Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CosmicCastawayA90

  1. Firstly, I never meant to imply that you had to play any of the video games. Secondly, the most ancient technology you'd need is any type of semi-modern computer to play the vast majority of those games on, if you had the inclination to experience them. Thirdly, the success of a book does not require playing a game. What I was bringing up was that the games themselves also have rich stories that are at the same level of importance as the books. The books and games both stand on their own merits, but combined they continue to build the Star Wars Universe. To your next paragraph, as I stated at the end of my last comment, individualistic opinions have no weight in this conversation, except that there are numerous people such as myself who did enjoy the EU. What gives Disney, or any individual, the right to tell fans that their stories are how it really happened? Maximum success for Star Wars simply translates into maximum profit for Disney. I honestly don't see Disney branching far beyond that, because if that is what they really cared to do then they could have done it already. The EU, for all its flaws that people are quick to point out, gave a VASTLY superior number of stories that did not have to re-make anything that the films had done. Your last paragraph about giving Disney more time to make better content, again, they would have been making strides with new stories were it not for their desire to slap the original cast back onto a movie poster. So far Disney has taken millions of steps backwards, only to move several inches forward. They shouldn't eventually get to the Old Republic, they should have been there to begin with. While that is my personal opinion, in reality they should have started anywhere within the EU that didn't discount the stories that other fans enjoyed. Your three avenues for Disney to handle the EU are incredibly narrow-minded. I also don't see how far off the current situation is with the EU regarding your first viewpoint. The problem I have tried to point out is that the EU IS forbidden for other creators to contribute to. Is Disney still printing out the Legends books and selling the old games? Yes, they are. Can anyone currently continue adding to those stories and make sequels to those games? No, they can't. All they can do is grab scraps and paste them into Disney's new "official" timeline. Also, "by everyone's admission?" Please define everyone for me, because I for one do not "admit" that the EU wasn't good. I again return to my previous statement, no company or individual has the right to do away with stories, history, and creations of any kind simply based on personal opinion. That goes far beyond Star Wars, but this franchise is the most prominent case of the difficulties members of a community are facing to keep their history alive and well. I've also stated multiple times that I understand that creators don't want to be constricted by the lore of the EU, so to solve that they simply could have made any number of Infinity story lines, or created an "alternate" series of content. If Disney was to simply categorize their work as an alternate timeline, and allow authors and game developers to continue making content based on the EU, while Disney went about whatever they wanted to do with their new timeline, then every member of the Star Wars community could be equally represented. Fans such as myself would not need to feel forced to become involved in canon that does away with aspects we have treasured. I don't believe I've ever said that Disney's new lore is worthless. Repetitive and unoriginal, yes. But I understand as well as anyone that fans want to see the original cast on screen. I understand the desire for new films and shows. I want to enjoy these pieces of work in some form, but I can not because they are removing value from the EU, not just in its lore, but within the Star Wars community as a whole. I don't frankly care whether someone agrees with me that the EU was good or bad. What I care about is the future of the EU, and it has every right to be continued by those who wish to do so. Disney has the right to create their own stories however they see fit. They do not have the right to tell all fans that their work is better than whatever books or games they've experienced in the past. Every part of the EU has the right to be not only preserved but continued. Again, personal opinion is not the focus of my arguments. The right for creative works to be built upon by those who wish to do so is what's important to me. So with all that, I'll give you my personal list of ways Disney could have handled the EU in a more open manner: 1. Disney could have labelled all their new content with a title signifying it is an alternate take on the EU in a similar way they have done so with Legends. Next, they could have given control over the EU to an independent company comprised of fans and creators. This gives Disney all the breathing room they want to make any stories they want to see, while also allowing the EU community to continue their stories and characters without confusion. Both categories would be labelled in a similar manner that is done now, so those seeking the history of the EU can easily find those stories, and those seeking Disney's take on the Star Wars universe can find those stories. 2. Disney could have made a new trilogy with new characters and new stories, taking place anywhere from The Old Republic era to the Vong War. Through talented writing and story telling, they could have added to the EU while also introducing new fans to the EU at the same time. The Old Republic era especially could have opened the door for new generations of Star Wars fans. 3. If Disney did not want to do any of the above, and still wanted to make their new lore the official canon, then they could have simply retold stories that already existed through the new movies, without the need of splitting the EU from official canon. Disney has done extraordinarily little to truly separate their stories from what already existed in the first place, so, therefore they could have taken the stories in full and introduced new audiences to the EU with new movies, while also cleaning up aspects of the EU that conflicted with each other. 4. Disney could have simply gone to The Old Republic era and never even touched the EU beyond that time period. This creates no need for splitting the community and also creates no need for them to try to organize every detail of the EU to fit properly together, or for them to simply re-organize bits from the EU into their own cohesive canon as they are doing now. Anyone one of these options, along with numerous others, could have been done by Disney. Each is inclusive of fans of the EU in a way that does not leave the EU behind collecting dust. Each avenue gives freedom for creators to continue their contributions to the EU, or Disney's new canon. I can not understand why any of the following were not done as opposed to the system that has been created now. I also believe that this conversation hasn't been far off the track of what I originally posted. We've established that ships will likely make a return if Disney chooses to incorporate them into the new lore, and we've also highlighted ships that should make a return. I believe a discussion about the lore itself is just as important. All of the factors that I have laid out in my responses to comments contribute to why I want to see more EU ships make a return to X-Wing Miniatures. It's important to recognize that for myself and other fans of the EU, bringing back that universe is very important to many of us. It should be allowed to be contributed to, and those who want to see that content continued can continue to enjoy the rich history of the EU. Those who dislike it have Disney's take on Star Wars to look to. Everyone should be represented equally. Equal representation, or the potential for equal representation across content like X-Wing Miniatures, is what I want to see.
  2. Gameplay mechanics and balancing do not equate to lore. Even the wiki outline these uses of ships as being made for gameplay purposes. I agree with VanderLegion. I have no idea where you are getting your numbers from Lobokai, but your view that the EU is comprised of "junk" is little more than an unfounded opinion. Firstly, I really fail to understand why you claim that the only people who care about the Old Republic era would be a bunch of "nerds." Really? Aren't we all nerds if we enjoy something like Star Wars in the first place? I'd also like to point out that Disney has already ripped from that era in making the Hammerhead-like ship in Rogue One. And if the average fan is curious about following more of the original cast, then they already could have jumped into any number of EU sources and learned more about them. Each of the characters childhoods could have been expanded upon in legends, sure, but the average fan still doesn't care enough to look further into the universe of Star Wars unless it's on a movie screen. As to your last point about money that Disney would make, I'm going to answer that along with this earlier post: I find it fascinating how there are instances of corporate greed that people are quick to point out has having a negative overall impact on a product or piece of work, and then there are other instances which manage to make the same methods and goals more acceptable for those same people. I've said as much in my last posts that not only do I understand that Disney is making decisions for purely maximum profit, but I've also brought forth an argument to show that it is wrong for them to do so. For example, Electronic Arts is considered a terrible company, and was awarded the "Worst Company in America Award" two years in a row (2013-2014). What is the goal of that company? To maximize profits. How do they accomplish this? By putting profit ahead of a good product, often times leaving that product is a lesser state than the standard that came before it. Disney is doing the same thing here with the EU. I have yet to see a use of EU material that has outdone its original story or character. Disney is selling the same product at a lower level of quality. That isn't right. To your next point, Star Wars was not dead and buried, it was thriving in other art forms. Just because a Star Wars movie wasn't on a theater screen doesn't mean that it was dead. There was still a fanbase that was plenty large enough for the legacy of the franchise to be carried through fantastic games, comics, and books. As for the "mess," I've also already stated that there are some aspects here and there that could have done with some cleaning up. However, the vast majority of content has already been sorted out, and you only need to go to the wiki to see that. I again return to my previous explanation that Disney wiping the EU only to pick out what they personally like to expand on doesn't make any sense. They are looking up stories, characters, and ships that already existed in the EU to use for their "new" stories, which are little more than copies from what was already done in the EU. Tell me why exactly they couldn't have kept the EU intact? They certainly aren't doing anything creative with the EU, as others have been quick to state. So if Disney could spend that much time searching for EU material to copy and paste, why was there a need to remake everything? Disney's profit should not be the focus of discussion about stories within the Star Wars universe. Disney makes more than enough profit as it stands. What should be important about the discussion regarding the EU is whether or not it should be respected by fans and Disney alike, and I wholeheartedly believe that it should be. Whether an individual sees pieces of the EU being good, bad, or mediocre is meaningless. I say that good or bad, the many stories of the EU that fit into the established timeline have a right to have an opportunity to be expanded upon further and still be kept alive by whoever holds the Star Wars license. Every story told through the EU has a right to exist in some form or another, be it through the title of an "Infinity," in which the story is told in an alternate reality or made with no regard for the rest of the established lore, or be it through a story that is closely tied and checked for accuracy with the established lore. I have had plenty of great experiences with the EU, I've also had ones that were not as great. It is not my place to judge what has a right to exist based on how "good" it is. Everything should be placed in a proper category that fits that work, and then fans can experience what they want to, as they have already done in the past. Disney's actions are not promoting such an avenue for Star Wars.
  3. To your first point, the EU was not perfect, I've said as much in my previous comments. I mentioned only a dozen things because if I was to list every bit of good lore that came from the EU, then we'd be here for weeks. You say that you don't like how the Jedi are shown to be wrong, or that they may be bad in their own light with regards to Republic Commando, and you also cite later on that KOTOR II was polarizing because of its tone, which I'm assuming is for similar reasons of the Jedi being shown to be flawed. To this, I would say that moments showing the Jedi were in the wrong are fantastic throughout the EU. KOTOR II and books like Republic Commando showed that the Jedi were far from perfect, as they should be. The Jedi Council held onto its strict beliefs for thousands of years, and the Galaxy has suffered for that throughout history. The Jedi are not perfect, and adding in a moral grey area into the Star Wars universe builds up the universe that much more. Life isn't about clear instances of right or wrong, so what's the problem with highlighting this through certain sections of Star Wars lore? There are numerous short EU stories that haven't aged well, and those could do with some retconning. I'm not opposed to fixing the instances where the lore doesn't line up. George Lucas himself has shown a disregard for established lore with some episodes of The Clone Wars series. However, there were far more instances of incorporating the excellent worlds and aspects from the EU in a proper manner than there were cases where the series went in a far different direction from what was previously established. I'm also not sure what about Battlefront II you're referring to. I don't recall that game ever being centered on competition more so than entertainment, and I don't understand what you mean when you say it "ballsed up all the lore." I would also like to point at that because you have a negative experience doesn't mean that the product is worth being re-written and remade. Referring back to your previous statements about numerous EU stories being cheesy and not to be taken seriously, there have already been statements from officials of the lore that clarify what is and what isn't canon regarding stories like that. A prime example are the Star Wars Tales comic, which was an excuse for many authors to create a mixture of stories that more closely adhered to established canon, and stories which were purely for entertainment. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Tales#Tales_stories_with_elements_of_continuity I would love for these stories to be cleared up further in other works, and for work to go into defining what is and isn't actual "canon." But there's nothing wrong with some cheesy stories being told here and there. If a story is really good, then other writers will find it beneficial to continue those stories in later works. If it is another cheesy story that's really for entertainment value above all else, then it falls by the wayside and doesn't become a focus of the EU. This system worked just fine for the EU, but I wouldn't be opposed to certain stories that were written purely with entertainment in mind to be declared non-canon like many of the Star Wars Tales were, and I'd like them to be replaced by something arguably better. The EU was a collaborative story that was continuously built upon the works of a wide range of talented authors. There were certainly authors that didn't make the cut compared to others, but Star Wars had an open universe that was welcoming to anyone who had a story to tell. Because of this, I strongly disagree with your final point. As I said before, Disney could have brought the community of the EU together with fans of the movies. Disney did in fact hold onto old lore from decades ago, they just simply gave it a little bit of a twist so that they could pass it on as a sequel. When A New Hope released for the first time ever, did anyone know anything about that universe? No, they didn't. If Disney created new stories within the Star Wars Universe, with new characters, or in the Old Republic era, it'd be the same thing. There are ways to create stories that have rich history that don't alienate people who have never experienced that history before. There are numerous examples of works of all kinds that do it in a way that's open to everyone and discriminates no one. The new Star Trek series of movies used time travel and alternate reality, Terminator Genisis did the same, and Mad Max simply used ambiguity. These methods are just a few in which to create stories that don't discount or completely retell the past, and instead let audiences focus on the new story that is unfolding. Disney did not have to go back to the basics and retell the same story. Disney did not have to wipe out the entirety of the EU, only to pick out certain bits of the lore to redo the same stories. And Disney certainly did not have to constrict the ability for other creators to work within the Legends continuity. Star Wars is character driven, but the universe itself is what made the franchise iconic. The characters are incredibly important as well, but they support that universe more so than they hold the center stage. Your concern for keeping what made characters interesting is similar to what I and others feel for the Star Wars universe as a whole. The massive cast of characters from the movies are certainly factors that draw people to Star Wars, and there were already numerous really excellent stories that people could experience if they wanted to see more of those characters. More often than not, the EU was able to capture the qualities of those characters, and fleshed out their pasts and futures in really creative ways. And that's why people like me believe Disney should have gone to other parts of the Star Wars galaxy to make new, and more original stories, rather than remaking what was already done before. We want interesting characters to cheer for and to fear, in the case of iconic villains like Vader, but we want those characters to be new and breaking out of the already established world of the original cast. By and large, the EU accomplished this with characters like Admiral Thrawn, Kyle Katarn, Mara Jade, and countless others.
  4. I'm curious as to what kinds of material you've gotten into with the EU. Are you reading the books alone? Or are you also playing the numerous video games that also came from the EU? And as far as quality is concerned, again, the vast majority of EU content held up to decent standards of quality. The EU might have been messy, there are scattered articles across the wiki that show discrepancies regarding certain topics of the lore, but the vast majority of what was made was consistent with the lore. There are numerous books that are fantastic, such as the Republic Commando series (the game is also amazing), X-Wing Rogue Squadron, The Thrawn Trilogy, The Old Republic series (another great game). And then there are the countless games like the X-Wing and TIE-Fighter series, Dark Forces, Battlefront, Rogue Squadron, Bounty Hunter, and Shadows of the Empire, which are also of great quality and stand up today. The problem is that while Disney might be twisting the EU to conform to their own standards, they are leaving out an incredible amount of detail in the process. They are doing all of this when they simply could have been far more creative and gone to The Old Republic era, or focus on stories of other characters that are around during the Galactic Civil War or Clone Wars eras. It's a big galaxy, with trillions of inhabitants at least. Why shove in the original cast if not for the pure sake of maximum profit? To me, wanting to re-write history for maximum monetary gain isn't a good method to promote story-telling. Above all else, I don't see what the point was to unnecessarily remaking content that already existed. Disney would have made plenty from just holding onto the license of Star Wars alone. The comic book analogy doesn't apply here in the same way though. Yes, Marvel and DC have consistently created new stories around their characters, but with comic books, the one appealing aspect are those specific characters. The vast majority of comics place their heroes and villains in modern times, there isn't a deep, rich universe of limitless potential that can easily be jumped to in the same way that exists with Star Wars. Their story lines certainly haven't died on a vine, but reinterpreting comic book characters is a different environment compared to something like Star Wars. Comic book characters like Superman have plenty of different interpretations for their history and future, and the general public would be able to identify that the different movies are different interpretations of the character, and that one movie doesn't necessarily override the other. The atmosphere of writing a new take on Superman is much more open because Superman is the aspect of that medium which holds the center stage. That's not true of Star Wars, where the universe was open to all kinds of interesting characters with unique backstories. Think of it this way, superhero comics are defined by their characters, Star Wars is defined by its universe. They are two different aspects of entertainment, and the rules that work out for one don't exactly work for the other.
  5. Lazy for sure. And I agree, the vast majority of EU was great! For the most part everything once fairly consistent, and there weren't many major discrepancies between the games and books that were released. Yes, myths and legends would be changed and twisted around throughout history, but that was mainly due to stories being passed down by word of mouth hundreds upon hundreds of years ago. Everything that we have now that's related to telling stories is written down, or recorded in one form or another and can be referenced easily. We aren't seeing a growth, we're seeing a re-hash of ideas that already existed. Disney's content is little more than a glorified remake, and only a small percentage of the greater Star Wars community will be able to recognize it as such. If Disney wanted to label their new lore as an alternate reality, or actually call their work a reimagining, or remake, then all power to them. If they really cared about the community, then they could have found a way to incorporate events in the EU directly into movies, just by following a different cast of characters. Wouldn't it have been great if the Star Wars community could have been brought together as a whole? Rather than further dividing us? Unfortunately, they've left the lore of Legends behind in the dust. Only FFG and Bioware can continue making new lore in the Expanded Universe, and that's not right. I'd love to see large set expansions for X-Wing Miniatures that go back to the Clone Wars and Old Republic eras, and that'd really be the only way they'd consider releasing ships from a little over 3000 years ago. I doubt they'd release expansions like that until they couldn't release any more ships from the Galactic Civil War era though. More Clone Wars era ships would make sense, but depending on how many they'd want to make I say those should be a large-scale expansion too.
  6. I agree, the Nu and Scurrg would be nice, but I'm not sure there's any viability in an X-Wing without an astromech. Now what might be nice is a modified Z-95 with S-foils, as that was a thing in the EU, but even then that's hard to justify. In my original list of ships I left out the Razor Starfighter for Scum, and the DX-9 Stormtrooper transport for both the Empire and Scum. Those would be nice to see.
  7. The erasure of a huge line of books, video games, and comics isn't disrespectful, but calling me a "simplistic grognard" is? Buddy, Obi-Wan Kenobi had higher ground than you do here, best to not lash out in anger, lest you get your legs cut off by a lightsaber.
  8. So the "creative" process means ripping off the exact same story from the first Star Wars movie? If Disney really wanted room to be creative, then fine, I would have loved to see some original ideas, but wiping out a whole culture and then copying and pasting the parts you like isn't creative, it's disrespectful. And they have plenty of time to look at the expanded universe to rip from it anyways, so how much time are they really saving? It's called Wookiepedia; I can literally write my own story with respect to the lore by looking up a couple pages here and there to make sure I don't have any blatant errors. The thing about Star Wars was that it provided limitless room for story-telling. Want to tell the story of a shifty smuggler trying to make ends meet in the seedy alleys of Nar-Shadaa? You can do that. Want to tell the story of a Jedi who survived Order-66 and has been living out his life in peace, until a regiment of Storm-Troopers blast through the town he's become a part of? You can do that too. The only reason Disney chucked out the EU was to profit from the original cast members. They could have easily gone to the Old Republic Era, and really fleshed that time period out.
  9. I'd say, replace "almost" with "is" and you're exactly right. Disney really just wanted an excuse to re-write Star Wars history so that they could rake in cash by selling the new movies on the faces of the original cast. It's degrading to fans, writers, and the original cast. The bright side is that there isn't an enormous amount of EU ships that can be shoe-horned into Disney's canon, and those who love the EU like we do probably just want an excuse to see those ships in X-Wing Miniatures by this point. Miniatures and The Old Republic MMO are the only sources of EU material that have been grandfathered in by Disney, and at least for me, those are the last new sources of lore I'll look to as being true Star Wars stories.
  10. I agree. This is the problem I have with having to wait for Disney to re-incorporate the EU into their cannon. They simply shouldn't be re-incorporating anything in the first place. If they were going to wipe out the EU, then that should have been the end of it. Yet they rip from the EU consistently. Why then, did they decide to scrap the EU in the first place, if they aren't original enough to come up with their own ideas? This is why I'd like to see some more EU ships in the game, even if there are only a few of them left that'd be noticeable for the Galactic Civil War era. I want to be able to see a more complete collection of the EU lore in the game, and I think there'd be a decent amount of ships that have a purpose within the game mechanics as well.
  11. I'm not impatient to see anything, and I don't believe there are glaring omissions, but I think there's still a few ships here and there that could do with some representation. For starters, there are plenty more Scum ships that could be incorporated into the game. The R-41 Starchaser, Cloakshape Fighter, Toscan Fighter, Pursuer-class enforcement ship, and the YT-2000 would be nice additions to see. The Rebels getting the T-Wing wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but the Raven's Claw would be nice to see in the hands of the Rebellion. The class of ship for the Claw wasn't expanded on too much in the EU, so that'd be open for a lot of possibilities. The YT-2000 could be made for Rebel use as well. You're right in that there aren't too many other vehicles that are exclusive to the Rebels aside from variants on existing ship chassis. Most of the other ships that are Rebel exclusive would be speeders, but there hasn't been a focus on ground combat at all with X-Wing Miniatures, so those aren't viable at the moment. As for the Empire, the Scimitar Bomber, Missile Boat, Assault Gun Boat, various TIE-Avenger variants, Skipray Blastboat, TIE Hunter, and MK VI interceptor would be options. Mainly, Scum could see a healthy variety in ships, and Rebels and Empire could get a couple ships to shake things up a bit.
  12. For the longest time, I had my sights set on X-Wing Miniatures because of all the Expanded Universe ships that were being added to the game. I loved seeing X-Wings and Ties as much as the next guy, but being able to grab hold of a model of Kyle Katarn's Moldy Crow, or the E-Wing? Now that was what really got a hold of my attention. But now that Disney has separated the EU from their "official" canon, I'm concerned that additional ships with the rich history of the EU will no longer become part of X-Wing Miniatures. The last several waves have been almost entirely devoted to the new movies and Rebels, the exception being the ARC-170, which as far as I can tell seems to be based on the EU. Do you think that FFG will be able to return to some of the EU ships in the future? Perhaps by rebranding those ships with the same "Legends" banner that every other product of the EU has received? Or do you think that Disney's work will become the new norm for ships in the game? I'm curious to see what others think.
  13. Maybe you should change the name to something like "Cinematic Skirmish" or "Theatrical Skirmish?" Calling the mode "Galactic Civil War" might be a little misleading, as all the EU ships are considered Galactic Civil War era ships. Other than that, I like the idea!
  14. Nope. This is truly the first 'competitive' style table-top game that I've remotely gotten into. I've had my eye on plenty of miniature games before, but the price and lack of time to play them has placed them at the bottom of my list of priorities. I've been delving back into a ton of Star Wars books, comics, and games as of late however, and figured now was as good a time as any to jump in and see what X-Wing was like. If it wasn't for the Star Wars theme and the EU ships, I wouldn't have bought X-Wing at all.
  15. Rather than a lack of storytelling options, I'd say a #5 should be a lack of variety in game modes. That applies to every aspect of the game, tournament and casual alike.
  16. I miss the first 8 or so pages of this thread, when it seemed like a lot of interesting and open discussion was happening about how X-Wing can be turned around and put back on track. Stay On The Leader submitted a great blog post that articulated numerous key points from the thread with a lot of supporting evidence, and rather than talking about those many great points in depth, we're dealing with topics like this: I legitimately have no idea how you got the idea that Darth Meanie is dismissing parts of the fandom with what he said here: Who in the world even brought up what makes an actual Star Wars fan??? What does ANY of that have to do with the game mechanics?? If anything the segments of the fandom that have been dismissed on this thread are those of us who like the X-Wing and many of the original ships! The title of the game is X-Wing Miniatures, so naturally the vast majority of players want to see the X-Wing in action. How is this so impossible for people to comprehend? As for your surface level assessment of what a Star Wars fan is, yes, the PT, OT, shows, EU, and many other sources of Star Wars entertainment all belong to fans of Star Wars. You don't have to know something to know that it is part of Star Wars, but the problem is that in recent years many people do not RESPECT parts of Star Wars culture, and when people brush off concerns that players have about the T-65, A-Wing, Y-Wing, and numerous other original ships from the films and EU, then you are dismissing segments of the fandom. I'd also point out that the Assault Gunboat is still not in the game, and might not be since Disney, and the greater part of what would be considered the Star Wars community, has left the Expanded Universe for dead, and as a result has left a divided community in its wake. However, all of that is best suited for a discussion on ANOTHER thread. If you want to have a discussion about why the EU is still important, and why it is important for fans to start building bridges to people who were never knowledgeable or caring about the EU, then I'd be more than happy to oblige. I've been working on writing a paper and creating a video on the subject for half a year now, I'd gladly take the extra input. If anyone here wants to discuss whether or not there IS a problem with Miniatures in the first place, I'd be happy to have that conversation. However, please redirect those topics to separate threads! This thread should be discussed in the assumption that there is a problem with the game, and we are highlighting those problems and coming up with possible solutions for the game to grow without leaving old vets and iconic ships behind.
  17. In all seriousness, he really does get a gold star for reading through the thread and giving good reasoning as to why he agrees or disagrees with a potential fix for the game. Maybe this thread can get back on track after all. Honestly, everything you've written here is very well said, and I thank you again for bringing the thread back on track. I agree with everything you've written here, more game modes would do an incredible job of bringing all ships back into the fold of the game. The objectives, opening up to new players, the potential for cinematic events, and breaking out of the standard deathmatch mode we have now are all incredible reasons as to why new game modes should be implemented. I think FFG should go another step further, and really start supporting community made missions and modes. The easiest way they could do this would be to simply create a sub-forum for custom game modes. I can't believe that this at least hasn't been done yet. Giving a sub-forum for players to post the rules and set-up for their own games would be a fantastic way to set up a standard for custom modes in the community. But I don't think FFG can do just one of these potential ideas for new game modes, I really think that they need to do both. Think about it, how great would it be that instead of a new wave being released, they released a new toolkit for game modes? They could certainly use the objectives that already exist, but what if they also created competitive modes with this theoretical toolkit? Then they'd not only get players fired up about new modes existing in tournaments, but they would also release a method for the community to practice playing the coming modes, AND the community could cobble together their own game modes, which they can then post to a newly created sub-forum for custom modes and missions to be shared with others. Boom, all ships have their purpose restored (or at least the potential to be restored), the game has new life breathed into the tournament, competitive, and casual communities, and potentially unlimited creativity can keep the game going for the future. I would just like to point out that this has been suggested before, by myself and others. So maybe instead of just blindly disagreeing with everyone and trolling a thread, you could actually read what others are suggesting, and find at least one or two points you can agree with them on.
  18. I love how everyone who has a problem with people saying that the game needs improvement continues to completely exclude intelligent conversation about the game mechanics, and would rather resort to calling someone wants to improve the game an immature player. Everyone here is grateful the game exists by the way! And the only people spitting fire here are those like you who refuse to provide meaningful insight to the topic at hand. I write those "essays" because I like to read and respond to people's comments, and usually by the time I'm able to do that many comments have been left on the thread. I respond in detail, because I think critically about what is being discussed. I'll tell you the same thing I told Luke C; If you don't want to contribute to the conversation at hand, then start your own thread. I'm no longer replying to Luke C because he has not once directly responded to any points that I've brought up in my previous comments. So I will continue to "spam" the forums with my "essays," because I actually care about the games that I play and like to discuss how they can be improved. Nobody in their right mind should believe any game is perfect, because chances are it isn't. The world would be a much better place if everyone could contribute critical thinking, reasoning, and constructive criticism to solving problems. I've played games of all types for 16 years, and I've found numerous games that were pretty **** balanced. Myself and others have cited examples of this numerous times over, so why don't you go back and read those "essays" and think about what those words are all saying? Preferably before you post another counter-productive comment.
  19. Again, I have asked you to directly explain to me why these systems would not work based on the gameplay mechanics of X-Wing, and you continue to refuse to answer any question I pose to you. If you don't want to contribute helpful, meaningful discussion to this conversation, leave. I do not have the patience to continue to explain myself over and over again when none of the points I bring to light are directly answered in a way that brings legitimate evidence or critical thought. I and many others have given numerous, concrete reasons why there is a problem with the game, and we have also given numerous fixes to these issues. You do not admit that there are problems with the game, and you do not directly respond to the evidence we have provided to show you with concrete certainty that there is a problem with the game. If you don't think the game should change in any way, then maybe it's time you started your own thread on that topic. Because here, we believe that there is at least one problem in one form or another, and we're trying to have a very open and meaningful discussion about how to solve it. To your first point, you really have no problems with new players getting upset that they don't have a hope to win with the ships they want to be good with? Let me know how well the player base grows in the long run if that's your outlook on the matter, because having to pay to win at a game is bull no matter what form of game we're talking about. To your second point, thank you for agreeing that multiple formats should exist. However, this is not a disconnect between casual and competitive players. Many of us here could be considered competitive, and we're wanting changes to be made so that we can bring elements of skill back into the game that were in the game at the start, but that have now eroded away with the latest waves. I find it baffling that somehow you still believe a metagame is the way to bring fun and good game design, because there's a ridiculous amount of examples of games where the meta goes off the walls and kills the fun and skill. I stated in my previous comment that there should be other formats specifically for competitive and league play for a reason. Many people who are not you, who also play in the environment you do, would again like some actual skill to factor into the game again. Don't create a divide between 'casual' and 'competitive' players, because unless anyone here is planning to go pro, we're all on equal footing as to how we can interpret and discuss the game. Your third point, that I'm wanting to "contort" X-wing to my vision? My vision for the game is that it's actually based on skill, so that every single ship is viable at one task or another, and that everyone has the potential to create competitive squadrons no matter what wave they're using. That's called a skill based game, and if you don't think that's possible, I'd like you to google a game called Counter-Strike. You might have heard of it because it remains a skill game where every single weapon has a purpose. Are all weapons perfectly balanced? No, they aren't. Can each and every last one of them defeat an enemy if used by someone who has the skill and knowledge of how to use those weapons properly? Absolutely. That game would be considered "static" by you, and yet it's still the most popular multiplayer video game to this very day, and also continues to grow. At the end of the day, what I'm saying X-Wing should be is balanced, and I'm not the only one. Also, just because you haven't seen a proposed change you want to play, does not mean that they aren't good ideas and that they can't work. If you, or anyone else that has a problem with the suggestions being discussed, don't like these ideas because they break cheap combos being used and stop gimmicky strategies from being implemented, then good, that's the point of balancing a game, and that means we're actually coming up with some great ideas then. Also, you think that we're "game-haters?" And that most players must somehow "not agree that the game has numerous problems," and that "problematic players" are "far more unhealthy than the game mechanics themselves?" So because most of us here have problems with the game as it stands, we're now considered haters? And we're unhealthy to the game? Despite the fact that we've been having fairly calm and intelligent discussion on this thread about how we'd like to see the game fixed because we enjoy the game so much? So because someone has a problem with the game and doesn't consider it's broken mechanics perfect, they are a hater? Continue playing games with this kind of attitude, and you'll only serve to drive more people away. There is such a thing as constructive criticism, and the only ones not providing that on this thread are those who rush to defend this game to very death, and would rather fault every last player who has a problem with the game, than to take a single moment to provide specific feedback with respect to the game mechanics. Yes, wanting every ship to be useful and allowing players an opportunity to win with every ship as long as they have the skill necessary to use them is a VERY unreasonable expectation indeed. What would we do without our elitist meta-system that assures victory to the elite members of the game, who have memorized the perfect combos to beat everything into oblivion? -obvious sarcasm should be obvious- It's amazing how you fail, no, refuse to comprehend that we're not saying any new player should be able to take any deck and win with it just like that. We're saying that he should have the POTENTIAL to win with a reasonably constructed squadron of basic ships. A well-practiced, experienced player should assuredly be ABLE to beat an opponent running the current meta ships if he can outfly his opponent. The meta SHOULD NOT BE PREVALENT in the first place. A player SHOULD be able to take first place if they're that good of a player. Are there going to be better combos and squads than others? Yes, we want that! What we don't want is for that to be the ONLY factor when it comes to competitive play.
  20. To those saying that it's impossible to design a game without power creep with continued expansions, you're wrong. It's absolutely possible to minimize power creep and metas through solid game design. If you truly believe that power creep is inevitable, and that the first waves of any game like this are going to be useless, you haven't been reading the comments of this thread, nor have you played enough games that actually have good game design. So in response, I would like anyone to tell me directly why none of these ideas I've suggested in past pages (quoted above) are viable. I'd also invite you to search for other suggestions on this thread and directly state why they wouldn't work. There are incredibly simple ways to balance out this game, yet so many people have stated that the game doesn't need fixing, or that it simply can't be fixed. Seasonal Ban lists, requiring a certain percentage of forces being standard ships while limiting the copies of other types of ships, creating more missions for competitive and tournament play, adding an official vanilla mode for those who would like to go back to X-Wings and Ties. These are just a few of the numerous ideas given on this thread that would be absolutely viable without requiring new ships or cards. Many of these ideas would future-proof the design of the game and give an additional factor of balancing. Those of you who truly believe that the game can't be balanced or fixed, well, many of us on this thread have at least given some incredibly solid foundations to start that process. Go ahead and tell me that my suggestions are wrong, that they won't work, but tell me with logic, evidence, and a decent analysis of the pillars of gameplay mechanics X-Wing is based on.
  21. Yes, actually, I do get it. You, however, seem unable to defend your idea that the game is fine based on its mechanics. You continually blame players for making mistakes. Practicing to get good at a game, does mean that I could perhaps win more at higher levels of play, but me being able to win at the game doesn't mean that the game does not have mechanical issues. Anyone can practice at anything and be good at it, your explanation makes no sense, and does not show that the game is mechanically sound. You yourself continue to point out that skill at flying plays second fiddle to skill at list-building. Once again, the two determining explanations for a player losing are that they didn't practice and that they brought the wrong meta-list that got countered by another meta-list. There shouldn't be a meta in a truly skill-based game, and saying that the meta-lists have meta-counters does absolutely nothing to convince me that flying is still the focus of this game. I also don't have a clue as to where you are getting the idea that myself or anyone else on this thread has said there is a single list that can win games constantly. Many have said time and time again, that the problem is that the focus of the game as it stands is building numerous meta-lists to have a shot at winning. Your comment that I can carefully pick my ships, practice with them, and have a good shot at winning is contrasted by your statements that list-building is what determines a win or a loss. In a perfectly skilful game, I could practice flying a squadron of X-Wings and still bring down opponents if I know the ins and outs of flying and positioning those ships. What chances do you think X-Wings have in this current meta? They are assuredly lower than the meta-ships being flown at the moment. That is more than enough to show flight skill is outclassed by deckbuilding. I've also seen no evidence that you've provided to prove to me flying is the most important part of the game, as everything you've said has proven otherwise. The people who were at the "bottom tables," were they beaten by unique decks of ships that never get played in the meta? Or were they simply countered by other meta-decks and ships? A small sample size of people losing or winning a game is useless in determining if a game's mechanics are sound. Again, with this simple statement, you've proven my point for a third time in a row. You say you don't talk about flying because it's "obvious." Is it really? If so I'd like you to tell me how flying is not outmatched by having a better list. You yourself say that lists absolutely matter. I'm not saying that there can't be cards in X-Wing, but they should all be balanced and every single ship should be viable based on skill. You're correct that you'd beat me if we played a game, but it wouldn't just be because of the massive gap in knowledge between us, it'd also be because you can construct a list that would determine the game before it began. Based on what you've said before, I need a counter-list to go up against you. I don't need to learn how to fly better, I don't need to learn how to perform actions more effectively, I need a better deck of cards to have a hope of winning. Please tell me if this is incorrect, because it seems to be consistently the point you're making. I'd suggest that instead of focusing on players own individual skills and time to practice learning the meta, you should try to provide me evidence through the mechanics of the game. I'd also like a direct answer to the questions I brought up in my last post. Those being 1)Why don't you simply play a CCG if deckbuilding is so important to you? and 2)How is flying still the most important part of this game? I've got no problem with cards being present in X-Wing, they can add a lot of nuance and strategy to the game. The problem I have is when they become so prevalent that I might as well be playing Yu-Gi-Oh, or Hearthstone. I got sick of Hearthstone's meta, and I can't abide by any game that has a meta. It is not an intelligent use of game design, it's a cheap way to keep hardcore players coming back, removes true skill from a game, and sucks up any hope of actually having fun. I want to have fun in a competitive environment, where I know that I lost due to a lack of skill on my part, not a lack of being able to memorize and execute a limited set of predetermined decks that have the only chance at obtaining a win.
  22. Wanting to be challenged by an opponent's strategies is what everyone wants out of the game, however, I don't see how creating decks that decide the outcome of the game before it begins could be seen as truly strategic and skilful. Wasn't this game focused on dogfighting and maneuvring skills when it released? Anticipating an opponent's actions and planning to counter those actions is one thing, but shouldn't a player have a chance to beat their opponent with skill in flying their ships? Why exactly don't you "buy" the idea that fortressing goes against dogfighting? Because your given explanation could be applied to literally every form of competition mankind has created. "As a tournament player primarily, the game is about developing a strategy that would allow you to have the best chance to win. for me that is literally the end of it." Wanting challenge in developing and initiating strategies to beat an opponent is also the basic definition of any strategy game. Again, you reinforce the concept that the current meta is not a suitable road for X-Wing as a whole. "If I can't do that, I brought the wrong list for that matchup. Luckily a tournament is multiple games and usually you can come back from one loss, If you can't, you misread your meta, better luck next time." This sentence solidifies that the way the game is currently played means that a match is determined before the game even begins. There is no mention of the possibility of a comeback through out-flying your opponent, or a mention of the possibility that maybe your opponent will make mistakes in their positioning that you can capitalize on. Even your use of the phrase, "better luck next time," shows that skill does not seem to be a factor into the game outside of the deck building process. As a wise Jedi once said, "There's no such thing as luck," yet he might stand corrected when it comes to X-Wing's meta. If you want the kind of experience the current X-Wing meta provides, why not play Collectable Card Games? The unique flying mechanics of X-Wing are just barely mentioned by your comments, which is the problem I and other players have with the latest waves released for the game. The one thing that makes this game unique, is also the one thing that is rarely mentioned by yourself. Memorizing meta decks isn't a skill, it's memorization. If I took a multiple choice test and memorized all the letters that were the correct answers throughout the test, I'd get a 100%, but it wouldn't be through skill or true knowledge of the material.
  23. Having us "forum philosophers designing the game" would actually be a pretty great idea, but not the way you're thinking of it. We are not trying to force FFG to make the game play the way we want, what we're trying to do is bring some very good suggestions forward for FFG employees to consider and discuss with us as to why the ideas we're coming up with would or would not work. Game design is a collaborative art. You'd be surprised at how many really great ideas for games of all types get recognized through forums. Developers do a disservice to their game and their community when they block out all feedback from their player base. I'd also be curious for you to tell me what general ideas you've seen suggested that would be terrible for the game. You say these flaws could be demonstrated in a five-minute analysis? Then show us those flaws. I want the developers themselves to also show us what flaws exist in the suggestions we've put forward so that we can make the game better. As for your example using Apple, I'd say that's an incredibly poor example to bring up. That company has so many blinders on their eyes that they removed a universal headphone jack from their latest line of phones. Apple has acted on many baffling, and many objectively poor decisions as a result of not listening to their consumers, so I'm very surprised they are the first example you bring up when defending your point. If anything, you've proven that your point is invalid to some extent. As for the forum not being representative of the majority of players out there, I'd also beg to differ. There are numerous viewpoints on the state of the game that have been brought to attention with a lot of information and reasoning behind those viewpoints. You say that the people here are generally like-minded and that we are prone to "ventilate." Go ahead and show me some examples of how you've seen people ventilating on this forum without providing reasoning as to why they are frustrated with a particular mechanic of the game. Having negative opinions or critical thoughts with certain aspects of the game doesn't mean that a person will just blindly spew negativity, and I've seen no blatant examples of that happening so far. Maybe you could delve into detail as to why you feel that the issues being discussed are not a concern? What is your reasoning and logic for not being bothered by the mechanics that have bothered others? Can you bring forward some examples and evidence as to why these systems are balanced and fine in your eyes? Because if you aren't willing to contribute to the conversation, and would rather simply criticize those of us on this thread, then you'll probably be seen as a troll.
  24. Your first two points may be a bit too harsh, but the third suggestion regarding stress having more of an effect might be the better way to go. For your first suggestion, I don't think that the mistake of one ship would or should affect other friendly ships in the way you've suggested. If average players do start learning to fly more effectively, then this rule would become useless for all but newcomers. Those newcomers might simply feel cheated and quit the game altogether, as opposed to encouraging them to improve through taking calculated risks. The second suggestion might not be a bad idea if applied to particular ships in order to balance out their damage, but again, this might be too cheap of a rule to implement and might have a similar effect to your first suggestion. The third suggestion is something I can get behind, perhaps not in the exact format you provided, but making ship stress more of a factor would be a good way to encourage better piloting. I feel this idea holds the most merit out of the ones you suggested because it fits into the game's risk-taking gameplay. Overworking your ship could cause potential for your ship to fly out of control, lose power, or maybe take damage. Thematically this makes sense, and mechanically it means the stress tokens may not become so easy to remove should you push your ship past its limits. Enjoyment is actually a very good category for determining if a game is good. It's the reason most people play games in the first place. However, the vast majority of people who have posted a comment on this thread have stated good reasons why they aren't getting the enjoyment from X-Wing that they used to get. Others have also said that they are still enjoying the game, and have given their own reasons why they believe this. Enjoyment on its own may not the most descriptive way to tell if a game is good, but listing reasons for enjoyment or lack of enjoyment is a very important way to help a game improve. If you don't feel bothered by any of the game's new mechanics that have upset others, then why are you commenting on this thread in the first place?
  25. You're not wrong, splitting the community is always a risk with any game that has multiple modes. But I really agree with your view that in the end, it'd bring more people to play the game. Heck, why not have a game mode that is strictly Tie Fighters vs. X-Wings? I think that'd be a pretty awesome way to get newcomers like myself more involved in the game outside of playing with friends and family. A "vanilla" mode such as that would tick off a lot of the checkmarks regarding the issues people have with the game the way it is now: *The ships are easily recognizable. *Ties vs. X-Wings can be fairly balanced (depending on the numbers of Ties and X-Wings) and would give an easy way for players to learn the core concepts of the game. *Fans of how the game was played in the past would have an avenue to officially play the two classic ships from Star Wars. *Flight skill now has it's meaning restored. *Those same fans of the earlier waves could now have a direct means of more easily teaching new players themselves, and potentially strengthen the community as a result. *And finally, the game mode would put "X-Wing" back into X-Wing Miniatures. This would essentially be X-Wing's version of Dust II. A game-mode that every knows, that a large audience is drawn to, that could stick around for decades. I like this concept as well, although maybe effects wouldn't have to be completely blocked, but surely some counters would be nice. Something like this might create more of the complexity that has resulted in the problems with the current state of the game. But if FFG is going to continue focusing on creating combos with squad building, and continue making the game feel like Yu-gi-Oh or any other card game, then some harder counters to the gimmicks in the meta should at least be implemented. That is the lowest bar they'd have to pass, and failing to do so may only lead to the state of the game becoming worse.
  • Create New...