1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

I think if the primary format for the game is going to be Extended FFG would benefit from having more targeted ways to restrict our available upgrade options across the entire card pool. Would even help in Hyperspace for sure ( see Boba ).

Right now all they have is a Point Cost Ban Hammer or Banishment from Hyperspace. FFG should have formal additional ways to manipulate and heavily restrict accessibility to the full card deck.

While I hate the particular suggestion 3-upgrades from @Boom Owl , this bird is entirely correct that FFG should have a few more tools than Points and Hyperspace/Extended.

I *really* want a very narrow banlist-of-last-resort, so that FFG doesn't have to delete slots from ships.

• Ban C-3PO on Leebo; give Leebo back his crew slot.
• Ban R2-D2 crew (and Gonk?) on the same ship as Inertial Dampeners; give Han back his illicit.
  • My gut says that even with Kanan to clear the stress, if you've got a hard limit of 6 shields over the entire game, and can't get them back, ID probably isn't a problem (particularly with the cost jacked up as it is).
  • I just want Han to be able to dump cargo. It just makes sense. But ID was excessively strong, so Illicit had to go.
• Ban Passive Sensors on Vader, since the upgrade is supposed to be a tool for low-Init ships to get locks, not for whatever wacky shenanigans Vader is up to, and if he wants to barrel roll after Init 6 folks, he can bid like any other ace.
  • This is maybe a bit thin, but dang it irks me. 3 points (plus whatever you saved by not-bidding) to cheat the entire system of a point bid and determining First Player? Yikes, man. I know the bidding war has it's own issues.
• Maybe that's it.
  • Even if there's only two or three things on it now, we never know when some truly, truly broken combo might slip through in the future.
• My criteria for adding something for to the banlist: A ban ought to be for when FFG is literally about to take a slot away from a ship because one single upgrade breaks stuff so hard. I never want to see something like Leebo losing the crew slot because of C-3PO.
  • I know a lot of folks would probably love to have Advanced Sensors on Guri banned, or Supernatural Reflexes on anything. But that seems like a broader issue that should be addressed through pricing, and it'd be better to save a small and narrow banlist for things which aren't just annoying, but "Oh crap, we have to delete this slot from this ship" bad. As much as some folks hate it, this isn't broken enough.
  • Rose + Finn is a strong combo. Shouldn't be banned. Raise points if need be (probably don't have to), but banning them together would be excessive.
  • A Banlist couldn't work as a replacement for Hyperspace. It'd have to be small enough and narrow enough that it could exist separate from any Hyperspace/Extended concerns. It should really be a last resort to avoid cutting slots off of ships.
• There are potentially situations where upgrade slots have to be taken away (Torpedoes from Jumps in 1e, since the big problem with the ship is that it did too much damage; almost surely Modification Slots were taken from Nantex after playtesting, because Nantex were busted at release). However, I bet a lot of those possible situations could be fixed with banlists.

The tl;dr -- same as how Hyperspace potentially prevents FFG from having to price ships to oblivion simply because they're overplayed and not broken, a banlist could theoretically prevent FFG from needing to delete slots off of ships, and catch particularly busted upgrade combos that happen to get missed.

1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

I think if the primary format for the game is going to be Extended FFG would benefit from having more targeted ways to restrict our available upgrade options across the entire card pool. Would even help in Hyperspace for sure ( see Boba ).

But that is antithetical to what I keep hearing to be the selling point of Extended. The lack of restrictions on upgrades (and ships) is what people like. I don’t think making both formats limited is a good thing. People weren’t happy with Hyperspace being lite Extended, why would people be okay with Extended being Hyperspace lite?

2 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

Key for me though that it would only begin to really reshape list building if they were aggressive about the restrictions they put in place.

I think it could help 2.0 from becoming over burdened as the upgrade card deck continues to grow.

IMHO, this is the official function of Hyperspace. You reshape listbuilding with restrictions.

Also, the way to make upgrades less of an issue is to faction-lock all but the most banal options.

2 hours ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

The problem may just be that X-Wing isn't that fun ........ regardless of what's being flown .

There were times in X-Wing's history when generic pilots filled the skies, and lots of players complained that it was no fun watching generics fly at and shoot each other. Eventually, FFG released better upgrades and Aces and Fat Ships became popular archetypes, then lots of players complained it was no fun watching aces dance around their opponents and that generics needed to be better. Repeat this cycle about four times over seven years.

The underlying constant is that people have complained about X-Wing's lack of fun for seven years. Maybe, at this point, it's time to stop hating the players (the types of ships that are flying around at any given point in the meta) and start hating the game. I mean, you can only expect grown-*** adults to fly toy spaceships around a 3x3 fishbowl doing almost exclusively 2-Turns/K-Turns and rolling red dice at green dice for so many years.

Second Edition was a chance to really revolutionize and revitalize the fundamental gameplay that defines X-Wing, and basically we got same-poodoo-different-day, but now with linked actions. Don't get me wrong, I think in general Second Edition made some very solid changes to the game... but they really didn't go very far in addressing the core repetitiveness and ill-defined objective of X-Wing dogfights.

Mostly this. At its core, this is a pretty simplistic game. It's the layers (like listbuilding and upgrade cards) that make it more. Hence, "bringing it back to flying" for me is an utterly boring exercise in judging distances and comparing dice, with a small measure of out guessing what your opponent wanted to do.

I my world of XWM was confined to Standard style play, I would have quit a long time ago.

New ships, point adjustments, and redefined card pools really can't fix the dullness of 200/6 on 3x3.

Although, I DON'T want to start hating the game. I want the game to grow into better options.

Hence, my bitterness that the relaunch of epic was allowed to fizzle. Folks were excited, then they were confused (no app support?), then they were disappointed (there are effectively no 2.0 huge ships--you need an old ship and/or a CK).

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

I bet a lot of those possible situations could be fixed with banlists.

Wow. I can remember the day in 1.0 when I suggested card bans. That was a hoot.

Let's have a reminder of what rules based creativity means. Since we have a lot of people bashing list building.
(I would join you, I don't want Xwing to be MTG, but I also understand what innovative list building is and how restrictions can destroy that. The example I'd like you to see is 1.0 Wave 4 Us Champion dark templar, won with naked soontir, whisper and something else vs 2 fat falcons. falcon turrets should be a hard counter to aces completely, and nobody at the time ever ran soontir without ANYTHING. But this guy did. And he showed us how the flight pattern totally changes the arithmetic. You must understand, there's a lot that you a lot of you haven't seen before.)

Rules based creativity is how we use slots and upgrades. We're given a group of upgrades (called slots) that we can fill or not, mostly without extra restrictions though some are restricted to certain ships/factions/configs/etc.

We then compare 2 things together: ships x that slot's upgrades, to find what we believe to be the most optimal configurations.

The problem is that a lot of the time, there is a stridently optimal combination (its often the best pilot of that ship, surprise surprise, with one of the best upgrades of the slot). Right now, we try and make a flat or varied change to values to balance these out.

We already have considerable things to remember in this game. Like, limited, like other restrictions, like solitary, like you can't have two of the same upgrade. We don't need more rules. We do not need more arbitrary lists like Hyperspace to frame our game on. They are LAZY fixes that do not fix the sources of the problem.

What some people also don't understand is the concept of using large amounts of information. What isn't an arbitrary list (or less arbitrary)?? Its POkemon's tiering system. OP OverUsed UnderUsed RarelyU NeverU. If tounrmanet results and other data is collected with a high degree of completion, you may use a simple computerized comparison of what is taken vs what is not to create a fair choice of what should be allowed and what is not. Unfortunately, Xwing isn't at that level, and there is a considerable level of curation to Hyperspace by balance teams or developers... or worse, possibly business marketing. you may like your choice of hyperspace ships now, but nothing is stopping the game's teams from choosing a bad set of ships, or a set of ships you simply don't have (forcing you to buy), or creating some sort of arbitrary ecosystem of balance. Right now, its as bad as basically saying, most i6s shouldn't exist, therefore now the i5s are great. One day maybe it'll be let's remove most i5s AND i6s, and surprise surprise! i4s are now excellent!. Its also stupidly obvious , and completely ruins the wonderful puzzle of finding good things. (This is the extreme argument of the other side of natural balance, like Starcraft 1, letting things simply become balanced after 20 years of little change).

Reminder too, that Starcraft 1 went through times where one faction was basically 25-30% win rate for YEARS. You're complaining right now about usually a 5% differential, with nearly nothing anymore going above 10% Which WAS what happened with Xwing 1.0.

While we can always aim for a better world (AND WE SHOULD!), There is a point where one has to take history into perspective.

Walk the balanced and middle road, friends.

====

As someone who vindicatedly suggested audacious balance (which I do believe made the game better), there are cons too. Beware of what you wish for.

13 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Wow. I can remember the day in 1.0 when I suggested card bans. That was a hoot.

• The first thing which makes a banlist appealing to me is how FFG has done it in some of their other Star Wars games. I never played much of them (and none of the LCG), but I like how the structure works.
  • In Destiny, there was a restricted list where you could only have one card on that list. FFG could put both halves of a combo in the banlist, and you couldn't play the combo, but you could play either card.
  • In the LCG, they had certain blocks of cards you couldn't run with certain other blocks. Again, it wasn't that the cards themselves got directly banned, but they couldn't be used together to create BS.
• The second thing is that, unlike in 1e, we're really well set up for it now. Points and slots are all handled through the app and elaborate PDF lists. In the context of 1e, when they were unwilling to errata points costs, seemed pretty unlikely. Today, with variable pricing and not all pilots of a ship having the same slots, it's a lot easier to imagine.

7 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

• The second thing is that, unlike in 1e, we're really well set up for it now. Points and slots are all handled through the app and elaborate PDF lists. In the context of 1e, when they were unwilling to errata points costs, seemed pretty unlikely. Today, with variable pricing and not all pilots of a ship having the same slots, it's a lot easier to imagine.

Although FFG missed another option for a really good balancing tool, when they printed the "triple limited" dots onto the Precise Hunter ship card. This double/triple/quadruple/x-ple should have been restricted to the app and pdf lists.

Then you could easily fix issues like Juke, or have number of dots for a ship or upgrade differently for Extended, Hyperspace and Epic formats. And also have ships cheaper without fearing spam. Alas, missed opportunity.

Yes they can, and I've been saying it for years. Details of the limitations are the issue. Sometimes it isn't just the upgrades, it's the synergy with certain other upgrades and/or pilot abilities.

15 hours ago, Managarmr said:

Although FFG missed another option for a really good balancing tool, when they printed the "triple limited" dots onto the Precise Hunter ship card. This double/triple/quadruple/x-ple should have been restricted to the app and pdf lists.

Then you could easily fix issues like Juke, or have number of dots for a ship or upgrade differently for Extended, Hyperspace and Epic formats. And also have ships cheaper without fearing spam. Alas, missed opportunity.

Maybe.

Don't get me wrong, I like the multi-dot limited stuff in principle, and I'm glad it exists. I think it's great for upgrade design that this exists. As a means of balance to errata these onto stuff... I'm not as convinced. Sure, I'd probably be glad if Discord Missiles/Buzz Droids were limited to 2 per list instead of 3, but I think a lot of the time, I guess it seems more like an answer in search of a solution to me.

As to the specifics:

• I don't know that Juke is easily fixed by it. 3 dot is nearly as bad as none as we saw with the final iteration of Quad Phantom. 2 dot still would have been enough for Phantom Aces or Phantom/Defender/3rd ship, etc etc. I think Juke--at the original cost of 4 points--was too cheap on certain ships, even if limited a single copy.
• Changing the limited dots on ships based on format seems... really messy. I don't like changing point costs by format, either. I just think it gets too complicated. The App can handle some of it, but only when the App is up to date, and when folks have internet connections (it's easy, but not trivial). I think it's important to support theoretical PDF players, too, and it seems like it might be a step too far.
• I'm not a fan of "reduce cost, but limit the count." Restricting something to a small number per list, but then making it under-priced, still leaves it under-priced and a problem for balance.
  • Spam lists are kinda dull, but the mere fact of Spam, IMHO, isn't a problem. The problem is low costs, since there are usually close-enough replacement ships to add into the last spots.
    • If X-Wings were capped at 3, B-Wings at 2, but each was under 40 points, a 3X2B list would be about as good as either 5X or 5B.
    • I have a friend who was playing some 3 Kihraxz 2 Kimogila. That can probably be inverted, with 3 Kimos now. Is it the same as 5 Kimos or 5 G1-A would be? No, but close enough.
  • If Defenders got dropped to 60 points, but became 2 per list, I'd just run 2 Deltas + Vader, and content myself that Vader is probably better than a Delta anyhow.

Should it be a tool that FFG is willing to employ? Probably. I'm not sure what problem it fixes, however. A banlist along the lines of what I'd suggested fixed the problem of removing an upgrade slot from a ship because of one upgrade.

On 4/29/2020 at 10:05 PM, theBitterFig said:

While I hate the particular suggestion 3-upgrades from @Boom Owl , this bird is entirely correct that FFG should have a few more tools than Points and Hyperspace/Extended.

I *really* want a very narrow banlist-of-last-resort, so that FFG doesn't have to delete slots from ships.

I think what you illustrate in this post is that sometimes the combo is worth more than the sum of the parts. It is the point of having costs scale with a value on the ship-pilot card. I'm not sure that a limit on upgrades in a list really gets at the issue of keeping that sort of combo off the table.

I think it also gets at the idea that changing points isn't always the answer for an upgrade.

I miss Wedge.

This would be fun for a one-off tournament, but not for long-term. It fits my squadbuilding style, but don't find that i'd like everyone else having to do the same. (it also takes away getting a numbers advantage over really bloated ships, which is usually good for me, who likes spamming generics with an ace or support.)

I'd probably fly more empire, actually, since my first order and resistance lists have advanced optics stapled to everything.

39 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

I miss Wedge.

He might be in Hyperspace next go around. Or maybe not. But that is kind of precisely why Extended exists and people like it.

I’m still pretty new to this, but I want to weigh in and say that I really hate this idea of limiting upgrades to a certain number per ship. I’ve done a lot of tinkering, as has my chief gaming partner, and we’ve definitely discovered that some ships run fantastically well naked as jaybirds, some like to run around in shorts and a t-shirt, others want to wear cuff links and a stick pin with their top hat and monocle, and some ships like to dress for the occasion, whether it’s a nude beach or a costume ball (why choose?).

Why on earth would we ruin the good times of those who want to suit up their Scum Han with 7 or 8 upgrades? Or as (I think) BitterFig pointed out, Major Vynder (and the other Gunboats) just sort of... don’t work anymore, if you limit them to 1-2 upgrades.

Besides, we’ve usually found (in our noobish sandboxing) that the best way to defeat strong card combos in this game seems to be to come back at the list that just beat you with a few less upgrades and another ship or two. Not every ship seems to need (or want) to fill the upgrade bar. Most of them seem just fine with very few upgrades, in fact.

I’m sure there’s some tournament-level issue that I’m not really hip to, which the OP was trying to fix with this proposal. But I’d ask that he please leave my Young Han Lando’s Falcon with the entire cast of Solo aboard out of it! And that list may be goofy and fun, but the whole point of games like this is that sometimes you can try the goofy and fun stuff, and it leads you into places where you find the “good” inside the “goofy.” Lots of upgrade slots create more room for ships to fill varied roles. And without them, I think the game would be a far too mechanical affair.

Upgrades create variance, and more frequent player decision points, which further increase variance. If my N-1 is approaching two naked Vulture Droids, I have a few decisions to make, like deciding what the droids are likely to do, figuring out whether I think I can likely kill one on initiative, figuring out where my N-1 ought to be if I want to be aggressive/defensive, etc. Quite a lot going on already. But now imagine that one of the Vultures has Discord Missiles. My opponent’s options just essentially (at least) doubled, as he could not only do all of the things he could have done before, but he may now do all of those things AND possibly disgorge his Buzz Droids. And now the complexity of my decision tree has gone through the roof, as I have to examine what I want to do in light of the fact that my opponent may or may not also have a Buzz Droid swarm in one of three positions.

If you don’t find that situations like this create interesting and compelling gameplay, then I’m really not certain why you’d be interested in this game at all.

On 4/29/2020 at 7:43 AM, Boom Owl said:

As an example no list could have more than 3 upgrades regardless of the number of ships.
And no ship could have more than 1 of those 3 upgrades. Excludes 0 pt Upgrades.

Across all formats.

Specific Poll: Would X-Wing Be Better If There Was A 3 Upgrade Limit On Lists?
https://strawpoll.com/xsdw4br3

Generic Poll: Could Limiting Upgrades Per List & Ship Make X-Wing More Fun?
https://strawpoll.com/ex7zbh88

Boom I have read some of the thread but not all. I guess I just don’t understand what your suggestion is actually trying to accomplish.

Maybe it’s a local meta thing or something I don’t know. I just don’t see large numbers of upgrades as a problem. Not in the way we might have seen in 1.0 certainly.

Upgrades have always been there to cover weak points or amplify strengths. The natural limits ships are currently assigned seems a decent check and balance. The limit seems a bit overkill? So back to my original question what’s the problem that is supposed to be fixed by this suggestion?

I'd refuse to play with anyone doing this format.

46 minutes ago, Ronu said:

So back to my original question what’s the problem that is supposed to be fixed by this suggestion?

I too am interested in knowing what the original problem was that he wants to solve. There's likely a far more exciting and satisfying solution that @Boom Owl would prefer and that others would buy into more easily.

“A squad list may only include one ship that has a printed initiative value of 5 or higher.”

1 minute ago, miguelj said:

“A squad list may only include one ship that has a printed initiative value of 5 or higher.”

Same Team. Also Hi! Happy Friday.

2 hours ago, miguelj said:

“A squad list may only include one ship that has a printed initiative value of 5 or higher.”

Once again, that sounds terrible. What if I enjoy flying Vader and Fel together? It’s not like my list is gonna have room for tons else.

2 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

[stuff about upgrade limits]

I would like to add to the chorus of voices wondering what, exactly, you find objectionable about heavily upgraded ships. Some people like their tea with a lump of sugar, others want milk and honey and lemon as well. Why’s it bother you if you take your Luke with just his S-Foils, and I like mine with Proton Torpedoes and Supernatural Reflexes and R2-D2 as well? Is there a specific problem you have in mind which this would fix? Or is it just a case of you preferring a lump of sugar, and not wanting me to have milk and honey?

I actually almost feel like it’d be better to have (if anything) a *minimum* number of squad points that must be spent on upgrades... something (arbitrarily) like 25%. I feel like that actually lends itself to more interesting listbuilding. Though again, I’d love to hear what the issue is with Just keeping the status quo.

17 hours ago, Cpt ObVus said:

I would like to add to the chorus of voices wondering what, exactly, you find objectionable about heavily upgraded ships.

I just posted a poll about a concept. Im not an FFG employee who is going to take your toys away because of a forum post. Lighten up. Dont worry. Same with when I say Worlds 2021 should be hyperspace only. I think it should be that doesnt mean its going to happen. All this is a mostly pointless idea suggested on the internet to motivate discussion about 2.0 and challenge something I don't fully understand. I am interested in anything that will make Extended and Hyper more compelling two player games.

Basically, I dont view all available combination of all upgrades accessible to a ship as something that should be set in stone. From my perspective full list building options do not automatically improve the quality of gameplay. A huge portion of the time the full options actually take away from in game strategy, rather than add to it.

Some examples:

Vader should have to choose between the following:

• Equip Burners
  • Get a fully mobile devastating i6 boost barrel roll ship that can boss the end game.
  • Remove the need to range control properly against other i6s to get Target Locks
  • Allow for k-turn boosts and escape roots over and through obstacles
• Equip Passive Sensors
  • To avoid having to choose actions properly when facing other i6s moving last.
  • Solve for the "hard" counter that Holo represents
  • Prevent risk of being arc dodged in general
• Equip Precog
  • To change the direction of your selected dial options
  • Become a fully mobile i6 with the boost action
  • Have access to extremely effective swarm counter options

Whisper should have to choose between the following:

• Equip Passive Sensors
  • To gain the target lock action to set up fully modified attacks on future turns
  • Keep pressure on i5s and i6s moving last and worry less about having to bid
• Equip Fifth Bro
  • To worry less about being locked
  • To have access to Focus Evade Evade Force when defending against multiple shots
  • To stack crits on opponents

Boba should have to choose between the following: ( Probably would require revisiting some title costs )

• Equip Slave 1
  • Avoiding having to set your dial against anything that moves before you
  • Turn Boba into an even more effective arc dodging machine
  • Enhance Boba's arc coverage to nearly 360 coverage
• Equip Maul
  • Add 2 force charges to combine with infinite rerolls at R1.
  • Worry less about bumping.
  • Open up R3 Target Lock actions for full mod attacks and 3 tokens to defend at range.

Vultures should have to choose between the following

• Equip Struts
  • To turn Obstacles into friends
  • Flip the script on normal "anti swarm" engagements that leverage obstacle strategy
• Equip Probes or Relays
  • To help out the entire squad with Locks or more Tokens etc.
• Equip Ordinance or Discord Missiles
  • To allow for alpha strikes but sacrifice access to the above with each Vulture having to specialize

Big picture I think players take for granted that they should be able to use all the upgrades FFG assigned to a Ship, just because its printed that way and it feels necessary to keep up with everything else. While I really like that upgrades can fundamentally alter gameplay, I question how much they should be allowed to alter gameplay since it creates a nearly impossible task for the developers to manage year to year and ends up leading to players trying to chase an upgrades arms race they already volunteered to lose. I dont think its possible to control the card pool with point adjustments alone, mostly true for Hyperspace to even with its already heavily limited card pool.

In particular I believe 1 upgrade limits on ships that already have built in access to their equivalents via significant pilot/ship/init/statline options would improve the quality of gameplay overall. Mainly because it would keep them significantly more vulnerable to in game counter tactics from opponents and put greater emphasis on player choices in game. They would be forced to get by with less. Thats the entire point of the suggestion.

Intent should be to force players to make difficult choices in all phases of the game including list building. That gives FFG more space to play in to visibly manipulate the game with available cards. Doesn't have to be pilot wide 1 upgrade limits though I think it should be in some case. I can see why even the suggestion of this would outrage people who play on the kitchen table or come from other miniature game backgrounds. Its just what I threw out to start the discussion. One Upgrade limits for some of the ships and 2 upgrade limits for things like the Deci/VCX/Yv666/Faclon etc. would probably work better. Could even allow Non-Boba Firesprays access to 2 upgrades instead of just the one. I think if you really sit down and look at what happens to your list builder with 1-2 upgrade limits its alot less restrictive than it initially sounds.

I think the restrictions on upgrade access needs to be significant enough to have a real impact on the quality of in game decisions and to keep ship/upgrade point costs in reasonable ranges long term. Forcing players to have to pick only 1 i5/i6 Ace is similar in spirit and something that would add alot more to in game decision making than the vast majority of players are probably willing to admit.

25 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Vader should have to choose between the following:

• Equip Burners
  • Get a fully mobile devastating i6 boost barrel roll ship that can boss the end game.
  • Remove the need to range control properly against other i6s to get Target Locks
  • Allow for k-turn boosts and escape roots over and through obstacles
• Equip Passive Sensors
  • To avoid having to choose actions properly when facing other i6s moving last.
  • Solve for the "hard" counter that Holo represents
  • Prevent risk of being arc dodged in general
• Equip Precog
  • To change the direction of your selected dial options
  • Become a fully mobile i6 with the boost action
  • Have access to extremely effective swarm counter options

Whisper should have to choose between the following:

• Equip Passive Sensors
  • To gain the target lock action to set up fully modified attacks on future turns
  • Keep pressure on i5s and i6s moving last and worry less about having to bid
• Equip Fifth Bro
  • To worry less about being locked
  • To have access to Focus Evade Evade Force when defending against multiple shots
  • To stack crits on opponents

Boba should have to choose between the following: ( Probably would require revisiting some title costs )

• Equip Slave 1
  • Avoiding having to set your dial against anything that moves before you
  • Turn Boba into an even more effective arc dodging machine
  • Enhance Boba's arc coverage to nearly 360 coverage
• Equip Maul
  • Add 2 force charges to combine with infinite rerolls at R1.
  • Worry less about bumping.
  • Open up R3 Target Lock actions for full mod attacks and 3 tokens to defend at range.

Vultures should have to choose between the following

• Equip Struts
  • To turn Obstacles into friends
  • Flip the script on normal "anti swarm" engagements that leverage obstacle strategy
• Equip Probes or Relays
  • To help out the entire squad with Locks or more Tokens etc.
• Equip Ordinance or Discord Missiles
  • To allow for alpha strikes but sacrifice access to the above with each Vulture having to specialize

I am same team ing this. Targetted things that give a certain chassis too many tools that together, breach a certain power level.

My other team. I am all for dopey combinations, as long as they don't force a meta issue. I'd rather they weren't bad .

What the targets are is an endless discussion, but there are some obvious ones.

32 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

I am same team ing this. Targetted things that give a certain chassis too many tools that together, breach a certain power level.

My other team. I am all for dopey combinations, as long as they don't force a meta issue. I'd rather they weren't bad .

What the targets are is an endless discussion, but there are some obvious ones.

The trick is I don't want to see them hit a ship like the vulture with oppressive point increases in the current environment since of the above examples its by far the least problematic. Thats why denying upgrades to a ton of ships would be needed. Again I dont know the answers...but I do know there is an actual problem with a long list of ships I personally enjoy currently having to many options.

1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

I just posted a poll about a concept. Im not an FFG employee who is going to take your toys away because of a forum post. Lighten up. Dont worry. Same with when I say Worlds 2021 should be hyperspace only. I think it should be that doesnt mean its going to happen. All this is a mostly pointless idea suggested on the internet to motivate discussion about 2.0 and challenge something I don't fully understand. I am interested in anything that will make Extended and Hyper more compelling two player games.

Basically, I dont view all available combination of all upgrades accessible to a ship as something that should be set in stone. From my perspective full list building options do not automatically improve the quality of gameplay. A huge portion of the time the full options actually take away from in game strategy, rather than add to it.

Some examples:

Vader should have to choose between the following:

• Equip Burners
  • Get a fully mobile devastating i6 boost barrel roll ship that can boss the end game.
  • Remove the need to range control properly against other i6s to get Target Locks
  • Allow for k-turn boosts and escape roots over and through obstacles
• Equip Passive Sensors
  • To avoid having to choose actions properly when facing other i6s moving last.
  • Solve for the "hard" counter that Holo represents
  • Prevent risk of being arc dodged in general
• Equip Precog
  • To change the direction of your selected dial options
  • Become a fully mobile i6 with the boost action
  • Have access to extremely effective swarm counter options

Whisper should have to choose between the following:

• Equip Passive Sensors
  • To gain the target lock action to set up fully modified attacks on future turns
  • Keep pressure on i5s and i6s moving last and worry less about having to bid
• Equip Fifth Bro
  • To worry less about being locked
  • To have access to Focus Evade Evade Force when defending against multiple shots
  • To stack crits on opponents

Boba should have to choose between the following: ( Probably would require revisiting some title costs )

• Equip Slave 1
  • Avoiding having to set your dial against anything that moves before you
  • Turn Boba into an even more effective arc dodging machine
  • Enhance Boba's arc coverage to nearly 360 coverage
• Equip Maul
  • Add 2 force charges to combine with infinite rerolls at R1.
  • Worry less about bumping.
  • Open up R3 Target Lock actions for full mod attacks and 3 tokens to defend at range.

Vultures should have to choose between the following

• Equip Struts
  • To turn Obstacles into friends
  • Flip the script on normal "anti swarm" engagements that leverage obstacle strategy
• Equip Probes or Relays
  • To help out the entire squad with Locks or more Tokens etc.
• Equip Ordinance or Discord Missiles
  • To allow for alpha strikes but sacrifice access to the above with each Vulture having to specialize

Big picture I think players take for granted that they should be able to use all the upgrades FFG assigned to a Ship, just because its printed that way and it feels necessary to keep up with everything else. While I really like that upgrades can fundamentally alter gameplay, I question how much they should be allowed to alter gameplay since it creates a nearly impossible task for the developers to manage year to year and ends up leading to players trying to chase an upgrades arms race they already volunteered to lose. I dont think its possible to control the card pool with point adjustments alone, mostly true for Hyperspace to even with its already heavily limited card pool.

In particular I believe 1 upgrade limits on ships that already have built in access to their equivalents via significant pilot/ship/init/statline options would improve the quality of gameplay overall. Mainly because it would keep them significantly more vulnerable to in game counter tactics from opponents and put greater emphasis on player choices in game. They would be forced to get by with less. Thats the entire point of the suggestion.

Intent should be to force players to make difficult choices in all phases of the game including list building. That gives FFG more space to play in to visibly manipulate the game with available cards. Doesn't have to be pilot wide 1 upgrade limits though I think it should be in some case. I can see why even the suggestion of this would outrage people who play on the kitchen table or come from other miniature game backgrounds. Its just what I threw out to start the discussion. One Upgrade limits for some of the ships and 2 upgrade limits for things like the Deci/VCX/Yv666/Faclon etc. would probably work better. Could even allow Non-Boba Firesprays access to 2 upgrades instead of just the one. I think if you really sit down and look at what happens to your list builder with 1-2 upgrade limits its alot less restrictive than it initially sounds.

I think the restrictions on upgrade access needs to be significant enough to have a real impact on the quality of in game decisions and to keep ship/upgrade point costs in reasonable ranges long term. Forcing players to have to pick only 1 i5/i6 Ace is similar in spirit and something that would add alot more to in game decision making than the vast majority of players are probably willing to admit.

As a one off format it’s not bad honestly. I’ve done tournaments and such where there is only one upgrade allowed. It was interesting but not terribly different from any other format.

The real issue is it doesn’t do much other than shift where someone puts emphasis on the list building.

Honestly, if you want to really make things interesting Force people to use their points. There is very little reason any list cannot get to 198-200 with pricing on upgrades being what they are. So you must use all available points. It removes the bid and now forces a more all comers list as people will have to adjust builds to ensure points are used and if they run out of slots to backfill points they have to start tearing away to bring in another ship which then changes a list quite a bit.

In my opinion X-wing is made much worse by the tension of upgrades and the base ship, more than upgrades existing.

Upgrades, especially in cases where you have legitimate, difficult choices, make the game better, flat out. This is a listbuilding game, meaning a huge part of the appeal is discovery and creativity. However, currently the game is in a state where a lot of interesting or expressive options are priced poorly to keep the game 'about flying' so your list can't be about accomplishing something out of a relatively generic 'shoot them till they are dead and either evade arcs/avoid having your arcs evaded.'

Like almost every top tier list in X-wing has, in TCG terms, been a 'value' or 'zoo' list: Purely about efficiency. And when that isn't the case, such as Handbrake Han which was a combo list, it was oriented around total non-interactivity in a value situation (Han was chosen above other pilots because he had an absurdly stacked value ability).

It is fine these lists are good, but as a result it renders a staggering amount of upgrades pretty unusable, meaning that X-wing has very few moving parts. You essentially get the list with the best statistical odds with a dense megaship, a small aces list, and then a few swarm variants that mathematically work out via arc coverage, over and over again. I

So the first step is, frankly, buffing jank. It shouldn't be a shockingly bad idea to try to do something wacky like doing control via ion missiles or torps, or utility bombs, or an exotic talent that creates a massive reward state for when your opponent flies a specific way. it shouldn't be a total clown fiesta, but you need to create more scenarios for people to leverage advantage on the board than just raw fire arcs and dice efficiency or we are never going to move past I6 pilots with tons of passive modding or so many people attacking that you just statistically kill everything. Every single upgrade with a cool ability that makes you think "I want to use this" doesn't have to be top tier, but you need to like... actually have a shot at using it, or else that upgrade may as well not exist. I have talked to a few people who said, unironically, "you don't want upgrades to be good in X-wing, they are bad on purpose" and it baffles me. I get 1.0 was bad, but the problem upgrades in 1.0 weren't jank, it was the raw mechanical upgrades that removed intricate elements from the game, not... intricate situational upgrades that require setup or you to build your list around them.

The other major issue is that upgrades are just not a good way to customize ships or make different ships feel different because of how the points system works. Either the ship is already efficient without upgrades, and thus adding upgrades only increases its value, or the ship isn't, and your throwing good points after bad. This is extremely problematic for ships intended to be upgraded to be functional: with rare exceptions such as the Rebel Y wing you are in a position that making it worth upgrading a ship at all means the ship already has to be so good you could probably just fly a naked swarm and do better, or if its a large ship use it as a points fortress.

This really hurts a lot of cool ship designs and concepts, for example the RZ-1 A wing being a double talent ship is really cool and invites a lot of creativity but the RZ-1 A isn't really worth flying naked (Jake Aside) and thus dumping 5-10 points in it for some wacky EPT combo just... makes no sense, you are paying X-wing prices for an A-wing what are you doing? And if you reduce the cost of the talent you just make them OP on already good ships, so your in a bind.

Most Wargames have variable costs, or bundling discounts for characters, which serves as an extra axis of balance that helps prevent this binary 'is it good without upgrades? If not why would I use it at ALL?' question, and I think this is ultimately the issue in X-wing, the 'resolution' of upgrade costs is too low because upgrading say... Boba Fett is VERY different than upgrading a headhunter, yet because talents can't 'tell' and having talents have unique costs per pilot outside of universal factors such as initiative (which wouldn't hold true to how good the fundamental chasis is) would be onerous.

I think this increased resolution of how good ships are with upgrades and having ships be defined by you customizing them could be accomplished rather simply in X-wing by giving certain ships 'free' points for upgrades of specific types. This allows you to effectively lower the price of upgrading a ship that is intended to use upgrades to reach efficiency without having to reduce its price so that it is swarm capable naked. The RZ-1 would never be worth running double talents on, no matter how fun whatever combo you wanted to run is, unless you reduced its price to the point it basically replaces the Headhunter. But what if its price stayed the same (or even went up 1 point) but as part of buying the RZ-1 you got 2 free points to spend on talents or missiles on that ship? Suddenly you HAVE to think 'ok, what talents can I put on this thing to make it do work?' Suddenly it becomes viable to have cheap talents on this trash ship, and if hypothetically crack shot left hyperspace suddenly the defining feature of the RZ-1 is that its a slightly more expensive swarm ship that is doing something unique to the ship, and double talent stacking makes more sense. You could even vary it by pilot: Jake doesn't need this, but the Green needs it even more!

This could also work on a slot by slot basis, and if you absolutely had to certain highly used cards could get a tag that made them not compatible with these free points, to ensure any ship with a talent points pool didn't just take crack shot, or any ship with a bomb pool didn't take Seismic. This allows these points to focus more on making the ship feel unique with its own identity rather than just making it so these ships are just more efficient at forcing damage through in volleys.

The benefit over just discounts is two fold: Firstly because its free points you can't ignore it, you HAVE to mod the ship in some way which makes it so you can't get the ship's price down without it, it makes the ship on some level 'about' that upgrade (so that ship views upgrades almost like the 0 point rebel configs: the game is more interesting that X-wings effectively are forced to buy a 'discounted' S-foils, because the option to remove it for even a few points would be clearly optimal and make the ship's identity worse), and it reduces the mental strain on the player: It is way easier to say 'oh, this ship has free points' rather than 'oh, this ship pays 1 less point for all upgrades of type X.' Also is easier to integrate into the points list (It could just be its own column, a number and a letter tag to indicate what the points are for) and list builders (When you select the ship you would just see X/Y free upgrade points remaining').

I sincerely think a lot of the angst about upgrades isn't actually that upgrades are bad, so much as how they are optimally used in the current points system (never upgrade cheap ships with anything more than the cheapest of upgrades, use upgrades to points fortress which itself is very boring and its own really large problem with the X-wing rules that has to be adressed, because it encourages you to play X-wing as little as possible and deny all interaction or positioning games) so you only really see upgrades on extremely degenerate lists. All limiting upgrades to a "3 per list" system would do is make droid swarms even more overwhelming.

TL;DR: Buff jank, make it so trashy ships have more incentive to use upgrades rather than removing upgrades.

20 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

I just posted a poll about a concept. Im not an FFG employee who is going to take your toys away because of a forum post. Lighten up. Dont worry. Same with when I say Worlds 2021 should be hyperspace only. I think it should be that doesnt mean its going to happen. All this is a mostly pointless idea suggested on the internet to motivate discussion about 2.0 and challenge something I don't fully understand. I am interested in anything that will make Extended and Hyper more compelling two player games.

Basically, I dont view all available combination of all upgrades accessible to a ship as something that should be set in stone. From my perspective full list building options do not automatically improve the quality of gameplay. A huge portion of the time the full options actually take away from in game strategy, rather than add to it.

Some examples:

Vader should have to choose between the following:

• Equip Burners
  • Get a fully mobile devastating i6 boost barrel roll ship that can boss the end game.
  • Remove the need to range control properly against other i6s to get Target Locks
  • Allow for k-turn boosts and escape roots over and through obstacles
• Equip Passive Sensors
  • To avoid having to choose actions properly when facing other i6s moving last.
  • Solve for the "hard" counter that Holo represents
  • Prevent risk of being arc dodged in general
• Equip Precog
  • To change the direction of your selected dial options
  • Become a fully mobile i6 with the boost action
  • Have access to extremely effective swarm counter options

Whisper should have to choose between the following:

• Equip Passive Sensors
  • To gain the target lock action to set up fully modified attacks on future turns
  • Keep pressure on i5s and i6s moving last and worry less about having to bid
• Equip Fifth Bro
  • To worry less about being locked
  • To have access to Focus Evade Evade Force when defending against multiple shots
  • To stack crits on opponents

Boba should have to choose between the following: ( Probably would require revisiting some title costs )

• Equip Slave 1
  • Avoiding having to set your dial against anything that moves before you
  • Turn Boba into an even more effective arc dodging machine
  • Enhance Boba's arc coverage to nearly 360 coverage
• Equip Maul
  • Add 2 force charges to combine with infinite rerolls at R1.
  • Worry less about bumping.
  • Open up R3 Target Lock actions for full mod attacks and 3 tokens to defend at range.

Vultures should have to choose between the following

• Equip Struts
  • To turn Obstacles into friends
  • Flip the script on normal "anti swarm" engagements that leverage obstacle strategy
• Equip Probes or Relays
  • To help out the entire squad with Locks or more Tokens etc.
• Equip Ordinance or Discord Missiles
  • To allow for alpha strikes but sacrifice access to the above with each Vulture having to specialize

Big picture I think players take for granted that they should be able to use all the upgrades FFG assigned to a Ship, just because its printed that way and it feels necessary to keep up with everything else. While I really like that upgrades can fundamentally alter gameplay, I question how much they should be allowed to alter gameplay since it creates a nearly impossible task for the developers to manage year to year and ends up leading to players trying to chase an upgrades arms race they already volunteered to lose. I dont think its possible to control the card pool with point adjustments alone, mostly true for Hyperspace to even with its already heavily limited card pool.

In particular I believe 1 upgrade limits on ships that already have built in access to their equivalents via significant pilot/ship/init/statline options would improve the quality of gameplay overall. Mainly because it would keep them significantly more vulnerable to in game counter tactics from opponents and put greater emphasis on player choices in game. They would be forced to get by with less. Thats the entire point of the suggestion.

Intent should be to force players to make difficult choices in all phases of the game including list building. That gives FFG more space to play in to visibly manipulate the game with available cards. Doesn't have to be pilot wide 1 upgrade limits though I think it should be in some case. I can see why even the suggestion of this would outrage people who play on the kitchen table or come from other miniature game backgrounds. Its just what I threw out to start the discussion. One Upgrade limits for some of the ships and 2 upgrade limits for things like the Deci/VCX/Yv666/Faclon etc. would probably work better. Could even allow Non-Boba Firesprays access to 2 upgrades instead of just the one. I think if you really sit down and look at what happens to your list builder with 1-2 upgrade limits its alot less restrictive than it initially sounds.

I think the restrictions on upgrade access needs to be significant enough to have a real impact on the quality of in game decisions and to keep ship/upgrade point costs in reasonable ranges long term. Forcing players to have to pick only 1 i5/i6 Ace is similar in spirit and something that would add alot more to in game decision making than the vast majority of players are probably willing to admit.

I’m not particularly worried, nor do I feel I need to lighten up. I’ve asked hypothetical questions like this before, particularly in the Armada forums, and hey, sometimes people really don’t like your idea. I guess this time it’s me that really doesn’t like your idea (don’t mistake this as a personal attack; it’s not!).

I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t see the need to prevent Vader or Guri or Fett or whatever powerful ship has gotten your gundark from being able to equip a certain package of upgrades that makes them really awesome; it may bug you, but to me, it’s a big part of the fun of the game, and I find the idea of removing that fun bit abhorrent.

Vader SHOULD be able to dance his way around two or three lesser pilots. Not only does it make thematic sense, but you paid for a pilot who can do that sort of thing. If it’s too powerful, the designers have built a balancing system directly into the game, with the adjustable points costs.

And you still aren’t really addressing what your suggestion does to pilots and ships that really need 4-6 upgrades to be worth using, like StarWings. I REALLY like that style of ship. Why would anyone want to remove it?

Upgrades are not, in and of themselves, overpowered. If they make nasty combos with certain pilots, perhaps your issue is with that pilot. I haven’t yet come across a single upgrade in this game that is an auto-include on any ship that can take it. Upgrades that seem to be auto-includes with particular pilots? Sure, a few. But that points to a pretty well-balanced set of upgrades, with perhaps a couple of pilots who work REALLY well with some of those upgrades (Vader/Passive Sensors is pretty much a no-brainer, but combos like that happen in most customizable games).

Finally, as someone else just pointed out, all your idea would accomplish would be to push the game toward pilots/ships that are more self-sufficient. All of the Force-empowered pilots would see an uptick in popularity, because they already come with an “upgrade” of sorts, and can cheat the limit. Fearless Fangs, and other efficient ships that really only need one upgrade, would become even better, while ships that are really only good when you Voltron a bunch of upgrades onto them, become worse, if not totally unplayable. The “problems” you think you might be fixing just get moved to other places.