Jump to content

z0m4d

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    789

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by z0m4d

  1. Posted · Edited by z0m4d

    Not liking turrets =/= constantly losing to them.

    Funny how it's the pro turret side that feels the need to lower things to personal attacks time after time, FYI guys insulting the other side does not make your argument stronger in fact it has quite the opposite effect.

    I don't compare the turret whiners to children smearing ice cream on their face, and I don't call them fools. As for sides, I don't actually often play Fat Turrets; I'm just against incessant whining, especially when it's illogical.

    YwingAce, DariusAPB, chilligan and 2 others reacted to this

  3. Posted

     

     

    re; you pay premium for turrets.

    Let's assume this is the case.

    Question; why are so many people handicapping themselves* at tournaments?
    Including some very, VERY good players.
    (*=By paying exactly that premium for fat turrets?)

    ...

    (let it sink in)

    Perhaps they are simply worth their points?

    They've been paying the premium because of the Phantom. Are you new to the game?

     

    Just FYI; I choose not to be offended by your attempt to insult. (new to the game)

    It speaks volumes about you that you resort to this instead of using arguments.

     

    Anyhow. Phantoms were nerfed and no longer dominate the tournament scene.

    Fat turrets did not disappear. You have not noticed this?

    Kinda clashes with your 'premium prices' for turrets statement.

    One would almost think many players *still* think they are worth the points.  ;)

     

     

    I'm sorry.  What I meant was, if you're new to the game, you might not know that Phantoms were the reason for the rise in popularity (and need for the rise as a counter).  The nerf helped some, but not entirely.  We'll see what Wave 7 does for both Phantom and Fat Turrets, but I'm optimistic.

     

     

     

     

    re; you pay premium for turrets.

    Let's assume this is the case.

    Question; why are so many people handicapping themselves* at tournaments?
    Including some very, VERY good players.
    (*=By paying exactly that premium for fat turrets?)

    ...

    (let it sink in)

    Perhaps they are simply worth their points?

    They've been paying the premium because of the Phantom. Are you new to the game?

     

     

    Fat turrets are not overpowered but they are just that bit easier in a tournament setting for several reasons stated many times in many threads:

    1) They are less taxing to play (well) if you play several games in a row.

    2) MOV helps 'fat' ships a lot.

     

    These are the two 'main' reasons IMO.

     

     

    Those are valid points.  Fewer ships means less thinking, and in a long tournament, that's an advantage.  I don't buy the "turrets don't have to think about maneuvering" line, since they still want to avoid being shot.  Still, point 1 isn't isolated to just Fat Turret builds.

     

    Point 2 is valid to an extent, but just counter it.  Either take out the Fat turret escorts before it takes out 12 of your points and then run away, or focus fire on the turret and MoV doesn't even matter because the 60 point investment is gone.

     

     

     

    re; you pay premium for turrets.
    Let's assume this is the case.
    Question; why are so many people handicapping themselves* at tournaments?
    Including some very, VERY good players.(*=By paying exactly that premium for fat turrets?)
    ...
    (let it sink in)
    Perhaps they are simply worth their points?

    They've been paying the premium because of the Phantom. Are you new to the game?

    Why do you always have to be so aggressive? I don't think turrets are broken but you sound like a zealot. You share your highly subjective points but say you can't be bothered to point out the math behind it, because whatever. An insult with every comment. I guess you must be a very frustrated xwing player,and I am sorry if that is the case.

    So come on. You are making a fool of yourself, and folks are laughing at your jests.

     

     

    Fair enough, I can be aggressive sometimes.  Willful ignorance is a pet peeve.  

     

    I won't stoop quite so low as to call you a fool, though.  However, are you insinuating there's a little club where all the FFG posters get together in real life and laugh and make fun of other posters?  Preposterous.  Or that you're spending time communicating via private messaging about me?  Get real.

  4. Posted · Edited by z0m4d

    re; you pay premium for turrets.

    Let's assume this is the case.

    Question; why are so many people handicapping themselves* at tournaments?

    Including some very, VERY good players.

    (*=By paying exactly that premium for fat turrets?)

    ...

    (let it sink in)

    Perhaps they are simply worth their points?

    They've been paying the premium because of the Phantom. Are you new to the game?

  6. Posted

    1. I'm not going to try to convince you because I don't have the math (or time to calculate it--game day about to commence) right now. It's been discussed and the consensus is that there's a premium for turrets. The designers, top winners, bloggers--they all agree. Feel free to claim they're all wrong.

    2. Also Lambda, Firespray, IG, Hounds Tooth, and arguably TIE Defender.

  8. Posted

    This has been said many times before by me and others, but maybe you weren't around:

    1. Turrets cost more for their performance. The 360 ability is built into the cost of the ship. In other words, you can buy more arc dodging firepower for the equivalent cost of turret.

    2. That's a hp problem and not a turret problem. There are fat ships without turrets. Conversely, 3 hp ships can be one shot killed by non-turrets, so again, this doesn't apply. The arc dodgers have always been high risk, high pay off. Auto thrusters leveled the playing field against turrets.

  9. Posted · Edited by z0m4d

     

     

    They don't have to face you to shoot at you, so their maneuvers do not matter.

     

    I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, if either some people can't understand it or choose to ignore it.  (Others might not have seen it, but it's been repeated):

     

    Maneuvering turrets matter.  You don't want to get shot at.  You want to maneuver out of arcs.

     

    I think that's simple enough for most to understand.

     

     

    Most ships have to maneuver for both offense and defense.  Turrets do not.

     

    You mean turrets don't care if they're shot at?  I'm not sure how you can possibly say that with a straight face.  Are you winking?

  10. Posted

    Every time I see someone complain about how "Turrets are easy-mode and ruining the game" I wonder if they've actually played the big turrets themselves. It's not easy mode. With Autothrusters now you actually have to fly them to catch such stealthy ships. They go down super fast if caught in more than two or three arcs, even "Fat" YT-1300s so you have to fly them unexpectedly. They are very susceptible to being blocked. I concede the point that it's tough on MOV, but that's not what people complain about mostly - they whine about them being easy-mode point-and-shoot but don't have to worry about where you're going. This is emphatically NOT the case. 

     

    Next time you (royal "you) groan because you're being beaten by a large turret, step back and ask yourself why you're having a problem, and instead of going on the forums and creating the umpteenth thread about "turrets ugly blah blah blah whine" try to figure out how to beat it! It absolutely can be done, and if the turret is being flown by someone who thinks its easy mode, it can be done a lot easier than you might think. 

     

    A: Have you ever actually tried asparagus?

     

    B: No, but I hate it.

  11. Posted

    They don't have to face you to shoot at you, so their maneuvers do not matter.

     

    I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, if either some people can't understand it or choose to ignore it.  (Others might not have seen it, but it's been repeated):

     

    Maneuvering turrets matter.  You don't want to get shot at.  You want to maneuver out of arcs.

     

    I think that's simple enough for most to understand.

  12. Posted · Edited by z0m4d

    It's a false analogy Z0m4d, stop using it! It's ... y'know... not pretty?

     

    The analogy is true because two coincidental facts aren't necessarily correlated, much less causal.  The gall to think FFG designers are mining the forums for ideas, or that any good ideas from here aren't also independently thought by others on the design team.  Arrogant.

     

     

    I agree that equating popularity and performance would be a fallacy (like, e.g., a false analogy  :D) but I don't think I'm doing that. Here's the argument as to why you're incorrect:

     

    1. A list, no matter how popular, is still beaten by an opponent's more powerful one

     

    2. Repeated tournaments show us the power of adaptive preferences at work

     

    3. We have extremely good data to record these preferences over time

     

    4. We can be sure that popular lists wouldn't stay popular if they regularly failed to do well

     

    C. We can be fairly certain that PWT lists are both popular AND powerful. 

     

    There are many powerful lists.  There are many strong players.  Some strong players choose one (generally) type of list.  That list does well.  That does not mean that list is therefore stronger than all or even most others.

  13. Posted · Edited by z0m4d

     

     

    Popularity is not a function of just performance. It does well because a large proportion of skilled players field them at tournaments. There are too many other variables to logically conclude, "it wins a lot of tournaments, so it must be over powered".

     

    We might as well just not talk about the game, then.  You seem disinterested in discussion.

     

    Not true, it's just "discussed" so much there's nothing new, just more spew.  It gets old.

     

    Turrets are probably popular because they have lower variance than ships that rely more on unmodified green dice for protection and the maneuvering is a lot easier in a long tournament.  

     

    Maybe.  The unique "fat" combinations were also novel.

     

    I do not think the easy access to mitigation, maneuvering, and strong attacks makes for interesting gameplay.

     

    Fair opinion from one point of view.  But for the love of the Force, do we have read it every day?  (Not necessarily from you?)

     

     

    Fat turrets basically force non-turret lists to have a metric ton of firepower in order to win which rather limits list building.

     

    Limiting to a degree, perhaps.  Then again, there are always limits to good list building.  I can't ever take a poor performing list I like to a tournament if I want to do well.  I get it, Fat Turrets a little more constraining, but not nearly as much as some go on and on and on about.  

     

    It's really not that hard to fly against and win.  They just don't want to accept that Fat Turrets are beatable--that it's not overpowered--because they simply don't like them by design.  I'm sorry.  They're here and are going to stay.  Better to learn to fly against them than to live in denial that FFG would ever let this happen, that FFG if you only complain loud enough, long enough, they will take you and your brilliant ideas seriously.  (You in this case is general, not you, Panzeh.)

  20. Posted · Edited by z0m4d

    Because you have the power to create change in this game?

    and that's why your so eager to have us shut up.
    I'm just tired of of the same people whining all the time about the same whines. Worse than my kids.

    I frankly don't care if turrets or fatness or MoV is nerfed. I don't think any need it and doubt the first at least ever will aside from new units, upgrades, and tactics to counter. It's not op now, just popular. It won't be op in the future either, just less popular. And the whiners can whine about something else.

    chilligan reacted to this

  21. Posted

    Because you have the power to create change in this game?

    Clearly we do look at the change to phantom movement.

     

    Look at autothrusters.

     

    Look at the freaking tie advanced.

     

    We can effect change and that's why your so eager to have us shut up.

    I yelled at my TV for my favorite team to win, and they did. Therefore, it was because of me.

    chilligan and Diggs Sparklighter reacted to this

  23. Posted · Edited by z0m4d

     

    Stop playing. You clearly don't like the game and don't think it's going to change. Nobody likes complainers, and there's a lot of it on this forum.

    "I have no valid argument so here have some snark" I'll take this as you waving the white flag.

    Your argument is that there's this terrible game mechanic you can't stand and it won't change because it hasn't in over a year. My argument is we heard you and you friends. The first hundred times. If you really don't like it so much, why just rail on and on when you can do something else you enjoy more?

×
×
  • Create New...