Jump to content

Nightshrike

Members
  • Content Count

    1,320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nightshrike

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Madison, WI

Recent Profile Visitors

742 profile views
  1. I'm glad you bolded the part about rash inferences. While you're searching definitions, you might also want to look up the difference between pessimism and pessimist. I'm sure there's something snarky to be said about the type of person who reads the worst into another's posts, but I'll leave it for you to infer.
  2. I actually never once called you a pessimist.
  3. The correct response to any and all things is always scepticism we have a word for taking things at face value without evidence:gullibility. And i'd rather have a shorter lifespan and control of my mind and bowels than live to be 120 and have to wear adult diapers while drooling all over myself. Did you read the article you linked? It said, in general, religion is associated with positive psychological benefits. It's only the "born again" movement which produces stress to the brain. Properly speaking, a pessimistic atheist, according to my research on pessimism, and the article you linked, is likely to die something like 10 years sooner, whereas the religious optimist will live to 120 with a healthy mind and sound body and a community of friends. And yes, I'm an atheist myself, but the article showed positive benefits to religion, so much so that the atheist author is attempting to mimic religion without the faith to get those benefits for himself.
  4. Pessimism does shorten lifespans though, multiple studies have confirmed it. And anyway, it's not faith to withhold an opinion until more facts are in, it's good science. Also, in the absence of confirming evidence one way or another, it's probably emotionally healthier to look forward to something than to dread it.
  5. You know, Hobo, pessimism shortens lifespans.
  6. I'd have to actually say that the Death Star has infinite hull, and a special rules text that it can only be killed by a crit. After all, the rebels did make a bunch of useless strafing runs that did nothing to the station.
  7. I'd not be all that eager to see Jan and Kyle myself, at least, not in their Dark Forces guises. That was a classic 90s game of play the male hero and be a badass, occasionally rescuing your female sidekick pilot who ferries you around and serves as a romantic interest. Very different from a woman being a lead in her own right. That being said, we'll just have to wait and see what they end up producing.
  8. I'm replying to this without having caught up on the thread yet, so apologies if I repeat other posts. How do you know that that's why the TIE Advanced fix came about? Have FFG said so? The only reference to mathwing I've heard from them is that it's interesting but not how the game is designed. The problem with mathwing isn't simply that it's based more around winning than fun. The problem is all the thigns it doesn't consider - the dial, the options for how you can fly certain ships. Basically, it doesn't tell you how good a ship is; it tells you how good a ships is under certain conditions, which are very rarely likely to be the conditions under which you play it. That's not a dig at the guys who came up with it, whom I think acknowledge it's limitations, but it is a reason it shouldn't be given all that much weight. I actually didn't say mathwing was specifically used to balance the game, rather that these kinds of mathematical analyses are crucial for understanding why some ships are popular and others aren't, why some seem to be more successful than others, etc. Without knowing these things, you can't begin to balance a game. I don't know if FFG rely on Mathwing, or if they have their own in-house system, but I'd be shocked if they weren't running statistical analyses to balance the game.
  9. Nightshrike

    Imp My Ride!

    Cool. If the red stripe on the bridge glows, then you'll be able to have it do double duty as a Cylon vessel.
  10. That's not making the game more logical, it's making it less logical. X-wing is still a space combat game set in the star wars universe where nothing makes any real sense. If you want to make the game more logical then you'd need to completely rebuild the movement system from turn circles to straight lines with turns in degrees (or just simplify it to a clock face) you would need to introduce thrust values, one for each side of the craft, their would be no speed limit just acceleration and deceleration Next forward momentum would be completely independent from the facing of the craft, so yes you can fly in reverse and shoot at the ship on your 6 Yeah, I don't disagree with a pure space combat sim, but Star Wars seems to have a luminiferous aether in my opinion, as the ships behave as though there is friction, we have sound in space, etc. That, or the ships are designed in such a way that they intentionally behave as though there is an atmosphere. Given that, I think the best replication of the experience, and the most logical one, would be one which treats them more or less like atmospheric fighters. If we were doing Battlestar Galactica, I'd totally go with something akin to your system. However, everything I've said about turn circles would still be accurate, as things like B-Wings are way more massive, and thus require either a huge amount more thrust to keep in the turn, or are going to turn wider.
  11. The simple answer to that is everyone starts out playing mini's games because the mini's look cool. It's only when players start to concern themselves with winning do things like "meta" become an issue. In other games, models and figures come unpainted and building and painting of those becomes a huge part of the enjoyment of the hobby. Other fringer types like to discuss and argue the mythology of the universe their game is set in. That goes pretty deep too. If you're playing on a Saturday night with a couple of hard ciders and and bowl full of finger sized cheeze puffs Mathwing is something you might tip your hat to...hell, you might have had some rather cogent thoughts in the daytime about how you planned to run your list, but when you've got a good buzz going, you don't give 2 ****s about the numbers. You're playing something that you love and you're comfortable with. Sure there's a ton of people running netlists. A lot of them aren't going to have instant success with them either and that's going to kill their enjoyment of it. I read a guy's post who says all he runs is Xwing lists and he kicks ass at it because he knows his ships so well. I didn't hear him complaining about how crappy the Xwing was in the current meta. He enjoys using the Xwing and that lessens his investment in wins and losses, which makes him a better player. You kinda need to use the force to escape the meta... Just as Thomas Merton wrote: “The Need to Win” When an archer is shooting for nothing He has all his skill. If he shoots for a brass buckle He is already nervous/ If he shoots for a prize of gold He goes blind Or sees two targets— He is out of his mind ! His skill has not changed. But the prize Divides him. He cares. He thinks more of winning Than of shooting— And the need to win Drains him of power. This quote is so accurate to archery. I lost a national indoor title to nerves that I totally should have won a couple of years back. Caring about the result is death in archery. I shoot fives all day (on an NFAA face) until I notice that I've shot four in a row, then that fifth arrow in the set is going to be a 4. Screw you, archery.
  12. Yeah the K-turn really doesn't work because if you're pulling an Immelmann, all of the same turn circle restrictions still apply, they're just translated to the vertical. You literally can't turn in the vertical faster or tighter than you can in the horizontal (though you do get an additional G going over the top, giving your flight path an egg shape, but it doesn't appreciably cut the corner because it slows you down so badly). What Wings of Glory does is force you to make a full speed straight before and after the Immelmann in order to simulate the vertical component of the maneuver. In X-wing, that would get you killed, just like in real life if you try to go straight up with somebody on your six. Pilots call those "strafe rags."
  13. My idea wouldn't overcomplicate the game, it would simplify it and make it more logical. Radzap, if you wanted to do a house rules variant that was more logical for air to air combat, I would recommend tweaking the dials. The wider the turn, the "greener" it would be, and the tighter the turn the "redder" it would be. So, for the X-Wing, I would tweak the dial to give it a green hard 3, a white hard 2, and a red hard 1. This shows that the X-Wing pilot is stressing himself and his airframe (and potentially greatly reducing his speed) by cranking into the 1 turn, whereas, turning at the 2 level is sort of the "best turn rate" for the X-Wing, where it is able to sustain its energy, and the 3 is an easy speed for the X-Wing to fly around the circle, not really putting it through its paces. Then, all you would have to do is apply that rubric with the X-Wing as your middle of the road ship, and everything else relative to it. I would leave the TIE fighter's dial untouched (except to make the 3 hard and 3 bank green). I would add a 1 bank and a green hard 3 and bank 3 to the TIE interceptor dial, and mirror that for the A-Wing. The Y-Wing would have a white 3 and a red 2, to show how bad it is at turning, ditto for the B-Wing. The TIE bomber, because it is lighter and more agile, would score a similar dial to the X-Wing. The large base ships would turn tightest at the 3 level most likely, but I would leave their lower-tier banks intact. Then, I'd give every ship barrel roll and boost as reposition actions, though to highlight their maneuverability, I'd probably give the A-Wing and the Interceptor the option to boost with a 1-hard, though I might make this cause them stress, not sure. I'd have to play test it. Nonetheless, it would be a more logical system than what currently exists for X-Wing and it would lead to battles in which ships actually behave the way they would in a "real" fight, more or less.
×
×
  • Create New...