how big X-wing is.

You're right about a one PS level making a big difference but that's been true from day one. There are a lot of strong builds that "PS killed" just by facing the wrong opponent. That's a game mechanic that can be considered flawed, for lack of a better word. Especially when coupled with post maneuver relocation.

I don't have answers to the problems X-wing has concerning balanced play. I don't know if there are good solutions. I do know that a lot of suggestions brought up on the forums are pretty bad. They are a self-serving attempt to make "X" good again rather than truly trying to balance the game.

I think you're way too kind.

How many companies are understaffed because that's better than being overstaffed?

And then how many people pull all-nighters/work week-ends/go into crunch time in order to get the product ready to be produced? They sure as **** can't say "Meh, it's alright"

I can't give a free pass to a product "because it's star wars"

Edit: why is the bad place for the afterlife a bad word?

18 minutes ago, ImperialPropaganda said:

Edit: why is the bad place for the afterlife a bad word?

I imagine because FFG is American. They don't know the full glory of dropping the C-bomb in casual conversations.

9 minutes ago, ImperialPropaganda said:

I think you're way too kind.

How many companies are understaffed because that's better than being overstaffed?

And then how many people pull all-nighters/work week-ends/go into crunch time in order to get the product ready to be produced? They sure as **** can't say "Meh, it's alright"

I can't give a free pass to a product "because it's star wars"

Edit: why is the bad place for the afterlife a bad word?

No, I don't think I'm being too kind. I don't get upset over a game's imbalance like some other players do. And since I know little of game design, I'm not going to berate the designers because my four X-wings have zero chance of taking worlds.

You're right. From a monetary standpoint, understaffed is cheaper. Cheaper to pay overtime than it is to pay benefits for another employee. That's assuming they get overtime. Depending upon their classification they may not. Or they may have to put in a certain amount on "incidental overtime" before they qualify for paid overtime. Plus they're not working just on X-wing. Their time is spread over multiple projects with multiple playtesters and multiple deadlines. When you're pulled in multiple directions like that things suffer.

Maybe I'm more tolerant or maybe I just don't give a rodent's rump about game balance. I enjoy playing two or three times a week. Met some new friends and reconnected with some old ones. I see no reason to bad mouth the designers. The meta changes, the complaints don't.

50 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

No, I don't think I'm being too kind. I don't get upset over a game's imbalance like some other players do. And since I know little of game design, I'm not going to berate the designers because my four X-wings have zero chance of taking worlds.

You're right. From a monetary standpoint, understaffed is cheaper. Cheaper to pay overtime than it is to pay benefits for another employee. That's assuming they get overtime. Depending upon their classification they may not. Or they may have to put in a certain amount on "incidental overtime" before they qualify for paid overtime. Plus they're not working just on X-wing. Their time is spread over multiple projects with multiple playtesters and multiple deadlines. When you're pulled in multiple directions like that things suffer.

Maybe I'm more tolerant or maybe I just don't give a rodent's rump about game balance. I enjoy playing two or three times a week. Met some new friends and reconnected with some old ones. I see no reason to bad mouth the designers. The meta changes, the complaints don't.

Well said!

Addionally, most of X-Wing is well designed (which is also why the bits that aren't stand out like a sore thumb). It's a game, it's fun to play. There are aspects which I would like changed, and I see no reason why they haven't been already, but I play X-Wing in order to enjoy my time doing so - making new friends every tournament, re-connecting with ones I made the previous times, and playing regularly with local friends - not to get angry over it!

48 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

No, I don't think I'm being too kind. I don't get upset over a game's imbalance like some other players do. And since I know little of game design, I'm not going to berate the designers because my four X-wings have zero chance of taking worlds.

You're right. From a monetary standpoint, understaffed is cheaper. Cheaper to pay overtime than it is to pay benefits for another employee. That's assuming they get overtime. Depending upon their classification they may not. Or they may have to put in a certain amount on "incidental overtime" before they qualify for paid overtime. Plus they're not working just on X-wing. Their time is spread over multiple projects with multiple playtesters and multiple deadlines. When you're pulled in multiple directions like that things suffer.

Maybe I'm more tolerant or maybe I just don't give a rodent's rump about game balance. I enjoy playing two or three times a week. Met some new friends and reconnected with some old ones. I see no reason to bad mouth the designers. The meta changes, the complaints don't.

I'm with you, generally.

Of all the meta changers I can excuse phantom, fat han, palp aces, 'balance to the force' (since they react slowly).

I cannot excuse the jumpmasters and scurrg bombers. These are obvious problems in design, in that these two boats have way too many combo available to them (present or future).

The game is still fun, but for the moment I drifted towards Epic/HOTAC and other games.

If I'm sitting in a restaurant and the food that's coming out of the kitchen is terrible does it matter why it's terrible?

It could be that the chefs are crap, it could be that the chefs are doing their best but the owners have bought them the worst ingredients and utensils, it could even be that the owners cared so little that they didn't even bother to hire proper chefs.

Whatever the reason, most of the food being served is terrible and that's what they're ultimately going to be reviewed on.

3 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

It would just be Miranda with predator at range 2-3. And she's doing well with out the old elite slot. I feel hortons strength likes in either alpha strike torps or tlt at medium- long range because he basically gets a free target lock re-roll.

i mean epts are good, and if it doesn't involve everyone's favorite astromech, which one would you take, also which astromech would you take instead? Does a free ept benefit Horton , and to what extent? Only reason I'm asking this is because we have two examples of strong ships (Miranda and nym) and one doesn't have an elite, and the other people are suggesting he lose his elite status. Other than just bumping Horton to ps 10, what other elite would he be worth running?

Expertise. Coupled with his own ability, he's likely to get max damage on every attack roll at ranges 2 and 3. Vectored Thrusters for his action so he can get the range correctly, or R5P9 to regenerate and make him worth his points. No need for Guidance Chips because of his ability. All he would need to become a monster is reloadable torpedoes or a turret which does the damage rolled at range 3.

And then a points reduction because he'd cost over 45 and be killed too easily! (See PS8 Nym...)

10 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

If I'm sitting in a restaurant and the food that's coming out of the kitchen is terrible does it matter why it's terrible?

It could be that the chefs are crap, it could be that the chefs are doing their best but the owners have bought them the worst ingredients and utensils, it could even be that the owners cared so little that they didn't even bother to hire proper chefs.

Whatever the reason, most of the food being served is terrible and that's what they're ultimately going to be reviewed on.

Don't go to that restaurant again. Your problem is solved.

14 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

Don't go to that restaurant again. Your problem is solved.

There are a couple of things on the menu that are actually quite nice. So long as I'm careful to choose dining companions who aren't going to eat the sort of things that are so bad it will put me off my food then it's ok.

3 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

There are a couple of things on the menu that are actually quite nice. So long as I'm careful to choose dining companions who aren't going to eat the sort of things that areal bad it will put me off my food then it's ok.

This sums up my experience with x-wing at the club level.

My interest unfortunatly waned after last year, when manaroo/attani was the craze and I basically played only against it for 4 months straight...

So now I'm actually ultra-careful about dining companions

1 hour ago, Stay On The Leader said:

If I'm sitting in a restaurant and the food that's coming out of the kitchen is terrible does it matter why it's terrible?

How about if you - and 95% of the other diners - actually really enjoy a good variety of the menu and always have a pleasurable dining experience, despite the fact that there's the same 5% of diners who turn up every single day to COMPLAIN AS LOUDLY AS POSSIBLE about everything on the menu, regardless of whether they've actually been served it or tasted it yet or not?

1 minute ago, FTS Gecko said:

How about if you - and 95% of the other diners* - actually really enjoy a good variety of the menu and always have a pleasurable dining experience, despite the fact that there's the same 5% of diners who turn up every single day to COMPLAIN AS LOUDLY AS POSSIBLE about everything on the menu, regardless of whether they've actually been served it or tasted it yet or not?

* citation needed

8 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

* citation needed

You're absolutely correct. 100% of the diners I speak to whenever I'm at the restaurant have an amazing experience, it's those anonymous Yelp reviewers who I never actually see eating that are doing the majority of the bleating.

1 minute ago, FTS Gecko said:

You're absolutely correct. 100% of the diners I speak to whenever I'm at the restaurant have an amazing experience, it's those anonymous Yelp reviewers who I never actually see eating that are doing the majority of the bleating.

Then I don't understand what you're complaining about? You seem to be deliberately seeking out people just so you can be upset about meeting them.

2 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Then I don't understand what you're complaining about? You seem to be deliberately seeking out people just so you can be upset about meeting them.

"How about if you - and 95% of the other diners - actually really enjoy a good variety of the menu and always have a pleasurable dining experience"

Does that sound like a complaint to you?

3 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

"How about if you - and 95% of the other diners - actually really enjoy a good variety of the menu and always have a pleasurable dining experience"

Does that sound like a complaint to you?

So that's a 'negative' to negativity towards negativity that might negatively affect the game?

If I go to a restaurant and they serve me R3 Astromech; I'll burn their kitchen to the ground. I don't care if they ran out of chicken.

If I go to a restaurant and they sevre R3 Astromech I'll start out by being annoyed because R3 Astromech is inedible and I ordered steak, and then proceed to immediately be gleeful because they served me a genuine AI with super cool sci fi space opera tech in.

3 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:

You're absolutely correct. 100% of the diners I speak to whenever I'm at the restaurant have an amazing experience, it's those anonymous Yelp reviewers who I never actually see eating that are doing the majority of the bleating.

Are you seeing a consistent number of players in your area? Are you seeing people stick with the game for long periods of time? In our "restaurant" we're seeing fewer diners and of those, there is a lot of transition in the names with people only trying a couple of "meals" before deciding to go somewhere else, and I actually think most of them ARE quietly moving on.

Of course, the problem with the dining metaphors are that it is quite easy to stop going to a place as you typically haven't invested hundreds to thousands of dollars in a product that, at least in the past, was something that the developers said they would try to remain balanced and relevant.

If your group is stable and has been seeing the same numbers as you always have that's great, but that's not consistent with the experience I'm hearing from most of the community.

With respect to blame for Alex, Frank, and Max, I do think the developers gave some very good insight into why many of the problems of this game are a bit beyond them and articulated that well. That said, I do feel like in other past interviews, they've also articulated their vision much more clearly and sounded more invested in addressing concerns of the game than they did in this interview. Personally, in other interviews, I've found my concerns assuaged and looking forward to the direction of the game. I think they're great guys, but I didn't get that same reassurance from this interview that I have in the past.

2 minutes ago, AlexW said:

Are you seeing a consistent number of players in your area? Are you seeing people stick with the game for long periods of time?

Yes and yes. Playing at the same store for 2+ years now, the same faces have been there every time I visit, plus newcomers joining as well. Usually 10-16 for a mid-week game night, double that for a weekend event or store championship, double again for regionals (at least, last November's regional was sold out with 180 attending and a waiting list for tickets on the day).

At the same time we've just had our largest ever Nationals here in the UK. What can I say, we have a great community.

29 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

Yes and yes. Playing at the same store for 2+ years now, the same faces have been there every time I visit, plus newcomers joining as well. Usually 10-16 for a mid-week game night, double that for a weekend event or store championship, double again for regionals (at least, last November's regional was sold out with 180 attending and a waiting list for tickets on the day).

At the same time we've just had our largest ever Nationals here in the UK. What can I say, we have a great community.

Yeah, I was mostly talking about numbers since last regionals (which were the high point for now). We had a lot of people playing leading up to World's getting 25-30 people even on weeknights and early on in SC season. Store Championships were down significantly (the previous round, stores had sold out well in advance and had to take pre-registration) but still numbered usually in the high teens to low 30s. (FFGs is always bigger 60-70 but was smaller this year as well). After the release of the most recent Wave, things have dropped off precipitously, between 10-15 and weekend tourneys aren't drawing many more. Regionals will be an interesting test for the game, at least here.

Like I said, it sounds like it's different in different places. People with concerns about the game in your area may be a small vocal minority, but in a lot of ours they're a small voice of a larger majority that aren't playing.

15 minutes ago, AlexW said:

Are you seeing a consistent number of players in your area? Are you seeing people stick with the game for long periods of time? In our "restaurant" we're seeing fewer diners and of those, there is a lot of transition in the names with people only trying a couple of "meals" before deciding to go somewhere else, and I actually think most of them ARE quietly moving on.

Of course, the problem with the dining metaphors are that it is quite easy to stop going to a place as you typically haven't invested hundreds to thousands of dollars in a product that, at least in the past, was something that the developers said they would try to remain balanced and relevant.

If your group is stable and has been seeing the same numbers as you always have that's great, but that's not consistent with the experience I'm hearing from most of the community.

With respect to blame for Alex, Frank, and Max, I do think the developers gave some very good insight into why many of the problems of this game are a bit beyond them and articulated that well. That said, I do feel like in other past interviews, they've also articulated their vision much more clearly and sounded more invested in addressing concerns of the game than they did in this interview. Personally, in other interviews, I've found my concerns assuaged and looking forward to the direction of the game. I think they're great guys, but I didn't get that same reassurance from this interview that I have in the past.

For me this is pretty much how I felt after listening to the podcast. I'd love for my older ships I own 4 of each model for to still be useful and in the past the devs have certainly given the impression that's what they'd like. I honestly felt a bit like they were saying "Well, not much we can do about it so just buy the new ships and see how it works out. Or make your own formats up?" which I felt a bit let down by having invested a whole lot of my pennies into the game. Maybe that sounds a little entitled but... I'd rather not have 3 large cases of ships doing nothing for most of their lives.

1 minute ago, Smutpedler said:

For me this is pretty much how I felt after listening to the podcast. I'd love for my older ships I own 4 of each model for to still be useful and in the past the devs have certainly given the impression that's what they'd like. I honestly felt a bit like they were saying "Well, not much we can do about it so just buy the new ships and see how it works out. Or make your own formats up?"

That's fair enough. The impression that I got wasn't so much "there's not much that we can do about it" so much as "there's not much we can say about it, at least right now". The only line which stuck me otherwise rally was the one (paraphrasing) "If no-one's taking swarms, is releasing a ship that's good against swarms a big deal?". I'm still inclined to give FFG the benefit of the doubt on this, and the "make your own formats up" part seemed more related to questions about alternate game modes than balance.

5 minutes ago, Smutpedler said:

I'd rather not have 3 large cases of ships doing nothing for most of their lives.

Well... that's always going to be the case regardless. I literally have four KR cases of X-Wing ships, one for each faction and a half-size which is my carry case for events. Playing competitively, you're only going to be fielding one faction, 100 points at a time... so the rest of your models will be sat unused. Even playing Epic, you're going to be playing one faction, so 2/3rds of your models will be sat unused. And that's without going into favourite ships, pilots and builds... balance questions aside, the majority of your collection will be idle.

I agree it would be good to have an extra incentive to take some of your older models back out and put them on the tabletop in a competitive environment, but it will always be at the expense of something else in your collection. It's the nature of the beast.

That's some mathwing that matters right there.

I wonder roughly how many players with investments in the product can not make use of their product since the jumpmaster came about.

How many competitive x wing players are there in the world?

I really wonder.

36 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

Well... that's always going to be the case regardless. I literally have four KR cases of X-Wing ships, one for each faction and a half-size which is my carry case for events. Playing competitively, you're only going to be fielding one faction, 100 points at a time... so the rest of your models will be sat unused. Even playing Epic, you're going to be playing one faction, so 2/3rds of your models will be sat unused. And that's without going into favourite ships, pilots and builds... balance questions aside, the majority of your collection will be idle.

I agree it would be good to have an extra incentive to take some of your older models back out and put them on the tabletop in a competitive environment, but it will always be at the expense of something else in your collection. It's the nature of the beast.

I think people are smart enough to realize this, but that's not really what they're asking for, nor what has been said in the past. Developers have, in the past, said that they are generally trying to keep ships from previous waves relevant and balanced.