5 hours ago, brettpkelly said:

It was a small box expansion. I don't think anyone expected it to massively shake up the meta (although SC certainly did). I'll argue that a lot of those cards you mentioned are fine designs, it's just that hunters are so dominating that no other traits are worth running in Rebels or Mercs.

I will agree that Kanan, Ezra and Zeb are dissapointments. To me it's because they were designed with SC in mind (which is bad design).

But see, I agree that are fine design. Actually LiA is such a brilliant idea. However they failed to introduce something working. Cards were either out of meta or meta-shakers that shook the meta the wrong way. A well-designed card that will never see any game because all the rest is so much better, is still useless content to me.

7 hours ago, Trevize84 said:

But see, I agree that are fine design. Actually LiA is such a brilliant idea. However they failed to introduce something working. Cards were either out of meta or meta-shakers that shook the meta the wrong way. A well-designed card that will never see any game  because  all the rest is so much better, is still useless content to me.

Which is exactly why the IA continuity project steering committee is trying to nerf hunters/smugglers a bit. It's very hard to introduce a new card into the game that can compete with hunters without completely breaking the meta (e.g. SC).

I'm having a little difficulty understanding the intent of the original post.

Like, I just don't feel like the analogy works. Object permanence is fine and all, but I don't think it applies. This isn't a case of us not seeing IA and thinking it's dead. It's a case of us seeing IA and it not breathing for a while , and coming to the conclusion that death may be a possibility.

As fans, I think we're more than justified to have cause for concern right now.

I know my opinions on meta are not very welcome here, but I also don't believe in being passive aggressive. I speak my mind and take my lumps from the majority.

We don't have to play SC. We play it because apparently we want to win at all costs (to win the best paper and plastic swag for fortune and glory). However, it's a self fulfilling prophecy of sort. Meta sucks, but play meta?

The group from Montreal faced the choice of play SC or don't go. So, they chose the latter. I'm sure some of that had to do with the complete failure by asmodee/ffg in organizing the event. A massive embarrassment most of us have not talked a lot about.

The Michigan Mandalorians value building original lists, and do very well at tournaments. In fact, Peter won our Regional with a rebel list using heavy fire! Yes, heavy fire.

Our local group in Toronto also rarely ever plays meta lists. One guy showed up with SC a few weeks back and played with such disgust in himself. Personally, I've been ABSOLUTELY enjoying this game with some of the new cards. I've been trying to play them with older unused figures and have had a blast.

So just remember friends, we can still love this game without playing the broken sh-it. I love the idea of keeping this game going after it dies, but to call it's death before it's announced is more harmful I think.

I can't hate on meta players because they are playing by the rules, which is fine by me. But for many on here to suggest that the SC is killing this game is nonsense in my mind. Us playing it and complaining about it is not healthy for the game.

The fact (verified) is that they changed SC last minute unbeknownst to the play testers, but sold a ton of SC! Considering over half of our community brought it to Worlds is a blo-ody success from a business perspective. It's called power creep, no? So, now they should nerf it and sell us a new wave that can counter hunters. They make more money, and we're happy. Then SC will go back on the shelf for sure.

14 minutes ago, NeverBetTheFett said:

We don't have to play SC. We play it because apparently we want to win at all costs (to win the best paper and plastic swag for fortune and glory). However, it's a self fulfilling prophecy of sort. Meta sucks, but play meta?

It's not just about what we choose, though. It's also about what our opponents (who we've probably never met) choose. I can turn up with a non-SC list, and my first opponent is SC and I know I'm going to lose. My second opponent also SC, I know I'm going to lose. And on it goes. That's not about WAAC - that's about having a chance, and having some purpose to playing the game.

SC has reduced tournaments to either (a) play SC, (b), know you're going to lose, (c) don't go. None of those are good options. Deliberately choosing to not play the meta because the meta sucks is fine and dandy, but then you're paying money and spending time only to effectively throw every game. What's the point in that?

Of course, it hasn't affected non-tournament play at all. I can simply say to an opponent, who is probably also a friend, "can we not use SC in this game please?" and that's it, problem solved. But tournaments and organised play are uninteresting now, to me and I'm sure to many others.

10 minutes ago, NeverBetTheFett said:

I can't hate on meta players because they are playing by the rules, which is fine by me. But for many on here to suggest that the SC is killing this g  ame is nonsense in my mind. Us playing it and complaining about it is not healthy for the game.

The fact (verified) is that they changed SC last minute unbeknownst to the play testers, but sold a ton of SC! Considering over half of our community brought it to Worlds is a blo-ody success from a business perspective. It's called power creep, no? So, now they should nerf it and sell us a new wave that can counter hunters. They make more money, and we're happy. Then SC will go back on the shelf for sure.

I agree that SC isn't the root cause that's killing the game, but the fact that the game is bleeding players is undeniable. One small box expansion last year and 4 boosters isn't enough to sustain the game. The fact that there is no new product in the pipeline this year has even the most hardcore fans in my area saying they probably won't attend nationals, even though it's very close to us. Games like IA skirmish require a meta that changes every couple of months, not once a year at the most (and that change being a completely dominant pre-built list didn't help either).

I don't know if you can judge the business success of ToL off of what people at worlds took. Most world class players will purchase basically one of everthing available. This is actually the first expansion for me where I did not purchase every available booster (I passed on Hondo and Thrawn). Most players at worlds also did not bring FFG's official map mats. I think that is very telling of the low player confidence in skirmish. This was the first OP event since I started the game where I actually had to build the map out of tiles.

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 8:24 AM, Trevize84 said:

I can't agree more. Actually I believe that all these attempts of having a community-driven skirmish will destroy official support to the game.

I don't agree with that. They actually probably don't give a Womp rat's a** what we think. They either believe IA is viable and will continue to ration allotted resources towards it, or they will decide that IA isn't financial viable to them any longer. Usually, attempts to save the game beyond the expiration date come to naught. I'm on board with trying to find a community fix, but the problem is, and I've witnessed it before, is that the community NEVER fully agrees on anything. Myself included. So the attempts, while noble, just end up, incidentally alienating a portion of the community that wasn't in favor of whatever changes are quote-unquote accepted. This, again, is not to bash on the effort, but when the publisher says "this is official" we accept it, even if we feel it is under or over-costed, or too OP. When a portion of the community says "this is official" they garner no such loyalty. Just fact of life, as Miyagi say.

5 minutes ago, Rikalonius said:

I don't agree with that. They actually probably don't give a Womp rat's a** what we think. They either believe IA is viable and will continue to ration allotted resources towards it, or they will decide that IA isn't financial viable to them any longer. Usually, attempts to save the game beyond the expiration date come to naught. I'm on board with trying to find a community fix, but the problem is, and I've witnessed it before, is that the community NEVER fully agrees on anything. Myself included. So the attempts, while noble, just end up, incidentally alienating a portion of the community that wasn't in favor of whatever changes are quote-unquote accepted. This, again, is not to bash on the effort, but when the publisher says "this is official" we accept it, even if we feel it is under or over-costed, or too OP. When a portion of the community says "this is official" they garner no such loyalty. Just fact of life, as Miyagi say.



The Steering committee of the continuity project has those same concerns. We help the season model for proposing and accepting changes through a community informed approach will help to address this.

55 minutes ago, brettpkelly said:

I agree that SC isn't the root cause that's killing the game, but the fact that the game is bleeding players is undeniable. One small box expansion last year and 4 boosters isn't enough to sustain the game. The fact that there is no new product in the pipeline this year has even the most hardcore fans in my area saying they probably won't attend nationals, even though it's very close to us. Games like IA skirmish require a meta that changes every couple of months, not once a year at the most (and that change being a completely dominant pre-built list didn't help either).

I don't know if you can judge the business success of ToL off of what people at worlds took. Most world class players will purchase basically one of everthing available. This is actually the first expansion for me where I did not purchase every available booster (I passed on Hondo and Thrawn). Most players at worlds also did not bring FFG's official map mats. I think that is very telling of the low player confidence in skirmish. This was the first OP event since I started the game where I actually had to build the map out of tiles.

Without completive tournaments, FFG makes a lot less money selling to people for campaign, BUT, with skirmish, the demand for continued plastic and new and shiny cards is inevitable. I used to make a joke abut using Sorry Pieces, because the plastic really doesn't matter. Most people who are competitive at tournaments don't just play one game, they play many games, and if the plastic stops coming, they start moving on to other things. This is what FFG knows they are playing for, which is why I believe Legion is born. But the destruction of the game becomes inevitable because the more units and cards you release, the more complicated the game becomes, and the more frustrating the whole experience becomes. Nobody wants IA chess, but then, do we really need a new box every six months with booster fillers? To me, it always becomes too much. FFG, IF, they are thinking of not supporting the game any long with new content, should think about some erratas and card releases that at least give some semblance of balance to the current figures and cards, and then say, "We are done, the community can go forth and adapt any modifications they desire." Then tournaments could make decisions like, "IA Tournament, no SC, as an example." It's like when you jump on a pistols and knives only server in a first person shooter.

30 minutes ago, Rikalonius said:

I'm on board with trying to find a community fix, but the problem is, and I've witnessed it before, is that the community NEVER fully agrees on anything. Myself included. So the attempts, while noble, just end up, incidentally alienating a portion of the community that wasn't in favor of whatever changes are quote-unquote accepted. This, again, is not to bash on the effort, but when the publisher says "this is official" we accept it, even if we feel it is under or over-costed, or too OP. When a portion of the community says "this is official" they garner no such loyalty. Just fact of life, as Miyagi say.

Yeah, there's something to that, for better or for worse... it is how it is.

What I think the Continuity Project guys have done really well is to get a team of well-known people who are probably going to stick to it and said, "this is what we want to happen, please join us" - someone has to take a lead and be the driving force behind it, much better than starting by trying to build a consensus across thousands of different people that goes nowhere and never could. They're well organised and driven and are clearly putting a lot of thought into what they're doing, and they're not going to give up and go away. So they've given themselves a chance.

Where I think (for whatever my opinion is worth, probably not much) they've made a mistake is in doing much too much, too soon. Pretty much everyone agrees Spectre Cell has to go; so far so good, they could lead with that, no problem. Most people would probably also accept that just reverting the meta to Hunters isn't a great step forward, though I think there's more disagreement about what should be done about that. Changing points costs for a couple of dozen cards (but not others) is enormously more controversial and there's going to be a certain amount of resistance to such a change, when it appears to be contrary to FFG's approach for the last five or six years - they've never, ever changed the points cost on a card to my knowledge. (Plus, you need to make it as simple as possible for someone to run an event under the new conditions. "Normal rules, plus these five bullet points on this one PDF" might get some take-up. "Normal rules, plus go and read all the discussion on this web page" is not so convincing).

When Stephen Hawking wrote A Brief History of Time , his editor told him that every equation in the book would lose him half his readers, and he ended up putting in just one, the well-known E=mc^2. I think there's a similar principle in community-driven rules: every change you make to the official rules loses you half your players. Continuity Project season 1 has 23 changes (if I've counted that right) and that's just the start. We'll see what happens with it, but I think they needed Hawking's editor.

10 minutes ago, Bitterman said:

Where I think (for whatever my opinion is worth, probably not much) they've made a mistake is in doing much too much, too soon . Pretty much everyone agrees Spectre Cell has to go; so far so good, they could lead with that, no problem. Most people would probably also accept that just reverting the meta to Hunters isn't a great step forward, though I think there's more disagreement about what should be done about that. Changing points costs for a couple of dozen cards (but not others) is enormously more controversial and there's going to be a certain amount of resistance to such a change, when it appears to be contrary to FFG's approach for the last five or six years. (Plus, you need to make it as simple as possible for someone to run an event under the new conditions. "Normal rules, plus these five bullet points on this one PDF" might get some take-up. "Normal rules, plus go and read all the discussion on this web page" is not so convincing).

This is exactly how I feel. Too much too soon. It seems like Boba Fett and RGC were a huge complaint across many threads, yet neither are addressed, and instead there are what, 17 or more cost adjusted figures, with no explanation as to how this cost change was derived? Trust me I understand how long testing takes, but you should make changes one card at a time, thoroughly integrate that card into the system, and then learn from those tests for how to proceed on the next. And just think, with each card change, ostensibly, you have a new meta. How many new lists would develop from just a proper adjustment to Boba Fett?

2 minutes ago, Rikalonius said:

This is exactly how I feel. Too much  too soon. It seems like Boba Fett and RGC were a huge complaint across many threads, yet neither are addressed, and instead there are what, 17 or more cost adjusted figures, with no explanation as to how this cost change was derived? Trust me I understand how long testing takes, but you should make changes one card at a time, thoroughly integrate that card into the s   ystem, and then learn from those tests for how to proceed on the next. And just think, with each card change, ostensibly, you have a new meta.  How man   y new lists would develop from just a proper adjustment to Boba Fett?  

Boba Fett is a figure everyone has very strong opinions about and the steering committee tossed some ideas around but didn't feel comfortable enough pushing those out in the first wave. We want to make sure we get him exactly right. We're still tracking community conversations about fixes and we're trying to pull the best ideas from these threads.

As far as the point adjustments the rationale is mostly that we wanted to focus on several archetypes that we think could bring value to the meta. Those archetypes are: rebel force users, mercenary beasts, and imperial troopers/droids. We decided that simply cost reducing one or two figures in these archetypes was not enough to make that archetype viable. We also did not want to reduce a figure to a point where it fits into every archetype. Testing should show pretty quickly if we've overstepped, and if that is the case we'll roll back some of these changes immediately. I feel that many of these changes are conservative (Kanan, HotR Luke, EBT, Rancor, etc.). After feedback i feel the imperial cost fixes might be too aggressive so those are the ones we'll be keeping the shortest leash on.

3 minutes ago, brettpkelly said:

Boba Fett is a figure everyone has very strong opinions about and the steering committee tossed some ideas around but didn't feel comfortable enough pushing those out in the first wave. We want to make sure we get him exactly right. We're still tracking community conversations about fixes and we're trying to pull the best ideas from these threads.

As far as the point adjustments the rationale is mostly that we wanted to focus on several archetypes that we think could bring value to the meta. Those archetypes are: rebel force users, mercenary beasts, and imperial troopers/droids. We decided that simply cost reducing one or two figures in these archetypes was not enough to make that archetype viable. We also did not want to red  uce a figure to a point  where it fits into every a  rche  typ    e  . Testing should show pretty quickly if we've overstepped, and if that is the case we'll roll back some of these changes immediately. I feel that many of these changes are conservative (Kanan, HotR Luke, EBT, Rancor, etc.). After feedback i feel the imperial cost fixes might be too aggressive so those are the ones we'll be keeping the shortest leash on.

That's a good plan, but then why reduce costs, why not invert it and start raising costs on figures that are too powerful for their cost. This is where this committee starts to lose me. I respect your efforts, but you are not looking to even out the math and let the meta coalesce on its own, you are "steering" it towards a specific vision.

4 minutes ago, Rikalonius said:

That's a good plan, but then why reduce costs, why not invert it and start raising costs on figures that are too powerful for their cost.

Agreed. eSTs are 7. That means rSTs can't possibly stay at 6 (and why weren't they changed in this season, if making Stormtrooper lists viable was an objective?) which means they're going to be 4 or 5, which drops below the 2-point-per-figure baseline and makes more than 20 figures in a list possible (with the suggestion on another thread that that will be countered by limiting to 2 of the same regular card, which would be another change to the core rules). It also means elite Rebel Troopers are now vastly overcosted at 9, and the basic rRTs will also have to drop below 6 points for 3, and let's not even start on Wing Guard. It's a cascading wave of changes that need to be made; at least five other units will need their points adjusting to match that one change, and that's only looking at direct like-for-like equivalents... but none of them have been, only eSTs.

All this despite the problem being identified as Hunters (really meaning "focused eQuays") being too easily able to one-shot figures like eSTs. Wouldn't it make more sense to make eQuays 8 or 9, rather than making eSTs cheaper, which compresses all units into a smaller points range (storing up big problems for later) and by the way doesn't actually help eSTs survive? And/or address the Rebel Care Package so Gideon and C-3PO don't give eQuays Focus on infinite loop?

1 minute ago, Bitterman said:

Agreed. eSTs are 7. That means rSTs can't possibly stay at 6 (and why weren't they changed in this season, if making Stormtrooper lists viable was an objective?) which means they're going to be 4 or 5, which drops below the 2-point-per-figure baseline and makes more than 20 figures in a list possible (with the suggestion on another thread that that will be countered by limiting to 2 of the same regular card, which would be another change to the core rules). It also means elite Rebel Troopers are now vastly overcosted at 9, and the basic rRTs will also have to drop below 6 points for 3, and let's not even start on Wing Guard. It's a cascading wave of changes that need to be made; at least five other units will need their points adjusting to match that one change, and that's only looking at direct like-for-like equivalents... but none of them have been, only eSTs.

All this despite the problem being identified as Hunters (really meaning "focused eQuays") being too easily able to one-shot figures like eSTs. Wouldn't it make more sense to make eQuays 8 or 9, rather than making eSTs cheaper, which compresses all units into a smaller points range (storing up big problems for later) and by the way doesn't actually help eSTs survive? And/or address the Rebel Care Package so Gideon and C-3PO don't give eQuays Focus on infinite loop?

This ^^^^

26 minutes ago, Rikalonius said:

That's a good plan, but then why reduce costs, why not invert it and start raising costs on figures that are too powerful for their cost. This is where this committee starts to lose me. I respect your efforts, but you are not looking to even out the math and let the meta coalesce on its own, you are "steering" it towards a specific vision.

To us, heart of the empire was the best meta the game has ever had so we are trying to balance around that. We feel that there was a big power spike after Jabba's realms and the baseline unit FFG was using for balance changed at that point. To us it seems that new baseline units include elite Jet troopers, weequays, elite Riots, Vader, Han, Rangers, IG-88, etc. We feel that no units since Jabba's realm are individually oppressive (except maybe vader), however given the similarity in command card decks since JR, we feel that there are certain command cards that are oppressive and need to be addressed. We'd rather nerf the problems directly, rather than nerfing the figures to balance around broken command card interactions. Our "vision" is to return to the HotE meta and add open up more options from there within each faction. Our vision is not to have a game where every single unit is meta-relevant.

9 minutes ago, Bitterman said:

Agreed. eSTs are 7. That means rSTs can't possibly stay at 6 (and why weren't they changed in this season, if making Stormtrooper lists viable was an objective?) which means they're going to be 4 or 5, which drops below the 2-point-per-figure baseline and makes more than 20 figures in a list possible (with the suggestion on another thread that that will be countered by limiting to 2 of the same regular card, which would be another change to the core rules). It also means elite Rebel Troopers are now vastly overcosted at 9, and the basic rRTs will also have to drop below 6 points for 3, and let's not even start on Wing Guard. It's a cascading wave of changes that need to be made; at least five other units will need their points adjusting to match that one change, and that's only looking at direct like-for-like equivalents... but none of them have been, only eSTs.

All this despite the problem being identified as Hunters (really meaning "focused eQuays") being too easily able to one-shot figures like eSTs. Wouldn't it make more sense to make eQuays 8 or 9, rather than making eSTs cheaper, which compresses all units into a smaller points range (storing up big problems for later) and by the way doesn't actually help eSTs survive? And/or address the Rebel Care Package so Gideon and C-3PO don't give eQuays Focus on infinite loop?

To reiterate my above point, we don't feel that every unit in the game needs to be rebalanced. It's absolutely not our plan to change everything. We dont see the value added in reducing regular stormtroopers, especially to 4. This is not in the current or future plans for this project. Our goal for the meta is 2-3 playable archetypes per faction that change every couple seasons. The goal is not for every unit in the game to be top tier. The changes we are recommending are not meant to be cascading in any way. Many figures in the game are going to remain sidelined due to being underpowered. That's the nature of the game. If we tried to address this problem we'd run into infinitely more problems, as you're alluding to. In fact we expect to roll back a lot of changes at the end of every season.

As far as the RCP we recognize it's a problem, but the game has been balanced around it for so long that we feel there are no easy solutions that would not massively affect the meta.

1 hour ago, Rikalonius said:

I don't agree with that. They actually probably don't give a Womp rat's a** what we think. They either believe IA is viable and will continue to ration allotted resources towards it, or they will decide that IA isn't financial viable to them any longer. Usually, attempts to save the game beyond the expiration date come to naught. I'm on board with trying to find a community fix, but the problem is, and I've witnessed it before, is that the community NEVER fully agrees on anything. Myself included. So the attempts, while noble, just end up, incidentally alienating a portion of the community that wasn't in favor of whatever changes are quote-unquote accepted. This, again, is not to bash on the effort, but when the publisher says "this is official" we accept it, even if we feel it is under or over-costed, or too OP. When a portion of the community says "this is official" they garner no such loyalty. Just fact of life, as Miyagi say.

Don't forget campaign drives sells. All the talking we do constantly complaining and saying the game is dead is such a bad advertisement for the game. I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to stop all that.

A community project that makes us finally happy and stop all that is the cheapest solution for them. I agree on what you foresee but in this case people may agree on community version of the game because it can't be worst than the official version. Like me, I don't agree but I'll play it because in the end we enjoy experimenting stuff not playing SC.

If that happens they can finally drop the skirmish to focus on campaign and get rid of bad advertisement at the same time, for free.

People will keep buying boxes for playing their mediocre app campaigns and world will finally be happy. We'll keep playing our home-made skirmish for a while until someone of the big guys in this community quits and the game will die.

This is a scenario and I hope I'm wrong on that otherwise skirmish players will be the only losers.

38 minutes ago, brettpkelly said:

To us, heart of the empire was the best meta the game has ever had so we are trying to balance around that. [...] Our "vision" is to return to the HotE meta and add open up more options from there within each faction. Our vision is not to have a game where every single unit is meta-relevant. [...] We dont see the value added in reducing regular stormtroopers [...] Our goal for the meta is 2-3 playable archetypes per faction that change every couple seasons.

That's fine. A strong vision is important in any project.

It's a vision I don't really share, personally. For me it seemed to be widely agreed on the forums, and in our local gaming group, that skirmish desperately needed to ban Spectre Cell... and everything after that was lesser. But if pushed, you could get away with buffing Boba Fett, nerfing RCP, and maybe tweaking the relative merits of Troopers and Hunters, all while aiming to change as little as possible , to build confidence and consensus among the community before introducing bigger changes over time.

23 changes which don't address Boba or the RCP at all, and address Troopers and Hunters in very questionable ways, and (apparently arbitrarily) change a whole bunch of points costs (but not others even where they are directly equivalent), in the name of a vision that doesn't seem to have been clearly communicated and which the community doesn't seem to share, and which limits the space for future changes, without using the established design language or practices of FFG... for me, it's too much and too opaque.

If the community respond positively, and if it starts getting used in organised play, I'm sure I'll pick it up at that time. Good luck, because the game needs something to get people inspired again and I am fully in favour of something like this taking off. Right now I'm not sure that this is it. We'll see.

11 minutes ago, Bitterman said:

That's fine. A strong vision is important in any project.

It's a vision I don't really share, personally. For me it seemed to be widely agreed on the forums, and in our local gaming group, that skirmish desperately needed to ban Spectre Cell... and everything after that was lesser. But if pushed, you could get away with buffing Boba Fett, nerfing RCP, and maybe tweaking the relative merits of Troopers and Hunters, all while aiming to change as little as possible , to build confidence and consensus among the community before introducing bigger changes over time.

23 changes which don't address Boba or the RCP at all, and address Troopers and Hunters in very questionable ways, and (apparently arbitrarily) change a whole bunch of points costs (but not others even where they are directly equivalent), in the name of a vision that doesn't seem to have been clearly communicated and which the community doesn't seem to share, and which limits the space for future changes, without using the established design language or practices of FFG... for me, it's too much and too opaque.

If the community respond positively, and if it starts getting used in organised play, I'm sure I'll pick it up at that time. Good luck, because the game needs something to get people inspired again and I am fully in favour of something like this taking off. Right now I'm not sure that this is it. We'll see.

We're collecting surveys based on our initial announcement and based on the response the community feedback has been mostly positive with the direction of the project. That said, I do appreciate discenting opinions as well and they'll factor in to how we are moving forward.

2 hours ago, Bitterman said:

Agreed. eSTs are 7. That means rSTs can't possibly stay at 6 (and why weren't they changed in this season, if making Stormtrooper lists viable was an objective?) which means they're going to be 4 or 5, which drops below the 2-point-per-figure baseline and makes more than 20 figures in a list possible (with the suggestion on another thread that that will be countered by limiting to 2 of the same regular card, which would be another change to the core rules). It also means elite Rebel Troopers are now vastly overcosted at 9, and the basic rRTs will also have to drop below 6 points for 3, and let's not even start on Wing Guard. It's a cascading wave of changes that need to be made; at least five other units will need their points adjusting to match that one change, and that's only looking at direct like-for-like equivalents... but none of them have been, only eSTs.

All this despite the problem being identified as Hunters (really meaning "focused eQuays") being too easily able to one-shot figures like eSTs. Wouldn't it make more sense to make eQuays 8 or 9, rather than making eSTs cheaper, which compresses all units into a smaller points range (storing up big problems for later) and by the way doesn't actually help eSTs survive? And/or address the Rebel Care Package so Gideon and C-3PO don't give eQuays Focus on infinite loop?

This is where the committee needs a man or two like you on it. See a subject from every side.

As long as personal egos remain out of the conversation you could build a powerful Meta together.

42 minutes ago, King_Balrog said:

This is where the committee needs a man like you on it. See a subject from every side.

As long as personal egos remain out of the conversation you could build a powerful Meta together.

I agree completely, but I don't know that it is necessarily ego, but that's a part of it, it is really about overall vision. Unfortunately I'm with BItterman. I don't agree with the overall vision of trying to replicate the meta at a certain point in time, where, if I understand correctly, it is about restoring certain lists to prominence, and not about tweaking things, i.e. rewriting or discarding some command cards (which are huge contributors to the meta anyway), and, if the term must be used "nerfing" some units. I call it assigning an appropriate cost, but tomato/tomato. Part of the problem is that IA wasn't originally written as a Skirmish game, so it's been chasing its tale since the beginning.

5 minutes ago, Rikalonius said:

I agree completely, but I don't know that it is necessarily ego, but that's a part of it, it is really about overall vision. Unfortunately I'm with BItterman. I don't agree with the overall vision of trying to replicate the meta at a certain point in time, where, if I understand correctly, it is about restoring certain lists to prominence, and not about tweaking things, i.e. rewriting or discarding some command cards (which are huge contributors to the meta anyway), and, if the term must be used "nerfing" some units. I call it assigning an appropriate cost, but tomato/tomato. Part of the problem is that IA wasn't originally written as a Skirmish game, so it's been chasing its tale since the beginning.

Ego meaning you guys have dissenting opinions compared to the other group. It would be easy for anger to rise.

I mean everyone should check themselves on both sides so a good thing could grow with the partnership.

13 minutes ago, King_Balrog said:

Ego meaning you guys have dissenting opinions compared to the other group. It would be easy for anger to rise.

I mean everyone should check themselves on both sides so a good thing could grow with the partnership.

I agree with what you guys are saying but i think you're overestimating how single minded the steering committee is on every particular issue. We have plenty of discussion within that group and come to compromises.

25 minutes ago, Rikalonius said:

I agree completely, but I don't know that it is necessarily ego, but that's a part of it, it is really about overall vision. Unfortunately I'm with BItterman. I don't agree  with the overall vision of trying to replicate the meta at a certain point in time, where, if I understand correctly, it is about restoring certain lists to prominence, and not about tweaking things, i.e. rewriting or discarding some command cards (which are huge  contributors to the meta anyway), and, if the term must be used "nerfing" some units. I call it assigning an appropriate cost, but tomato/tomato. Part of the problem is that IA wasn't originally written as a Skirmish game, so it's been chasing its tale since the beginning.

I'm trying to understand exactly where our disconnect is. Our vision is to open up the meta for the community to have plenty of options, we're not trying to push the specific lists we want people to play. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on this earlier. If all we do is ban SC, we basically return to the HotE meta, which is fine, but we also want players to be able to experiment with other options like force users, beasts, droids, etc. instead of just hunters/smugglers. In order to accomplish that, we had to recommend some changes to hunters/smugglers.

1 hour ago, brettpkelly said:

I agree with what you guys are saying but i think you're overestimating how single minded the steering committee is on every particular issue. We have plenty of discussion within that group and come to compromises.

I'm trying to understand exactly where our disconnect is. Our vision is to open up the meta for the community to have plenty of options, we're not trying to push the specific lists we want people to play. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on this earlier. If all we do is ban SC, we basically return to the HotE meta, which is fine, but we also want players to be able to experiment with other options like force users, beasts, droids, etc. instead of just hunters/smugglers. In order to accomplish that, we had to recommend some changes to hunters/smugglers.

Ultimately, our goal as members of the steering committee is to keep the community invested in the game. I think where we started the project with suggestions we developed internally -- our implementation of this Season -- has caused frustration for some, and I'm sorry that happened. We're not intending to dictate changes but to curate them.

We felt like for this first Season, especially in the sense of getting the project rolling ASAP after IA Worlds, it would be better to use our internally-picked selections as starters for conversation than opening up a free-for-all of what the community thinks should be changed. The important thing to note is that we're not bound and determined to see all these changes through, but we would like the Community to think critically about them, share their opinions and try the changes out. What we don't want is folks to think that we have some sort of agenda OTHER THAN keeping Skirmish fresh, fun and worth everyone's time and money.

27 minutes ago, cnemmick said:

Ultimately, our goal as members of the steering committee is to keep the community invested in the game. I think where we started the project with suggestions we developed internally -- our implementation of this Season -- has caused frustration for some, and I'm sorry that happened. We're not intending to dictate changes but to curate them.

We felt like for this first Season, especially in the sense of getting the project rolling ASAP after IA Worlds, it would be better to use our internally-picked selections as starters for conversation than opening up a free-for-all of what the community thinks should be changed. The important thing to note is that we're not bound and determined to see all these changes through, but we would like the Community to think critically about them, share their opinions and try the changes out. What we don't want is folks to think that we have some sort of agenda OTHER THAN keeping Skirmish fresh, fun and worth everyone's time and money.

And that's all I want And that's a great goal. So, trying not to sound like a broken record, but when a member of the committee says, "we have no desire to modify r. Stormtroopers, and only E. Stormtroopers, that sounds to me like there is a specific agenda for a particular set of units that were useful at point A and are not useful at point B. I have to reiterate with Bitterman already said. It is too many changes at once, and it feels largely arbitrary. I'll follow the project, and input when I feel I can. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with by the end of Season 1, but I firmly believe some nerfs to a few cards, and a few "nerfs" to a couple of high-powered units, i.e. cost increases, is a whole bunch more efficient that choosing a certain set of units and reducing their cost, because that looks like those units are being groomed to be included, rather than having the units be mathematically balanced based on their value. Someone said earlier all units can't be top tier units. Of course not. But if a unit cost 3, then it should be equal to other units that cost 3. I know that is not easy to mathematically asses, but I think we can come close. As Bitterman, how much would it change to increase e.Weequay, rather than 'buff' so many units by reducing their cost?