Jump to content
Boris_the_Dwarf

Strike 3

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, RafaelNN said:

That tie next to the bomber, what ship is it?

I don’t mean to trample over some EU toes, but that TIE Scout is just hideous.  I think that some of the newer TIE designs are so much better, especially the Reaper and Striker.  They’re still easily identifiable as Imperial TIE ships, but the look so much more elegant in design.  I think I’m OK with Disney weeding out the chaff from the wheat in the EU.  Many of my favorite things have made it forward (Thrawn and the TIE defender certainly stand out), while some of the less desirable stuff seems to be buried (Sun Crusher, and well, the TIE Scout).  If they can improve the Star Wars universe with new ships I’m all for it.  I’m still amazed that FFG got to be a driving force in developing the Raider.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2018 at 7:54 AM, Ikka said:

The app is good because the designers can tailor both points and slots on each ship and even individual pilots as needed, based on how they are performing. They've already stated that the most likely way they will introduce changes is in regular (scheduled) intervals, not on-the-fly nerfs.

 

If you want to play 1.0 that's up to you, have fun. Just don't expect a lot of people to do the same, as the changes look good as far as most can see.

um, citation needed?

my entire playgroup just quite and resale values on ebay tanked, with both indicate that the whole playerbase does not universally love this. many players are fine with changes, but i'd say most are not. the boards are just full of nasty people who attack anyone who voices displeasure so the people quitting are just leaving quietly

 

Share this post


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

um, citation needed?

 my entire playgroup just quite and resale values on ebay tanked, with both indicate that the whole playerbase does not universally love this. many players are fine with changes, but i'd say most are not. the boards are just full of nasty people who attack anyone who voices displeasure so the people quitting are just leaving quietly

 

Citation needed applies here as well right, as the reaction of your player group and anecdotal ebay values don't actually prove anything either? For example, my entire play group is buying into 2.0 and are very excited for it. What I've seen doesn't mean anything when applied to the greater X-Wing community. We'll see what happens when 2.0 gets here. I'm excited for the changes, but I have some trepidation as well. I need a lot more evidence before I can say whether I believe 2.0 will take much of the community with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

um, citation needed?

 

Citation for scheduled changes to balance.

AMA with Max Brooke and Frank Brooks. https://www.reddit.com/r/XWingTMG/comments/8pbgdj/ama_about_xwing_second_edition_with_max_brooke/

 

Specific section below:

 

"[–]Mattman7306Pure Sabaac: Like OL, but bad! 41 points42 points43 points 18 days ago

In other game systems, like Magic, balance updates happen in regular intervals. How frequently can we expect a re-balancing of points? Outside of scheduled updates, if something is quickly shown to be unhealthy for the game, is the option of an emergency update to the app/points something you are willing to do?

 

[–]fantasyflightgames[S] 39 points40 points41 points 18 days ago

FB: We are planning on making point adjustments on a scheduled basis. Only a handful times of year. We are still settling down on how often, but the numbers we are looking at right now are between 3 and 4. You shouldn’t run into a problem where in the time between when you leave your house to go to the event and when you arrive, points have changed.

MB: In terms of emergency updates, we would very much like people to be confident that the point values are accurate, so this isn't something we would want to use unless it was absolutely necessary, but never say never!"

 

 

However, if you are talking about whether or not people will stick to 1.0 over 2.0, you can look at most games that update their rules and see that in general the majority of players will switch to a new and updated rule set rather than stay with an older, unsupported rule set. Look at everything from Warmachine 2.0 going to 3.0, Malifaux's 2nd Edition, every Warhammer 40k new edition ever- you see the majority of players converting over to the new system. ****, even one of the most controversial rules changes in recent years, Warhammer Fantasy Battles changing to Age of Sigmar, resulted in a mainly neutral overall position in regards to both player numbers and profits. Just because your specific group is selling off, or eBay values are lessening (which I haven't seen- and I've been trolling for ships to get to fill out conversion kits for Scum/Empire) does not mean that as a whole players are quitting. We won't be able to tell that until after the switchover.

I haven't seen too many people actively being nasty/rude to those that dislike the changes- it seems that most people would rather know more information to base their opinions on rather than what we know now. Both sides (anti-2.0 and pro-2.0) have their vocal minorities, but that means less in the real world than it does in an internet echo chamber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2018 at 7:09 PM, Darth Meanie said:

XWM has a long release cycle.  It will be years before this game starts expanding again.

Meanie, while I appreciate you have a vast past experience of releases in XWM, current evidence indicates a different perspective.  Firstly, wave 1 of 2.0 consists of 7 ships so far plus we already have 2 additional ship types released.  That’s 9.  Wave 1 of 1.0 was 4 ships.  Secondly, all the core game mechanics have been designed and tested as have all the existing ships.  There’s no design delay.  Thirdly, most ships will be released using their existing physical design only the cardboard and packaging has changed so the changes the factory has to make are reduced.  Fourthly 

7 hours ago, Parakitor said:

In Team Covenant's interview with Andrew Navaro, he says:

"Our release plan is super aggressive, you know...especially for the first 6-9 months, the first year of releases. It's a lot of stuff."

I don't think newer players are going to be behind the curve for very long at all. I know that was a bit of a concern for some people, but it needn't be. I'm looking forward to it!

It stings that Epic won’t be initially supported in 2.0.  It also stings for me that the First Order isn’t initially supported.  But we know these things will come.  In the mean time Epic is only dead to you if you stop playing it.  I’m going to continue and may even drop a 1.0 huge ship into a 2.0 game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Boris_the_Dwarf

There are just people that are always going to bicker, no matter how hard FFG tries to make the right decisions and offer a good game to us.

For what exactly are you even trying to blame them?

Moving on to 2.0? For a game that was, according to most of the same bickerers, unsalvageable because fundamentally flawed and where the demand for 2.0 was big even on this very forum?

For using a technology that 99% of their playerbase is using on a daily basis anyway, while still offering a solution to the remaining percent?

For not releasing ALL the 2.0 ships at the same time? Which Would have been a logistical nightmare to handle. And THEN, the bickerers would have said they’d stop playing because they can’t afford to buy all the ships at the same time, and why they don’t give us conversion kits, probably.

For needing multiple conversion kits if you have a big collection? Well, if you have a sports car it will also have higher maintenance cost to keep it running compared to a Honda Civic.

For making money? Which you call a „cash grab“. Well, first, we are talking about absolute luxury items here. Expensive little toys for kids and grown-ups. Expect to pay accordingly to get your fix. Second, they have to keep business running, and they just have invested a lot of time and money into 2.0, so they are trying to make the investment pay for itself, like every business would.

I mean, come on, just because you don’t get every little thing you maybe wished for and exactly tailored to your needs does not make 2.0 bad.

And if you still insist, enjoy giving FFG „strikes“ in your little corner while not happily playing 2.0 like most of us will. 

Edited by ForceM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

um, citation needed?

my entire playgroup just quite and resale values on ebay tanked, with both indicate that the whole playerbase does not universally love this. many players are fine with changes, but i'd say most are not. the boards are just full of nasty people who attack anyone who voices displeasure so the people quitting are just leaving quietly

 

Citation needed here as well. "Most are not [fine with changes]"? Not sure where you get that from. Anecdote does not equal evidence. If we're trading anecdotes anyway it looks like virtually every player I've spoken to, including fairly casual players, are pretty excited about 2nd edition, though often less so about spending more money. It's also worth noting that forums are never really representative of the community as a whole, regardless of what community you're talking about. For every forumite quietly walking away of vociferously defending FFG there are dozens of not hundreds, of people not interacting online at all.

Maybe it's because most come from a wargaming background, but there's more of an acceptance of edition change from that side of things, IME. Also, keeping older games running in the face of new editions is often a very difficult task. Obviously, small, self-contained groups can do what they want, which is great, but on the whole the game is sustained and grown through clubs, stores and tournaments and they need a common, supported ruleset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2018 at 3:25 AM, Boris_the_Dwarf said:

After the May announcement, I was cautiously optimistic for second edition. I’d been saying for about a year that the game needed a second edition, so the fact they were making one was good news to me... until i saw what their idea of second edition looked like. Conversion kits that still run the risk of alienating new players who have to go backward to buy ships that haven’t been reskinned, higher pricing on ship packs, and the requirement for an online app just to handle some of the most basic operating requirements of the game. In my opinion, the app is there as a cop out mechanism to allow the designers to be even sloppier with design. Now they can just change everything on the fly.

The one area I still held out hope for and defended FFG on when the topic came up was the idea that it would take multiple conversion kits to maintain playability. I based my response on the comments made by people who were in the room for the announcement. Because of the app, you won’t need multiple copies of the same upgrade card like you do now. That’s what I was hearing.

And then I opened my TIE Reaper and examined the second edition contents. I stand corrected. What a disappointment. One conversion kit for a faction might not be enough after all, if there’s a really good upgrade card that a top tier list will need 4-5 copies of.

My plan is to purchase the new starter, one imperial conversion kit and one rebel kit. Beyond that, I’m done. No more ships. No additional kits. This version has a year of life in it at best, as it has alienated veterans and new players alike. New players will have to backtrack to pick up old ships to go with the kits or wait out some future release date unless there is some other cash grab power play in the works that hasn’t been announced yet.

For me, 1.0 still has a lot of life left in it and I plan to continue enjoying that for years to come.

Put a new player with the core and an expansion or two across from triple wookies, 100 point Miranda, or Ghost Fenn and we'll see just how much life 1.0 has in it. 1.0 WAS dying. Maybe not for the hardcore people in the big tournaments, but at the LGS level, the game was on its last legs. New players to the game couldn't play X wings, B wings, Y wings, A wings, Tie Fighters, Interceptors, Bombers, or Slave 1. If they did and it was your average tournament, they would have lost near 100% of their games, mostly before they even placed obstacles. 

How could "Star Wars: X-Wing" possibly sustain new players with a game that no longer resembled Star Wars at all? And to answer the inevitable "fly what you love" rubbish, how many of you would continue to happily support and play a game that you will nearly always fail at simply because you brought ships that are from Star Wars? Probably not a lot I imagine, because ultimately, who wants to go out and lose when you can play other games where you are not punished for building a list that doesnt ignore multiple aspects of the game.

I'm not happy with having to spend more money on 2.0, but if it wasn't for the announcement, I think the game would have effectively died for a large number of players. As of wave 13, 1.0 was a poorly designed, bloated, and unfriendly game for a lot of players; new and old. I recall just not enjoying playing at all at my last 1.0 tourney because having to play against 100 point Miranda is not fun in the slightest. So it was either 2.0 or nothing in my eyes. And no, the 2 -3 person bimonthly 1.0 meetups that would have occurred would not count as the game being alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to do this in a separate post, but why not here. Likes and dislikes of 2.0.

Likes:
The reduced pilot skill levels ranking
The turret action (not perfect, but over all I like it.)
The Medium Bases
Droids calculate. 
Force Slots

Dislikes:
The App (The same could have been done in multiple other ways)
     -The fluidity of points in the app.
     -The fluidity of the upgrade slots
     -Reference sheets and reference apps just are inconvenient and slow down gameplay/setup and are annoying without knowing stats with an instant glance
Linked Actions (Yes, I said it)
Less control when list building
Overall nerfing of the upgrade cards. (To me, this took a lot of the fun chains you could make.)
Charges (I understand why, but it seems unnecessary .)
More than 3 factions. (A lot of people like this, but from what I have experienced 3 distinct factions tend to work best for flavor and game play.)
Overall it just feels more generic and not as "colorful" (Like R2 Astromech vs R2-D2, can you get any more boring?)
It feels like it is retreading old ground.

Edited by Jadotch

Share this post


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

I was going to do this in a separate post, but why not here. Likes and dislikes of 2.0.

Likes:
The reduced pilot skill levels ranking
The turret action (not perfect, but over all I like it.)
The Medium Bases
Droids calculate. 
Force Slots

Dislikes:
The App (The same could have been done in multiple other ways)
     -The fluidity of points in the app.
     -The fluidity of the upgrade slots
     -Reference sheets and reference apps just are inconvenient and slow down gameplay/setup and are annoying without know stats with an instant glance
Linked Actions (Yes, I said it)
Less control when list building
Overall nerfing of the upgrade cards. (To me, this took a lot of the fun chains you could make.)
Charges (I understand why, but it seems unnecessary .)
More than 3 factions. (A lot of people like this, but from what I have experienced 3 distinct factions tend to work best for flavor and game play.)
Overall it just feels more generic and not as "colorful" (Like R2 Astromech vs R2-D2, can you get any more boring?)
It feels like it is retreading old ground.

You won't get many likes for it, but I think a lot of your dislikes are on point.  I would add the implementation of the new turrets, which is likely to lead to some pretty boring play as the arcs just get locked off the side as the ship flies big arcs around like, Asajj-style.

I'm been waiting for my big reason to buy into 2nd Edition and so far I've not really seen anything that screams it's going to be a much better play experience.

Share this post


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

You won't get many likes for it, but I think a lot of your dislikes are on point.  I would add the implementation of the new turrets, which is likely to lead to some pretty boring play as the arcs just get locked off the side as the ship flies big arcs around like, Asajj-style.

I'm been waiting for my big reason to buy into 2nd Edition and so far I've not really seen anything that screams it's going to be a much better play experience.

Yes, the new turrets are flawed. I still think they are an improvement over 1.0 system, but they have went to far in the opposite direction.

There should have been something like "At the end of the planning phase, you may rotate your turret." It should be a free action between the planning and activation phase. (Or whatever 2.0 is calling it now.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2018 at 12:17 PM, SOTL said:

I'm planning to keep 1.0 going - patch in some rules changes and start converting the new ships like Lando Falcon.

We'll make 1.0 better than 2.0.

I agree. I don't get why people think the baby needs to be thrown out with the bath water. If you ban a handful of cards and make some minor tweaks, 1.0 one of the best games ever made.

Share this post


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

Coincidentally this is exactly what 2e does.

Not really. It changes too much unnecessarily. They did it this way so they could charge you an arm and a leg to correct a few minor issues they created with lax design. 

Share this post


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

Yes, the new turrets are flawed. I still think they are an improvement over 1.0 system, but they have went to far in the opposite direction.

There should have been something like "At the end of the planning phase, you may rotate your turret." It should be a free action between the planning and activation phase. (Or whatever 2.0 is calling it now.)

Or better yet, a separate turret dial that you reveal with the maneuver dial. (A cloak dial would be nice as well.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2018 at 1:00 AM, Sasajak said:

Meanie, while I appreciate you have a vast past experience of releases in XWM, current evidence indicates a different perspective.  Firstly, wave 1 of 2.0 consists of 7 ships so far plus we already have 2 additional ship types released.  That’s 9.  Wave 1 of 1.0 was 4 ships.  Secondly, all the core game mechanics have been designed and tested as have all the existing ships.  There’s no design delay.  Thirdly, most ships will be released using their existing physical design only the cardboard and packaging has changed so the changes the factory has to make are reduced.  Fourthly 

It stings that Epic won’t be initially supported in 2.0.  It also stings for me that the First Order isn’t initially supported.  But we know these things will come.  In the mean time Epic is only dead to you if you stop playing it.  I’m going to continue and may even drop a 1.0 huge ship into a 2.0 game.

I haven't been very attentive to the latest going's on (see below), so I didn't know about an accelerated release schedule.

On 6/25/2018 at 11:18 PM, Vontoothskie said:

the people quitting are just leaving quietly

Yeah, I definitely fall into that category.

23 hours ago, Jadotch said:

I was going to do this in a separate post, but why not here. Likes and dislikes of 2.0.

Likes:
The reduced pilot skill levels ranking
The turret action (not perfect, but over all I like it.)
The Medium Bases
Droids calculate. 
Force Slots

Dislikes:
The App (The same could have been done in multiple other ways)
     -The fluidity of points in the app.
     -The fluidity of the upgrade slots
     -Reference sheets and reference apps just are inconvenient and slow down gameplay/setup and are annoying without knowing stats with an instant glance
Linked Actions (Yes, I said it)
Less control when list building
Overall nerfing of the upgrade cards. (To me, this took a lot of the fun chains you could make.)
Charges (I understand why, but it seems unnecessary .)
More than 3 factions. (A lot of people like this, but from what I have experienced 3 distinct factions tend to work best for flavor and game play.)
Overall it just feels more generic and not as "colorful" (Like R2 Astromech vs R2-D2, can you get any more boring?)
It feels like it is retreading old ground.

This sums my feeling up as well, with 2 changes:

I think the linked actions are a cool new mechanic, so +1 here

and

I hate the change in the PS scale to 1-6, because it makes 1.0 to 2.0 completely incompatible.  It feels like the biggest thing they did to make sure that everyone would be forced to upgrade in order to ever move forward with any new ships that get released.  If you want Lando's Falcon, there is no way it makes sense in a 1.0 game with Init 1-6.

And it also makes little sense as a "necessity": we are going to double points to increase granularity, then reduce PS granularity to 2/3 the range.  Now, with just 6 pilots per ship, all levels are full.  Why does this help the game, especially with PS/Init being a locked stat?

20 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

It corrects the problems whilst heavily future proofing the way the designers should (and would) have in wave 1 if they had had any inkling x wing would get as big as it has.

I can't disagree with this.  Plus, now it is really the game the current designers' made, and not some hand-me-down.  I'm sure there is some gratification in having full control over a project you have been taking full responsiblilty for.

But for me, as Jadotch said, the game is just retreading old ground.  I was never a fan of 100/6, and so far nothing is happening to make the game more than that.  In 1.0, gripes in that vein were just met with the "DIY" response by the community at large, which now simply becomes all the more relevant with 2.0.

There is no point at all in upgrading a game that was already not providing me the experience I was looking for without a heavy investment of DIY power on my end in either edition.  Someday, if narrative play becomes a real thing, and XWM can be designed as something more than a tournament fighting game (where the SW IP, to be honest, is completely irrelevant to gameplay), I could see the point.  But for now, 1.0 still has plenty of room to be a great beer-and-pretzels game about Star Wars without starting over on my end.

Edited by Darth Meanie

Share this post


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

I hate the change in the PS scale to 1-6, because it makes 1.0 to 2.0 completely incompatible.  It feels like the biggest thing they did to make sure that everyone would be forced to upgrade in order to ever move forward with any new ships that get released.  If you want Lando's Falcon, there is no way it makes sense in a 1.0 game with Init 1-6.

And it also makes little sense as a "necessity": we are going to double points to increase granularity, then reduce PS granularity to 2/3 the range.  Now, with just 6 pilots per ship, all levels are full.  Why does this help the game, especially with PS/Init being a locked stat?

 

I did not think of this as an "upgrade" per say, but more of "how I would have done it" type thing. I have played many of Epic games where a player bring ships through out the spectrum and there are 9 or 10 movement turns. It just gets tedious. I actually would have liked 1-5 even better. (Novice-Common-Advanced-Expert-Legendary). It would just be used to clean up and simplify game play (especially with a lot of ships on the table). 

It would just make logistic in Epic sooooo much easier.

Edited by Jadotch

Share this post


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

I hate the change in the PS scale to 1-6, because it makes 1.0 to 2.0 completely incompatible.  It feels like the biggest thing they did to make sure that everyone would be forced to upgrade in order to ever move forward with any new ships that get released.  If you want Lando's Falcon, there is no way it makes sense in a 1.0 game with Init 1-6.

And it also makes little sense as a "necessity": we are going to double points to increase granularity, then reduce PS granularity to 2/3 the range.  Now, with just 6 pilots per ship, all levels are full.  Why does this help the game, especially with PS/Init being a locked stat?

It will hopefully eliminate the mostly irrelevant middle PS values (5-7). Historically the only time you saw pilots in that range were when they had absolutely bonkers pilot abilities (ie. Biggs, Dash, Lowie), or you were stapling VI to them to join the 8+ club. Hopefully shrinking the range means that all Initiative values are more relevant. Of course, it could just mean that 3-4 gets ignored while we either go 1-2 or 5-6, but it certainly can't make things worse.

Also, the fact that all levels are full means that there will be much more overlap in games now, which will make initiative and bidding more relevant across the board rather than something only aces ever really worried about.

Edited by DR4CO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2018 at 8:25 PM, Boris_the_Dwarf said:

higher pricing on ship packs

This is something we hear a bit of flak about, but I wonder if people are considering that you no longer will have to buy an Autothrusters Starviper upgrade pack if you're not a scum player. You can now genuinely be a single faction player, if that floats your boat. No need to buy a ship from outside your faction just for an upgrade. And if you are still a three (soon to be 5) faction player, then you are likely to have spares of those wanted upgrades, to trade, give or loan to those that might need multiples.

Certainly cheaper than buying an Epic display piece ship for a handful of upgrade cards to fix a ship, which can now be fixed by the regular update to points, slots, etc in the app/pdf/website updates.

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...