2.0 is kind of a mess

[TasteTheRainbow 7,905]

9 minutes ago, Sparklelord said:

It's not about the misprints in the early released cards in Saw/Reaper, although that is a red flag that YES, this edition was rushed to print ahead of schedule. 

It's about stuff like they forgot that ships can do obstructions and Outrider is only intended to work with obstacles so there's already an entry in the errata. 

 

Explain to me how abilities being online-only is ANY different than what we already have in 1.0. Or dismiss it outright as you've already done, that's your prerogative, but it's far more trollish behavior than what you want to attribute to OP.

2.0 was never going to be perfect. It was not created to address imperfection in 1.0. It was created to address systematic and ingrained problems with 1.0, and it accomplished that goal quite well. This ridiculous notion that finding a flaw somehow means this whole 2.0 thing was a waste of time has got to go. It reminds me of people who claim the flu vaccine doesn’t work because SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE still get the flu. The world isn’t either/or. Projects aren’t either/or.

 

If Riot games, who spends millions and millions on playtesting and balance of a digital game can get stuff wrong, then so can FFG with their infinitely-smaller budget. Whining every time they do is not useful. Claiming that this somehow means 2.0 is a MESS is worse than useless. It’s laughable, except apparently some of you think it’s a serious point of discussion.

 

Abilities need to be on the card because you or your opponent might need to read them during a game. You don’t need to know points or upgrades once the game is started except to calculate points, which is going to be on your tourney sheet or in the app.

Edited August 10, 2018 by TasteTheRainbow

[Darth Meanie 10,690]

9 hours ago, Stoneface said:

3). The ability to change point costs on the fly. At first blush this seems like a great idea. I can also being used to influence player purchases. As in, "We have a surplus of (Insert ship here), least drop the point cost to make it OP for the next quarter to get rid of the extra inventory". I'm not saying FFG would do this only that they could do it.

Well, and the tournament meta.  (Insert ship here) not at the top tables??  Let's drop it's price.  Would that really be a reflection of balance, or would it be a "fire sale" to make an underused ship more attractive/slightly broken just so it sees play and "increase diversity"?

Edited August 10, 2018 by Darth Meanie

[RunnerAZ 275]

23 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Well, and the tournament meta.  (Insert ship here) not at the top tables??  Let's drop it's price.  Would that really be a reflection of balance, or would it be a "fire sale" to make an underused ship more attractive/slightly broken just so it sees play and "increase diversity"?

I agree.  If anything, miniature gamers are anything except price sensitive. X-wing players are the type who will buy a Raider for 1 card. They will buy 2 expansions for 4 harpoon missile cards.  FFG is not going to screw us over with prices because we, the gamers, have shown that the prices are not so large that re-costing the points of cards will affect our buying decisions.

On a related note, if FFG wanted to gouge us, they would "Autothrusters" us again and put certain cards in expansions that would be necessary buys. Instead, we have the conversion kits.

[nikk whyte 3,673]

22 hours ago, viedit said:

I'll only go so far as to say that I think it was rushed as a result of the state of competitive play. I think they had plans for it but they pumped it out earlier than planned as an emergency response to the community.

This is easily the coldest take of the day. 

 

I love when when people assume they have any clue how the game is made 

[Sir Orrin 1,864]

Kaine, just wanted to say your opinions are valid, and it's funny how a bunch of people are misconstruing your opinions. 

 

?

[viedit 1,452]

25 minutes ago, nikk whyte said:

This is easily the coldest take of the day. 

 

I love when when people assume they have any clue how the game is made 

If you'd like to make an argument the other way, I'm all ears.  I just find it a bit suspect that a key design space of 2.0 is the ability to dynamically change points via an app model.  

They announce in May.  Say they hope the app is available by Gencon in August.  A few weeks out from Gencon we have no app but we get some PDF's of point values.  Pre-release is distributed at GenCon.  App hopefully to come in September for general release of the format.

You are right that I have no insider information.  But going off the late publish of points, lack of app ahead of pre-release, a page full of errata already made for cards and text distributed in wave 14 for 2.0 and a number of production issues on cardboard for the pre-productions it just feels...well rushed.   I do think that going into Worlds the general opinion on 1.0 was starting to stale and a number of community advocates hard started to check out.  I think they had a choice of trying to do some emergency fixes/FAQ in 1.0 or just go ahead and roll this out before they were really ready.  They chose the later.

 

Edited August 10, 2018 by viedit

[nikk whyte 3,673]

26 minutes ago, viedit said:

If you'd like to make an argument the other way, I'm all ears.  I just find it a bit suspect that a key design space of 2.0 is the ability to dynamically change points via an app model.  

They announce in May.  Say they hope the app is available by Gencon in August.  A few weeks out from Gencon we have no app but we get some PDF's of point values.  Pre-release is distributed at GenCon.  App hopefully to come in September for general release of the format.

You are right that I have no insider information.  But going off the late publish of points, lack of app ahead of pre-release, a page full of errata already made for cards and text distributed in wave 14 for 2.0 and a number of production issues on cardboard for the pre-productions it just feels...well rushed.   I do think that going into Worlds the general opinion on 1.0 was starting to stale and a number of community advocates hard started to check out.  I think they had a choice of trying to do some emergency fixes/FAQ in 1.0 or just go ahead and roll this out before they were really ready.  They chose the later.

 

Literally zero people have ever given an expectation on when the app would release, aside from at launch. 

 

You have zero reason to expect that the game will be 100% live before release. That you think you deserve it ahead of schedule is a flaw of your own, not anyone else’s. 

[Stoneface 3,654]

9 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Well, and the tournament meta.  (Insert ship here) not at the top tables??  Let's drop it's price.  Would that really be a reflection of balance, or would it be a "fire sale" to make an underused ship more attractive/slightly broken just so it sees play and "increase diversity"?

It would depend if your hangar is half full or half empty. The older I get the more pessimistic I become and the more I agree with Lord Acton.

We got a lot of what was complained about corrected in 2e. Mobile Arcs and removal of the TLT are just two of them. Is this a good thing? Maybe the TLT but I can see the low Initiative turrets being useless. Until I sit down with an actual release in my hand I'm not sure about diversity actually being relevant. 

[Darth Meanie 10,690]

18 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

Until I sit down with an actual release in my hand I'm not sure about diversity actually being relevant. 

Yeah, I guess I'm going to be even more finicky than that.

I think 2.0 has some great new ideas, a unified theme of abilities across all ships, and some of the favored fixes.

But if it remains a game of 60 minute beat-down, I'll be bored after about 5 games, just like 1.0.

I need this game to feature narrative.  Unfortunately, while having 7 factions is cool, I'm very afraid filling in those rosters means that Epic and missions are so back burner as to be dead.

And if I have to invent my own narrative, I don't need 2.0 to do it.  Or, at least, I am free to dabble only, without giving FFG gobs of money to convert. 

 

Edited August 11, 2018 by Darth Meanie

[SabineKey 5,236]

23 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

Maybe the TLT but I can see the low Initiative turrets being useless. 

No more useless than a low initiative fixed arc ship. They are easier to arc dodge, true, but in good hands, they’ll still do something.

[Commander Kaine 2,659]

I would nerf turrets even more (especially in their dials) but yeah. They still look fairly useful.

 

If a generic bomber can get a hit, so can a generic turret.

[LordFajubi 1,305]

1 hour ago, Commander Kaine said:

I would nerf turrets even more (especially in their dials) but yeah. They still look fairly useful.

 

If a generic bomber can get a hit, so can a generic turret.

If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge an arc.

[Stoneface 3,654]

2 hours ago, Commander Kaine said:

I would nerf turrets even more (especially in their dials) but yeah. They still look fairly useful.

 

If a generic bomber can get a hit, so can a generic turret.

FFG killed the only R3 turret there was. What do you want to do? Make them all R1?

[Commander Kaine 2,659]

1 minute ago, Stoneface said:

FFG killed the only R3 turret there was. What do you want to do? Make them all R1?

I said dial nerfs.

I think all ships with more than a 90 degree arc should have worse or equal dials to than the ship with the worst dial with a 90 degree arc.

 

Possible exceptions would be specially agile craft, like HWK or Aggressor, but no extra arc ship should get green turns (looking at you Shadowcaster)

 

 

[nikk whyte 3,673]

2 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

I said dial nerfs.

I think all ships with more than a 90 degree arc should have worse or equal dials to than the ship with the worst dial with a 90 degree arc.

 

Possible exceptions would be specially agile craft, like HWK or Aggressor, but no extra arc ship should get green turns (looking at you Shadowcaster)

 

 

Yeah, making all the ships operate identically is super fun times. 

 

 

[ficklegreendice 32,159]

6 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

I said dial nerfs.

I think all ships with more than a 90 degree arc should have worse or equal dials to than the ship with the worst dial with a 90 degree arc.

 

Possible exceptions would be specially agile craft, like HWK or Aggressor, but no extra arc ship should get green turns (looking at you Shadowcaster)

 

 

the Shadowcaster is an especially agile craft

couldn't pursue ****, otherwise

Edited August 11, 2018 by ficklegreendice

[Commander Kaine 2,659]

Just now, ficklegreendice said:

the Shadowcaster is an especially agile craft

couldn't pursue ****, otherwise

It's also a large ship. And a turret.

I can see it being much better than a lambda... But a Bomber? A B-Wing?

Size matters

 

 

[ficklegreendice 32,159]

1 minute ago, Commander Kaine said:

It's also a large ship. And a turret.

I can see it being much better than a lambda... But a Bomber? A B-Wing?

Size matters

 

 

indeed, size matters

for example, the size of the engines



oh look, they're the size of the entire B-wing

[Commander Kaine 2,659]

2 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

indeed, size matters

for example, the size of the engines



oh look, they're the size of the entire B-wing

I don't mind fast dials. I mind turny ones.

It's also a question of balance. They don't have to turn their arcs at all, because they can just move super well by themselves. That doesn't seem fair.

[SabineKey 5,236]

8 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

I don't mind fast dials. I mind turny ones.

It's also a question of balance. They don't have to turn their arcs at all, because they can just move super well by themselves. That doesn't seem fair.

It can be when you factor in price.

[ficklegreendice 32,159]

25 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

I don't mind fast dials. I mind turny ones.

It's also a question of balance. They don't have to turn their arcs at all, because they can just move super well by themselves. That doesn't seem fair.

Primary arc is 3 dice, mobile is 2 dice

Fair as **** 

[dsul413 336]

I'm actually shocked at how few errors and mistakes we see with 2.0 outside of Wave 14. The rest is overall fairly consistent, given the sheer volume of content we're receiving. I'm good with it. Costs will balance out (get it) in time, as we all get our hands on the material. I can only truly think of a few that are not effectively pre-release material in Wave 14, although that is quite sloppy.

Edited August 11, 2018 by dsul413

[SOTL 3,189]

Why do people respond to this troll?  You can see in this thread people going 'oh god not him again' and yet... here we are entertaining another of his ridiculous rants. 

[LordFajubi 1,305]

On 8/9/2018 at 10:04 PM, Darth Meanie said:

I really don't understand why people are so adverse to the idea of bans.

I mean, in 2.0 there is no VI, TLT, Adapt, Harpoons etc.  They got banned, for all effective purposes.  If FFG had been willing to do that in 1.0, 2.0 may not have been necessary from a balance perspective.  Or, they could have worked on it another year.

Furthermore, the way to "adjust points" in 1.0 would have been to ban a card, and release a new concept that was better costed.  It could have been done.

The best part of 2.0 is the design space they have created: Force, Calculate, base quadrants, mobile arcs, et. al.  But if you are expecting a radically different experience with this game from a balance POV, I'm pretty sure you are going to be disappointed.

Totally agree with you brother. Card games have been using bans for years and to great effect. Banning is admitting, as a designer, you goofed. FFG refused in 1.0 to admit to anything, by shuffling things around with bandaid errata’s. That list just kept growing and growing instead of just outright removing the offending party. How broke were rebel lists without biggs or blowrick, how broke was mindlink without jumpmasters, how broke was slam without miranda? The list goes on. I just see banning as a completely viable source of balance in a setting where rotation is nigh impossible.

[Koing907 1,013]

12 hours ago, Commander Kaine said:

It's also a large ship. And a turret.

 

 

I agree with much of what you're saying.

A Large ship should have a PWT, to compensate for it's lack of agility compared to smaller ships.
But Large ships can be more manuverable than Small ships. (1 speed turn + barrel roll = WTF?)

Ships with PWT should be less manuverable than other ships, that they weren't is the design mistake in 1.0.