13 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

That people think adding objectives would change anything other than the game's veneer is funny.

Objectives would change the purpose of the game with new win conditions. This is a format change. Balance is completely dependant on format, it is pointless to discuss one without the other.
So the addition of objective based gameplay would change everything from experience to balance to tactics.

Objectives DO change the game. See Armada. One of the few great things about that game. (The other being the gorgeous ship models) (Balance is pure awful)

Sadly, the learning curves generally go WAY up. People have a hard time not YOLOing into a middle area if there's points to be gained (and then they find out they're REALLY not the list that should be jousting) (Or they don't and they do it over and over and over again until they quit the game)

4 hours ago, Archangelspiv said:

they should come up with concrete rules to help judges all over the place.

@FFGMatt said on stream commentary during worlds that FFG was working on game specific floor rules that could supplement the generic floor rules brought out earlier this year.

So is the so called star starfortressing more a victim of the starviper's own mechanic of being able to move? Or is it something that has been something that has been commonly abused and what has happened at worlds just put a spotlight on it? Not that it is worth much but my 2 cents was after viewing Mitch's play in 1-2 of his matches he didnt appear to be stalling but i wasn't there so what do i really know right?

Oops

On 10/22/2019 at 3:42 PM, Knitcardigan said:

It appears that instead of engaging in proxies via declarations against game mechanics or hiding behind anonymous screen names, Paul and Dee provided direct feedback to 4 vipers. Is there any more honest and transparent way to engage in a discussion?

I guess I could create a new account and make a point on the internet?

Engaging in a direct discussion - fine ... but why are you saying 'If I was Marshall/When I am Marshall, I would prevent you from following your strategy' at an event where you are neither Marshall, nor judge, and that player is still playing??

Not sure about Paul but in Dee's defense. while Dee was interviewing Mitch on their podcast he did tell him directly how he would handle it if he were a marshall.

28 minutes ago, Flyingbrick said:

Not sure about Paul but in Dee's defense. while Dee was interviewing Mitch on their podcast he did tell him directly how he would handle it if he were a marshall.

Both Dee and Paul have stated openly and notoriously that I would not be allowed to fly my Vipers in the manner I did at worlds. They have done so far in advance of events that they are marshalling.

I asked for specifics from Paul on at what point my opening would trigger the Stalling penalties ( that could trigger a DQ) if I were to make the moves I did on steam at a tourney he was running. He declared my argument bad faith and refused to answer. It seems the only way I will get an answer to this is to show up and fly my list (admittedly not a game of chicken I'm willing to play after paying for a hotel and flight to NOVA)

This was mostly why i posted your match with Duncan from worlds. It was mostly for those who either missed or yet had a chance to see what the fuss was about how you played. Like everyone, i have my own thoughts on using the mechanics of a ship in the best way possible without it actually causing stalling. i can only speak for myself on this but what i saw was far from this.

If others wanted to see it differently thats up to them and thats fine. Cant say i would blame you for not wanting to push the point at a different event. Yet, i would have hoped that where you did play would have been the best possible place to have settled this whole debate and yet here we are still talking about it a few days later.

1 hour ago, Crimsonwarlock said:

Both Dee and Paul have stated openly and notoriously that I would not be allowed to fly my Vipers in the manner I did at worlds. They have done so far in advance of events that they are marshalling.

I asked for specifics from Paul on at what point my opening would trigger the Stalling penalties ( that could trigger a DQ) if I were to make the moves I did on steam at a tourney he was running. He declared my argument bad faith and refused to answer. It seems the only way I will get an answer to this is to show up and fly my list (admittedly not a game of chicken I'm willing to play after paying for a hotel and flight to NOVA)

This. Any official or judge that preemptively declares your play worthy of a warning or a DQ, and then can't or won't answer what you're allegedly doing wrong, probably shouldn't be officiating or judging. Sounds like they're just enjoying their power trip to me.

Stated "notoriously", eh? Neat.

If you are unhappy with your experience with me as a head judge, feel free to send feedback e-mails to OP or NOVA. If you are just complaining on the internet and you've never been to my event, then I don't care what your opinion is about it.

As I've stated before, I refuse to play this game that you are trying to play with me for whatever reason. As you said in your interview: you won't be able to change my mind on this. I know I won't be able to change yours. I'm just trying to inform people that it is unacceptable in some events (NOVA, LVO, Aus SOS for examples), so if they want to replicate your behavior they should check with their head judge first.

19 minutes ago, pheaver said:

Stated "notoriously", eh? Neat.

If you are unhappy with your experience with me as a head judge, feel free to send feedback e-mails to OP or NOVA. If you are just complaining on the internet and you've never been to my event, then I don't care what your opinion is about it.

As I've stated before, I refuse to play this game that you are trying to play with me for whatever reason. As you said in your interview: you won't be able to change my mind on this. I know I won't be able to change yours. I'm just trying to inform people that it is unacceptable in some events (NOVA, LVO, Aus SOS for examples), so if they want to replicate your behavior they should check with their head judge first.

I meant notoriously as in publicly and not inconspicuously. My goal was to emphasize you weren't aiming for a 'Gotcha moment.

What if FFG changes the mechanics behind final salvo so that it's not based on the printed attack values of ships? Maybe something where you get one red die for every 20 points you've destroyed, rounded up? That would eliminate the ability for a list to set their win conditions based on "I'm going to avoid conflict and trust my larger pool of red dice to give me the win over that two-ship aces list."

3 minutes ago, PhantomFO said:

What if FFG changes the mechanics behind final salvo so that it's not based on the printed attack values of ships? Maybe something where you get one red die for every 20 points you've destroyed, rounded up? That would eliminate the ability for a list to set their win conditions based on "I'm going to avoid conflict and trust my larger pool of red dice to give me the win over that two-ship aces list."

Not a bad ideas, but It wouldn't solve what people perceive as a problem, it would just change the math.

Taking a 50/50 Salvo is better than some matchups.

2 hours ago, pheaver said:

As I've stated before, I refuse to play this game that you are trying to play with me for whatever reason.

He wasn't trying to play a game. He was asking for clarification, to which you basically responded "Forget you, I'm taking my ball and going home."

I have to say, responses like yours make me a little leery about getting into the tournament scene. Not an attractive look to prospective players, nor one that I would recommend to any of my friends with whom I play casual games. Not much point in playing an official game by the rules if people can preemptively and subjectively declare those rules illegal without any sort of explanation beyond "I don't like them."

On 10/21/2019 at 11:41 AM, Blail Blerg said:

exactly how did the stalling work to his advantage?

Actually almost makes me not want to try it. I don't have the patience for stall games.

100 percent agreed. Hate stalling as much as blocking

4 hours ago, Delta8 said:

100 percent agreed. Hate stalling as much as blocking

Like bumping your ships into each other to not move or like blocking enemy ships?

On 10/22/2019 at 12:43 PM, Dreadai said:

I agree - there should be clearly defined rules - and right now there are - the fact that a small number of players don't like them, shouldn't enable those players to impose their view on how the game should be played on other people.

I find it unfortunate that worlds has had this slight undercurrent against one player because of something that happened on the internet months before.

Oli said in a post top 8 interview on the x-wing junkies stream that (and I'm paraphrasing) 'Paul Heaver said he wants to speak to me, something about my next opponent and stalling' ... that sounds very much like people playing politics from a position of respectability trying to build support for their position.

Would not be the first incident. Paul interrupted a National final, not even being there, by phoning one of the players in an ongoing match in direct violation of the rules at that time. ("Tournament Regulations: A spectator is any individual at a tournament not actively engaging in another role. Spectators must not disturb an ongoing game , and cannot provide any input or assistance to players during their games." rules from back then). Granted Paul then wanted to speak to the judges (in line with "If a spectator believes they have witnessed a breach of the rules in a game they are watching, other than a missed opportunity, he or she may bring it to the attention of a leader."), but ringing the player first was strictly forbidden. Only way was to speak to a judge or the TO directly, but absolutely not interrupting the game and bother a player, and nobody knows what was said in the first sentence(s) to the player on the phone. A judge could suspect critical hints were given, that alone could lead to DQ of the player.

---

Interestingly, Oli also advocates that FFG should come with a clear rule. And that it should not be up to any individual judge's or TO's whims.

On 10/22/2019 at 12:43 PM, Dreadai said:

I agree - there should be clearly defined rules - and right now there are - the fact that a small number of players don't like them, shouldn't enable those players to impose their view on how the game should be played on other people.

Some people might want to empower themselves, just saying "Judge Illuminati". Even if it can be with good intentions, FFG alone has the power over the rules, it is their game and IP, and thus their problem to act upon and come with rules.

Lest we forget, the final salvo rule was implemented after a certain event, where a number of players from North Virginia all decided to do intentional draws to ensure they all made cut. That kettle over there sure shouldn't be yelling at this pot.

Final Salvo is quite an unimaginative rule for a highly competitive game like X-Wing. MANY other equally competitive games, with large prize pools as well, have draws (3-1-0) just fine.

My take-away from Worlds, focusing on Scum:

1. 2 Scum Lists in the top 4- Cool. Doesn't mean that Scum still don't have a problem as the lists are A) one of the few competitive Scum lists we have (Torkil swarm) and B) a list that a skilled player has spent a lot of time mastering, one that is focused on his mastery of the ships' abilities rather than a replicable list that many players can use well.

2. 4 Vipers stalling is not too bad, even though I personally don't like the stalling playstyle. It is not as bad as the phantom stall previously, mainly due to the fact that Starvipers require a lot more skill to fly properly than a phantom that gets double-mods consistently.

3. There are problems with all of the ideas to balance the Viper list (starting off with the fact that it doesn't need to be balanced based off of only a couple of tournaments where it placed high but wasn't a large percentage of lists). Nuking the Starviper price would make an already expensive and rarely seen ship (outside of Guri) even more rare, which basically means you are just removing the ship from competitive play altogether. Creating a mission-style or other objective-based motive in the game might be fun, but would also possibly unnecessarily complicate the game. X-wing is enjoyable in part, in my opinion, because it is so simply focused on defeating your enemy directly.

Ok, this has gone past the "if you plan on doing this tactic, talk to your head judge first, because many (like myself) won't allow it" to the normal FFG forum nonsense.

3 hours ago, Dreadai said:

Lest we forget, the final salvo rule was implemented after a certain event, where a number of players from North Virginia all decided to do intentional draws to ensure they all made cut. That kettle over there sure shouldn't be yelling at this pot.

Perhaps the solution is to simply not track wins and losses as the primary point of inquiry at all.

When time is called, each player gets victory points like so....

VP = build points I killed (including halvesies) + opponents bid.

Everyone gives the TO their VPs every round. TO sorts the individual grand totals for setting matches and overall winner at the end. We have Excel. This is doable.

Shenanigans happen when folks are not compelled to kill ships (stalling for salvo, having a giant bid to hide points, intentional draws, securing a lead then running away). The rules should compel players to kill ships. Although I’ve not faulted opponents for running away to secure a win (they are playing in a format that incentivizes this), it still never feels “right” from a genre standpoint. In the end, the joy of watching those big space battle scenes as a kid is what really brought many of us to the XWM table in the first place. The game should be like that.

I am starting a new thread on that as it is not really simply about vipers anymore.

This wouldn’t necessarily discourage @Crimsonwarlock from using the strategy, because he’d probably have enough wins for the cut. But its been suggested before on changing the Swiss tiebreakers.

Wins>Points Destroyed>MOV>SOS

This means that players are now encouraged to go out and kill their opponents ships.

At Essen Spiel they are giving away free Starvipers and E-Wing because they have way too many of them left for clearance.

My friend took 4 just to mess around with this list. Prepare for an influx of Starvipers in Europe.