Jump to content

heliodorus04

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    188

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by heliodorus04

  1. Posted

    I quit the game when TLT was released because ... (insert the most intolerable whine to you personally, and that's what I'm saying herein)

    But I love the minis and I came back... when Harpoon was released... I played 3 games and I entered a pit of self loathing that I didn't do enough research before spending another $200 on X-WIng...

    I haven't looked yet at 2.0.  I knew that the 100 point dogfight took the fun out of the game for me, and the game had no grounding in any consistency but was in the phase of rampant power creep to promote the newest models.

    Do I get my hope up?  I was fooled twice.  I'm in "shame on me" territory.

    I wanted a fun star-warsy game and I got math-hammer.  Math-hammer between offense dice and defense dice will remain the same.  Well, then offense is always going to be a better place to emphasize your list than defense, doesn't it? 

    None of the ships I liked thematically (Defender, TIE Swarm, TIE Bomber/Punisher) ever amounted to much and if I cannot play the ships that look cool at a competitive level then there is no point pursuing this game.j

    Will I be able to play the ships I like?

     

  2. Posted

    The single statistics are irrelevant without an understanding of the difference between what the two sides are actually probable to roll.

    X-Wing butchers probability better than most games in dice design.  X-Wing, emphasizes more heavily than any game I personally know, a structural difference between attack and defence dice.  Then add action economy, and there's no point trying to teach a layman about X-Wing probabilities because no two situations are alike in terms of the modifiers to the attack dice.  What we know is that the modifiers to defense dice don't amount to anywhere near as good the modifiers to attack dice.

    This is all you need to know about probabilities in X-Wing: hits are probable, evades are incidental.  The more attack dice, the better you'll feel.  The more evade dice, the greater you're level of disappointment...

    There's an app for seeing the probabilities of #of hits and #of evades out on app sales sites.  Go look at what 4 dice with a TL and a focus look like compared to 4 evade dice with a focus and an evade action.  The probable differences are what you need to understand.

    Harpoon... ruins... the... game... (in combination with other meta elements like LRS, point cost, etc.).

  6. Posted

    I'm a novice player, and I don't understand "timing" the way others do.

    I had Kulda firing at a ship that was in both bullseye and regular firing arc.

    My veteran opponent (who apparently didn't know the universal bullseye firing arc rules anyway ) said he was entitled to spend his focus and evade tokens on Kulda's attack (he had one of each) BEFORE Kulda's ability (remove all focus and evade or suffer 1 damage) was able to trigger, effectively nullifying the ability.

    Now, I realize that we were both wrong about the basic ability of a bullseye arc.  But setting that aside, how does timing work in such a situation?

  8. Posted

    I understand why pros like them.

    Do pros understand why casuals do not like them?

    Whose opinion should have higher value?

    Generally on the forum, casuals do not get a fair shake.

    It's 4 hits, almost every time (in application) plus splash damage.  It's stupid easy to score 4 hits.  Four hits kills a great many ships (particularly from earlier waves), making them impractical at best for pros and foolish for amateurs & beginners.  It's just not the way I want this game to play (but I've always wanted a more cinematic X-Wing experience, and have a bias). 

    How is the Harpoon situation different from the Jumpmaster-5000 situation pre Jumpmaster nerf?  I wasn't around then, but the nerf was in application, quite huge.

    Mattman7306 reacted to this

  11. Posted · Edited by heliodorus04

    "The difference between a good matchup and a great one: a good matchup appears evenly balanced by everyone.  A great one appears to be unblanaced in equal parts but in favor of opposite sides."

    If the only opinions that matter are the tournament players, then the community is more incestuously compromised by group-think than my current impression...

    I can't convince new players to start buying into THIS game.  The cost isn't worth the payoff.  That such a majority of X-Wing players think harpoons (or TLTs, or simply the ubiquitous Miranda DOni) are fun is another matter altogether...  I've tried to make my gameplay fit the meta, but it just isn't fun to always have to buy the same 10 basic lists and join in abusing the most leveraged stress points of the game.  I realize this means I should sell my toys and leave, eh?  I've always wanted a much more cinematic game than the rules set enables.

    Documented balancing mistakes include Deadeye/Jumpmaster (as well as Jumpmaster and its torpedoes, illicit, and mech), Biggs revamp, Tactician, among others.  I recall the 'truly top players' saying that those original states were okay at the time, too...

    NeverBetTheFett reacted to this

  12. Posted

    22 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

     

    This is interesting because TIE Swarms and Interceptors were already pretty rare with the rise of bombs and Miranda.  If you never see TIE Swarms, adding another factor that kills them isn't exactly meta-shaking.  I think a question for anyone to ponder on Harpoons is "Is this the lesser evil?".  It's clearly a good card and we're seeing it in a lot of places, but we're also seeing a much more open meta in return as Harpoons are actually inviting an approach to the game that allows ships to survive that couldn't have in a strictly Arc Dodging/Turret meta.  Harpoons might be the most significant upgrade released in the history of X-Wing, but in a good way.  We'll see, but I think FFG actually knew what they were doing with this card (or got stupidly lucky).

    What ships are surviving that wouldn't have?  I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing the opposite.  Maybe the Alpha Shuttle itself?  But that's a factor of it being a dirt cheap Harpoon platform with 7 hit points (see below).  The Nu is pretty devastating, and you can get 4 of them in a generic list.  Hard to arc dodge all of them...

    A Harpoon has a 73+ probability of scoring 3 hits on its native Target Lock (and above 75 probability for 4 hits if a Focus is available) .  This is its innate problem (all other attack types are inferior per cost point).  This is prior to splash damage, combination effects (such as TLT or Long Range Scanners), ease of access, effective range (huge!).  It creates the dilemma of "Do I have enough Hull to survive an alpha strike (or do I have a high enough PS to arc dodge lower pilots' harpoons).  Harpoons should be in every list (in fact, they must be).

    In trying to maintain my question's relationship to the original "Game Theory" post, how is this not a reduction of the Rock/Paper/Scissors design less skill dependent, less matchup dependent?

    This Harpoon thing just works, all the time.  They're great.  Everybody should have at least 2 in a list!  In X--Wing's abstraction of Rock/Paper/Scissors, revealing your attack item first (i.e., firing first with Harpoons) is now more important than whether your opponent picked Rock/Paper/Scissor (or Harpoon).  Piloting matters, but less so than in the past; the harpoon survivability of your list arises as a factor competing with the importance of pilot skill.  It's much easier to set up that Range2-Range3 firing area and count on 3 hits from the firer (even on 4 evade dice, you can only count on 1 evade, leaving 2 damage and a harpoon condition card). 

    I don't think it's reasonable to point out the list-expanding capabilities created by Harpoon without discussing the reduction in armaments you're going to encounter; Harpoon is now ubiquitous, hits hard and accurate, leaves a splash damage generation factory (that TLTs love), and is cheap enough to throw on suicide ships.  It's all around bad news.  Requiring expenditure of the TL when firing seems like an obvious leverage point that could not have been missed (i.e., obvious power creep decision).

    The evolution of the game has had its ups and downs; what I dislike is when a card becomes so obviously advantageous that it becomes everywhere.  Harpoon is everywhere.  It's not fun for me (emphasis added).  I don't dislike the thing itself.  But game impact is overwhelming and reduces flavor for me.

  13. Posted

    Hey, I've really enjoyed your PTL videos, and have watched a great many.  One criticism is that too many times the commentators are not talking about what IS happening at the game in front of them, but talking about what happened in another game.  I have watched as commentators get lost in the game they are supposed to be simul-casting, and it's been unprofessional and frustrating.  Otherwise, though, I am digging your league and the concepts.

  14. Posted

    I liked your article.  Rational, reasoned. Nice work.

    Quote

    Going full Rock, Paper, Scissors creates a very unfun game experience where one archetype can never win against it's natural predator.  It's not simply at a disadvantage, it will never win short of some egregious misplay or absolutely brilliant play.  The makes for some very uninteresting games that were essentially decided at list creation/deck construction/character creation etc. and requires very little player input.  You'll occaisionally see an upset, but frequently the game is such a foregone conclusion that it's not interesting to either player or the casual spectator.  This means that there's a lot of impetus on the design team to keep the natural predator, prey relationships between archetypes present, but not completely dominant which a hard balancing act that many design teams fail at.

    You made excellent comments about the nature of the Harpoon's effect on X-Wing through some indirect factors (missile vs. torpedo).

    I think this is more of a question:  How do these (following) factors impact the theory-craft of game design?

    1.  Harpoon's cost relative to other similar ordinance (torpedo/missile family).

    2. Target Lock SPEND requirement (Harpoon is a rare missile to not require TL forfeiture to fire).  The sub-category here is the statistical awesomeness of 4 dice with Target Lock, and the ease with which TLs can be aquired since Range 3+ target lock capability in game.

    3. Target Lock splash damage.  The sub-category is the complimentary (and sometimes self-harming) nature of this game impact, particularly in the alpha strike meta;

    4.  Is it not demonstrable (mathematically) that Harpoon implements a full Rock/Paper/Scissors within the "Attack Dice:Cost: Hit Likelihood: Ease of Use" formaula where Harpoon relegates TIE Swarms, or TIE Interceptors (for example's sake, and not to be exclusive) into really bad ideas.  Harpoon is "stupid not to bring".

    5.  Harpoon alone changes the way all list-building in the game must be considered.  The release of Harpoon is, at least at this present moment, an epochal event.

  15. Posted

    On 1/22/2018 at 2:23 PM, Koing907 said:

    Oh wow. This plus Harpoons, Nymranda is better than before the FAQ!

    I'm stunned that the Harpoon is encouraged to be so overwhelmingly essential to your lists.  As if TLT wasn't good enough?

  16. Posted

    Harpoons are a big source of TLT problems right now.

    Harpoons are a big source of Miranda problems right now.

    Harpoons are a big problem with the release of Gunboats (no coincidence, release-economics).

    Harpoons with a TL and a focus have a 99% probability of 3 hits, and something above 70% for 4.  That's fine in and of itself.  But the squad cost and ease of accessibility of both the slot (lots of missile slot ships) and the universal access of guidance chips, and it's just a sort of meta where everything has to take into account alpha strike harpoons that are dealing 4 to 8 damage.  That makes a lot of ships and pilots too chancy to take.

    There's almost no reason to take any other missile than a harpoon.  Certainly the missiles which required firer to spend a Target Lock are antiquated and obviously inferior.

    The next fix-release card will no doubt be some sort of chaff dispenser...  and then we'll all be upset with that.

    impspy, rhs2042, pickirk01 and 2 others reacted to this

  17. Posted · Edited by heliodorus04

    The problem is that Americans are fine cheating to win, especially when the 'cheating' is only spending money on the broke stuff that just got released.

    Americans break games, because the only thing 'real' (i.e., competitive-minded) Americans have fun doing is winning.

    In America, the motto is "Capitalism above all other things."  Americans have always, and will always, buy the stuff that lets them win more easily.  Then you, the other guy, can either play privately the way you like, or you can go to the public places and get bead by the "New Hotness" over and over, or you can budget for the Neww Hotness and try to keep up.  Miniatures games are notorious for power creep, and X-Wing is no exception.

    PS: I'm an American military veteran

  18. Posted

    It's not like there isn't a precedent (Contract Scout).  Some things are broke.  But then, TLT has been pretty broke since it was released, only now Nym can get one, and you can cruise-bomb/harpoon-TLT (complete with crits!)

    No mention of Harpoons?  Harpoons are whack.

    Pretty sure Colorado Regionals are getting won by Nym/Miranda as we speak!

  19. Posted

    I was digging around for Epic threads;

    Anything newer than this?

     

    What's the status of Epic Play.  The C-ROC and the other Epic ships keep me coming back to X-Wing, but the difference between standard dogfight style and Epic is pretty bad for Epic ships.

    Is there an 'alternative' style of play of X-Wing that adds freedom of map size (beyond 3x3 for standard games and beyond 4x4 for Epic?)

    I've always felt that X-Wing in general downplays the importance of range and speed to dogfighting (I guess in favor of quicker games), but I'm an amateur.

  21. Posted

    17 hours ago, Kdubb said:

    It's the way I enjoy the game, and it's still Star Wars last time I looked at it myself. If it isn't for you, that's fine, but playing with my ships while acting as if I do not have a more concrete knowledge of the actual value behind the visuals in front of my eyes, to me, is like acting a pawn is as valuable as a knight because "I like pawns". 

     

    I appreciate your enthusiasm for the game, but the answer for me will never be "ignore the numbers and just fly what you want". It's going to always be to look for a way to make the game great for the competitive AND casual minded player. Plugging my ears and pretending the imbalances in the game will be fixed by my sheer desire to fly the ships I want to, is not going to do that.

    I quit the game because you were either a slave to the meta (which is expensive at best) or you were playing with toys in a competitive game.

    I've saved a lot of money to date not buying anything since the Tie Punisher/K-Wing wave.

    Don't hate the player, hate the game?  Both? Neither? 

  22. Posted

    I quit playing X-Wing and learned to rejoice.

    I broke my hip in a slip & fall at work and get to 'live the dream' of Workman's Comp (/sarcasm)

    I used the money I saved from X-Wing releases that I didn't buy to instead resurrect my interest in historical wargames like ASL.

    That is all.

  23. Posted

    Dear FFG,

    I absolutely love X-Wing and you have taken far more of my money than I would readily admit. There is something I need to ask you for though. The new T-65 and perhaps a Y-Wing. Look at your forums, your fans want it, you'll sell them to tournament, epic, and casual players alike, and it is linked to a new film. There won't be a better time, and I am sure there is a demand, so just do it, for all of us. We will happily repay you with our hard earned cash.

    Thanks,

    Blue

     

    People still play this game?  Why?

  24. Posted

    Then your opponent shows up with a broken list that is clearly an NPE like pre-nerf Contract Scouts and 3x K-Wing TLT, so your best bet is to approach the line of what's acceptable and what isn't in the same fashion as a member of the coaching staff of the New England Patriots. 

     

    Sportsmanship.

    Right.

    You're playing X-Wing where the motto is

    Winning is fun.

  25. Posted

     

     

    State of the Meta:

     

    You need at least one of every ship to build competitive builds.

     

    Meta is a giant pendulum where new ships are always creating better combinations than old ships alone, so if you're not a Vassal playing, life-commitment X-Wing player, don't show up at your local FLGS because everyone else there is just a tournament practicing NPE-giving ace with a single-minded desire to find out the most broken combination of ships and cards that can ignore standard game mechanics.

     

    Wow. Where were you during the top 4? That Jake Han build? Wave 5, plus one copy of autothrusters buddy. That's 4 whole waves of ships (almost half) that weren't needed to be competitive. Next time you should just post the fact that you're unhappy, rather than a baseless claim. Why are you sour about having new ships and cards to play this awesome game with? It sounds like you don't really have a FLGS (Friendly Local Gaming Store). You can tourney practice with outdated lists and still perform well, you just have to be world class at it.

     

    For once, don't hate the game, hate the player.

     

    Ignore him, he shows up from time to time to try and get a rise out of people. Not actually interested in any meaningful discussion.

     

     

    Correct!

×
×
  • Create New...