1 hour ago, player3137305 said:

I am not converting because of the cards not having their costs/upgrades printed on them. I am not converting because this same fact allows a lousy company become even lousier. I am not converting because this enables manipulation of meta to suit a business need.

In there defense they are a business and have a responsibility to do everything to increase profits. Sometimes that means making customers happy sometimes it doesn't.

Also the points not on the cards aewan attempt to allow them to adjust thinds so they don't have to sell you "fix" packs. I think you are just cynical.

3 hours ago, SabineKey said:

But playing nice is subjective and means different things to different people.

C'mon, it's not really that hard to create a game state which makes both players happy.

If your (reasonable) opponent went home sad/pissed/crushed because of the list you brought, it's possible you brought a list that wasn't nice.

It doesn't matter that the list made you happy.

Playing the broken combos in 1.0 "until FFG makes them balanced and forces me to quit" is playing not-nice. Bringing triple jumps to casual night is not-nice.

I mean, I really don't think the purported "fly casual" ethos is all that tough to adhere to, even if it is subjective.

38 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

C'mon, it's not really that hard to create a game state which makes both players happy.

If your (reasonable) opponent went home sad/pissed/crushed because of the list you brought, it's possible you brought a list that wasn't nice.

It doesn't matter that the list made you happy.

Playing the broken combos in 1.0 "until FFG makes them balanced and forces me to quit" is playing not-nice. Bringing triple jumps to casual night is not-nice.

I mean, I really don't think the purported "fly casual" ethos is all that tough to adhere to, even if it is subjective.

But you are forgetting that some people are also in the game for the challenge. To test themselves versus others. They’ll take losses because it’s an experience to learn and grow from. Fair for them is simply manners and that the opponent brought their a-game. That’s not unreasonable, but also can be incompatible to someone who just wants to reenact the Trench Run.

As for both sides being happy, I use to think that was possible in every case, but time on this forum has shown me otherwise. Let’s take your point against Jumpmasters. There are people out there who fly and like it not because it’s OP, but because they have some form of attachment to it. So, your labling the very flying of a Jumpmaster as “not nice” is more about your own standards than theirs, thus more subjective.

I also challenge that flying a list that makes you happy doesn’t matter. If that were true, why aren’t you flying Jumpmasters? It goes both ways. I fly what I want, sometimes it’s meta, other times it’s jank. But it’s what I want, and focusing on that has made me much less dependent on what my opponent brings to have fun, covering the different extremes of players that are out there. There are a lot of people out there with different view points and you can’t please them all. So, take responsibility for your own fun, be flexible, and communicate. While that means give and take, that scenario still has room for you to let someone fly a Jumpmaster against you, even at a kitchen table.

You are right that the “fly casual” ethos shouldn’t be too hard to follow, but you have to realize it goes both ways. And that breaks down when you have people with different goals for the game. Neither are wrong, as they are playing as they wish to and being reasonable about it. But that still means one might feel displeased with a match because of the other player.

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

C'mon, it's not really that hard to create a game state which makes both players happy.

If your (reasonable) opponent went home sad/pissed/crushed because of the list you brought, it's possible you brought a list that wasn't nice.

It doesn't matter that the list made you happy.

Playing the broken combos in 1.0 "until FFG makes them balanced and forces me to quit" is playing not-nice. Bringing triple jumps to casual night is not-nice.

I mean, I really don't think the purported "fly casual" ethos is all that tough to adhere to, even if it is subjective.

I'm just chuckling that Darth Meanie want's to play nice

2 hours ago, You Look Like A Nail said:

Maybe? A lot of the problems with 1.0 were structural and have now been fixed. There's no inherent reason that it has to degenerate from here. They've set themselves up to succeed. Doesn't mean they will, but now they can.

I guess it comes down to how you approach things. I'm not going to assume things can only get worse. If you come into it with that outlook then I don't know why you'd still be playing, why not quit and do something more productive with your time? I like what they're doing right now and we'll see what happens.

I'm just a pragmatist on this topic. I may not like how some things in 1.0 worked, but it didn't stop me from enjoying the game. There are things in 2.0 that I don't like, but it won't stop me from enjoying the game.

A person can be critical and not think the game sucks, you know.

1 hour ago, Icelom said:

In there defense they are a business and have a responsibility to do everything to increase profits. Sometimes that means making customers happy sometimes it doesn't.

Also the points not on the cards aewan attempt to allow them to adjust thinds so they don't have to sell you "fix" packs. I think you are just cynical.

"Everything" is a pretty encompassing term. They are a business, yes, and that means they want to make a profit. But if they really wanted to maximize profit, they'd ditch games and go into producing and distributing porn.

52 minutes ago, McTavish said:

I'm just chuckling that Darth Meanie want's to play nice

2 hours ago, Icelom said:

In there defense they are a business and have a responsibility to do everything to increase profits. Sometimes that means making customers happy sometimes it doesn't.

Also the points not on the cards aewan attempt to allow them to adjust thinds so they don't have to sell you "fix" packs. I think you are just cynical.

Step 1. Release overpowered ships/packs so that people at the tournament table have reasons to buy them.

Step 2. Let them be for a short time.

Step 3. Nerf them once they have sold enough and/or complains are big enough. The new model of not having costs of ships printed on the card is the perfect foundation for this.

Step 4. Repeat for next wave.

Recipe for pay to win. It won't be the first time its ugly head has been seen.

I'm not stating all this because I'm cynical, makes me happy or I want FFG to suffer. On the contrary, it makes me sad because although 2.0e has great elements, is being thrown into a sarlacc pit by business choices.

Businesses do have a responsibility to increase profits. Looks like FFG is aiming for short term profits though. Hurting the customer diminishes profits in the long run. It's official, FFG has chosen the Scum & Villainy side.

I understand that as players we have a choice. You can choose to buy 2.0e stuff or not to. Both choices are valid and I respect that. If you choose to buy the game even though it has this issues, it's a valid choice. On the other hand, defending FFG for the bad parts does not help anyone.

27 minutes ago, player3137305 said:

Step 1. Release overpowered ships/packs so that people at the tournament table have reasons to buy them.

Step 2. Let them be for a short time.

Step 3. Nerf them once they have sold enough and/or complains are big enough. The new model of not having costs of ships printed on the card is the perfect foundation for this.

Step 4. Repeat for next wave.

Recipe for pay to win. It won't be the first time its ugly head has been seen.

I'm not stating all this because I'm cynical, makes me happy or I want FFG to suffer. On the contrary, it makes me sad because although 2.0e has great elements, is being thrown into a sarlacc pit by business choices.

Businesses do have a responsibility to increase profits. Looks like FFG is aiming for short term profits though. Hurting the customer diminishes profits in the long run. It's official, FFG has chosen the Scum & Villainy side.

I understand that as players we have a choice. You can choose to buy 2.0e stuff or not to. Both choices are valid and I respect that. If you choose to buy the game even though it has this issues, it's a valid choice. On the other hand, defending FFG for the bad parts does not help anyone.

You are being extremely cynical. Maybe wait before you assume they are going to do that.

As it stands they may want to adjust points on the fly to keep all ships in the game and thus keep there customers happy and spending.

There are 2 sides, it's a bit soon to jump one way.

In the Columbus area, which is a huge gamer city, 2.0 had been a amazingly successful relaunch. I ran the launch party for Guardtower West(East wasn't finished in time to do one technically) and we flipped the play area from 6 simultaneous Armada games on that game night, and next to no X-wing to be seen in over a year, to 8 simultaneous X-wing games(one more than our previous record not counting tournaments) and a little under twenty players rolling through at a time to say hey and check it out. I've already recruited two 1.0 players back without even trying, and introduced a newcomer who is jumping in full bore.

The builder may be screwed up, the conversion kits poorly designed at a product level, and the balance in places a little iffy.

But for Columbus and Ohio at large... X-wing is back. Raven Squad flies again, I'm betting Rook Squad is expanding, and The 614th Sector Fleet are entering the fray.

4 hours ago, player3137305 said:

Step 1. Release overpowered ships/packs so that people at the tournament table have reasons to buy them.

Step 2. Let them be for a short time.

Step 3. Nerf them once they have sold enough and/or complains are big enough. The new model of not having costs of ships printed on the card is the perfect foundation for this.

Step 4. Repeat for next wave.

Recipe for pay to win. It won't be the first time its ugly head has been seen.

Just out of curiosity, how would one tell the difference between stuff intentionally being overpowered and then nerfed to push new product, and stuff accidentally being overpowered and then nerfed to balance it?

11 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Just out of curiosity, how would one tell the difference between stuff intentionally being overpowered and then nerfed to push new product, and stuff accidentally being overpowered and then nerfed to balance it?

The glint in Alex's eye.

5 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

The glint in Alex's eye.

Who's Alex?

6 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Who's Alex?

You ain't from around here are ya ?

Alex Davy is one of the lead designers for the game. Also rightly blamed for the breaking of first Ed when he took over that development. Smart guy, great ideas, not the best designer by a loooong shot. But then hey, we all bought the product so what the hey.

5 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

But for Columbus and Ohio at large... X-wing is back. Raven Squad flies again, I'm betting Rook Squad is expanding, and The 614th Sector Fleet are entering the fray.

I play at the Game Haven in Dayton, and we've seen a noticeable increase in the amount of players since Second Edition released, following a long drought. Good to see the game making a comeback.

14 hours ago, You Look Like A Nail said:

Citation Needed as in, you have no evidence for that assertion and I don't agree that it's true. Apology for the snark but I stand by my doubt that casuals are leaving the game in significant numbers. If anything, in my non-scientifically-polled opinion, it was worse for casuals before 2.0 dropped. That was the period when the casual players I know and talk to were getting burnt out, and so was I.

I've never played in a tournament, or even played in a store. I made asteroids out of styrofoam and often use terrain that isn't even shaped like the official rock templates (and I don't necessarily use 6 of them!). I listen to Shuttle Tyderium, not Krayts. My page in the painting forum is huge. I am the epitome of the filthy casual kitchen table X-Wing player. And I'm super excited for 2.0 as are all of my filthy casual friends. If they hadn't dropped 2.0 and it hadn't looked like it does, I would have been out by the end of the year.

The reason is pretty simple: the biggest problem with 1.0 for my kind of casual player isn't support for thematic formats or scenarios or whatever, we were already doing all that for ourselves. FFG was never good at that stuff anyway. The biggest problem was the incredible bloat of upgrades, 90% of which were plain useless, and an ever escalating power curve. Some of my friends didn't buy ships as often as I do and couldn't compete with the TLTs and harpoons and whatever the latest nonsense hotness was that came along, so I was buying ships that I wanted and then worrying over which upgrades and ships I could field without feeling like I was going to steam-roller them. I had to work hard not to win the game in list building and that just isn't fun. Balance isn't just for tournaments, it's for everybody.

What I want out of X-Wing, what I (as a filthy casual) need FFG to provide me, is a game where how you play on the tabletop is more important than list building, where upgrades are less important than the chassis and how you fly it, where most ships and a good variety of lists are usable and where the number of NPEs are sharply limited. I want my buddy to put together whatever ships he likes and I can do the same and we can have a fair and interesting game where we both have a shot at winning. 2.0 does all that. Maybe down the road they'll lose the plot but the stated design goals for 2.0 are exactly what I was looking for, and so far, so good.

If anything I think the casual scene is going to grow pretty strongly in the next little while.

I have no evidence that casuals are broadly happy with the game and you have none that they aren't, we'll need to see how the game evolves over the next while, but speaking as a casual player, 2.0 saved X-Wing for me.

Citation still NOT needed, as we are both making anecdotal statements and stating opinions. even FFG can't determine player retention because all they have is sales data of their own distribution chain, which doesnt differentiate between consumers. we are all forced to form estimations based on our own data sets, which are by definition anecdotal.

For example my scene had the exact opposite reaction to 2.0 as yours, they simply all quit when second edition was announced. Im the only one out of 10 of us still playing. Its ironic because most of us wanted a 2.0 too, just not like the one we got. We had all gone through edition changes before in other games, but no one had ever seen a game require a cell phone app as part of the change, so between that and the cost being much higher than normal and the execution being so bizzare most of us just said **** it.

Seperately I work conventions for a living and know a number of game vendors who run FLGS stores, and some of them aren't stocking x-wing anymore because their players didnt express interest in conversion. One told me he only ordered 5 core sets for NYcomicon because he doesnt think theyll sell

My big beef here is that FFG adressed a few issues with 2.0 but didnt change some of the core mechanical issues that really limit the design space and will likely make future expansions a problem. They also didnt really change enough to justify the cost, particularly considering that FFG themselves screwed it all up to begin with. Plus, NO EPIC!

8 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

My big beef here is that FFG adressed a few issues with 2.0 but didnt change some of the core mechanical issues that really limit the design space and will likely make future expansions a problem.

Such as?

12 hours ago, player3137305 said:

I am not converting because of the cards not having their costs/upgrades printed on them. I am not converting because this same fact allows a lousy company become even lousier. I am not converting because this enables manipulation of meta to suit a business need.

Or, or, hear me out... Allows them to fix mistakes they didn't see coming without spending boatloads of money designing something new for you to buy to fix THEIR mistakes.

Terrible thing for them to do, saving you money I know.

2 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

Plus, NO EPIC!

Yet. They’re still working on it.

Playing with teens and kids, my observation is that they much less tend to forget upgrades, when they have the cards in front of them.

Plus, I like to see what my opponent has, on a tiny mobile screen on the other side of the board it is more or less hidden.

And many of the cards are quite beautiful, there is a visual appeal as well.

On the off-topic stuff, which is already derailing the thread:

14 hours ago, JJ48 said:

This is my hope, but a lot of the Scum discussions have really shaken my faith in this. 2.0 was supposed to do away with untouchable token stackers, but there's already a Scum thread claiming to have precisely such a list. 2.0 was supposed to ensure that at least as much thought and decision-making goes into flying a list as building it, but we already have players making lists designed around taking a couple turns to make your ship permanently cloaked, and then just trying to stay near enemies so that the list just works automatically. 2.0 was supposed to reign in overly-efficient action economy, yet Scum get cards like Jabba to let them get incredibly useful bonuses without the need for actions or even a real penalty (like taking a stress or losing a shield).

I hope I'm simply overreacting, but it just feels like FFG spent time making sure to bring Rebels and Imperials into the 2.0 philosophy, while deciding that Scum were ok sticking with 1.0-esque designs.

All the hate on Scum, still...get over it. It was mostly just the stupid JM5K. Rest of their ships was pretty mediocre, or even bad.

Fenn had dial creep (this broke Attani), but Kylo's insane dial creep was even worse.

As for 2.0, have you met Empire bomber+something formations, and esp the ace TIE swarm? It is not so much token stacking, but reroll stacking, which is similar BS, unfortunately. Especially as it reinforces the use of tragedy simulator, the one upgrade I REALLY hoped FFG had eliminated in 2.0.

I have converted all 3 OT factions, but my faith is not so good. They have to sell the prequel factions, even to the players hating the PT films. So, probably powercreep.

And I have some suspicions about their "2.0 edition" format. Might be, that conversion kit stuff isn't tournament legal. That would be a really bad move by FFG, forcing us to buy the reprints as well, after having spent about 190 dollares. (And while I like flying Scum, I actually dislike the spinny-mandalorian-fanboy interceptor, and neither like the flying "gym-shoe")

5 minutes ago, Managarmr said:

All the hate on Scum, still...get over it. It was mostly just the stupid JM5K. Rest of their ships was pretty mediocre, or even bad.

Fenn had dial creep (this broke Attani), but Kylo's insane dial creep was even worse.

As for 2.0, have you met Empire bomber+something formations, and esp the ace TIE swarm? It is not so much token stacking, but reroll stacking, which is similar BS, unfortunately. Especially as it reinforces the use of tragedy simulator, the one upgrade I REALLY hoped FFG had eliminated in 2.0.

I'm not really sure what you're going off about, as my post had nothing to do with power creep or First Edition Scum. I was just saying I see a lot of Scum lists that are at odds with what I perceived to be the concepts of Second Edition.

13 minutes ago, Managarmr said:

And I have some suspicions about their "2.0 edition" format. Might be, that conversion kit stuff isn't tournament legal.

Do you mean ships that haven't been officially released yet, like the Lambda or U-Wing? Then yes, that's kind of the point of 2.0 Edition format. Do you mean that you don't think they'll allow X-Wing models that don't have movable S-Foils? That just sounds needlessly and unjustifiably paranoid. I don't attend tournaments, but my understanding is that modded and customized ship models have been allowed provided they're still recognizable, and I haven't seen even the slightest hint that that's changed. There's enough to argue about and disagree over in Second Edition without having to invent new worries for no good reason.

9 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

Citation  still NOT needed, as we are both making anecdotal statements and st  ating opinions. 

Yeah, but I'm not asserting that my anecdotes are globally true. I suspect they're closer to the truth than the ones I was replying to, but I'm very up front about not having evidence for that and not claiming it as being objectively true. When someone does, that kind of statement requires either some evidence or an acknowledgement that it is subjective. Since it sounds like we're on the same page here, let's move on.

9 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

My big beef here is that FFG adressed a few issues with 2.0 but didnt change some of the core mechanical issues that really limit the design space and will likely make future expansions a problem. They also didnt really change enough to justify the cost, particularly considering that FFG themselves screwed it all up to begin with. Plus, NO EPIC!

I think they did address the core mechanical problems inherited from 1.0, but I guess we'll see how that plays out. Whether the cost is justified is subjective and you are certainly entitled to that opinion. And they've already said repeatedly that Epic is coming.

9 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

but no one had ever seen a game require a cell phone app as part of the change

Good news, they still haven't.

Here's the thing about 2.0, from a casual perspective. It has no support for thematic play, and neither did 1.0. It has no support for narrative play, and neither did 1.0. It doesn't have built in campaigns, although the 1.0 campaigns were (being charitable here) not their best work and the community produced more and far better content on that front, and doubtless will in 2.0 as well. 1.0 did not have anything like the quick build format in 2.0 and didn't have the balance and broad range of playable ships that 2.0 does (at least so far). And Epic is coming. So I'm not really seeing how 2.0 is anything but a big step up from 1.0 for casual players.

Maybe everybody in your local scene felt really strongly that X-Wing ought to be something that it currently isn't, and that's totally fair, but I'm not about to blame FFG for wanting X-Wing to be what it is. Imperial Assault is a narrative game and Legion isn't and that's how they meant it to be. X-Wing is what it is, it's been doing pretty well so far, and I don't see a whole lot of changes in 2.0 that are going to negatively impact either casuals or tournament players. Quite the opposite. If it isn't doing what you want, then I'm sorry for that, but it is what it is, you know?

Trading anecdotes doesn't really get us anywhere. If things are as bad as you say, then it'll be pretty clear in six months to a year. I'm pretty sure I'll still be on here with a ton of other people, new and old, talking about X-Wing. We'll see.

18 hours ago, JJ48 said:

Just out of curiosity, how would one tell the difference between stuff intentionally being overpowered and then nerfed to push new product, and stuff accidentally being overpowered and then nerfed to balance it?

Step #4. Repeat for next wave.

15 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Or, or, hear me out... Allows them to fix mistakes they didn't see coming without spending boatloads of money designing something new for you to buy to fix THEIR mistakes.

Terrible thing for them to do, saving you money I know.

Except that this promotes them doing more mistakes + other scummy things. Perhaps them testing their stuff more is a better way of correcting their mistakes, rather than having the players do it. I trust a more transparent company any day over a scummy one, even if their product is more expensive. I would easily play, say 10% more per expansion, if I knew it was well tested and less prone to B.S. If you think they do whatever they are doing to make us spend less money, you are way to naive my friend.

FFG really needs to add a tinfoil hat reaction

1 hour ago, player3137305 said:

Step #4. Repeat for next wave.

Except that this promotes them doing more mistakes + other scummy things. Perhaps them testing their stuff more is a better way of correcting their mistakes, rather than having the players do it. I trust a more transparent company any day over a scummy one, even if their product is more expensive. I would easily play, say 10% more per expansion, if I knew it was well tested and less prone to B.S. If you think they do whatever they are doing to make us spend less money, you are way to naive my friend.

ok sure lol

if you actually think they can predict every single little thing that'll happen, then you clearly didn't play 1.0.