Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Meade

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

249 profile views
  1. They were doing it wrong. I'd agree, just rolling for initiative every turn, trading a chip for instance would slow the game down unnecessarily. But PS is not 'fine' in xwing, at least in 1.0. Many people blame it on VI, but the VI wars were just the symptom of a mechanic that is way too polarizing for the game. Also it makes me laugh coming from a DEV team that doubled down on unnecessary complexity in the later waves of the game, the worst offender being condition cards. I know they compressed the range of PS but it won't solve the problem, just make it more binary. The highest PS ships will be the only ones worth taking, unless swarms are massively more efficient, and in that case, the balance will swing towards swarms. But i haven't seen everything about 2.0 yet maybe there's something I'm missing... I just think a more elastic PS system that can change depending on arcs and game states, and very clear in the way it's interpreted and applied to the game, would be so beneficial. Especially a bonus for 'tailing'.
  2. Pretty fair points you have there. I partially disagree about maneuvering in space, sure you don't have altitude but on the other hand Star Wars IS a hybrid of space physics and WW2 dogfight physics to begin with. It gives an opportunity to make maneuvers like the K-turn, S-loops a little more interesting (if they have the ability to go up or down a level of z-axis)... after all these are adaptations of maneuvers in an earthbound dogfight and not what would happen in space. Of course in space it would be trivial to change the orientation of your ship while continuously moving in whatever vector you had been... I still think 3D play is cool. I've done a few little experiments myself and you can easily represent z axis by the number of pegs on a ship. It actually decreases the amount of complexity due to bumping, although you do need to deal with what occurs when a ship is 'on top' of another, usually just by having a flat marker for the ship underneath and removing the model. It's another way to make positioning and maneuvering important and introduce complexity via that route rather than going the route of cards and the inevitable OP combos. That being said, i still think xwing is a cool game the way it is and 2.0 looks fantastic.
  3. Always a better use of your time to do work on your own game, something you control 100%, or even better, under an open source model. Community efforts like the kind you are proposing have a sad track record... you spend a great deal of your own time developing something you love and then at the last moment the company comes out with something like a 2.0, invalidating a lot of the work that's been done and often directly taking from community efforts without giving the credit.
  4. We can still hold out some hope for objective based play, there were some promising things said I think they said the organized play team was excited to be able to change around formats using the app builder. There's a tangential point to that, since many of the xwing 1.0 costs were fine tuned to 100/6. That's because cards get better or worse based on the format when we are talking about a game as hyper competitive as xwing. But yeah, my 'missed opportunities list' would be as follows: 1. Objective based play (or a little more support for it out of the gate) 2. Agreed on the ordnance issue, I think that ordnance should have been reworked a little better to make it 'feel' significantly different than energy weapons. Of course they did introduce range bonuses to turrets so that's a start. 3. 3D play, It's not hard to do! I think if they had gone the extra mile to do some minimalistic effect or counter to keep track of the z axis it would just crank up the beard-stroker nature of the game up a notch. And have a more realistic space combat feel. The predecessor to xwing, Wings of glory has a system for this. Instead, we have more proliferation of actions and now force charges. Could go wrong IMO. 4. Balance the game a little more to the side of an 'exploding dice' mechanic. Many games have a mechanism whereby the weakest units can still damage the most expensive and pumped up units. I realize there's some harm to hypercompetitive play but IMO it does more good than ill because it encourages the meta to not rely on those pumped up combos too much. And it's just more exciting when any mook can by sheer luck at least damage one of your powerful pieces. 5. Introduce a more random or game-state dependent initiative mechanic. Rather than PS controlling everything and depending on an intiative bid or single die roll at the start. So you can't always rely on your Ace moving last. Perhaps involve arcs: introduce some bonus to 'initiative' for ships that have another ship in their arc, would simulate 'tailing'.
  5. 'Support' is usually online anyway these days, via FAQ's, forums, etc. People are normally clamoring for online support, not the other way around. Yeah, the builder as-is only builds for the legal game. but it won't change the entire app every time FFG does an event. If you're not playing in a tournament, or with people that wish to play in tournaments, whats the point of complaining in the first place? It's either that or play the way we've always done, with a broken but legal game, unless you have a casual scene where you basically make up stuff. I think that if we assume community access to the app (strongly implied by their wording), and the ability to tinker with points using the app in such a way that anyone can do it, you'll have a host of casual formats cropping up. So whatever community you play with can agree on what you want and play that way. Balance is Giveth, and Taketh by the competitive scene. Most of the combos you see infecting casual environments were created in the competitive scene and therefore the fixes implemented at that level are really heavy-handed in the casual scene, but they do allow a casual player to be more creative with stuff if they don't have the looming threat of 'that guy' who is going to break their scenario.
  6. I'm using expertise, mara jade, inspiring recruit, mercenary copilot, engine upgrade. 56 points, leaving room for 2 Nu squad missileboats. his job is to go in and bump or block stuff, then take modified shots with expertise at whatever else you can take a shot at. the engine upgrade is essential for the initial joust and then getting position behind the enemy, or running away if necessary
  7. Yes, the reactions to Leia's scenes are ill-informed by countless way-over-the-top sci fi scenes of what happens when you're ejected into a vacuum. Doesn't mean it wasn't cheap and didn't look dumb.
  8. Give or take another 15 years and the star wars franchise will be 100% Disney Cartoon. Every major character will be exactly like on the TV show "Once upon a Time" and in constant vacillating states of Good, Evil, In Between and back again. Not to mention, dead, alive, and back again. Until every penny is milked, metaphorically much like the blue milk Luke so unceremoniously milked from those alien boobs. Some other random points I'd like to give my 2 cents on: -Hyperspace destruction, slightly cheesy but it didn't bother me nearly so much. I could at least imagine some reasons why this wouldn't be a normal viable tactic in the universe, like for example it required the suicide of an expensive capital ship, could have been very tricky to pull off, could have been very predictable and easy to counter except for that situation, etc. -Benicio Del Toro's character (what was his real name?) probably my fav character you could just feel him vibing 'just here to collect my paycheck you nerds... why even bother talking?' Much like the original Han Solo. -Captain Phasma: IS COMING BACK!
  9. Lots and lots of upgrades are just not imperial flavor, but as a counter to regen, they could probably have more 'efficiency' upgrades like improved ion engines or multiple mod fixes (like they did with royal guard interceptors). Or even a reinforcements upgrade. We already have hounds tooth that poops out a z-95.... nobody takes it so its clearly not broken... how about an imperial crew that can call in an extra tie fighter when another dies? That would do a great job representing imperial efficiency and the war of attrition.
  10. Id agree with the testors dullcote comment i use it all the time. But ill reiterate... you will save a lot of time and effort by not priming your xwing minis. There is really no purpose, since the factory paintjob is usually thin enough not to obscure detail, and the purpose of primer is for paint to stick to the model.
  11. 1) yes, I mentioned blocking. I enjoy it as part of the game because it requires you to accurately predict the opponent's maneuver, however I also mentioned that game-design wise it's not very thematic. For instance imagine that the reward for correctly guessing your opponents maneuver was that you got on your opponent's 'tail' and got a bonus as a result. Is there any part of a star wars space dogfight scene where the equivalent of BLOCKING occurs? I can't think of one. 2) Yes i understand the process whereby you combat an arc dodger with a swarm. I'm painting with a broad brush here, but there are certainly situations where the game shuts down, and many of the things they have needed to FAQ are related to this. You are describing a situation where there is still a game, and beyond that yes, a 1v1 matchup of an arc dodger v an ace is a situation where the ace ought to have an advantage, but it would be good for the game if a skilled player had more ability to leverage their skill, instead of being nearly automatically shut down. And it's not just arc-dodgers i'm referring to, it's maneuverable large base ships like Dash, for instance, that can maneuver so effectively that they always end up out of optimal range or out of arc of lower PS ships (and TLT is the exception here.... its one of the crude tools they used to attempt to rectify this stress point in the game) Reconsider your idea of a 1v1 matchup. Instead consider a chess game, where you have a large disparity in skill, but the skilled player is lacking some good pieces (lets say a queen a knight and a bishop... or something like that. Now It's pretty easy to imagine that game still being won by the skilled player, and this is simply because there's so many ways to leverage skill in that chess game... a lot of interactions between the pieces.
  12. I think some breakup of the initiative system would be a good thing. I don't think arc-dodgers are all bad, but at times they shut down gameplay and if you have some generics, its a lot harder to play. Perhaps some mechanism where occasionally a lower PS pilot can 'seize the initiative' or something. I actually think the game would be a lot more interesting if the maneuvering had something to do with it, like perhaps getting in a pilot's rear arc would give you a chance to move after that pilot. There's no need for it to be based completely on random die rolls. The ideal might be a system where a very skilled player using a generic could dominate a noob using an arc-dodging ace. If I had to identify the top design flaws (or stress points, in any case since i still think its a great designed game). I'd say: 1. Diminishing returns... taking large amount of generics your list will quickly lose effectiveness every time you lose a ship, while a large combo'd expensive ship could potentially be fully functional even if its down to one hull point. The result is that as more card combos accrue xwing inevitably turns into a 2 or 3 ship meta. 2. Points values- need to be based on a larger scale, so a tie fighter could be priced at the equivalent of a 12.5 lets say. The current system must resort to using the 'opportunity cost' of filling up an upgrade slot or other extreme measures to deal with subtler nuances in the point system. 3. Initiative system-as above. Another solution for this could be to actually break up the maneuvering phase from the phase where you perform actions. Perhaps performing actions could be a 'reaction'- although this would require the game to keep track of actions it still would work better as a system and it would be more dynamic. 4. Lack of objective based missions for competitive play: this would break up the meta a lot more and in general, make it hard for 'broken' ships to emerge or at least make the process take longer. Would also introduce a far easier way to balance the game, that is just by tweaking missions instead of rewriting the actual product. But nobody should actually try to play xwing this way, it's just a recipe for frustration. Until FFG does an xwing 2.0 or the community somehow gives birth to an open source non-IP strangled ruleset.
  13. Heres a tip: dont strip or prime your xwing models. Theres no need, except maybe for an extreme paintjob for a contest. Just paint over the factory paintjob.
  14. Where in eastern ct you located? I meet with a group in white plains NY.
  15. Secondary weapons make formation flying a lot less necessary, because they dispense with the range bonuses. If you plan on flying that way you should get some ships equipped with cannons, TLT and lots of missiles that can be fired reliably. No matter how good you are, trying to fly in from multiple directions with ships that rely on a primary attack... chances are you might get murdered by harpoons. I have a feeling harpoons might not be as bad as we think though. I mean it does require a lot of planning for the effect to go off and its capable of being defended against, i remember when they said similar things about assault missiles and you never see those things.
  • Create New...