47 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

While this helps, I don’t feel like it fully answers my questions. While this round of Hyperspace is looked at favorably by you and others, how are you so sure that it will remain consistent with that? We have an example of one in how well they can curate a “diverse meta”. Is that really all we need to throw all are eggs into the new Hyperspace basket?

As a new point, I rather disagree with your take on a “correctly priced Extended”. If things are correctly priced, then things should be in balance, meaning a thoughtfully constructed list of any archetype has a shot at victory. Yes, you can have lists that are seen more because more people fly them, but in this theoretical situation where everything is correctly priced, that doesn’t mean you have to follow the trend. If people like flying triple aces and you can field a list of your preference with equal chance of victory, why put limits on something just because it’s popular? This is also assuming that no new content is coming to shake things up. While the OT factions are seen as “done” by the developers, we can still see pilot packs to add some new options and faces to the meta. We could go down a whole rabbit hole about the possibilities of card packs that could add list options that could inject some new spice into the Extended Meta.

I don’t type this with the intent to say that Hyperspace is bad and we shouldn’t use it. I am quite pleased with it thus far and am excited to see how it goes. But, due to its variable nature and limited data on how each wave stacks up on balance (including list diversity), I am very hesitant to embrace it as the primary way forward. On top of that, while there are many who are very much in support of Hyperspace, there are also many who still prefer Extended. Why remove the preferred play style of a portion of the player base as a competitive option when there are ways to satisfy both player bases? Even if your surmise about a correctly priced Extended comes true, why remove it when we aren’t there yet?

• I honestly have no idea how to answer any questions you're asking, and they kinda feel unanswerable. I feel like I'm being asked questions of style, and asked to show data about why people should have certain feelings.
• I can't possibly demonstrate that HS will continue to be good, same way I can't demonstrate Extended will. It's literally impossible. It's obvious that FFG could completely ruin any part of this game at any time. There's no guarantee. I think it stands a better shot with Hyperspace, since parts of busted combos can be removed, if they don't feel like repricing them.
• As to why we should value a changing meta, or put limits on stuff which gets too popular, well, mostly because there seem to be enough people who want it. Could we imagine a two-year stretch of no price adjustments in Extended, but if Extended was the only format?
  • I'm not sure I can how to explain why I think a shifting metagame and enforced variety are good. I think it's good to stop things from being the same. Maybe some folks disagree. Shrug.
• I also think you're wrong about a fair Extended. There will always be ways to build bad lists by putting awkward combinations together or just tossing on a tonne of low-value upgrades (fair upgrades aren't always great on everyone!). Same goes in reverse. People have all sorts of motivations in the lists they build, and we know there's good stuff that gets underplayed.
• As to just keeping things interesting with new releases and pilot packs, that brings the danger of power creep. That was the 1e method to shake things up, and it worked badly.
  • Best example from H&A was Fifth Brother, whose ability works with Missiles (Seventh Sister's doesn't) and who is inexplicably a point cheaper.
• And when it comes down to it, I don't think there are better options. Do we want mass nerfs of anything popular? I think that'd ultimately be worse.
• As to HS as a primary way forward, here's what I'd love to see. Seems like there's kind of four major tiers of competitive X-Wing, plus casual play.
  • Worlds - I'd prefer this to be Hyperspace. It's a tone-setter.
    • Large Events - the System Opens and Nationals and so forth. About half-and-half HS and Extended.
      • Store Championships - annual larger events that are still local. For most players, probably the biggest events they'll attend. Hyperspace.
        • Small Kit events - standard Saturday tourneys. About half-and-half HS and Extended.
          • For game night at the FLGS, that's wicked trivial. Just play some of each, and navigate that with friends. All gaming is social. If soneone only likes one format, the best way for them to convince others to play them in it is to join their fellow gamers in *their* chosen format.

I'm still not sure I answered @SabineKey 's question(s); if not, please ask in 20 words or less and I'll try again. But as @theBitterFig said, it may not be possible to give a satisfying answer to some of those questions.

Ultimately... uhhh... choose one:

1. Continue with cautions, iterative changes to Extended to continue trying to uplift underutilized pilots while tamping down on OP or NPE stuff.
2. Grant a radical, across-the-board discount to underutilized stuff with the intent to bring it up to speed with current powerhouses, and see where that gets us. (prediction: that will be rough)
3. Have a separate format that's curated so that stuff that's very OP or UP in Extended has a 2nd, more fine-tuned role in major tournaments (Hyperspace as it's used now), so Extended can be balanced toward normal play instead of tournaments. Edit: Can't cover everything at once, but offers a rolling meta to keep things fresh without having to regularly blow up the careful changes being made to Extended.
4. Introduce radical changes to the rules for how stuff is flown to take an edge off of dominant strategies and/or boost flagging ones. Unpredictable consequences abound but presumably it's necessary to make the meta move in a meaningful direction? Examples include:
   • a) Boom Owl's proposed heavy points increases across the board to aces to change how their lists can even be structured.
   • b) Rules changes to core mechanics similar to what were applied to tractor beams. Either apply a nerf to a core mechanic in order to bring a dominant strategy (e.g. aces) in line by changing how it works, or to support underpowered ships or archetypes by changing how they work. Scum players can tell you how such a nerf to the core feels, btw.
   • c) Built-in Upgrade Points: Change listbuilding with baked-in upgrade points (don't make the ship cheaper so people just fly lots of them naked; instead make the first X points spent on upgrades for that ship free). This has been discussed plenty above.
   • d) Ban lists that ban certain pilots/upgrades outright in Extended, and/or restrict which pilots and/or upgrades can be fielded together in a list. This is complicated and rife with enemies, but it's what other games seem to do to manage dominant combos.
   • e) Become religious and pray to Vader Space Dad or Old Man Kenobi or whatever that things just work out.
5. Roll with the punches and work things out locally in casual play, as so many people do: "That's too strong, fly something else", "Yes you can fly 232 points vs my 200, I don't see a problem with your list and it looks like a ton of fun."

Edit2: Options 1, 3, 5 are what are already happening. 2 and 4 are frequently discussed -- proposed and pushed back against in the forums -- but FFG hasn't hinted at adopting any of them at this time.

In a game this complex there are no easy answers, and every choice has a price.

2 minutes ago, Wazat said:

e) Become religious and pray to Vader Space Dad or Old Man Kenobi or whatever that things just work out.

BTW you'd be surprised at how many of us have chosen this as our answer, throwing up our hands and just saying "whatever, I love the game and I'm just gonna keep playing casually and assuming it'll get better". Space Sabine, Talonbane, and Sabacc are popular off-meta choices. Fel's Wrath.

For those of you wondering, I pray to Space Torani who is a real deity who answers x-wing casual prayers and I will fight you .

49 minutes ago, dezzmont said:

It is hard to imagine doing things to lift these pilots up and put other pilots closer to them without their points getting very silly, because breakpoints are so critical on any list besides Aces. Because upgrades tend to not be 'worth the points' as a rule unless they are on an ace, it is hard to meaningfully buff these pilots so that 4 of them are better than 3 aces with upgrades without reducing their points so you can cram in another ship, and then your just playing a bunch of naked middle tier pilots rather than a bunch of naked I1s and I2 generics, so unless their abilities are very dynamic its just changing what the swarm looks like.

Pretty sure I don't agree with this. Or, at least, it remains to be proven. OG Rebel Bunker won games - each upgrade you take away from trip aces, or every time you force them to downgrade one pilot to a lower init, less force, or less mobile platform, makes it easier for 4ship to catch one of them, or makes it more impactful when they do.

I'd very massively prefer raising aces to lowering 4ship, though. We had bunker once - that end of the power curve is "get all the best pilots and every upgrade you want". Current 4ship has many more tradeoffs in listbuilding, and I generally feel the power level of extended is too high (and has been) rather than just right or too low.

17 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

• As to why we should value a changing meta, or put limits on stuff which gets too popular, well, mostly because there seem to be enough people who want it. Could we imagine a two-year stretch of no price adjustments in Extended, but if Extended was the only format?

I can imagine a 6 year stretch, it was awful

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

• I honestly have no idea how to answer any questions you're asking, and they kinda feel unanswerable. I feel like I'm being asked questions of style, and asked to show data about why people should have certain feelings.

Then I apologize for not being able to articulate my questions in a way that properly conveys my meaning. However, even if I was unable to properly word my questions, I still feel you provided the answer I was ultimately seeking.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

• I can't possibly demonstrate that HS will continue to be good, same way I can't demonstrate Extended will. It's literally impossible. It's obvious that FFG could completely ruin any part of this game at any time. There's no guarantee. I think it stands a better shot with Hyperspace, since parts of busted combos can be removed, if they don't feel like repricing them.

This. What I get from this is that you advocate for things to be more Hyperspace based on hope in the potential in the format. I can understand that. But, for me, hope is not enough to justify the opportunity cost that would come from pushing Hyperspace to be the primary (or only) competitive format.
While completely accurate information about how a format will preform is impossible, it is possible to look at indicators to better guess how well something can do. One big one is historical data. Let’s say we have the conversation in a year’s time. At that point, you could not only make a case for Hyperspace’s potential, but also (possibly) back it up with pointing out how well its done the past 3 cycles.

And that’s why I’m against such a push to Hyperspace at this time. Come more experience, I may agree with you. But until we see how well FFG uses the tools Hyperspace gives them (because I still have worries that their vision for the game isn’t the same as those who advocate for Hyperspace, and that things some consider “OP” aren’t necessarily off the table for rotation in), I would prefer to keep Extended in the competitive scene, where things might not be perfect, but I still have fun and enjoy a game better than 1.0.

Oh, and a clarification.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

• As to why we should value a changing meta, or put limits on stuff which gets too popular, well, mostly because there seem to be enough people who want it. Could we imagine a two-year stretch of no price adjustments in Extended, but if Extended was the only format?
  • I'm not sure I can how to explain why I think a shifting metagame and enforced variety are good. I think it's good to stop things from being the same. Maybe some folks disagree. Shrug.

None of my points was intended to bring this into question. I understand this. Variety is the spice of life and all. I was just pointing out that in your example (which I should have stated I think is impossible for several reasons) Extended wouldn’t be devoid of variation because individual tests play a part. Sometimes you want something new. Sometimes, you want an old favorite.
I’m just trying to advocate for a middle ground where people can play what they want competitively. Hyperspace or Extended.

@Wazat While i again appreciate the reply, I unfortunately believe we are coming from different standards and information. i did mess up on what Fig said, and apologize for that.

Other things like you talking about FFG pushing Hyperspace that indicates a difference in perception. As I recall, the last adjustments to the official tournament structure actually moved Hyperspace to a somewhat lesser emphasized place among the formats (memory reinforced by several participants in this thread being upset by it), and Worlds Continues to be extended. This doesn’t seem to me like FFG is pushing it that much. Just utilizing it as something along side Extended as a competitive format.

But, even though I feel we are talking past each other on some points, you also (like Fig in the post I quoted in my last post) seem to have provided the piece of information I was missing in understanding the fervor in which some people advocate for Hyperspace. I did not understand the magnitude of their hope for the format. And I don’t think that is a bad thing. Hope is import. And while I don’t have as great a hope for the format, I still have hope for it. I just want some experience to go along with that hope before I can agree that we should place more emphasis than half in it. In a year, we will have had three cycles to better evaluate how well those tools are being used.

And finally, the numbered options you provided. I personally ascribe to an amalgam answer, where both Hyperspace and Extended have their own competitive events in equal quantities, so that people can play whatever strikes their fancy. Heck, the pie in the sky dream is that they even get their own Worlds level event to strive for. Not an easy task, but one I still believe is worth it. Why? Because I have friends on either side of this debate of Extended vs Hyperspace. And I would rather go for an option that didn’t push either camp out.

2 hours ago, dezzmont said:

(ex: In HS Zoo-Warlock decks are ALWAYS strong decks, and in some sets they are the best, but even though they are always in the upper tiers their position inside them changes dramatically by set)

(ex: Druids in Hearthstone almost always were in the top 3 decks because the fundamental structure of what druids did was way too strong and advantaged them regardless of the metagame, so they had to have their core set reworked and most of the tools that were too 'meta independent' removed). Aces seem to lean more druid (fundamental tools of all aces lists are too strong, or more likely non-aces lists are too structurally disadvantaged by listbuilding and needing to balance the game around ship breakpoints which Aces don't due to the fact aces have a price ceiling rather than a price floor) than zoo-warlock.

If we're going Hearthstone analogies, I've been "delete the basic and classic sets" for ages. Whether or not it's too strong, it's too boring. Maybe keep a few cards here and there, rotate in a few old balanced things from Naxx and TGT and other old sets to fill up the baseline, but the attempt to keep an evergreen classic set just seems like a mistake.

The Priest revision is a great step in the right direction.

2 hours ago, dezzmont said:

This is essentially the solution they tried and it didn't really work without removing the aces entirely from hyperspace. I can assume that if they removed one ace list, that another ace list would just be dominant (as, structurally, we have good data that X-wing favors aces, hence the talk about changing the structure of either list building or the rules), and if they removed all ace lists, there probably would be a player revolt.

I'd argue that they *didn't* remove the aces entirely from Hyperspace. Plo, Obi, Duchess, sorta-kinda-Vader, Fenn Rau, *cough* Boba *cough*, Han, Poe, Tallie, Zizi, Kylo, Vonreg, Holo, Blackout.

Maybe I missed a few. But it strikes me that that lineup seems *A LOT* better for an ace player than some of the revolt-worthy suggestions that get tossed about.

3 hours ago, dezzmont said:

This also runs counter to the idea that HS is a fix for the problem. HS and limit formats bias towards fixing the OP, because they are about fixing the tournament scene for competitive players. I think it is fair to say a lot of casual players play extended (How else am I going to have my fanfictiony list of Dash-Jyn-Kyle-Cassian, Hmmmm?) and thus just leaving the problem to 'rot' in extended isn't going to remove the BS for the majority of players who think it is BS.

That is the tricky thing about rotation lists: Pro-players don't like too many rotations and bans to powerful things in a given rotation because they want to be able to practice in an environment they know, but rotations aren't good for removing problems you just don't want to crush a new player's face because new players tend not to play in limited environments, so in the end rotations are more about metagame shakeups than legit balancing.

Half of this is my point. HS can shake a stale game, while letting balance stay separate.

However, there's something to consider here. Maybe Hyperspace won't be effective at achieving what I want it to. Worth pondering, and if it's true, maybe there ought to be some other direction.

Thing is, I haven't heard anything that's really seemed better than HS.

1 hour ago, SabineKey said:

None of my points was intended to bring this into question. I understand this. Variety is the spice of life and all. I was just pointing out that in your example (which I should have stated I think is impossible for several reasons) Extended wouldn’t be devoid of variation because individual tests play a part. Sometimes you want something new. Sometimes, you want an old favorite.

I’m just trying to advocate for a middle ground where people can play what they want competitively. Hyperspace or Extended.

You keep saying "primary (or only) competitive format" when, several times in the posts you're quoting, I've argued for a bit under half the tournaments to be Extended.

1 hour ago, SabineKey said:

This. What I get from this is that you advocate for things to be more Hyperspace based on hope in the potential in the format. I can understand that. But, for me, hope is not enough to justify the opportunity cost that would come from pushing Hyperspace to be the primary (or only) competitive format.
While completely accurate information about how a format will preform is impossible, it is possible to look at indicators to better guess how well something can do. One big one is historical data. Let’s say we have the conversation in a year’s time. At that point, you could not only make a case for Hyperspace’s potential, but also (possibly) back it up with pointing out how well its done the past 3 cycles.

And that’s why I’m against such a push to Hyperspace at this time. Come more experience, I may agree with you. But until we see how well FFG uses the tools Hyperspace gives them (because I still have worries that their vision for the game isn’t the same as those who advocate for Hyperspace, and that things some consider “OP” aren’t necessarily off the table for rotation in), I would prefer to keep Extended in the competitive scene, where things might not be perfect, but I still have fun and enjoy a game better than 1.0.

What the everloving ****.

Here's a new idea. There's no data about the new idea. Let's abandon the new idea before we can collect any data. But the data is the most important part.

1 hour ago, SabineKey said:

Let’s say we have the conversation in a year’s time. At that point, you could not only make a case for Hyperspace’s potential, but also (possibly) back it up with pointing out how well its done the past 3 cycles.

That'd never work in any practical. It'd be like saying "let's have a discussion in a years time on whether Quickbuild is the superior competitive format." If FFG wants a Hyperspace to exist at all, the test is to make it a really important format for a few rotations (and this rotation already has a huge asterisk), and you see how it works. They couldn't do something like "oh, we don't care about it, maybe a few of you will play it, maybe in a year or two we'll think about it," because then HS is dead before it could exist. If they want to test a new format, they actually have to test it.

It's just silly to get hung up on data. It's not like FFG runs their own ListFortress to keep track of everything, and have detailed algorithms for adjusting costs.

But it's not just some wild notion of hope in Hyperspace, and speculation that things might be OK in the future.

It's because I can look in a squadbuilder, and play around. 7B Aces are gone, so Republic is a whole new faction. The CLT Jedi Knight rises. (But folks who love Jedi Aces can still fly CLT aces. Hey, win-win). Searswarm had been essentially solved for CIS, and now folks are putting Vultures and Hyenas together in different ways. Seems like a large part of why the Scyk has been on the rise in Scum is because there aren't old familiars to stick with. Inertia can be a potent drug, and a ship which a few folks out there already liked is now really quite good. Is there too much Boba? Sure, there's too much Boba. Crack Shot is gone. We actually see a little Daredevil now here and there. It's worth noting that the limited options in upgrades also force folks to come up with new ideas.

Could it happen in Extended? A surge in creativity? Maybe, but probably not. We saw a tonne of folks stick with essentially the same archetypes and ship combos through the year prior to the January update. If you're really thirsty for Data, there is Extended from that whole year. And a lot of it looked pretty same-y. There's always going to be one player with some oddball Scum list, but so much is just slight variations. This pair of 7B vs that, whether Ric or Plo is #3, etc etc.

@theBitterFig Sir, I believe you are misconstruing what I said.

For the first part. That part is my bad, and I am sorry.

Moving on, we are getting data on Hyperspace (or would, but the current global situation makes events tricky) as it is supported in official FFG tournament events. I never implied that it shouldn’t be. I’m just not convinced that it should be given more at the expense of Extended. If you are willing, you might check out my last post to @Wazat where I explained what I want to see, which includes a worlds level event for Hyperspace along side Extended. I’m not refusing a new idea by asking for something it can’t accomplish. I’m asking for it to keep going as it is to see if it can bear the weight of the expectations placed upon it. We went whole hog into 2.0, now look at us. Dreaming it was different.

You may be convinced it is worth it, and while I have hopes it is, I am unconvinced.
I sympathize with your listbuilding woes, and the freedom you felt switching to Hyperspace. Where as, I had almost the exact opposite time. It seemed like not long after Hyperspace’s cycle hit, people in my area pretty much had it figured out. Extended still wasn’t perfect, but I had more freedom to play what I wanted.

So, two different perspectives on the same situation. I mean no ill-will towards yours. I hope you feel the same.

5 hours ago, gennataos said:

I don't think Poe end games all that well compared to most other I6s.

It's like his only builds are 73 Standard and Proton Torps, neither of which End-Game well.

In my experience, Resistance has no endgame. It's all Alpha and Mid, and Alpha is basically non-viable / dependant on Torp prices.

I blame it on T70 chassis design being a bad fit for the faction...but that's a forum for another topic (if there was any point in theory-crafting or discussing alternative chassis design, I have a complete redo already mostly on paper, but I digress.)

We have what we have.

@theBitterFig I kind of made a hasty apology in my last post, but that’s not what it should be.

I am very sorry. I misread a quote from you and didn’t catch it until later. I should have been better than that. You have my sincere apology.

4 hours ago, Wazat said:

BTW you'd be surprised at how many of us have chosen this as our answer, throwing up our hands and just saying "whatever, I love the game and I'm just gonna keep playing casually and assuming it'll get better". Space Sabine, Talonbane, and Sabacc are popular off-meta choices. Fel's Wrath.

For those of you wondering, I pray to Space Torani who is a real deity who answers x-wing casual prayers and I will fight you .

My worship goes to our Lord and Saviour Jek Porkins, and none other! 😛

1 hour ago, SabineKey said:

@theBitterFig I kind of made a hasty apology in my last post, but that’s not what it should be.

I am very sorry. I misread a quote from you and didn’t catch it until later. I should have been better than that. You have my sincere apology.

Don't worry about it. I'm frustrated from other stuff. Forgiveness granted, if you want it.

5 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Don't worry about it. I'm frustrated from other stuff. Forgiveness granted, if you want it.

I do. Thank you.

11 hours ago, Bucknife said:

It's like his only builds are 73 Standard and Proton Torps, neither of which End-Game well.

In my experience, Resistance has no endgame. It's all Alpha and Mid, and Alpha is basically non-viable / dependant on Torp prices.

I blame it on T70 chassis design being a bad fit for the faction...but that's a forum for another topic (if there was any point in theory-crafting or discussing alternative chassis design, I have a complete redo already mostly on paper, but I digress.)

They have an end game, but it's the last 250 cuts of a deaths of a thousand cuts from A-Wings.

I'm not certain the it's the T70 that doesn't fit with the faction, but rather the A-Wing, but the A-wing is the best chassis so it feels more like the T70 doesn't fit with it. Most of the faction is a "trade your punches and outlast the opponent" faction, but the A-wings are a strafing hit-and-run ship. I don't know where the Fireball fit yet.

47 minutes ago, 5050Saint said:

They have an end game, but it's the last 250 cuts of a deaths of a thousand cuts from A-Wings.

I'm not certain the it's the T70 that doesn't fit with the faction, but rather the A-Wing, but the A-wing is the best chassis so it feels more like the T70 doesn't fit with it. Most of the faction is a "trade your punches and outlast the opponent" faction, but the A-wings are a strafing hit-and-run ship. I don't know where the Fireball fit yet.

is it time to make the "ban RZ2s" thread?

25 minutes ago, svelok said:

is it time to make the "ban RZ2s" thread?

I'm sure there's one out there to scrounge up!

If there was ever a "nuke this ship because I don't like it, not because it's overpowered" mentality applied to a ship, it's the RZ-2. Yeesh.

34 minutes ago, gennataos said:

If there was ever a "nuke this ship because I don't like it, not because it's overpowered" mentality applied to a ship, it's the RZ-2. Yeesh.

Closest thing (maybe after Boba) to a 360 turret in 2.0, filler-tier prices, 3x i5 pilots, bringing nothing but 5 of them being a viable list, hyper-consistent attacks, and all of that was before they gave one of them a dramatically better version of Whisper's pilot ability!

4 minutes ago, svelok said:

Closest thing (maybe after Boba) to a 360 turret in 2.0, filler-tier prices, 3x i5 pilots, bringing nothing but 5 of them being a viable list, hyper-consistent attacks, and all of that was before they gave one of them a dramatically better version of Whisper's pilot ability!

So, yeah, you don't like the design?

Just now, gennataos said:

So, yeah, you don't like the design?

1 minute ago, svelok said:

I really appreciate him facing the opposite direction. Well played.

2 hours ago, svelok said:

Closest thing (maybe after Boba) to a 360 turret in 2.0, filler-tier prices, 3x i5 pilots, bringing nothing but 5 of them being a viable list, hyper-consistent attacks, and all of that was before they gave one of them a dramatically better version of Whisper's pilot ability!

I honestly don't believe you. You can't actually think that.

14 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I honestly don't believe you. You can't actually think that.

Seems like the sort of thing that can be spun off into a separate thread, instead of fighting the battle here.