Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Admiral Deathrain

Ordnance fixes might have broken (some) missions

Recommended Posts

It's not just ordnance, when some missions were designed certain combos did not exist yet which break them. For example, the mission included in the Lambda Shuttle breaks when the rebels bring Ten Numb with a Mangler cannon (it also needs some house ruling, but that's another thing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the cool thing about the missions since they are not linked to organized play in anyway:

 

Just modify the rules to suit your liking, it's not like the FFG SWAT team is gonna bust down your door because you decided that "hey, for mission 14 or whatever that are going to limit ordance to 1 torpedo per squad"

 

why is this even a topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why FFG promotes 100pts tournaments and not mission play?

Why would the fact that official FFG tournaments exist mean that there is a normal way to play, and a not-normal way to play?All ways of playing X Wing are equally valid. Thinking otherwise does the entire game a disservice and is not a good attitude to have.
"Nickelback is just as bad as Beethoven's 6th, your opinion is just subjective. Everybody hug now. Just my 2 cents."

Yeah, okay.

Edited by ParaGoomba Slayer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think if you want to play the missions you should come to some sort of agreement with the person you are playing for some "house rules". Missions seem to be for more casual play and I don't see why anyone would even bother if your opponent is going to wreck you irregardless.

 

Heroes of the Aturi Cluster is SOOOOO much better than the missions. FFG really needs to get onto doing something along those lines. Really a great thing for those of us that don't care so much for the 100pt deathmatch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, mission designs like this fail in games because they control so much of the game, but decide to leave squad composition completely open for the sake of replayability.  Most of them would be much better with specific loadout requirements.

 

That said, the best solution is to just limit squads to what was available when the mission was released.  It's a fun way to time warp the game even and see how the game has evolved.  It keeps missions balanced as well as they originally were (which honestly, isn't necessarily all that well, sadly) and provides good incentives to run some models that otherwise get passed over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never intended this thread to be heard as "FFG shouldn't have fixed Torps because of missions" but rather "hey guys, watch out when playing missions because some of the new things are way too good at them".

 

I would like to see FFG adress this not by changing the game, which I think should be balanced around high competetive standardized play just like DOTA, but by tweaking the missions. Best way to do this would probably be to restrict the number of GC ships individualy for those missions affected.

 

On the topic of missions versus tournaments: Armada includes objectives in tournament play and that is a really appealing aspect of that game. Tons of people would love a similar ruleset from FFG, but we just don't get one, meaning that tournaments using a custom ruleset are incredibly rare.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem here is the mission requires 4 docked ships on the Gozanti, bascially limiting you to 4 ties. You can't have just two Bombers.

ahem

 

That is wrong. It says up to 4 ships in accordance to the Docking Clamps rules, which means that you can also use 3 Interceptors, TIE/fos, 2 Bombers or Advanced, as long as they are all of the same type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key here is that the game design is clearly focused on the 100 point game. Everything has been designed and attempted to be as balanced as possible off of that point total. That's also why we won't see a bump to 110 or 120 as some have desired.

The 100 point game is "normal" play regardless of whether you are playing casually or competitively in a tournament. Casual vs competitive are simply descriptions of the manner in which the "normal" 100 point game is being played.

Missions and/or scenarios are an addendum to the game. They are beloved by many and ignored many others. That's ok. Everyone can focus on playing whatever they prefer. FFG seems intent on continuing to release scenarios and missions so that's great for that crowd. That being said the design of the overall game will, like always, focus on the 100 point game. If something seems broken in missions now you probably need to add some house rules to improve it. But that shouldn't be a problem for most of that crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The problem here is the mission requires 4 docked ships on the Gozanti, bascially limiting you to 4 ties. You can't have just two Bombers.

ahem

 

That is wrong. It says up to 4 ships in accordance to the Docking Clamps rules, which means that you can also use 3 Interceptors, TIE/fos, 2 Bombers or Advanced, as long as they are all of the same type.

 

carry on arguing then.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to the scenarios, I don't necessarily think you need to ban specific things.  Just replay the same mission again, knowing whatever combo was deadly is there, and you can self correct with game play.  

 

 

 

Heroes of the Aturi Cluster is SOOOOO much better than the missions. FFG really needs to get onto doing something along those lines. Really a great thing for those of us that don't care so much for the 100pt deathmatch.

 

While I love HotAC, I do think a nicely made mission is really cool.  I don't just mean the ones that come with the products, but fan made ones, too.

 

The key here is that the game design is clearly focused on the 100 point game. Everything has been designed and attempted to be as balanced as possible off of that point total. That's also why we won't see a bump to 110 or 120 as some have desired.

The 100 point game is "normal" play regardless of whether you are playing casually or competitively in a tournament. Casual vs competitive are simply descriptions of the manner in which the "normal" 100 point game is being played.

Missions and/or scenarios are an addendum to the game. They are beloved by many and ignored many others. That's ok. Everyone can focus on playing whatever they prefer. FFG seems intent on continuing to release scenarios and missions so that's great for that crowd. That being said the design of the overall game will, like always, focus on the 100 point game. If something seems broken in missions now you probably need to add some house rules to improve it. But that shouldn't be a problem for most of that crowd.

 

I disagree that the game is designed around the 100 pt game.  I know that they consider it when they make up the game, but I wouldn't say it's the only thing they think about for the game.  I wouldn't call the 100 pt game "normal", unless that's what normally gets played in your area.  Missions and scenarios are NOT and addendum to the game, unless that's how you play it.  I know people that refuse to play 100 pt games.  It doesn't mean they are not playing X-wing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though I was srong asbout requring 4 docked ships, 4 Ties is still pretty balanced, maybe give it a shot instead of super bombers.

Already did that ;) We always play through the campaigns several times and I did like the 4 TIEs. My favourite so far were 2 Saber Squadron Interceptors, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even though I was srong asbout requring 4 docked ships, 4 Ties is still pretty balanced, maybe give it a shot instead of super bombers.

Already did that ;) We always play through the campaigns several times and I did like the 4 TIEs. My favourite so far were 2 Saber Squadron Interceptors, though.

 

 

 

Even though I was srong asbout requring 4 docked ships, 4 Ties is still pretty balanced, maybe give it a shot instead of super bombers.

Already did that ;) We always play through the campaigns several times and I did like the 4 TIEs. My favourite so far were 2 Saber Squadron Interceptors, though.

 

Oh two sabers does sound fun! also gives you more points for the Gozanti! (so many good upgrades for it!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heroes of the Aturi Cluster is SOOOOO much better than the missions. FFG really needs to get onto doing something along those lines. Really a great thing for those of us that don't care so much for the 100pt deathmatch.

 

I agree I wish FFG would come out with a lot more missions and scenarios.  With suggested squad builds

 

A lot of missions can be really broken depending on builds.  They always depended on a certain gentleman's agreement.

 

Missions should come with suggested squads.  That way you have a starting point and something that FFG had in mind.  Also those would be, if balanced as intended, be fun tournaments too.  But if they missed a move or strategy in the suggested squad then could always tweak it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Heroes of the Aturi Cluster is SOOOOO much better than the missions. FFG really needs to get onto doing something along those lines. Really a great thing for those of us that don't care so much for the 100pt deathmatch.

 

I agree I wish FFG would come out with a lot more missions and scenarios.  With suggested squad builds

 

A lot of missions can be really broken depending on builds.  They always depended on a certain gentleman's agreement.

 

Missions should come with suggested squads.  That way you have a starting point and something that FFG had in mind.  Also those would be, if balanced as intended, be fun tournaments too.  But if they missed a move or strategy in the suggested squad then could always tweak it. 

 

Many of the missions actually do have suggested squads.

 

The aggressor, the decimator, the yt-2400, Jumpmaster-5000, YV-666, and rebel aces all suggest things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Heroes of the Aturi Cluster is SOOOOO much better than the missions. FFG really needs to get onto doing something along those lines. Really a great thing for those of us that don't care so much for the 100pt deathmatch.

 

I agree I wish FFG would come out with a lot more missions and scenarios.  With suggested squad builds

 

It mostly comes down to Missions and Scenarios having a terrible development hours to playtime ratio compared to deathmatch games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that FFG does a decent job balancing their scenarios for the anticipated game state they are released into. Just as they never have a perfect read on competitive game balance, their read on balance pertaining to their scenarios is imperfect. Scenarios written for early waves will often be compromised by the developing game state, too.

Players who enjoy a good scenario, like myself, should have no qualms exercising their judgment in adjusting the rules for these scenarios as they see fit to provide for a balanced, fun game. Unlike tournament-style play, a sober and fair update of the rules of some of these scenarios should be encouraged on an individual basis, since it is very unlikely these missions will be revisited by FFG.

From a design perspective, writing these missions to be interesting, fair, and resilient to future game developments is not easy. My own personal preference is for 'realistic', fair missions that encourage players to employ different tactics and ships, and that players can play at any level of effort (casual to competitive) and still have fun with. Let me tell you that designing that sort of mission takes a lot of effort.

FFG produces their missions for fun, casual play - it's not fair to hold those missions to the same standard that we hold the tournament game state to. If we want to have fun, fair missions to play, it's up to us to generate them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how ffg could do it any other way besides balancing for competitive first and casual second.

 

By the very nature of competitive play it requires a generally balanced format, because competitive players will abuse and take advantage of an unbalanced format.

(I hasten to add, not all competitive players.)

 

Casual play, by it's very nature can be very easily self-regulated by the players. Something going to ruin the scenario? Surely you can reach some kind of gentleman's agreement not to use it.

Nothing wrong with house rules in casual... It's not like the matches are being reported to ffg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how ffg could do it any other way besides balancing for competitive first and casual second.

 

By the very nature of competitive play it requires a generally balanced format, because competitive players will abuse and take advantage of an unbalanced format.

(I hasten to add, not all competitive players.)

 

Casual play, by it's very nature can be very easily self-regulated by the players. Something going to ruin the scenario? Surely you can reach some kind of gentleman's agreement not to use it.

Nothing wrong with house rules in casual... It's not like the matches are being reported to ffg.

 

I think this is exactly right - FFG should focus on balance in tournament level play - where it matters the most.  They can't spend too much time working on that balance, and working on that balance is important for keeping scenarios balanced too, by the way.  Ships that are unbalanced in competitive play are unbalanced in casual/scenario play too, in many cases.  

 

Personally, I'd be interested in a coordinated effort to update the FFG missions for the current game state.  I'd do it myself if I didn't have too much already on my plate in terms of x-wing scenario writing.  Mission Control has just about everything you'd need to undertake such a project.  

Edited by Babaganoosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how ffg could do it any other way besides balancing for competitive first and casual second.

 

By the very nature of competitive play it requires a generally balanced format, because competitive players will abuse and take advantage of an unbalanced format.

(I hasten to add, not all competitive players.)

 

Casual play, by it's very nature can be very easily self-regulated by the players. Something going to ruin the scenario? Surely you can reach some kind of gentleman's agreement not to use it.

Nothing wrong with house rules in casual... It's not like the matches are being reported to ffg.

This.

 

I'm certain if missions were played and discussed as much as the competitive 100 point game, we would all have close to perfect builds and strategies for each mission that they would be pretty unbalanced. The key is that missions are not held to an official standard. You can make any changes you want, and no one is going to make a fuss. Competitive tournament play though MUST go by the book, and this is why FFG play tests with competitive as its main focus and missions and such after that.

Edited by Kdubb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to the scenarios, I don't necessarily think you need to ban specific things.  Just replay the same mission again, knowing whatever combo was deadly is there, and you can self correct with game play.  

 

 

Heroes of the Aturi Cluster is SOOOOO much better than the missions. FFG really needs to get onto doing something along those lines. Really a great thing for those of us that don't care so much for the 100pt deathmatch.

 

While I love HotAC, I do think a nicely made mission is really cool.  I don't just mean the ones that come with the products, but fan made ones, too.

 

The key here is that the game design is clearly focused on the 100 point game. Everything has been designed and attempted to be as balanced as possible off of that point total. That's also why we won't see a bump to 110 or 120 as some have desired.

The 100 point game is "normal" play regardless of whether you are playing casually or competitively in a tournament. Casual vs competitive are simply descriptions of the manner in which the "normal" 100 point game is being played.

Missions and/or scenarios are an addendum to the game. They are beloved by many and ignored many others. That's ok. Everyone can focus on playing whatever they prefer. FFG seems intent on continuing to release scenarios and missions so that's great for that crowd. That being said the design of the overall game will, like always, focus on the 100 point game. If something seems broken in missions now you probably need to add some house rules to improve it. But that shouldn't be a problem for most of that crowd.

 

I disagree that the game is designed around the 100 pt game.  I know that they consider it when they make up the game, but I wouldn't say it's the only thing they think about for the game.  I wouldn't call the 100 pt game "normal", unless that's what normally gets played in your area.  Missions and scenarios are NOT and addendum to the game, unless that's how you play it.  I know people that refuse to play 100 pt games.  It doesn't mean they are not playing X-wing.

I'm not saying playing missions isn't playing X-Wing. That very clearly is X-Wing. However you prefer to play the game you are playing X-Wing. Everyone is welcome to play whatever they prefer. Heck, you can create your own scenarios and have a bajillion house rules and it's probably still X-Wing.

That being said the ships are very much designed, playtested and costed pretty much entirely based upon the 100 point game. I guess I couldn't tell you if any mechanic was designed with a nod toward the missions but any instances are probably incidental or very few and far between. Obviously the missions have to get some degree of playtesting but those have got to be pretty much just to try and balance them with the ships that have already been created.

We can debate it further down at the law firm next time I make it out (hopefully this week). It's not even that big of a deal honestly. I was primarily trying to play peacemaker over a dumb argument earlier. I just know that everything has to work off of the 100 point game. It's critical to organized play.

And to be clear, I'm not saying the missions are unimportant. They are very much a part of what a sizable chunk of their customers prefer. All I'm saying is that the abilities, mechanics, dials, costing etc first have to be determined based upon the 100 point game. The missions can get balanced after those other items are sorted out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm... You wanted your post to be seen or why different color?

 

That answer is in my siggy, no need to reiterate.

 

And say what you want, competitive players tend to spend more money on ships, cards and such. See new Triple Scout build. People buy 3 same ships to run in tournaments. I did not see any post that went, "I Bought 3 scouts to play missions". 

 

I personally have 2 CR-90 Corvette's, 12 X-Wing starfighters, 7 Y-Wing starfighters, 4 A-Wing starfighters, and 12 TIE fighters that were specifically bought for a Mission - that one being the assault on the Death Star to canon assignments. When the raider came out, I bought 2 of those to swap out for the canon CR-90's to make it more thematic. Beyond that, I have multiples of every ship - at least two, and have never attended a tournament. But you go and speak from your experience, I'm sure it's more valid than mine in refuting the uselessness of anecdotal evidence.

 

 

 

But from most threads, battle reports and such, what can we see? We see that those who write here, mostly play not missions. 

That's were the view come in.

 

Miniwargaming.com does Battle reports for X-Wing, and if you watch all of them from the Vault when they first started covering it to now it's about 60/40 between duels and mission scenarios they run out of the official book or just set up themselves. 

 

But again, this is all anecdotal evidence. I will inherently seek out things I find interesting, as well you. That only makes us an expert on what we personally find interesting, and it doesn't speak at all to those that don't seek to talk about the game, inherently using it as a family experience or one of social thing.

 

And that is the problem when you choose to make blanket statements about what the game is or is not. No one is an expert on that because the data in inherently unpollable, and means the game designer should be balancing things internally for all aspects of their intended use. Personally, I think FFG does well at this, but that is just my opinion.

 

 

 

PS. If I insulted someone with "Maybe it should be balanced, but looking at reality, not dreams it's different." I'm sorry for that. Apologies.  

 

Thank you, that's appreciated.

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...