Jump to content
clanofwolves

Mynock Podcast hits the nail....

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Clancampbell said:

What about the other end of the spectrum for new players? Say a player who gets into this game based off the love of the movies. He wants to fly Luke and Wedge and Biggs because that's cool to him and he fondly remembers the battle of Yavin. He gets a few casual games in and does reasonably well, because that list could, in a casual setting. Then he goes to a tournament and gets routed off the table by a bunch of ships he doesn't even recognize. Then he's told if he wants to compete he's going to have to buy these better ships. How long do you think that player is going to stick around?

Leaving the financial aspect aside, why would he want to play ships he doesn't know when he got into this game to fly some X-wings and Tie fighters?

Why would he feel like tournaments are the only way to play this game??

Oh, because it's all FFG supports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Panzeh said:

The t-65 X-wing is a slightly upgraded z-95 with a much higher point cost.  It is an utterly one-role ship.  It's pretty bad at that one thing.

T-65 is a one role ship?  I don't get that at all.  It's the standard work horse of the Rebels.  It's got a torpedo slot, good firepower, and is pretty mobile.  

Also, I'd say it's far better than a "slightly" upgraded Z-95.  The dial is better.  It's got more health, especially with Integrated Astromech.  It can take an astromech.  It's got 3 red dice, which is a huge improvement.  Oh, maybe not vs. the top of the tournament circuit today, but that doesn't mean it's bad outside of that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, CosmicCastawayA90 said:

Yes, wanting every ship to be useful and allowing players an opportunity to win with every ship as long as they have the skill necessary to use them is a VERY unreasonable expectation indeed.  What would we do without our elitist meta-system that assures victory to the elite members of the game, who have memorized the perfect combos to beat everything into oblivion?  -obvious sarcasm should be obvious-

It's amazing how you fail, no, refuse to comprehend that we're not saying any new player should be able to take any deck and win with it just like that.  We're saying that he should have the  POTENTIAL to win with a reasonably constructed squadron of basic ships.  A well-practiced, experienced player should assuredly be ABLE to beat an opponent running the current meta ships if he can outfly his opponent.  The meta SHOULD NOT BE PREVALENT in the first place.  A player SHOULD be able to take first place if they're that good of a player.  Are there going to be better combos and squads than others?  Yes, we want that!  What we don't want is for that to be the ONLY  factor when it comes to competitive play.

Do you play a lot of tournaments? the TOP players will beat you me and most everyone with ANY list, you do understand that right? Dengaroo wasn't a meta list until Jeff beat everyone with it. Before that manaroo was seen as a very poor jump  master choice. Countermeasures was seen as a "failed card" that needed to be "fixed". Mindlink wasn't a good card until fenn rau came out and someone won a tournament with the squad. 

Do you think that Paul Heaver won worlds as many times as he did because of luck and bringing meta squads? He won because there is a team of guys that practice and literally develop the best squad for what people might bring. The meta is literally the best players bringing what they think will win, then winning with the list. The best players win already, the fact is that they arent winning because they are using "meta" lists, they are literally creating the meta lists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

T-65 is a one role ship?  I don't get that at all.  It's the standard work horse of the Rebels.  It's got a torpedo slot, good firepower, and is pretty mobile.  

Also, I'd say it's far better than a "slightly" upgraded Z-95.  The dial is better.  It's got more health, especially with Integrated Astromech.  It can take an astromech.  It's got 3 red dice, which is a huge improvement.  Oh, maybe not vs. the top of the tournament circuit today, but that doesn't mean it's bad outside of that.  

It's supposed to be the rebel workhorse but isn't.

The dials are almost identical.  The lone torpedo slot and lone missile slot offer similar things(not much) on ships without a lot of upgrade possibilities.  It is significantly more capable but much more costly, and in a ship with limited possibilities like the X-wing, point cost vs stats is everything.

IA helps, but you have to pay yet more for the health.  The meta ships tend to be more complex but nuanced and have a broader spectrum of capability than the one-note X-wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Was it the Thane/Jyn ARC?

Yeah, it was. Basically designed to troll my opponents rather than win. My ARC was still sealed until the night before Regionals and I hadn't played since the Gaming Vs Cancer tournament in Southampton in November. MY Ghost had been open a while but I've not got a case it fits in so it's stayed at home looking pretty for months before this. Ended up 40th out of 112 (I think?) players. I was originally going to take Heff with Jyn but decided a small base ship would be easier to fly with no practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, player346259 said:

Yes, expecting that *every* ship in the game will be competitive at any given time is a highly unreasonable requirement. It just shows that you have  no experiences in how customizable living games work.

I have played a LOT if these games in the past 15 years, and NONE of them had this mythical perfect balance which you're describing. There were always ships/units/identities/heroes which were on the top, and others which were basically useless.

I'm sorry, but that is just a clear demonstration of your immaturity as a player as well as a person.

I've played a lot of these games as well. Maybe it's time we as a player base demand more from our game designers. Nothing can be perfect, that is true. However, it can be brought closer than it is.

 

Stop accepting that planned obsolenence can't be helped. Stop accepting the status quo. Dream bigger, demand better!

 

Finally, I don't think it's very nice to call someone immature. Let's have a discussion and avoid name calling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Panzeh said:

It's supposed to be the rebel workhorse but isn't.

The dials are almost identical.  The lone torpedo slot and lone missile slot offer similar things(not much) on ships without a lot of upgrade possibilities.  It is significantly more capable but much more costly, and in a ship with limited possibilities like the X-wing, point cost vs stats is everything.

IA helps, but you have to pay yet more for the health.  The meta ships tend to be more complex but nuanced and have a broader spectrum of capability than the one-note X-wing.

I think you suffer from the perspective of only seeing the X-wing in the 100/6 format.  Your criticism doesn't hold weight in other game formats.  

The point of the IA costing more is...not quite true.  You have to buy an astromech upgrade, but that astromech doesn't cost any more than normal.  Most of the time you see X-wings with at least an R2.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Smutpedler said:

Yeah, it was. Basically designed to troll my opponents rather than win. My ARC was still sealed until the night before Regionals and I hadn't played since the Gaming Vs Cancer tournament in Southampton in November. MY Ghost had been open a while but I've not got a case it fits in so it's stayed at home looking pretty for months before this. Ended up 40th out of 112 (I think?) players. I was originally going to take Heff with Jyn but decided a small base ship would be easier to fly with no practice.

http://stayontheleader.blogspot.com/2017/01/stay-in-formation-when-thane-met-biggs.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

I think you suffer from the perspective of only seeing the X-wing in the 100/6 format.  Your criticism doesn't hold weight in other game formats.  

The point of the IA costing more is...not quite true.  You have to buy an astromech upgrade, but that astromech doesn't cost any more than normal.  Most of the time you see X-wings with at least an R2.  

Epic is even more mathematical than standard, it just hasn't had as many eyes on it.  It's tough to think of anything an X-wing does well or even acceptably for its point cost.  At least in scenarios you're not bound by points so do whatever.

Edited by Panzeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, CosmicCastawayA90 said:

To those saying that it's impossible to design a game without power creep with continued expansions, you're wrong.  It's absolutely possible to minimize power creep and metas through solid game design.  If you truly believe that power creep is inevitable, and that the first waves of any game like this are going to be useless, you haven't been reading the comments of this thread, nor have you played enough games that actually have good game design. So in response, I would like anyone to tell me directly why none of these ideas I've suggested in past pages (quoted above) are viable.  I'd also invite you to search for other suggestions on this thread and directly state why they wouldn't work.

There are incredibly simple ways to balance out this game, yet so many people have stated that the game doesn't need fixing, or that it simply can't be fixed.  Seasonal Ban lists, requiring a certain percentage of forces being standard ships while limiting the copies of other types of ships, creating more missions for competitive and tournament play, adding an official vanilla mode for those who would like to go back to X-Wings and Ties.  These are just a few of the numerous ideas given on this thread that would be absolutely viable without requiring new ships or cards.  Many of these ideas would future-proof the design of the game and give an additional factor of balancing.  Those of you who truly believe that the game can't be balanced or fixed, well, many of us on this thread have at least given some incredibly solid foundations to start that process.  Go ahead and tell me that my suggestions are wrong, that they won't work, but tell me with logic, evidence, and a decent analysis of the pillars of gameplay mechanics X-Wing is based on.

Sigh... this is the game design equivalent of yelling "git gud!" and it's just as annoying as when people say that to other with legit balance complaints. The issue isn't that X Wing is poorly designed, though there have certainly been missteps some of which were egregious, rather it's the physical format and release structure that's the problem. The T-65 isn't bad because wave 10 is so awesome. It's bad because it was designed back when the game was much simpler, lacking in several mechanics, and with little knowledge of where it would end up in the future.

The problem is that you are grossly oversimplifying the problem and ignoring a legion of negative externalities imposed by several of your solutions. I'm fine with a seasonal ban list or points modification, think it's a great idea. But it complicates the game for casual players and to a degree leaves them in the dust holding an unbalanced game. Plus it doesn't necessarily really solve the problem at hand, even if you make certain older ships cheaper they are still severely lacking in terms of dials, upgrade slots, actions, and just... enjoyable gameplay. I would also like to see missions added but that is the complete polar opposite of simple. It is a nightmare scenario of balance where suddenly ships have to be evaluated for balance in many more dimensions than currently and in reality is very likely to make the imbalances between ships worse not better. Your other suggestions just... no. The extreme restrictions on lists sound both unfun to me and are an utter nonstarter in terms of a business model. Why would FFG, in the business of selling ships, ever even consider making a format that only required 2 ships?

Also note that the general theme of the argument, and certainly from me, isn't that there's nothing wrong or that certain actions shouldn't be taken to correct what is wrong. Rather that given the expansionist nature of the game the current state of balance regarding older waves is completely and utterly unsurprising. That many of us have played many many other games designed by very smart people and this is exactly the same pattern we saw in them time and time again. And correcting those problems is both extremely difficult and/or expensive (2.0)

9 hours ago, iamfanboy said:

Malifaux 2.0

I have little doubt that all of the X wing 1.0 content in X Wing 2.0 will also be fairly well balanced. Malifaux 2.0 hasn't had 4 independent expansions from a certain perspective, rather they've had all of the previous content designed, balanced, and tested all at the same time with no changes to the underlying rules and then released that big pot of content slowly over time. Contrast that to X Wing 1.0 which has had multiple new mechanics added over time, heck boost (boost! which feels like a core mechanic now) wasn't even in the game in wave 1 when the T-65 was designed. Early waves were designed without any knowledge of where the game would end up and many aspects of them can't be changed due to physical media. I'm all for an X Wing 2.0, I think there are several core mechanics that need polishing and concepts that could translate well from Armada/Imp Assault, but it's also a fairly extreme step that I'm not sure we're likely to see in the near term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Panzeh said:

Epic is even more mathematical than standard, it just hasn't had as many eyes on it.  It's tough to think of anything an X-wing does well or even acceptably for its point cost.  At least in scenarios you're not bound by points so do whatever.

Scenarios are bound by points.  I don't know what you are talking about.  Scenarios aren't just "made up stuff".  

X-wings are great in Epic.  You talk as if they aren't.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Clancampbell said:

I've played a lot of these games as well. Maybe it's time we as a player base demand more from our game designers. Nothing can be perfect, that is true. However, it can be brought closer than it is.

 

Stop accepting that planned obsolenence can't be helped. Stop accepting the status quo. Dream bigger, demand better!

 

Finally, I don't think it's very nice to call someone immature. Let's have a discussion and avoid name calling.

You still don't get it. I'm not passively sitting by saying, "Gee, oh shucks. I guess I'll have to make do." I actively like that the game is dynamic. This is pretty much my favorite metagame of all time because it feels like every in-game decision is very important. I don't want to play a balanced version of Wave I.  I already played Wave I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Panzeh said:

Epic is even more mathematical than standard, it just hasn't had as many eyes on it.  It's tough to think of anything an X-wing does well or even acceptably for its point cost.  At least in scenarios you're not bound by points so do whatever.

I've played X-Wings in Epic, they do fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, how is it so hard for people to understand this game can be better? It's crazy that someone says "Some things in this game could be changed" and a horde comes saying "Dude, how can you expect things to get better? I've played tabletop games and they have to power creep or else the game gets stale and/or wont sell!". This idea that power creep is necessary is totally bogus. Let's look at some things.

 

 

Is power creep necessary for the game to sell or grow?

No. The idea that power creep is necessary for the game to grow and/or sell is completely flawed. First off, we are talking about Star Wars here. Are you trying to tell me one of the highest valued IPs in the world needs to depend on power creep to sell? Even if this game DIDN'T have Star Wars as its skin, people would still buy new waves if all things were balanced BECAUSE THEY ARE NEW.

Second, how on earth is this better than the alternative of releasing balanced waves? Power Creep limits the available competitive options and makes iconic ships released in early waves poor options, limiting the possibility of positive play experiences for new players. Also, it frustrates the veteran player who now has out of date purchases in their collection. And on top of that, it's bad for FFG as well because new players have no reason to look back and make purchases on earlier products if they are interested in largely competitive play. Balanced waves mean all options are available to both new and veteran players. Wave 1 to 10, the players are ready to make purchases of any product new or old because its value to them is equal or close to it.

In short, THERE IS NO REASON FOR FFG TO NOT SEEK BALANCE ACROSS ALL WAVES.

So now that that is hopefully clear to those who it wasn't yet, let's move on to a much better question-

Is power creep inevitable, especially with the time constraints FFG has to deal with?

I'm not sure. It isn't unreasonable to believe that with how quickly FFG is asked to get waves out, that they do not have the resources to assure a balanced game despite their best efforts. This means, even with balance in mind, something slips through that is far stronger than intended. This is what I believe is the case currently with X-wing design. We have seen evidence of such cases with the Phantom nerf and Deadeye errata. But along with this, there seems to be this idea that because many of us have not played a tabletop game without power creep of some sort, it is impossible to not have power creep and it is acceptable. So, with that in mind...

 Should we accept that FFG can't balance the game better and accept the game in its current state without complaint?

NO! Just because other tabletop games have failed (or chose to fail) to keep all pieces relevant doesn't mean it is impossible to do so. The greatest of companies in business don't look at their competitors successes and failures and define what they can do based on that. They may use such things as benchmarks, but their focus is on making the best product or service humanly possible.

For example: If you are living in a house with a mold issue, and every other house on the block has a mold issue, do you simply say "well, everyone else on the block has mold too, so I should probably accept that mold is inevitable". No way! You would STILL do everything to get that mold out of your house! The same applies to X-wing. If power creep is an issue in tabletop gaming just as mold is an issue in my example, you would want to get rid of it and do everything in your power to do so. And as "residents" in this house, we should do what we can to get rid of the mold too by venting our frustrations and singing our praises with the game because doing so allows FFG an opportunity to see what is and is not working.

Along with this, stating that power creep is inevitable and that the game designers can't do anything about it is doubting their capabilities to adapt and evolve their design model. I'm sure they would MUCH prefer you point out issues with their game than simply say "meh, it is what it is and I don't have any faith that you can change that".

 

So I say we keep talking about what we don't like, what we do like, and what we do and do not want to change, nerf threads be damned.

Edited by Kdubb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we consider that probably the designers and tester of the X wing, are, most probably better at their jobs than the fandom angry forum screamer?

Should we consider that FFG is doing a fairly good job, in a very difficult task (not perfect, but a nice one)?


I find perfectly fine to talk about what anyone finds wrong in the game.
Talking about simple and obviously right ways to fix the game (simple and obvious for the postulants), and how FFG doesn't implement it because their are lazy / stupid / they doesn't care... Thats is something that I find a little more cumbersome.

For my disspair, the vast mayority of the "fix", "power creep" and "sky is falling" threads in this forum, are more focused on the second variety than the first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

So I say we keep talking about what we don't like, what we do like, and what we do and do not want to change, nerf threads be damned.

 

9 minutes ago, Draconis Hegemonia said:

Should we consider that probably the designers and tester of the X wing, are, most probably better at their jobs than the fandom angry forum screamer?

Should we consider that FFG is doing a fairly good job, in a very difficult task (not perfect, but a nice one)?

I find perfectly fine to talk about what anyone finds wrong in the game.

Yep.  And especially what Draconis said; I'm no game designer, and more importantly, I'm not on the inside track on this game.  While I have lots of ideas about what I'd like to see, I also keep my statements fairly generic.  Heck, I refuse to assign points to an idea I have for the game, because I really have no clue if it would be accurate.  And it drives me crazy when people think that +1 here and -1 there is all it takes to Make X-Wing Great Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, iamfanboy said:

Malifaux 2.0.

I love Malifaux too, but it has its problems like any other game.  Lady Justice/Mah/Kaeris, Guild Guard, 0SS "fix" upgrades, Practiced Production/Malifaux Raptor, old Leveticus, Oathkeeper/Imbued Energies/Recalled Training, and so on.

No game is perfect.  We should always strive to improve things, but let's keep a little perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Draconis Hegemonia said:

Should we consider that probably the designers and tester of the X wing, are, most probably better at their jobs than the fandom angry forum screamer?

Should we consider that FFG is doing a fairly good job, in a very difficult task (not perfect, but a nice one)?


I find perfectly fine to talk about what anyone finds wrong in the game.
Talking about simple and obviously right ways to fix the game (simple and obvious for the postulants), and how FFG doesn't implement it because their are lazy / stupid / they doesn't care... Thats is something that I find a little more cumbersome.

For my disspair, the vast mayority of the "fix", "power creep" and "sky is falling" threads in this forum, are more focused on the second variety than the first.

I think a lot of the suggested fix & nerf/buff discussions come about largely because a lot of us wish we were the designers, and these sort of discussions are as close as we are gonna get. Thank goodness we aren't though because a lot of the ideas out there are horrendous (except mine of course ;)).

I think it is natural to reply with dissatisfaction with ones own idea how to resolve that dissatisfaction, even if that idea is misaligned and based on faulty assumptions.

 

Either way, the designers are doing their best, I agree. And at worst, If the designers really don't care and aren't looking for balance and are just flipping out cards willy-nilly, then we would have to accept that we are bigger buffoons than they are for investing in such a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a very low opinión of the whole humanity, it's just that I don't have a worse opinión on designers than about a typical forum user, and being both intelectual and moral lesser beings (as any other human), by Ockam razor, the designer probably knows a little more about game balance and the hazards it repressent than the forum user, even if is one the most vocals.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...