Jump to content

Firebird TMK

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Firebird TMK

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Firebird TMK


    This thread gives new meaning to "TL; DR".
  2. Firebird TMK

    Casual X-Wing is Dead/Casual Player Bemoans Changes

    My pleasure. I'd add one more observation. In politics, the rule is this: for every man who calls his Congressman about a particular issue, there are ten more who have the same opinion but aren't inclined to speak out. Perhaps that rule is applicable in X-Wing as well.
  3. Firebird TMK

    Casual X-Wing is Dead/Casual Player Bemoans Changes

    My own observation, and what I've read here and elsewhere. I haven't personally done any surveys. You could read "substantial" = "more than just DM and me", but I'd guess it's more than that.
  4. Firebird TMK

    Casual X-Wing is Dead/Casual Player Bemoans Changes

    Perhaps I should have said "a substantial number of more casual players". It does seem clear that quite a few casuals are OK with the current system.
  5. Firebird TMK

    Casual X-Wing is Dead/Casual Player Bemoans Changes

    Gladly. First, as I posted when 2.0 dropped, I was a VERY reluctant adopter of 2.0. As someone who played primarily Y- and K-Wing lists in 1.0, I mentioned a large number of features of 2.0 that I didn’t like at all (mobile arc/ion cannon/reduced hull, etc.). I ended up sinking $$$ into 2.0 core and Rebel conversion because literally everyone I played with, casual or otherwise, was doing so. (I also played Epic, so I fully agree with DM’s aggravation on this issue.) And in doing so, I knew that it wouldn’t be long before the same old power-creep and netlisting that people griped about in 1.0 would return in 2.0. And sure enough, while in 1.0 we had WAAC PS10 Aces, in 2.0 we now have WAAC 6/5/5/ lists. I have commented on the NPE’s I’ve had so far, which I won’t rehash here. The problem is with the designers who produce absurd pilot abilities and ridiculous upgrades that they either fail, or, more cynically, refuse to test sufficiently to determine their impact on the game, and on their existing player base. These problems will NEVER be fixed merely by point adjustment. As long as it is possible to build 6/5/5 super-alpha strike lists with high levels of dice modification, the problem will remain. At most, recosting may force the use of a few less upgrades. And to DM’s point: I agree that constant “rebalancing” is very problematic for the more casual player, and it alters the game substantially more than power creep and erratas did in 1.0. So, what is to be done? Is it possible to reduce NPE’s, keep casual players happy, and still let tournament players table each other? (Which last point I have no problem with as an option, since they’ve paid $$$ for their collections just like I have.) Here I may diverge from DM and others, but I submit that composition requirements would be preferable to recosting. Loath as I am to praise anything GW does, I think the 40K idea of requiring a certain number of basic units, while allowing additional specialized units, can be applied to X-Wing. So, for example, every list could have only a limited number of I5+ ships, and would have to have at least one with I3 or less. In addition, there could be a maximum number of total upgrades per list, or a maximum number per ship. So, as I see it, you could use every ship in your collection, and every upgrade in your collection, but you’d have to make more decisions about which specific ones to use than is the case with just looking at costs. This could tie in with another issue, namely, Hyperspace. What FFG’s early discussion of various formats said to me was: For limited times, or for certain tournaments, different formats may be used. So, in Season 1 of 2019, the format will be “Battle of Yavin”. In Season 2 of 2019, the format will be “Fall of the Jedi”. Or, 2019 Worlds will focus on (yes) “Aces vs Aces”. Hyperspace could be such a periodic (NOT regular) variant. And so could comp’d formats. Note: I’m not calling for composition scores to be THE way to play the game, and I don’t think it’ll ever be THE way to play the game. Will this make more work for FFG and for TO’s? Yep. But it could also keep more people happy, and thus keep more people in the community. So, my proposal: don’t recost, use variant, time-limited formats, and use composition requirements in some of those formats. And, in general, test the game much more thoroughly before adding new ships and upgrades. That’s my two credits’ worth on the matter.
  6. Firebird TMK

    Casual X-Wing is Dead/Casual Player Bemoans Changes

    Just thinking that there have to be more than two options. See my next post.
  7. Firebird TMK

    Casual X-Wing is Dead/Casual Player Bemoans Changes

    Not unique.
  8. Firebird TMK

    Power and Profit

    Alright, then use examples from ancient Rome. Nobody will object to something that old.
  9. Firebird TMK

    Power and Profit

    I would prefer confining political references to the prequels.
  10. Firebird TMK

    Power and Profit

    ZOMG even X-WING threads are getting Godwin'd now!
  11. Firebird TMK

    Power and Profit

    Alienating legacy players is NOT "good business".
  12. Point cost adjustments and upgrade revisions won't solve the problem. Has anyone suggested something like 40K's Force Org Chart? In 40K, you can only have a set range of various types of units, and HAVE to run a certain number of basic troops (at least in the editions I used to play). In X-Wing, why not require at least one ship in the I1-I3 range (for example)? Just ban Ace Wing altogether. Or, ban it in a modified format. You'd still have the opportunity to use any given ship in your collection, but you would have to make more choices than just I6/I5/I5 WAAC alpha-strike.
  13. Firebird TMK

    What is hyperspace format?

    FFG sold 2.0 as the way to "rebalance" X-Wing. They sold it as the way to make all your 1.0 ships viable again, as well as the way to use ships issued with 2.0. Therefore, by FFG's original logic, those po' lil' noobs would be able to play just with 2.0 ships, without having to chase down OOP 1.0 ships, and still compete. This was in SEPTEMBER. It's FOUR MONTHS LATER, and now we're being told, "Suckers! Gotta cut out 90% of your collection because this game really ISN'T balanced, and those po' lil' noobs really can't play 2.0 ships competitively." This is what aggravates. To noobs who supposedly can't handle all those 1.0 ships and their various upgrades: play more! Learn the game. Fly those "balanced" 2.0 ships effectively. Figure out how to use them against the older ships. (It takes time. I've been playing for about 4 years, have played in a fair number of lower-level tournaments, and am still by no means a tournament ace, or even a 2.0 expert.) If you can't do that, why are you playing high-level tournaments? And why is FFG trying to get them to do so? We all know the answer to that question. It's just that some parts of the community, rather than advocating for players, seem to have chosen to white-knight for FFG. Which never ceases to amaze.
  14. It only takes one anomaly to disprove a theory. And all the talk about how Hyperspace is needed because DA NOOBZ! is rubbish, and contradicts everything FFG sold the community about how 2.0 was going to be so much better, so much more balanced, blah blah blah. If that were really the case, then 2.0 new and re-releases would be "competitive" right out of the box. DA NOOBZ! wouldn't need those converted 1.0 ships that they just couldn't get because whatever, but could play successfully against them only with 2.0 releases. So with Hyperspace, FFG has admitted that their 2.0 releases are not good enough to play against converted 1.0 ships, and thus that 2.0 Epically [sic] failed to deliver what was promised.
  15. Thus spake Charles Darwin. It's posts like this, and the attitude behind it, that will earn X-Wing a future Darwin Award.