Jump to content

Commander Kaine

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Commander Kaine

  1. Am I not allowed to have opinions otherwise? Be careful what you say, because you might not have the right to tell me what you think about it, before handing in your resume, citing at least 2 years of game design related employment. What do you define as "experience"? I don't have experience in balancing a commercially available game. I have been designing games for over 6 years now, but only for the entertainment of me and my friends/family. I don't get how this is relevant, since the overwhelming majority of the forums don't have any experience designing games, and it is perfectly fine for everyone to express their opinions, and I have been observing you interacting with them, without questioning their authority on the matter. And it's not like I say the most outlandish things. If you want, you can engage my points with your own ideas, addressing the arguments I made. If it's dumb, you can easily refute it. Because me admitting that I don't have professional experience does not make your point, really. It doesn't achieve anything at all. Or... in the flip version. Imagine that I say: I do, I have designed tabletop miniature games for 15 years. Will that make me right, in your mind? Will you stop thinking that I am wrong? Is that all it takes?
  2. I never stated that using hard errata is the only solution. I'm not sure why are you arguing that I do. Obviously, when more precise solutions are enough, there is no need to get hammer. I've said it as such in the OP and since. But take the example of the TIE advanced. Most people agree that it is overcosted when compared to the T65, but any point reduction would allow Imps to field one additional ship. In my opinion, that is too much. The simpler solution is an errata. My goal is not to upset people. The JM5K nerf was upsetting on multiple fronts, the reasons being: -Along with the previous nerfs, it went a bit overboard. -It damaged the identity of the ship, as represented in the lore, as well as many of the roles it played in the game. In this case, the simpler solution was to adjust costs. I'm not arguing for either solution, I'm arguing for both, using them when it is necessary. There are situations when an errata is preferable, and there are situations when the point adjustment is preferable. Using a subpar method that doesn't answer the problem (errata in the case of the JM5K, or point adjustments in the case of the X7) will result in unsatisfactory results. You gotta apply logic and reasoning to each case, to find the core of the problem, and address that. If the problem is too much or too little efficiency, address it with point cost adjustments. That's how you know. Luke is a problematic ability. Cost increase won't help solving that issue. Luke "we could buy our own ship for that" Skywalker is unfair, even at 30 points, which is extremely expensive. What he needs, is a reasonable cost, and a way to counter him. Give him the same timing window, but make it an action, and price slightly above agile gunner. Done. Compare him with 0-0-0, who is a fair card, but is a bit cheap for the effect. Or the Bombers, who are way too efficient. A cost reduction seems like a reasonable action there. I also don't get how this method is necessarily slower than others.
  3. Why was it overpowered? Was it because the benefit it provided (free evade after 3+ speed move) Or was it because it denied counterplay (the evade is actionless, stress and bump resistant) If the X7 was OP because it added a free evade after a 3+ move, then increasing the costs is the right solution. If the X7 was OP because it denied counterplay, rewording the card is the right solution. The benefit itself, is not overbearingly powerful, especially if there are ways around it. Lacking a weakness was the problem. No matter what price you tag on it, that remains. Like Luke Gunner, it completely shuts down certain lists. If you priced it more aggressively, like Luke, it might not have been a problem, because nobody will play it. I view that as a suboptimal solution.
  4. Ehm... sure. Everything is relative. Most ships in the game vs 1 upgrade... I'm not sure if that's the right way to look at it, but whatever floats your boat.
  5. Yeah, cross referencing schucks. Bad cards schuck more. Errata never bothered me, after the first game I learned about it. The ultimate errata to JM5K was... not the best. The dial was still cancer, and it just greatly reduced the builds that were viable. It did accomplish the goal it set out to do, but, I'd argue that the cost was a bit too high. Player satisfaction was not optimal. Had the JM5K been published in its final 1.0 form initially, sure, that would have worked. But in the end it just felt mangled. Never played scum, and I could not be accused for having sympathy for scum players.... But it was inelegant. The stupidly busted abilites... Sure. I can see that FFG is getting better at it. But, once again, I'm not advocating for mass changes or anything like that. I just want people to consider that both methods have benefits and drawbacks, and focusing one just one is not necessarily virtuous. So, let's talk about the X7 It helps an overpriced chassis that didn't see much competitive play, despite being quite potent statwise. It adds an action free token, making it resistant to stress, bumps, rocks. And you suddenly have a problem. The evade it gives, is okay, flavorful, gottagofast, etc. Increasing the price for it leads back to the original problem of the Defender, being overpriced, while not solving the issues the card gave. IF the answer lies within increasing the cost of the card, you will still have a ship that has 6 health, 3 agi and gets a free evade every time it dials in a 3+ speed move, regardless what happens afterward. That's kinda difficult to kill, and lacks counterplay. If you have a 2 dice attack, you can forget about damaging the ship all together. No matter how many points will the ship costs, that situation will be present. 2 dice attacks can't really hurt an old X7 defender, regardless of the circumstances. This is bad. However, by rewriting the card, so that the extra benefit of the card can be countered by blocking, stress, and rocks, options will open up for the opponent. Instead of having an invulnerable ship that straight up shuts down anyone with an attack dice of 2, you have a ship that WHEN PLAYED WELL, does the same thing. Stress the ship or block it, and it will go down. Is it possible that there is a magical number, that could make the X7 title work balance wise? I doubt it. Against lists with 2 dice attacks, the value of old X7 is far too great, while against lists that don't block or can't deal stress, the old X7 and the new is almost identical, so there a price increase wouldn't be warranted. Is there a source stating that LFL needed to check stuff (even errata), or is that just a rumor? I never seen it confirmed anywhere, people just repeat it on the forums. Please provide source. (or stop asserting it as a fact) I addressed the JM5K argument above. Using less drastic measures first, then using heavier tools is not a good solution because: Why use 3 tools, if you can solve the problem just using 1? FFG is not likely to roll back previous nerfs, like they didn't with the JM5K. This could result in overdoing stuff. I agree with the speed thing, but I feel the track record FFG has, we should be worrying more about too slow reaction times, rather than too fast. I also feel like this last point of yours is a bit of a false flag. I advocate getting it right for the first time, not doing it hastily. I'd be fine if there was a grace period for each release. (Like no balancing is done on a ship in the quarter it is released, all errata is saved for typos and stuff)
  6. Ehm. There are things we know now. I say what I say based on the available information. Based on that information, some of the things they've stated does not seem correct. Whenever they will correct these things, I will stop with all the gloom and doom. Definitely not before then. FFG isn't my buddy... FFG is a business partner, and I pay them money to deliver on the promises. Their bias haven't stopped them from ruining the game before. They their earned paychecks just fine. And if you are going to sass me on my ability to understand stuff, maybe try and be legible next time.
  7. Okay. Now go back, and read my post again. Nowhere in it I judge anything. This is an answer to the people (and there are quite a few of them on this forum) who say. "Oh they will just adjust the cost". "They will drop the advanced with a point, and it will all be solved". This is an answer to a mentality in players. It's what I am afraid of. We've seen FFG's last resort. It ain't pretty. Yes. Your point being? I tell you how this works normally. I say something, I say why I think what I say, maybe I illustrate with examples. I have done that. If you disagree, you can tell me why, present an argument in the favor of your point, and you can explain why you think what you say. My claim is "Some effects are too strong/weak for point adjustments to be sufficient." can stand on its own. I gave a few examples of it. If you disagree, which is fine, you can tell me why. This doesn't make any sense. Nowhere in my post do I mention the number of cards available to the game. I don't state that we should have as many balanced cards as possible as a goal, or even a passing notion. It is completely irrelevant how many cards are in the game, or how many of them are balanced. Errata should be used for toxic effects that promote unhealthy gameplay, and lack counterplay options. Points adjustments should be used for otherwise healthy effects, that are either lacklustre or too powerful. The two different solutions are required, because there are two different problems they can solve. If you have a toxic effect, no matter what you do with it in terms of costs, it will remain toxic. It might become unplayably expensive, but it will not have more counterplay options, or fairer effects on the game. What you are talking about here, has nothing to do with anything I've said.
  8. With 2.0, FFG will have the ability to tweak the power of basically any card in the game, without compromising the information on our cards. Should an effect, a pilot or a ship be too much or too little, they could change the costs easily. Aside from typos, unclear wordings, or mistakes (actual errors that the errata is for), there are no strong incentives to modify the text of a card. In fact, one could argue that if you CAN keep the game healthy without changing texts, you should be doing so. That way you can keep your cards relevant for the longest time. However, I put it to you, this is the wrong way to think about design, and it will lead to similar problems as the tools of 1.0 did. In some cases, there are effects that are just too powerful or too weak to be balanced by point values alone. Some argue Luke Gunner is one such card. Old Palp had a similar issue according to some. There is simply no indication that such effects will no longer plague the game after 2.0, especially with the ludicrous release schedule FFG alludes to. Disregarding these problems, and trying to fix them with point values will either result in cards with minimal costs that are still not played, or cards with exorbitant costs that will not be played either. What I am trying to get across, is that both solutions need to be used simultaneously to achieve a healthy game state. The old X7 was treated right, making the Evade an action, therefore depending on player skill to work, instead of ignoring counterplay options. The decision to change that card's text is the right one, even if we account for the possibility of changing the cost. The mechanic was unfair, and it was made fair, while retaining the cool parts. Similarly, in some cases, raising or decreasing costs is the right way to go, especially when a card does everything the card needs to do, but it is still a sub-par option compared to others. So, here's hoping that FFG realizes this and will not lock the mechanics of every card in, however useless or powerful they might be, and will use every tool available to them to make the game right.
  9. Pros: - Not 1.0 - No cancer in the game - Punisher is one of the better ships. Not just one of the better bombers, because it is actually THE BEST bomber, but overall, it is a very powerful ship. - Imps got some love. - Turrets nerfed - Overall, I like pretty much every game play change. The cons: - The designers didn't really get better at design. - Several promises were underdelivered. - FFG is still bantha poodoo in communication. There are major questions about 2.0 that have not been answered to this day, and their communications about the conversion kits also leave some things to be desired. - Their balancing strategy remains to be seen, which is a pretty major part of the whole 2.0 experience, and a huge selling point over 1.0. Their willingness to issue errata and points adjustments UNBIASED is not yet proven.
  10. Don't bother. He won't. I think some ships and upgrades are very badly priced, and there are doubts in my head about the good designers at FFG using the sciences to determine the costs. They probably treated 2.0 as the biggest errata to X-Wing ever, in which they nerfed strong ships, and buffed weak ones. Not entirely random, but isn't exactly scientific either. Also, a few f#ckups are included as well, like nerfing the advanced and keeping the costs the same.
  11. It's not that you can't guess it. C3PO tells you the odds of successfully navigating the asteroid field defending against an attack. If you roll 0 results, his annoying blabbering is not helping you in the sticky situation, he falls over into the circuitry, etc. The ability does not forbid you to guess something, because it is not a valid result. It doesn't allow you to do it, because it has no effect when you roll nothing.
  12. Buying an extra agility on a 4 health ship has a different value than buying it on a ship with more health, yet it costs the same if their agility matches.
  13. **** rebels are so pissed off at bombers, they keep blowing up our manufacturing plants all over the outer rim. Luckily our supply chains are frankly amazing, so across the Empire we will only see a marginal increase in costs.
  14. She would need to be better than that, with the Bomber's red reload, that seems like a once per game trick. What if she got the cluster ability on all missiles? Make her kinda expensive, and is balanced off that. IN 4 1 regenerating charge After you perform a [missile] or [torpedo] attack, you may spend 1 [charge] to perform the same attack as a bonus attack against a different target at range 0-1 of the defender, ignoring the [lock] requirement. So she could doubletap at 2 different targets with any torp or missile. But she still couldn't hit 3 people with cluster. Seems pretty nice.
  15. It's good that with Imps, I can be relatively safe by fielding a bomber or two next to my jank. My BOMBERS used to be the jank I field next to something competitive, unless I just wanted to be wiped off the board. Happy times. Plus, now all bombers can do this: (barrel roll, lock, cluster missiles) I love it.
  16. Pretty expensive for a 2 dice attack on IN 3. Oh, yeah I can see that. Come to think of it, you are right. You have convinced me, good sir. You don't even need to expand on anything you say ... like ever. You could even try to convey your message in even fewer words... Maybe the total absence of your comments will send the right message? I think you are getting it mixed up. Higher IN pilots would pay the same, lower IN pilots would pay less (because they get less of a benefit). About being taken into account... I'm not sure. It can't be fair on all price levels, because it provides different levels of benefit for different pilots. Either low init pilots pay too much, or high init pilots pay too little. With your argument, we could disregard all variable upgrade costs, because the price of ships already takes their stats into account. There would be no change for Vader at all.
  17. The card is extremely powerful, but most of its benefits come from high Initiative. Paying 12 points for the ability on lower IN pilots is not worth it, and I doubt anyone will use it for the generic Inquisitors for example, or in the future, generic Jedi. I think a price adjustment based on IN is reasonable, to something like this: IN 1-2: 6 pts IN 3-4: 8 pts IN 5-6: 12 pts
  18. As my fellow officers on the Outer Rim say... If you have a problem and you can't solve it with one Punisher, solve it with two!
  19. Sure. Hyperspace ring You lose the boost and evade actions You treat your turn maneuvers as 1 difficulty higher Because you know... It makes the ship fly worse.
  20. Intimidation Norra with Zeb
  21. Focus is the most common linked action element. Most mods that used to change blanks now only change focuses. Force tokens naturally do that. Kestal is bad for any gunner because she dies like a wimp. Imps need some cheap gunner options, sth generic to make them stand out.
  22. There are many many ways to modify focus results. Palp isn't bad, but what he does is not unique anymore, hardly justifying the cost of a full other ship. I think that's my biggest problem with 2.0 so far... Too many upgrades and abilities grant the same result on different slots. I'd be happier with a more expensive, but better palp. He should be the most expensive crew in the game.
  23. Guys, there are degrees... 1.0 jam was broken, but that doesn't mean 2.0 jam is all good now, because it was nerfed. Nobody said they want 1.0 jam back...
  • Create New...