8 minutes ago, Embir82 said:

No it is not bad.
But lists that are interesting and fun should work against meta lists. Otherwise they are not "interesting" nor they are "fun", they are just unplayable and bad.

Yes they should.

But they don't. Because those meta lists dominate them by out PSing them.

Which is a problem.

On 12/14/2017 at 2:14 AM, SirCormac said:

I know this is a 'nerf' post, but it really is a simple question, but one that had been on my mind recently (and my hunch is that the developers are at least watching closely this issue). We've had PS races in X-Wing before, but I don't think we've ever had it quite this bad. And we've had times where certain cards dominated (such as PTL) only to see them fade in popularity, even when people were crying for them to be nerfed, but it turns out that the shifting meta solved the problem. So while this could happen with VI, I do believe that the VI problem we are currently undergoing is different than the PTL era that dominated a few years ago.

1. PTL is necessary to make some ships function: Soontir Fel, Carnor Jax, Jake Farrell, Norra Wexley, etc. pretty much all need PTL to actual function as ships. VI, on the other hand, is not necessary for some ships to function, but I will grant you that other ships do need it to function. Who are they you might ask? PS 7 ships really, really need VI to function, 90% of the time (Jake Farrell and Backdraft are two good examples of this). But for ships like QD and Vader, VI is really just a 'luxury' that they can benefit from because they don't need any particular EPT to function.

2. PTL has counters, VI doesn't: Stresshogs, Stressbugs, Rebel Captive, Tactician, Asajj, etc. are all ways you can make PTL users cringe. Sootnir Fel never likes to see a Stresshog on the other side of the table, and its no surprise a stresshog was in the winning list of worlds when PTL Fel's were everywhere. VI, on the other hand, doesn't really have a counter (except, maybe, Kylo crew). You pretty much gain the benefit and there is nothing your opponent can do about it except try to out-PS you, or at least tie.

3. This leads us to our third point: the current PS craze constrains list-building. Yes, PS 5 Lowrrick is fine, and PS 7 Dash is doing well, but many, many PS 7s aren't cutting it because they can't compete. Most PS 7's were designed to take VI and tie the PS 9s, but those PS 9s are PS 11 so the PS 7s are back to square one. Further, some PS 9s are really in the same boat, such as Fenn, Fel, and Kylo. To function properly, these aces need either PTL or Attanni, and VI doesn't really work on them (except maybe Kylo with FCS and TT). But if you take a Fenn or Fel to a tournament, however good you may fly, you will eventually come up against a PS 10 Nym, PS 11 Poe, PS 11 QD, or PS 11 Vader, and you are going to be out of luck.

So, these are some problems I see, but how did we get here? Hasn't VI been in the game since wave 2? Well, I think there are some reasons for that:

First, let's look at the main offenders: Nym, Poe, Vader, QD. Besides Vader (who was wave 1, but more on that in a bit), the 'oldest' ace here is Poe from wave 7. VI Poe did win a worlds, but he quickly faded from the meta as Defenders and Torp Scouts showed up, and hasn't really been useful until recently with Comm Relay and Intensity. But now with Adv. Optics, Poe can return to VI and get up to 11, so actually, he's the newest kid to join the party, really. Vader, while being wave 1, was in a crummy platform, and it really took a fix and awesome missiles to finally put him back on the table. QD and Nym have been good since they came out, basically (QD needed LWF, and Missiles really help him too, of course). So all of these factors have given us pilots that live at 10 and 11 when we never really saw that in the game before. We've seen races to get to 9, but I'm much more ok with that because that gives PS 8s and 7s a fighting chance to get up to the privileged 9.

So what's the solution? My suggestion is to cap the PS at 9, excluding rare edge cases (like Roark Garnet, for example). This could be done in the rules, and wouldn't need to change a card. How would this change the game?

1. PS 7s and 8s become much more appealing, especially ones designed with VI in mind

2. PS 9s that don't already have their EPT accounted for are more free to explore other options. Maybe Juke on Vader? Maybe Intensity? Maybe Trick shot on QD? Maybe Score to Settle? Regardless, as of now, these choices, however interesting they may be, are simply off the table because you really have to put VI on them to make them work. That's bad for the game.

3. PS 9s that do already have their EPT accounted for instantly become more viable. Fenn, Fel, Whisper, Kylo, all become not just more playable, but realistically competitive. This would allow, for example, the Imperials to have Missile carriers in QD and Vader as one arch-type, but could also go for a more arc-dodging arch-type in Fel, Jax, etc. It would open up more options.

In conclusion, I think VI was a card from another era of the game when most ships that could take it didn't particularly want it, so the designers created an amazing card that didn't really have anything amazing to take it yet (kind of like Deadeye), which now is rearing it's ugly head. An alternative to my plan would be to make VI only equipable if your PS is 7 or lower, but that would still allow Adaptability to be put on Vader and QD, which I think would be the auto-include and would limit listbuilding again. I love playing QD, and my main list has him in it, but I don't like the fact that I need to chase PS when there are other interesting EPTs out there that I can't really take. Anyways, just my two cents. What do you guys think?

The big issue isn't VI but the proliferation of natural PS 9s combined with PS being undervalued in whatever formula they use to determine points cost. The increase in effectiveness from low and lower middle range is pilots to the top PS is worth far more than the points difference between them creating an that is highly hostile to lower PS ships and with nines being fairly widespread now ships that don't have natural nines are basically forced to run VI if they want their PS to actually mean anything because outside like two or three exceptions with notable abilities the occasional generic used as filler the lowest PS you will likely encounter is 7.

TLDR: you need to buff low PS ships not nerf VI. Also no more natural nines there are at least three to many now.

1 hour ago, Embir82 said:

No it is not bad.
But lists that are interesting and fun should work against meta lists. Otherwise they are not "interesting" nor they are "fun", they are just unplayable and bad.

Yes, and a ps9 hardcap would enlarge the pool of options that would be working against meta lists so it would be a more interesting and more fun x-wing.

8 minutes ago, Hannes Solo said:

Yes, and a ps9 hardcap would enlarge the pool of options that would be working against meta lists so it would be a more interesting and more fun x-wing.

People keep saying this... I really don't think they know what they are asking for.

Just now, Ralgon said:

People keep saying this... I really don't think they know what they are asking for.

Can you elaborate?
All I hear from people opposing a ps-9 hardcap is
1st 'Won't change anything' - Well, that is not true?
2nd 'Would be very bad for the game' - But why?

I don't think a hard cap on PS works unless it's also accompanied by a complete overhaul of how initiative works, otherwise you just replace the PS war with an init bidding war.

54 minutes ago, Hannes Solo said:

Yes, and a ps9 hardcap would enlarge the pool of options that would be working against meta lists so it would be a more interesting and more fun x-wing.

If by that you mean all flavour of TIE Phantom Whisper then yes, it would be more "fun" and "interesting".

You see, this is the problem with all those nerf discussions. More often than not the loudest advocates of those nerfs are people that got no idea how to play this game.

Whisper wouldn't be that big of a problem at PS11 in this meta, not since the decloak nerf. Bomb can still crush her, and even 4 agility can't reliably cope with the amount of reliable 4 and 5 die attacks available, not to mention things like action-phase and start of combat stress control.

24 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

I don't think a hard cap on PS works unless it's also accompanied by a complete overhaul of how initiative works, otherwise you just replace the PS war with an init bidding war.

Replacing the PS war with a bidding war would be a great thing for the game imho.

51 minutes ago, Hannes Solo said:

Can you elaborate?
All I hear from people opposing a ps-9 hardcap is
1st 'Won't change anything' - Well, that is not true?
2nd 'Would be very bad for the game' - But why?

1st You'll still end up with "meta" OP lists

2nd You've just removed several layers of game balance and balance consideration by ps in allowing everything in the ps 7-8 bracket to effectively be PS 11. FFG has shown time and again they either don't have the resources or correct methodology to test even card interactions much less pilots abilities. Capping at PS9 is just an easier way to swing from triple jump to triple jump style lists.

Can someone please let me know which PS11 ships are dominating the meta so much that they deserve a nerf right now?

23 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Whisper wouldn't be that big of a problem at PS11 in this meta, not since the decloak nerf. Bomb can still crush her, and even 4 agility can't reliably cope with the amount of reliable 4 and 5 die attacks available, not to mention things like action-phase and start of combat stress control.

You must have played against very bad Phantom players then. Because Whisper with highest PS on the battlefield is near untouchable, even after decloak nerf - especially with Intelligence Agent crew. Also 5 dice attacks and stress won't do her much when she comfortably dodges the arcs.

Just now, hawk32 said:

Can someone please let me know which PS11 ships are dominating the meta so much that they deserve a nerf right now?

In before people say it's Nym with his 1 green dice...

Dodge RAC's arc, I dares ya. Or TLTs. Or Han's. Or any of the half dozen other high PS turrets or ships with more than one arc. I'd be much more confident of killing WHisper than I would of killing, e.g. Quickdraw, built to the same sort of cost. More to the point, getting out of all of the arcs of a well flown multiple ordnance list is really, really difficult.

Whisper is a liability at any PS in a turret heavy meta (Phantoms in general are), and the meta recently has been super turret heavy., And doubly so in a meta that's so rife with autodamage effects and highly reliably ordnance.

I've not played against many Phantom players at all recently. Because Phantoms are pretty bad at the moment, for the reasons noted above, as well as because an out PSed Phantom is a dead Phantom.

It's kind of amusingly ironic that you accuse everyone who doesn't share your view of being bad at the game tbh.

11 minutes ago, Rat of Vengence said:

In before people say it's Nym with his 1 green dice...

Nym's not PS11. But yeah, PS10 Rebel Nym with Miranda carrying Sabine is a brutal list. You can;t approach it from anywhere without getting bombed and TLTed, or harpooned, or all 3, and it has a higly effective endgame points fortress. ANd both ships need effective focus fire to take down, but if you ignore the other one, it shreds you. And they're both competent arc dodgers, one at PS10.

But additionally, Vader, Quickdraw, Talonbane, Torani, Kylo, RAC... Basically any pilot at PS8 or above who doesn't rely on PTL (or Mindlink in Fenn's case) to not die is stupid to take any EPT other than VI at the moment, unless their name is Omega Leader, doubly so if they have any kind of alpha striking potential.

42 minutes ago, Ralgon said:

1st You'll still end up with "meta" OP lists

2nd You've just removed several layers of game balance and balance consideration by ps in allowing everything in the ps 7-8 bracket to effectively be PS 11. FFG has shown time and again they either don't have the resources or correct methodology to test even card interactions much less pilots abilities. Capping at PS9 is just an easier way to swing from triple jump to triple jump style lists.

1st I never said it would save all problems
2nd That's the exact reason why a ps9 cap makes sense cause whenever a PS-War call will emerge with a new release, we would have a larger pool of pilots who can match that ps for sure. And that means there are more possible counters for whatever FFG might throw at the meta.

3 hours ago, Hannes Solo said:

Can you elaborate?
All I hear from people opposing a ps-9 hardcap is
1st 'Won't change anything' - Well, that is not true?
2nd 'Would be very bad for the game' - But why?

Well, it will change the game, that's for sure.

But I'm not sure how having a VERY large pool of PS 9 pilots (PS 7-9 + VI) makes the game any better.

First of all, now PS 9 pilots have the advantage of never needing VI, and thus always get to take a different EPT to be better than any other pilot on the table.

Mostly what I see here is a complaint that Poe, Vader, Wedge, etc. should always be the best. First of all, why?? Gameplay >> Fluff. If you insist on Fluff (best in the galaxy), give those pilots PS Infinity, so they always shoot first.

2 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

I don't think a hard cap on PS works unless it's also accompanied by a complete overhaul of how initiative works, otherwise you just replace the PS war with an init bidding war.

Exactly. So everyone flies a solid PS 9 list and bids to move last. All fire is essentially simultaneous, so the only thing that matters is situational awareness when your ship moves.

How does this make the game better???

2 hours ago, Hannes Solo said:

Replacing the PS war with a bidding war would be a great thing for the game imho.

I doubt it.

If you really wanted to make the PS war "better" and open up diversity change list building so that you can only have one named pilot. Now people will have to look at the generics to fill out their lists.

As was stated before, scaled VI is probably the best solution, if one is needed at all.

On 12/14/2017 at 8:46 AM, Scopes said:

^This, too. Don't ruin the game because an expac ruined the game. Fix the expac. VI is fine.

Do you have precedent for this?? Because there is actually precedent for the opposite

The number 6 is indeed too strong.

23 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

But I'm not sure how having a VERY large pool of PS 9 pilots (PS 7-9 + VI) makes the game any better.

More diversity -> lest static meta -> better game.

23 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Mostly what I see here is a complaint that Poe, Vader, Wedge, etc. should always be the best. First of all, why?? Gameplay >> Fluff. If you insist on Fluff (best in the galaxy), give those pilots PS Infinity, so they always shoot first.

Well that is actually an Argument for my position. You complain that with a PS 9 cap Vader and co would be the strongest, while you prefer a situation where Vader and co are the only choice. - That doesn't make sense.

I'm not complaining that they should always be best.

I'm complaining that in the choice between boring +numbers, and interesting things that mess around with the mechanics of the game, boring +numbers is winning and I'd prefer it if interesting things that mess with the mechanics won instead.

At its heart, that's my issue.

10 minutes ago, Hannes Solo said:

More diversity -> lest static meta -> better game.

Do you really get more diversity?

Or do you get a game of all PS 9 pilots*, where no one uses anything lower than PS 7? Which basically adds just one more pilot per expac to the pool (if that pilot has a good special ability). It doesn't kill the PS war, it just turns it into trench warfare at PS 9 where nobody moves ahead.

*Which probably makes for a very boring game of "I all move/you all move" ending blocking and repositioning options for the player who lost the initiative bid.

36 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Do you have precedent for this?? Because there is actually precedent for the opposite

Fair enough. It's a bit of a hyperbolic post; I get that, but my underlying point still stands.

VI isn't the problem, I think. It's the ships FFG releases that cause the issues.

10 minutes ago, Scopes said:

Fair enough. It's a bit of a hyperbolic post; I get that, but my underlying point still stands.

VI isn't the problem, I think. It's the ships FFG releases that cause the issues.

And the format. If they only goal is "kill them all" then the only thing that matters is "shoot first, die last."

4 hours ago, Hannes Solo said:

Can you elaborate?
All I hear from people opposing a ps-9 hardcap is
1st 'Won't change anything' - Well, that is not true?
2nd 'Would be very bad for the game' - But why?

Here is why it won't change anything.

Lists will simply change to "cram as much PS9 in the list as possible while also having a massive bid". There are a lot of ships which can get to 9, either naturally or with VI/Adaptability.

Suddenly its just a race to PS9 and everybody spams it. Now suddenly PS matters even less than it does now. You have either maximum PS, or lower PS.

As opposed to what we have now where there are pilots that can get higher than that meaning there is a spread.

Capping at 9 also devalues natural PS9 because why go for that when you can just slap VI on a 7?