Agreed. I figured RAClo was a targeted counter to the Rebel regen meta of Wave 7. Guess not?

Here are some quotes from the interview that I found the most enlightening. They're kind of long and I don't how to spoiler them, but here they are in case you're interested in them. My thoughts follow.

P.S. I'm not super familiar with the designers' voices, so I may have made attribution errors. If so, I apologize.

(With regard to a mathematical formula for PS 9 arc-dodger costing)

Alex: “There is a very experiential aspect to it, is what I think Frank is getting at. And, it can be hard sometimes to pin down the specifics of what is or isn’t — what does or doesn’t feel good on the table. Sometimes there are very, like, odd interactions that should be — that work out by the numbers but don’t work out when people are playing the game. […] I think that equation would be useful, but it wouldn’t replace testing, because sometimes there are just weird interactions that come out that seem to mean things have to cost different amounts, and if you do the testing you find that the numbers aren’t in the place you’d expect them to be.”

(With regard to alternative formats)

Alex: “It’s really just a question of bandwidth. You know, Fantasy Flight makes a ton of new games, and also provides a ton of expansions for existing games, so when the question is do we, you know, do we get more ships out for X-Wing or do we get some alternative formats out for X-Wing, the answer’s always going to be more ships. That being said, I think we were talking a little bit before the show, we actually have a proper miniatures department now, which is not something that we’ve always had. Back in the day, it was pretty much just Frank and I. But there’s […] we’ve got eight total. But, like, we’ve really been committing to actually growing miniatures games within the company; serious resources have been devoted to that, and I think that’s going to pay off in big dividends as time goes by, I mean we’ve already got a brand-new game in terms of Legion and Rune Wars, so, yeah, something I want to certainly do is do some things for X-Wing that aren’t just focused on that death-match format. …”

Frank: “The other thought I had was about how just the sheer number of people we have in OP. It’s, uh, not that many. We have way more game lines that are competitive that we need to keep tournament environments viable for than we actually have people in the Organized Play department. So, keep that in mind whenever you’re being like, ‘where’s all the other X-Wing [stuff?],’ because it’s just like, there aren’t enough people to really manage all the games.”

That last quote was really telling for me. It's been said in this thread already, but I think it's becoming clear that the X-Wing line* is understaffed. I think that player complaints ranging from unbalanced releases to the lack of a campaign box to even the infrequent articles all suggest this. For this reason, I think we can feel a lot of sympathy for Frank, Max, and Alex.

Again, it's been discussed, but the first quote seems to demonstrate that the team prefers subjective, perceptual data to mathematical data for making design (or, I suppose, more properly, technical balance) decisions. I would argue that the less data is available, the more likely perceptual data is to be in error, and the greater the reliance should be on mathematical data and theory. Game design is an area of low data -- given the axiom that the public playtests a release more in its first day(s) than the testing team ever could -- and thus requires a mathematical framework on which to hang designs. I don't want to be too hard on the designers, given their difficulties and the passion and creativity they put into the game, but I would identify this as an area for improvement.

As has been said, the team could benefit from the addition of a mathematically inclined member to help balance its approach. I think the expansion of the X-Wing team's manpower is also the solution to the product line's lacunas in general. However, it may not be possible within the bounds of FFG's corporate philosophy or even their actual revenue stream -- the TIE Silencer cost thread pointed out that these companies run far closer to the edge of their margins than one might think.

Thank you very much to Scum & Villainy for conducting the podcast and to Frank, Max, and Alex for appearing on it, for their candour, and for their design work.

* By Organized Play, Frank may have been referring to a department independent of the X-Wing team, but I think the overall point about time resources devoted to X-Wing still carries.

1 hour ago, defkhan1 said:

Agreed. I figured RAClo was a targeted counter to the Rebel regen meta of Wave 7. Guess not?

correct on RAC, wrong on lo. Kylo didn't drop until later. Back in wave 7 it was RAC + whisper. i think Vader was the popular crew until palp dropped later in wave 7.

It would have been awesome if someone would have called out the new guy for saying they have bombs under control because....get this...

He didn't give the resistance bomber a crew slot...so...it...couldn't...take... Sabine.

Let that sink in.

The guy clearly doesn't know the game he's supposed to be designing for.

Please oh sweet lord let the community revamp get here....fast.

We the people can take care of this game way better then the official staff.

We have enough ships.we don't need this company any longer.

Came with great hope...

Left with a bad taste.

Excellent attempt by you Scum and Villainy guys, but we knew the tough questions couldn’t be asked or wouldn’t be answered.

It appears X-Wing is in passionate (the designers’) yet less than capable (FFG corporate model) hands.

2 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

Um, yeah? We might need to assign a tag to it for @Stoneface

(nothing against you, most of us will eventually be as old as you)

Not if you keep making fun of old people.

Remember, age and treachery beats youth and enthusiasm. Every time.

Just now, Stoneface said:

Not if you keep making fun of old people.

Remember, age and treachery beats youth and enthusiasm. Every time.

Make fun of? You yourself said you were advanced in years. I was merely quoting you.

Just now, FlyingAnchors said:

correct on RAC, wrong on lo. Kylo didn't drop until later. Back in wave 7 it was RAC + whisper. i think Vader was the popular crew until palp dropped later in wave 7.

Right but as the designers said, they're working 2+ waves in advance. My thought was that Kylo (a wave 10 card) was a response to the Rebel regen meta of wave 7.

2 minutes ago, FlyingAnchors said:

Make fun of? You yourself said you were advanced in years. I was merely quoting you.

Oh, yeah. I guess that identifying token on bombs might be a good idea.

Just now, Stoneface said:

Oh, yeah. I guess that identifying token on bombs might be a good idea.

GG

12 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Okay, just so I can reassure myself I'm not just being Mr. Doom-and-Gloom ...

... that was not a reassuring interview for the future of X-Wing, right?

I listened, squinting for a glimmer of hope, ruthlessly mixing metaphors, and I came away from it more convinced than ever that the game is effectively dead for anybody that cares about firing arcs and maneuvering duels.

It was pretty disheartening to hear. I was hoping the designers would allay my fears about the current meta getting cemented as the new norm.

I get that X-wing is a big game with lots of cards and interactions. There's always going to be stuff that's above the power curve, and combos that they missed. My problem is there's several cards that are just so far above the norm that they are essentially auto-include if a ship can take them. Listening to this interview it seems like the designers don't really have any interest in curbing those cards.

• The Jumpmaster just needs the **** nerfed out of it (Remove the BR, and a Torpedo slot).
• Nerf/Remove TLT, Bomblet and Guidance chips from the game to reign in secondary weapons (after all, they are secondary weapons).
• Bigg's ability needs to be errata'd to make him less game-warping.
• Turrets in general need to have more of a downside when shooting out of arc (A turret can never claim the R1 bonus when shooting out of arc, and/or the defender gets +1 evade dice).

It's not like making those changes will suddenly bring the game into complete harmony, but it at least curbs the main offenders which have caused this current skid-mark of a meta.

Ok so after all the proposed nerfs to all the ‘problem’ cards, what kind of Meta could we expect ? A return to Acewing?

That's an impossible question to answer because everyone has different nerfs targeting different problem cards.

1 minute ago, Stay On The Leader said:

That's an impossible question to answer because everyone has different nerfs targeting different problem cards.

Most people seem to at the very least agree that Jumps, TLT, Biggs and Bomblet are all problem cards.

I'd add a whole heap of other stuff to that list, but those four are the really obvious ones.

I don't like the discussions which are around 'here's what I don't like' - it's why the list of points adjustment 'fixes' I came up with had far more points reductions on it than points increases.

I prefer to think 'what do I want the game to be' and then look at what's in the way of achieving that. I think that's what @GrimmyV was driving at as well, what's the vision for where the game goes? If you don't have a compelling vision for what you're trying to achieve then it opens your suggestions up to accusations that you're just trying to make your favourite squad the best squad in the game.

Personally I'd want to make changes that negatively impact pretty much every major strategy from the last 2-3 years. Pull them ALL down a notch. Pull bombs down a bit, pull torps down a bit, pull TLT down a bit, pull Crack Swarm down a bit, pull Aces down a bit, pull regen down a bit, pull fat turrets down a bit.

I don't personally care what becomes 'the best thing'. I only care that it's not too much better than 'the next best thing'.

Quote

There exists a crowd of competitive players who pursue perfection, who have no personal attachment to any certain cards or decks save those that reward them for their great skill and dedication. I very much appreciate that mindset; in fact, much of our organized play encourages it. But there exists a larger crowd for whom decks and cards are extensions of themselves, who revel in diverse metagames wherein they can show off their creativity. They want to be able to play decks that suit their whims and personalities without feeling like they are wasting their time; they want Magic to afford them the opportunities to individualize while still taking it seriously. Standard has lost that in recent months, and we aim to bring it back.

The explanation for why Jace, The Mind Sculptor and Stoneforge Mystic were banned from Magic in 2011.

1 minute ago, Stay On The Leader said:

I don't like the discussions which are around 'here's what I don't like' - it's why the list of points adjustment 'fixes' I came up with had far more points reductions on that points increases.

I prefer to think 'what do I want the game to be' and then look at what's in the way of achieving that. I think that's what @GrimmyV was driving at as well, what's the vision for where the game goes? If you don't have a compelling vision for what you're trying to achieve then it opens your suggestions up to accusations that you're just trying to make your favourite squad the best squad in the game.

Personally I'd want to make changes that negatively impact pretty much every major strategy from the last 2-3 years. Pull them ALL down a notch. Pull bombs down a bit, pull torps down a bit, pull TLT down a bit, pull Crack Swarm down a bit, pull Aces down a bit, pull regen down a bit, pull fat turrets down a bit.

I don't personally care what becomes 'the best thing'. I only care that it's not too much better than 'the next best thing'.

Does it really matter how you do it? Buff the things you like, or nerf the things you don't. Either way you level the playing field. Personally I'd prefer a combination of the two.

The point I was trying to make was FFG could introduce several easy fixes to the game which reduce the gap between what you call 'the best thing' and 'the next best thing'. It's not going to perfectly balance the game, but it will certainly push the game back towards it's roots.

As to my 'vision' for the game: Bombs, ordnance, and turrets are all interesting in moderation, but they have increasingly become the main focus of the game. This has been to the detriment of manoeuvring, prediction, and good old fashioned arc'd fighters.

We have a load of new players on the X Wing game nights this year, but lost a few of the older ones. Works about as about the same we usually get this time last year. Balance achieved I guess.

4 hours ago, CRCL said:

Most people seem to at the very least agree that Jumps, TLT, Biggs and Bomblet are all problem cards.

I'd accept the first 3, but bomblet isn't bad.

It's the combination of the Scurrg chassis, the dial, and all of the upgrade slots on Nym. He'd be much less dastardly when you yank any one thing from him.

10 minutes ago, ScummyRebel said:

I'd accept the first 3, but bomblet isn't bad.

It's the combination of the Scurrg chassis, the dial, and all of the upgrade slots on Nym. He'd be much less dastardly when you yank any one thing from him.

And his ability.

Outside of Nym (and Sabine extra damage) I think that Bomblet Generator is probably ok.

1 minute ago, Stay On The Leader said:

And his ability.

Outside of Nym (and Sabine extra damage) I think that Bomblet Generator is probably ok.

Maybe. I think without Genius, and the system, and the turret, etc he'd be limited in how he could use that ability.

An easy fix that's thematic would be "you may ignore friendly bombs you overlap this turn" - thematic because he chooses not to detonate a bomb, and he can never get bomblet off and then overlap it.

5 hours ago, CRCL said:

It was pretty disheartening to hear. I was hoping the designers would allay my fears about the current meta getting cemented as the new norm.

I get that X-wing is a big game with lots of cards and interactions. There's always going to be stuff that's above the power curve, and combos that they missed. My problem is there's several cards that are just so far above the norm that they are essentially auto-include if a ship can take them. Listening to this interview it seems like the designers don't really have any interest in curbing those cards.

• The Jumpmaster just needs the **** nerfed out of it (Remove the BR, and a Torpedo slot).
• Nerf/Remove TLT, Bomblet and Guidance chips from the game to reign in secondary weapons (after all, they are secondary weapons).
• Bigg's ability needs to be errata'd to make him less game-warping.
• Turrets in general need to have more of a downside when shooting out of arc (A turret can never claim the R1 bonus when shooting out of arc, and/or the defender gets +1 evade dice).

It's not like making those changes will suddenly bring the game into complete harmony, but it at least curbs the main offenders which have caused this current skid-mark of a meta.

In all seriousness, please explain how Biggs is "meta warping"? In the typical 100/6 game the idea is to kill points. In game terms, does it matter if Biggs, the meat shield, sucks up hits and the other squad mates can save him from a crit or two? He's also been blamed for the X-wings not getting a buff, something I think is complete BS. It makes the job killing the squad a little harder but not impossible.

As for the TLT, you want to kill/nerf the only R3 turret upgrade in the game. I think this is more about the range than the effectiveness. Imagine the hate and discontent if the ICT was R1-3, and on 4 Y-wings!

I don't have that much experience vs the Bomblet Generator but I don't see it as the boogeyman people claim it to be.

I get the feeling that most of the calls for nerfing come not from disgruntled players but disgruntled Imperial players. I think Nym at PS 10 flinging bombs like a monkey flings poop is akin to facing three high PS arc dodgers. Not being able to shoot at a ship because of its arc dodging abilities is far more NPE than avoiding bombs dropped by a PS 10 Nym.

The one thing I find ironic is the shift in attitude from torps and missiles are garbage and not worth the points to wanting to nerf the carriers and mods that makes them useful.

6 hours ago, CRCL said:

It was pretty disheartening to hear. I was hoping the designers would allay my fears about the current meta getting cemented as the new norm.

I get that X-wing is a big game with lots of cards and interactions. There's always going to be stuff that's above the power curve, and combos that they missed. My problem is there's several cards that are just so far above the norm that they are essentially auto-include if a ship can take them. Listening to this interview it seems like the designers don't really have any interest in curbing those cards.

• The Jumpmaster just needs the **** nerfed out of it (Remove the BR, and a Torpedo slot).
• Nerf/Remove TLT, Bomblet and Guidance chips from the game to reign in secondary weapons (after all, they are secondary weapons).
• Bigg's ability needs to be errata'd to make him less game-warping.
• Turrets in general need to have more of a downside when shooting out of arc (A turret can never claim the R1 bonus when shooting out of arc, and/or the defender gets +1 evade dice).

It's not like making those changes will suddenly bring the game into complete harmony, but it at least curbs the main offenders which have caused this current skid-mark of a meta.

so for 6 waves people cry " make secondary weapons good!" And now that secondaries are good, we need to remove them from the game?!

(Bombs definitely need to be toned down though)

Kudos to the S&V guys to schedule the interview, but nothing came out of that which people didn't already know.

33 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

In all seriousness, please explain how Biggs is "meta warping"? In the typical 100/6 game the idea is to kill points. In game terms, does it matter if Biggs, the meat shield, sucks up hits and the other squad mates can save him from a crit or two? He's also been blamed for the X-wings not getting a buff, something I think is complete BS. It makes the job killing the squad a little harder but not impossible.

I don't want to drag the thread off-topic but to answer this question:

In game terms, it certainly does matter if its Biggs soaking up the damage. While you are correct in the assumption that the idea is to kill points, what matters is that in most games (barring the occasional 100-0 tabling) is that you are trading ships/points. You are destroying their ships and they are destroying yours. What is important, and what can determine the outcome of a game, is what ships did you trade for what you take from them at the beginning of the game. Biggs allows your opponent the ability to destroy the most dangerous parts of your list while you must first destroy the least dangerous part of his. This sets the scene for the rest of the game and can win it in the first trade. Give the ability to stack defensive abilities on Biggs, and you start to warp the meta, and other lists must be able to deal with this boogeyman (ex. FRS) to be considered competitive in case it rears its face during a tournament.

Edit: Oh, and what really has started to "break things" is that the FRS list not only takes away target choice from a player via Biggs, its that it also takes away the ability to focus your fire by spreading damage, and can break the idea of trading ships, as damage is spread out amongst the enemies ships by their choice, allowing them to prevent losing anything at all in the initial trade.