Jump to content
MrAndersson

Is there a place for quality discussion about the competitive side of X-Wing?

Recommended Posts



22 hours ago, GrogEgrog said:




But how do you keep out the plethora of doom and gloomers?






Subforums are not on the main page. The effort to click one more button is weirdly enough to keep many of the attention-starved buzzkills out, for the most part. Although I have witnessed one intrepid tear-streaked banshee arrive in the Painting and Modification subforum to shriek about the mechanics of the Jumpmaster. The shield is not foolproof. I vote for subforum, but we sorta already have one... Squad Lists, with the right information laid out in the OP, can be pretty useful. A competitive subforum would be more useful for what happens after you put that squad on the table.





29 minutes ago, heychadwick said:




It's also in all the comments where people say "maybe this game isn't for you".






There are absolutely people that this game is "not for." Sometimes, however rarely, that statement is apt. The only game that is perfect for everyone is Calvinball.





On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 7:41 PM, SOTL said:




There is, but it's not public.  You have to know the right people.







5 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:




I'm on about half a dozen X-Wing discussions and this forum is BY FAR the worst one.






Stay on the Leader outed as member of X-Wing Miniatures Illuminati.


Edited by E Chu Ta
Wierdo Formatting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, E Chu Ta said:


Stay on the Leader outed as member of X-Wing Miniatures Illuminati.

 

Hardly.  I imagine I'm blacklisted.

But I'm close enough to know that it definitely exists.  I got invited to some of the 'black ops' playtesting groups that use NDA-ed information and declined.  You're either in or you're out, and I decided I didn't care about winning enough to be in.

Edited by Stay On The Leader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rat of Vengence said:

Personally I am a casual player who likes to rip it up at tournaments from time to time. This polarisation of extremes is ridiculous. the fact is there are whiny clowns on both ends, and no doubt in the middle too :)

No, there are only clowns on the left.  The right is reserved for jokers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Smutpedler said:

So; I've been struggling with this for a while now too. I only really get a sensible discussion when I ask about 3 of my friends when it comes to x-wing. Whilst there are some fantastic, experienced, intelligent and articulate people on this forum; they often get drowned out by the same naysayers and circular arguments. 

As per @Kdubb's suggestion; I just set up a Discord server which I intend to administrate and use for more streamlined communication. It's specifically geared towards the South of the UK area (as that's where I live) and I've set up a bunch of channels for local events, list building, HotAC etc. 

I'm not sue what it's like for everyone else but locally we have a lot of posturing and politics when it comes to FLGS and their owners. I, for one, will welcome the chance to have conversations without them being watched by the power struggle muppets. Honestly; the worst thing i ever did was getting involved with an FLGS and being dragged into the politics, but I digress...

Anyone keen on joining the server? Drop me a PM.

I worked as the miniatures and modeling expert and such back in the 90's at a good game store. But even there this behavior you described was present in varying degrees. The same goes on here in it's own way. It is just a part of gaming I think. The best you can do is make your own game positive environment.

IMP%2BCOMMAND%2BCENTER.PNG :wub:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MrAndersson said:

But when I want to discuss the competitive side of the game, I want a serious discussion with well founded arguments from people who are at least decent players.

To be honest, I absolutely agree.

Discussion of the casual aspects is often limited to game modes, fun moments and so on. I'm glad that this part is thriving, but I rather play it than talk about it myself.

Discussion of 'competitive players' (with the aforementioned cave at) on the other hand is much more what I'm looking for: recommendations on how to fly a ship, discussing target priorities, clever set ups, mind games, problems in matchups and so on.

I'm not saying that this does not exist in casual gaming, but it's more frequent in competitive game threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Joe Boss Red Seven said:

I worked as the miniatures and modeling expert and such back in the 90's at a good game store. But even there this behavior you described was present in varying degrees. The same goes on here in it's own way. It is just a part of gaming I think. The best you can do is make your own game positive environment.

IMP%2BCOMMAND%2BCENTER.PNG :wub:

 

It honestly nearly killed gaming for me earlier this year but I've done my best to remove myself and keep my gaming about FUN! The main reason I started gaming :) There is one exceptionally aggressive LGS owner who tends to destroy what he can't control by shattering the local communities into "on his side" & "against him" who keeps sticking his fingers in the local x-wing pie, much to my dismay, but I'm hoping most people are intelligent enough to see his BS and not be manipulated for cheap toys...

Share this post


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

It honestly nearly killed gaming for me earlier this year but I've done my best to remove myself and keep my gaming about FUN! The main reason I started gaming :) There is one exceptionally aggressive LGS owner who tends to destroy what he can't control by shattering the local communities into "on his side" & "against him" who keeps sticking his fingers in the local x-wing pie, much to my dismay, but I'm hoping most people are intelligent enough to see his BS and not be manipulated for cheap toys...

I KNOW... Yah. In my thirty year game carree I can honestly say there have been only three FLGS. The rest are just LGS.

I buy 100% online now and save literally hundreds of dollars each year. I buy a lot because I love the toys.

60SA.gif

 

Share this post


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

Hardly.  I imagine I'm blacklisted.

But I'm close enough to know that it definitely exists.  I got invited to some of the 'black ops' playtesting groups that use NDA-ed information and declined.  You're either in or you're out, and I decided I didn't care about winning enough to be in.

Impossible. We are to believe that, knowing their secret handshakes, postures, modes of formal dress and headwear, but refusing their dark tutelage , they would let you still live?

Pish posh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kdubb said:

Do you have any thoughts on why this might be? I'm not saying you don't have any reason to be upset, but if this is the route FFG is taking, there is a possibility it may simply be the best one for them financially.

 

What issue do you have with this? Isn't this exactly the correct way to do it? If FFG didn't pull the competitive crowd into buying epics, it very well be something they focused on even less as sales would be lower, and it also would mean less players would even attempt to play epic because they would never be saying "hey, I bought this for a pretty penny. I should probably take it for a spin at least once." before they get hooked.

 

This is the only point you bring up that makes me think you simply don't want competitive players to be able to enjoy the things you do in their own way.

 

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but I always thought this was a calling card of the casual scene. The "we can play how we want, so we can fly anything!" moniker Joe Boss shares in every other thread.

I would take pride in that. I know when I play casual that is one of my very favorite things about it is that you don't have to bend to FFGs often limiting formats.

 

If it's a bone to pick with FFG you have, then this is a totally fair one to pick at. I think just about everyone who has ever played the game and enjoyed it can get behind this. We should be greatful for those who have put in the time to make successful campaign oriented play experiences for the time being though.

I don't really thing it is a financial thing, I think it is a manpower thing.  There are 3 top devs, and they are focused on tournaments.  If there was a Tournament R&D Team and an Epic R&D Team, we might see something come out of the mill that wasn't designed around tournament play.

Of course packaging a small ship in the Huge ship box is a good idea for FFG.  Also, I of course want those fixes, too, so it's not like I hate that a small ship is included.  Logically, everything you said is true; but it just feels like the casual scene is underserved.  I guess another thing that raised my hackles is that I would also feel like the OP's request would be more likely honored by FFG than a request for a Casual thread, because that's what FFG would want players to focus on.

To make a different analogy, if FFG were a bicycle company, I feel like tournament players get the latest tech and a shiny new bike to race with.  Casual players, OTOH, get a box of new bike parts for the same bike and once we have finally assembled it into something that works we can go for a ride.  Sometimes, it's not the outcome, it's the presentation.

Lastly, some of the dichotomy between casual and tourney is certainly over dramaticized.  Folks like JBR7 and myself just want to root for our side, and I may get overzealous about it.

Edited by Darth Meanie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kris40k said:

But ya know, have at it. Everyone's favorite @ParaGoomba Slayer can be found regularly on r/xwingtmg.

To be fair, PGS has mellowed out a LOT since he made the jump to xwingtmg.  He's actually capable of stating an opinion without being needlessly antagonistic now, at least from what I've seen.

Share this post


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

You don't usually see people outright say they dislike casual players, but you definitely see posts like this.  To me, it says if you aren't a serious tournament type then you are an idiot.  It's not usually a direct insult, but it's there.  It's also in all the comments where people say "maybe this game isn't for you".  

To the OP, I've found it important to post in the initial post about either being strictly tournament or strictly casual.  It tends to avoid the contusion.

Yeah the irony of my defense of the aggression of competitive players given the OP of this thread didn't occur to me until later. 

However, when I read it, I didn't take it as casuals are idiots, but that there are "idiots" on both sides. The "it'll lose to X" comments would probably just as unwelcome to @MrAndersson (and rightfully so) as "Just play Epic, it's better."

I don't agree with calling people idiots (and he seems to have reversed course on that too), but I think the frustration goes towards both camps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that people on both sides can be bad, I will say that I have been I  many early discussions of causal gaming and been attacked by tournament types pretty badly.  The hostility I've been on the receiving end of for not preferring tournament style has been harsh.  I can say I have seen it happen, even if you havent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When @MrAnderssonsays he wants to have Quality Discussion about competitive play, the immediate response is "what specifically do you want to discuss?".

  1. Personally, I prefer to field a squad I like, rather than a net-list or meta-list, but I take it to competitive events (because it's several games back to back, the bulk of games I play are at game nights, store championships, etc), and have no particular interest in not doing my best or being steamrolled (it does, obviously, still happen sometimes!)
  2. Strategy (deployment & target priority) and Tactics (manoeuvres & 'gimmicks') are as important as your list, but a lot harder to discuss on a text forum, which is why people tend to default to "XYZ list is invicible". It's not. It can be good or bad - you can lose the game in list building, just as you can lose it in deployment or lose it during a given turn - but you can't 'win it'.

Which is why I tend to try and respond with "how I would fly" rather than "change your list". That's not the same as a dismissive 'git gut' (which is a pointless thing to say unless you provide some actual advice on how to manoeuvre) - sometimes changing your list for the better is the easiest way you can improve your performance, but in addition to a stubborn "I want to fly this squad", there is also value to "I've played umpty ump games with this squad and I know exactly how to fly it" as well as "you've only practiced against the top 3 meta squads and you have no real idea what I can do", both of which add competitive "value" to a squad, but specifically for a given player and/or environment.

People do tend to want to use the internet to vent their angst, one way or another. But I feel there are people on this forum, both competitive and not, worth listening to.

There are also people not worth listening to.  But, to be fair, if you can't learn to ignore people who aren't offering a useful opinion, asking for help on the internet is like slathering yourself in beef stock and jumping into a piranha tank.

 

 

Edited by Magnus Grendel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Strategy (deployment & target priority) and Tactics (manoeuvres & 'gimmicks') are as important as your list, but a lot harder to discuss on a text forum

But that's exactly what I would like more of. How do we make that happen?

Edit: just missed SOTL. You're right. But I for example hesitate because I definitely don't have the results to back anything up. So I'd like to read from the guys who have

Edited by GreenDragoon

Share this post


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

But that's exactly what I would like more of. How do we make that happen?

Edit: just missed SOTL. You're right. But I for example hesitate because I definitely don't have the results to back anything up. So I'd like to read from the guys who have

You can totally start a strategic discussion wothlut results to back it up if the discussion is more like "let's talk about this idea" and less "I win a lot so listen to me".  Even if someone has "results" they should still have a well-reasoned argument.  Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, after all.

Share this post


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

But that's exactly what I would like more of. How do we make that happen?

Edit: just missed SOTL. You're right. But I for example hesitate because I definitely don't have the results to back anything up. So I'd like to read from the guys who have

Let me put it this way.

Almost without fail the people 'with the results to back it up' are off talking among themselves in the private channels and only come here to remind themselves how superior they are so they can slag the forums off in their next podcast.

So either the people who ARE here try and talk strategy or nobody will talk strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2017 at 2:52 AM, Zefirus said:

To be fair, PGS has mellowed out a LOT since he made the jump to xwingtmg.  He's actually capable of stating an opinion without being needlessly antagonistic now, at least from what I've seen.

Bwahaha! I doubt it, he's back here under a puppet name. Several people have already picked it just from hearing the same old crap from him.

 

RoV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

But that's exactly what I would like more of. How do we make that happen?

Edit: just missed SOTL. You're right. But I for example hesitate because I definitely don't have the results to back anything up. So I'd like to read from the guys who have

You can make a vague stab at it. Fortunately, whilst there are theoretically infinite positions a ship can occupy on the board, in practical terms there are only so many we have to consider:

For example, I can deploy my Striker Swam anywhere within range 1 of my board edge. But every possible position generally boils down to some combination of the following descriptors:

  • Deployed together in a 5-ship block, Deployed in 2 groups of 2-3, Split up into evenly spread singletons (never done it, sounds like a bad idea)
  • Deployed on the outside board edge ('clear channel'), Deployed halfway to the centre, Deployed centrally
  • Deployed facing the enemy, Deployed parallel to the board edge, Deployed at 45'

The best way to discuss deployment and openings is, I guess, with vassal image chops, but that's not something I can easily do off a tablet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A more heavily moderated subreddit could do the trick, similar to the competetive Hearthstone one which actually is a driving force of the ladder meta. Any "balance" comments and you are out, any imprecise threads and you are out. O doubt that X-Wing  is large enough for that, though, seems like a lot of work on the mods side.

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...