Jump to content

SabineKey

Members
  • Content Count

    4,664
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About SabineKey

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,360 profile views
  1. @ClassicalMoser @Hiemfire Yeah, I was looking up the action after the post and found the clause. I wonder if the designers made the same mistake I did?
  2. Unless I’m missing something, the answer is either version of Poe and the Black 1 title. The wording on both doesn’t seem to limit the origin of the white action. https://imgur.com/eEJzHWY Edit: Wait. I think I found what I was missing. The wording on the SLAM action looks like SLAM must come first in the Poe action train. Got it.
  3. @theBitterFig I kind of made a hasty apology in my last post, but that’s not what it should be. I am very sorry. I misread a quote from you and didn’t catch it until later. I should have been better than that. You have my sincere apology.
  4. @theBitterFig Sir, I believe you are misconstruing what I said. For the first part. That part is my bad, and I am sorry. Moving on, we are getting data on Hyperspace (or would, but the current global situation makes events tricky) as it is supported in official FFG tournament events. I never implied that it shouldn’t be. I’m just not convinced that it should be given more at the expense of Extended. If you are willing, you might check out my last post to @Wazat where I explained what I want to see, which includes a worlds level event for Hyperspace along side Extended. I’m not refusing a new idea by asking for something it can’t accomplish. I’m asking for it to keep going as it is to see if it can bear the weight of the expectations placed upon it. We went whole hog into 2.0, now look at us. Dreaming it was different. You may be convinced it is worth it, and while I have hopes it is, I am unconvinced. I sympathize with your listbuilding woes, and the freedom you felt switching to Hyperspace. Where as, I had almost the exact opposite time. It seemed like not long after Hyperspace’s cycle hit, people in my area pretty much had it figured out. Extended still wasn’t perfect, but I had more freedom to play what I wanted. So, two different perspectives on the same situation. I mean no ill-will towards yours. I hope you feel the same.
  5. @Wazat While i again appreciate the reply, I unfortunately believe we are coming from different standards and information. i did mess up on what Fig said, and apologize for that. Other things like you talking about FFG pushing Hyperspace that indicates a difference in perception. As I recall, the last adjustments to the official tournament structure actually moved Hyperspace to a somewhat lesser emphasized place among the formats (memory reinforced by several participants in this thread being upset by it), and Worlds Continues to be extended. This doesn’t seem to me like FFG is pushing it that much. Just utilizing it as something along side Extended as a competitive format. But, even though I feel we are talking past each other on some points, you also (like Fig in the post I quoted in my last post) seem to have provided the piece of information I was missing in understanding the fervor in which some people advocate for Hyperspace. I did not understand the magnitude of their hope for the format. And I don’t think that is a bad thing. Hope is import. And while I don’t have as great a hope for the format, I still have hope for it. I just want some experience to go along with that hope before I can agree that we should place more emphasis than half in it. In a year, we will have had three cycles to better evaluate how well those tools are being used. And finally, the numbered options you provided. I personally ascribe to an amalgam answer, where both Hyperspace and Extended have their own competitive events in equal quantities, so that people can play whatever strikes their fancy. Heck, the pie in the sky dream is that they even get their own Worlds level event to strive for. Not an easy task, but one I still believe is worth it. Why? Because I have friends on either side of this debate of Extended vs Hyperspace. And I would rather go for an option that didn’t push either camp out.
  6. Then I apologize for not being able to articulate my questions in a way that properly conveys my meaning. However, even if I was unable to properly word my questions, I still feel you provided the answer I was ultimately seeking. This. What I get from this is that you advocate for things to be more Hyperspace based on hope in the potential in the format. I can understand that. But, for me, hope is not enough to justify the opportunity cost that would come from pushing Hyperspace to be the primary (or only) competitive format. While completely accurate information about how a format will preform is impossible, it is possible to look at indicators to better guess how well something can do. One big one is historical data. Let’s say we have the conversation in a year’s time. At that point, you could not only make a case for Hyperspace’s potential, but also (possibly) back it up with pointing out how well its done the past 3 cycles. And that’s why I’m against such a push to Hyperspace at this time. Come more experience, I may agree with you. But until we see how well FFG uses the tools Hyperspace gives them (because I still have worries that their vision for the game isn’t the same as those who advocate for Hyperspace, and that things some consider “OP” aren’t necessarily off the table for rotation in), I would prefer to keep Extended in the competitive scene, where things might not be perfect, but I still have fun and enjoy a game better than 1.0. Oh, and a clarification. None of my points was intended to bring this into question. I understand this. Variety is the spice of life and all. I was just pointing out that in your example (which I should have stated I think is impossible for several reasons) Extended wouldn’t be devoid of variation because individual tests play a part. Sometimes you want something new. Sometimes, you want an old favorite. I’m just trying to advocate for a middle ground where people can play what they want competitively. Hyperspace or Extended.
  7. I intended the “thoughtfully constructed” part to be an answer to this. I think all lists have a bit of that “more than the sum of its parts” or at least should. I do not mean this example to say that Hyperspace doesn’t have things to offer in the long run. Just that I disagree that in this hypothetical situation where everything is priced right (which also in my mind includes how they interact with other ships and archetypes), things aren’t that dire for extended. I appreciate you taking time to offer up an explanation. I have enjoyed your insight in this and other discussions. Would you mind taking a look at my other points and questions from that post? I have tried to convey why I am concerned about trying to turn Hyperspace into the only competitive mode at this time. Can you see something I’m missing?
  8. While this helps, I don’t feel like it fully answers my questions. While this round of Hyperspace is looked at favorably by you and others, how are you so sure that it will remain consistent with that? We have an example of one in how well they can curate a “diverse meta”. Is that really all we need to throw all are eggs into the new Hyperspace basket? As a new point, I rather disagree with your take on a “correctly priced Extended”. If things are correctly priced, then things should be in balance, meaning a thoughtfully constructed list of any archetype has a shot at victory. Yes, you can have lists that are seen more because more people fly them, but in this theoretical situation where everything is correctly priced, that doesn’t mean you have to follow the trend. If people like flying triple aces and you can field a list of your preference with equal chance of victory, why put limits on something just because it’s popular? This is also assuming that no new content is coming to shake things up. While the OT factions are seen as “done” by the developers, we can still see pilot packs to add some new options and faces to the meta. We could go down a whole rabbit hole about the possibilities of card packs that could add list options that could inject some new spice into the Extended Meta. I don’t type this with the intent to say that Hyperspace is bad and we shouldn’t use it. I am quite pleased with it thus far and am excited to see how it goes. But, due to its variable nature and limited data on how each wave stacks up on balance (including list diversity), I am very hesitant to embrace it as the primary way forward. On top of that, while there are many who are very much in support of Hyperspace, there are also many who still prefer Extended. Why remove the preferred play style of a portion of the player base as a competitive option when there are ways to satisfy both player bases? Even if your surmise about a correctly priced Extended comes true, why remove it when we aren’t there yet?
  9. @theBitterFig But what guarantees do we have that Hyperspace is going to continue to be as balanced as people view it now? Remember, the people who are in charge of the rotations are also the ones that put out the cards that you think distort balance. Why should we make this new Hyperspace the primary (or only) competitive game in town now when we’ve only had one rotation?
  10. While there are a couple of things on this list I don’t agree with, I think this is the right direction. Don’t go full nuclear, but give some smaller bumps up and see how the game adjusts.
  11. Fair. I understand your desire better now and can respect that. But I still have doubts about some of the recommendations. Take your last line. I don’t really agree that Fel should be closer to 70 than 50 as that doesn’t line up with my perception or experience. Hence why I think the slower method is better. Instead of a large, bitter pill your trying to get people to swallow, you dose it out while also getting better info with which to accurately adjust prices. I’m mostly against the idea of planting further dividers between Extended and Hyperspace. Separate point costs just makes things messier to keep up with, further enforcing tribal lines. I also have concerns about placing too much faith in the new Hyperspace. Yes, you like the current rotation, but what happens next time? Suppose next rotation, Jedi get 7B back and regen back? Remember, the people making the Hyperspace restrictions are the same people who made the cards you don’t like and let Slave 1 get to a point. Until we see how well they curate the format over the next couple of rotations, I would rather not put all my faith and hope in it. To get back to the hyperbole conversation, the one you made that really got me was an assertion that Boba was basically a 360 turret. That is factually wrong. Yes, he has a very large amount of options with which to catch people in his firing arcs, but must commit to one option. Once there, he has blind spots that may prove unfortunate for him. An old style 360 turret didn’t have that. It just moved and got shots. Perhaps you see that as a pedantic objection. Perhaps it is. But based on my work and experiences, being exact with the situation and transparent about how it concerns you have with it equals less ways it can be misinterpreted and the situation goes wrong. It’s because of things like the Boba statement that I felt I had to start asking “is Boom being straight with us in this post, or is this just another exaggeration?”. I know hyperbole is used all over the place to try to prove a point against something, whether it is Arcdodgers (switching to this terminology out of deference), swarms, or whatever. No matter the subject, arguments that use hyperbole tend to not impress me. If the problems are a big enough that they require discussion, it shouldn’t need to be exaggerated to get the point across. Anyway, with a better description and understanding of where you are coming from, I can say I respect the end goal. Greater list variety is something I support and hope for. But as we’re dealing with so many variables and they all need to mesh to make something balanced, I am holding out for a methodical and precise way forward. PS- Nearly forgot to add this in, but switch the point change and hyperspace rotations to 3 times a year (4 month intervals) might help with the speed of adjustments. But, as with most things, it would need to be tested to see if it actually provided a net positive to the game and community.
  12. Which requires clear communication and an alignment of goals. No hyperbole, and saying exactly what you mean to. I agree that things need to improve in the archetype. But you’ve started with a huge jump and go for applying it with a broad brush. Again, in the subject of game balance, the word of the day is “precision”. You don’t get precision with just marking up all aces by X and see what happens. Like you said, no one knows what 2.0 without heavy Ace lists look like, which makes me think that the devs don’t want that. As I recall, they mentioned being happy with where Aces were, thus worked on bringing other things up. The kind of large sweeping changes you’ve been advocating runs counter to that. Slow and steady is the path forward. We start by making some points increase in the single digit range, then we test. If more is needed, we do it again. This preserves the game and allows ideas to prove themselves rather than just break a part of the balancing act and see how well it all stays together. Maybe Fel does reach 69. But instead of a sudden shift that distorts everything, we get there by taking it step by step and seeing “well, he worked at 56. Oh, he’s still good at 60” and so on. And if your calculations are off on his value, it’s easier to wind back down to the better equilibrium point because we already have data of slowing moving him up to rely upon. There are definitely some things I think will be easy to agree on (because who thought it was a good idea to make the Slave 1 title 1 point?!?), but others will require more discussion and testing. This also requires people to be honest of their biases on BOTH sides of the debate. And it’s not just Aces that need work. Look, I would like to say thank you for returning to this discussion. I think there are good concerns and things that need to be addressed. I would like to encourage you to continue in this mode of discussion, and not pushing out extreme suggestions that you don’t even want. Much like SOTL’s “heel persona”, it distracts and muddles your message. For the people that really know you, that might not be a problem. But for those of us that just know you by your owl avatar, clear communication of your ideas will save a lot of headaches. Edit: just saw your edit and would like to say please more of that. More context. More communication.
  13. Which is precisely why I’m not on board with your plan. I’m not interested in a game that is further broken because of ham handed tactics, especially since not everyone has the same problem as you.
  14. Ah, thank you for the clarification. That makes more sense to me. I’ve seen talk about Initiative in all its forms discussed pretty much since I started playing X-Wing. It’s a knotty problem and like many such problems, the answer lies not in the symptoms (like you see in triple aces), but in address the root. I guess I’ve seen too many people make suggests that deal too harshly with a symptom of their problem while not actually getting what they say they want.
×
×
  • Create New...