Jump to content



Photo

For those Tie Advanced players, I am fixing my ship


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#61 AndOne

AndOne

    Member

  • Members
  • 192 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 05:44 AM

I just thought of a real fix for the advanced.

Make it a leadership platform with buffs for its allies. It's supposed to be a command ship of sorts, and it is incredibly hard to kill.
Imagine Howlrunner in an advanced. Make new unique pilots with pretty cool buffs who want to be protected. And voila.
Then retcon all of the non-unique pilots to have an elite pilot slot. Done. People would fly the advanced all day.

#62 Knucklesamwich

Knucklesamwich

    Member

  • Members
  • 355 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 06:34 AM

Maybe. But Getting it to X-Wing level of effectiveness should not take cutting off 4 points.

 
  • The generic X-wing is overcosted by 1 point relative to a TIE Fighter.
  • The Z-95 en masse is a better value than the generic X-wings.
  • Generic X-wing usage in wave 4 meta has been very low, and its performance has been even lower.
  • #3 follows from #1 and #2.
So sure, you can reduce the cost of the TIE Advanced by 3 points instead of 4, if you want to make it about equivalent to an X-wing. And if you do, you can still be almost certain that it wouldn't see much competitive use.
 
 

And I've always hated the "Make it special by auto including FCS idea." It goes against the customization part of the game. Any ship with a positioning action has more to it than cost though, especially at higher pilot skills. There has to be a better method of fixing it than completely trumping the Bomber and Interceptor Generics by putting it at 17 points or 19 with FCS...

 
How does a 19 point TIE Advanced with FCS completely trump a 16 point Bomber or an 18 point Interceptor?
 
The TIE Advanced can only take 1 missile; the bomber can get a full loadout. Ordnance and the Bomber needs its own tweaking but that is a separate issue.
 
Likewise, a 19 point TIE Advanced isn't even remotely similar in play style to a TIE Interceptor. One is a glass cannon and the other is a tank.

Does you statement about the X-Wing being over costed take into account the astromech slot? That has to be worth something.

#63 Vorpal Sword

Vorpal Sword

    O frabjous day!

  • Members
  • 2,759 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 06:54 AM

I think it should get a systems slot though... or, I used to, until now that dumb Accuracy Corrector makes giving any 2-dice ship a system slot a dumb idea.  Way to go FFG.


Why does the Accuracy Corrector make a systems slot on the Advanced a dumb idea?

[EDIT: Trimmed the quote block down.]

Edited by Vorpal Sword, 17 August 2014 - 08:16 AM.

  • MajorJuggler likes this

#64 Radarman5

Radarman5

    Member

  • Members
  • 653 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:04 AM

I think it should get a systems slot though... or, I used to, until now that dumb Accuracy Corrector makes giving any 2-dice ship a system slot a dumb idea.  Way to go FFG.

Why does the Accuracy Corrector make a systems slot on the Advanced a dumb idea?[EDIT: Trimmed the quote block down.]

It would always do max damage at range 2-3. I could see a systems upgrade granted by a title working, as long as it has a cost.

EMPIRE: 5 TIE Fighters, 4 TIE Bombers, 4 TIE Interceptors, 1 TIE Defender, 1 TIE Phantom, 1 TIE Advanced, 1 Lambda Shuttle, 2 Firesprays

REBEL: 2 A-Wings, 1 B-Wing, 3 X-Wings, 1 HWK-290, 1 CR-90, 1 GR-75

SCUM & VILLAINY: 2 Firesprays, 1 HWK-290


#65 Radarman5

Radarman5

    Member

  • Members
  • 653 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:26 AM

Watch the team covenant interview with the lead designers, they hint at fixing the Advanced.

Edited by Radarman5, 17 August 2014 - 11:27 AM.

EMPIRE: 5 TIE Fighters, 4 TIE Bombers, 4 TIE Interceptors, 1 TIE Defender, 1 TIE Phantom, 1 TIE Advanced, 1 Lambda Shuttle, 2 Firesprays

REBEL: 2 A-Wings, 1 B-Wing, 3 X-Wings, 1 HWK-290, 1 CR-90, 1 GR-75

SCUM & VILLAINY: 2 Firesprays, 1 HWK-290


#66 Urrgok

Urrgok

    Member

  • Members
  • 133 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:27 AM

Where/what/how/when??? A link, if you please....


  • Radarman5 likes this

#67 Radarman5

Radarman5

    Member

  • Members
  • 653 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:31 AM

It's posted in this topic
http://community.fan...ture-of-x-wing/

EMPIRE: 5 TIE Fighters, 4 TIE Bombers, 4 TIE Interceptors, 1 TIE Defender, 1 TIE Phantom, 1 TIE Advanced, 1 Lambda Shuttle, 2 Firesprays

REBEL: 2 A-Wings, 1 B-Wing, 3 X-Wings, 1 HWK-290, 1 CR-90, 1 GR-75

SCUM & VILLAINY: 2 Firesprays, 1 HWK-290


#68 Urrgok

Urrgok

    Member

  • Members
  • 133 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:31 AM

It's posted in this topic
http://community.fan...ture-of-x-wing/

 

My bad - thx.



#69 Vorpal Sword

Vorpal Sword

    O frabjous day!

  • Members
  • 2,759 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:38 AM

I think it should get a systems slot though... or, I used to, until now that dumb Accuracy Corrector makes giving any 2-dice ship a system slot a dumb idea.  Way to go FFG.

Why does the Accuracy Corrector make a systems slot on the Advanced a dumb idea?[EDIT: Trimmed the quote block down.]
It would always do max damage at range 2-3. I could see a systems upgrade granted by a title working, as long as it has a cost.

I understand how Accuracy Corrector would function on a TIE Advanced. I'm wondering why that makes it a bad idea.

#70 Sparklelord

Sparklelord

    Member

  • Members
  • 116 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:49 AM

Obligatory post, here's my house rule:
 
Title. TIE Advanced only.
Cost: -1 (Vader) / -2 (others)
After you perform an attack, you may acquire a target lock on the defender.
 
 
TL;DR MathWing justification:

  • TIE Advanced is overcosted by 4 points.
  • -2 cost and a free FCS is about 4 points.
  • It makes TIE Advanced the preferred platform for Cluster Missiles (which has its own issues, but 1 thing at a time).
  • It's more than just a TIE Fighter with 2 shields.
  • Darth Vader gets his cost retroactively tweaked, to encourage use of the other pilots.
That really helps cluster missiles, too, though-
For the first attack, you spend the TL and presumably have a focus to modify the results, then acquire a TL with which to modify the second attack.
Built-in FCS is an elegant solution to the TIE Advanced.

#71 Knucklesamwich

Knucklesamwich

    Member

  • Members
  • 355 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:50 AM

I was able to ask the first question at the in-flight presentation Friday morning at gencon. I asked the CEO about the power creep that eventually infects games like this. I said I have played games like Wizards of the Coast Star Wars miniatures or 40k where the developers are more interested in getting something new and cool out and don't care if it wrecks game balance. I asked what his opinion was on how they will continue to make new content that doesn't make the stuff we have already not worth playing. He said that he felt like they had done a very good job so far keeping all the ships a viable choice while introducing new content. After he answered I stated that I did agree they have done an excellent job with all but the Tie Advanced. He moved right along and did not respond to my comment about the Tie Advanced. I am sure something is in the works. I just wanted to make sure that with all those important FFG folks sitting in that room that the first question addressed what is so often discussed on these boards and the Tie Advanced is a weekly topic.

#72 magadizer

magadizer

    2014 X-wing Store Championship Participant

  • Members
  • 1,106 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:56 AM

I was able to ask the first question at the in-flight presentation Friday morning at gencon. I asked the CEO about the power creep that eventually infects games like this. I said I have played games like Wizards of the Coast Star Wars miniatures or 40k where the developers are more interested in getting something new and cool out and don't care if it wrecks game balance. I asked what his opinion was on how they will continue to make new content that doesn't make the stuff we have already not worth playing. He said that he felt like they had done a very good job so far keeping all the ships a viable choice while introducing new content. After he answered I stated that I did agree they have done an excellent job with all but the Tie Advanced. He moved right along and did not respond to my comment about the Tie Advanced. I am sure something is in the works. I just wanted to make sure that with all those important FFG folks sitting in that room that the first question addressed what is so often discussed on these boards and the Tie Advanced is a weekly topic.


First, they're not idiots. Second, they have made it clear that they are aware of what goes on on these boards, which incidentally are owned by FFG. Third,I don't see how you can compare this game to a game in which everything new is intended to out class everything old. For every new challenge did they introduced into the game, they have included some new items which are intended specifically to revitalize older pieces which have become less effective, or were not as effective in practice as they were intended to be.
Be seeing you.

#73 Radarman5

Radarman5

    Member

  • Members
  • 653 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 12:40 PM

I think it should get a systems slot though... or, I used to, until now that dumb Accuracy Corrector makes giving any 2-dice ship a system slot a dumb idea.  Way to go FFG.

Why does the Accuracy Corrector make a systems slot on the Advanced a dumb idea?[EDIT: Trimmed the quote block down.]
It would always do max damage at range 2-3. I could see a systems upgrade granted by a title working, as long as it has a cost.

I understand how Accuracy Corrector would function on a TIE Advanced. I'm wondering why that makes it a bad idea.
I think the concern is that it would be too powerful on a 2 Atack ship, as well as become an auto-include upgrade. MJ made the point in his matheing post about AC. I could see it being a real reason to use the Advanced, but I have to agree that it will limit which ship should get Systems Upgrade slots in the future to 3+ attack ships.

EMPIRE: 5 TIE Fighters, 4 TIE Bombers, 4 TIE Interceptors, 1 TIE Defender, 1 TIE Phantom, 1 TIE Advanced, 1 Lambda Shuttle, 2 Firesprays

REBEL: 2 A-Wings, 1 B-Wing, 3 X-Wings, 1 HWK-290, 1 CR-90, 1 GR-75

SCUM & VILLAINY: 2 Firesprays, 1 HWK-290


#74 Knucklesamwich

Knucklesamwich

    Member

  • Members
  • 355 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 01:08 PM

I was able to ask the first question at the in-flight presentation Friday morning at gencon. I asked the CEO about the power creep that eventually infects games like this. I said I have played games like Wizards of the Coast Star Wars miniatures or 40k where the developers are more interested in getting something new and cool out and don't care if it wrecks game balance. I asked what his opinion was on how they will continue to make new content that doesn't make the stuff we have already not worth playing. He said that he felt like they had done a very good job so far keeping all the ships a viable choice while introducing new content. After he answered I stated that I did agree they have done an excellent job with all but the Tie Advanced. He moved right along and did not respond to my comment about the Tie Advanced. I am sure something is in the works. I just wanted to make sure that with all those important FFG folks sitting in that room that the first question addressed what is so often discussed on these boards and the Tie Advanced is a weekly topic.

First, they're not idiots. Second, they have made it clear that they are aware of what goes on on these boards, which incidentally are owned by FFG. Third,I don't see how you can compare this game to a game in which everything new is intended to out class everything old. For every new challenge did they introduced into the game, they have included some new items which are intended specifically to revitalize older pieces which have become less effective, or were not as effective in practice as they were intended to be.

The only dumb question is the one that was never asked. I wanted to make sure that we did we did not just assume they knew that almost to a person we think that the Tie Advanced is not worth the points. I made it my goal to get it front and center. Now I know from the CEO down that we feel there is an issue. Who knows maybe without it being brought up there would not have been the team covenant video that addresses the advanced.

#75 Vorpal Sword

Vorpal Sword

    O frabjous day!

  • Members
  • 2,759 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 01:25 PM

Who knows maybe without it being brought up there would not have been the team covenant video that addresses the advanced.


Particularly given the pie chart in the Inflight Briefing, there's just no way anything gets added to or changed in their product pipeline over the course of a day or two.

The question isn't an unreasonable one in the context of a two-on-two interview between representatives of a gaming news site and the designers. It might have been a bit less appropriate--by which I mean, less likely to get a useful response--in the context of a mass Q&A with the company CEO, though everything I know about what you actually said is secondhand.

Edited by Vorpal Sword, 17 August 2014 - 01:27 PM.

  • AlexW likes this

#76 Knucklesamwich

Knucklesamwich

    Member

  • Members
  • 355 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 02:03 PM

Who knows maybe without it being brought up there would not have been the team covenant video that addresses the advanced.

Particularly given the pie chart in the Inflight Briefing, there's just no way anything gets added to or changed in their product pipeline over the course of a day or two.The question isn't an unreasonable one in the context of a two-on-two interview between representatives of a gaming news site and the designers. It might have been a bit less appropriate--by which I mean, less likely to get a useful response--in the context of a mass Q&A with the company CEO, though everything I know about what you actually said is secondhand.

The likelihood of me being granted a one on one interview with FFG is probably close to zero. I fully intended to get the point about the Advanced across as soon as I heard about the in-flight report. I don't really see why some thought it was inappropriate. Is it because it was the CEO? I for one am not going to blow air up his shorts just to make him feel good. I did tell him I thought they have done an excellent job with game balance/power creep except for one ship. That's pretty good IMHO with the amount of content we already have. I also told him I have spent over $1,000 on X-Wing so it's not just a passing interest for me. This is the most well designed game I have ever played. I am a Fire Fighter/ EMT so perhaps my view of propriety doesn't jive well with corporate types? In my world almost to a man we tell it how it is because your life could depend on it and that tends to translate into my life in general. I am betting as a CEO he has dealt with worse then some Star Wars geek at Gencon.

#77 Vorpal Sword

Vorpal Sword

    O frabjous day!

  • Members
  • 2,759 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 02:09 PM

I fully intended to get the point about the Advanced across as soon as I heard about the in-flight report. I don't really see why some thought it was inappropriate. Is it because it was the CEO? I for one am not going to blow air up his shorts just to make him feel good.


I'm not a corporate type, so I can't address that part of your post--but I didn't mean that it could have been "inappropriate" meaning "a violation of etiquette", but rather meaning "not well matched to the context and principals involved".

FFG's CEO isn't somehow above criticism, but he's the person to whom you'd pose a question about the overall financial health of the company or their business plans going forward. The people who work with the game day after day, and who are directly responsible for the content we see, are likely to be much better prepared and much more knowledgeable* than the CEO about what they're going to do with the Advanced, so they're more appropriate people to ask.

(*For all I know, Christian Petersen really is involved enough with every aspect of FFG's day-to-day to be able to answer your question--but that doesn't seem like a good general assumption.)
  • AlexW likes this

#78 Knucklesamwich

Knucklesamwich

    Member

  • Members
  • 355 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 03:11 PM

Christian Petersen seemed to have a pretty deep knowledge of the games since he expounded on each one quite a bit. If I were a CEO I think I would want to know what is causing people to flock to my game from other games. Just look at the posts on here about why people play X-wing. A huge number of people are old 40k players who left for the very thing I brought up. I do not want a power creep to set in to X-wing is seen in many games. I understand why it occurs. As a Game company they want sales to always be at a good level. As a game ages the tendency is to make something that is more appealing therefore parting people from their money to have the new thing. An easy way to accomplish this is to make something that is out of balance therefore giving those who have it an advantage over those who don't. My question was more about that and how they plan to keep that from occurring. I think that is something a CEO would be instrumental in overseeing. He responded that he thought they had done a great job keeping "all" the ships viable. That led me to respond that thy had done that with all but one ship to which he did not have a response about. I think he and everyone else knows the advanced is not balanced. I just called him out a little bit on trying to say that all the ships were balanced.




© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS