Jump to content

Jeff Wilder

Members
  • Content Count

    2,550
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Jeff Wilder

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 05/23/1968

Profile Information

  • Location
    San Francisco Bay Area

Recent Profile Visitors

1,686 profile views
  1. Force should work only when focused, basically.
  2. I definitely agree, and I've actually stopped myself more than once when I was about to suggest that 1 point might make some difference in an individual card's viability. In addition, I've actively expressed my annoyance that FFG makes (initial) changes of a single point. I've not fully explained why, but the implication is there that it's because I think 1 point is rarely a difference that is found by incremental testing on the first guess ... better to modify by 2 or more, observe, and then modify again. It could be that a given upgrade ends up with a 1 point change ... it's just kinda silly to assume it will on first change. But, in addition to what Hiemfire said, it's with pointing out two other things: (1) If 1 point really doesn't make a difference ... there was no reason to go to a 200 point scale. And (2), with the existing (IMO terrible for the game) bid mechanic, 1 point can easily be the difference between your aces moving first or moving last. And the impact of that on a game or tournament is huge. So ... I really do think FFG should strive to get costs right, even down to the single point. I just wish they'd work toward it in a smarter, more systematic, way.
  3. I go back and forth just a little on this, honestly. For practical purposes, I agree with you and disagree with @Rytackle -- if nothing else, I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that FFG doesn't compare the T-65 and the T-70 (and, hey, the Kihraxz for that matter) when making balance decisions regarding those ships. On a more abstract level, you're both right: you've outlined your case above, and Ryan is right -- to some extent -- that it doesn't matter if the T-70 and T-65 aren't balanced against each other, as long as their respective factions are balanced against each other. But I think even that runs into a pragmatic wall, at some point: ARC-170s, Z-95s, Y-wings, HWK-290s, and so on ... if these ships are better balanced by faction, then it would follow that their costs could pretty wildly deviate depending on what faction they are in. And I just don't believe FFG thinks that, e.g., a Hired Gun and a Gold Squadron Veteran should ever be more than a point apart. (To save people looking it up -- I had to! -- they are both 33 points. The GSV has +1 Init, the HG has an Illicit.) Thanks for listening, Hiemfire!
  4. Mooooooooisture Hyyyyyyype! Wide World of Wargaming (X-Wing) episode 31, recorded Sunday, 8/10/19, is available! https://wwwargaming.podbean.com/e/wide-world-of-wargaming-x-wing-episode-31-total-california-domination/ So, fair warning, I'm advertising this without listening first, but I didn't want to deny anybody their Ryan Farmer, so it's a risk I'm willing to take. This is a longer episode for us; it's not as long as the average on many other podcasts, and I don't really remember any non-productive time, so I think you're going to find this great commute fodder. Drew, Vince, Ryan, and I cover a huge amount of ground, discussing GenCon results, a little Buenos Aires, ask ourselves if we'd TAP that, talk a little bit about whether we think Force is properly priced, discuss the fairness of regen in 2E, and Ryan vigorously defends the costing of low- to mid-Init T-65 X-wings. And that's just what I can remember! Drew, in particular, was having a ball, and if you've listened to us more than a couple of times, you know that when Drew is having fun it's usually a good show! We want to sincerely thank Ryan for (1) being a guest, and (2) being a fantastic guest, just as fellow Mynock (oops!) Steven Gonzales was a couple of episodes ago. It was a genuine pleasure, Ryan. Oh, and speaking of that, now that we've started collecting, we need Dee (he and I share a long and murky Secret Society history), Dallas (he first whipped my butt in the 2014 Burlingame Regionals ... yes, with a TIE swarm), and Andrew Seely (who I don't know from Adam, but given that he's involved with these guys, he has to be a good egg). All you gotta do, guys, is speak up, we'll get you on the show, and you can help us complete Fly Better Bingo. As always, valued listeners: rate us on iTunes, point a friend in our direction, and leave any comments, questions, or suggestions wherever you're reading this, or on the Wide World of Wargaming FB page. We honestly want to hear from you, even -- almost especially -- if you have ideas for how we can improve the show. Don't be shy.
  5. To be fair, that was the single funniest Mountain Dew commercial of all time.
  6. Ethics is just about the most worthwhile thing to argue about. Unfortunately, there's really only about two or three pages of that in this nine-page thread.
  7. I would never have played X-Wing, or D&D Miniatures, or Wings of Glory, if the miniatures were unpainted. (And I would be significantly richer today.) It's pretty much impossible to overstate how little interest I have in painting miniatures.
  8. Yeah, it just doesn't seem like the good reason is enough to outweigh the "legitimacy impact" on the tournament. There are a number of ways to illustrate a fantastic list ... I mean, think of the soapbox you have when you win? That's exactly where I am. I've lost what you're referencing here. Ethically, if he's got a good reason (in good faith), that's all that matters, IMO. If he just doesn't feel like playing the game, sincerely doesn't, that's good enough. It's a game. If he's simply not having fun playing, or doesn't think he will, he can ethically not play. I mean, you're touching on the idea of garbage rationalizations, but if it goes beyond that, into any good faith reason he doesn't want to play, he isn't forced to play because he happens to notice other reasons to not play that, if taken by themselves, would make his decision unethical. There's plenty of research to suggest that highly intelligent people are less likely to be happy ... no reason to add "forced X-Wing" to the list, right?
  9. All of these are fine. A player has the right to decide whether he wants to spend his time playing a game. Thumbs up. Full disclosure, in nearly every Regionals in which I have made cut, I've dropped. (Not the same as a concession, but depending on what prize I was chasing, it could be.) This one forks the ethical question into the realm of being nice. Assuming no other facts in evidence -- i.e., the concession isn't to favor anybody else, and ideally the conceding player doesn't even know how pairings will shake out -- I'm inclined to think this is fine (and to probably have a good impression of the player doing it). The only balances against it that I can think of are (1) somebody skilled may end up with a less skilled opponent, and thus have an easier path into the cut than he would otherwise, and (2) the concedee may want to, you know, play. Since (2) can't be discussed before the decision, and since the benefit of (1) is random, it's fine. Thumbs up. As an aside, if you said, "I'm going to concede," and Player 2 looked visibly disappointed and said, "Aw, man, are you sure? I'd love the win, because it gets me great loot, but I'd rather play!" ... I assume you could change your mind without running afoul of the rules? But maybe that's an iffy assumption? ... If the list is that amazing, wouldn't it be better to give the player the opportunity to prove it? Thumbs down. Just plain lame. Thumbs down. I mean ... seems like the soft bigotry of low expectations, to me. (And I say that as a bleeding heart liberal.) It's tough for me to imagine someone entering into a competitive tournament and being okay with succeeding because of their minority status. Also ... is the woman super hot? No, no, never mind. There are potentially balancing ethical factors that don't make this exactly a slam-dunk, but it's pretty close. Thumbs down. Thumbs way down. On the other hand, as a friend you need to be willing to listen to him or her b!+ch and moan after you table him or her. It might surprise you, but I'm actually kinda torn on these. It's against my personal grain to do something like this, but I don't entirely disagree with the notion that tournament ladders have legitimate strategic considerations. I also think that to some extent this is self-balancing ... sure, this person might end up an easy win for you, but could also end up an easy win for your list's kryptonite list. It's tentatively thumbs up; I'd never do it, but nor would I relentlessly mock and shame someone who did.
  10. You've misread. And to some extent -- it's honestly difficult for me to say exactly to what extent, because of the sheer repetition -- you have misspoken. You've said that it's against the rules to concede. It's not. Full stop. It is not against the rules to concede. It's against the rules to collude, which may or may not lead to a (tainted) concession, but that's not the same thing. You've said that the simple act of confirming a submitted score constitutes collusion. It does not. Full stop. It could certainly be a step in collusion, but in and of itself, it's not collusion. You've conflated rules illegality with ethics, which muddies the waters, because (in a perfect world) ethics and the rules would be congruent. By arguing in such as a way as to imply that they already are, you're doing a disservice to that ideal. As far as I've seen, @Killerardvark has solely been trying to correct you on the rules, which on the topic of concession are pretty unambiguous ... which is to say he's been trying to correct you where you're factually wrong. I haven't seen anybody tell you you don't have the right to an opinion, except, of course, where any opinion is about something factual, and you simply have the facts wrong. (Facts aren't subject to opinion. One does not have an "opinion" on something when one has the facts wrong ... one is simply mistaken about it. Or, c.f. American politics, one is deliberately lying about it.) In some cases, it is unethical to concede. In other cases, it is not. The OP outlined a case in which it is unethical to concede (for the reasons stipulated). Only when other facts are added would the OP's situation become one of illegality, and that would be because of collusion -- or arguably sportsmanship -- not because of the simple fact of concession. Okay. I think you summed it up pretty well -- "jerk and correct," "nice but wrong." I think you chose a path of comity, which basically forked a new branch in the ethical tree. Most importantly, I'm guessing you'll handle it more cleanly next time.
  11. What did you do wrong, @GreenDragoon, that made you think losing was the "correct" outcome? Speaking personally, I would concede if I had done something wrong (even accidentally) that affected the outcome ... but as far as I can tell, you didn't. You made a procedural mistake, then took the steps to correct it, and because of the correction, you effectively won, but then conceded? Why?
  12. 1, 2, 3, and 4 ID markers? (For Big Acrylic addicts, like me, Curled Paw even has A, B, C, and D ID markers.) IMO, your illustration actually makes the OP's point clearer: that's four squares of cardboard (with literally the only difference being a single letter), where two would have easily sufficed. There's definitely a balance to be walked between making cardboard specific and fungible. I agree with the OP that FFG fell just on the wrong side of the line. (It's irrelevant, now, of course.)
×
×
  • Create New...