11 hours ago, Kdubb said:

Different games, but it sets a precedence. A good one in my opinion.

Do it FFG. Change the costs of cards as fixes for XWing.

Should lesser used cards be priced down or should popular cards by costed up?

Just now, Pooleman said:

Should leader used cards be priced down or should popular cards by costed up?

Why not a mix of both?

6 hours ago, Marinealver said:

Well for one you are comparing an online video game to a living table top game. Sure both have updates, but on one end giving everyone the mandatory update is easy. Once you change a value on the server everyone's value matches. With printed distribution media that doesn't work like that.

... for one the cards still serve as a list building set up. For FFG it makes sure you have made all the purchases and for the player you still match upgrade card to pilot card and add it all up.

To be fair, the poster he was responding to brought up the Overwatch aspect of the discussion.

As to the second point, since we're talking about competitive balance and competitive gaming, no the physical cards don't serve as a list building setup. Sure, they can be part of proving you made the purchases, but don't the models and the cardboard themselves do that just fine, especially since fan made alternate art cards have been allowable at events all the way up through World's. So in a sense, FFG has agreed that their original, physical cards aren't necessary.

8 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Why not a mix of both?

I’m just asking. I’m not convinced that cost adjustments are the way to go. I’d like some ship specific titles and modifications that either add functionality or reduce point cost similar to Chardan Retrofit for the A-Wing.

As long as there is a very deliberate and small-scale process at work that is reasonable and unintrusive, they should consider point cost changes to fix what can't reasonably be fixed otherwise.

But: This is a last resort effort. This can not open the floodgates or become the norm. At most, this should concern a single ship (JM5K) and other methods of balancing should always be considered and taken first.

We can never forget that there is no such thing as flawless game design. Should FFG ever reboot X Wing for a 2.0, the cries for 3.0 would soon start up. I strongly believe this to be self-evident.

Changing anything about the game is necessarily a very delicate and measured procedure, and as long as changing point costs adheres to this, I'm fine with it. But it absolutely needs to be the end result of the utmost carefully carried out playtesting and can not become the norm or go-to measure. So far, the devs have been level-headed enough not to listen to any cry of imbalance, as they are often enough results of wishful power fantasies instead of actual balance concerns.

4 minutes ago, Pooleman said:

I’m just asking. I’m not convinced that cost adjustments are the way to go. I’d like some ship specific titles and modifications that either add functionality or reduce point cost similar to Chardan Retrofit for the A-Wing.

New content to fix old content is a long and uncertain wait. There's no evidence there's commercial appetite for it, and even if there was then you start a 12-18 month R&D process to design, playtest, print, ship and sell the product. Then you hope your fix is still relevant and applicable when it finally arrives.

Points cost adjustments are direct and immediate, and easily reversible or added to.

Regarding +/- points I think you pick a power level you think is appropriate and you increase the cost of cards that are markedly above it, then reduce the cost of cards that are markedly below it and would encourage a style of play you, as the developer, would like to encourage. For instance if I was king of the world my starting list would be something like this (which I've shared before):

7 minutes ago, DampfGecko said:

So far, the devs have been level-headed enough not to listen to any cry of imbalance, as they are often enough results of wishful power fantasies instead of actual balance concerns.

While partly true I think 'balance' isn't really the driving factor in a lot of the complaints made and changes requested, it's restoring an enjoyable play experience.

4 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

While partly true I think 'balance' isn't really the driving factor in a lot of the complaints made and changes requested, it's restoring an enjoyable play experience.

Ehhhhhhh. For me, they're largely one and the same thing. A balanced experience is usually enjoyable, and an enjoyable experience is usually balanced. It's by no means exclusive though - and it has wider implications than that. I find the current meta enjoyable and balanced - it's just that the current meta includes only a TINY proportion of the game's massive variation, and it's that that I want to see some effort go into fixing.

5 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Always emotion, the future is.

I always thought it was 'in motion' too, but nope! Emotion.

7 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

There's pros/cons. If a ship is forcing half a dozen ships to never get played then arguably there's more players unhappy about wasted money than if you banned that ship and let the other half dozen get onto the table.

The thing is, they are at a point where banning only 1 ship would not solve the game problems. After hearing the last podcast interview they did, i decided it was hopeless to wait for a fix in the near furute.

Why:

- Designers said they dont care about the old stuff like the Xwing or the Tie Swarm. Players want to play with iconic ships but apparently it doesnt matter. Its not even a question of money. Considering the amount of old ship in circulation, the could sell a lot of "fix" or upgrade xpac.

- That comment about Tie swarm not being played so it wont matter if a new upgrade hurt them even more.

- Designers said they dont use any formula to create new product but rely only on "feelings". Where did they learn how to design games??? I know absolutely no other designer who would work like that. Ive never seen that before. It might have worked for them for a while but as more products are released and the game gets more and more complex, it's bound to continu to fail as it does now.

- They dont test the potential effect of new products on the meta

- They said they didnt think about the potential interaction between Palpatine and Kylo.

- They talked about how the original Whisper at ps9 was bad but they just release a pilot that can do worst at ps10.

- During the whole interview i did not feel i was hearing professionals who know what they are doing.

For all those reasons i am currently in the process of preping and evaluating my xwing material for a big Ebay bundle. Better jumps out of the ship while it's still semi floating and get back as much money as possible before everything devaluate.

Just now, Thormind said:

- Designers said they dont use any formula to create new product but rely only on "feelings". Where did they learn how to design games??? I know absolutely no other designer who would work like that. Ive never seen that before. It might have worked for them for a while but as more products are released and the game gets more and more complex, it's bound to continu to fail as it does now.

This in particular I take issue with. MOst game design is heuristic, not formulaic. It's good to run the numbers past maths people, but designing and balancing by forumla is a good way to get boring, formulaic games.

Designing by feel isn't a bad thing.

The rest, I'd probably concur with you on.

They're RPG designers, and in RPGs you've always got the GM on your side trying to ensure things are balanced. You just need a rules framework and the players and GM collaborate to create a game they all enjoy. It's a very different thing to designing a competitive combat game where the players are incentivised to do the opposite, and min/max as much as possible.

I've been through the 'fight/flight' dilemma like you, and decided to not sell the ships so I can play with my kids in 10/15 years time.

3 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

They're RPG designers, and in RPGs you've always got the GM on your side trying to ensure things are balanced. You just need a rules framework and the players and GM collaborate to create a game they all enjoy. It's a very different thing to designing a competitive combat game where the players are incentivised to do the opposite, and min/max as much as possible.

So much this. I used to work for an RPG company and during the CCG craze of the 90s they decided to jump on the band wagon. The lead designer was a talented guy but all of the cards were designed for flavor first and mechanics second which let to incredible imbalances. During playtesting I'd put together multiple decks that would win in 1-2 turns, invalidate entire major elements of the game, and literally never lost. But I was told that no one would ever actually do that kind of thing and if I wasn't going to take things seriously then I shouldn't playtest anymore...

You can hear it when they presented Legion for the first time, the sheer number of times they mention that the movement rules are a bit fluid and that it being a cinematic experience is more important than placing that speeder perfectly. Unfortunately that's not the style of game they actually ended up with in X-wing and most of the complaints circle back to that incompatibility in mindsets.

2 minutes ago, Makaze said:

So much this. I used to work for an RPG company and during the CCG craze of the 90s they decided to jump on the band wagon. The lead designer was a talented guy but all of the cards were designed for flavor first and mechanics second which let to incredible imbalances. During playtesting I'd put together multiple decks that would win in 1-2 turns, invalidate entire major elements of the game, and literally never lost. But I was told that no one would ever actually do that kind of thing and if I wasn't going to take things seriously then I shouldn't playtest anymore...

It wasn't Spellfire, was it?

1 hour ago, Stay On The Leader said:

New content to fix old content is a long and uncertain wait. There's no evidence there's commercial appetite for it, and even if there was then you start a 12-18 month R&D process to design, playtest, print, ship and sell the product. Then you hope your fix is still relevant and applicable when it finally arrives.

Points cost adjustments are direct and immediate, and easily reversible or added to.

Regarding +/- points I think you pick a power level you think is appropriate and you increase the cost of cards that are markedly above it, then reduce the cost of cards that are markedly below it and would encourage a style of play you, as the developer, would like to encourage. For instance if I was king of the world my starting list would be something like this (which I've shared before):

You need to add VI and Adaptability, both of which need an increase of 1-3 points.

This is all that 2.0 (or 1.5) should be, a core box with updated cards.

6 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Always emotion, the future is.

I always thought it was 'in motion' too, but nope! Emotion.

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Star-Wars-The-Empire-Strikes-Back.html

Check the movie script, buddy. The exact quote goes like:

Difficult to see.  Always in motion is the future.

So technically, we are both wrong! xD

And the designers of Netrunner switched from a similar point change method to a banned/restricted list. So, point changes isn't the only way to go. Again, how they do fixes can change. Personally, the combos are the problem, not the point costs. Break up the specific combos, and things are much easier, which is why I am in favor of the restricted list.

27 minutes ago, Captain Pellaeon said:

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Star-Wars-The-Empire-Strikes-Back.html

Check the movie script, buddy. The exact quote goes like:

Difficult to see.  Always in motion is the future.

So technically, we are both wrong! xD

But there is no reason to think its "emotion". It doesn't make sense, and its not being said.

3 hours ago, AlexW said:

To be fair, the poster he was responding to brought up the Overwatch aspect of the discussion.

As to the second point, since we're talking about competitive balance and competitive gaming, no the physical cards don't serve as a list building setup. Sure, they can be part of proving you made the purchases, but don't the models and the cardboard themselves do that just fine, especially since fan made alternate art cards have been allowable at events all the way up through World's. So in a sense, FFG has agreed that their original, physical cards aren't necessary.

X-wing Tournament Regulations Version 2.2

Page 3 Player Material.

Quote

Players are responsible for bringing all of the game components they need to play a game of X-Wing. This includes all ship models, bases, pegs, Pilot cards, ship tokens, Upgrade cards, and tokens. In addition, they must bring a damage deck, sufficient dice for attack and defense rolls, a full set of maneuver templates, and a range ruler. When a squad list is required, players should bring a completed list or arrive at the venue early to fill one out.

Page 4 Legal Products

Quote

Players must use only official Star Wars: X-Wing™ Miniatures Game components in tournament play, with the following exceptions for third-party replacements:
• Non-essential tokens (see “Tokens” on page 4)
• Range rulers that match the dimensions of an official range ruler or a
particular section of an official range ruler
• Movement templates that match the dimensions of official maneuver
templates
Determining the legality of any questionable third-party tokens, range rulers, and movement templates is the marshal’s responsibility. Proxies of cards are not allowed unless used under the rules of “Lost and Damaged Components” on page 4. Components can be modified only as described under “Component Modifications” on page 4. If a player uses the Star Wars™ Dice App, the device with the app must be displayed in full view of both players at all times, and his or her opponent may request to share the app.

For the damaged card it still requires you to have the original component. Stupid I know but since the original could be the out of date one but it is required none the less. And yes pilot and upgrade cards still function in list building letting you know if you list is legal or not, if you list is within the point limit or not and if you can attach an upgrade to a pilot or not (with the exception of some restrictions added by errata).

So yeah everything you said in the 2nd paragraph is completely false. Check your sources.

23 minutes ago, Sithborg said:

And the designers of Netrunner switched from a similar point change method to a banned/restricted list. So, point changes isn't the only way to go. Again, how they do fixes can change. Personally, the combos are the problem, not the point costs. Break up the specific combos, and things are much easier, which is why I am in favor of the restricted list.

But they did so upon release of a revised core set. Making the switch from points to restricted was part of a larger restructuring which I have little hope is happening here.

29 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

So yeah everything you said in the 2nd paragraph is completely false. Check your sources.

LOL. Everything? Those rules don't address most of the paragraph, most of which is about the odd notion that you implied people need the original cards for point values because they use them and add them up for squad building purposes. They don't. Yes, they do use cards during games to sometimes check score, but, again, that doesn't have to be the original card.

I'm aware of those rules, but as I said, at World's (their highest level of play!) people used Alt Art Cards that were fan made. The judges did not go around checking for the original components. Yes, their rules say you need them, but they aren't required for actual play and they didn't enforce that rule (and I've actually never seen it enforced at the "card" level), which is why I used the phrase "in a sense" because I knew it was in print but wasn't really a rule that was followed closely (and in fact I've never seen it enforced -- and I regularly play at a location where FFG OP and employees are TOs).

13 hours ago, Lobokai said:

I wish they’d just suck it up and release a $10 tournament pack. Have corrected cards, updated costs, etc.

I would pay $10 to avoid referencing the FAQ

2 hours ago, AlexW said:

LOL. Everything? Those rules don't address most of the paragraph, most of which is about the odd notion that you implied people need the original cards for point values because they use them and add them up for squad building purposes. They don't. Yes, they do use cards during games to sometimes check score, but, again, that doesn't have to be the original card.

Then in that case I am putting TLT on firespray. Why not the cards don't matter and I can put any upgrade on any pilot I want.

Do you even read the rules, or understand anything about the game at all? I'm guessing not, so I am going to try and explain that your model has a selection of pilot cards which has a initial point value and on the bottom of that card is a series of symbols that tells you you can attach upgrade icons to the matching symbol. The only exception is modification and titles and it is assumed each pilot card automatically has one. Add up all the points and you get 100.

Start messing with that then the cards now have no use. Use a list builder sure does FFG have an official one or more of the point do you really want FFG to make an official one (before answering look at Mission Control and TOME).

You know what, now that upgrades are no longer useful go ahead and change point values. After the last FAQ the cards are now worthless.

I honestly don't know why I try to back FFG on some points when they just go around and do something more stupid then what people on the forums suggest.

8 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

New content to fix old content is a long and uncertain wait. There's no evidence there's commercial appetite for it, and even if there was then you start a 12-18 month R&D process to design, playtest, print, ship and sell the product. Then you hope your fix is still relevant and applicable when it finally arrives.

Points cost adjustments are direct and immediate, and easily reversible or added to.

Regarding +/- points I think you pick a power level you think is appropriate and you increase the cost of cards that are markedly above it, then reduce the cost of cards that are markedly below it and would encourage a style of play you, as the developer, would like to encourage. For instance if I was king of the world my starting list would be something like this (which I've shared before):

... You want to nerf Extra Munitions? Okay, I get that massive bomb loads can be a pain, but c'mon now!

Crackshot at 2pts is helpless. It's a great card, but it deserves to see other cards at a similar level, not be rendered irrelevant.

Nashta Pup's problems are more extensive than simply needing to be 4pts instead of 6.

The game deliberately leaves defensive options relatively expensive, because an offensive game is one that ends faster. Besides, R5-D8's problem is rather more to do with the die roll, not the price.

If anything, lists like this suggest why we're better off with Developers that take the soft touch - even if it means months of imbalance before they act - so that they know there's imbalance before they act.