Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Darth Ruin

It's time to ban C3P0

419 posts in this topic

 

Of course, you realize that you're forced to buy the TIE Phantom to get the ACD card, right?  There was nothing mean about packaging C3P0 in the Tantive IV; either it's worth spending the money or it's not.  FFG isn't forcing you to do anything.  You could check out CSI or MM and get them cheaper, or find a place that sells the cards individually.  Guessing 0 evades doesn't result in automatic anything.

 

Whether I agree with the OP or not, this is a poor, uninformed effort at bashing him.

 

You get Advanced Cloaking Device with the only ship that's going to use it.  You get C-3PO in a box with a ship he's borderline useless with.  "worth spending the money" is not $15, it's $90.  You're right, he's not forced to buy it - but I think a lot of people are very uncomfortable with the "Pay to Win" feeling coming from C-3PO right now.  The Corvette is a VERY expensive SKU that a lot of people don't really want, and watching such a meta-influencing card come out of it is disturbing.  And yes, guessing zero evades does actually result in an automatic evade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not OP and doesn't need a ban.

However, wave 6 sure as hell better bring the strong counters to the super falcons. Every other ship/list type has had multiple counters released in a short time span. Its the turret ships chance to be within the crosshairs for once.

Not everyone runs swarms and shouldn't have to just to stand a chance against a list.

Edited by Nataris
Wookie Hunter likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus do you guys even play this game? You beat a list by splitting it.

You eschew ships that require synergy and you run solo fighters that can handle their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll say again. The meta isn't really bother by 3PO.

or is atlanta just way different from the gaming community?

Meta is usually local.  I ran an event last weekend that had a dozen players and not a single Falcon, much less a Fat one.

 

But that doesn't mean it's not a problem anywhere.  The San Diego regional a few months back (pre-3PO) had 24 players, and 21 were Rebels running Falcons or B-wings.  It's nice that you don't have to deal with it, but there are people who ARE dealing with it, and it's really not fun.

Wookie Hunter likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that both of those lists are massive extremes and winning one might mean losing to the other.

Here's a question. Who actually can fight a phantom with a suboptimal build against it? What build did you use (and why it's bad against the phantom)? And how did you fly to overcome that?

 

I went 4-0 against Phantoms at Gencon with the following list:

 

Roark w/ ICT

Dagger w/ HLC

Blackmoon w/ FCS + R3A2

Bandit

 

It's not necessarily a suboptimal list, but it's far from it's hard counter.  Furthermore, it holds its own against Fat Han (though my only fight at Nationals against a Fat Han was vs. Paul Heaver, where I lost, but it was much closer than the score would suggest).  Anndd... it holds its own against swarms too.  

 

It's almost like I threw the meta out of the box for a moment and created a list I wanted to fly, and then shored up its weaknesses... And go figure, it did a **** good job at handling whatever was thrown at me.  And it was fun to fly.

Excellent points! It's easy for people to forget that the current meta is just that. People will gravitate towards what's popular. Doesn't make it broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether I agree with the OP or not

I agree with you Buhallin... I don't think 3-CPO needs to be banned, but the OP is taking way more heat then he should for saying so.

If people have a logical rational argument to make why 3-CPO isn't OP'ed they should make it, but posts like "Oh look the sky is falling again" is neither helpful, pleasant or fits in the general "fly casual" attitude so many espouse as being a part of this community.

Myself I don't think 3-CPO is an issue, because he at best gives you 1 evade a turn, and a 3 point crew that lets you evade 1 damage doesn't seem to be that OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I've suggested two possible fixes in other threads but I'll post them again here.

 

1) Can't guess 0 for evades

2) Can't be used on a ship with MF title

 

The second option doesn't make much sense lore wise, so option 1 is probably better. 

This is one of the dumbest things I've read in a long time.  It's right up there with "If she's on top, she can't get pregnant."

 

Note: I'm not saying that you've ever said the she's on top statement.

 

Well then, you cock, what do you have to add to the discussion?

 

It's a whole lot better than your suggestion of "you can't guess 0 evades".  What's the point of a card where you can guess your outcome, if your most likely option of two choices can't be chosen?  After all, there isn't always going to be a R3 shot or an asteroid shot coming at you.

 

It just looks like you've got your panties in a wad because you don't want to find a way to overcome a new facet of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C3po is a major upgrade to falcons however it's not overpowered by itself. However paired with z95 mini swarm, then lando, then Chardon refit awings, etc it is a lot more powerful then the old Han shoots first lists. The big issue is the gap between rebel and imperial releases. Ironically the same cards people complained about back in February/march when they were shown via previews are the same cards people complain about now after they are released. The fat Chewie build is just going to get stronger and stronger and the funny part about this is it's biggest weakness is the swarm builds. However ffg has been pushing against swarm builds with every wave having at least one deliberately designed anti swarm card. Personally one of the best reasons to use c3po crew over Chewie crew card is u get to use chewie falcon which is cheaper and allows for more upgrades and adds to the falcons defense.

Edited by Gungo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Whether I agree with the OP or not

I agree with you Buhallin... I don't think 3-CPO needs to be banned, but the OP is taking way more heat then he should for saying so.

If people have a logical rational argument to make why 3-CPO isn't OP'ed they should make it, but posts like "Oh look the sky is falling again" is neither helpful, pleasant or fits in the general "fly casual" attitude so many espouse as being a part of this community.

Myself I don't think 3-CPO is an issue, because he at best gives you 1 evade a turn, and a 3 point crew that lets you evade 1 damage doesn't seem to be that OP.

 

 

Fair enough Vandor, I freely admit my post added nothing to a rational discussion and apologize to the OP and community at large.

 

Frankly though, in my opinion, I don't feel this thread was started with the intent of creating a rational debate on the subject of 3-CPO.

 

Blanket statements such as "It's time to ban C3P0" followed up by factual statements like "Fat Falcons have ruined the small ship meta"  aren't really meant to inspire a logical or rational discussion.

Edited by JFunk
Krynn007 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does C-3PO deserve to be banned?  Probably not.  Is it 100% Falcons everywhere?  No.  But it IS influencing the meta in a way a lot of players don't seem to be enjoying.

There are two important questions at hand, I think:

(1) Is C-3PO influencing the metagame? I'm not convinced on this one; mathematically, at least, he shouldn't be pushing things around any more than the Chewie crew card did. I'm inclined to wonder, then, if Threepio is pushing Falcons into the game or up in the standings, or if he's merely an attractive piece of insurance once people have already committed, for whatever reason, to running Falcons.

(2) Granting, for the sake of argument, that the answer to (1) is yes, what should be done about it? "Run Outmaneuver" is one option, but it doesn't really hold up for me; "run ordnance" is another, but I can't seem to get any traction with that; one can hope for future design solutions to be forthcoming from FFG, but that's potentially a long wait.

My issue with the OP is that it skips straight past both of these questions to "BAN IT NAO PLZ", which is as helpful as it is interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've suggested two possible fixes in other threads but I'll post them again here.

 

1) Can't guess 0 for evades

2) Can't be used on a ship with MF title

 

The second option doesn't make much sense lore wise, so option 1 is probably better.

This is one of the dumbest things I've read in a long time.  It's right up there with "If she's on top, she can't get pregnant."

 

Note: I'm not saying that you've ever said the she's on top statement.

Well then, you cock, what do you have to add to the discussion?

It's a whole lot better than your suggestion of "you can't guess 0 evades".  What's the point of a card where you can guess your outcome, if your most likely option of two choices can't be chosen?  After all, there isn't always going to be a R3 shot or an asteroid shot coming at you.

 

It just looks like you've got your panties in a wad because you don't want to find a way to overcome a new facet of the game.

You guess one, and get two evades when it happens.

Or just force the ship to take a stress token when you use it. You have C-3PO shouting at you from the backseat while being shot. That should be stressful.

Right now, the card is 5/8ths of an Evade for no action cost. It's boring.

catachanninja likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those complaining about 3P0 being packed with the Tantive as a cashgrab, which ship is he depicted as on in the card art? It's like claiming PTL in the A-wing (instead of the interceptor) was a cashgrab: it depicts an A-wing and was designed with A-wings in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those complaining about 3P0 being packed with the Tantive as a cashgrab, which ship is he depicted as on in the card art? It's like claiming PTL in the A-wing (instead of the interceptor) was a cashgrab: it depicts an A-wing and was designed with A-wings in mind.

This is no more compelling now than it was the last time you brought it up.  Are you seriously suggesting they pay no attention to the abilities when they pick the cards for a ship?  "Oh, look - someone sent us a C-3PO card.  This ability would be great with a large ship, but the artist used the corridor of the Tantive IV for the background, guess we better stick it in with the corvette!"

 

This doesn't even pass the smell test.

 

Edit: And do we really have to run the laundry list of cards whose background don't have anything to do with the pack they're in?

Edited by Buhallin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly though, in my opinion, I don't feel this thread was started with the intent of creating a rational debate on the subject of 3-CPO.

I'd agree, and often I'm of the opinion that the tone of the OP sets the tone for the whole thread. But at the same time, we've all been a bit cranky lately it seems. I see more and more threads that are denigrating into less debate and more name calling between 2 or 3 people. I myself am guilty of this to a point.

But that doesn't mean we can't at least try and offer constructive criticism of a point first, and see what if any effect that has.

I mean when we had a thread about Z-95's sucking, there were a number of rational and well written arguments for why the OP was wrong. When someone started a thread about the dice all being poorly mate, we again had a rational discussion about it...

Then when in both cases the OP or the person driving the argument ignored everything said, started calling people names, and ect... Then we responded in kind.

Again, I'm not saying anyone is wrong, or that the OP didn't more or less ask for it. But I'd also like to see us start to Post Casual, as well as Flying that way.

JFunk, catachanninja and Sekac like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really appears people are still not getting that 3PO is good for one shotround.

 

  • Phantom shoots Falcon
  • 3PO guesses "0"
  • Falcon rolls "0" evades.
  • 3PO provides 1 Evade.
  • Defender shoots Falcon
  • 3PO doesn't get to guess again!
  • Falcon rolls... Whatever it's gonna roll.

C-3po.png

 

The Game Round is comprised of the Planning Phase, Activation Phase, Combat Phase, and End Phase... 

 

3PO is useful Once per round.

Edited by DigitalChicanery
algnc, FTS Gecko, Crabbok and 3 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those complaining about 3P0 being packed with the Tantive as a cashgrab, which ship is he depicted as on in the card art? It's like claiming PTL in the A-wing (instead of the interceptor) was a cashgrab: it depicts an A-wing and was designed with A-wings in mind.

 

Precisely. It's a Epic Level ship card and should stay at the Epic level. It clearly wasn't expected to dominate the 100 point metagame the way it has come to. 

 

Any card which makes a ship invulnerable (2 attack vs 2 evades) has no place in a game where every other ship has the potential to take at least one damage from a given attack.   

 

Vorpal, the reasons C3P0 is a problem have been documented at length elsewhere. Hence the 'its time' post.

 

I'm not advocating it be banned completely, I'm suggesting it should stay on the Huge Ships it was designed for. Unless you consider Epic play somewhat inferior to Standard, or enjoy playing Fat Falcon 4-5 games out of every tournament. 

 

The people who don't have a meta dominated by Falcons (i.e. don't play competitively) or don't even know what C3P0 does and have to be told probably cannot contribute meaningfully to this discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are two important questions at hand, I think:

(1) Is C-3PO influencing the metagame? I'm not convinced on this one; mathematically, at least, he shouldn't be pushing things around any more than the Chewie crew card did. I'm inclined to wonder, then, if Threepio is pushing Falcons into the game or up in the standings, or if he's merely an attractive piece of insurance once people have already committed, for whatever reason, to running Falcons.

(2) Granting, for the sake of argument, that the answer to (1) is yes, what should be done about it? "Run Outmaneuver" is one option, but it doesn't really hold up for me; "run ordnance" is another, but I can't seem to get any traction with that; one can hope for future design solutions to be forthcoming from FFG, but that's potentially a long wait.

My issue with the OP is that it skips straight past both of these questions to "BAN IT NAO PLZ", which is as helpful as it is interesting.

 

For (1), something has obviously changed.  Falcon+2 builds have been standard for a while, but seem to have exploded recently.  So where did the fat builds come from?  Phantoms pushing people to turrets is probably part of it.  The Z-95 probably contributes, since you can get +9 points into the Falcon without going all the way down to 2 ships.  But I think C-3PO contributing to the durability has to be considered a major part of it.  Whether it really works out mathematically or not, people FEEL like they're tougher with it, and can afford to put more points into the single ship.  And when you're talking meta influence, perception is just as important as mathematical reality.

 

For fixes on (2)...  <shrug>  I think ordnance is very RPS, but even then doesn't help much.  Unless you run A LOT of it, you're going to blow what you've got without taking down the Falcon.  It's also vulnerable to PS jumps - the Falcon is FAST, and will almost certainly have a PS advantage...  If it includes an Engine Upgrade it an close from outside lock range to collision point in a single move.

 

I'm certainly not defending the way the OP presented his case, but the reaction across the board was disappointing.  We're 4 pages into what is basically people shouting down someone who's not enjoying part of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a Epic Level ship card and should stay at the Epic level.

That's simply untrue. 3-CPO is almost completely worthless on the CR-90.

 

Any card which makes a ship invulnerable (2 attack vs 2 evades) has no place in a game where every other ship has the potential to take at least one damage from a given attack.

That's a very narrow window you're using there. You're assuming a Tie Fighter at Range 2 or 3, most other ships or even Ties at range 1 have the potential to do 1 damage. The above doesn't really do anything to help your case.

 

Also after a single attack it's completely possible the Falcon has no more evades left for the follow up attacks by other ships.

The people who don't have a meta dominated by Falcons (i.e. don't play competitively) or don't even know what C3P0 does and have to be told probably cannot contribute meaningfully to this discussion.

No one needs to have a meta dominated by Falcons to see the retaliative value of 3-CPO. I also don't see many people here who are confused on how 3-CPO actually works.

Edited by VanorDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just dont get how c3-pio is "dominating the meta"

its one evade.. potentially two if they guessed one, which could easily become no evades.

AND its once per turn.. i mean, tryin to take on the falcon 1v1 with a ship.. yea thatd be annoying

options:

take gunner/luke

shoot with multiple ships

use outmaneuver or any similar ability

 

its not like there arent things you can do.

People use whats popular... they also believe that it's the only way to fight phantoms.

combine both of those.. well thats just what happens... paves the way for the defender to pick up the meta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we ban questioning the intelligence of the designers?

 

Yes and no.  Having met the current designers, I can tell you they're intelligent folk, and no one should be questioning that.

 

On the flip side, they aren't infallible.  Just look at how the cost of PS has changed over the waves, not to mention the not-so-subtle "whoopsie" of Chardaan Refit.  We should evaluate the mechanics of the game and give feedback.

 

Now, just trolling and screaming "ERMAGHERD <insert new thing here> OP" all the time usually just gets you ignored.  But a well thought out argument, with supporting evidence, usually gets people's attention.

Spaceman91 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0