question:

what happen if every generic of every faction became spammable?

i think that would only change the meta....

maybe people would start playing more 1or 2 aces + some generic squads instead of 3 aces but if every faction benefit from a generic's point drop i don't see the problem.....

i would love to see a meta like this

1 hour ago, Manolox said:

what happen if every generic of every faction became spammable?

i think that would only change the meta....

You'd see me rolling with Trajectory Simulator Proton Bombs as a counter. That, or I'm taking a Jakku Gunrunner swarm to counter your swarm.

On 1/4/2020 at 2:52 AM, Kieransi said:

So my point is this: the game needs some kind of way of preventing archetypal spam. My personal favorite way of dealing with this is the Legion-style unit types thing. Let's just say that all the ace pilots are the "ace" unit type and you can only have one per list. (before you get mad about the theme, we could also add some plot cards* that let you thematically bend the rules, like, I don't know, pay a couple points to have both Anakin and Obi Wan in the same list or something). Similarly, you could put types on just about anything, and remove the need for multi-dots on stuff while also solving the problem of similar ship spam (the strikers and interceptors example).

I kind of like the idea but I wonder how necessary it is. Typically, spamming one thing is strictly worse than taking a more diverse list, unless the archetype is overpowered/underpriced in the first place. Spam lists suffer worse from hard counters while more diverse lists can handle various threats in a more balanced manner.

I would contend that the problem is more that aces (and especially force aces) have been consistently underpriced over the course of the game, so more of them is always better. We've seen this variously with other significantly underpriced items: Hyperspace Upsilons, PS Missile TIE/sfs, Inquisitors, etc. I don't think it means spam is a problem so much as it means the individual items are underpriced.

Why bother preventing triple-aces unless aces are consistently bringing more to the table for their cost than others? Limiting Turret platforms might make Starfortresses and Aggressors worse. Limiting bomb platforms might make TIE Bombers and Hyenas worse (and they're already poor).

I totally agree with where OP is coming from but I guess I'm still optimistic that costs can balance most things to within a reasonable margin. We've only had two rebalances so far, the game's balance is now better than ever before, and this new one will probably be even more fine-tuned. Time will tell.

As a side note, for the record; I definitely think the Delta Defender should be around 67-68. It's very close to viable at 69 and you might be surprised how big a difference a point or two can make (remember what happened to the Inquisitors!). The problem with defenders is their scaling. None of them should be above 80 points, and the I4 generic probably belongs closer to 72-74 than where it's at now.

On 1/5/2020 at 12:39 AM, BenDay said:

What about a Pilot Skill Cap? Each squad can have one PS 6 or lower and a separate PS 5 or lower choice. This way you could have no more than 1 PS 6 or 2 PS 5s in your list (or one 6 and one 5). There is a miniature game called Infinity in which squads are made with points but there is also another special weapons score that a squad can't exceed. It prevents the situation of, one less guy in your squad but everyone showing up with heavy machine guns.

yeah I really like this as an easy fix, I think it would go a long way. It seems a little harsh in some cases because there's a couple high-init pilots that don't really have reposition or anything and aren't really ace spam at that point but I don't really see those pilots much or particularly care if they are or aren't allowed to be flown alongside an ace, so I'm good with this.

17 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

Typically, spamming one thing is strictly worse than taking a more diverse list, unless the archetype is overpowered/underpriced in the first place. Spam lists suffer worse from hard counters while more diverse lists can handle various threats in a more balanced manner.

I used to believe this but I think the more I see the more I think doubling down on a win condition is favorable. It's less fun for sure, because you will have a lot of hard counters and rock paper scissors, which makes more games seem over before they start and nobody should want that (we're here to play the game, not dunk on people with our list architecture). But I think it's actually in general helpful.

It's kind of why Kirby is considered bad competitively in Smash Bros - he does everything pretty well but doesn't have as strong of weird and specific abilities that he can use to dunk on people and get the crazy KOs you see in super competitive play. If you're starting out, Kirby seems really good, but once you practice more and more with your characters you're going to fall behind the people who chose Bayonetta or Zelda or pretty much any other character.

On 1/4/2020 at 3:56 AM, Kieransi said:

we need Legion unit types or some other cool solution that I don't know because I'm not a game designer

Not sure if I like the Legion method, but super in on more list building restrictions other than "can you fit in 200?"

35 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

I used to believe this but I think the more I see the more I think doubling down on a win condition is favorable. It's less fun for sure, because you will have a lot of hard counters and rock paper scissors, which makes more games seem over before they start and nobody should want that (we're here to play the game, not dunk on people with our list architecture). But I think it's actually in general helpful.

It's kind of why Kirby is considered bad competitively in Smash Bros - he does everything pretty well but doesn't have as strong of weird and specific abilities that he can use to dunk on people and get the crazy KOs you see in super competitive play. If you're starting out, Kirby seems really good, but once you practice more and more with your characters you're going to fall behind the people who chose Bayonetta or Zelda or pretty much any other character.

Unfortunately the reference is mostly lost on me (tabletop and PC gamer, never really done much platform gaming 😛 ) but I think I understand what you're saying and it does make sense. It's pretty unfortunate though, as it's stuff like that which leads to the eventual stagnation of a living game.

I really wish X-Wing would go the Marvel: Crisis Protocol route of simple low-count victory-point-based objectives. Fortressing, regen, and damage-spiking will always be best in a deathmatch, but they turn pretty bad when you're wanting to do item pick-up, area control, demolitions, etc. I really think the whole

([points destroyed]+[points preserved]=[MoV])

system is pretty lazy, anti-thematic, boring, difficult to visualize, and devoid of narrative arc. And it's also the main reason that so many NPE aspects of the game turned out to be so competitive.

Maybe ship kills can factor into objectives (like in Aces High), but they shouldn't really be worth much on their own other than hampering your opponent's ability to fulfill their own objectives (and the potential of tabling your opponent for a win by forfeit). Scoring a game on a scale to 200, where things can go back and forth due to regen, and the points aren't tracked on the table, and the numbers the points come from aren't even on the table just never made much sense to me.

Ace players get the best of everything. They can preserve points like nobody's business, they can regen to get MoV back, they typically have really good damage output due to extra dice or passive mods, and they have really good control over the exchange. Of course, this is why they always cost the most, but it still doesn't mean we'll see more diversity for that reason alone.

On the other hand, if the ace player brings an objective that looks like Aces High (kill count plus killed ships' kill count = VP) and their opponent has an area control objective, it kind of balances out; add environments to that and we get a super diverse game that's actually simpler than what we have now.

From the perspective of game design, restrictions aren't good for rooting out NPE (just look at the fortressing rules). The only way to get rid of NPE elements is to change what people want to do. If you make something strategically optimal and then punish people for doing it too much, that's just bad game design.

Adding restrictions tends to cut down on game diversity. For example: If you can only have one "Ace" suddenly Duchess and Quiz all but disappear because everyone would prefer Soontir or Vader (your one ace has to compete with their one ace and Whisper doesn't cut it anymore). If you can have two, maybe there's more diversity but it doesn't solve the Obi/Ani or Vader/Soontir issue at all. I think the only practical solution is to change the game's objective at a pretty fundamental level.

thanks @ClassicalMoser , lots of good thoughts in there.

and you're right, it's definitely hinged on a tournament points issue rather than an issue with the game itself.

this thread that you and I have both been posting in is a good example of the kind of thing that I wish FFG would do because, like I said, I'm not a game designer, and they'd almost certainly do a much better job and it would be super fun and cool.

4 hours ago, 5050Saint said:

You'd see me rolling with Trajectory Simulator Proton Bombs as a counter. That, or I'm taking a Jakku Gunrunner swarm to counter your swarm.

And I would take 5 I4 interceptors to out-ace your bombers.