Jump to content
testobviouslyfalse

Why Can't You Be Better?

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Derpzilla88 said:

Did you just do a fancier version of "Back in my day all we had was ZORK! It only understood 300 words and we LIKED IT! Now that was a real game! None of that fancy-shmancy graphics, gameplay, or storytelling that you dern kids have in your games these days."

Can we make you the Reminiscing Old Man of the forums?

And yes, I have played ZORK.

Did you like ZORK? Did you map all of the GUE? 

You can if you want and if you go back through the threads you'll see that I'm the second oldest responder to the poll on age.

My point was that kids don't use their imaginations much any more. With all the electronics available they can immerse themselves in worlds and not use their minds. The "I'm bored" lament is no longer answered by "read a book" because that lament is seldom heard. With the touch of a console button  you can join a multi-player game fighting aliens on Saturn's moons. Or anywhere else for that matter.

If you're bored with X-wing, switch out for something different. Don't like the standard 100/6 format, make up your own. There are so many ships and pilots, most unplayed, I find it hard to become tired of this game. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lobokai said:

@Luke C awesome! I can't wait to read about your TIE Interceptor or T-65 list that makes it to the top tables in Regional play... since all ships are created equal and it's only skill and experience at the table. 

Also, seriously?!  What Imperial player didn't think the /SF was good at reveal?!  Every serious podcast thought they were solid, every competitive player even pre x7 nerf was talking about them being great Defender alternatives, heck, I pre ordered three. That was simple math.  Don't pat yourself on the back for that easy call. 

While I agree with looking forward to Luke winning with T-65s, the /SFs in my mind really didnt start to shine until they  got the Lightweight frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quit playing because the playgroup in the area was tournament focused only in the game shops.  That wasn't what I wanted to do, and that was my call as a consumer of the product.  I did attempt to garner a casual group of just pushing around ships, but there were no bites.  It ended up more tournament only in all aspects.  The local meta for play style wasn't something I wanted to invest in, so I divested myself of the product and the game.

I certainly don't hate those players for that choice.  It wasn't my idea of what I wanted.  I think the only issue I get is that either side of the argument is less valid then the other.  They're equally valid concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, heychadwick said:

I do understand that many people on these forums disagree with me and think that FFG pushes tournament mode as the default.  They say the game is designed to it.  [...] I'll disagree that it's the way that FFG presents the game to be played in it's default state, though.  

They do.  It is.  They do.

You and I are simpatico in a lot of ways, heychadwick, so I hope you can take this at face value: those are facts, with a few, extremely minor, exceptions.

Just by way of one minor illustration, let me wax Socratic: when FFG designs a new Large ship, do you think playtesting is done with or without the half-MoV rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, GrandMoffMatt said:

I quit playing because the playgroup in the area was tournament focused only in the game shops.  That wasn't what I wanted to do, and that was my call as a consumer of the product.  I did attempt to garner a casual group of just pushing around ships, but there were no bites.  It ended up more tournament only in all aspects.  The local meta for play style wasn't something I wanted to invest in, so I divested myself of the product and the game.

I certainly don't hate those players for that choice.  It wasn't my idea of what I wanted.  I think the only issue I get is that either side of the argument is less valid then the other.  They're equally valid concerns.

While that is true, one is the status quo, and the other is the vote for change.  The vote for change group needs to be vocal, or they will never have a chance to have what they want.  Moreover, they deserve to get what they want from the source, since they are also paying money to be involved in this game.

Edited by Darth Meanie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

While that is true, one is the status quo, and the other is the vote for change.  The vote for change group needs to be vocal, or they will never have a chance to have what they want.  Moreover, they deserve to get what they want from the source, since they are also paying money to be involved in this game.

This is a fallacy. You are incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stoneface said:

My dad taught me with the same results you had. I was using this example because Toker seems to think people enjoy losing. Players accept losses because they enjoy the game not because they like losing.

As a footnote, the worse day of my life, baring deaths, was the day I beat my father at chess. 


Wow, your dad must have been a really sore loser.  :(
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

They do.  It is.  They do.

You and I are simpatico in a lot of ways, heychadwick, so I hope you can take this at face value: those are facts, with a few, extremely minor, exceptions.

Just by way of one minor illustration, let me wax Socratic: when FFG designs a new Large ship, do you think playtesting is done with or without the half-MoV rule?

I will say that I believe it is hardest to design for the competitive space.  So...when you do design for the competitive space....they are also designing to all the other spaces well enough.  From my communications with FFG employees, they recognize that the majority of players are not tournament players.  I don't believe that FFG feels the tournament game is the default way to play it.  I think tournament players think it is, though.  Just due to them designing to the highest bar means they expect that to be the way most play.  

Share this post


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

I will say that I believe it is hardest to design for the competitive space.  So...when you do design for the competitive space....they are also designing to all the other spaces well enough.

In my experience, this is not true.  The competitive space has more and better-defined parameters, so there is a more concrete goal for design.  That's always easier.  (Not "easy."  Just "easier.")

Consider yours and Babaganoosh's experience with Missions, and how amazingly easy it is to break missions when they aren't played with the exact load-out recommended in the text of the missions.  That's because missions are harder to design for than the strict, rarely-changing, framework of 100/6.

Quote

From my communications with FFG employees, they recognize that the majority of players are not tournament players.  I don't believe that FFG feels the tournament game is the default way to play it.

From the juxtaposition here, you seem to feel that the second sentence follows from the first ... but it doesn't.

I am aware that FFG knows the majority of players are not tournament players.

I also know that FFG designs for the tournament game (meaning that FFG designs for 100/6).  As far as I can tell, for all practical purposes, this means that FFG feels that the tournament game (100/6) is the default way to play it.

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.  Both are true.  (For one thing, most players aren't tournament players, but most players with any exposure to X-Wing on the internet nevertheless play 100/6.  So they play non-tournament X-Wing using tournament rules.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't often 'whine' as Luke puts it, I play triple imp aces, 2of which are intercepters, I've been flying intercepters since I started playing when the defender and phantom were released. I consider myself decent at flying them, and while I may not play a match every day I still typically get a few every week. Now recently something strange happened, I made an imperial list that has no intercepters. You might ask why and the reason is there were certain matchups that I could not beat no matter what I did and it stopped being fun so what I did was 1be sad 2make a new list that's fimilure to fly and should counter what was countering me and it worked. I still fly my triple aces they are after all my favorite list. It just that GITTING GUDDER isn't everything. Luke of all people should know that Luke Skywalker is UP. When I do complain on the forums it's not to make bad posts but to 1. vent my frustrations 2. See what other people do to solve the problem and 3. If I feel that something needs fixing add my voice to the chorus untill FFG hears us and fixes the problem

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

...the vote for change group needs to be vocal, or they will never have a chance to have what they want.  Moreover, they deserve to get what they want from the source, since they are also paying money to be involved in this game.

 

3 hours ago, Luke C said:

This is a fallacy. You are incorrect.

"Darth, you are partially correct. Luke, you are incorrect." -The Emperor

As a business owner, I can tell you without a doubt, customers make the business; vocal ones have more clout, deserved or no, than the average. In this industry, it's set for the short-haul, they need to "make hay while the sun shines." Orders for units old and new go into the PMs matrix as well as the ever-changing health of the game community and outlook or pulse on the vitality of the game. Forums like this are an itergral part of the inner workings of the organic business model; without them as a facet of feedback on the vitality of the customers, FFG would not have clear vision, which is a terminal cancer to any business. They best heed the thoughts of the passionate, or their money and thus the product, will whither and die.

Edited by clanofwolves
Quotes haha

Share this post


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

In my experience, this is not true.  The competitive space has more and better-defined parameters, so there is a more concrete goal for design.  That's always easier.  (Not "easy."  Just "easier.")

Consider yours and Babaganoosh's experience with Missions, and how amazingly easy it is to break missions when they aren't played with the exact load-out recommended in the text of the missions.  That's because missions are harder to design for than the strict, rarely-changing, framework of 100/6.

 

Yeah, I think you're basically right.  I haven't read through this entire thread and I don't plan to (looks like things got ugly from what I can tell), but your takeaway here is pretty good.

Missions can be super unbalanced, much more so than 100/6, under a number of circumstances.  

For starters, the scenario could be unbalanced from the outset.  A stupidly obvious example would be a scenario where one side has 100 points to build a squad and the other has 150 points.  Scenarios almost always are better than that, but the only scenarios that are really balanced are those that are built symmetrically.

Next, just as in 100/6, you can have unbalanced squad matchups.  This can be a rocks-paper-scissors type scenario where one squad counters the other specifically, OR, you can have situations where certain squads are better suited to certain scenarios than others.  The rocks-paper-scissors part of the equation is something we're all familiar with anyway.  The other part of this is tied into scenario design, and theoretically into the undeveloped, theoretical metagame of scenario play.  

Then, aside from all of that, there is the little-considered element of familiarity with a scenario.  It makes a huge difference.  I do much better playing scenarios that I've personally written, or playing scenarios that I have practiced.  

Throw player skill on top of that and it's quite a heap of elements that can come into play to make scenarios uneven matches.

 

But, none of these are completely unsurmountable, and some are actually good.  For one thing, people rarely play scenarios and I've never known a real squad-building metagame to develop around an x wing scenario.   Futhermore, I think it is a good idea for all scenarios to include squad building restrictions of some kind.  The game has become increasingly complex and combo-heavy.  It's impossible to predict every current interaction, to say nothing of future mechanics.  I like scenarios with fully defined lists, or moderate listbuilding constraints.  In any case, it feels really good to make a brand new squad and have a good chance that it will be a competitive force.  

Good scenario design can go a long way toward preventing overall rules-based imbalance issues.  Good scenarios will forsee and prevent auto-win scenarios.  If a mission is announced and made available well ahead of time, then everyone has theoretically equal opportunity to study up and practice ahead of a game.  I prefer that to announcing mission rules immediately beforehand.  Otherwise people tend to forget about the scenario they're playing, or take forever to muddle through their game as they learn a bunch of new rules.  Players who do their homework do better in matches; I don't see anything wrong with that.  And player skill is something I would never dream of eliminating as a factor!

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...