The discussion about too much of a good thing made some really good points. It reminds me of something I said, on this forum I believe, about dice though.

I really do hate dice at this point, the turning point being a particular board game night when we played a game where the randomness really did make everyone that miserable. Though, it's not the dice itself, I'll admit. It's the range, the scale of what the random element determines.

Complete success or utter failure determined by a coin flip is not fun. I mean, depending on the stakes, a gambler might enjoy it, but it's not the game you're enjoying at that point but the thrill of the risk itself, regardless of the game.

I find that too many tabletop games have too wide a range of outcomes on too small a number of outcomes on dice.

I don't mind randomness, in fact I actually do enjoy it, when the range is right. "Okay you hit, but how much damage do you do?" is still random, but with a very different context than "Well, you could devastate your opponent, you could do some fair damage, you could miss entirely, or maybe even damage yourself instead." especially when that's spread across, say, a standard d6. The stakes are too high there.

That isn't to say I mean that you should never miss in X-Wing, or any game. I don't need control over randomness, I just need some peace of mind that every roll isn't make or break.

Question.

Why were environments never added to standard play as a default?

It seems like many players would have been amenable to the idea.

11 hours ago, Jokubas said:

The discussion about too much of a good thing made some really good points. It reminds me of something I said, on this forum I believe, about dice though.

I really do hate dice at this point, the turning point being a particular board game night when we played a game where the randomness really did make everyone that miserable. Though, it's not the dice itself, I'll admit. It's the range, the scale of what the random element determines.

Complete success or utter failure determined by a coin flip is not fun. I mean, depending on the stakes, a gambler might enjoy it, but it's not the game you're enjoying at that point but the thrill of the risk itself, regardless of the game.

I find that too many tabletop games have too wide a range of outcomes on too small a number of outcomes on dice.

I don't mind randomness, in fact I actually do enjoy it, when the range is right. "Okay you hit, but how much damage do you do?" is still random, but with a very different context than "Well, you could devastate your opponent, you could do some fair damage, you could miss entirely, or maybe even damage yourself instead." especially when that's spread across, say, a standard d6. The stakes are too high there.

That isn't to say I mean that you should never miss in X-Wing, or any game. I don't need control over randomness, I just need some peace of mind that every roll isn't make or break.

I heard that termed as, "It's not the odds. It's the stakes." $100 pass line bet versus a $2 lotto ticket. Very different odds, very different stakes.

I'm curious why the Nantex was ever considered a good idea while having awareness of the only fun for one player concept. Its entry into the game mechanics around tractor tokens seems centered around only fun for one player.

14 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

I'm curious why the Nantex was ever considered a good idea while having awareness of the only fun for one player concept. Its entry into the game mechanics around tractor tokens seems centered around only fun for one player.

The Tractor token mechanic did feel a bit all over the place, especially after the Nantex arrived. I don't think it's a bad concept per se, but when most other status effects in 2nd edition were reined in (and this includes Tractor tokens at first), it went a bit far with the Nantex, and it feels like as a result of trying to make the ship feel unique.

The problem I had with Tractor tokens is multiple effects stacking through a single token. Reduce agility? Fine. Move opponent's ship? Not so fine, but OK. Both effects? Due to a single token? No. That's not good. Even when you need to use an attack and hit your opponent first (say with the Tractor Beam), stacking effects like that from a single token feels problematic.

The Nantex with Ensnare took that sequence a step further, being able to auto-generate a token which it could use to move itself, then move an opponent's ship, then reduce that ship's agility - that's 3 effects from a single token, with not much in the way of defense against it! Add in Sun Fac's pilot ability for 4 effects... and yeah, that's definitely "only fun for one player" territory.

It feels like this could have been avoided by needing to spend the Tractor token to apply an effect. So if the Nantex uses the Tractor token to move itself, it can't then pass it on to an opponent. If it passes the token to an opponent and moves it, it then can't also reduce it's agility and Sun Face doesn't get the extra dice etc.

2 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:

The problem I had with Tractor tokens is multiple effects stacking through a single token. Reduce agility? Fine. Move opponent's ship? Not so fine, but OK. Both effects? Due to a single token? No. That's not good. Even when you need to use an attack and hit your opponent first (say with the Tractor Beam), stacking effects like that from a single token feels problematic.

I feel the crux of the problem was here. One or the other is fine. Then on top of those Nantex also do this outside of an action or an attack which compound that problem. With a tractor beam cannon, you are at least losing one attack and with the Spacetug Array you are sacrificing an action. In both cases you are trading for the tractor effect, where as the Nantex lose neither an action nor an attack to apply the effect. Additionally making it unblockable removed most of the counter-play that could be afforded against it.

3 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:

It feels like this could have been avoided by needing to spend the Tractor token to apply an effect. So if the Nantex uses the Tractor token to move itself, it can't then pass it on to an opponent. If it passes the token to an opponent and moves it, it then can't also reduce it's agility and Sun Face doesn't get the extra dice etc.

I imagine the reason that this wasn't used for the fix was that you can reposition your ships without consequence now. Ensnare-less Nantex could reposition even after bumping without consequence. Beyond that, tugs could essentially give friendly ships an activation phase boost or roll without the consequence of the tractor token. Personally, I think these consequences pale in comparison to the "fun for one" experiences the Nantex generates. Esnare-less Nantex often don't mind retaining a tractor token in many cases.

Hi Max! Thanks for all the years of hard work, and thanks again for making yourself available.

When developing expansions, how do you decide to introduce new rules vs playing within the defined bounds of the game rules. In other words, how do you decide "this ship is going to be maneuverable by having a good dial" vs "this ship is maneuverable by getting to add free maneuver actions somehow"?

17 hours ago, Jokubas said:

That isn't to say I mean that you should never miss in X-Wing, or any game. I don't need control over randomness, I just need some peace of mind that every roll isn't make or break.

Yea, the dice in X-Wing are exceptionally influential. In my opinion, far more influential than most competitive players want to let on, for a variety of reasons. It's hard to justify taking a weekend away from home/family responsibilities or devoting countless hours to podcasts and patreons for what's effectively a dice game. Which isn't to say that X-Wing is a mere dice game, but the further it skews toward that end of the spectrum the harder it becomes to justify it as a serious competitive game.

A really bad roll or two of green dice (or a gnarly crit) on the first combat round can mean a player loses a substantial chunk of their list well before it should have been lost. On the other side of the coin, a player can luck into an undeserved amount of natty arrows early in the game, effectively making their ships invincible for the first combat round or two. Both result in a major skewing of the attrition war, and X-Wing isn't the kind of game that affords much opportunity for a player to dig themselves out of that kind of hole. Excessive dice-fixing is also a problem, of course, because we need look no further than 1.0 Palp Aces for an example of a pendulum swing too far in the other direction. It was possible for ships in those lists to be nearly immune to red dice regardless of what they rolled.

X-Wing is unlike most other competitive games I've played, because god dice can literally carry an inexperienced player to victory. In something like Blood Bowl, really hot dice help but they are no substitute for experience and if the player can't build and move cages down the field their poor positioning will allow the opposition to still score TDs and defeat them. In X-Wing, a noob rolling really hot green dice approaches literal invincibility, and it doesn't really matter what the opposition does, as killing ships is the only thing that matters in X-Wing and that requires the dice to cooperate a bit.

There's got to be a happy medium for the role of dice luck, but I really don't feel like it's ever been found yet in X-Wing. Were AMG to give X-Wing a facelift, I'd love to see green dice removed from the game entirely, because having two sources of variance (red dice AND green dice) is tough to get right. As it stands, 2.0 right now is just a bit too dicey for me to enjoy it as a serious competitive game.

Hi Max, thanks for being great.

Would you GM Journeys for us?

1 hour ago, EBerling said:

Yea, the dice in X-Wing are exceptionally influential. In my opinion, far more influential than most competitive players want to let on, for a variety of reasons. It's hard to justify taking a weekend away from home/family responsibilities or devoting countless hours to podcasts and patreons for what's effectively a dice game. Which isn't to say that X-Wing is a mere dice game, but the further it skews toward that end of the spectrum the harder it becomes to justify it as a serious competitive game.

A really bad roll or two of green dice (or a gnarly crit) on the first combat round can mean a player loses a substantial chunk of their list well before it should have been lost. On the other side of the coin, a player can luck into an undeserved amount of natty arrows early in the game, effectively making their ships invincible for the first combat round or two. Both result in a major skewing of the attrition war, and X-Wing isn't the kind of game that affords much opportunity for a player to dig themselves out of that kind of hole. Excessive dice-fixing is also a problem, of course, because we need look no further than 1.0 Palp Aces for an example of a pendulum swing too far in the other direction. It was possible for ships in those lists to be nearly immune to red dice regardless of what they rolled.

X-Wing is unlike most other competitive games I've played, because god dice can literally carry an inexperienced player to victory. In something like Blood Bowl, really hot dice help but they are no substitute for experience and if the player can't build and move cages down the field their poor positioning will allow the opposition to still score TDs and defeat them. In X-Wing, a noob rolling really hot green dice approaches literal invincibility, and it doesn't really matter what the opposition does, as killing ships is the only thing that matters in X-Wing and that requires the dice to cooperate a bit.

There's got to be a happy medium for the role of dice luck, but I really don't feel like it's ever been found yet in X-Wing. Were AMG to give X-Wing a facelift, I'd love to see green dice removed from the game entirely, because having two sources of variance (red dice AND green dice) is tough to get right. As it stands, 2.0 right now is just a bit too dicey for me to enjoy it as a serious competitive game.

1 hour ago, EBerling said:

I'd love to see green dice removed from the game entirely, because having two sources of variance (red dice AND green dice) is tough to get right. As it stands, 2.0 right now is just a bit too dicey for me to enjoy it as a serious competitive game.

Oh my gosh, I hope this never reaches any game Dev...

3 hours ago, EBerling said:

just a bit too dicey for me

I see what you did there.

Ne'ertheless, the problem isn't the dice. The problem is that one good slice and your gladiator is down. Stuff like that is gonna happen.

But the standard game has to be pared down to a razor's edge to fit the confines of a 3x3 mat and 75 minutes of play.

Hey Max! I've really been enjoying the blog, it's really well done.

If you're reaching out for topics, some of the things I've long been curious on are...

1. When you're designing new cards/content/whatever, do you have a large set of stuff you've been wanting to try or have in the back pocket, then attach them to characters that make sense thematically, or is it coming up with things once you've decided what characters/munitions/whatever are going to be included with a ship? Despite having hundreds of cards (maybe over a thousand now? I have no idea), there are very few that feel unthematic, boring, uninspired, etc. That seems really hard to accomplish! I guess for a more specific example, something like first edition Kylo Crew's I'll Show You the Darkside isn't something I'd have come up with for the game, even given unlimited time or whatever. It was both really unique, and fit the theme of the character very well. That effect or similar is back now with Kaz's Fireball, though it's self inflicted now, but again feels very thematic.

2. I've always been really impressed at your (and Frank, Alex, and Brooks's) ability to parse community feedback on the game that is, at best, disjointed and unrelated to things we're actually unhappy about, identify the core of the problem, and fix it. For example, how do you distinguish between feedback like "vultures break key rules of the games with grappling struts, and I'll always hate playing against them no matter what" with "vultures are just too cheap", with even more feedback like "now that swarms are competitive because of vultures, I learned I really like playing vultures!"? It seems like a messy quagmire of hard decisions, but despite this the track record of the team was very strong - some things that were likely existential threats to the competitive scene were more or less axed immediately - Upsilon deployments, Ensnare, Supernatural Reflexes, etc were picked out, but some of the things that ended up being not as big of deals were left to be either sorted out naturally, or dealt with the next points update. For example, Boba Fett and Redline right at launch, Vultures, Tractor tugs, etc. We, the community at large, are seemingly always more or less always complaining about something at max volume, basically to sum the question, how do you sort through the feedback to determine what complaints are "legitimate" and which ones might sort themselves out? Especially since no two people playing will ever agree on what X-Wing itself ought to be as a game.

Anyways, thanks again for all the neat stuff you've made we've all enjoyed, and I'm excited to see where you end up in the future so we can follow!

On 12/31/2020 at 1:35 PM, Chumbalaya said:

Hi Max, thanks for being great.

Would you GM Journeys for us?

I'm amenable. I'm putting together a starter adventure and I need to test it out. Ping my email and we can chat!

Topic idea: how limited formats (standard, Hyperspace) actually make for more diverse environments.

Oh, another topic idea: artillery in minis games. I've played 2 minis games where artillery pieces were introduced during the lifespan of the game, and IMO, they made the game worse. They originally had the intention of stopping players from being able to passively wait on some advantage. However, the actual result was that the artillery player would passively wait on their advantage and make the opponent rush headlong into the jaws of death. I'd love to see your opinion (and thanks for not giving X-Wing artillery pieces!).

5 hours ago, pheaver said:

(and thanks for not giving X-Wing artillery pieces!).

Trajectory Simulator was a sort of artillary.

19 hours ago, Chumbalaya said:

Topic idea: how limited formats (standard, Hyperspace) actually make for more diverse environments.

Actually, just some exposition on formats in general would be interesting. To use hyperspace/extended as an example, people have pretty strong feelings for what was better and why. I'm sure you know significantly better than we do the drawback/benefits of each, what kinds of players like each, etc.

You have mentioned in the past that one of your favorite ships in the game is the T-65 X-Wing.

This is probably way to specific but it would be cool to read more of your thoughts about it.

It still holds up as one of the most interesting ships in the game in terms of theme and strategy.

Sub topic or actual topic might be the challenges of designing "completely new content" vs "iterating on existing content".

I'd be interested in the balance between complexity creep and accessibility for new players

And on a much more personal interest: use of community resources, particularly those analyzing tournaments. But that's probably no topic for a blog post

Hi Max, thanks for all your work! The blog is also great so far, and I've enjoyed the analysis.

I would be interested in any of the following:

I seem to remember a quote from end 1e (maybe Alex on GSP?) about how hard design was, as they were trying to hit a bullet (the meta) with another bullet (new design)... except the design was trying to hit a bullet that wouldn't be fired for 12-18 months. Did the design changes going into 2e sufficiently decouple these two issues so that you felt like you could design irrespective of where the meta would be down the line? With hindsight, are there any other levers you wish had been built in, or are there others you've kept in the back pocket if there was ever discussion about a potential 3e?

I've personally really enjoyed some of the token mechanics, especially around strain/deplete as stress alternatives, because they feel both thematic and balanced. When you think about adding new tokens to a game, how do you think about balancing the pros (in-game effect, theme, enjoyment) with potential issues (complexity for new players, storage/transport, etc.)? What is the hurdle to decide that a new token is worth adding? Are there tokens that got play tested and ultimately rejected?

I think linked actions are one of the smartest things that came into 2e, but most maneuvers and actions are still balanced / centered around stress. There are now a few alternatives (TIE/BA, Eta-2) that link into a strain/deplete/force charge, but I'm curious whether this is more 'tinkering around the edges' or 'rebalance trade-offs with different tokens'? For instance, I can imagine a Y-Wing roll as a strain token instead of a stress, or the B-Wing having a 4-straight that yields a deplete instead of a stress. Outside of force maneuvers, was there consideration of alternatives like strain / deplete / ion / weapons disabled? If not, what types of things would you consider when evaluating that?

Do you like Star Wars Squadrons?