First off, I feel like I offended people with my last comment. I apologize if that is the case. I am only bringing up my opinions because it is a direction I would like to see the V-sets go or avoid. I understand with 10+ sets behind it there is a great deal of difficulty adding new pieces to keep the game fresh. Mostly I am trying to point out WotC's failings in its last few sets and where the V-sets emulate them. They are by no means all bad, nor do I think you are necessarily doing a bad job with them, I am just seeing hints of the direction WotC took in the later years and am disturbed by it. With that in mind, I continue.
I am going to try to reply to everybody, if I run out of space I will back to back post the rest. Sorry in advance, I just wish to acknowledge everybody here.
Sithborg wrote:
The thing is, that is highly subjective on what the factions can be. The big four are big enough to have multiple themes. And it is all down to interpretation. Diversifying a faction is what makes a faction good.
Mostly acknowledging this one. While I do agree diversification can be beneficial, and that the big four have a lot in common, I still believe the strengths of the factions should be played up a lot more than the areas where, yeah, they had it, but it wasn't a major component. Yes, living seps need some love. Key word is some though. Mini's like Sora make it difficult to boost the older force users in the faction without making him ridiculous. I would have rather seen a bump to the existing Durge's, troopers, and even force users before seeing another separatist lightsaber.
audrisampson wrote:
One thing that is an issue as far as flavor goes is that the star wars Canon is a repeat of itself. The OR, R, Empire and NR are really one giant huge faction broken up by perceived times. Three of the four had a jedi order and all four of them dealt with a rebel alliance.. Mando, Seps, Rebels and Vong. Within that list only Vong has any real unique flavor of its own.
Starting here. While there are similar ideas between them, there are also some important differences. OR had several jedi and a lot of them were trained to use lightsabers in melee combat, as melee was more prevalent with sith running around. Also, the OR troops were fewer and further between than the massive clone armies of the republic but had more unique and experienced commanders. The NR, by contrast, kept many of the Rebellions tactics and was in the unusual position of dealing with two major enemies at once. Their hit and run tactics were very important in campaigns, much like the Rebellion before it, however it had a jedi order led by the skywalkers who wanted to train everything in sight. The new order jedi were more rash and less disciplined than the older orders, favoring more aggressive tactics and force powers. The empire, while dealing with internal strife, maintained near complete dominance over everything through its massive numbers and brutal commanders.
So yes, there were similarities between the factions, and they should show up in the game, but their unique perspectives and dogmas should be emphasized as well, as those were the keys to their success.
audrisampson wrote:
This game has two problems that really don't let it become fully what your wanting.. A. Its a game with tournies that needs to have competitive balance and B. Its based on already existing source material......While that might not satisfy a collector or someone sitting on a set of Clone Strike it does encourage people to play the game and really playing the game is what matters if this game is going to last any length of time whatsoever.
First off, I don't actually own a lot of CS stuff
I just like using it for reference because at its release and for a year or so after it was considered a broken/over powered set. Now it is outdated.
As for A) there are several examples of systems like this where there are factions with very unique flavors and each is competitive. Check this game from RS through RotS (or arguably CotF if you banned thrawn and only count the big 4)
B, well, I gave a nod to that already. WotC really took a hammer to this game around Legacy in its attempts to "fix" the balance issues. That is a fear I am having from the V-sets right now, that it is/will be "fixed" till it is even worse than it is now. More on that in other responses.
Echo wrote:
For example, Jedi_Master, you say that when you think of Rebels you think of expensive non-uniques, but lots of big uniques too. Well, the Rebel Alliance had a full army. That's something that exists in Star Wars lore. That might not be the first thing you think of when you think of Rebels, but it's there, so minis can be made from it.....
Trying to save length, so I will cut it off there as the rest is the same tone/idea. While yes, mini's can be made for it, do you really think it is best to represent a faction by making that a focus when the primary aspects of the faction are not competitive? For example, the Sith have several great beaters. Yes, the sith had an army and were a military force for a long time, but when the sith lords are in that grey area of hit to cost/viability would you rather see a new commander who marginally boosts the scrubs or a nice synergy piece for the sith lords that helps them beat up more big units? I personally loved Bandon and kun spirit for this reason and would love to see more like them before I see a commander who gives troopers mobile attack or something of the sort.
Echo wrote:
In addition, I don't agree that factions all have the same flavor. Yes, every faction can do a lot of damage; that's literally the only way to win the game. Do damage.
Going to really break these next parts up. First off, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Damage is great, I like surviving damage or not getting hit to begin with a lot better though. Yeah, beast cannons are a quick way to end a game at the roll of a dice but why does that need to be the primary mechanic of the game? When the average damage was 20 and 40 damage seemed like a lot the game was more fun IMO than it is when each unit can kill the other in 1-2 shots. Why can't we have glass cannons on one end and defensive wusses on the other? It might make for a longer game but if it is played well it is a lot more fun that way. (by the way, that example is kinda the Vong vs NR argument from their original release in Universe.)
Echo wrote:
But there are tons of sub-themes; Separatists are the best with Droids. Republic has the best movement (yes, other factions have movement breakers, but nobody does it as well as Republic). Mandos have the best denial. Rebels are mostly glass canons. OR have high-cost light side force users, Sith have high-cost dark side ones. Vong are best when swarming with non-uniques, and have the Force Immunity flavor as well as getting more and more self-reliant while most other factions use Fringe characters. Imperials have either the big single beatstick squads (like Lord Vader) or the trooper squads, as well as some of the strongest commanders. New Republic is mostly a conglomeration of styles from Rebels, Imperials, and Republic.
Seps have the best movement in the lancers but it is a rebel theme, the empire and the seps have insane damage dark side force users that have better survivability than their sith counter parts, the OR, NR, and Rep all have very good LS lightsabers. All the light side Jedi and Dark side sith have the same force powers (sith rage vs precision/2, blocks and parries abound, force bubbles, force damage reduction, force armor, force lightning, force repulse, all the same ideas with near identical results.) Yeah, there is going to be some overlap but why are there so many Republic jedi with good melee abilities? They had nothing to fight in lightsaber to lightsaber combat yet there are several with block, riposte, assault, and/or dejemso, even more so than the sith of old who almost exclusively used lightsabers for kicking jedi arse.
Echo wrote:
If you want a really heavy movement faction, you play Republic or some very specific Separatist squads (Lancer basically). If you want swap, you have to play Republic or Imperials for standard swap (or technically Rebels or Sith, but they aren't very good at it), or you could play Sith for a weird unique swap. You aren't swapping in NR, Mandos, Vong, OR, or Separatists.
To be nit-picky, you can swap with mando's if you spend a lot on it
If I want a huge movement faction I can be any faction with swap, the "new" vong (getting there, while I like that the vong are more playable, they are the ones I think were dealt the most injustice flavor wise in the v-sets.) or greater mobile with the NR till the cows come home. I feel/fear it is only a matter of time before we see V-set swaps for the mandos and the OR as they are really the only two factions without massive movement avaliable.
Echo wrote:
It seems to me like you have a very specific idea of what YOU want the flavor of each faction to be, and you don't want it to expand anywhere beyond that. Well, that's not really a feasible desire, and it doesn't line up with the lore we are building on.
I do not want the existing flavor of the factions to be further homogenized for the sake of balance.
I want to see the factions make up for their weaknesses with other, unique strengths that the rest of the factions do not have. While I know it is MUCH easier to simply balance the factions by giving them all access to similar abilities, I think it would be better to try and give each faction its own unique flair and balance them against each other. Again, I know it will be hard based on previous sets and there is a LOT of damage control to take into account. However, it should not be fixed by chopping out the base of a faction and replacing it with something else entirely.
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
The factions do each have unique flavor. You will never see an Imperial piece with Disruptive (at least as long as I have anything to say about it). The same is true for a Republic Force battery, or a Droid CE that grants Evade (as far as I know there is only one Droid with Evade, and it is a melee piece).
That right there makes me smile inside. Please add to that list no rebels who have reserves, Vong who have the force (one specific example aside), sith who bring back units on a save 16, or other such silliness.
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
I think the pieces that have been discussed have the flavor of their faction built in. We worked very hard to define the flavor of all the factions more than 2 years ago, and I believe each of the design teams have followed that model fairly closely. OR is the go-to faction for the Force. Their's was the age when anything was possible through the Force. For all the hatred of Atris and Bastila, no one has ever criticized those pieces for lacking the flavor from their source material. Bastila's Battle Meditation was so valuable to Darth Malak that he captured and tortured her to turn her to the dark side so she would use her power for the Sith. Atris sat in her temple chamber and used the Force to turn the Echani Handmaidens against the Jedi Exile.
Those I can see but do explain how mini's like Sora Bulq, The Yammosk, Tactical Officer, Revan Sith Lord, and Mando Tactician do anything aside from give the faction they are attached to access to a play style they previously lacked? Not trying to be a dick, just giving examples of minis from the first V-set I saw as blatant attempts to give factions access to other factions abilities they lacked.
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
I will acknowledge that there have been some missteps with damage dealing, but I think overall we've been careful about increasing damage output. It might surprise you to see how many times we've taken damage boosts off of a character rather than add them just because we thought the output was too high. My only real regrets (and yes, I share in some of the blame) is the Battle of Theed Darth Maul and, for reasons you might not suspect, Bastila Shan. Both of them needed a lot more playtesting than they got and probably would have appeared quite different had they received more attention. I expected that the gaming communities would have meta'ed the pieces out of the game through the options we gave, but what I discovered was that no one really took them seriously until crunch time. That is probably less true of Maul, but nevertheless it is my assessment.
I am just glad you are looking back at the minis and seeing issues. Part of the reason I even started to reply was everything I saw about the v-sets on here were comments through rose colored glasses.
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
Regardless, this is a combat game, and dealing damage is how you win. Increasing the damage output speeds up the game, and in tournaments time is a major factor. There is still a lot of strategy and positioning that each player must do in order to win, but at the end of the day, it all comes down to 1 or 2 dice rolls that determine the outcome, and it has been that way since Rebel Storm. I was playing when the game first came out, and I remember what squads looked like - especially the ones that won. People went for the characters that had the best chance of hitting and dealing the most damage. Aqualish Assassin, Han Solo, Darth Vader, Sith Lord, Emperor Palpatine, Boba Fett, etc. No one brought a squad of Rebel/Storm Troopers backed by 1-2 Officer and expected to win (and yes, I know the story of the guy who won a tournament with 9 Elite Stormtroopers, but I have no idea what his opponents were fielding - I can just imagine from what I know of the early days of the game).
I know what you mean but I do have to argue a little. Before some of the rule changes damage mitigation squads were actually very strong (see Shield or DR and bodyguard combos) because their glass cannons would survive longer. Or the mobile attacking accurate shot squads. I don't think it was until Bounty Hunters that high damage potential was the best meta. Then again, before then it was hard to find a unit that could deal more than 60 damage on a turn without support, unlike the almost joke of a damage that is now.
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
Anyway, the point is that I disagree completely with the statement that the V-sets "have no soul." They have more soul in them than most of the stuff WotC did.
Than the newer sets, yes, the V-sets have a great deal more "soul". For me the game started to go downhill around Bounty Hunters, where you had units that could deal over 120 damage on their own, even more with aid. I just wish it could go back to the old flavors I mentioned earlier and not have as much cross over.
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
I like your idea for "characters with X get Y" and I agree that LS Sweep is underused. The problem is that if we did something like that, we would have to consider it for every new piece that we wanted to give Sweep to, especially working under the rule that characters without a lightsaber on their base have to have a Force power with lightsaber in its name or the lightsaber special ability to be considered as having a lightsaber. You can't imagine the challenge that presents when we don't want to just dole out Lightsaber Deflect/Reflect/Defense, and can't find a good lightsaber-wielding mini to represent the character.
I made a suggestion along those lines mostly because I saw similar use of the pilot special ability in the last v-sets. Though, if you think giving a character with LS Sweep and extra 2-6 attack once in a great while (said because of the prevalence of 4-8 character squads even in 200 point format) is going to be a great boon, especially when you need to spend extra points on another unit to grant it, I think you over-rate the ability
Billiv15 wrote:
This is so far off base. The game has far more "Soul" and "balance" now than it ever had. I'm very sorry you feel this way, but I can't help but notice you are completely wrong about it as well. Which either means we haven't done a single thing we've attempted and in fact done the exact opposite, or your opinion is based on some small tiny thing that you haven't really mentioned. I'm inclined to believe the latter.
I find this comment outright amusing when the grand moff before you agreed that there have been "missteps" in damage dealing and that the game "is a combat game, and dealing damage is how you win." In fact, three people before you posted in defense of the "damage damage and more damage" argument you quoted. Why is it every mini has to have 70 hp now to be able to withstand a hit? I remember when it was 30 and I am sure you do as well. Since when is double attack at 20 a pop not enough to be in a squad without boosts from commanders? Every faction went this way except a few which the V-Sets promptly addressed to make them more competitive. Why couldn't they have gone damage mitigation? Why not mobility? No, we needed to give them either easier to access or extra bonus, damage. And that "small tiny thing" you reference, I listed some of it from the first v-set. I didn't even touch the second-fourth yet (though 3&4 I have not played with much yet, so I am basing most of this off 1&2 which I helped play test and played with after they were put out)
Billiv15 wrote:
It's easy to criticize if you aren't actually playing with the pieces on a regular basis. You can look at our stat list, find the 3-5 things that fit your desired argument, and claim we've homogenized, or pretty much any other thing you want to say. The fact of the matter is we've specifically stayed away from that approach despite it being a very highly desired design idea directly from the community ("The NR should get X"). Perhaps even the most commonly stated actually.
See afore mentioned, I helped play test both 1 and 2 and played excessively with the first one, less so with the second one. While I am not privy to how much you reject from the "this faction needs this" argument, I can see where it trickles through in a dozen or so mini's. Hence why I bring this up, it is there, I am not sure how much of it is actually screened, and from the perspective of the guy who gets the minis when they are basically done it comes across as "this faction needs this to make it more like this faction."
Billiv15 wrote:
There will always be some crossover, because its a game that has rules. And certain aspects of a game are more powerful mechanics than others, enough that every faction must have it, or have a counter to it, or have its own version of it to be competitive. Take door control for example. You can't play a tournament without it. Period. End of story. Have we just given override away to every faction on a 7-8pt piece? Or made a fringe 8pt droid with it, and a 3pt fringe with satchel charge? Hell no. We've given every faction decent door control with multiple new abilities, and using existing ones on new pieces.
Quite bluntly, override and the type were a mistake and when the fringe revolving door model came out I wasn't sure if I should have cried or said about time. How about this for an example though, Tactician. We had Master Tactician, it became abused so WotC made a kinda dumb counter to it. Then, all the sudden, Tactician, Tactician everywhere. Why on earth convolute what should be the simplest part of every round? Make a solid counter to the original folly then move on, don't compound it by a thousand. Or how about non commander effect range. Oh, lets make a unit that lets everything have unlimited range to be fair to the factions without a Mas and that can not benefit from the mouse droids of the world. Or, you know, you could have made something like said mouse droid for special abilities or even found a way to add something simple like, oh, a good bodyguard for the faction. Nah, Mas is the way to go, it was broke so lets break everything else to make it fair.
Don't get me wrong, it did balance the game. But can you see where I get the lack of flavor from, or did you want more examples? If so how many before you agree it isn't "some tiny little thing" I found once and am bitching about?
Billiv15 wrote:
I'm sorry, I just think you are extremely wrong, that I must have misunderstood what you are complaining about. I can reapply the model I just used on door control for nearly everything we've done and the results are the same. We have no just homogenized the factions, we've given every faction competitive pieces and squad designs, that are far from a mirror of one another. I'm sorry, but even with just DotF at Gencon, Ian's OR squad was nothing like my Republic Yoda squad, or Jason's Double Lancers, etc.
yes but I bet you could have easily made a mirror squad of almost any one of those with little effort.
Billiv15 wrote:
This is a mistake people have often made over the years. The same ability or what looks like on paper a very similar one in a new faction does not ever equal the prior. Dodonna did not at all equal San Hill. And despite the complaints when Ozzel was released later, he never got close to either Dodonna or San Hill. Faction diversity prevents it. What we've done is the exact opposite of what you've claimed. We've added to the existing diversity, and in some cases created entirely new ones. All directly from Star Wars source material. I can now play 3-4 entirely different Vong squads in a tournament and expect to compete, maybe even win. Just last year I played the only even remotely viable Vong squad in Chicago, and predictably finished in the bottom half, with nearly all games being blow outs one way or the other (the sole exception being the game I lost to Sithborg). We are responsible for that.
You have added to the diversity of each faction by making it a lot like the other factions. See above for details if you didn't read them before.
Billiv15 wrote:
Factions should never, ever, ever be stuck with one theme, and one type of viable build. That is poor design, and I won't ever support it. Flavor is fine, but in a game, you have to have that flavor be competitive to other squads. I don't like playing rock paper scissors or Magic the Gathering. Knowing who has won or lost before we've played is not fun.
Of everything you said, this is about the only part I can agree with entirely. However, I can plainly see you zoned in on one or two aspects of what I said and ran with them. I am not saying "screw em, they are flavorful so no help for them" I am asking that you try to build to a factions strengths in its flavor. You had sissy vong whose commanders weren't really commanders so they had to be within 6. Rather than make all their abilities unlimited, why not play to their strength of damage reduction and make a big hp/vudoon 6 bodyguard/shield unit with no attacks. Or a vong with draw fire. Or a vong with some other ability that takes the heat off the vong support rather than say "shaper all the things, scarification all the things" You gave the vong a Mas of its own spin, everybody got a tactician, good lightsabers sprung up like weeds across all factions, and damage above all else is now the big ticket. All in the name of easy access balance. I know not all of this came because of the V-Sets but please do not compound existing problems.
P.S.
I know you guys are trying your best with these sets and you are all doing a fairly good job at it (a damn sight better than WotC). But like I said before, I have seen nothing but positive feedback on the V-sets and have picked out some areas where I think there is either an existing problem or a problem I believe is getting worse. The only reason I am bringing anything up is to try and offer some constructive criticism and some views as to where the game could go besides "make everything the same high damage dealing synergy squad." It is all my own opinion, take it as such and feel free to disagree.