4 minutes ago, PaulRuddSays said:

You only need one crazy person like Elon Musk to make it possible.

Also, you’re clearly not aware of the potential mineral spoils in asteroids or other space objects - for relatively rare metals like gold or iridium, the supply in space objects may be far superior versus mining for them.

The minerals exist, sure. The question is whether it's cost-effective to send people out to mine them.

3 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Ingenuity + Need = solution. It can be done, even with our current level of technology. It'd just be rough going at first.

You severely underestimate the difficulties.

Just now, JJ48 said:

You severely underestimate the difficulties.

Not as much as you think if at all.

13 minutes ago, PaulRuddSays said:

You only need one crazy person like Elon Musk to make it possible.

Also, you’re clearly not aware of the potential mineral spoils in asteroids or other space objects - for relatively rare metals like gold or iridium, the supply in space objects may be far superior versus mining for them.

13 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Depends on what you consider a valuable resource. Hypothetically how far would you be willing to move and what difficulties would you be willing to face if where you are currently you're considered similar to and treated in a similar manner to many of the early colonists that came to North Am? To those that came later during the build up to the Soviet Revolution and the first and second World Wars? Resources aren't just physical things you can eat or craft into something else, sometimes they're the very distance you can gain from a severe threat to your person or your family. Especially if that threat comes from large/powerful enough entities that facing them down amounts to nothing more than suicide.

Oh my gods thank you.

5 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

The minerals exist, sure. The question is whether it's cost-effective to send people out to mine them.

You severely underestimate the difficulties.

Wow you're really... You're really trying to get somebody to say something to make them reportable, aren't you?

Do you truly have any, any idea how rich those resources are? My gods.

Let me lay it bare. Thinking like yours will keep us on this rock forever. Then, we will die on it, never having reached the heights we could have. We are not trapped on earth.

But your line of thought insists we are, and I have no interest in engaging you further, at least on this subject- more if you present arguments this way in the future.

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

I wasn't talking about now, but have it your way: why will we need to conduct war in space? Shooting down satellites?

Never gonna happen because

27 minutes ago, PaulRuddSays said:

You only need one crazy person like Elon Musk to make it possible.

Despite this ^

1 hour ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Because humans are kinda' jerks?

^ This.

Humanity is going to die on this rock without some major changes in how we think about the very near future.

But, back to SW:

22 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

Does X-Wing require a primary emphasis on forward arc Starfighters?

No.

Quote

It loses its identity and its connection to the player base the further it gets away from that core, as it did in 1.0.

Weeeeeellllll, that's a broad generalization that doesn't work for me, either. Dials->Drive->Dice->Damage is fun for about a half-dozen games.

If you dumb-down the entire game to X-Wing: Line Up A Shot And Roll , there was never really any need to develop anything more than a fully stocked Game-in-a-Box in the first place.

What is going to allow XWM to maintain it's connection to the player base is to appreciate that a lot of different people get a lot of different things out of this game. What XWM 2.0 is VERY SUCCESSFULLY doing at this point is acknowledging lots of different play styles, from Extended to Hyperspace to Eras to Factions to Environments to Epic to {eventually} Missions, or Campaigns. or Co-Op Play. So that when people get bored of Standardized Deathmatch 200 they can use their ships in a different way, instead of quitting this game and finding another.

@JJ48 Let me put it this way, it is fully possible to be completely aware of and fully understand the dangers of radiation, leaky hab modules, "short lifespan" atmosphere scrubbers, vac suits, non-"standard" gravity, micro-meteors, meteors, semi to full cultural/personal isolation, etc. and still see how those can be faced and overcome with dedication. Fear, desire for control (the more dispersed humanity becomes, the harder it will be to keep under thumb/boot) and greed are the only real stumbling blocks right now. Those in control use the first to ensure the second and via a pairing of the first and the third they reign in those who have the means who could break the bubble. And while they do they set us up for extinction...

2 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Never gonna happen because

Despite this ^

^ This.

Humanity is going to die on this rock without some major changes in how we think about the now.

But, back to SW:

No.

Weeeeeellllll, that's a broad generalization that doesn't work for me, either. Dials->Drive->Dice->Damage is fun for about a half-dozen games.

If you dumb-down the entire game to X-Wing: Line Up A Shot And Roll , there was never really any need to develop anything more than a fully stocked Game-in-a-Box in the first place.

What is going to allow XWM to maintain it's connection to the player base is to appreciate that a lot of different people get a lot of different things out of this game. What XWM 2.0 is VERY SUCCESSFULLY doing at this point is acknowledging lots of different play styles, from Extended to Hyperspace to Eras to Factions to Environments to Epic to {eventually} Missions, or Campaigns. or Co-Op Play. So that when people get bored of Standardized Deathmatch 200 they can use their ships in a different way, instead of quitting this game and finding another.

And as my other thread shows, I'm VERY FOND of a particular vessel that is DEFINITELY not geared towards primary only!

For X-Wing to be good turrets and forward arc repositions have to “bad”. All of them. Even rear arcs. Especially turrets with white or linked equivalent repositions.

13 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

For X-Wing to be good turrets and forward arc repositions have to “bad”. All of them. Even rear arcs. Especially turrets with white or linked equivalent repositions.

🤨 Why does this read like "If (x), which I hate, is on par in capability with what I like, then the game is bad and should die."? Adapt, learn, less booze driven auto-pilot. Please stop trying to push the game to become checkers/draughts with spaceships instead of circular game pieces...

2 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Yeah don't do that, because you're wrong. Here's the thing about AI.

It can't black out or anything, sure, but it can also be hacked or jammed, and has an operational range far more directly tied to its mothership- especially if we're saving costs. Autonomous, FTL based drones? That's sorta' dangerous territory. Not something you'll be able to convince people to adopt. For insurance they'd still need an AWACS like, long range support platform for resupply and guidance- not because they need to be remote controlled, but... Well, do you trust AI that can run missions on its own, entirely?

Manned fighters, tanks, boots on the ground, will always be necessary. You cannot phase out the organic soldier. There are simply too many variables for an electronically sensitive machine to account for, no matter how well you build it.

It's also a matter of cost. Let's say you build a terminator.

Cool. How expensive is it compared to a squadron of soldiers? Guess what the DOD's gonna' opt to field?

Just plain old soldiers. The better you make drones the more expensive they are- eventually, moreso than just having people.

You should read The Drive’s last few articles about autonomous flights. They’re comin’

Just now, TasteTheRainbow said:

You should read The Drive’s last few articles about autonomous flights. They’re comin’

Sure, but they won't replace us.

1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

For X-Wing to be good turrets and forward arc repositions have to “bad”. All of them. Even rear arcs. Especially turrets with white or linked equivalent repositions.

What a bad take. So anything with a turret slot should suffer too, despite not having to be equipped with one?

RZ-2s shouldn't be agile?

Good gods, imagine having a take THIS awful.

25 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Sure, but they won't replace us.

Not so sure any longer. I recommend reading books like Tegmarks "Life 3.0".

And oh, Robot Mining deep sea is discussed, robot mining asteroids is not that different. If the deposits are worthy enough, asteroid or moon robo mining might become a thing. A thing worth attacking, a thing worth defending, oops warfare in space.

Now, however if this ever will develop before we self as species have ruined our planet and our species is another (right now rather bleak looking) story.

New tech isn't necessarily bigger and better

****, we can see with digital devices that it's the exact opposite. Higher tech means it's easier to produce and provide!

So yeah, prob robots will replace us or get us into space or w e

What does that have to do with Star Wars? Well, apart from making robots say "Roger, Roger," reality and star Wars is as separate from us as Paige was from the vacuum of space when she dropped those **** bombs

4 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

For X-Wing to be good turrets and forward arc repositions have to “bad”. All of them. Even rear arcs. Especially turrets with white or linked equivalent repositions.

May I ask why the quotation marks?

19 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Some of us aren't here for forward-arc only gameplay. I'm sure not.

I enjoy having turrets, bombs and effects. I enjoy having things that aren't just straightforward guns, even if I think Fenn Rau is the actual best pilot of the game.

I like having a mixed toolset, because, let me tell you something.

4v4 Battle Rifles, was never how Halo was meant to be played. It was how elitist "Major League" players, who couldn't deal with, "Unfair, unclean" mechanics, such as... Radar. Plasma weapons. Power Weapons. Wanted to play it. They brutalized a game about an open, balanced sandbox of well thought out weapons into focus tested three-round-headshot-capable-burst-only stuff and proceeded to pull over a decade of entirely unwanted gatekeeping.

Tell me this.

Do you want that for X-Wing? Do you want the various flavors to be lost, because Vanilla is the optimal flavor, thus the only valid one?

Or do you want to see many flavors, and just stick to your own, content with it? Because the bases you love are fine. They're healthy. They're in vogue.

But they should not ever be all that is acceptable.

3 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

For X-Wing to be good turrets and forward arc repositions have to “bad”. All of them. Even rear arcs. Especially turrets with white or linked equivalent repositions.

So,

No bombs

No turrets

No missiles

No fly-by-wire high speed maneuvers

No computer assisted shots

Heck, no, "Luke, you've turned off your targeting computer" but "I gots da Force so it's cool."

Maybe you're looking for a Biplane with a Pair of Forward Mounted Brownings kinda game.

And yet, even in WWI, rear arcs were a thing:

So maybe not?

17 hours ago, Darth Seridur said:

If you play Imperials, you are essentially playing "pure" Xwing. A forward arc, a dial, and belief in your own skills.

Actually dont answer that

3 hours ago, XPav said:

Actually dont answer that

are joke

see game is balanced

(god these are such a joke.)

3 hours ago, XPav said:

Actually dont answer that

They just need to be cheaper. Or rereleased with new pilots stats and-

just overhaul the poor thing ffs ffg

The core of this game is supposed to be dials- Dials matter more when your firing arcs are less flexible, which is why I like forward arcs and bullseye arcs so much- They require good dial choices to be useful- It's vastly easier to get multiple shots-on-target with turreted or rear-arc ships, or with a ship with reduced consequences for repositioning. (Or bombs or other autodamage/non-combat) methods

This is why I rail endlessly against the strength that is given to pilot abilities, upgrade cards, and the combinations that result: they take away emphasis from dials. (I tend to refer to these things, collectively, as 'Words')

When dials are devalued and Words are emphasized, the game becomes less tactical/strategic, and more card-game esque.

I sure as **** didn't come here to play star-wars themed yu-gi-oh, which is what you'll end up with if Words are left to run loose.

8 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

For X-Wing to be good turrets and forward arc repositions have to “bad”. All of them. Even rear arcs. Especially turrets with white or linked equivalent repositions.

I mostly agree, although I think some ships, Like Y-wings, should still have a place, a list with just non-FASBs shouldn't be good, and FASBs should be the majority of the list.

6 hours ago, Do I need a Username said:

I mostly agree, although I think some ships, Like Y-wings, should still have a place, a list with just non-FASBs shouldn't be good, and FASBs should be the majority of the list.

So, 200 points of non-FASBs shouldn’t equal 200 points of FASBs? Isn’t the purpose of a point system to BALANCE things so that everything has a place to be good?

15 hours ago, JJ48 said:

The minerals exist, sure. The question is whether it's cost-effective to send people out to mine them.

People? 🤨

7 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

So, 200 points of non-FASBs shouldn’t equal 200 points of FASBs? Isn’t the purpose of a point system to BALANCE things so that everything has a place to be good?

Yea unless we’re all just defining “equal” and “balanced” differently this seems like a change that would drive away half or more of players.

It’s like removing all the queens, bishops and rooks from a chess game. It would make it significantly less interesting.

So, I've been a more than justifiable hater of turrets in first Ed as they pretty clearly lead to its eventual ruination (though we did get Ed second from that...)

But in 2nd Ed's case, I think they're more than balanced with them actually being arcs instead of "**** you, have some dice". Sometimes maybe TOO balanced, as a lotta large ships don't seem to be hitting the table

Anyway, all you have to do to balance them is charge appropriately for additional firing arcs. That's it .

if you can keep your forward arc on target with a turret, it'll win through pure cost efficiency most of the time.

honestly, the only thing I feel we aren't paying enough for is ironically small, forward arc only I5+