Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Darth Meanie

OK, seriously, can we stop "fixing" ships?

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

The two new titles are very good.   They don't make anything "broken" or OP.  They make things viable in a regular game.  You have more options of ships to take.  What's wrong with that?  They don't knock something else out.  Sure, it's not 100% balanced, but it's a lot more balanced with these fixes in the game than without.  

Yeah, and just as importantly the Dancing In The Dark fixes are INTERESTING and do stuff we've not really seen before. My brain is buzzing at the prospect of what could be done with the hyper-flexible jack-of-all-trades Kihraxz, even if I still need to Google how to spell the bloody thing. And I can't wait to try out the lag-roll Starvipers because I've always had a soft spot for those bad boys.

Share this post


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

If a fix for one ship is balanced (and not OP), then it shouldn't knock anything out of the meta

Yeah the OP's premise is completely flawed.  If something is below the power curve, making it better won't actually change the power curve, it won't actually knock another ship off the curve.  It may change the meta, but that's unlikely unless the change pushes that ship above the power curve, which means the fix actually made it broken.

So no, fixing one thing doesn't actually mean something else now needs fixing, unless they overcorrect.  The problem actually is that the meta is composed mostly of ships that either started or were pushed to the wrong side of the curve and are more powerful than they should be.

2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

So, if you want to start a FIX thread, start one about how to fix the 100/6 format.

The problem isn't the format, the problem is that some ships are simply better in that format then others, and when you're playing competitively you want the best ships you can take, because that gives you the best chance to win.

That is however true of any format as long as winning is important to at least one of the players.  There's always going to be some options that are better than others, but that doesn't mean there's no value in trying to get every ship as close to the power curve as possible.  

Again it's not the format that's the issue, it's the people playing it.  As long as someone feels winning is what's important, then they will always look for what gives them the best chance, and the top lists in the meta are simply what achieves that goal.  This is true of 100/6, epic, or any other format that is based on a competitive game.

Edited by VanorDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@VanorDM pretty much beat me to it.

I''m opposed to OPs line of thinking. I want the game to continue to be more balanced with each and every release. Fix releases help do that. They improve the game in nearly every way unless that fix goes overboard and pushes the ship from far below the power curve to above it, as x7 did.

I also don't understand OPs line of thinking in general. Do you not want more reasons to play Interceptors, Punishers, or other ships which are perceived as under powered? Do you not want other players to have more reason to take these ships? Sure, you should feel free to run them now. No one should be saying you should not, especially if flying them helps you enjoy the game. But you know what would help even these players enjoy the game even more? Having more ways to fly a ship they love.

 

And making the game objective based would not fix the game. It simply moves the target. Objective based games don't have this magical aura that makes them impervious to a meta, which some players here seem to think. There will still be ships and upgrades that perform better than others even in an objective based format. Imperial Assault and Armada both have metas and ships/characters/upgrades that create more value for their cost over other options. Alongside that, there are others which do very little of this and see little play.

 

Also, considering the massive success of the game with 100/6 as the staple format, with large competitive events pulling in hundreds of players, I think it's safe to say that FFG sees absolutely no reason to change their focus.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, VanorDM said:

All that does is change what the top lists are.  It doesn't actually change the fundamental nature of what the meta is.

It could shake up lists and open up the meta.  That is all I am suggesting.  It could also fall flat; it depends on how well FFG could design and execute it.  The objective system broadens Armada and IA in that eliminating your opponents pieces isn't the only way to win or necessarily the best way.

*Caveat: I haven't played a lot of Armada and IA so I may be wrong.  Friends who play X-Wing and IA or Armada tell me that while they have metas, which every competitive game will, they are more open and flexible than X-Wing 100/6 because of the objectives.  From what I've seen it seems to be the case.

Edited by Burius1981

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sasajak said:

Yep - we need objectives.  Unrealistic that the only goal is total destruction.  Rebels won at Scarif despite being almost wiped out by getting the Death Star plans out and they won at Hoth by escaping.  I played the Gozanti missions recently in the last mission as Imperials I had one ship left and managed to win by reaching the objective.  I had not taken out one Rebel ship - the mission was more important.

 This will help to some degree. But it won't really make all ships equal. The Kihraxz just doesn't hold  a candle to the Protectorate and it's hard to envision a scenario that would equalise them.

Not to say I wouldn't like to see objectives in tournament play. There are dozens of scenarios out there already (many a bit crazy, but still), shouldn't be that hard to build 6 or so with specific goals (probably mirrored) that would work for scenario play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Burius1981 said:

It could shake up lists and open up the meta.  That is all I am suggesting.  It could also fall flat; it depends on how well FFG could design and execute it.  The objective system broadens Armada and IA in that eliminating your opponents pieces isn't the only way to win or necessarily the best way.

*Caveat: I haven't played a lot of Armada and IA so I may be wrong.  Friends who play X-Wing and IA or Armada tell me that while they have metas, which every competitive game will, they are more open and flexible than X-Wing 100/6 because of the objectives.  From what I've seen it seems to be the case.

It will shake things up, but likely at the detriment of the players. The 100/6 format, despite some hate here, is highly successful, and I would wager that the majority of players thoroughly enjoy it. Even in the case a change to objectives is successful, you are just going to run into the same problem once the format is more established. Ships which perform better for a better cost will rise to the top, and others will be seen much less.

Just to brush on the caveat, changing the way you win doesn't mean there are more ways to win. Not sure if this makes sense, but basically the idea is that there is always going to be a best combination of cards that gets you the best chance to win, even if that combination means you don't always hold the advantage. But, if it allows you to hold the advantage in 8 out of 10 objectives on average, whereas other options give you the advantage at a lower rate, that then becomes the staple of the meta.. I would say your buddies are probably being a little optimistic in their viewpoint of the effect of objectives on a game. I searched for some results from worlds for imperial assault. Here is the first comment on a topic looking for the top lists from the event-

 

" Looks like 15/16 are merc lists with Jabba/Weequays, all running cookie cutter lists, this is very unfortunate for the game. "

 

 

Another factor fighting against objective play? That the death match type Star Wars games (Destiny, alongside X-wing), seem to be miles away as the most successful games of the group. Whether you agree that this is a relevant point or not, if I'm FFG, I look at this and say, "Hey, maybe people just like this more". It sure seems like they do to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, VanorDM said:

Yeah the OP's premise is completely flawed.  If something is below the power curve, making it better won't actually change the power curve, it won't actually knock another ship off the curve.  It may change the meta, but that's unlikely unless the change pushes that ship above the power curve, which means the fix actually made it broken.

So no, fixing one thing doesn't actually mean something else now needs fixing, unless they overcorrect.  The problem actually is that the meta is composed mostly of ships that either started or were pushed to the wrong side of the curve and are more powerful than they should be.

The problem isn't the format, the problem is that some ships are simply better in that format then others, and when you're playing competitively you want the best ships you can take, because that gives you the best chance to win.

That is however true of any format as long as winning is important to at least one of the players.  There's always going to be some options that are better than others, but that doesn't mean there's no value in trying to get every ship as close to the power curve as possible.  

Again it's not the format that's the issue, it's the people playing it.  As long as someone feels winning is what's important, then they will always look for what gives them the best chance, and the top lists in the meta are simply what achieves that goal.  This is true of 100/6, epic, or any other format that is based on a competitive game.

I don't disagree with the above, but. . .

30 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

I''m opposed to OPs line of thinking. I want the game to continue to be more balanced with each and every release. Fix releases help do that. They improve the game in nearly every way unless that fix goes overboard and pushes the ship from far below the power curve to above it, as x7 did.

I also don't understand OPs line of thinking in general. Do you not want more reasons to play Interceptors, Punishers, or other ships which are perceived as under powered? Do you not want other players to have more reason to take these ships? Sure, you should feel free to run them now. No one should be saying you should not, especially if flying them helps you enjoy the game. But you know what would help even these players enjoy the game even more? Having more ways to fly a ship they love.

And making the game objective based would not fix the game. It simply moves the target. Objective based games don't have this magical aura that makes them impervious to a meta, which some players here seem to think. There will still be ships and upgrades that perform better than others even in an objective based format. Imperial Assault and Armada both have metas and ships/characters/upgrades that create more value for their cost over other options. Alongside that, there are others which do very little of this and see little play.

Also, considering the massive success of the game with 100/6 as the staple format, with large competitive events pulling in hundreds of players, I think it's safe to say that FFG sees absolutely no reason to change their focus.

IMHO both of your Utopian views of the "perfectly balanced" game is what is flawed.  It will never happen.  Or, it could happen if:

A.  FFG never produces another ship and only spends the rest of time fine tuning the currently elements into the "perfect" game.

or, less much likely, but possible

B.  makes all new releases so "safe" that they really add nothing new to the game.

Because any sort or experimentation or envelope pushing are inevitably going to topple at least some of the house of cards that is the "every component in perfect harmony with every other component."

18 minutes ago, The Inquisitor said:

 This will help to some degree. But it won't really make all ships equal. The Kihraxz just doesn't hold  a candle to the Protectorate and it's hard to envision a scenario that would equalise them.

Not to say I wouldn't like to see objectives in tournament play. There are dozens of scenarios out there already (many a bit crazy, but still), shouldn't be that hard to build 6 or so with specific goals (probably mirrored) that would work for scenario play.

The main point of objectives it that all ships DON'T need to be equal.  Each can be used for a niche in which it functions well.

And, to be perfectly honest, I have no problem with FFG fixing ships.  I have a problem with the round-robin of whining that is "now this ship doesn't work like before."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Darth Meanie said:

IMHO both of your Utopian views of the "perfectly balanced" game is what is flawed.  It will never happen.  Or, it could happen if:

We have had this discussion many times before. I have no Utopian view of perfect balance being possible. But just as certain as it is that the game cannot be perfectly balanced, it is certain that the game can always be more balanced. So why not continue to always reach for more balance with each and every release? There is essentially no reason not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

It's a thread complaining about fixes and wanting FFG to stop making them.  So one can probably assume he was talking about the pre-fix kihraxz being unable to compete with the protectorate.

 Oh dear it was a jest... I was grinning.  I like a bit of the banter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

It's a thread complaining about fixes and wanting FFG to stop making them.

Sorry, not true.  I'm fine with FFG working on game balance.  They should be. . .it's their job.

The "we" referred to players, who less than 48 hours after a fix is announced begin the whining crescendo of the latest "oh woe is me" ship fix.

Because this game will never be perfectly balanced.  EVER.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even 

swx73-vaksai.png

:D

 

Haha I mean pre-fix Kihraxz :P

16 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

I don't disagree with the above, but. . .

IMHO both of your Utopian views of the "perfectly balanced" game is what is flawed.  It will never happen.  Or, it could happen if:

A.  FFG never produces another ship and only spends the rest of time fine tuning the currently elements into the "perfect" game.

or, less much likely, but possible

B.  makes all new releases so "safe" that they really add nothing new to the game.

Because any sort or experimentation or envelope pushing are inevitably going to topple at least some of the house of cards that is the "every component in perfect harmony with every other component."

The main point of objectives it that all ships DON'T need to be equal.  Each can be used for a niche in which it functions well.

And, to be perfectly honest, I have no problem with FFG fixing ships.  I have a problem with the round-robin of whining that is "now this ship doesn't work like before."

 

Right but that's my point. (Pre-fix) Kihraxz occupy no niche that the Protectorate just doesn't do better. 5 20-point ships? Protectorate is better. 5 dice red dice ace? Fenn is just plain better than Talonbane. In biology, when two species occupy the exact same niche, you can expect to see competitive exclusion. Even for scenario play the only reason to take the Kihraxz is fluff reasons (and it isn't an iconic ship like Slave I either). The StarViper arguably has some niche capabilities (I still think Guri is a decent mindlink mule). 

As for "perfect balance" one can expect "good balance" without demanding "perfect balance". In my experience in any game system when the subject of game balance comes up the counter-point that perfect balance is impossible or detrimental to strive for is made. But we don't need perfect balance. But we can go for a reasonable level of balance and for particularly under or overpowered ships to be brought more into alignment. 

 

Edited by The Inquisitor

Share this post


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

What I think ffg forums need is a title. something that gives up the astromech slot but gives you an automatic evade against any fixit post. They could release it in the next faq. Also, it should have 8 red dice, 9 hull, 4 agility, and white tallon rolls. -4 points.

This is unrealistic. Ok...can't keep a straight face.

Share this post


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

It will shake things up, but likely at the detriment of the players. The 100/6 format, despite some hate here, is highly successful, and I would wager that the majority of players thoroughly enjoy it. Even in the case a change to objectives is successful, you are just going to run into the same problem once the format is more established. Ships which perform better for a better cost will rise to the top, and others will be seen much less.

If everyone loved 100/6 as is, then they wouldn't complain their favorite ship doesn't fit.  They would just sit down with the best pieces for 100/6 and play the game.

15 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

We have had this discussion many times before. I have no Utopian view of perfect balance being possible. But just as certain as it is that the game cannot be perfectly balanced, it is certain that the game can always be more balanced. So why not continue to always reach for more balance with each and every release? There is essentially no reason not to.

The reason is stagnation in the name of balance.  Wave 11 would be a case in point, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Darth Meanie said:

Sorry, not true.  I'm fine with FFG working on game balance.  They should be. . .it's their job.

The "we" referred to players, who less than 48 hours after a fix is announced begin the whining crescendo of the latest "oh woe is me" ship fix.

Because this game will never be perfectly balanced.  EVER.

I think most everyone understands that. What's the issue with discussing what we would like to see in the next ace pack or what ships we would like a little update (aka fix) for? I was actually planning on posting a topic discussing a "revisit" to the "revisited ships", discuss just how, or if, FFG ever plans to look at ships they have already included in an aces pack directly again, such as the Tie interceptor, B-wing or Tie Bomber, or if they plan to look towards buffing them slowly through upgrades which are beneficial to them over other ships with the same upgrade slots (similar to what I see them doing with the Tie Punisher).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Darth Meanie said:

If everyone loved 100/6 as is, then they wouldn't complain their favorite ship doesn't fit.  They would just sit down with the best pieces for 100/6 and play the game.

??

You can love the format even if the pieces you prefer aren't in the best spot. I don't only think basketball is a great game when the Jazz or Celtics are winning titles, or when Paul George or Klay Thompson are playing at an elite level. Even when my favorite teams lose, or my favorite players under perform, I still recognize basketball as a phenomenal competition of skill, athleticism and team work.

The same can be said for X-wing. Even if I don't enjoy the meta, and would prefer more B-wings and Misthunters winning events, I can still recognize that, at it's core, 100/6 is an effective, popular, and fun format.

Share this post


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

I think most everyone understands that. What's the issue with discussing what we would like to see in the next ace pack or what ships we would like a little update (aka fix) for? I was actually planning on posting a topic discussing a "revisit" to the "revisited ships", discuss just how, or if, FFG ever plans to look at ships they have already included in an aces pack directly again, such as the Tie interceptor, B-wing or Tie Bomber, or if they plan to look towards buffing them slowly through upgrades which are beneficial to them over other ships with the same upgrade slots (similar to what I see them doing with the Tie Punisher).

This would certainly be the most organic way to do it.

But, unless things change, some ships may never get better without a new dial.  And a new dial can only be had with an "equivalent" ship being released (at least currently).  For example, the TIE Punisher may simply need to be upgraded by releasing the gunboat.

Which is to say that some ships may be "permanently" handicapped and unfixable.

36 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

You can love the format even if the pieces you prefer aren't in the best spot. I don't only think basketball is a great game when the Jazz or Celtics are winning titles, or when Paul George or Klay Thompson are playing at an elite level. Even when my favorite teams lose, or my favorite players under perform, I still recognize basketball as a phenomenal competition of skill, athleticism and team work.

The same can be said for X-wing. Even if I don't enjoy the meta, and would prefer more B-wings and Misthunters winning events, I can still recognize that, at it's core, 100/6 is an effective, popular, and fun format.

To reverse you basketball analogy, what if NBA ball was established as 1/2 court games.  With 1/2 the players.  You could still play.  You could still compete.  It's still basketball.  Lots of people play that way and have fun.  It's popular and you need less space and 1/2 as many baskets.  But you might not have offense and defense.  And you might not think the game was as interesting.

100/6 is effective at:

  • Making games 60 minutes.
  • Establishing an easy to create play surface.
  • Shoving every ship thru the same eye of the needle.

What is it not effective at:

  • Adding variety to the battlefield
  • Allowing ships to shine based on different merits
  • Allowing ships to have true variability (ergo, different roles).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a mixture of both is needed. I think maybe we should move from 100/6 to maybe 150/6 or 200/6. But we also need to have some changes be made to older ships.

Stuff like t65s and interceptors need some loving. 

Like a title for interceptors that says,

Interceptor Mk2: 2 points: You may equip an additional title card. When you execute a (90 degree turn) maneuver, you may rotate your ship 90 degrees.

White or green talon rolls would be an interesting niche for interceptors to fill.

Share this post


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

IMHO both of your Utopian views of the "perfectly balanced" game is what is flawed.  It will never happen. 

You're right it will never happen, but you don't let perfect become the enemy of better.  Just because you can't achieve perfection doesn't mean you stop trying to improve things.  Also I know full well that there will never be a perfectly balanced game, the fact that you accuse me of such nonsense makes me believe you don't even really get the points I'm making...

2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

If everyone loved 100/6 as is, then they wouldn't complain their favorite ship doesn't fit.  

Wrong again, and the problem with your statement should be self evident, in fact I bolded it.  If people have a favorite ship but it doesn't do well in the current meta, they want it improved.  Because they have a given ship they want to play with, for a host of possible reasons.

Myself I love X-Wings, have since ANH came out, I love how they look, I love the concept behind them, ect... So naturally I'd prefer it if X-Wings weren't a bad choice when building a list for a Store Championship or any other tournament.  However the format again has nothing to do with it, what matters is people's preference.  The fact that a given ship doesn't work well in the current meta is not a flaw in the format it is a flaw in how the game as a whole is balanced.

The fact that someone may want the Tie Interceptor or Y-Wing to do better in a 100/6 match doesn't mean there's a flaw with the format, it means that those ships don't perform as well as some other ship, which once again isn't about the format, it's about how much someone wants to win.

If I'm playing for fun and winning is a secondary or even lower priority the list I fly will be quite different the if winning is more important.  Likewise the list I'd fly when I want to win is going to depend on the format I'm playing.  I wouldn't expect a list that does well in 100/6 will do well in team epic, and in general ships and upgrades that do well in one format tend to not do as well in other formats.

4 minutes ago, BadMotivator said:

I think a mixture of both is needed. I think maybe we should move from 100/6 to maybe 150/6 or 200/6.

With the major tournaments already taking two or more days, an increase in points is not going to happen, not for things like Regionals and the like.

The problem is, if you want to play 150 or 200 point games, nothing is stopping you, but some people just don't seem to want to play anything other than the standard tournament format, even if they don't like it.  At my group we play all kinds of formats and have a lot of fun with them.

So if you don't like 100/6 then be the change you want to see, but accept that the 100/6 format does in fact work very well for large tournaments, and as such is going to be the format used for them.

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...