Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Plainsman

"Fixing" the game or players???

Recommended Posts

Lol thats not a personal attack, your new here i suspect go look up any thread made by a poster called ribean and you'll see personal attacks.

 

MJ is probably laughing himself silly, if you'd been around any amount of time you'd know we have no issue with each other he knows i respect his work but trust in personal skill over statistics.

 

And i've been arguing in favour of the defender since wave four came out in dozens upon dozens of threads i've heard alot of claims about how bad it is, i never said it was said in this thread 

 

 

You misread my post, I didn't accuse of you of personally attacking anyone, I said that a lot of people react to a mathematical or competitive analysis of the game as if they were being personally attacked. 

Edited by Tvboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People will always complain. It's just a fact. People can't just be happy. I had no problem with the A-wing or the tie advanced. Vader is the most powerful pilot in the game, fix or no fix. Game developers try their very best to make a well thought out and fair game. Instead of running around crying that a ship needs fixed, learn to play it in spite of its perceived disadvantages. Any ship or card can be argued over that they didn't get it right, or that it costs too much to even bother with it. A player's skill is what makes a ship shine.

So enough with the fix this or fix that... maybe, just maybe, you can be happy we all have this wonderful game to enjoy. The fly casuals and I will already be relaxing by the pool when you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Hobojebus should replace his title with Defender of the Defender.

 

I had no problem with the A-wing or the tie advanced. Vader is the most powerful pilot in the game, fix or no fix. 

Could you please elaborate on the Vader is the most powerful pilot in the game withouth the fix ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't account for things like Wedge at R1 outside a Tie Interceptors arc, so he doesn't try to. The jousting numbers are just that, what you'd get if you lined your ships up across from each other and threw dice. Anyone simpleminded enough to take that as the end all be all of X-Wing... Well I don't think we need to worry about people like that.

 

And yet, maybe we should:

 

As someone who doesn't have a lot of time to try out every single ship in the game (I get to play 1 game a week if I'm lucky, I can't even play on Vassal) but wants to be relevant when I do get to play, MJ's ships values have been a really helpful tool for me to know what ships to favor and which ships to avoid when list building. I know that the ships I choose will only be as good as the work I put into them, but knowing which ships take the least amount of work to be good gives me the headstart I need to keep up with people who play this game all the time. 

 

If people are truly ignoring certain ships and certain builds on the basis of MJ's facts and figures,then they're missing out on vast areas onf expertise and understanding of the game.

 

Take good ol' Paul Heaver again for example.  Why's he so successful?  Because he's bloody good at what he does.  Of course.  But because he not only knows his own list and ships inside and out, but also because he knows his opponents ships inside out, their roles, their movement dials, their abilities, how they fly, how dangerous they are and as a result he can not only prioritise targets but also accurately predict what an opponent mnay do in any given situation and adapt his own strategies to suit.

 

Anyone can throw together a Phantom & Mini Swarm list (or whatever) based on the data MJ so kindly and efficently provides, but very few will be able to fly it as effectively and as consistently as someone who also knows and understands the other ships in the game.

 

I'm sure MJ could tell us - based on his calculated jousting values - what the single most statistically efficient list in the game is.  When he's done so, I myself could probably tell you how many times that list has won Worlds.

 

I am sure they are not actually disgregarding the data totally (or i hope so), most of them are just non tournament players that really enjoy their game and try to defend it.

 

That was an impressive yet completely innaccurate generalisation.

 

Could you please elaborate on the Vader is the most powerful pilot in the game withouth the fix ?

 

PS9 and two actions per turn with no downside.  Ignore the ship he's flying, look at what he does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Could you please elaborate on the Vader is the most powerful pilot in the game withouth the fix ?

 

PS9 and two actions per turn with no downside.  Ignore the ship he's flying, look at what he does.

 

 

I don't think you can really separate the pilot from the ship but even if you could it would be debatable.  Vader is the only PS9 pilot that has a pilot ability that can be denied by blocking or by performing a red move. Han, Wedge, and Soontir can all end up using their abilities in those instances. Soontir is the least likely of the three to be able to use his ability if blocked unless he was blocked performing a k-turn as it would require stress from an outside source. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"PS9 and two actions per turn with no downside.  Ignore the ship he's flying, look at what he does."

 

I think this statement might has merit. Obviously ignoring upgrades and list synergies, which shouldn't be too hard for the forum to do (comparing things in vacuums is one area we excel in), Vader could absolutely defeat most any other pilot, even some who are costed above his weight class. Add in the new x1 fixes and he is getting dangerously close to being "The Chosen One."

Edited by Red Winter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can't account for things like Wedge at R1 outside a Tie Interceptors arc, so he doesn't try to. The jousting numbers are just that, what you'd get if you lined your ships up across from each other and threw dice. Anyone simpleminded enough to take that as the end all be all of X-Wing... Well I don't think we need to worry about people like that.

 

And yet, maybe we should:

 

As someone who doesn't have a lot of time to try out every single ship in the game (I get to play 1 game a week if I'm lucky, I can't even play on Vassal) but wants to be relevant when I do get to play, MJ's ships values have been a really helpful tool for me to know what ships to favor and which ships to avoid when list building. I know that the ships I choose will only be as good as the work I put into them, but knowing which ships take the least amount of work to be good gives me the headstart I need to keep up with people who play this game all the time. 

 

If people are truly ignoring certain ships and certain builds on the basis of MJ's facts and figures,then they're missing out on vast areas onf expertise and understanding of the game.

 

Take good ol' Paul Heaver again for example.  Why's he so successful?  Because he's bloody good at what he does.  Of course.  But because he not only knows his own list and ships inside and out, but also because he knows his opponents ships inside out, their roles, their movement dials, their abilities, how they fly, how dangerous they are and as a result he can not only prioritise targets but also accurately predict what an opponent mnay do in any given situation and adapt his own strategies to suit.

 

Anyone can throw together a Phantom & Mini Swarm list (or whatever) based on the data MJ so kindly and efficently provides, but very few will be able to fly it as effectively and as consistently as someone who also knows and understands the other ships in the game.

 

I'm sure MJ could tell us - based on his calculated jousting values - what the single most statistically efficient list in the game is.  When he's done so, I myself could probably tell you how many times that list has won Worlds.

 

 

I keep a print out of every ships maneuver dial with me whenever I play, I don't need to fly every ship in the game to know how a ship will move, so long as I understand how barrel rolls, boosts and advanced sensors affect a ship's movement.

 

Do you realize that every minute spent flying a ship that you aren't going to play with is less effective than a minute spent practicing with a ship that you do intend to play with? That's because 100% of the games you play will feature the ship you've chosen to use, while there is no guarantee that next game you play will feature a ship that you've practiced with but are not flying yourself.  

 

For example, I've recently decided that I'm going to start using 58 point Dash, based on the good things I've heard about it anecdotally, matching my playstyle, and its astonishing points value based on MJ's analysis (and the fact that I got one for Christmas from my wife). From what I understand, the 58 Dash has a bit of a learning curve because of the donut hole, and it has a hard time against maneuverable PS 8+ ships like Fat Han and Whisper. If I didn't have MJ's analysis to back up the anecdotes of this ship's awesomeness, it might have taken me much longer to start flying this ship, meaning I would have less games to practice with it, meaning games that yielded less benefit to me.

 

Sure, if I had near infinite time to play as many games as I wanted (I consider 5 games a week to be infinite relative to my situation) then I would agree that playing with as many different ships as possible yields more results, because only playing with the same ship every game will eventually begin to yield diminishing results. But for people whose problem is limited play test time and not diminishing results, being able to figure out what we want to play sooner rather than later is really helpful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"PS9 and two actions per turn with no downside.  Ignore the ship he's flying, look at what he does."

 

I think this statement might has merit. Obviously ignoring upgrades and list synergies, which shouldn't be too hard for the forum to do (comparing things in vacuums is one area we excel in), Vader could absolutely defeat most any other pilot, even some who are costed above his weight class. Add in the new x1 fixes and he is getting dangerously close to being "The Chosen One."

It has absolutely no merit since you can't play Vader in any other ship.

 

And the person i asked, wasn't implying a vacuum scenario either. so i don't understand why you both brought it up, but if you want to discuss about Vacuum pilot abilities, there are plenty of pilot abilities on par with it, Keyan for example gets one free offensive action + removes stress from himself. Wedge PS 9 and -1 agility dice could be godly in so many ships. But the best, are the most game defining would be Biggs and Howlrunner. They promoted a lot of lists around their pilot abilities solely, while you won't ever see Vader ability be as impactful either in game or list building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the best, are the most game defining would be Biggs and Howlrunner. They promoted a lot of lists around their pilot abilities solely, while you won't ever see Vader ability be as impactful either in game or list building.

 

 

Fat Biggs flying his Falcon around with C-3PO would pretty much break the game. Hell, putting him in an E-Wing with R2-D2 would be pretty nasty. Switching Vader's ability to a different ship doesn't have nearly the same impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WWHSD, thank you for the corner case.

 

How is being blocked or stressed and losing your action a corner case? You are using a much different definition of "corner case" than I do if something that is likely to occur in most games qualifies as one.

Edited by WWHSD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that people like this game, and I also get that it is more balanced than a lot of other miniatures games.  Not to mention, it's avoided power creep and the developers show a willingness to make changes to bring ships back.  And, skill certainly trumps lists in this game more than other top miniatures games.

 

That said, it could be better,  and those that make trite comments like, "Ships are defined by the skill of the player" don't make much sense to me, considering what you see the top players playing (and not playing).  They invoke certain names, but those players are almost exclusively flying point the most point efficient ships in the game.   The last time I heard of our recent World Champion struggling in a big tournament was when he flew a bomber list.  Odd, eh?  

 

Either way it's asinine to suggest that some ships aren't better than others in terms of cost efficiency or that taking certain ships doesn't handicap you.  As you face players that are close to you in skill, the more your ship selection matters.  It's why the best players aren't flying quad X's at World's.  I also think it's one of the reasons the US national champion didn't make the cut, though he made a great go of it.

 

There's plenty of data that shows things could be better balanced.  Whether you like MJs Jousting numbers or not, he's done a lot of work on this to show what a ship's "intangibles" have to be to live up to their other statistics from a comparison perspective.   I say this feeling the same way some of you do, that the numbers don't tell the whole story and that I've had different experiences with a couple of the ships.  A lot of you are quoting his jousting numbers.

 

However, it's worth noting that he has also compiled top lists from tournaments and it's hard not to see a pattern there as well.  Sure people make excuses about "groupthink" or other things, but it's silly to think that the best players are simply taking his numbers and seeing what other people are playing.  Most are playing a ton, more than I think people here realize.

 

On the other side, I see very little data that shows that all ships are perfectly competitive, other than anecdotal evidence by people who seem to play mostly locally.  There's nothing wrong with that, but local meta and player skill can vary widely.  If there's some data out there, please share it, but everything points in the direction that says there are some ships that just aren't as point efficient as others.   Maybe those that argue their is balance can take those ships maligned here and win a big Vassal tourney or regionals+ and prove everyone wrong or change those numbers.

 

In the end, balance is good for the game, both for it's longevity and the players, so for most of us, it's really about our passion for the game and concerns we have about that balance.  Some may not agree with them, or have a larger tolerance for it, but I know both locally and at larger tournaments I'm consistently seeing very similar lists (and not seeing other ships), and, with all the variety in this game, that's very disappointing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that people like this game, and I also get that it is more balanced than a lot of other miniatures games.  Not to mention, it's avoided power creep and the developers show a willingness to make changes to bring ships back.  And, skill certainly trumps lists in this game more than other top miniatures games.

 

That said, it could be better,  and those that make trite comments like, "Ships are defined by the skill of the player" don't make much sense to me, considering what you see the top players playing (and not playing).  They invoke certain names, but those players are almost exclusively flying point the most point efficient ships in the game.   The last time I heard of our recent World Champion struggling in a big tournament was when he flew a bomber list.  Odd, eh?  

 

Either way it's asinine to suggest that some ships aren't better than others in terms of cost efficiency or that taking certain ships doesn't handicap you.  As you face players that are close to you in skill, the more your ship selection matters.  It's why the best players aren't flying quad X's at World's.  I also think it's one of the reasons the US national champion didn't make the cut, though he made a great go of it.

 

There's plenty of data that shows things could be better balanced.  Whether you like MJs Jousting numbers or not, he's done a lot of work on this to show what a ship's "intangibles" have to be to live up to their other statistics from a comparison perspective.   I say this feeling the same way some of you do, that the numbers don't tell the whole story and that I've had different experiences with a couple of the ships.  A lot of you are quoting his jousting numbers.

 

However, it's worth noting that he has also compiled top lists from tournaments and it's hard not to see a pattern there as well.  Sure people make excuses about "groupthink" or other things, but it's silly to think that the best players are simply taking his numbers and seeing what other people are playing.  Most are playing a ton, more than I think people here realize.

 

On the other side, I see very little data that shows that all ships are perfectly competitive, other than anecdotal evidence by people who seem to play mostly locally.  There's nothing wrong with that, but local meta and player skill can vary widely.  If there's some data out there, please share it, but everything points in the direction that says there are some ships that just aren't as point efficient as others.   Maybe those that argue their is balance can take those ships maligned here and win a big Vassal tourney or regionals+ and prove everyone wrong or change those numbers.

 

In the end, balance is good for the game, both for it's longevity and the players, so for most of us, it's really about our passion for the game and concerns we have about that balance.  Some may not agree with them, or have a larger tolerance for it, but I know both locally and at larger tournaments I'm consistently seeing very similar lists (and not seeing other ships), and, with all the variety in this game, that's very disappointing. 

 

As others have explained, the meta is at least as much about the newest ships/upgrades and those that can counter them as it is about optimization.  Besides, most of us aren't playing at the world's-best level where minute efficiency differences matter.  Players who think The Most Optimal Build (if there is one) will help them win their FLGS weekend tournament are deluding themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I get that people like this game, and I also get that it is more balanced than a lot of other miniatures games.  Not to mention, it's avoided power creep and the developers show a willingness to make changes to bring ships back.  And, skill certainly trumps lists in this game more than other top miniatures games.

 

That said, it could be better,  and those that make trite comments like, "Ships are defined by the skill of the player" don't make much sense to me, considering what you see the top players playing (and not playing).  They invoke certain names, but those players are almost exclusively flying point the most point efficient ships in the game.   The last time I heard of our recent World Champion struggling in a big tournament was when he flew a bomber list.  Odd, eh?  

 

Either way it's asinine to suggest that some ships aren't better than others in terms of cost efficiency or that taking certain ships doesn't handicap you.  As you face players that are close to you in skill, the more your ship selection matters.  It's why the best players aren't flying quad X's at World's.  I also think it's one of the reasons the US national champion didn't make the cut, though he made a great go of it.

 

There's plenty of data that shows things could be better balanced.  Whether you like MJs Jousting numbers or not, he's done a lot of work on this to show what a ship's "intangibles" have to be to live up to their other statistics from a comparison perspective.   I say this feeling the same way some of you do, that the numbers don't tell the whole story and that I've had different experiences with a couple of the ships.  A lot of you are quoting his jousting numbers.

 

However, it's worth noting that he has also compiled top lists from tournaments and it's hard not to see a pattern there as well.  Sure people make excuses about "groupthink" or other things, but it's silly to think that the best players are simply taking his numbers and seeing what other people are playing.  Most are playing a ton, more than I think people here realize.

 

On the other side, I see very little data that shows that all ships are perfectly competitive, other than anecdotal evidence by people who seem to play mostly locally.  There's nothing wrong with that, but local meta and player skill can vary widely.  If there's some data out there, please share it, but everything points in the direction that says there are some ships that just aren't as point efficient as others.   Maybe those that argue their is balance can take those ships maligned here and win a big Vassal tourney or regionals+ and prove everyone wrong or change those numbers.

 

In the end, balance is good for the game, both for it's longevity and the players, so for most of us, it's really about our passion for the game and concerns we have about that balance.  Some may not agree with them, or have a larger tolerance for it, but I know both locally and at larger tournaments I'm consistently seeing very similar lists (and not seeing other ships), and, with all the variety in this game, that's very disappointing. 

 

As others have explained, the meta is at least as much about the newest ships/upgrades and those that can counter them as it is about optimization.  Besides, most of us aren't playing at the world's-best level where minute efficiency differences matter.  Players who think The Most Optimal Build (if there is one) will help them win their FLGS weekend tournament are deluding themselves.

 

^^^^

 

this.

 

In my mind, its important for me to understand, in the context of this argument, that game balance is less a factor the further away from top tier play you go.  That sounds stupid, so let me explain.

 

You local FLGS:

One player has been playing XXBB for a long, LONG time.  We all, after looking at the worlds list, know that XXBB isn't as numerically balanced or powerful as BBB or BBBB, but thats what he likes and he plays it.

and plays it

and plays it

and plays it

and when it comes time for a local tournament, where presumably no one is competing on the skill level of the .01% of the top 8 competitors of worlds, he plays and wins.  it doesn't mean his list is OP, it just means he knew the list, and because he was playing in a setting that was not the height of competitive play, his ability to play the list was better then the 5% boost his opponents was gaining by playing the most optimized list builds that someone wrote about on the internet.

 

He won, because in my view, the further away you are from the top level of play, the more it becomes about the player.  Knowledge of how something plays, and the experience to back it up is more important than the 1-2 point difference in power level you are giving up.  I see this all the time in Warmachine/Hordes. someone will complain about how something isn't as good as something else, but the reality is that the game is balanced to within + or - 5% of a win loss ration or so.  Some factions fare better, some don't, but thats the nature of a game.  The reality to it is that as long as someone plays what they know, typically game balance isn't much of a contributing factor, so long as the skill of the player has an opportunity to shine out.

 

Where game balance does play a more significant role is when the skill gap between players tightens to the point where mistakes aren't made, or made so rarely that a small mistake is game breaking ... where things like worlds and nationals top 8's brackets are played.  The exact opposite is true, if you have two players who are equally un-skilled at the game, and someone picks up the most broken pieces, he will likely slaughter his opponent, until they get better and learn to beat him.  (I call this the Cryx effect.  In WM/H, Cryx is a faction that has a very straightforward strategy and is powerful in the hands of an inexperienced player, as well as the best of them, but their power level seems unbalanced early, when new players face them, but as experienced is gained, they loose their ability to just win through power level).  

 

i know that analogy sounds a little wonky, but its honestly how i see competitive play.  In my local scene, for many MANY games, its less about playing the new tech found on the internet and more about playing what is good for you, and what you play well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this about vader now? If you can't see why vader is amazing then you shouldn't be playing the game.

 

I wouldn't call Vader amazing. He's playable.

 

After the Raider he may be able to be called amazing but that still might be stretching it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As others have explained, the meta is at least as much about the newest ships/upgrades and those that can counter them as it is about optimization.  Besides, most of us aren't playing at the world's-best level where minute efficiency differences matter.  Players who think The Most Optimal Build (if there is one) will help them win their FLGS weekend tournament are deluding themselves.

 

 

If by "explained" you mean posted about it, then sure, but I don't see the data that supports that.

 

I get and agree that we are seeing a lot of YT 2400s and Decimators because they are new, but they are also good ships.

 

However, Rebel Aces, E-Wings, and Defenders were all new, too, but didn't show up at World's (or regionals for the Ewing and Defender which were released) as much as Falcons, which is a wave 2 ship.  You can argue that 3PO and R2D2 crew were "new" but those other ships should have had a bigger "new factor" both at late regionals and World's.  And Falcons still abound though there are a lot fewer phantoms.

 

Some of what people are playing is certainly because it's new, but competitively, people are going to go with the best ships regardless of "new," so I don't think that's really enough to explain the amount of turrets we see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

this.

 

In my mind, its important for me to understand, in the context of this argument, that game balance is less a factor the further away from top tier play you go.  That sounds stupid, so let me explain.

 

You local FLGS:

One player has been playing XXBB for a long, LONG time.  We all, after looking at the worlds list, know that XXBB isn't as numerically balanced or powerful as BBB or BBBB, but thats what he likes and he plays it.

and plays it

and plays it

and plays it

and when it comes time for a local tournament, where presumably no one is competing on the skill level of the .01% of the top 8 competitors of worlds, he plays and wins.  it doesn't mean his list is OP, it just means he knew the list, and because he was playing in a setting that was not the height of competitive play, his ability to play the list was better then the 5% boost his opponents was gaining by playing the most optimized list builds that someone wrote about on the internet.

 

He won, because in my view, the further away you are from the top level of play, the more it becomes about the player.  Knowledge of how something plays, and the experience to back it up is more important than the 1-2 point difference in power level you are giving up.  I see this all the time in Warmachine/Hordes. someone will complain about how something isn't as good as something else, but the reality is that the game is balanced to within + or - 5% of a win loss ration or so.  Some factions fare better, some don't, but thats the nature of a game.  The reality to it is that as long as someone plays what they know, typically game balance isn't much of a contributing factor, so long as the skill of the player has an opportunity to shine out.

 

Where game balance does play a more significant role is when the skill gap between players tightens to the point where mistakes aren't made, or made so rarely that a small mistake is game breaking ... where things like worlds and nationals top 8's brackets are played.  The exact opposite is true, if you have two players who are equally un-skilled at the game, and someone picks up the most broken pieces, he will likely slaughter his opponent, until they get better and learn to beat him.  (I call this the Cryx effect.  In WM/H, Cryx is a faction that has a very straightforward strategy and is powerful in the hands of an inexperienced player, as well as the best of them, but their power level seems unbalanced early, when new players face them, but as experienced is gained, they loose their ability to just win through power level).  

 

i know that analogy sounds a little wonky, but its honestly how i see competitive play.  In my local scene, for many MANY games, its less about playing the new tech found on the internet and more about playing what is good for you, and what you play well.

 

 

I appreciate the long and well thought out post.  I can't speak to Warmachine because I don't play it and really know nothing about it.  

 

I don't disagree with much of your post, and I even agree that X-wing is very much about skill, though I think there are some builds that can make up for more of it than you do.  I'd also disagree that it matters locally because whether or not that "ultimate level of competition matters," it does matter for players in the same skill range, and the build certainly matters more since the Phantom, Z-95s, and the 3PO, and - most recently -- Dash have been released.  I don't think that was the case since Wave 3.  

 

I was where you and some others were early in Wave 4, but I've seen a very clear shift since I took that stance and I think the balance could be improved.  The fortunate thing is that I think it will get better, and the developers will continue to tweak things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why is this about vader now? If you can't see why vader is amazing then you shouldn't be playing the game.

 

I wouldn't call Vader amazing. He's playable.

 

After the Raider he may be able to be called amazing but that still might be stretching it.

 

 

The thing Vader lacks is firepower. He now has it. Trust me, he is going to be very tough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this about vader now? If you can't see why vader is amazing then you shouldn't be playing the game.

 

I wouldn't call Vader amazing. He's playable.

 

After the Raider he may be able to be called amazing but that still might be stretching it.

 

The thing Vader lacks is firepower. He now has it. Trust me, he is going to be very tough.

Vader is going to be great but not until the Raider drops. I hesitate to call anything "amazing". Until then he's playable but not very competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

As others have explained, the meta is at least as much about the newest ships/upgrades and those that can counter them as it is about optimization.  Besides, most of us aren't playing at the world's-best level where minute efficiency differences matter.  Players who think The Most Optimal Build (if there is one) will help them win their FLGS weekend tournament are deluding themselves.

 

 

If by "explained" you mean posted about it, then sure, but I don't see the data that supports that.

 

I get and agree that we are seeing a lot of YT 2400s and Decimators because they are new, but they are also good ships.

 

However, Rebel Aces, E-Wings, and Defenders were all new, too, but didn't show up at World's (or regionals for the Ewing and Defender which were released) as much as Falcons, which is a wave 2 ship.  You can argue that 3PO and R2D2 crew were "new" but those other ships should have had a bigger "new factor" both at late regionals and World's.  And Falcons still abound though there are a lot fewer phantoms.

 

Some of what people are playing is certainly because it's new, but competitively, people are going to go with the best ships regardless of "new," so I don't think that's really enough to explain the amount of turrets we see.

 

 

My post recognized optimization being a factor, along with newness, in creating meta.  The top tier itself does not represent the entire meta.  It is only the easiest, widest picture the entire player populace can see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning the topic

I see 3 problems (or challenges):

 

Players fresh to X-Wing, enjoyed a couple of games, but not having Veteran Experiences yet, wished to take part of  the community and communicate, feeling like we (the old and more experienced X-Wing players) attack the X-Wing design when it comes to analysis or ideas how to fix or improve particular ships.

 

There is, and there will ever be, a cleft between casual and competitive players. I am both a casual and competitive player.

I fly my Jonus Bombers and 3 x Tie Defenders Squad in casual games, because its too risky and hard to win with them.

I am not saying that you can't win or you can't have fun with those squads. But I have a feeling for what they are missing to get into competitive regions, because I actually play. MJ analysis is a good indicator, but of course statistics vary from individual game experience.

 

Meta is creating analysis is creating meta: Because People want to win in tournaments, a lot of them use lists that already won a tournament or were at least in the winning region. This creates stereotypes and discourage players using individual lists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this about vader now? If you can't see why vader is amazing then you shouldn't be playing the game.

 

I wouldn't call Vader amazing. He's playable.

 

After the Raider he may be able to be called amazing but that still might be stretching it.

 

The thing Vader lacks is firepower. He now has it. Trust me, he is going to be very tough.

Except all vadar is in the new advanced is a 3 atk ship w a advanced dial that costs 30 points. He trades his superior action economy for a target lock and focus each turn just so he can have the equivalent of 3 atk. People are blowing the new advanced up more then what it is. You add 1 point and require a target lock each turn (lose action) to gain the equivalent of a 3 atk ship. It's good but hardly amazing. What would of made vadar amazing is if he had 3 atk and was able to focus as well as barrel roll/evade in a 30 point ship (or boost for 34) but he more then likely won't have the action economy to spare anymore. Right now I still prefer meerek over vadar because meerek is the cheapest equivalent to a 4 atk ship with this upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...