Jump to content

Rapture

Members
  • Content Count

    617
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rapture

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

490 profile views
  1. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am assuming that this is made out of plastic. More plastic to put your plastic in while you play with your plastic. As someone who plays the game, I can't say that nothing should be plastic, but does the incredibly minor convenience that this provides over a small cardboard box justify this clogging up the ocean for the next 1000 years? Can you make this thing out of wood?
  2. That is objectively untrue. A points update was just released where Captain Cardinal's price was increased. Go ahead and explain how he qualified as a "meta-mole." See if you can do the same for the Dorsal Turret. It is obvious that the individuals doing the points adjustment attempted to adjust whatever they thought was necessary to improve the game and the variety that it allows for rather than simply force people into new lists for the sake of getting them to play something else. Some prolific targets (all popular because of their raw efficiency) were hit relatively hard, but many of the changes were minor corrections to flatten out the game's baseline. Why is it so hard to have an honest discussion about this? You are coming up with conclusions and then looking for arguments to justify them with. Try that in reverse.
  3. Balance has literally nothing to do with promoting stagnation. On the contrary, the only things that prevent long-term stagnation are change and perfection. Change is a simple concept, and, when forcing new product down players' throats, is good for the bottom line, so I will not bother explaining how it can benefit a game. Perfection in the form of balance is the enemy of stagnation because it allows players to utilize any option starting with the same likelihood of success as their opponent. In a game where B-Wings and Han dominate, that is not the case and players trying to win will move, typically all in the same direction, toward those dominant ships. In a perfectly balanced game, people would simply choose what they like or what is interesting. Stagnation is playing Rebel Beef for six months in a row. Playing against two v1s and two Aggressors one game and then a swarm of M3-As in the next game (because people would be able to take those ships while still feeling like they are on equal footing) is not stagnation. If you think that the only thing that would promote players trying new and interesting things with the collection of ships and cards that many already own is a rotating system of making ships obsolete, the that only a symptom of the game being imbalanced. Some players would stick with the same lists over and over again, but many are dying to try new things. By that, I do not mean sitting down for ten minutes and figuring out that Braylen Stramm is better strictly by the numbers alone, but trying new combinations that have new strategies and tactics. That is what better balance would allow for. Everyone knows that THE GAME IS NEVER GOING TO BE PERFECTLY BALANCED, and your use of capital letters undoubtedly educated anyone who did not. However, what does that have to do with asking that using M3-As and Rebel A-Wings not require starting the game with a blatant disadvantage? If we can not have a perfect game, why are people using that as an argument against a less imperfect game?
  4. You are correct that they have access to different options and can, based on what else is in a list, perform differently. I am not aware of anyone suggesting otherwise. I fail to see what that has to do with the fact that the Resistance A-Wings will consistently outperform the Rebel A-Wings. I do not want a pure chassis to chassis options, but that is what we are doing because the reality of the situation is that generic Rebel A-Wings and Resistance A-Wings have identical roles. With respect to names pilots, the differences in higher PSs on the Resistance side and Jake's support ability on the Rebel side sets them apart, but that has nothing to do with the underlying deficiency in the efficiency between the two ships. My point is that one is more efficient than the other based on their current costs. I believe that you are arguing that this must be so because the ships having the same efficiency would break the game based on faction-specific interactions. For the Rebels, what potential interactions caused you to reach this conclusion? Perfection might not be possible, but we are not hear talking about perfections. We are talking about glaringly obvious differences in the efficiency of two very similar ships. You are pretending that FFG is walking this razor's edge where the game is currently fine-tuned to the best possible state. That is so far from reality that I literally can't fathom why you are so against people asking for improvements. Do you think that M3-As are appropriately costed? How much energy could it possibly take for someone at FFG to realize that their lack of efficiency is the reason that they are so rare and make an appropriate adjustment? If you think that they would blow up the entire game by doing so, then you are admitting to their incompetence. I won't suggest that game design is some simple task, but these people are being paid to do it and the people who purchase their products have every right to complain when obvious problems are not remedied.
  5. What a load of crap. "Hyper-perfectionism? All of the components for this game are marketed and sold as a professionally designed product. Rebel Leia should never have been 2 points and it took every player about 10 minutes to figure out how to abuse her card. Proton Torpedoes were too cheap on high PS pilots and that took about the same amount of time for anyone with a simple grasp of initiative-killing to uncover. Supernatural Reflexes, at its initial pricing, made zero sense in the context of the game involving pilots below PS 5. FFG made some really serious mistakes and will likely continue to do so. I cannot think of any reason why someone who pays to play this game would have any interest in arguing against the rules/costs being tightened to improve the overall balance. If you think that expecting that each component that the company designs and sells to us, all for uniform prices (based on the size), to have a similar level of utility in the game is "hyper-perfectionism," then I suggest that you begin to hold companies that you purchase products from to a higher standard as it will only improve the product that you receive and the health of any games that you invest in. Why people have some much trouble with making simple comparisons between these two ships is mind boggling. They are identical bases where one of the two has some easily identifiable changes (movable arcs, and a tech slot traded for an EPT). We are comparing an A-Wing to a better A-Wing. This is not that hard. Feel free to explain what difference between the Rebels faction and the Resistance faction justifies the designers making one of this ships less efficient, based on their relative costs, than the other. What Faction-specific exploit would become available if the Rebel A-Wing's cost was reduced to match the efficiency of the Resistance's A-Wing? Why? "Theirs should be better because they need a better ship" is not a good argument. Just because one factions needs an effective ship does not mean that another factions cannot have an equally effective ship. The goal should be to balance the game as a whole. If the Rebel A-Wing suddenly became as efficient as the other ships, it should only become as popular as the other ships, meaning no net change in the overall effectiveness of one faction relevant to the others. If it is not possible for the Rebel A-Wing to be made equally efficient without unbalancing the entire game, then FFG needs to hire some new designers and make some serious changes.
  6. "Significantly better?" How, exactly? If you are suggesting that having a slightly cheaper ship with the same single-user shooting capability is better than the slightly more expensive ship in a joust situation, then you are correct. But, there is more to this game than a single joust engagement at turn 3. When the joust ends (which is very easy to control with a ship that can go right, left, or straight and still have shots at whatever it just flew past, as opposed to being limited to red 180 maneuvers), there is no question that the Resistance A-Wings are better and only weak arguments that they pay a sufficient price for being that much better. That single round of reverse shooting after the initial engagement, particularly when your opponent cannot cover all three of your positioning options, alone is worth the 3 additional points that the Resistance A-Wings pay.
  7. While people may argue as to whether Wedge should go up 1 point or 2 points, no one is arguing that M-3A Interceptors are undercosted. There are plenty of examples where the player base is largely in agreement about how points should be adjusted.
  8. Some cards are beyond saving because the FFG team occasionally makes huge mistakes by implementing terrible ideas. Some of the upgrades distort the game so badly that they must be excised from play (Supernatural Reflexes is the best example). You want them to be fixed, but the truth is that they never should have existed. With respect to something like Juke, it is in a similar situation. Allowing it to be a reasonable cost for most ships means that it is grossly undercoated for a few ships. Normally priced Juke and Phantoms are completely incompatible with overall balance and simply cannot exist in the game at the same time.
  9. It is not the game developer's job to make the options in the game internally competitive enough to make selecting between certain options does not place an objective disadvantage? I hope that is not what you are saying, because that is ridiculous. Why are we "rotating the points schedule?" Are people calling for that? As far as I know, people are only calling for bad A-Wings to be reduced in cost relative to good A-Wings to reflect the fact that good A-Wings are better and do not pay a sufficient amount for their advantages relative to the bad A-Wing.
  10. For forgotten dials, anything other than requiring that the ship perform the maneuver on the dial introduces the potential for gaming the system. If the TO says that, despite a dial showering a maneuver, the player must execute a 2 straight, what stops the player from making a split second decision about saying that the dial was not set or that the dial was simply left to the side? This allows the player to, after having seeing any other moves that have already taken place, deciding between what is in the ship's dial and a 2 straight. If the rule is that any dial not placed facedown next to the corresponding ship or in a different established area (like in the pilot card) is a 2 straight, then that would be fine.
  11. I am surprised at how hard some people are trying to make the OP's suggestion more problematic than it actually is. I just don't understand. The suggestion that one player would flood another player's deployment zone with obstacles shouldn't be more than a quick comments and certainly doesn't present anything that cannot be overcome with a half second of thought. Something like requiring that each player select four obstacles and requiring that each player place one obstacle within range 2 of a board edge would seem to eliminate the problem (when combined with the existing range restrictions). Any obstacle system is going to have problems. Currently, the board always includes free lanes on the edges, which makes for a very repetitive flying experience for many lists that like to joust or fly lazy circles around the board. With eight instead of six, things would be clustered a bit more, which would obviously require some testing, but I do not see why it would deserve immediate dismissal. That said, consensual kind-of-fortressing is a two player problem that finding a rule fix for will require some serious thought. That fact that both players are parties to the situation, aside from how uncommon it is, means that tweaking the obstacle system to attempt to prevent it is not worth the time or the effort. Also, I don't see why anyone would argue that Boba the crew being more relevant would be a bad thing. It is not like that card has a strong presence.
  12. Unless you conducted a formal poll, I am viewing the "simple fact" that you are presenting skeptically. Most of the best X-Wing players are probably very much like the other humans who are the best at anything, meaning that they prefer being the best. This is why they invest so much time and energy into whatever their preferred activity is. I can't imagine that X-Wing players who take the time to be truly competitive have been collectively handicapping themselves so that they can fly their favorite character. I was under the impression that it was a very poorly kept secret that many named pilots' abilities would be undercosted if they came in the form of an upgrade card for that ship rather than typed onto a pilot's card.
  13. As the Han player is subject to damage in the form of potentially flipping one of their damage cards every time R2-D2 is being used, you will have a really hard time arguing that even the intent of fortressing restrictions (which is, essentially, to prevent you from freezing your ships so that your opponent must act to progress the game) applies to this interaction.
  14. But aren't you ignoring all of the upsides of Ree and all of the downsides of Leia? Your comparison is heavily biased. Usable every turn vs. once every three turns Can be triggered through an action vs. being telegraphed during the System Phase Allows pre-maneuver re-positioning vs. only impacting maneuver difficulty Allows for ending positions that otherwise cannot be achieved vs. normal ending positions My list intentionally oversells Ree (I really do not think that she is an amazing card, just that she should not be dropped down to Leia's cost) and downplays Leia. In an honest comparison, it may be the case that Leia can go up two points while Ree goes down four points. I will admit that Leia is easier to use, but I would also argue that Ree has a higher ceiling for the impact that she can have. Edit: Having considered Ree's ability and opportunities to get her where it can be used, I have to say that I have reconsidered. The fact that she can twist a ship pre-maneuver may be strong, but there has to be an opportunity where that would be valuable and the player must have thought ahead in order to have selected a maneuver that will still provide a good position after a 90 degree rotation. How many times is that really going to happen in a game? Then they have the stress to deal with. Ree being dropped by 5-8 points likely would not result in her becoming a fixture in lists or even particularly common.
  15. Well. People suggesting that Ree should be cheaper than Leia have a very high opinion of her. Leia's ability is obnoxiously telegraphed, as it only happens when she has three charges and must happen in the Systems Phase. Honestly, has anyone ever actually been surprised by Leia's ability? It is very easy to account for. Ree's ability can be reactive, which can be very strong, and can occur every turn. I think that the problem with Ree is that ships that would make the best use of her already have a stress from double actions, but that is a them problem and not a her problem. Maybe she should be cheaper, but certainly not cheaper than Leia.
×
×
  • Create New...