3 minutes ago, abell19 said:

I mean, if you want to be technical. Errata is section one of the X-Wing(tm) FAQ document, so they are technically correct to ask for a FAQ. As well as being colloquially understood by most that when we say we want a FAQ we want an update to the Errata and clarifications sections.

In my mind, the message propagates upwards in FFQ hq like this:

Data driven, rationale community: this game is going off the rails, wtf, please send halp

Designers/OP: Well there are definitely some serious issues here, but maybe if we just wait a little longer and see what the next wave does ...

mid level management: sales are good, we are getting a little complaining from the the field, but overall the competitive scene is healthy.

Senior management/VC: everything is a-ok!

12 minutes ago, sozin said:

Data driven, rationale community: this game is going off the rails, wtf, please send halp

I think you're wrong right about here. That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Its CLEARLY not a consensus.

17 minutes ago, sozin said:

mid level management: sales are good, we are getting a little complaining from the the field, but overall the competitive scene is healthy.

Senior management/VC: everything is a-ok!

Well, I mean...I *liked* the 'Rebels' series, and even *I* think the Phantom II looks (and is named) silly.

Would anyone buy them, if it didn't include an absolutely ridiculously-OP pilot+mechanic pair?

Nerfing a ship from the very latest group released, before sales simmer down of their own accord, really isn't a great strategy from a marketing perspective. I mean, it's only been out, what, 4 months at this point? They still got months to go before everyone has bought one, until they can hit it with a nerf bat....

10 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

I think you're wrong right about here. That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Its CLEARLY not a consensus.

8 out of 10 doctors agree

I suppose I can enumerate a list of world class players that have this perspective, but somehow I think having the glittering array of expert and master strengthened opinions presented will only cause your heels to dig in further. Let me know precisely how many expert opinions, and what caliber and qualification is needed to sway your mind?

11 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

*citation needed.

8 out of 10 circle-jerking drama addicts, maybe.

Those must be what you call people who disagree with you.

10 minutes ago, sozin said:

I suppose I can enumerate a list of world class players that have this perspective, but somehow I think having the glittering array of expert and master strengthened opinions presented will only cause your heels to dig in further. Let me know precisely how many expert opinions, and what caliber and qualification is needed to sway your mind?

There's just as many of those glittering superstar gods among men, or more, who disagree.

Then please present them! I hold my strong positions weakly, and would be happy to have my mind changed on this. I am not a top player, but personally I do have multiple top finishes in national events, Regionals, a Worlds cut, and the Vassal league with its redonkulous density of talented players etc, and I do keep tabs with their expert opinion, and the number of them that are saying what you are saying is, well ... none of them. I seriously don’t have a single one.

6 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

There's just as many of those glittering superstar gods among men, or more, who disagree.

22 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

*citation needed.

4 minutes ago, sozin said:

Then please present them! I hold my strong positions weakly, and would be happy to have my mind changed on this. I am not a top player, but personally I do have multiple top finishes in national events, Regionals, a Worlds cut, and the Vassal league with its redonkulous density of talented players etc, and I do keep tabs with their expert opinion, and the number of them that are saying what you are saying is, well ... none of them. I seriously don’t have a single one.

I don't know a lot of top players that publish their opinions and reasonings. But there is Theorist, for one, and from what I've read he thinks the game is in a really strong spot.

Theorist (who is an old pal of mine FWIW) has not been a top player for several years; he hasn’t been going to physical tournaments, and all the tournaments he runs of Vassal feature very tweaked rules to correct issues he sees with the system.

I appreciate that you guys go way back, and I've no doubt he's not entirely satisfied with the game state. But this is what he said to intro one of his latest articles:

Quote

X-wing is in a golden age. Almost every ship is strong enough to play at tournament, builds vary widely in every faction, every faction is viable, and the meta is so fluid that newer players get confused when someone says “there IS no best list now”. I’m excited for my favorite game, and the future only looks brighter. We have new T-65 goodies on the way to compliment the very impressive Flight-Assist Astromech we already have for it, a small base Imperial ship (the coming TIE Reaper) that can run both Palpatine and Lightweight Frame, and some new mechanics coming in (Jam action to hand out Jammed tokens?) that will have Poe feeling a little nervous! And yet, I find myself still flying some Wave 1 ships with success — way to go FFG!!!

I don't want to put you in a position where you have to disparage your friend's opinion, but I consider him a very thoughtful player and writer with a numbers-driven approach to the game and a long standing perspective on the game. I also have little doubt that he could be very successful in Organized Play if he chose to jump in.

Anyways, we can leave that aside if it doesn't do anything for you either way. But I would be curious if any people you consider top players are writing out or talking about the reasons behind their dislike for the current game. If this feeling is just coming from personal anecdotes that's fine, but I am curious about the thinking behind some of the 'major systemic problems' crowd.

I do find it hilarious that so many people who happily exploited FSR and its older derivatives think that the current meta is a step too far gone.

The biggest "problem" with the current meta is that there are several different gate-keeping archetypes that are difficult to tech against simultaneously. And what keeps the current combos so potent is how resistant they are to dice swings. Their max power isn't really an issue. It's that they're fantastic at winning attrition battles because a couple of bad dice swings doesn't have a huge impact on their combat effectiveness (and basically no impact on their MoV) whereas a single good dice swing can completely cripple an opposing list, and losing a source of damage means the opposing list can't chew through in time to make up the MoV.

I think an actual solution involves a revamp to scoring where it's possible to score half-points on any ship with 180 degrees or greater of weapon coverage (where getting half or greater of the damage value off at ANY point scores that ship at half), which I feel appropriately captures the culprits from both a meta standpoint and a mechanics-balancing standpoint.

I like the podcasts - specifically the Krayts, Mynocks, Scum, the 186th, and Kessel Run for the top player’s perspective. (Not written down, but good enough). Each of the groups mentioned above have had an insanely good tournament season, and they frequently interview top players as well (the Howards, the Fosses, various super strong European players, etc).

Based on this verbal record I believe the reaction to Theorist’s quote above would be serious skepticism. For fun I tried it on the SnV Slack and got a “...” from Starslinger and a series of gun and dead smiley emojis from Kelvan

I doubt I will get a serious response from Stay On Target on this thread, but thank you @YourHucklebrry for a genuine and thoughtful response!

@YourHucklebrry do you happen to have the link to the quoted Theorist article?

I want to be on record for this. I really appreciate strong contributors like @sozin being willing to say that current things are not what they think the game should be or has changed from what it was.

Thanks @YourHucklebrry for providing an example upon immediate request. This is the best communication I've seen on a forum in years.

Now, I can read the Theorist quote above, I remember it, I think its a little old. (Its validity we can continue to verify). You can actually also find quotes from ME saying that I thought we were going into a Golden Age after the Second Great Nerfing. I was absolutely wrong, but only for reasons of new releases. The recent strong ships are basically all the new Rebel releases.

I no longer think we've ever had a golden age. They've all been fraught with awful overpowered stuff being dominant (go all the way back to Fat Han and Dash and realize that those are awful awful entirely too capable designs).

Likewise @sozin, appreciate the conversation.

I'm not wild about the podcasts, though I admit I've only explored some of the ones you've mentioned. I just haven't found one that's consistent enough for the time, even when they try take a purely content driven approach like the 'listener series' for example. As a rule I find them a lot more conversational than analytical, people simply agreeing with each other for the sake of politeness and echoing one another off a bad experience or two against list X, Y or Z. But my experience is limited and I'll take you at your word.

Here's the Turn Mapping article that the quote is specifically drawn from. But there's not a lot to the point I quoted here, it's more of an aside. Here's one of his (less recent) articles that I think is more to that point (How Ships are Costed), and a few more recent ones (New Upgrade Musings, Squad Harmony) that have helped cement my opinion of Theorist as a thoughtful analyst of the game.

35 minutes ago, RampancyTW said:

I do find it hilarious that so many people who happily exploited FSR and its older derivatives think that the current meta is a step too far gone.

The biggest "problem" with the current meta is that there are several different gate-keeping archetypes that are difficult to tech against simultaneously. And what keeps the current combos so potent is how resistant they are to dice swings. Their max power isn't really an issue. It's that they're fantastic at winning attrition battles because a couple of bad dice swings doesn't have a huge impact on their combat effectiveness (and basically no impact on their MoV) whereas a single good dice swing can completely cripple an opposing list, and losing a source of damage means the opposing list can't chew through in time to make up the MoV.

I think an actual solution involves a revamp to scoring where it's possible to score half-points on any ship with 180 degrees or greater of weapon coverage (where getting half or greater of the damage value off at ANY point scores that ship at half), which I feel appropriately captures the culprits from both a meta standpoint and a mechanics-balancing standpoint.

Overly reliable elements of this game (turrets, autodamage, full dice modification with little effort, bombs) also remove agency from the game. When there is no decision making involved, and you eliminate variance with upgrades, there is very little you can do to be better or worse.

Example: In the case of a Maul+Ezra modified TLT attack, with highest PS repositioning, there isn't much you can do to improve... Pretty much the only thing you have to do, is some marginal range control. Your results are going to be the same, regardless whether the enemy is in or outside of your arc, whether you roll good or bad... That paired with the highest HP ship, with built in damage mitigation pretty much guarantees that you are going to outlast your opponent.

2 damage per TLT attack. Twice a round.

The game has been broken since I started playing it, and people who have played longer tell me it used to be worse.

Ive played other FFG games. They've all been broken.

This is the game we have. It's never going to be 'fixed' it will just stumble from issue to issue like all FFG games I've seen have done.

This is the game we have. Accept that and find a way to enjoy it, or don't and be forever miserable.

If you talk about removing player agency then, there, I just gave it back - the choice to be happy or angry is yours and yours alone.

9 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

Overly reliable elements of this game (turrets, autodamage, full dice modification with little effort, bombs) also remove agency from the game. When there is no decision making involved, and you eliminate variance with upgrades, there is very little you can do to be better or worse.

Example: In the case of a Maul+Ezra modified TLT attack, with highest PS repositioning, there isn't much you can do to improve... Pretty much the only thing you have to do, is some marginal range control. Your results are going to be the same, regardless whether the enemy is in or outside of your arc, whether you roll good or bad... That paired with the highest HP ship, with built in damage mitigation pretty much guarantees that you are going to outlast your opponent.

2 damage per TLT attack. Twice a round.

I don't disagree that Ghost Fenn is pretty simple to fly, but it's also a list that realistically needs to remove at least 50 points of MoV from the other side before it achieves its win condition. Beating it is also pretty simple: kill Fenn, get the Ghost to half without losing half of your list. It's a gatekeeper list in the list-building phase, but beating it is far more straight-forward than something like Dengaroo was. The trick is finding something that can beat it without being terrible against the rest of the field, but that's no different than any other meta.

4 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

The game has been broken since I started playing it, and people who have played longer tell me it used to be worse.

Ive played other FFG games. They've all been broken.

This is the game we have. It's never going to be 'fixed' it will just stumble from issue to issue like all FFG games I've seen have done.

This is the game we have. Accept that and find a way to enjoy it, or don't and be forever miserable.

If you talk about removing player agency then, there, I just gave it back - the choice to be happy or angry is yours and yours alone.

Here's an idea, how bout you let me do my thing, and I let you do yours?

You obviously have no intention to engage in a thoughtful conversation, apparent by the lack of your answers to previous comments.

If something as silly as a forum about plastic spaceships is so upsetting for you that you can't stop commenting the same answer within hours of each other, to the same person, then perhaps you can understand my frustration about the actual plastic spaceships themselves.

Yes, you have unlocked the secret to greater happiness when it comes to X-Wing. Why don't you go and celebrate that, by playing the game, instead of getting boggled down in petty arguments.

If you are trolling, you are not putting enough effort in it. If you are serious, then... why are you doing it?

I try to nicely engage SoT but am usually rewarded with snark and then subject change when I try to pin down to specifics :/

1 hour ago, Stay On The Leader said:

The game has been broken since I started playing it, and people who have played longer tell me it used to be worse.

Ive played other FFG games. They've all been broken.

This is the game we have. It's never going to be 'fixed' it will just stumble from issue to issue like all FFG games I've seen have done.

This is the game we have. Accept that and find a way to enjoy it, or don't and be forever miserable.

If you talk about removing player agency then, there, I just gave it back - the choice to be happy or angry is yours and yours alone.

I see you have declined to trot out a strong player who agrees with you! Let me know when you want to return to that, I have am absolutely game to bust out a few world champions

But since you are doing the ol’ change-gears-to-avoid-getting-pinned, I will play along. The above point is so weird to me. Krayt Cup followed its own rules. The team tourneys do as well. In the 350+ person Vassal league we have total control. This is our game and we don’t need you, or FFG, to tell us how to play or to just bend over and take it.

9 minutes ago, sozin said:

I see you have declined to trot out a strong player who agrees with you! Let me know when you want to return to that, I have am absolutely game to bust out a few world champions

But since you are doing the ol’ change-gears-to-avoid-getting-pinned, I will play along. The above point is so weird to me. Krayt Cup followed its own rules. The team tourneys do as well. In the 350+ person Vassal league we have total control. This is our game and we don’t need you, or FFG, to tell us how to play or to just bend over and take it.

I foresee X-wing having to do what 40k did during the 6th/7th edition Era- Form a group that puts out their own rules addendum for tournaments.

And hey, the ITC (the 40k rules group) ended up being the people to write 8th edition as well- it could all turn out for the better.

So are Objectives going to be the basework for X-wing's ITC? Or are we going with a total rewrite?

Either way, I know that this is half the reason that I started making cards as prize support- to support whatever community edition gets made.