5 hours ago, Ebak said:

Hey Firebird! Would you mind expanding on your own thoughts to the problem that Meanie presents and your side of it. We've only really heard from Meanie regarding this issue and it would be interesting to get another person's opinion on what they perceive to be a similar problem.

Gladly.

First, as I posted when 2.0 dropped, I was a VERY reluctant adopter of 2.0. As someone who played primarily Y- and K-Wing lists in 1.0, I mentioned a large number of features of 2.0 that I didn’t like at all (mobile arc/ion cannon/reduced hull, etc.). I ended up sinking $$$ into 2.0 core and Rebel conversion because literally everyone I played with, casual or otherwise, was doing so. (I also played Epic, so I fully agree with DM’s aggravation on this issue.) And in doing so, I knew that it wouldn’t be long before the same old power-creep and netlisting that people griped about in 1.0 would return in 2.0. And sure enough, while in 1.0 we had WAAC PS10 Aces, in 2.0 we now have WAAC 6/5/5/ lists. I have commented on the NPE’s I’ve had so far, which I won’t rehash here.

The problem is with the designers who produce absurd pilot abilities and ridiculous upgrades that they either fail, or, more cynically, refuse to test sufficiently to determine their impact on the game, and on their existing player base. These problems will NEVER be fixed merely by point adjustment. As long as it is possible to build 6/5/5 super-alpha strike lists with high levels of dice modification, the problem will remain. At most, recosting may force the use of a few less upgrades. And to DM’s point: I agree that constant “rebalancing” is very problematic for the more casual player, and it alters the game substantially more than power creep and erratas did in 1.0.

So, what is to be done? Is it possible to reduce NPE’s, keep casual players happy, and still let tournament players table each other? (Which last point I have no problem with as an option, since they’ve paid $$$ for their collections just like I have.)

Here I may diverge from DM and others, but I submit that composition requirements would be preferable to recosting. Loath as I am to praise anything GW does, I think the 40K idea of requiring a certain number of basic units, while allowing additional specialized units, can be applied to X-Wing. So, for example, every list could have only a limited number of I5+ ships, and would have to have at least one with I3 or less. In addition, there could be a maximum number of total upgrades per list, or a maximum number per ship. So, as I see it, you could use every ship in your collection, and every upgrade in your collection, but you’d have to make more decisions about which specific ones to use than is the case with just looking at costs.

This could tie in with another issue, namely, Hyperspace. What FFG’s early discussion of various formats said to me was: For limited times, or for certain tournaments, different formats may be used. So, in Season 1 of 2019, the format will be “Battle of Yavin”. In Season 2 of 2019, the format will be “Fall of the Jedi”. Or, 2019 Worlds will focus on (yes) “Aces vs Aces”. Hyperspace could be such a periodic (NOT regular) variant. And so could comp’d formats. Note: I’m not calling for composition scores to be THE way to play the game, and I don’t think it’ll ever be THE way to play the game.

Will this make more work for FFG and for TO’s? Yep. But it could also keep more people happy, and thus keep more people in the community.

So, my proposal: don’t recost, use variant, time-limited formats, and use composition requirements in some of those formats. And, in general, test the game much more thoroughly before adding new ships and upgrades.

That’s my two credits’ worth on the matter.

37 minutes ago, Firebird TMK said:

Just thinking that there have to be more than two options. See my next post.

Ah, I didn't not intend for those to be perceived as the only options. Of course there is more than two options. I was just listing two off the top of my head that is within any players power to do themselves. While advocating for official channels to make changes one thinks are necessary is a right and proper thing, that's not the only voice speaking nor the only one that matters. Thus, at times, it is better to see what changes can be done personally to mitigate problems.

If you would not mind another question, there is something I don't feel Meanie has addressed that I would like to see if you would be willing to. In your referred to next post, you state a belief that the point change "is very problematic for the more casual player." How does this hypothesis account for the multiple self identitifed casual players who have said that they like the points change?

52 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

If you would not mind another question, there is something I don't feel Meanie has addressed that I would like to see if you would be willing to. In your referred to next post, you state a belief that the point change "is very problematic for the more casual player." How does this hypothesis account for the multiple self identitifed casual players who have said that they like the points change?

Well, if you don't mind my opinion, I'd say that (as many people have pointed out above), I'm a weird case of "professional casual,"--i.e. , I'd like to have my game be as close to "legal" as possible, and be in the know about everything.

I'm sure a lot of other casuals are fine with the approach of "today I need a list and the app says this." So, if points change, they are going to assume it is for the best and roll with it.

Or, they are newer to the game and/or come from a background where this seems "normal."

10 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Well, if you don't mind my opinion, I'd say that (as many people have pointed out above), I'm a weird case of "professional casual,"--i.e. , I'd like to have my game be as close to "legal" as possible, and be in the know about everything.

I'm sure a lot of other casuals are fine with the approach of "today I need a list and the app says this." So, if points change, they are going to assume it is for the best and roll with it.

Or, they are newer to the game and/or come from a background where this seems "normal."

Not at all. I’m happy to see you comment on this. And I see nothing wrong with being a “professional casual”.

Now, if you are willing to go further, why does your text defending your stance not take this distinction into account?

2 hours ago, SabineKey said:

Ah, I didn't not intend for those to be perceived as the only options. Of course there is more than two options. I was just listing two off the top of my head that is within any players power to do themselves. While advocating for official channels to make changes one thinks are necessary is a right and proper thing, that's not the only voice speaking nor the only one that matters. Thus, at times, it is better to see what changes can be done personally to mitigate problems.

If you would not mind another question, there is something I don't feel Meanie has addressed that I would like to see if you would be willing to. In your referred to next post, you state a belief that the point change "is very problematic for the more casual player." How does this hypothesis account for the multiple self identitifed casual players who have said that they like the points change?

Perhaps I should have said "a substantial number of more casual players". It does seem clear that quite a few casuals are OK with the current system.

My biggest complaint was the lack of quick build cards for the conversion kits. That’s my favorite feature of 2.0 and not having them in the kits or available separately really killed my intrest in 2.0

Quick Build really is awesome, I'd love to see it given some more proper support.

6 hours ago, Firebird TMK said:

Perhaps I should have said "a substantial number of more casual players". It does seem clear that quite a few casuals are OK with the current system.

That's a step in the right direction, but I'm curious why you feel the term "substantial" is needed in the descriptor? Where are you drawing your numbers from?

2 hours ago, TylerTT said:

My biggest complaint was the lack of quick build cards for the conversion kits. That’s my favorite feature of 2.0 and not having them in the kits or available separately really killed my intrest in 2.0

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/x-wing-second-edition/

Scroll down to Support, then Quick Builds drop-down.

3 hours ago, TylerTT said:

My biggest complaint was the lack of quick build cards for the conversion kits. That’s my favorite feature of 2.0 and not having them in the kits or available separately really killed my intrest in 2.0

PDFs online, already linked in this topic. Go forth having fun quickbuilding with all your things.

My primary problem with the current system is likely due to my technical background. And relates largely to my initial question from back in May with regards the app of how to know if the list in front of me is legal. If there is more than one revision of a document out in the wild you WILL have a problem at some point.

The official app does not make any considerations for revising lists within a single set of points values. It now makes no considerations for notification and revision within multiple points values. I didn't even get a notification when I logged in that there had been a points change.

Overall I think the 2nd Ed. system will be "better."

I think though they been a bit half-arsed about providing it and it feels like they've got a bit of a, for lack of an equally accurate term, "pissy" attitude about it. The whole thing feels lackadaisical overall and like there is a bit of resentment of all of us at the heart of it. 🤷‍♂️

3 hours ago, SabineKey said:

That's a step in the right direction, but I'm curious why you feel the term "substantial" is needed in the descriptor? Where are you drawing your numbers from?

My own observation, and what I've read here and elsewhere. I haven't personally done any surveys.

You could read "substantial" = "more than just DM and me", but I'd guess it's more than that.

7 hours ago, TylerTT said:

My biggest complaint was the lack of quick build cards for the conversion kits. That’s my favorite feature of 2.0 and not having them in the kits or available separately really killed my intrest in 2.0

the .pdf's work fine but having the physical cards would have been a nice touch.

App support for Quick Builds would be better. Hard to accurately save a list when the QB Card breaks the standard rules, like Iden Versio with a Proton Torp.

51 minutes ago, Firebird TMK said:

My own observation, and what I've read here and elsewhere. I haven't personally done any surveys.

You could read "substantial" = "more than just DM and me", but I'd guess it's more than that.

Fair enough. Thank you for answering my questions.

55 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Fair enough. Thank you for answering my questions.

My pleasure.

I'd add one more observation. In politics, the rule is this: for every man who calls his Congressman about a particular issue, there are ten more who have the same opinion but aren't inclined to speak out. Perhaps that rule is applicable in X-Wing as well.

What I fail to understand about 2.0, just like with computers/software, is the fact you don't need the latest/greatest.

Yes, for tournaments you will, but this seems to be more casual based arguments.

I upgraded because my gaming group did and I liked what 2.0 offers.

If they didn't, or even agreed on certain improvements (barrel rolls for example), all would still be good.

DM is right to stay with 1.0 as a casual gamer as it satisfies his gaming needs. Our group is a mix of casual and tournament players but when we meet, it is strictly casual gaming. Some try out their tournament lists but it is strictly casual playing over a few beer.

The point rebalancing has been well received as most thought certain cards needed adjusting. FFG's ability to tweak ships mod slots also helps make more ships viable to fly.

Is it perfect, no but much better than 1.0 with all the errata one had to remember.

41 minutes ago, Firebird TMK said:

My pleasure.

I'd add one more observation. In politics, the rule is this: for every man who calls his Congressman about a particular issue, there are ten more who have the same opinion but aren't inclined to speak out. Perhaps that rule is applicable in X-Wing as well.

Perhaps. But there is also the danger in assuming you speak for more than you actually do. Better to speak for yourself and let others come to support you than to claim to speak for many but be mistaken. As with most things, it’s a balance.

9 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Perhaps. But there is also the danger in assuming you speak for more than you actually do. Better to speak for yourself and let others come to support you than to claim to speak for many but be mistaken. As with most things, it’s a balance.

It also can be turned on its head. By that logic those in favour still outweigh those that don’t. Using the thread as a sample we can st least say that 20% of X-Wing players are not satisfied.

25 minutes ago, robert t said:

What I fail to understand about 2.0, just like with computers/software, is the fact you don't need the latest/greatest.

Well you do if you're going to play outside your group or welcome new players into your group and even within your group. Someone told the story of not sweating it when a guy brought a deck for the old Decipher LOTR card game that had been errata-ed out of legality. They let it go at first because "It's casual." But then the guy wouldn't "upgrade." This created the unwanted kind of drama.

One of the things about flying casual is that you need to get everyone on the same page with regards to what "casual" is. Errata and bannings in these style of games is just one more thing that impedes getting everyone on the same page with regards to "casual."

Now I think mostly 2nd Ed. and the recent points changes is going to help by keeping NPE sorts of things down or quickly rectifying them. It is not going to help in that the bar for "casual" has been raised with regards to keeping up.

Change is painful. We change when the process of change is less painful than the status quo. Lots of change without time to get acclimated to a status quo can be painful as well.

7 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

Change is painful. We change when the process of change is less painful than the status quo. Lots of change without time to get acclimated to a status quo can be painful as well.

15 hours ago, SabineKey said:

Not at all. I’m happy to see you comment on this. And I see nothing wrong with being a “professional casual”.

Now, if you are willing to go further, why does your text defending your stance not take this distinction into account?

Because all my statements are from my POV.

1 hour ago, SabineKey said:

Perhaps. But there is also the danger in assuming you speak for more than you actually do. Better to speak for yourself and let others come to support you than to claim to speak for many but be mistaken. As with most things, it’s a balance.

And this.

33 minutes ago, Ebak said:

It also can be turned on its head. By that logic those in favour still outweigh those that don’t. Using the thread as a sample we can st least say that 20% of X-Wing players are not satisfied.

I would be hesitant to use these forums as a sample size for the X-Wing player base, much less a single thread. It gives a little insight, but not enough for me to be comfortable with a quantitative analysis based on the data provided.

The point I was trying to convey was less about putting an actual number on those disliking the point change and more about warning against assumptions.

9 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Yes. That’s my point. Several times, you have made claims on behalf of the entire casual player base which proved to be false.

20 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I tried Hershey's once. And once was enough.

6 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Yes. That’s my point. Several times, you have made claims on behave of the entire casual player base which proved to be false.

To be fair, for Meanie's definition of "casual" he pretty much IS the entire player base!