9 hours ago, Kieransi said:

So banning cards and having massive errata is probably a decent solution. It's equally annoying for a lot of people, and will probably result in just as many people quitting, but might repair the game. One problem at that point becomes balance. Ban VI? Good idea, 2.0 did that. But then Kylo, Soontir, and Poe all become monsters with PTL. Ban PTL (2.0 also did that)? Then Vader has native PS9 and passive action efficiency, and becomes super overpowered. Do you increase his cost? Nerf his ability? How about all the mid-PS things that need PTL to be competitive? How do you buff them? At this point it's quite a cumbersome errata.

BUT there's a solution to a giant errata like this. Print all the new errata'ed cards in a pack, sell if for a fraction the cost of regular ship packs (maybe like 50¢ per ship), everyone's happy.

But the problem is that now you're really close to 2.0, aren't you? Why not double the costs of those kits to also add a whole bunch of fun new mechanics to this?

This is why I like 2.0: not for the negatives but for the positives. They could've perhaps fixed the negatives of 1.0 other ways, but it would have been just as cumbersome as an online PDF. But with 2.0, you also get all the awesome new mechanics FFG's come up with over the years like mobile arcs, talon rolls, sengors loops, bullseye arcs, and new thematic things people have been asking for like the Force and droids.

So yeah, 2.0 can kind of suck. It's expensive to convert, the PDFs are annoying, and now I have to rebuild all my homebrew stuff from the ground up. But in my opinion, it's worth it for the possibility of adding new stuff, and the ability to start over with a clean slate! Now, we have a tremendous new game with full convertibility from the old one, that's had 5+ years of beta testing. That's pretty cool, if you ask me.

But now you have turned a "build a squad around the table" game into "dolwnload an app and write dozens of pages of notes" game.

2.0 isnt a new edition, its a different game. Its not the game i bought or want to play anyway. and FFG will continue releasing bozonkers overpowered expansions because they are corporation that needs to sell things to make money.

7 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

But now you have turned a "build a squad around the table" game into "dolwnload an app and write dozens of pages of notes" game.

2.0 isnt a new edition, its a different game. Its not the game i bought or want to play anyway. and FFG will continue releasing bozonkers overpowered expansions because they are corporation that needs to sell things to make money.

Whenever I sat at the game table to build a squad, I pulled out my phone and went straight to a list building app. So did everyone else I know. It's just easier that way. Did you not do things that way?

You imply that FFG purposefully made things Over Powered to sell ships. Personally, I don't think they did that at all. I think they tried to create balanced, but new game content every time. It's just that it's really hard to do. So, some things came out OP. I don't believe it was done on purpose to sell more ships. That would require a lot more scheming and competence than someone just making mistakes.

1 hour ago, heychadwick said:

Whenever I sat at the game table to build a squad, I pulled out my phone and went straight to a list building app. So did everyone else I know. It's just easier that way. Did you not do things that way?

You imply that FFG purposefully made things Over Powered to sell ships. Personally, I don't think they did that at all. I think they tried to create balanced, but new game content every time. It's just that it's really hard to do. So, some things came out OP. I don't believe it was done on purpose to sell more ships. That would require a lot more scheming and competence than someone just making mistakes.

Pretty much all of this. Anyone assuming that they had some nefarious intent to make things bigger and better to sell stuff is giving them far too much credit.

1 hour ago, heychadwick said:

Whenever I sat at the game table to build a squad, I pulled out my phone and went straight to a list building app. So did everyone else I know. It's just easier that way. Did you not do things that way?

You imply that FFG purposefully made things Over Powered to sell ships. Personally, I don't think they did that at all. I think they tried to create balanced, but new game content every time. It's just that it's really hard to do. So, some things came out OP. I don't believe it was done on purpose to sell more ships. That would require a lot more scheming and competence than someone just making mistakes.

8 minutes ago, JasonCole said:

Pretty much all of this. Anyone assuming that they had some nefarious intent to make things bigger and better to sell stuff is giving them far too much credit.

Agreed, 100%.

All you have to do is look at how much stuff just wasn't competitive on release. Sure some stuff was broken OP, but there was also a bunch of stuff that just fell flat on its face. I do think that, generally speaking, things gradually got stronger but that also feels like the natural progression of a game like this. Some power creep is inevitable as new pieces are introduced to and interact with the existing game. But the really broken stuff just feels more like balance misses than a money grab--trying to make sure a new ship is relevant, and winding up overshooting the mark, in the same way that the non-competitive ships undershot the mark.

The only thing that felt close to a money grab to me were the high-tier, tournament-legal upgrade cards and ship fixes being included with the extremely expensive, non-tournament-legal epic ships. That definitely felt like an attempt to drive up sales on their most expensive kits. But even that I don't really see as particularly nefarious. I hope they don't do it again, but I'm not angry about it or anything. After all it's still up to us whether we buy their stuff and play their game.

On 8/10/2018 at 9:32 AM, TasteTheRainbow said:

2.0 was never going to be perfect. It was not created to address imperfection in 1.0. It was created to address systematic and ingrained problems with 1.0, and it accomplished that goal quite well. This ridiculous notion that finding a flaw somehow means this whole 2.0 thing was a waste of time has got to go. It reminds me of people who claim the flu vaccine doesn’t work because SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE still get the flu. The world isn’t either/or. Projects aren’t either/or.

If Riot games, who spends millions and millions on playtesting and balance of a digital game can get stuff wrong, then so can FFG with their infinitely-smaller budget. Whining every time they do is not useful. Claiming that this somehow means 2.0 is a MESS is worse than useless. It’s laughable, except apparently some of you think it’s a serious point of discussion.

Abilities need to be on the card because you or your opponent might need to read them during a game. You don’t need to know points or upgrades once the game is started except to calculate points, which is going to be on your tourney sheet or in the app.

So you're telling me that an ever-growing list of errata being used as a mechanism for game balance is somehow not one of the "systematic and ingrained problems with 1.0"?

This ridiculous notion of the fact of 2.0 having fixed some of the things wrong with 1.0 means that it should be immune to criticism has got to go. It reminds me of people who claim the earth is flat because their ad hoc hypotheses sound pretty good and answer some common questions as long as you don't look too closely at the details.

Abilities do not need to be on the card, because in the event that you or your opponent might need to reference them during a game, they are available on the tourney list you handed in (assuming that the official squad builder will be on par with the quality we came to expect from 3rd party squad builders in 1.0, that is) or in the app.

If you or your opponent rely on reading the cards during a game, I certainly hope you didn't use any of the cards that got errata'd in your list, otherwise you'll be getting incorrect information. Oh, wait, you probably have the latest wording from the FAQ printed out or available on your phone...so...no different than if the card was blank to begin with. But you knew that, right?

49 minutes ago, Sparklelord said:

So you're telling me that an ever-growing list of errata being used as a mechanism for game balance is somehow not one of the "systematic and ingrained problems with 1.0"?

This ridiculous notion of the fact of 2.0 having fixed some of the things wrong with 1.0 means that it should be immune to criticism has got to go. It reminds me of people who claim the earth is flat because their ad hoc hypotheses sound pretty good and answer some common questions as long as you don't look too closely at the details.

Abilities do not need to be on the card, because in the event that you or your opponent might need to reference them during a game, they are available on the tourney list you handed in (assuming that the official squad builder will be on par with the quality we came to expect from 3rd party squad builders in 1.0, that is) or in the app.

If you or your opponent rely on reading the cards during a game, I certainly hope you didn't use any of the cards that got errata'd in your list, otherwise you'll be getting incorrect information. Oh, wait, you probably have the latest wording from the FAQ printed out or available on your phone...so...no different than if the card was blank to begin with. But you knew that, right?

Oh please. There’s one ACTUAL change to a card we will actually have on the table.

Confusing clarification of early-released content for which we already have the fixed cards in hand or on the way with a swath of game-changing errata on lots of cards is disingenuous. At best.

And again, 2.0 isn’t about making the game PERFECT. It’s about having a system in place to maintain game balance. 2.0 has that. 1.0 did not. Nit-picking over errata that we won’t even remember in a year due to fixed cards in hands completely misses the point of what 2.0 even is.

and Kaine KNOWS that. He’s just pretending otherwise so he can get a chuckle out of people falling for it.

1 hour ago, Sparklelord said:

Abilities do not need to be on the card, because in the event that you or your opponent might need to reference them during a game, they are available on the tourney list you handed in (assuming that the official squad builder will be on par with the quality we came to expect from 3rd party squad builders in 1.0, that is) or in the app.

If you or your opponent rely on reading the cards during a game, I certainly hope you didn't use any of the cards that got errata'd in your list, otherwise you'll be getting incorrect information. Oh, wait, you probably have the latest wording from the FAQ printed out or available on your phone...so...no different than if the card was blank to begin with. But you knew that, right?

So in all seriousness, what's the point of having cards at all??

Proof Of Purchase?? Alt art prizes that are as inaccurate as your other game components??

At the point you are talking about, they just become a burden you have to present to play the game.

Just make the game stats electronic and be done with it. Stop wasting cardboard that is unneeded, incomplete, and/or inaccurate.

Looking at some of their new games, I think we can all be thankful that they didn't make the boosters random... I mean "unique".

14 minutes ago, Sithborg said:

Looking at some of their new games, I think we can all be thankful that they didn't make the boosters random... I mean "unique".

It would be a complete non-starter for any minis game to me. I’m not real thrilled about it for games like MTG

For something like Pandemic Legacy, a bit of randomness in the events that happen wouldn’t be so bad.

4 hours ago, TasteTheRainbow said:

and Kaine KNOWS that. He’s just pretending otherwise so he can get a chuckle out of people falling for it.

Eh. Dude. You guys keep talking about me as if I had a secret agenda. I don't.

But fine... I'm just troll then.

What about everyone else trying to have a proper discussion going on? If you personally don't like the post, you don't have to be here, but some folks are actually discussing things. Surely if others can find a purpose, then it's all cool.

Or are we too deep in for backtracking?

Why is any criticism necessarily considered trolling?

I didn't bash the game, I talked about the positives as well.

9 hours ago, heychadwick said:

Whenever I sat at the game table to build a squad, I pulled out my phone and went straight to a list building app. So did everyone else I know. It's just easier that way. Did you not do things that way?

You imply that FFG purposefully made things Over Powered to sell ships. Personally, I don't think they did that at all. I think they tried to create balanced, but new game content every time. It's just that it's really hard to do. So, some things came out OP. I don't believe it was done on purpose to sell more ships. That would require a lot more scheming and competence than someone just making mistakes.

Firstly, yes. Everyone i know used the cards to build lists more than yasb or whatever. We even had a "draw a random pilot" house rules game. The point though was that the game was a friendly, casual game but became a complicated game for hardcore net listers.

Second, FFG is a very large corporation. Im honestly astonished that you believe they DONT try to manilpulate customers. that anyone in the year 2018 believes that a large corporation doesnt do basic market research or product testing to understand how it product will be used (both of which immediately reveal the imbalances in the game)... just wow. Im really just not sure where to start explaining late stage capitalism or economics or a public companies duty to shareholders.

the basics of it are that companies adjust production quality, retail price, etc. to meet the minimum requirements expected to achieve sales goals. Companies are obligated to maximize profits, and NOT doing so is in fact a crime in the united states.

One of the ways that companies achieve sales in a closed market is to rotate merchandise into the "must have" category. For example high fashion companies business model is to change fashions quickly so that customers buy new products. If the customers old clothes remain in fashion, they dont buy new ones as much. If the customer is satisfied with their collection they no longer buy

In a game context, one way to make product more desirable, to make it "must have", is to give it a statistical advantage in play... aka make it overpowered. For example Games-Workshop sells models of equal complexity and production cost for different prices, with the more expensive being statistically more powerful in game or key to a winning strategy. In x-wing we see this powerful cards being sold in expensive expansions (palpatine) or swarm cards being sold individually. **** how many starvipers sold just for imperial players to get autothrusters? Like one could literally argue in court that if FFG had these strategies available and DIDNT use them that they were failing to perform their duty to maximize profits.

I have to agree that not everyone built squads in 1st using apps.

In most cases I played in, players already had their lists built before arriving at wherever they were gaming. This has some benefits, such as not needing to lug your entire collection around.

Some of the players at those places did have their entire collection with them but still often had lists already built.

The main time I remember someone building a list with an app on the fly was when they were using a randomizer.

But we also didn't often have someone building with their cards on the fly. Basically everyone came with pre-built lists (sometimes those apps were saved in an app to help organize but they were already built).

I guess technically speaking, I don't know how most of them actually built their squads. They may have been using apps but I never knew.

2.0 is going to be all listbuilders for me, I am done buying cardboard to play this game. I am used to bringing premade ships to my games, now I just have to bring prints og the cards I don't have, easy enough.

11 minutes ago, Ixidor said:

I have to agree that not everyone built squads in 1st using apps.

In most cases I played in, players already had their lists built before arriving at wherever they were gaming. This has some benefits, such as not needing to lug your entire collection around.

Some of the players at those places did have their entire collection with them but still often had lists already built.

The main time I remember someone building a list with an app on the fly was when they were using a randomizer.

But we also didn't often have someone building with their cards on the fly. Basically everyone came with pre-built lists (sometimes those apps were saved in an app to help organize but they were already built).

I guess technically speaking, I don't know how most of them actually built their squads. They may have been using apps but I never knew.

That’s how most of my local scene is. Most bring just prebuilt lists, though one or two just bring it all. Building with an app helps in both cases. I use one on my phone, allowing me to basically put together a list whenever and/or whereever I am, when an idea strikes me. It also helps on the fly as it can make construction faster and easier (depending on the player), as well as help safeguard against math errors.

I cannot believe that there are some special snowflakes offended by dude that had the audacity to criticise their beloved game. For them I got one message: Grow up and grow a pair crybabies.
Forum is for discussing things, I much more prefer people that are too quick to criticise than too quick to complement - difference in opinions create discussion and discussion fuels forum community.

As for X-Wing 2.0 I am not satisfied nor dissapointed with new edition. X-Wing 2.0 is on a way to fix some things (turrets with arcs, no more sick token stacking or overpowered combos) but on the other hand I can't shake off a feeling of dissapointment - everything is neutered, there are no powerful card combos, in my opinion 3 ace list (my favourite archetype) won't be viable in near future, there is a bunch of ships that are still overcosted and unviable (E-Wing). Also I am dissapointed with introduction of bullseye arc - it adds another element of fiddlyness and another thing that will require judge intervention during tournaments.

14 minutes ago, Embir82 said:

I cannot believe that there are some special snowflakes offended by dude that had the audacity to criticise their beloved game. For them I got one message: Grow up and grow a pair crybabies.
Forum is for discussing things, I much more prefer people that are too quick to criticise than too quick to complement - difference in opinions create discussion and discussion fuels forum community.

As for X-Wing 2.0 I am not satisfied nor dissapointed with new edition. X-Wing 2.0 is on a way to fix some things (turrets with arcs, no more sick token stacking or overpowered combos) but on the other hand I can't shake off a feeling of dissapointment - everything is neutered, there are no powerful card combos, in my opinion 3 ace list (my favourite archetype) won't be viable in near future, there is a bunch of ships that are still overcosted and unviable (E-Wing). Also I am dissapointed with introduction of bullseye arc - it adds another element of fiddlyness and another thing that will require judge intervention during tournaments.

why would Bulleye make the game difficult for judges, if you can agrre on firing arc then you can agree on Bullseye arc

On 8/9/2018 at 3:06 PM, Commander Kaine said:

Now, my THEORY is that Advanced Sensors was created with the old effect, and the game was designed with that effect in mind. Every ship with a system slot was balanced with this capability in mind. Then, they change the effect to a significantly less powerful one, making the upgrade a subpar option for many ships and pilot abilities. (And not a lot of other system slots are great).

Not going through 6 pages to see if it's been mentioned, but the card in the conversion kits is printed with the new wording.

This is not a last-minute change. At worst, it points to a change that occurred after Saw's kit went to print, which was much earlier in the 2.0 development cycle.

Just now, heychadwick said:

Whenever I sat at the game table to build a squad, I pulled out my phone and went straight to a list building app. So did everyone else I know. It's just easier that way. Did you not do things that way?

You imply that FFG purposefully made things Over Powered to sell ships. Personally, I don't think they did that at all. I think they tried to create balanced, but new game content every time. It's just that it's really hard to do. So, some things came out OP. I don't believe it was done on purpose to sell more ships. That would require a lot more scheming and competence than someone just making mistakes.

If they didn't do it deliberately (which I doubt -- IMO they were following the trail blazed by GW), then at the least they didn't beta test things nearly enough. I don't know who their testers are, but they did a p***-poor job letting things like JM5K, Harpoon Missiles etc. get through.

What FFG should do is recruit tournament winners to become beta testers. They're the ones who know how to produce the absolutely most broken lists possible with the resources available. Then FFG could head off problems before they happen.

22 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

How could they even know that? The announcement of 2.0 pretty much killed any effects Wave 14 would have had on the game.

It's an assumption based on your statement, strangely. But imagine the meeting where they discuss GW's return as a serious player and what they can fight it with... 2.0's rushed announcement (as it seems) makes sense in business context to keep shareholders happy.

Just now, Ixidor said:

I have to agree that not everyone built squads in 1st using apps.

In most cases I played in, players already had their lists built before arriving at wherever they were gaming. This has some benefits, such as not needing to lug your entire collection around.

Some of the players at those places did have their entire collection with them but still often had lists already built.

The main time I remember someone building a list with an app on the fly was when they were using a randomizer.

But we also didn't often have someone building with their cards on the fly. Basically everyone came with pre-built lists (sometimes those apps were saved in an app to help organize but they were already built).

I guess technically speaking, I don't know how most of them actually built their squads. They may have been using apps but I never knew.

I don't use apps. I don't have a smartphone. I don't need one. I refuse to acquire one. I almost ALWAYS used the cards and wrote up my own lists, rather than using squad builders. I know I'm not alone in this. Which is another reason I'm less than thrilled about 2.0.

As long as there's a way to play without needing a smartphone (which supposedly there will be), my level of dissatisfaction won't increase.

8 minutes ago, Firebird TMK said:

As long as there's a way to play without needing a smartphone (which supposedly there will be), my level of dissatisfaction won't increase.

That way has already been released. It's us lazy folk that want the app that are still waiting.

14 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

Firstly, yes. Everyone i know used the cards to build lists more than yasb or whatever. We even had a "draw a random pilot" house rules game. The point though was that the game was a friendly, casual game but became a complicated game for hardcore net listers.

Second, FFG is a very large corporation. Im honestly astonished that you believe they DONT try to manilpulate customers. that anyone in the year 2018 believes that a large corporation doesnt do basic market research or product testing to understand how it product will be used (both of which immediately reveal the imbalances in the game)... just wow. Im really just not sure where to start explaining late stage capitalism or economics or a public companies duty to shareholders.

the basics of it are that companies adjust production quality, retail price, etc. to meet the minimum requirements expected to achieve sales goals. Companies are obligated to maximize profits, and NOT doing so is in fact a crime in the united states.

One of the ways that companies achieve sales in a closed market is to rotate merchandise into the "must have" category. For example high fashion companies business model is to change fashions quickly so that customers buy new products. If the customers old clothes remain in fashion, they dont buy new ones as much. If the customer is satisfied with their collection they no longer buy

In a game context, one way to make product more desirable, to make it "must have", is to give it a statistical advantage in play... aka make it overpowered. For example Games-Workshop sells models of equal complexity and production cost for different prices, with the more expensive being statistically more powerful in game or key to a winning strategy. In x-wing we see this powerful cards being sold in expensive expansions (palpatine) or swarm cards being sold individually. **** how many starvipers sold just for imperial players to get autothrusters? Like one could literally argue in court that if FFG had these strategies available and DIDNT use them that they were failing to perform their duty to maximize profits.

Yes corporations are there to get your money, but there are different strategies to try to do that. For example, I think Wiz Kidz is more the kind to pull out all the cheap tricks to make a buck. I find FFG tends to take a higher road in their efforts to grow a fanbase for their game (which is another strategy to get money in the long run). Look at Living Card Games as opposed to ones with random blisters. FFG tends to go the LCG way, which is a strategy to get the people who are burnt out on the blister addiction. Not that FFG isn't trying to get your money, but they are trying to get it without taking all the cheap shots you can try for.

I think that FFG tries to put out a balanced product and that is a hard thing to do. All new products should come out with interesting and useful new upgrades that should keep players interested without having to purposely tilting the scales. If their intent were to just make you buy the new stuff than you wouldn't see FFG ever try to re-balance the system. They would just force you to buy the latest and greatest. I believe in Occam's Razor in this case. It's far harder to build a balanced game without trying to tilt the scales to force you to buy new stuff.

14 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

Firstly, yes. Everyone i know used the cards to build lists more than yasb or whatever. We even had a "draw a random pilot" house rules game. The point though was that the game was a friendly, casual game but became a complicated game for hardcore net listers.

Second, FFG is a very large corporation. Im honestly astonished that you believe they DONT try to manilpulate customers. that anyone in the year 2018 believes that a large corporation doesnt do basic market research or product testing to understand how it product will be used (both of which immediately reveal the imbalances in the game)... just wow. Im really just not sure where to start explaining late stage capitalism or economics or a public companies duty to shareholders.

the basics of it are that companies adjust production quality, retail price, etc. to meet the minimum requirements expected to achieve sales goals. Companies are obligated to maximize profits, and NOT doing so is in fact a crime in the united states.

One of the ways that companies achieve sales in a closed market is to rotate merchandise into the "must have" category. For example high fashion companies business model is to change fashions quickly so that customers buy new products. If the customers old clothes remain in fashion, they dont buy new ones as much. If the customer is satisfied with their collection they no longer buy

In a game context, one way to make product more desirable, to make it "must have", is to give it a statistical advantage in play... aka make it overpowered. For example Games-Workshop sells models of equal complexity and production cost for different prices, with the more expensive being statistically more powerful in game or key to a winning strategy. In x-wing we see this powerful cards being sold in expensive expansions (palpatine) or swarm cards being sold individually. **** how many starvipers sold just for imperial players to get autothrusters? Like one could literally argue in court that if FFG had these strategies available and DIDNT use them that they were failing to perform their duty to maximize profits.

The problem I have with this "manipulative corporation" narrative is it pre-supposes a level of competence from the designers that, in other discussion, people complain doesn't exist. People call out the developers of multiple games for being bad at their jobs, for not understanding the game, while we also get people saying they can produce OP stuff on demand. GW is the last company I'd hold up as an example of pricing for power in games. Things like Land Raiders and, previously in WHFB Dragons, are among their most expensive kits and are terrible. Meanwhile things like Eldar jetbikes were relatively affordable and ridiculously OP. The entire Primaris line introduced for 8th edition as an attempted big money-spinner is pretty much DOA in game terms because of GW's inability to understand their own system.

Of course companies try to maximise profits and they do it, partially, by doing market research about what people want. Gaming companies that do well will often realise, however, that balance sells better than imbalance and will strive for that where possible. I'm becoming more convinced that everything from Harpoons onwards was FFG simply not caring about 1st edition any more because they knew 2nd was on the way. Krennic help s reinforce that opinion.

Also, given the market research these companies perform, I think we can safely say they've looked at their customers and the market and decided the app is essentially a risk-free change for them, making the few dissenters who don't want the app little more than statistically insignificant noise in the grand scheme of things.

11 hours ago, Firebird TMK said:

If they didn't do it deliberately (which I doubt -- IMO they were following the trail blazed by GW), then at the least they didn't beta test things nearly enough. I don't know who their testers are, but they did a p***-poor job letting things like JM5K, Harpoon Missiles etc. get through.

What FFG should do is recruit tournament winners to become beta testers. They're the ones who know how to produce the absolutely most broken lists possible with the resources available. Then FFG could head off problems before they happen.

They do that, actually. It can be tough to beta test something. Often it is someone who isn't a winner who find something, but one of the better players sees it and takes it. It's really hard to get beta testers who will think of EVERYTHING.

I've done some testing of hardware/software that people get crazy good to find ways you never thought of to break crap. Lots of ingenious monkeys out there.

10 minutes ago, Jike said:

Of course companies try to maximise profits and they do it, partially, by doing market research about what people want. Gaming companies that do well will often realise, however, that balance sells better than imbalance and will strive for that where possible.

He said it better than me. Not that FFG takes the high road compared to Wiz Kidz due to a moral conviction, but a business conviction that balanced games do better.