Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Zeoinx

Lore over Direct Game Design

Recommended Posts

So Ive been seeing this pop up a lot, where some people are comparing silly ships like a bulk transport vs a advanced space superiority fighter like a defender, against either other and trying to ask, why is the bulk transport not on top.

Honestly,and ive said this again in many other topics, this is where the lore should take more priority when designing these ships then JUST gameplay. The Lore gives the fighters a lot of strengths and weakness, especially if you pay attention to how they were implemented and why, and not only that, but its the lore that made you even care about the ships to begin with. If you only care about numbers and "stats" and "abilities" it really doesnt matter what the ship is then that you are using, go for whatever number you want. Anyway, here is my basic breakdown of the Rebel side, and if this is well liked, i might do the imperial next, I wont go into ships larger then a medium base at the moment, but this is to give you guys some understanding on how most games i played growing up seemed to represent these ships.

 

X-Wing was taken from Incom to replace the aging Z-95, giving them a heavier firepower and versatility to the star-fighter corp that could outperform most Imperial fighters and some light larger ships, using torpedos instead of concussion missiles. This craft remains a baseline of star wars, where everything else is compared to, similar to how the standard space marine is that for Warhammer 40K.

So lets use the x-wing as a standard for rebels

Y-Wing : Heavier Armor, Slower Speed, heavier shield, lower agility, much heavier firepower, cheap production

This should make the Y-Wing a work horse of the rebel fleet, allowing it to really do massive damage while X-Wings and other rebel craft provide a distraction for it.

Z-95 : Weaker armor, slightly slower speed, weaker shield, sligtly less agile, halved firepower, extremely cheap production

This ship was used in mass, where x-wings were either not available, or for training, so its to be expected not to be as good. But its agility is commendable and close enough to the x-wing that it should not be underestimated, dispite its otherwise weaker stats.

A-Wing : Weaker Armor, MUCH faster speed, much weaker shield, MUCH more agile, halved firepower, average production costs

The A-Wing is an interceptor, not used for assaulting heavy targets, but to reduce the AMOUNT of weak mass targets, this thing should be able to dance in and out of engagement zones at will, with minimal craft able to keep up with it. That said, if it gets overrun, it also will not be able to hold off with just agility, and can be taken out with minimal firepower.

B-Wing : Weaker Armor, slightly slower speed, Much heavier shield, same agility about, much heavier firepower, large production costs

The B-Wing should do everything the Y-Wing can, except tank damage, and better. You want a ship that should be able to be upgraded to even higher production costs and stats, this ship should be one that does it. It came out near the tale end of the Imperial War, and was brought up to be ISD Killers, sure, it might not be the best at starfighter combat, but against most imperial fighters, it should hold its own.

K-Wing : Slightly more Armor, much slower speed, about same shield, much less agile, much heavier firepower, high production costs

The K-wing should act as an AC-130 of sorts, flying circles around a battlefield and bombarding an area of engagement with firepower to aid in whatever they are fighting, this thing can take a hit, sure, but is still a slow large target, and should NOT be unescorted.

Arc-170 : Slightly higher armor, slower speed, about same shield, slightly less agile, same firepower, slightly higher production costs

The Arc-170 due to its age, even when comparing it to the z-95, is almost a x-wing's equal, but the fact that it was designed for actual war tactics instead of full versatility which was needed in the Galactic Civil War. But this also gives the arc-170 something the x-wing cant exactly do. Be Upgraded to crazy levels, due to its age, a lot of upgrading over the years should be available for the ship, and its pilots, should be veterans of the vessel, able to really give edge against more modern and less experienced fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this.

 

I agree with pretty much everything on here. I'd love if the B-Wing was a Defender like ship, except less mobile. And the Y-wing being a truly tanky ship, like a less mobile Punisher. I am always down for a more lore friendly version of the game.

 

Y-Wing

2/1/6/4

Focus

Lock

Roll

Reload

Reinforce

Turret, Torp, Torp, Astromech, Gunner, Device, (No modification, since Rebels use a scrapped version)

 

Dial could remain the same.

 

Anyway. I just love this idea.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can never be 'exactly' as per the lore - as @ficklegreendice says; background has to give way, ultimately, to gameplay, because the ultimate goal is to have a game that's fun and reasonable to play. Vader butchering about.....I think it was half a dozen?...phoenix squadron A-wings without breaking a sweat is good TV but not so hot if you're the rebel player.

Which is why power levels tend to 'compress' in games - it happens in 40k, too - look at novels, RPGs, and other, more detailed games for what the difference in power level between 'dude with rifle' and 'fully armoured astartes' actually is in the universe.

3 hours ago, Zeoinx said:

Y-Wing : Heavier Armor, Slower Speed, heavier shield, lower agility, much heavier firepower, cheap production

This should make the Y-Wing a work horse of the rebel fleet, allowing it to really do massive damage while X-Wings and other rebel craft provide a distraction for it.

Firepower specifically by ordnance. It's a bomber and torpedo-bomber, not a dogfighter. Not so much "cheap to produce" because all the rebel Y-wings are salvage jobs. They're ex clone wars assets reconditioned for use. Otherwise agree

3 hours ago, Zeoinx said:

Z-95 : Weaker armor, slightly slower speed, weaker shield, sligtly less agile, halved firepower, extremely cheap production

This ship was used in mass, where x-wings were either not available, or for training, so its to be expected not to be as good. But its agility is commendable and close enough to the x-wing that it should not be underestimated, dispite its otherwise weaker stats.

It's very much a pair to the Y-wing - it's a clone wars era ship that predates the X-wing - pilots might use it before moving up to the X-wing, or simply stick with the Z because they were so used to it. Note that in the RPG, there was a 'Heavy-95' refit that the Rebels attempted as a stopgap; replacing the lasers with medium versions, reinforcing the hull and adding an astromech slot, to try and turn  them into "three quarters of an X-wing".

3 hours ago, Zeoinx said:

A-Wing : Weaker Armor, MUCH faster speed, much weaker shield, MUCH more agile, halved firepower, average production costs

The A-Wing is an interceptor, not used for assaulting heavy targets, but to reduce the AMOUNT of weak mass targets, this thing should be able to dance in and out of engagement zones at will, with minimal craft able to keep up with it. That said, if it gets overrun, it also will not be able to hold off with just agility, and can be taken out with minimal firepower

Agreed. It's a dedicated fast superiority fighter. Whilst they're always shown as maintenance-hungry hangar queens, it should be noted that post-Rebels, they are an older ship design than either the B-wing or X-wing. Once the X-wing became available in Rebels, the Rebels pretty much said "screw that!" and stopped using them (not used at lothal, scarif, or as part of yavin or hoth garrisons) except in 'maximum effort' situations where everything was thrown into the pot (Endor) or where their speed was specifically needed.

3 hours ago, Zeoinx said:

B-Wing : Weaker Armor, slightly slower speed, Much heavier shield, same agility about, much heavier firepower, large production costs

The B-Wing should do everything the Y-Wing can, except tank damage, and better. You want a ship that should be able to be upgraded to even higher production costs and stats, this ship should be one that does it. It came out near the tale end of the Imperial War, and was brought up to be ISD Killers, sure, it might not be the best at starfighter combat, but against most imperial fighters, it should hold its own.

It tanks damage as well, too - but using shields, not armour. The B-wing prototype is seen pretty early on in Rebels, but given that it's not in the rebel inventory by Lothal/Scarif, presumably Quarrie hit some serious snags in making a mass-production-ready version that only got ironed out in time for endor. I don't know about agility; it's still a heavy gunboat and not going to cope with enemy fighters well.

3 hours ago, Zeoinx said:

K-Wing : Slightly more Armor, much slower speed, about same shield, much less agile, much heavier firepower, high production costs

The K-wing should act as an AC-130 of sorts, flying circles around a battlefield and bombarding an area of engagement with firepower to aid in whatever they are fighting, this thing can take a hit, sure, but is still a slow large target, and should NOT be unescorted.

I'd say B-17. It's not a gunship, it's a bomber - fly in, pulverise target X, return to base, rinse and repeat. Otherwise agree. It was a very expensive ship because it's a 'second generation' vessel intended to replace the Y-wing, equivalent to the E-wing being intended to replace the X-wing (before the various authors objected to not getting to use the iconic X-wing in their books and instead invented the X-wing T-65-J-Mod B-MkII-Version 15-Stealth-Variant-With-Brass-Knobs-On or whatever pattern number they eventually got to to explain why the New Republic was still using the darn things).

3 hours ago, Zeoinx said:

Arc-170 : Slightly higher armor, slower speed, about same shield, slightly less agile, same firepower, slightly higher production costs

The Arc-170 due to its age, even when comparing it to the z-95, is almost a x-wing's equal, but the fact that it was designed for actual war tactics instead of full versatility which was needed in the Galactic Civil War. But this also gives the arc-170 something the x-wing cant exactly do. Be Upgraded to crazy levels, due to its age, a lot of upgrading over the years should be available for the ship, and its pilots, should be veterans of the vessel, able to really give edge against more modern and less experienced fighters.

Yes and no. ARC stands for 'Aggressive ReConnaissance' - it's a recon-in-force ship (emphasis on 'force'). Again, it's not produced by the rebels so much as old clone wars stock reconditioned. In a setting where most fighters weren't hyperspace capable, it was, giving a strategic recon and strike (helped by the torpedo tubes), and the fact that it had two big lasers rather than four medium ones - more or less the same in a dogfight but much more effective if it found itself shooting at someone big. It is versatile, primarily due to its size and capacity; pilot, tail gunner, flight engineer/weapons officer and astromech means four crew, and hence the ability to do jobs a single-seat craft just can't (like sensor-heavy recon; yes you can cover an X-wing in sensor pods instead of torpedoes but getting the best out of them requires a dedicated operator you don't have).

 

 

Also, you missed the E-wing: Higher Speed, Better Shields. Roughly equivalent Hull & Firepower, much higher production costs.

Essentially the X-wing's replacement; more expensive but either equal to or better in every area on the field (but more of a maintenance hog off it!). Pretty much able to do any job with the right loadout and in sufficient numbers.

 

 

Edited by Magnus Grendel

Share this post


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

Honestly,and ive said this again in many other topics, this is where the lore should take more priority when designing these ships then JUST gameplay.

I don't understand. Are you saying that Vader should be able to solo 12 A-Wings because he could do so in the lore?

Share this post


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

Honestly, looking at your lists of "slower, more agile, same firepower" etc... looks like they got most of the ships pretty close. What's the complaint again?

I agree. And lore should definitely inform gameplay. I disagree with OP if he wants to say that lore should be prioritized over gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ObiWonka said:

Honestly, looking at your lists of "slower, more agile, same firepower" etc... looks like they got most of the ships pretty close. What's the complaint again?

Yeah, I really don't get the point of this thread.

"The Y-Wing should be slower and more heavily armoured than the X-Wing"

Well.... great. It is. 

And for what it's worth, fluff is very, very important (I wouldn't be here if it wasn't Star Wars flavoured) but gameplay should be prioritised every single time.

Also, I wonder if most of the people who bang on about these fluff differences are aware that almost all the stats and identities we have for these ships came from the need to balance them for gameplay in the original Star Wars RPG.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I agree. And lore should definitely inform gameplay. I disagree with OP if he wants to say that lore should be prioritized over gameplay.

The problem with NOT prioritizing it WITH in the gameplay is we end up with Y-Wings that can Solo everything with TLT turrets, The Ghost that can spit in the face of Vader, Soontier Fell, and Tie Defenders, all the while Wedge Antilles is scrubbing toliets on board the Home One because the X-Wing is next to useless and really the only one that can apparently be useful as a x-wing pilot is Biggs.

 

3 hours ago, flooze said:

Good read, but I miss my hwk. 

Any thoughts on this one? 

Considering the HWK is never seen in direct conflict, I can see it being a maneuverable ship, light armor, light shields, and highly upgrade able, maybe even some sensor suites that make it unable to be locked onto by enemy ships in the gameplay as it is never detected by Imperial Forces during its missions.  That said, this is one of my fav ships too... Dark Forces was a great title.

52 minutes ago, ObiWonka said:

Honestly, looking at your lists of "slower, more agile, same firepower" etc... looks like they got most of the ships pretty close. What's the complaint again?

And its not my complaint in 2.0 as much as it is for 1.0 . And peoples constant dreams of "I want my ship to dominate because I enjoy seeing it on "insert source material" Such as a naked ghost VS a tie defender.

The other thing is balancing not gaining power creep into the game at all, you need to be able to allow ALL ships to be competitive, or why bother releasing them in a game, especially one that you are constantly advertising as "Tournament Gameplay Styled" as its main game mode. You cant suddenly go "Well, ok, X-wings are the gold standard of the show, but as a developer, i feel like, I really like (INSERT SHIP HERE) more this wave, and Im going to make it the buffed powerhouse because I can, even if that goes against competitive gameplay.

Im not saying this always happened (And Im sure the power creep was more based around "How much are you players willing to spend to get this advantage" then anything else) but the thing is, it ruins the experience as a whole. Its WHY 2.0 was started to begin with, cause they kept ignoring fluff and went for ONLY gameplay power creep.

24 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

Yeah, I really don't get the point of this thread.

"The Y-Wing should be slower and more heavily armoured than the X-Wing"

Well.... great. It is. 

And for what it's worth, fluff is very, very important (I wouldn't be here if it wasn't Star Wars flavoured) but gameplay should be prioritised every single time.

Also, I wonder if most of the people who bang on about these fluff differences are aware that almost all the stats and identities we have for these ships came from the need to balance them for gameplay in the original Star Wars RPG.

So what you are saying is you agreed with that one Update in 1.0 that basically turned the Y-Wing into a end all, win all with TLT? Or when Tie Defender's were almost impossible to destroy at all? Im sure you enjoyed when the Tie Swarm and X-Wings were throw off the table totally, basiclly wasting everyones money who INVESTED in those ships? Gameplay for gameplay's sake is power creep. We DONT need it.

3 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

I don't understand. Are you saying that Vader should be able to solo 12 A-Wings because he could do so in the lore?

We all agree Darth Vader is a beast of a pilot, but a lot of that has to do with plot armor, and two, I have NEVER once said pilots are part of the equation when balancing the game, at its base. Its about the ships first, THEN you bring in pilots, if you cant balance the ships themselves without powercreep, heaven forbid when you start pulling in god rank pilots like Vader, Luke, Wedge and Fel.

Edited by Zeoinx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tie swarm was significantly better than pretty much any X-wing grouping you can think of back then.  It was less because of some weird lack of adherence to lore, but that the designers at the time didn't really value things as correctly as they could have.

The Y-wing being a TLT carrier exclusively is because of how ordnance was a really messed up design.  FFG finally made a worthwhile turret upgrade, and probably ended up making it too worthwhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Zeoinx said:

So what you are saying is you agreed with that one Update in 1.0 that basically turned the Y-Wing into a end all, win all with TLT? Or when Tie Defender's were almost impossible to destroy at all? Im sure you enjoyed when the Tie Swarm and X-Wings were throw off the table totally, basiclly wasting everyones money who INVESTED in those ships? 

Well no. But those were all mistakes from a gameplay perspective as well as fluff one.

I don't think the intention of TLT was ever supposed to be Stresshog Y-Wings, for example. It was meant to be a fluff thing to put on K-Wings. And the TIE Defender one was clearly an unintended mistake because it was errata'ed very soon afterwards. 

Also, you need to understand that a core part of this game is always going to be stretching the fluff a little to allow for more variety in gamplay via the upgrades. The Y-Wing has a turret slot instead of a fixed ion cannon so that you can say 'okay, what if Rebel engineers removed the ion cannon turret for a mission and ran it with a laser turret because they needed more firepower?'

It's like how the X-Wings in the X-Wing flight sim could take concussion missiles for certain missions because it changed up the gameplay slightly, even though in the lore that wasn't even possible because their launchers weren't modular. 

8 minutes ago, Zeoinx said:

Gameplay for gameplay's sake is power creep. We DONT need it.

Uhh, no it isn't. To paraphrase Cersei Lannister: power creep is power creep. 

There were some really cool features added to X-Wing 1.0 almost purely for the sake of gameplay that didn't warp the meta or contribute to power creep. The tractor beam and Shadowcaster mobile arc spring to mind, as does the Lambda's red stop maneuever, the s-loops and tallon rolls. 

Power creep happened when new things were being added that could only be applied to new ships, or were simply too expensive to equip on older ships and when those things were simply better than old mechanics. Those were mistakes in design, not simply because FFG decided to add new gameplay.

On the counter, I could argue that lore for lore's sake is just as bad design. Do you want a game where X-Wings win everything because that's what happened in the books? Or where the TIE Phantom is impossible to see when cloaked, can't be shot at and can destroy a B-Wing in a few shots?

If anything, the worst days of the 1e TIE Phantom meta were the most lore accurate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen more of the ‘gameplay is greater than fluff’ argument.

The way I see it both lore and game mechanics are equal partners.  We want to play a star wars game because it is star wars first, and we keep playing because it is a good game.   

The only problem with lore is that FFG aren't told all the accurate (by Disney not wikipedia) information until after everyone sees the movie - at least for new ships.   Older ships have new origins.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Zeoinx said:

The problem with NOT prioritizing it WITH in the gameplay is we end up with Y-Wings that can Solo everything with TLT turrets, The Ghost that can spit in the face of Vader, Soontier Fell, and Tie Defenders, all the while Wedge Antilles is scrubbing toliets on board the Home One because the X-Wing is next to useless and really the only one that can apparently be useful as a x-wing pilot is Biggs.

So... you're stuck in old first edition metas, got it. I think we're done here.

 

EDIT: Also, so quote a fellow Heroscaper on the iron triangle of design goals for the continuation of the game with "official unofficial" units: "mechanics firmly connected to theme; theme firmly connected to the mini; mini firmly connected to mechanics."

Edited by ObiWonka

Share this post


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

The problem with NOT prioritizing it WITH in the gameplay is we end up with Y-Wings that can Solo everything with TLT turrets, The Ghost that can spit in the face of Vader, Soontier Fell, and Tie Defenders, all the while Wedge Antilles is scrubbing toliets on board the Home One because the X-Wing is next to useless and really the only one that can apparently be useful as a x-wing pilot is Biggs.

The problem there isn't prioritising or not prioritising lore. A game is or isn't balanced: Wedge being useless (at least, pre Flight Assist Astromech/Renegade Refit) isn't a problem because wedge is useless, it's a problem because any game piece is useless. Any ship being over-dominatingly-powerful is a problem.

The Ghost is an iconic star wars ship - it's the core ship of a 4-series show (Rebels) and features in a film (Rogue One) and therefore probably (someone will have run the numbers - I'd be interested to see!) has more net screen in Star Wars than does the Millenium Falcon (maybe not since Solo, thinking about it). It's still wrong that the ship is freaking indestructible to the point that some squads using it (Ezra/Maul/Fenn/Twin Laser Turret) could challenge a much more skilled opponent with next to no effort on the part of the player.

It's a problem whenever any ship is not viable, whether it's your favourite or someone else's.

 

I have no problem with ships being 'worth their cost', by comparison. In 2.0, Darth Vader with the basically-nailed-to-him Supernatural Reflexes/Afterburners combination is double the price of a normal TIE/x1.

Which is fine - as long as he can take two TIE/x1, and - just as importantly - if the two TIE/x1 can take him. otherwise he should either be more, or less, expensive.

 

The problem with the Vader-versus-Phoenix-Squadron scene (which is awesome) is that whilst Vader solo-ing half a dozen a-wings and then comes within a hair of taking out the ghost too, is that you can't take that many rebel ships in a squad  - and on the simple barrier of cost to buy a squad and time to play a game, you shouldn't be. Therefore, Vader cannot be that good otherwise he can't fit into a normal game, either, and most people I know would rather have a slightly-toned-down-but-still-awesome Vader they can use in regular size games rather than an 'accurate-to-the-lore' one they can only break out in occasional epic games.

 

1 hour ago, Zeoinx said:

And its not my complaint in 2.0 as much as it is for 1.0 . And peoples constant dreams of "I want my ship to dominate because I enjoy seeing it on "insert source material" Such as a naked ghost VS a tie defender.

The other thing is balancing not gaining power creep into the game at all, you need to be able to allow ALL ships to be competitive, or why bother releasing them in a game, especially one that you are constantly advertising as "Tournament Gameplay Styled" as its main game mode. You cant suddenly go "Well, ok, X-wings are the gold standard of the show, but as a developer, i feel like, I really like (INSERT SHIP HERE) more this wave, and Im going to make it the buffed powerhouse because I can, even if that goes against competitive gameplay.

Im not saying this always happened (And Im sure the power creep was more based around "How much are you players willing to spend to get this advantage" then anything else) but the thing is, it ruins the experience as a whole. Its WHY 2.0 was started to begin with, cause they kept ignoring fluff and went for ONLY gameplay power creep.

More a case that they basically ran out of 'stuff people recognised'. There were very few iconic ships in the latter waves for two reasons:

  • They'd already come out and everyone had them
  • Relatively few people wanted to buy more of them unless there was a really good reason.

The power creep - as in most games - was a combination of four effects:

  • A desire to see everything useable combined with a slow feedback loop and a degree of hamfistedness
    • Torpedoes and missiles in wave 1 were awful. Proton Torpedoes and Concussion Missiles were just not worth the cost.
    • FFG added subsequent bolt-on after bolt-on to try and make them worthwhile and (in my opinion) pretty much got it right at the level of missile + guidance chips/long range scanners + extra munitions.
    • However, they then overcompensated and we had contracted scouts w/deadeye and later harpoon missiles (which themselves were an answer to overpowered damage stacking).
    • The problem is that something will always be 'the best' for its cost - perfect balance is night impossible.
    • What FFG tried to do in 1.0 is correct its balance mistakes by releasing the anti-thing-thing (autothrusters to make arc dodgers deal with turrets) then have to release the anti-anti-thing-thing-thing to deal with that if it made that ship overpowered.
    • The correct way to deal with it is to be able to remove or weaken the metagame-distorting thing itself. If Fat Han or the TIE swarm had been too powerful, change them.  Which is what FFG is trying to do in 2.0, with the ability to alter costs and slots so as to remove 'automatic choices' (like push the limit or fire control system) or knock away bits of combinations (dauntless/oicunn/engine upgrade is awesome but it's not readily reusable without inspiring recruit to let you clear stress two at a time, for example).
  • A desire to see every product be marketable
    • This means; there is a reason to want to buy this pack.
    • If it's an iconic ship, no problem, but if it's not, it needs something which is a draw.
    • This is where we get 'must-buy' upgrades in a pack people might otherwise skip.
    • At the same time, there is a degree of desire to make stuff more appealing than what's already available, because "the same as the one you already have, but yellow!" isn't a reason to buy a pack.
    • Equally, it meant that you could only address a problem child by making it better because someone with TIE advanced would buy a new, shiny TIE/x1 title card but someone with Nym wouldn't buy a "stop being a ****** you can't use it with trajectory simulator" version of Genius. which meant either 'change the text on the card' errata (unpopular) or power creep by trying to pull the ships at the bottom up to the 'competitive bar'.
    • This is the biggest change in 2.0. By having an ability to modify price and availability of stuff without needing to release a new product pack, FFG have the ability to hit problem children. This allows them to shoulder a certain amount of 'pastoral responsibility' - it's their game, and they're trying to future-proof it as much as possible to let them tweak problems without needing a re-issue. How successful they'll be is a different question, but at least their approach is a sound one.
  • Running out of tactical 'gaps'
    • The TIE Interceptor, TIE/v1, TIE/sk and to a lesser degree several others (Silencer, Phantom) all fit in the same broad-brush box. Making them different from one another - once you've exhausted the 'big difference' options (like the distinction between X-wing and Y-wing) tends to default to 'gimmicks' or special effects which are powerful but niche in application.
    • The problem with powerful but niche tricks is a large player base will find ways to make said niche trick far more widely applied than you intended. Sensor Jammer, for example, was a nice upgrade on the Lambda but not massively powerful  - forcing someone to spend a focus token is a nice effect but merely okay. Once "you may not modify your dice" effects and token-stripping started popping up (Carnor Jax, Fenn Rau, Hotshot co-pilot) it swiftly became practically unstoppable.
  • A degree of bias or disingenuousness on the part of some playtesters and developers
    • I'm not defending this one or claiming it doesn't exist. Someone must have seen Twin Laser Turret/Miranda Doni (for example) because they came in the same pack and the interaction isn't exactly subtle.
    • There are a couple of other cases of this. Let me emphasise; playtesting is a huge job so one person or even one team can't do a reliable job of doing it all. I don't blame FFG for letting the odd thing past. But there are cases where you look and think "I'm certain someone saw this" - especially when some players who it's a fair guess are playtesters immediately turn up with well-practiced squads based on a new trick, or allowing for an old trick vanishing.

Power creep does happen in almost every game. It doesn't necessarily imply malice or greed on the part of the designers.

Heck, Babylon 5 A Call To Arms explicitely stated the Hyperion Heavy Cruiser was the 'benchmark' ship that was used to figure out the priority (i.e. cost) of each ship in the game, making it the equivalent of the 1.0 TIE fighter. Stats for all ships were in the rulebook so they were all released at once, not spread over time like X-wing expansions. The Hyperion-class was still, consistently, about the worst raid-priority ship in the game.....

1 hour ago, Zeoinx said:

So what you are saying is you agreed with that one Update in 1.0 that basically turned the Y-Wing into a end all, win all with TLT? Or when Tie Defender's were almost impossible to destroy at all? Im sure you enjoyed when the Tie Swarm and X-Wings were throw off the table totally, basiclly wasting everyones money who INVESTED in those ships? Gameplay for gameplay's sake is power creep. We DONT need it.

I agree the Twin Laser Turret was execrable game design. Don't think for one moment I don't.

It exists for two reasons:

  • No-one used turret upgrades (the only one worth noting at the time being the ion cannon turret)
  • A big gameplay problem at the time was ships stacking once-per-turn tricks - Han, with Evade, Threepio, R2-D2 was a prime example.
  • The idea of "let's make a turret actually worth using" was reasonable.
  • Making one suited to addressing the token-stackers by throwing multiple low-damage attacks was a logical mechanic and also reasonable (notice I haven't mentioned cost or stats to this point!!!)
  • What they actually did.....was stupid. It was far more powerful than any turret had a right to be, and was cheap enough to take en masse.
  • It didn't actually make the Y-wing into the god machine (I disagree with you there - Y-wings with TLTs are not a fun play experience and are something that people encounter, learn to hate, learn to beat, then never really look back at)
  • It was the building block of a lot of broken ships - Miranda Doni, Nym, and the Ghost to name the three primary offenders. Much like the Jumpmaster chassis, when a single card is a key plank of multiple "that's way too good to be fair" squads, there was something fundamentally off with either the rules or the cost.
1 hour ago, Zeoinx said:

We all agree Darth Vader is a beast of a pilot, but a lot of that has to do with plot armor, and two, I have NEVER once said pilots are part of the equation when balancing the game, at its base. Its about the ships first, THEN you bring in pilots, if you cant balance the ships themselves without powercreep, heaven forbid when you start pulling in god rank pilots like Vader, Luke, Wedge and Fel.

Agreed, with a 'but'.

The 'but':

There has rarely been a ship which in itself is dramatically unbalanced. The TIE Phantom (with the original cloaking rules) and the  TIE advanced x1 are the only ones I can think of.

I know saying that sounds ******, because it is. But the basic chassis-versus-chassis matchups of almost all the ships in the game aren't bad if you include just the basic generic pilot and any 0-point unique-to-the-ship title and nothing else.

The advanced was underpowered compared to the X-wing, but not catastrophically so initially. Similarly, the X-wing fell over compared to the TIE fighter, but specifically it was the TIE fighter swarm built around Howlrunner. B-wings weren't that much better than X-wings until Fire Control System or Advanced Sensors got in on the act. And so it goes on. The value of upgrades tends to increase geometrically as each one either magnifies the power of the next. or reduces its cost, or increases the opportunities to use it. Which is why it's inevitably the ships with the huge upgrade bars that have become the problem children.

Now the 'medium ships' (which is now a category in the rules, not just a vague broad-brush designation)  should have those upgrades. The Havok did have a turret, and bombs, and missiles, and an astromech, and so on. But putting so many mutually reinforcing slots on a ship invites abuse, and - not being prescient - FFG have priced stuff based on what it's worth at the time of release. K4 security droid is a good example. A scum-specific crew which grants a free target lock if you do a green move. Doesn't sound unreasonable, and - if you look at the YV-666 and Firespray - about correctly priced. But then the jumpmaster's green hard turns get in on the act and.....yeah. That's way too cheap.

 

 

Edited by Magnus Grendel

Share this post


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

On the counter, I could argue that lore for lore's sake is just as bad design. Do you want a game where X-Wings win everything because that's what happened in the books? Or where the TIE Phantom is impossible to see when cloaked, can't be shot at and can destroy a B-Wing in a few shots?

Actually x-wings DONT win everything, its certain pilots that make the win, and quite frankly, balancing a multiplayer competitive game one of the first rules is you dont include things from lore that BREAK balance. Good example is look at Starcraft 2, the difference between Campaign Gameplay and PVP Gameplay. You know being able to call in the Hyperion or Leviathan or Spear of Adun wouldn't make good gameplay balance in a competitive environment, **** just the Co-op commanders during the joke PVP match they released for April 1st proves how unbalanced that sort of ideology is.

If you want something that is THAT powerful such as the Tie Phantom, you give it a way to be countered, OR you just don't add it period outside of a storybased set up. Its the reason why you dont see things like the Death Star in competitive gameplay  in anything, as it would be impossible to balance. The Tie Phantom, while nowheres near as impactful as a death star, still has a hard time to be properly balanced due to the lack of proper counter to cloaking tech in the SW Universe. If you wanted to add a unique tie, could have added its original form V38 assault fighter instead, and give it a support role with the crew.

Share this post


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

1) The Ghost is an iconic star wars ship - it's the core ship of a 4-series show (Rebels) and features in a film (Rogue One)

2) perfect balance is night impossible.

3) "the same as the one you already have, but yellow!" isn't a reason to buy a pack.

4) FFG have the ability to hit problem children

5) A degree of bias or disingenuousness on the part of some playtesters and developers

6) It exists for two reasons:

  • No-one used turret upgrades (the only one worth noting at the time being the ion cannon turret)
  • A big gameplay problem at the time was ships stacking once-per-turn tricks - Han, with Evade, Threepio, R2-D2 was a prime example.
  • The idea of "let's make a turret actually worth using" was reasonable.
  • Making one suited to addressing the token-stackers by throwing multiple low-damage attacks was a logical mechanic and also reasonable (notice I haven't mentioned cost or stats to this point!!!)
  • What they actually did.....was stupid. It was far more powerful than any turret had a right to be, and was cheap enough to take en masse.
  • It didn't actually make the Y-wing into the god machine (I disagree with you there - Y-wings with TLTs are not a fun play experience and are something that people encounter, learn to hate, learn to beat, then never really look back at)
  • It was the building block of a lot of broken ships - Miranda Doni, Nym, and the Ghost to name the three primary offenders. Much like the Jumpmaster chassis, when a single card is a key plank of multiple "that's way too good to be fair" squads, there was something fundamentally off with either the rules or the cost.

1) This seems to be a definition of "features" with which I'm not familiar.

2) Nigh. Although I imagine night balancing is probably more difficult than day balancing as well.

3) But yellow's my favorite colour...

4) CPS will be here shortly.

5) It saddens me that I know several playtesters personally, yet things like Harpoons came around on their watch (though admittedly they have said they were more directly involved with other cards at the time).

6) I'm not entirely convinced you know how to count to two.

 

 

1 minute ago, Zeoinx said:

Its the reason why you dont see things like the Death Star in competitive gameplay

I'm pretty sure size might be a factor...

Share this post


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

Actually x-wings DONT win everything, its certain pilots that make the win, and quite frankly, balancing a multiplayer competitive game one of the first rules is you dont include things from lore that BREAK balance.

LMAO. So you're admitting that you do have to put gameplay balance ahead of lore when something from lore would break that gameplay? 

Y'know, like I've been arguing this whole thread?

Also, yeah X-Wings pretty much did win everything just by being awesome. There are plenty of situations were self-confessed lacklustre pilots like Tyria Sarkin or Ton Phanan are able to go out in X-Wings, get kills and come home alive solely by virtue of the X-Wing being much, much better than the TIE Fighters they go up against. 

Obviously that wasn't the case in the very beginning, when most of the pilots at Yavin get shot down by a roughly equivalent number of TIEs in ANH. But that's kinda also my point - when 'lore' contradicts itself, what lore do you actually take? Well, whichever one is best for gameplay. Obviously. 

18 minutes ago, Zeoinx said:

If you want something that is THAT powerful such as the Tie Phantom, you give it a way to be countered

Or, in other words, you limit the way it performs in game to suit balanced gameplay. You ignore some aspect of it from the lore and make it work well within the framework of the game.

Again, because gameplay is a more important aspect of a game than lore. Because if you just cram a bunch of lore based stuff in, it's horribly unbalanced and no one actually has any fun. 

19 minutes ago, Zeoinx said:

Its the reason why you dont see things like the Death Star in competitive gameplay  in anything, as it would be impossible to balance

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's not the reason...

20 minutes ago, Zeoinx said:

If you wanted to add a unique tie, could have added its original form V38 assault fighter instead, and give it a support role with the crew.

But why, when you can just add the TIE Phantom that people actually know about and might think is cool? Why, when you add a cool new cloaking mechanic to the game that sets it apart from everything else? Why, when all you have to is limit that cloaking mechanic to something that's different, fun, powerful but balanced?

Y'know, like what they've done for 2e? Like what they tried to in 1e, but forgot VI was a thing? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, That Blasted Samophlange said:

I've seen more of the ‘gameplay is greater than fluff’ argument.

The way I see it both lore and game mechanics are equal partners.  We want to play a star wars game because it is star wars first, and we keep playing because it is a good game.   

The only problem with lore is that FFG aren't told all the accurate (by Disney not wikipedia) information until after everyone sees the movie - at least for new ships.   Older ships have new origins.  

I agreed 100% with you.

BUT. . .

Because I play this game because it is Star Wars as well, I don't care if "this ship" and "that ship" share the same design space.  I want them both, because they are Star Wars.

I would also like to see far more characters available in the game.  Because Star Wars.

Lastly, some of us don't care about winning tournaments.  I'd like to see ships in the game that support narrative play.  This might be an instance of fluff over gameplay--not because they are broken, but because they aren't geared towards winning a game of 400/6.  Because Star Wars.

 

Share this post


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

I agreed 100% with you.

BUT. . .

Because I play this game because it is Star Wars as well, I don't care if "this ship" and "that ship" share the same design space.  I want them both, because they are Star Wars.

I would also like to see far more characters available in the game.  Because Star Wars.

Lastly, some of us don't care about winning tournaments.  I'd like to see ships in the game that support narrative play.  This might be an instance of fluff over gameplay--not because they are broken, but because they aren't geared towards winning a game of 400/6.  Because Star Wars.

 

This is the other point I prob should have added when I brought up the starcraft campaign and Tie Phantom points too.

 

57 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

LMAO. So you're admitting that you do have to put gameplay balance ahead of lore when something from lore would break that gameplay?

 

No, you have to measure in lore first, THEN gameplay. You cant just go willy nilly with ships just so it fits a format that the game is trying to cram in. You wanna willy nilly a game and make things fit how you want, Thats fine, MAKE A NEW IP. There are tons of stuff in starwars that wouldnt make good additions to a competitive game, no matter WHAT that game is, the fact that they had to nerf the Tie Phantom to such a degree was already proof of that in 1.0, and again, it ruined the feel of what the ship was intended to represent. Next you will say there is a way to add the suncrusher to the game, and keep it balanced somehow? But the fact is, it would ruin the representation of what the suncrusher is supposed to be in the feel of starwars. This isnt a game about stats, numbers, movement bars, this is a starwars game, and should feel like it is Representative of that fact.

 

THAT is why LORE is important, otherwise it doesnt matter WHAT is on top of those cheap plastic pegs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Zeoinx said:

This isnt a game about stats, numbers, movement bars, this is a starwars game, and should feel like it is Representative of that fact.

THAT is why LORE is important, otherwise it doesnt matter WHAT is on top of those cheap plastic pegs.

Image result for leia i love you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Zeoinx said:

This isnt a game about stats, numbers, movement bars, this is a starwars game, and should feel like it is Representative of that fact.

And there it is.

That‘s just, like, your opinion, man.

The beautiful thing is that we can have both. You can homebrew any change you want and play with likeminded people.  Personally I prefer HotAC for this. Meanwhile I can also take the game as given by FFG and enjoy their organized play. And there, stats and numbers are not necessary but beyond all doubt beneficial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

The beautiful thing is that we can have both. You can homebrew any change you want and play with likeminded people.  Personally I prefer HotAC for this. Meanwhile I can also take the game as given by FFG and enjoy their organized play. And there, stats and numbers are not necessary but beyond all doubt beneficial.

As in, you're getting everything you want out of the game, so it isn't FFG's problem that I'm not.

We can have both--as long as I do all the work to get what I want.

Or, in other words, you're telling me I should take my X-Wing dollars and head over to third party vendors because FFG shouldn't be bothered by the notion of catering to someone who doesn't care about competitive play.

In the long run, if I'm not a targeted customer, there wouldn't seem to be much of a point in being a customer at all.

Edited by Darth Meanie

Share this post


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

...

Because I play this game because it is Star Wars as well, I don't care if "this ship" and "that ship" share the same design space.  I want them both, because they are Star Wars.

...

Lastly, some of us don't care about winning tournaments.  I'd like to see ships in the game that support narrative play.  This might be an instance of fluff over gameplay--not because they are broken, but because they aren't geared towards winning a game of 400/6.  Because Star Wars.

 

A million times this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Agreed. It's a dedicated fast superiority fighter. Whilst they're always shown as maintenance-hungry hangar queens, it should be noted that post-Rebels, they are an older ship design than either the B-wing or X-wing. Once the X-wing became available in Rebels, the Rebels pretty much said "screw that!" and stopped using them (not used at lothal, scarif, or as part of yavin or hoth garrisons) except in 'maximum effort' situations where everything was thrown into the pot (Endor) or where their speed was specifically needed.

I think the A-Wings seen in Rebels are more similar to a Z-95 or the like, before they ended up stripping them down, taking out the shield generators, replacing the laser canons, and stripping as much of the weight of the craft that they could to turn the ship into an interceptor. At least I think that is what the idea for the ship is at the moment. 

9 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Also, you missed the E-wing: Higher Speed, Better Shields. Roughly equivalent Hull & Firepower, much higher production costs.

Essentially the X-wing's replacement; more expensive but either equal to or better in every area on the field (but more of a maintenance hog off it!). Pretty much able to do any job with the right loadout and in sufficient numbers.

Not to mention the R7 problems and other issues that the EU authors added to keep the T-65 in service instead. 

8 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

I don't understand. Are you saying that Vader should be able to solo 12 A-Wings because he could do so in the lore?

As an Imperial player, Yes. :P

5 hours ago, Panzeh said:

The Y-wing being a TLT carrier exclusively is because of how ordnance was a really messed up design.  FFG finally made a worthwhile turret upgrade, and probably ended up making it too worthwhile.

That and the Y-Wing was pretty much the cheapest turret carrier that could actually tank hits. Its just a numbers game, one that based on having the list survive the initial round of combat and then dull out 8 damage to the opposing list. I suspect that the Devs were thinking that TLT would be something used like on one ship as a counter to arc dodgers, not turned into a min maxed monstrosity. 

5 hours ago, That Blasted Samophlange said:

The only problem with lore is that FFG aren't told all the accurate (by Disney not wikipedia) information until after everyone sees the movie - at least for new ships.   Older ships have new origins.  

Which is why I sort of hope FFG can use relaunching X-wing as an excuse to not have to do movie tie ins, so that they can release more accurate renditions of the ships. The Scum Falcon is fairly close but a number of things come off like they weren't given information, like Becket being Crew instead of a Gunner. The T-70 and TIE/FO were both fine, for what they were and their biggest issue was just the lack of named pilots. Rogue One was also decent, aside from missing K2 and no bomb or crew/gunner slot on the Tie Striker. But the biggest miss was TLJ with both ships not having accurate sculpts, the Tie Silencer being too big and missing missile slots, and the bomber not going up like a powderkeg or having crew/gunner slots. Some of these things can be fixed in update/patches giving upgrade slots but I'd hope in general FFG can put out ships that are more faithful to their source material. 

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...