Jump to content

clockworkspider

Members
  • Content Count

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by clockworkspider


  1. In all seriousness, Scum does have the advantage of being able to pull from any era with ease.  Other factions are a little more limited in that sense, but Scum has sequel trilogy ships, OT-era ships, and will probably end up with prequel-era ships sooner rather than later, if they haven't already. *hasn't watched Clone Wars*


  2. 1 hour ago, 5050Saint said:

     

    @GreenDragoon's become a little unhinged at the bad faith arguments that keep getting put forward. To which I completely understand. When people say "this list is bad because I've head-simmed it" and the response is "head-simming is not valid" then immediately followed that statement up by "this list isn't bad because I head-simmed it", logic alarms start ringing. Green is still a voice of reason, but folks are boggling his mind.

    It's a sign of the times, really.


  3. On 8/27/2020 at 6:39 AM, GuacCousteau said:

    Never going to happen. 

    It was cancer in first edition and it would be even worse in second edition. 

    R3-A2 was a minor background astro in ESB. 

     

    Let's leave him there. 

    Just spitballing, but what if R3-A2 read:  "When you would gain a non-Lock red token, you may spend one charge to gain a different non-Lock red token.  You may not gain a token you already have."  It's not quite the same sort of role as in 1E, but it does keep the stress/red token theme.

    Unless that's already a thing, in which case never mind.

    EDIT:  Wait, forgot disarm tokens.  Should probably re-write it to exclude those, too.


  4. The problem with the Lancet is that it feels too much like a specialized air-to-ground platform (I'm assuming the TIE Bomber's torp/missile capability was always a thing from the start, even if we never see it employed in the films;  I'm not the most knowledgeable about the early days of the EU).


  5. 30 minutes ago, Wazat said:

    I don't believe any game this complex can be perfectly balanced, but a perfect season would have no major losers.  By that I mean:

    • Every faction is reasonably happy
      • No faction is left feeling abandoned and weak, nor is some other faction wildly dominating.  (Someone will naturally dominate somewhat, but everyone else should still be able to reasonably compete)
      • Each faction should have multiple archetypes they can fly (at least 2 or 3), instead of being shoehorned into swarms or aces because everything else they do is terrible in comparison.
    • Many archetypes are seeing use
      • Aces will always be the meta's gatekeeper by design, but we should have a variety of archetypes you can expect to face.
      • Some of the worst seasons have been just two archetypes like "aces and beef and nothing else", with little internal variation, or even dominated by a few specific lists because nothing else was worth flying in comparison.
      • I remember a tournament where nearly every table was Rebel Beef or Vulture Swarm; one guy brought something janky just to be different, and didn't do well.  FFG has been doing better since.
    • Lots of different lists in the meta
      • Fat tip on the meta, meaning as competition rises we don't get reduced to a couple of dominant lists.  1st edition had a sharp tip containing 2 - 3 meta lists.  2nd edition does a lot better.
      • We'll never achieve the illusory standard of "Every list is viable" or "Every archetype is equally good", but we want to see variety.
      • We want to see lots of different lists making their rounds at a tournament, not the same 2 - 4 everywhere you go.
      • You shouldn't know with confidence that you'll face a couple specific archetypes or lists; you have to plan for a much wider variety.
    • No serious NPEs
      • Negative Play Experiences can't be avoided when they dominate the meta; anything serious can kill the game for the players affected.  Ideally there isn't any serious NPE in casual/extended either.
      • We've seen FFG act fast to murder these before, e.g. the triple upsilon thrust list.
      • We've also seen FFG decide to ride it out for a while to see if it's really a problem, such as Boba Fett with Slave 1 or Sun Fac with Ensnare.
      • Sometimes the adjustment has been measured and moderate (Boba can still participate in the meta), while other times they've chosen to nuke from orbit (bye Ensnare).
      • As you may have noticed, what classifies as NPE is too subjective to be actionable usually.  But when a large enough part of the community is spitting venom over something that's seriously affecting the game (or worse, just quietly leaving), you have a problem.  Likewise if something drives new players away from the game or sharply changes the game to something FFG does not intend, you have a problem (sorry triple upsilons!).
    • At least some variety within lists
      • Ideally each popular list is seeing some still-viable customization, with different players tweaking things to better fit their play style or to better counter another list they find troubling.  Personalization and exploration are nice options even when netlisting; if you see an opportunity or deficiency, you want at least a little wiggle room to try to address it.
      • This is only possible if players aren't cornered into an optimal strategy because some card or combo or list is so efficient and effective that nothing can reasonably be gained by changing anything.
      • In other words, no component of the meta should be a Nash Equilibrium that traps players into playing that way.  If Nash Equilibriums dominate the meta, FFG needs to fix that.
      • Sometimes this is a broad problem (dominant lists reducing the meta to "play X or Y list or go home"), while other times it's narrow ("If you play this faction/ship, the correct strategy is X Y Z pilot with these exact upgrades and you're stupid if you change anything").
      • Example of a problem: Shield Regen Jedi back when shield regen was cheap.  You had to equip an R2 Astromech, full stop.  Any other option was vastly inferior, even if you hated the play style of shield regen jedi (actual complaint I heard from a local and really effective tournament player).  R2 was effectively stapled to Jedi until FFG adjusted points to make that unappealing enough to (slightly) decouple them.  Likewise Ensnare was surgically implanted into the early Nantex and playing Gravitic Deflection or neither talent was objectively bad.  There was just no real option there.
    • Many, perhaps even most, ships are seeing use
      • Getting this right for most or all ships is very hard in practice... and it's unsolvable.  There's so many ships, often with overlapping roles, that it's simply impossible to keep them all completely competitive with each other.  This is made worse since synergies and efficiency swarms and where the points edge cuts things off will create unavoidable winners and losers.
      • But we do have a goal: there shouldn't be anyone who bought, for example, the Kimogila or TIE Interceptor or whatever feeling left out because their purchased or favorite ships have absolutely no viable outlet in the meta.  That's a big problem for both new and established players alike.
      • I suspect there has never been a season that nailed this, at least not since the first wave or two when the game began.  ;)  It's just too complicated.

    Some of these are repeats of good ideas posted above, of course, but I felt I should include and expand on them all the same.

    For me, it's all about the last point.  Ideal X-Wing, for me, is where every ship – every pilot even – has a reason to exist, not just the soulless, joyless garbage mathematically optimal stuff.


  6. 4 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

    Rigged Astromech Socket

    Upgrade slot: Upgrade illicit

    Restrictions: No Upgrade astromech slot, Small ship only.

    Text: You may equip 1 non-limited Upgrade astromech upgrade.

     

    I'd like to toss on a price reduction for astromechs equipped via this to offset what ever cost the upgrade would cost (I.E. 1 point for Rigged Astromech Slot, -1 point to the cost for a non-limited astromech), but it feels off from how 2.0 is set up. Means I'm not sure what it should cost. 0 feels off, though I guess it could work as the Illicit version of S-Foils) and a combined cost being anything higher than the cost of the astromech feels off too. The ship size restriction is there as a simple way to block problematic large and medium bases with crew slots from getting cheaper regen (they already have access to GONK or R2D2 crew depending on faction) while opening up the option to the small bases (HWK, Z-95, K-Fighter and so on). R2 Astro Boba = nerp.

    I had an idea for something similar, but it was a crew upgrade instead.


  7. 7 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

    Most of the community is not hyper competetive, its just most of the people on this board. Tournament players kinda bullied a lot of the for-fun players of the boards at the end of 1st edition so theyre now over repressented.

     

    In my experience, the tournament crowd inevitably takes over discussions of any game that has any kind of competitive scene.


  8. On 7/23/2020 at 11:59 PM, Vontoothskie said:

    Its important to remember that a lot of us get into miniatures these days to escape digital media and get away from phones.

    Players can get a better space fighter sim on a computer and have done so for almost 3 decades.  A tabletop game will never ever be able to compete with real time 3d computer power and AI in terms of a space combat experience, Particularly with Squadrons coming out soon.  But X-wing has 2 things a computer game doesnt: its physical components and non digital play.  if you push the game more towards digital, players like me will wonder why even bother? why not play Total War or Squadrons or whatever?

    Squadrons is an EA project and frankly I don't trust it not to be garbage.

    Most of the Star Wars flight simulators are at least a decade old.

    Also?  I don't enjoy flight sims enough to drop so much as a penny on one.  I do, however, enjoy turn-based strategy both on the tabletop and in the digital realm.


  9. 1 hour ago, feltipern1 said:

    I never actually said "dead" or that it should be abandoned.  I've been thinking about it since the announcement for Wave VII - the smallest wave yet.  I'm sure there were similar waves in 1.0, where only two or three ships came out.  I guess I was riding a hype-wave since the Clone Wars factions entered the game.

    Also, as several others have pointed out, X-Wing players have been a bit spoiled.

    Not saying you said that, it's just a bit of a trend I've seen recently.  Mostly with videogames, but it comes up in the tabletop scene too.


  10. 1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

    So what we learned is that everyone is aware that on some level at least a few Aces are undercosted compared to Generics but that its fine because we like Aces.  

    I fail to see how a meta where the optimal strategy is spamming the cheapest ship of a given chassis is better.


  11. 2 hours ago, CoffeeMinion said:

    I struck out pretty badly with TTS myself, and found better success with VASSAL. IMO TTS feels like you’re playing a 3-D spinny-space that X-Wing is happening in... somewhere. Whereas VASSAL feels like you’re playing X-Wing, albeit locked-in at an overhead perspective.

    I didn't have much luck getting the Vassal module working the last time I tried it, and I've found Vassal a little cumbersome with other games I've played on it.  Thanks for the input, though.


  12. 1 hour ago, Skitch_ said:

    Grab the X-Wing Unified 2.0 mod from the workshop, it's the only thing you need. You can join the official discord and somebody in the lfg channel would most likely be willing to show you how it works. There are tons of resources from the devs to help. It's actually quite intuitive and straightforward.

    X-Wing Unified 2.0.  Gotcha.

    Thanks!


  13. 6 hours ago, Skitch_ said:

    It feels that way but that's just because FFG has had so many releases and articles and updates for X-Wing compared to literally every other game they make.

    This isn't true anymore, FFG employees said as much. While still important, it isn't their bread and butter, whether from circumstance or from FFG actively moving in a different direction. I think they saw something on the horizon and want to put more effort into their other miniatures games.

    This is what has happened. FFG employees essentially said they want to focus more on Legion and Armada. Legion has been performing really well for them and Armada as always has been there and a surprise to them with it's performance. They want to lean into those two games more.

    Also, bad reprint choices in some cases.

    TTS is a great substitute for this. It simulates actual games well, although nothing makes up for the tactile feel of actually holding plastic ships and joking in person with buddies.

    How has that been?

    Every time I open the Steam Workshop page for TTS, I see a whole raft of X-wing related things by different authors and I honestly can't tell which ones I actually need to get something that will work correctly.


  14. On 6/20/2020 at 5:35 PM, martini74 said:

    I know two of the games the OP has mentioned.  Malifaux and X-wing.  These two are not overly comparable.    Competitive X-wing had one goal, destroy the opponent.   Malifaux, it is possible to win a game with no models on the board.

     

    Skill vs. Luck:

    There is alot less variables in x-wing.  8 sided dice with three possible outcomes.  The skill is knowing what your list cand do to the opponent.   Can you shoot with out getting shot?  Can I modify my dice?  

    Malifaux has base stat, a card deck that can go from 1-14, a possible auto win (red joker) and auto lose (black joker).  

     

    Technically, the black joker's not an auto-lose;  its just a value of 0, so you can still win a duel if you have a high stat and the opponent flips low enough and can't or won't play a card from their hand.

×
×
  • Create New...