On 1/23/2018 at 5:59 PM, Tvboy said:If you're going to share a chapter from Mr Sirlin's book, it should have been, and should always be, the Prologue . I think the vast majority of people who play games do not do so for the reasons laid out in the Prologue (which btw are self-improvement and skill validation, not WAAC) and that is totally fine.
This, so much this. It's important to read all of this as a "this is a mindset to get better at this thing I enjoy"
I don’t want no scrub. A scrub is a guy that can’t get no love from me. Hanging out the passenger side of his best friends ride; tryin’ to hola at me.
QuoteA lot of people get rubbed the wrong way by this stuff because they think I want to apply “playing to win” to everyone. I don’t. It’s not that I think everyone should be on this particular peak or that everyone would even want to be. There are other peaks in life, probably better ones. But those who are stuck in the chasm really should know their positions and how to reach a happier place.
From the prologue
No. I don’t want your number. No. I don’t wanna give you mine. No. I don’t wanna meet you no where. No. I don’t want none of your time.
On 1/21/2018 at 11:31 AM, AceWing said:I don't think we've had a strategy, yet, that truly warrants bannings, except maybe Palpatine for tournament logistics reasons because of how long it would draw games out. You do realize X-Wing has a much wider top tier than most other and more competitive games? The constant community cries for banning because they can't figure anything out or don't want to play anything besides A-Wings is tiring. Getting good is not a non-argument except for someone who has no intention of doing so.
if you actually wanted to "get good" you would challenge yourself to play diverse strategies, not find a statistically likely win. theres no skill in reading a blog about the OP hotness and mimicking it
I read that article several years ago, and it hasn't changed what it truly is.
Just a pile of Self-Justification.
No my friend, you don't take that specific [character/squad/team/whatever] because you are smart and 'play to win'... You take that specific [character/squad/whatever] because you know it is your only chance of winning.
The difference is subtle.
On 1/23/2018 at 10:59 PM, Tvboy said:If you're going to share a chapter from Mr Sirlin's book, it should have been, and should always be, the Prologue . I think the vast majority of people who play games do not do so for the reasons laid out in the Prologue (which btw are self-improvement and skill validation, not WAAC) and that is totally fine.
I followed this advice. I do not regret doing so. Thank you.
1 hour ago, Jehan Menasis said:I read that article several years ago, and it hasn't changed what it truly is.
Just a pile of Self-Justification.
No my friend, you don't take that specific [character/squad/team/whatever] because you are smart and 'play to win'... You take that specific [character/squad/whatever] because you know it is your only chance of winning.
The difference is subtle.
Wow.
Edited by Tvboy21 hours ago, SabineKey said:But you are just as guilty of this by your declaration that someone flying a list you think is too power isn't actually playing X-Wing. You continue to miss the idea that someone might like the list for reasons other than winning or that the joy of successfully flying good combos has merit. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean everyone else does.
You also seem convinced that they only way to win is to fly a "broken list", but that is also false. Scum Boba Fett won a regional recently. A ship not considered meta by anyone claimed the win. And that's just the latest of several non-meta heavy lists that have taken major tournaments. If things were as dire as you claim, then this shouldn't have happened. You can still beat the "broken lists" with enough skill and luck. If you didn't blind yourself to this possibility by claiming yours was the only way to play "actual X-Wing", you might actually have fun.
It's a tough situation. The fairest way to resolve it, however, is for tier 0 lists to be banned (via either the respective cards or the combinations themselves), as this allows the maximum number of tier 1 and tier 2 lists to be competitive. Whether they like the list or not, it's unfair that they're preventing other people from flying the lists they want to (within reason) and having a chance of winning.
That's a pretty poor example, for a few reasons:
Firstly, better players have an advantage over poorer players, so a great player in a mid-sized regional has a chance with a tier 1 or 2 list.
Secondly, this is a
dice
game, and one with a tiny amount of rolls at that. It's entirely plausible that, across a tournament season, several players have hot streaks and good match ups, giving them an advantage and equalling/exceeding the benefit of meta lists.
What you're essentially saying is that I should be happy with the slim chance of beating meta lists, even with my own tier 1 lists. I'm not happy with that, nor is a large amount of players.
20 hours ago, hawk32 said:The solution for people not willing to run meta lists is to run meta lists. Intriguing.
I was using highly recognised examples. Oicunn with Palp and Kylo would be just as effective, and in some ways better.
13 hours ago, Firespray-32 said:"They problem with the mindset is highlighted in your statement - the goal of the people who fly these lists to tournemtnes is "simply to win the tournament", not "win a series of X-wing games"."
An X-Wing tournament is a structured series of X-Wing games. Winning a tournament is therefore winning a series of X-Wing games.
The difference is that they're compromising the fun of the individual games (at least for some of their opponents)
"The focus is entirely different, which leads to them running meta lists rather than fair ones."
Dominant lists don't make the game diverse or fun but they aren't unfair: everyone can bring the broken list of the day if they want to. If the game breaks down into an unenjoyable slog at high levels of competition then it's a bad game at high levels of competition. Ensuring the game is strategically diverse and enjoyable to play at high levels of competition is the responsibility of the ruleset. Only house rules and FFG can change that ruleset.
FFG does change the ruleset, and is currently destroying NyManda. It's technically fair, but only from the point of view of everyone going for the win above fun. If that were the case, you'd literally only see NyManda and hard counters.
""Generally" is a vast overstatement. It's a very small minority of even tournament players that fly meta lists (and their variations), and that's the problem. "
This is not true. Nymiranda is currently the most common list and Captain Nym (Rebel) the most common pilot according to List Juggler and meta-wing.com's records. This has been the case throughout X-Wing's history - successful lists are copied.
"Most Common is a fragile claim. It could mean that 1% of players use it, and 0.99% of players use all other lists. What's crucial is how often the "tier 0" combination is used, not just individually used tier 1 ships."I can't ban a list, but myself and everyone else who attends tournaments can recognise the truly broken cards in the game and simply not play them. The list is short. It's not hard."
Any community ban falls apart if merely one person disagrees with your assessment of which cards need removing from the game. Any card restriction or ban must be objective (no room for intepretation whatsoever), clear in advance and enforceable. The only power presently able to do that for tournaments is the tournament organizer and they follow the rules set by FFG.
Exactly. It's unrealistic, because there will always be people with different opinions than me. FFG is getting there, but they naturally have a couple months of lag in which stupidly strong lists have a glory moment.
5 minutes ago, Astech said:It's a tough situation. The fairest way to resolve it, however, is for tier 0 lists to be banned (via either the respective cards or the combinations themselves), as this allows the maximum number of tier 1 and tier 2 lists to be competitive. Whether they like the list or not, it's unfair that they're preventing other people from flying the lists they want to (within reason) and having a chance of winning.
That's a pretty poor example, for a few reasons:
Firstly, better players have an advantage over poorer players, so a great player in a mid-sized regional has a chance with a tier 1 or 2 list.
Secondly, this is a dice game, and one with a tiny amount of rolls at that. It's entirely plausible that, across a tournament season, several players have hot streaks and good match ups, giving them an advantage and equalling/exceeding the benefit of meta lists.What you're essentially saying is that I should be happy with the slim chance of beating meta lists, even with my own tier 1 lists. I'm not happy with that, nor is a large amount of players.
I was using highly recognised examples. Oicunn with Palp and Kylo would be just as effective, and in some ways better.
Or you could take responsibility for yourself and stop letting the decisions of others decide what you fly. I've been doing that for years and have been happier for it. Again, you claim it is fair because it agrees with you and you don't have to change.
You call my example poor, but yours are full of holes. Firstly, that's a completely inescapable part of a competitive game. Even games that are even more based on chance (like poker), there are good players and poor players. Claiming that just because it takes skill to win with a lower tier list it doesn't actually count is beyond absurd. Believe me, I've seen plenty of poor players try the meta list and get stumped on by better players with "lower tier" lists. Secondly, that is also a core part of the game, further proving that you don't have to play the meta lists to win.
What I am saying is that your made up rules for what is and is not X-Wing is entirely in your head. You are letting a poisonous point of view lead you down a path where you are insulting players who don't agree with you. Is that what you wanted from your hobby? Or did you want to have fun? Because there are many, many ways to have fun with this game that doesn't involve being spiteful towards others who might enjoy something you don't.
6 hours ago, SabineKey said:Or you could take responsibility for yourself and stop letting the decisions of others decide what you fly. I've been doing that for years and have been happier for it. Again, you claim it is fair because it agrees with you and you don't have to change.
You call my example poor, but yours are full of holes. Firstly, that's a completely inescapable part of a competitive game. Even games that are even more based on chance (like poker), there are good players and poor players. Claiming that just because it takes skill to win with a lower tier list it doesn't actually count is beyond absurd. Believe me, I've seen plenty of poor players try the meta list and get stumped on by better players with "lower tier" lists. Secondly, that is also a core part of the game, further proving that you don't have to play the meta lists to win.
What I am saying is that your made up rules for what is and is not X-Wing is entirely in your head. You are letting a poisonous point of view lead you down a path where you are insulting players who don't agree with you. Is that what you wanted from your hobby? Or did you want to have fun? Because there are many, many ways to have fun with this game that doesn't involve being spiteful towards others who might enjoy something you don't.
I flew Lone Wolf dash and a Lotha Rebel equipped with an Ion Cannot turret to the last regionals I went to, had fun with it in every game, and came a slightly unsatisfactory, but still happy 3-3. I fly what I want to fly, which is typically tier 2 and/or tier 1 lists.
What the opponents who bring meta lists against me (especially my sole NyManda game) force me into is a long slog where - despite me being a rather good player - I have little if no chance of winning with my Tier 1 list, flown more than competently. It's disappointing that the only way for me to win is to naturally roll zero blanks in a game, and perhaps a little better than that.
High level poker (especially Texas Hold'em) has virtually no chance , and is well documented as such. If that weren't the case, high rollers wouldn't last more than a day. Winning games with, say, a tier three list, is equivalent to winning a round of hold 'em with a nine and a king. The core of the game doesn't involve ripping off a netlist, it involves building a list and flying it.
My local meta has exactly one meta list player, and he keeps it fairly benign by intentionally including sub-optimal cards (like Ion torpedoes on Dengaroo) so that it was brought down to Tier 1. We all have fun at tournaments, because even those who finish last in an event knew they weren't curb-stomped.
It's astonishing that anybody who doesn't support the "anything goes" mindset is immediately shot down on the forums for wanting a more diverse meta, closer games where skill is the decider.
Consider if FFG truly stuffed up (worse than the JM5K), and produced a card that was literally an auto-win unless the opponent also brings it (I'm picturing Thrawn, personally), yet cost 50 squad points. Would you take it? By your definition, it would be totally fair play to bring it to a tournament where you knew that 80% of those in attendance wouldn't be flying it. It might seem like an excessive example, but it's literally what a meta list is - a auto-win against someone of equal skill and approximately equal dice.
Auto-wins are not fair, not fun, and not okay.
On 21.1.2018 at 7:39 PM, AceWing said:" The scrub believes that any tactic or maneuver that beats him should be labeled “cheap” and consequently banned. In actuality, very little ever needs to be banned."
For completeness, here is a link so others can make up their own mind about what's being said, instead of this small excerpt.
There are some things so extreme that they can be banned without much testing. These include glitches that crash the game or have radical effects, such as blanking out the opponent’s entire screen, removing his characters, units, or resources from the game, and so forth. Glitches so extreme that they undeniably end or prevent gameplay are worthy of being banned. Likewise, so are glitches that are not equally available to all players.
Some glitches in a two player game can only be performed by player 2. It is reasonable to ban such a tactic,
even if it’s not overly powerful, just on the basis that all players do not have equal access to it."
End Quote.
As the premise of a game with list building elements is that the game does not degrade to just mirror matches and list that dominates tournaments warrants a ban, because it is the use of something that is not avaible to player 2. ;-)
The big issue here is that lists which are totally win to beat often degrade to monsters based on the meta, so banning them is not the only way to handle things and just manipulating the meta wth other means could work … furthermore such changes don't have to be permanent. When Palp was nerfed he long lost his bite anyway and overly long matches based on his ability were long-gone, mainly because he often did not last longer than 2 turns anyway. So the balance change there was a classic scrub move. ;-)
Nymranda at the other hand … that change came nearly on time. The bigger issue here is more like that they remove one element while leaving other similar elements in place. I doubt that the chance itself will have the desired effect.
4 hours ago, Astech said:I flew Lone Wolf dash and a Lotha Rebel equipped with an Ion Cannot turret to the last regionals I went to, had fun with it in every game, and came a slightly unsatisfactory, but still happy 3-3. I fly what I want to fly, which is typically tier 2 and/or tier 1 lists.
What the opponents who bring meta lists against me (especially my sole NyManda game) force me into is a long slog where - despite me being a rather good player - I have little if no chance of winning with my Tier 1 list, flown more than competently. It's disappointing that the only way for me to win is to naturally roll zero blanks in a game, and perhaps a little better than that.
High level poker (especially Texas Hold'em) has virtually no chance , and is well documented as such. If that weren't the case, high rollers wouldn't last more than a day. Winning games with, say, a tier three list, is equivalent to winning a round of hold 'em with a nine and a king. The core of the game doesn't involve ripping off a netlist, it involves building a list and flying it.
My local meta has exactly one meta list player, and he keeps it fairly benign by intentionally including sub-optimal cards (like Ion torpedoes on Dengaroo) so that it was brought down to Tier 1. We all have fun at tournaments, because even those who finish last in an event knew they weren't curb-stomped.
It's astonishing that anybody who doesn't support the "anything goes" mindset is immediately shot down on the forums for wanting a more diverse meta, closer games where skill is the decider.
Consider if FFG truly stuffed up (worse than the JM5K), and produced a card that was literally an auto-win unless the opponent also brings it (I'm picturing Thrawn, personally), yet cost 50 squad points. Would you take it? By your definition, it would be totally fair play to bring it to a tournament where you knew that 80% of those in attendance wouldn't be flying it. It might seem like an excessive example, but it's literally what a meta list is - a auto-win against someone of equal skill and approximately equal dice.
Auto-wins are not fair, not fun, and not okay.
If you are saying because you went 3-3 with a list and because of that better lists should be banned, then you still aren't getting the idea of taking responsibility for yourself. You can count on exactly one person for fun in gaming in general and that is yourself. Don't put your fun in the hands of others you don't know, be prepared and make lists that you'll have fun flying, win or lose. Again, been doing this for years, and I seem to be more at peace with my fellow gamers than you seem to be.
Listen, I've played Dash/Lothal Rebel pairings. If something made it a "slog" versus Nymanda, it was your attitude rather than the lists themselves.
As for your poker point, it is completely false and I think you missed the point of my bringing it up entirely. First off, luck of the draw is a really thing. Just because upper levels look at and understand the probability going on before the, doesn't mean chance is magically gone from the game. A lot of the players I know run probabilities in there head when deciding what action to take, whether to disengage or not, and so on. That's all part of the game, and yet doesn't mean they aren't at the mercy of dice. I've seen token stacked, range one shots completely whiff, making all the careful planning and positioning to get to that point almost for naught. And here, in poker and in X-Wing, is where you can see the difference between a good player and a bad player. Good players can still come back from a bad roll or match up and still win. That's the point I was making before. Skill is a factor and must be considered, and we have evidence (aka tournament data) that skilled people flying what they want are winning against the meta often enough to have hope.
On this point, congratulations. If that guy is doing it because he wants to and not because people like you brow beat him, then more power to him.
This point shows you haven't been reading my posts very well. You can want a more diverse meta and want things to improve without turning it into a witch hunt versus people who play things you think are too powerful. Retract your statement that people playing "tier 0" aren't playing X-Wing, and my beef goes away. But I will say, with this being one of the best metas we've had in a while, maybe stopping to smell the roses would be beneficial?
Now, on to your theoretical question. And I would call it "fair" in sense that everyone can use it, if they wish. Fairness from a gameplay standpoint, not really, but that's more due to balancing. It's a part of the game and while sloppy and ill-advised, it will continue to be part of the game until FFG does something about it. Now, would I use it? Depends. If we are going with its a Thrawn card, then it certainly pulls on my nostalgia and I might want to run it for that. But then we have to deal with what chassis to put him on, and I'm not a fan of how it feels to fly a shuttle. There pretty much leaves the Deci and I'm the type of person who grows board of playing the same ship over and over. (Note: I made the classic blunder of forgetting to mention the other big base, crew capible Imp ship. It does tend to slip through the cracks.) But (back to the main topic) this question displays your continued blind spot to the point that these "auto-win" lists are losing. Had a Nymiranda list show up to a tournament recently. It lost to a Ghost build.
You are right. Auto-Wins are not fair, not fun, and not okay. But do you know what is also not fair, not fun, and not okay? Thinking that you can dictate whether someone else is playing a game or not. To tell the truth, I would rather play a game where it was nothing but netlists then to see it filled with people who hold on to such poisonous view points.
6 hours ago, Astech said:The core of the game doesn't involve ripping off a netlist, it involves building a list and flying it.
Citation needed.
You're again passing your opinion as fact. Nowhere has it ever been stated or implied that netlisting isn't part of the core of the game by any past or current x-wing dev afaik.
On the contrary, an entire article on the meta has just been posted on the official site ( https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2018/1/19/flight-academy-gaming-the-metagame/ )
Also 'Auto-wins are not fair, not fun, and not okay.'. By having Dash, your list also auto-wins against many lower tier lists. Time to stop flying it I guess? Or does this logic only apply upward?
6 hours ago, SabineKey said:If you are saying because you went 3-3 with a list and because of that better lists should be banned, then you still aren't getting the idea of taking responsibility for yourself. You can count on exactly one person for fun in gaming in general and that is yourself. Don't put your fun in the hands of others you don't know, be prepared and make lists that you'll have fun flying, win or lose. Again, been doing this for years, and I seem to be more at peace with my fellow gamers than you seem to be.
Listen, I've played Dash / Lothal Rebel pairings. If something made it a "slog" versus Nymanda, it was your attitude rather than the lists themselves.
As for your poker point, it is completely false and I think you missed the point of my bringing it up entirely. First off, luck of the draw is a really thing. Just because upper levels look at and understand the probability going on before the, doesn't mean chance is magically gone from the game. A lot of the players I know run probabilities in there head when deciding what action to take, whether to disengage or not, and so on. That's all part of the game, and yet doesn't mean they aren't at the mercy of dice. I've seen token stacked, range one shots completely whiff, making all the careful planning and positioning to get to that point almost for naught. And here, in poker and in X-Wing, is where you can see the difference between a good player and a bad player. Good players can still come back from a bad roll or match up and still win. That's the point I was making before. Skill is a factor and must be considered, and we have evidence (aka tournament data) that skilled people flying what they want are winning against the meta often enough to have hope.
On this point, congratulations. If that guy is doing it because he wants to and not because people like you brow beat him, then more power to him.
This point shows you haven't been reading my posts very well. You can want a more diverse meta and want things to improve without turning it into a witch hunt versus people who play things you think are too powerful. Retract your statement that people playing "tier 0" aren't playing X-Wing, and my beef goes away. But I will say, with this being one of the best metas we've had in a while, maybe stopping to smell the roses would be beneficial?
Now, on to your theoretical question. And I would call it "fair" in sense that everyone can use it, if they wish. Fairness from a gameplay standpoint, not really, but that's more due to balancing. It's a part of the game and while sloppy and ill-advised, it will continue to be part of the game until FFG does something about it. Now, would I use it? Depends. If we are going with its a Thrawn card, then it certainly pulls on my nostalgia and I might want to run it for that. But then we have to deal with what chassis to put him on, and I'm not a fan of how it feels to fly a shuttle. There pretty much leaves the Deci and I'm the type of person who grows board of playing the same ship over and over. (Note: I made the classic blunder of forgetting to mention the other big base, crew capible Imp ship. It does tend to slip through the cracks.) But (back to the main topic) this question displays your continued blind spot to the point that these "auto-win" lists are losing. Had a Nymiranda list show up to a tournament recently. It lost to a Ghost build.
You are right. Auto-Wins are not fair, not fun, and not okay. But do you know what is also not fair, not fun, and not okay? Thinking that you can dictate whether someone else is playing a game or not. To tell the truth, I would rather play a game where it was nothing but netlists then to see it filled with people who hold on to such poisonous view points.
I didn't say anything of the sort. Despite losing two games to crits on debris (munitions failure against RAC, direct hit), I was all in all happy with my performance. I'm not 'blaming' my opponent for me losing, but I am saying that those meta lists were incredibly unfun to fly against. ****, I destroyed RAC's two escorts - Colzet and Wampa - in a single turn before they could shoot, and still lost to RAC.
The "slog" was the fact that, despite my opponent forcing their ships into a corner, falling into an Ion/Gunner trap two turns later, and 5 HLC shots on a tokenless Nym - all before I took hull damage - I failed to destroy a single ship, because they had literally everything going for them, even with 1 hull left.
In poker folding is what one does when your hand truly sucks, and typically carries slim if any penalty. You can't fold when your opponent plonks down RAC/Colzet against your double Ghosts and proceeds to 200-0 you. I laugh in the face of bad rolls - even bad streaks - out of a sense of sportsmanship. ****, I couldn't even damage a tokenless A-wing after 4 turns of four 4-die attacks once. The core of my point is that unless you're flying a meta list (and are skilled with it, naturally), you have almost no chance of winning the tournament, and little more of even making the cut . Skill is not the issue, it's the advantage given by meta lists.
Here's the thing - this particular player has a game perhaps once a fortnight, with casual lists, then turns up to tournaments with his toned-down meta lists and proceeds to wipe the floor with most of our veteran, regular players. He often wins based solely on his list, and admits as such.
I was referring specifically to NyManda when saying that one wasn't playing X-wing while using it, as you have perfect board knowledge, and don't even rely on average dice to take the win. Other meta lists - especially past ones - required a fair deal of skill to fly, such as the short-lived double ghost + Y-wing. The meta's fairly good at the moment, but only below the cut. In the cut, as has been hyped on these forums, we have 7 out of 8 lists being mirrors of NyManda , and double mirror matches for the semis, which I believe is unprecedented, leading to the list's immediate nerfing .
Again, these lists are capable of losing because, in the thousands of games played each day, it is almost guaranteed that someone blanks out on almost every roll, and other people roll nothing but crits and evades. That's pretty much the only way a tier 3+ list can win against a meta monster - raw , enormous dice luck combined with skill.
With the theoretical example, it's what I'd call a meta-funnel since, at 50 points for the card, anybody who's serious about winning the tournament must take the card. Naturally, this means that 95% of all tournaments are going to be Imperials, and with only 50 points remaining in the list, you're either limited to a fragile Deci or Upsilon, or a Lambda and a pocket ace. In essence the card would reduce the meta to three (and a half, for the lambda) ships . That is not fair at all, since it excludes the players of the other factions, people who couldn't get the card due to the inevitable supply shortage and people who actually want to run 100 point lists in 100/6. It would break the game, in much the same way (to a lesser extent) NyManda is poisoning the tournament scene.
It seems we're of different opinions here, as I'd rather not play the game at all than play with an insulting 1% chance of winning despite a great (but not meta) list, good flying skills and typically good dice luck.
5 hours ago, LordBlades said:Citation needed.
You're again passing your opinion as fact. Nowhere has it ever been stated or implied that netlisting isn't part of the core of the game by any past or current x-wing dev afaik.
On the contrary, an entire article on the meta has just been posted on the official site ( https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2018/1/19/flight-academy-gaming-the-metagame/ )
Also 'Auto-wins are not fair, not fun, and not okay.'. By having Dash , your list also auto-wins against many lower tier lists. Time to stop flying it I guess? Or does this logic only apply upward?
X-wing core rulebook, 2012. Paraphrasing, "Players then build a list composed of 100 points of ship and upgrade cards". Not, "Players search List Juggler for dominant lists of the day and pick one for the next month"...
That article is based on how to deal with the meta, not necessarily playing it, and is intended for new players who have no idea how much trouble they're in at large comps.
Dash auto-wins against swarms, which are now (and probably forever) extinct. Every other list archetype is a very good chance against him, and a single PS8+ ship with repositioning can easily flog him to death in the endgame. In addition, Dash's cannon doesn't have guidance chips, condition cards or a slung proton bomb each round...
57 minutes ago, Astech said:
X-wing core rulebook, 2012. Paraphrasing, "Players then build a list composed of 100 points of ship and upgrade cards". Not, "Players search List Juggler for dominant lists of the day and pick one for the next month"...
That article is based on how to deal with the meta, not necessarily playing it, and is intended for new players who have no idea how much trouble they're in at large comps.
You.might notice that the rulebook doesn't specify 'an original list' Building a list identical to something you found on List Juggler is still 'building a list'.
Also, the article acknowledges playing a meta list as a valid strategy: ' Will you fly the top meta list? It may be the best list available and flying it—or something similar to it—could be beneficial'
Ultimately, if you think Dash is in any way 'fair', then we have different definitions.on what's balanced in X-Wing. Dash is just a different kind of unfair. There's a reason why Plot Armor is a top squad in most recent tournaments. I also find complaining about a GC Harpoon funny when Dash has a HLC turret with Focus and LW every round.
Edited by LordBlades
2 hours ago, Astech said:I didn't say anything of the sort. Despite losing two games to crits on debris (munitions failure against RAC, direct hit), I was all in all happy with my performance. I'm not 'blaming' my opponent for me losing, but I am saying that those meta lists were incredibly unfun to fly against. ****, I destroyed RAC's two escorts - Colzet and Wampa - in a single turn before they could shoot, and still lost to RAC.
The "slog" was the fact that, despite my opponent forcing their ships into a corner, falling into an Ion/Gunner trap two turns later, and 5 HLC shots on a tokenless Nym - all before I took hull damage - I failed to destroy a single ship, because they had literally everything going for them, even with 1 hull left.
In poker folding is what one does when your hand truly sucks, and typically carries slim if any penalty. You can't fold when your opponent plonks down RAC/Colzet against your double Ghosts and proceeds to 200-0 you. I laugh in the face of bad rolls - even bad streaks - out of a sense of sportsmanship. ****, I couldn't even damage a tokenless A-wing after 4 turns of four 4-die attacks once. The core of my point is that unless you're flying a meta list (and are skilled with it, naturally), you have almost no chance of winning the tournament, and little more of even making the cut . Skill is not the issue, it's the advantage given by meta lists.
Here's the thing - this particular player has a game perhaps once a fortnight, with casual lists, then turns up to tournaments with his toned-down meta lists and proceeds to wipe the floor with most of our veteran, regular players. He often wins based solely on his list, and admits as such.
I was referring specifically to NyManda when saying that one wasn't playing X-wing while using it, as you have perfect board knowledge, and don't even rely on average dice to take the win. Other meta lists - especially past ones - required a fair deal of skill to fly, such as the short-lived double ghost + Y-wing. The meta's fairly good at the moment, but only below the cut. In the cut, as has been hyped on these forums, we have 7 out of 8 lists being mirrors of NyManda , and double mirror matches for the semis, which I believe is unprecedented, leading to the list's immediate nerfing .
Again, these lists are capable of losing because, in the thousands of games played each day, it is almost guaranteed that someone blanks out on almost every roll, and other people roll nothing but crits and evades. That's pretty much the only way a tier 3+ list can win against a meta monster - raw , enormous dice luck combined with skill.
With the theoretical example, it's what I'd call a meta-funnel since, at 50 points for the card, anybody who's serious about winning the tournament must take the card. Naturally, this means that 95% of all tournaments are going to be Imperials, and with only 50 points remaining in the list, you're either limited to a fragile Deci or Upsilon, or a Lambda and a pocket ace. In essence the card would reduce the meta to three (and a half, for the lambda) ships . That is not fair at all, since it excludes the players of the other factions, people who couldn't get the card due to the inevitable supply shortage and people who actually want to run 100 point lists in 100/6. It would break the game, in much the same way (to a lesser extent) NyManda is poisoning the tournament scene.
It seems we're of different opinions here, as I'd rather not play the game at all than play with an insulting 1% chance of winning despite a great (but not meta) list, good flying skills and typically good dice luck.
So, you took a list that is exactly the type of list a RAC list eats and expected a better out come? Tell me, if you went up against a swarm and won with Dash, would you pay attention to your opponent's cry of "unfair"? Bad match ups are part of the game. How you deal with them helps define you as a player. It doesn't seem like you are willing to learn from that encounter. Also, what you are describing isn't a meta list. It's teir 1 at best, like the list you claim to want to see. Funny how your opinion shifts when it goes against you.
Ah, so bad luck effected your game. You have my condolences. Still not the other players fault.
Wrong. You can concede the game if you find the enemy list to be something you just want don't ant to deal with. True, it's not as painless as simply folding in poker, but if you are expecting 200-0 anyway, conceding might save your sanity for more enjoyable games and you are no worse off then you thought it would be. At least that would be true if meta lists were truely autowins, which there is actually data proving they are not. I can't believe I have to keep reminding you that there are none meta lists claiming major tournaments, making your claim that you must fly a meta list beyond laughable.
I see nothing wrong with that. If he doesn't have the time to practice with a list, it makes sense that he take a list that he knows it good, making sure he just has to worry about his flying skills rather then worry if what he cobbled together is even good enough.
While I am happy that Nymranda is gone, I could still separate my hate for the list from the player using it. They were still playing X-Wing. Your statement of opinion as fact doesn't change that.
And you have a problem with that? By that logic, a list slapped together with no real consideration of upgrades should have a reasonable shot versus a list someone has meticulously put together and tested. Does that really sound like a good game?
But where your thought experiment fails is where a lot of your arguments and points fail: Nymranda was beatable. Oh, definitely a difficult list, but still beatable. And what was good against it wasn't just itself. Again, a Palp Aces list took one on at the Mandalor system open and won. A Ghost list took it down at my local store. Thus your example of an autowin card fails to properly showcase reality.
Your final statement shows your continued limited view of the game. You continue to hold to the only way to beat the meta is to be the meta, yet we've seen before that there are usually predators out there suppressed by some other list or some list had yet to have its day in the sun. Every meta list got started as some unknown. Saying that nothing more will appear is denying historical data. There are things I can do and lessons I can learn to beat the meta list next time. Can't say the same against people who try to impose their private codes on other people.
I also have to agree with @LordBlades in that your use of Dash makes your arguments against the meta seem like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Edited by SabineKeyWhy did the other threads get closed but this one's aight?
8 hours ago, SabineKey said:I see nothing wrong with that. If he doesn't have the time to practice with a list, it makes sense that he take a list that he knows it good, making sure he just has to worry about his flying skills rather then worry if what he cobbled together is even good enough.
So much this
Coming up with a good list takes time. I recall an interview with Justin Phua, where he said he spent some 50 games refining his worlds list, then about 50 more practicing with it. Not everyone has the time to do 100 games in preparation for a tournament.
Someone said Waac jobs earlier and I've like it. So something good did come out of this thread.
12 hours ago, LordBlades said:So much this
I would argue that everyone has time to do 100 practise games before major events. The meta swingy normally only about twice per year and the average hours of entertainment media consumption is either than what it takes to play 100 games. What not everyone has is the dedication to actually invest that much time into tournament preparations.
6 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:I would argue that everyone has time to do 100 practise games before major events. The meta swingy normally only about twice per year and the average hours of entertainment media consumption is either than what it takes to play 100 games. What not everyone has is the dedication to actually invest that much time into tournament preparations.
Well, I don't think you can really equate all hours of entertainment media consumption with hours available to play x-wing, mainly because entertainment end a is a solo activity, while x-wing is a social one. You can watch TV whenever and as often you feel like, while the same can't really be said for x-wing (how many people will you find willing to play at weird hours, or willing to play for half an hour, to give a few extreme examples?)
Case in point, myself. Assuming a preparation time of 6 months (meta changes twice a year), 100 games means 4 games a week. In order to pay 4 games a week every week I would have to significantly change at least one aspect of my life (job, family or friends).
1 hour ago, LordBlades said:Well, I don't think you can really equate all hours of entertainment media consumption with hours available to play x-wing, mainly because entertainment end a is a solo activity, while x-wing is a social one. You can watch TV whenever and as often you feel like, while the same can't really be said for x-wing (how many people will you find willing to play at weird hours, or willing to play for half an hour, to give a few extreme examples?)
Case in point, myself. Assuming a preparation time of 6 months (meta changes twice a year), 100 games means 4 games a week. In order to pay 4 games a week every week I would have to significantly change at least one aspect of my life (job, family or friends).
To play 4 games a week you have to go to one of the many weekly or bi-weekly game nights in your local community. That's it. That is less of an commitment than most people would make when they join a sports club for example. If put in the effort to ask within the local community AND the global vassal community you should be able to play 100 games with easy per month, so availability of other players does not seem like an issue. It still a change in your lifestyle for sure, basically you are getting into a competitive sports lifestyle, just without the health benefits. ;-)
Though even 8 games per week are still reasonable small changes. Playing one vassal game each evening instead of watching entertainment media and having 2 practise sessions of 2 games each evening in your store is not a high bar to reach. Compared to most esports games it's an incredible low bar to to reach. What it does require is some organisation talent as well, because you need manage your game schedule with several practise partners most likely. (Unless you can play at home with family and friends each evening anyway, not that would be indeed a lucky case)
1 hour ago, SEApocalypse said:To play 4 games a week you have to go to one of the many weekly or bi-weekly game nights in your local community. That's it. That is less of an commitment than most people would make when they join a sports club for example. If put in the effort to ask within the local community AND the global vassal community you should be able to play 100 games with easy per month, so availability of other players does not seem like an issue. It still a change in your lifestyle for sure, basically you are getting into a competitive sports lifestyle, just without the health benefits. ;-)
I see where you're coming from. If you're getting into a competitive sports lifestyle for x-wing then yes, absolutely, you will have the time (it's proven by guys who have found the time to do this kind of preparation and do well with their own lists).
This kind of lifestyle does require sacrifices though (been there/done that in my youth) and as such I think its fair to assume not everyone who shows up to a regional or system open is doing it (for whatever reason). For people who still treat X-wing as 'just' a hobby, putting in 8 hours or so per week (4 games, assuming Vassal games are longer than regular ones and RL games have some overhead involving travel times and packing/unpacking your stuff) is often a lot.
Edited by LordBlades6 minutes ago, LordBlades said:This kind of lifestyle does require sacrifices though (been there/done that in my youth) and as such I think its fair to assume not everyone who shows up to a regional or system open is doing it (for whatever reason). For people who still treat X-wing as 'just' a hobby, putting in 8 hours or so per week (4 games, assuming Vassal games are longer than regular ones and RL games have some overhead involving travel times and packing/unpacking your stuff) is often a lot.
Completely agree on that. I said myself that it requires dedication to invest that kind of time into the game. It's still an option for most. And btw, being competitive about your hobby starts about organising yourself and removing for example the packing/unpacking part nearly completely by being very organised about it, etc
In my sports day my club was not only investing tens of thousands dollars into minimizing downtime during training. It was all about being time efficient, because everyone is aware that the weak has only so many hours. Same when doing some silly competitive WoW raiding. The qualify of a raid could be seen immediately in the amount of downtime it had. Some raids needed 12 minutes of downtime after a 3 minutes of fight and others managed to be ready again within less than 3 minutes AND being able to actually even DIE quicker to minimise time wasted. Which lead to the simple disparity that a progress raid could try a boss 3-5 times in the same time a more causal driven raid would need to give it even just one try.
So maximising the amount of games and testing you get out of your time would be one of the normal things to do when you start playing the game competitively. This includes surrendering training games after stupid, game changing games have been made for example. Some games are indeed over just after 10 minutes, before the initial approach reached already an unusual and most likely game deciding result. In a tournament you still finish this game, trying to at least save some mov or even still turn the tables, but in training? Yeah, game over, next game, no point to waste time. Keep working on that approach instead.