1 hour ago, Kieransi said:

I don’t think any of us have a problem with this, really. As a frequent DM myself, I’m used to playing the “bad guys”. It seems to be the developers who have the problem... they clearly like the scum and rebel characters more, so they’re purposely making them more powerful.

I think if FFG has a bias toward something, it's Rebels. Scum releases without any turrets or aces in a turret/ace meta, then proceeds to be the red-headed step child of competitive x-wing for over a year until FFG does something (the Jumpmaster). Imperials have fallen on the side for over a year, nothing has happened yet. Meanwhile, Rebels fell on the side for a bit due to torp boats ? Instant (by FFG standards) nerf.

For our next episode we are going to give our feedback and after thoughts on what was said in this episode. Alex only listens to the episodes that he is on, so we should be safe to ask for another interview again in the future

3 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

Oh I'm sure there's still people out there that feel that way. My question is: how did you survive the 80s as a DM?!

I switched to GURPS and became a GM

3 hours ago, sozin said:

For our next episode we are going to give our feedback and after thoughts on what was said in this episode. Alex only listens to the episodes that he is on, so we should be safe to ask for another interview again in the future

Tell them there are a lot of people who feel this way:

Keep making ships!!

Eek. Mixed bag on preview of the episode. Hope I find a nugget or two of hope but I fear it’s only going to confirm my suspicions.

I was mildly alarmed by the fact that a campaign set does not appear to be on the cards, nor do they have any ideas for making the game something other than 100/6.

Their only idea is make more ships? I think that is why we are where we are. If your business model does not let you alter the game to a playable/enjoyable state...change the business model!

I had noticed a difference in quality of the game when Max started. It felt very much like he was behind the extremely complicated and wordy conditions that were introduced as well as some awfully sloppy card text, but listening to him over several interviews he does seem to “get it” so i’m hopeful.

The X-wing fix is built on hope.

31 minutes ago, ID X T said:

I was mildly alarmed by the fact that a campaign set does not appear to be on the cards, nor do they have any ideas for making the game something other than 100/6.

Their only idea is make more ships? I think that is why we are where we are. If your business model does not let you alter the game to a playable/enjoyable state...change the business model!

I had noticed a difference in quality of the game when Max started. It felt very much like he was behind the extremely complicated and wordy conditions that were introduced as well as some awfully sloppy card text, but listening to him over several interviews he does seem to “get it” so i’m hopeful.

The X-wing fix is built on hope.

Wasn't it Max who said "If you people are going to make another 300 pages thread, don't make it about the Skipray Blastboat, make it about alternate play modes."? I might have put the wrong face on that voice.

It sounded to me like "We want to make alternate play modes, but the suits don't see enough interest for that in the forums. Now, if you made some noise about it..."

17 minutes ago, Azrapse said:

Wasn't it Max who said "If you people are going to make another 300 pages thread, don't make it about the Skipray Blastboat, make it about alternate play modes."? I might have put the wrong face on that voice.

It sounded to me like "We want to make alternate play modes, but the suits don't see enough interest for that in the forums. Now, if you made some noise about it..."

That's not really how I parade what was being said there. The basic gist I got was "Make a massive thread about alternate play modes, which will, in turn result in lots of people playing that mode which might, in turn, lead to cards being made with that play mode in mind even if it isn't necessarily formally supported". Kind of a different thing, unfortunately.

As far ad the actual interview goes... Yeah, uh... Not great*. Not terrible, but my mind has hardly been put at ease that they actually recognise what the fundamental issue are around Nym, Lowrrick/Biggs/Rex, Kylo, even Jumpmasters, and that they should have been identified at the design stage.

I found the way Frank and Max responded to Major Juggler particularly telling when they were talking about a theoretical formula for a PS9 arc dodger. They were talking about how a lot of the balance and costing stuff is based on experience, and how something feels on the table. Which would be fine, except time and time again, the number of overpowered ships, cards and combinations that have slipped through and needed to be errata'd (and not to forget the number of overpriced or underpowered cards on the other end of the spectrum; we talk about it far less, but an underpowered card misses the mark just as much as an overpowered card) should have demonstrated that experience actually doesn't help much. Experience with the Phantom should have prevented Advanced Sensors Nym. Experience with Advanced SLAM Miranda and X7 defenders should have prevented the bomblet Genius interaction. I'm sure time is a factor in some of these, but it remains clear that what they're doing now could easily to improve, yet they don't seem to agree, which is disappointing.

*By which I mean what was said, not the way in which it was carried out or anything like that.

1 hour ago, MacchuWA said:

That's not really how I parade what was being said there. The basic gist I got was "Make a massive thread about alternate play modes, which will, in turn result in lots of people playing that mode which might, in turn, lead to cards being made with that play mode in mind even if it isn't necessarily formally supported". Kind of a different thing, unfortunately.

I think you are right.

Now I just wonder... for which game mode was R3 Astromech made for?

Leaving aside the meta and ship design discussion (on which I have similar feelings to most of the commenters here), I was pleased to see that alternate play formats are very much on the radar, even if they aren't the priority like ships are. I for one am very keen to boot up a 300-page alternate gametype thread. What do you folks think?

9 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

At the 39:00 minute mark they start hinting at the possibility if open playtesting in the future! That would be nice.

They already do open playtesting; things are routinely made public knowledge 3+ months prior to release, and unbalanced combos and poor writing are typically identified almost immediately. They just don't collect meaningful data from it or pay attention to what data does accumulate naturally.

17 hours ago, Babaganoosh said:

It's a good point. The fabled X-wing fix has been needed for a long, long time. I think there are some cards that could be seen as fix attempts, most notable the integrated astromech. And at the same time, Biggs is an exceptional design problem that an x wing fix must overcome (that is, it cannot buff biggs).

But all in all, a strong fix attempt is long overdue.

ALMOST as long overdue as a Hortan Salm EPT - and 1 point droids don't count!

I really don't think Biggs is a problem if the "fixes" don't buff defensive abilities. Reduction in points, and some post maneuver repositioning ability would be good for the X-wing but would have little effect on Biggs.

3 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

I really don't think Biggs is a problem if the "fixes" don't buff defensive abilities. Reduction in points, and some post maneuver repositioning ability would be good for the X-wing but would have little effect on Biggs.

Or giving X-Wings access to the Bullseye firing arc, for example.

4 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

I really don't think Biggs is a problem if the "fixes" don't buff defensive abilities. Reduction in points, and some post maneuver repositioning ability would be good for the X-wing but would have little effect on Biggs.

Yes I agree - the limiting effect of Biggs is often blown out of proportion

17 hours ago, clanofwolves said:

Scum and Villainy is awesome! Thanks for trapping them, though.....

So far (listening now) so NOT having anything useful to illuminate at all; they seem confused or without direction.

In the end, mostly political speak, nothing more.

Did you catch the part where they said until recently they had little or no say about which ship's to develop? Obviously, being hamstrung in terms which ship's to develop and the order of release has helped shape the game.

12 hours ago, Cubanboy said:

@Kelvan I have not listened to this yet but did you ask them when Horton Salm was getting an EPT?

No my hope is dead on that.

I actually had a conversation on this. I don't think he'd be playable with the EPT for free at the same point cost nowadays.

7 hours ago, MacchuWA said:

That's not really how I parade what was being said there. The basic gist I got was "Make a massive thread about alternate play modes, which will, in turn result in lots of people playing that mode which might, in turn, lead to cards being made with that play mode in mind even if it isn't necessarily formally supported". Kind of a different thing, unfortunately.

As far ad the actual interview goes... Yeah, uh... Not great*. Not terrible, but my mind has hardly been put at ease that they actually recognise what the fundamental issue are around Nym, Lowrrick/Biggs/Rex, Kylo, even Jumpmasters, and that they should have been identified at the design stage.

I found the way Frank and Max responded to Major Juggler particularly telling when they were talking about a theoretical formula for a PS9 arc dodger. They were talking about how a lot of the balance and costing stuff is based on experience, and how something feels on the table. Which would be fine, except time and time again, the number of overpowered ships, cards and combinations that have slipped through and needed to be errata'd (and not to forget the number of overpriced or underpowered cards on the other end of the spectrum; we talk about it far less, but an underpowered card misses the mark just as much as an overpowered card) should have demonstrated that experience actually doesn't help much. Experience with the Phantom should have prevented Advanced Sensors Nym. Experience with Advanced SLAM Miranda and X7 defenders should have prevented the bomblet Genius interaction. I'm sure time is a factor in some of these, but it remains clear that what they're doing now could easily to improve, yet they don't seem to agree, which is disappointing.

*By which I mean what was said, not the way in which it was carried out or anything like that.

To your point almost every overpowered ship has had outrageous jousting value when @MajorJuggler runs the numbers.

Oh, and is it just me or did it seem that they had given up on the idea of fixing older ships? I mean, they overtly stated that 'they're not at all worried about TIE fighters or swarms being a thing' and retorted to harpoon missile inquiries with, 'as far as harpoon missiles being a real issue for Swarms, who cares, they're not played anyway.'

That was a tough pill to swallow if you love most the classic core ships: TIEs, A-Wings, X-Wings, etc.

How do you NOT anticipate Kylo Palp RAC being good?!

51 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

Did you catch the part where they said until recently they had little or no say about which ship's to develop? Obviously, being hamstrung in terms which ship's to develop and the order of release has helped shape the game.

Yeah, I did. I wonder which ones they've been able to select beyond the green lighted Gunboat? I'm not sure this is a positive for them though. I'm guessing the original couple of waves of original trilogy ships were set for them and that's good; though their balance in their design was wanting. Would the "higher ups" select the K-Wing? The Jumpmaster 5000? I doubt it.

Then there is this little somewhat hidden jewel of contradiction:

When they were asked about X-Wing fixes, the designers went down memory lane and state that the 'X-Wing was always under-powered to the TIE swarm' and proved it simply by saying, 'mathematically the numbers just favor the Swarm.' It seemed like they had a bit more regret about the TIE design than the potential to fix the X-Wing. But the contradiction came when they abandoned the notion that anything could be tested 'mathematically' during design when they were answering the stacked question on the why un-nerf the Phantom/what about the upcoming Silencer, as they stated their design philosophy being anti-'formulas' and that they would rather design 'based on experience' and how 'something feels on the table.'

Hummmmmmmm?

Just now, clanofwolves said:

Yeah, I did. I wonder which ones they've been able to select beyond the green lighted Gunboat? I'm not sure this is a positive for them though. I'm guessing the original couple of waves of original trilogy ships were set for them and that's good; though their balance in their design was wanting. Would the "higher ups" select the K-Wing? The Jumpmaster 5000? I doubt it.

You really don't know. I also wonder if the higher ups had any say in what the stat lines looked like. Directions from LFL or The Mouse might explain some things.

Yeah, you can understand they were railroaded on T-70, TIE/fo, TIE/sf, Quadjumper, Upsilon, Striker, U-Wing etc. Even Ghost, Lancer, Protectorate, Inquisitor are all going to be pushed in from Rebels.

What's left that they got to choose is the Jumpmaster, K-Wing, Auzituck, Scurrg... it just makes it all the more clear where the problem lies.

10 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

You really don't know. I also wonder if the higher ups had any say in what the stat lines looked like. Directions from LFL or The Mouse might explain some things.

10 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Yeah, you can understand they were railroaded on T-70, TIE/fo, TIE/sf, Quadjumper, Upsilon, Striker, U-Wing etc. Even Ghost, Lancer, Protectorate, Inquisitor are all going to be pushed in from Rebels.

What's left that they got to choose is the Jumpmaster, K-Wing, Auzituck, Scurrg... it just makes it all the more clear where the problem lies.

I'm leaning towards this too.

The Mouse just wants his movie and cartoon ships out there, and they are pretty much all balanced. I think it's these other ships plucked from Star Wars obscurity, pushed up from some dark recesses, completely internal to FFGs studios.

25 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

Oh, and is it just me or did it seem that they had given up on the idea of fixing older ships? I mean, they overtly stated that 'they're not at all worried about TIE fighters or swarms being a thing' and retorted to harpoon missile inquiries with, 'as far as harpoon missiles being a real issue for Swarms, who cares, they're not played anyway.'

That was a tough pill to swallow if you love most the classic core ships: TIEs, A-Wings, X-Wings, etc.

Boy this hits me in the heart. My favorite lists are 5+ ships at low PS. That game play is more or less gone unless you count Triple Scout, which may be out the door if they nerf it. Even then it was less fun than a tie swarm or 2A3B back in the day.