logo

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 121 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GOWK. Yes, sorry, this had to be brought up
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:10 am 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:57 pm
Posts: 3502
TimmerB123 wrote:
One thing I think may be getting lost in all this is that I am not saying GOWK is unbeatable. Or even broken.

I know how to beat him. I will reiterate that I have never lost to him in competitive play. Mace either for that matter.

SSM just makes the game less fun.



Yeah, that's the core, isn't it? Want to see my list of pieces that are Negative Play Experiences?

1. Lancer
2. Poggle the Lesser
3. Bastilla, JM
4. Yobuck

There are other things that I don't like playing with/against, but those are the main ones. They genuinely make the game less fun for me. The huge amounts of movement that the Lancer and Yobuck have (especially in their respective squads with things like PotDS and swap) is obnoxious, and I hate having to keep my commanders hidden in a far-off closet because otherwise they'll get got by the super high movement pieces. Poggle creates more 2 point pieces, and they're really good 2 point pieces, too! I think that was a really bad idea. I'm cool with swarms, but not 2 point pieces. That's too little. Bastilla just wrecks whole squad types. Disruptive is cool because it is only within 6; it's still very good, but requires some skill to play. Bastilla just lets you flip a switch and not only give your squad a HUGE bonus but also creates a HUGE negative for your opponent.

I don't think a single one of these pieces should be banned or nerfed. I'm able to beat every one of these and don't believe that they are too strong. They're just un-fun. On the other hand, I know that lots of people DO have fun with these pieces. Tim, YOU were one of the primary Lancer players last year, and played it in the championship. I assume that you enjoy playing Lancer squads; that's cool. Just because I think it is a big NPE doesn't mean that you should or that anything should happen to the piece (I actually think too much Lancer hate has been created recently, although I think there should have been a little bit). Actually, I consider the squad type that you regularly play (out-activate, mass kill, retreat so your opponent can't return fire) is just not fun to play with or against. There certainly is no problem with you playing it, though, and just because I don't think it's fun doesn't mean that it should be nerfed or banned.


I partially agree with Dennis now. The whole reason you made this thread is that YOU don't like GOWK. You made that apparent in your last post. That is just not even close to a good reason to nerf SSM. You said it yourself that GOWK isn't broken, and is beatable. The only reason we should ban or nerf pieces or abilities is if they are broken. You having less fun when your opponent plays that piece just isn't enough. That's why I haven't called to ban or nerf the 4 pieces that I listed above. I can still have fun in the game playing something else. In fact, I have a lot of fun playing the game despite those pieces! My personal enjoyment might increase somewhat if they were just banned, but maybe someone else who loves those pieces will have their personal enjoyment decrease if they were banned. Me (or anyone!) thinking they aren't fun is just plain a bad reason to ban or nerf anything.

_________________
"An elegant, easy-to-understand concept or mechanic that accomplishes 95% of what you want is much better than a clunky, obtuse mechanic that gets you 100%" - Rob Daviau

"You can't per aspera ad astra unless there's some aspera in front of your astra. And that means sometimes the aspera gets you." - Donald X. Vaccarino


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: GOWK. Yes, sorry, this had to be brought up
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:47 am 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:45 pm
Posts: 3886
It's all personal opinion. Tim has a few good points. However, much like with Covert Ops, with the power escalation in damage output, I'm willing to give SSM a little bit more time to see the full effects. My impression from Regionals and Gencon is that it isn't warping the Meta in a way that is bad for the game. Interestingly, no one objected to the new Obi who has SSM. One Gencon win does not a trend make.

_________________
Bloomilk Ambassador


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: GOWK. Yes, sorry, this had to be brought up
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:56 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
Echo wrote:
TimmerB123 wrote:
One thing I think may be getting lost in all this is that I am not saying GOWK is unbeatable. Or even broken.

I know how to beat him. I will reiterate that I have never lost to him in competitive play. Mace either for that matter.

SSM just makes the game less fun.



Yeah, that's the core, isn't it? Want to see my list of pieces that are Negative Play Experiences?

1. Lancer
2. Poggle the Lesser
3. Bastilla, JM
4. Yobuck

There are other things that I don't like playing with/against, but those are the main ones. They genuinely make the game less fun for me. The huge amounts of movement that the Lancer and Yobuck have (especially in their respective squads with things like PotDS and swap) is obnoxious, and I hate having to keep my commanders hidden in a far-off closet because otherwise they'll get got by the super high movement pieces. Poggle creates more 2 point pieces, and they're really good 2 point pieces, too! I think that was a really bad idea. I'm cool with swarms, but not 2 point pieces. That's too little. Bastilla just wrecks whole squad types. Disruptive is cool because it is only within 6; it's still very good, but requires some skill to play. Bastilla just lets you flip a switch and not only give your squad a HUGE bonus but also creates a HUGE negative for your opponent.

I don't think a single one of these pieces should be banned or nerfed. I'm able to beat every one of these and don't believe that they are too strong. They're just un-fun. On the other hand, I know that lots of people DO have fun with these pieces. Tim, YOU were one of the primary Lancer players last year, and played it in the championship. I assume that you enjoy playing Lancer squads; that's cool. Just because I think it is a big NPE doesn't mean that you should or that anything should happen to the piece (I actually think too much Lancer hate has been created recently, although I think there should have been a little bit). Actually, I consider the squad type that you regularly play (out-activate, mass kill, retreat so your opponent can't return fire) is just not fun to play with or against. There certainly is no problem with you playing it, though, and just because I don't think it's fun doesn't mean that it should be nerfed or banned.


I partially agree with Dennis now. The whole reason you made this thread is that YOU don't like GOWK. You made that apparent in your last post. That is just not even close to a good reason to nerf SSM. You said it yourself that GOWK isn't broken, and is beatable. The only reason we should ban or nerf pieces or abilities is if they are broken. You having less fun when your opponent plays that piece just isn't enough. That's why I haven't called to ban or nerf the 4 pieces that I listed above. I can still have fun in the game playing something else. In fact, I have a lot of fun playing the game despite those pieces! My personal enjoyment might increase somewhat if they were just banned, but maybe someone else who loves those pieces will have their personal enjoyment decrease if they were banned. Me (or anyone!) thinking they aren't fun is just plain a bad reason to ban or nerf anything.



Well said. To take it a step further, Bastila was at the core of an OR team that won GC last year and it didn't suddenly warp the meta with a "shitstorm" of OR squads. The solution to challenges and "NPE's" as you call it (good term, btw) is, as always, to make new cards that compete.

_________________
Click here to check out all the people who have realized the truth. Someday you will, too.

"I would really, really like to not have anything else happen at the end of the round other than things just ending." -- Sithborg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: GOWK. Yes, sorry, this had to be brought up
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 12:41 pm 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:01 pm
Posts: 6662
Location: Chicago, IL
Perhaps I didn't differentiate well enough when I stated my personal feeling on SSM and why I started the thread.

I do have strong opinions (I know everyone is shocked by this), and I am generally vocal about them. That being said, I still don't want to promote moves for the community that will ultimately make it suffer.

This part seems to have been overlooked:

TimmerB123 wrote:
There was a precedence for SSM being changed. And it was actually brought upto me by the powers who rule the floor rules that it is conceivable that it could change back. This is why I started the thread, to promote conversation about it.


So to tell the truth this thread has been very successful in promoting conversation about it. Frankly I am a little surprised that I seem to be in the minority on this - but I can admit that it seems that I am.

I have a personal issue with SSM in that it makes games less fun for me (to play with or against).

I brought it up in this thread to see what the community thought about it. This is something that could conceivably be changed back. I actually have a bigger issue with Mace, but Mace won't realistically get changed. There was no prior change to Mace, and it wasn't brought to me as an option to change. SSM changing back was brought up to me.

Not that anything really gets voted on by the community as a whole, but I think promoting conversation about it is always good.

This game has gone through quite a metamorphosis. The player base has as well.

As for NPEs, believe it or not most of mine match the list above. Notice I didn't play the lancer once all year? It's been hated on a bunch but it's still competitive. I actually think it would have faired well in this meta (backed by geonosian bombs of course), but it's a headache to play, or to play against. I've always disliked Yodabuck. Atton Rand is ridiculous in having both avoid defeat and override on top of great stats and force points. The Naboo are ridiculous now - everyone focuses on the pilots or the troopers as the issue - but the new Panaka is the problem (they'd be fine without easy board-wide twin). I didn't even bring a squad with an activation control piece in the base to any regional or GenCon this year. I did have Pellaeon in ONE regional squad, but I only swapped in Ozzel against ONE opponent (played him twice). I also happened to use that squad in the champs, where again I swapped in Ozzel only once. So in all 50+ competitive games I played this year I only used activation control about 3 times. I won a regional with Vong and I won one with Sith. So I like a variety of things, and I too enjoy the overall meta where I think a lot can compete.

Problem is this now: I fear the pendulum swinging in the other direction. GOWK/Mace winning the World Championship is the heralding call of this.

As for people hopping on the bandwagon - Bastila is an excellent point. Count the number of Bastila squads last year, and count them this year. There were a VAST number more. I don't have an exact count but I'd guess that it tripled or quadrupled the number of players using Bastila in the championship. And many people consider Mace GOWK even easier to use - so yes I think we will see a TON of it in the next year.

I've never called for a figure to be banned. I still hope we never do. I think this has been misinterpreted. I don't want GOWK banned. I simply think the change should have never gone back. As it was explained to me, when the change was made back to SSM as it reads on the card, it was on the basis of: "We'll see if it works. If it turns out to be a problem we'll change it back." So this conversation needed to happen no matter what. SSM just happen to be key in a squad that won the world championship. That weighs in on this discussion.

It looks to me like SSM will likely not change back and that is fine. I got a lot out of this thread.

I am still concerned about this game slipping too fast towards more luck and less skill, but that conversation is for another thread. The best players can of COURSE use these tactics and do even better (Josh and Trevor are clearly top notch), but it's a slippery slope.

I believe that the core of this game is ATTACKS, and always should be. Direct damage is great, and should always be around as an option - but I don't think it should be a MUST in every squad to win. Any ability that has the potential to negate EVERY SINGLE ATTACK is bad for the game, in my opinion. Free to use, never having to worry about a finite amount of FPs to use it or Ysalamiri to nerf it. Not having to worry about an opponent basing you to negate it or use the other kind of attack (melee vs non-melee) to get around it. This is a bad thing. It makes games go on too long, and it makes hot rolling insurmountable. Luck will always (and should be) a part of this game - but it must be kept in check. It must be balanced with a greater portion of skill.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: GOWK. Yes, sorry, this had to be brought up
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:24 pm 
Hand of the Sith
Hand of the Sith

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:41 pm
Posts: 877
Location: Olivet Mi
I still think its more fun to play against Mace\GOWK and lose than to play activation control and win!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: GOWK. Yes, sorry, this had to be brought up
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:25 pm 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:45 pm
Posts: 3886
But here is the counter point: What happens when the attacks get so powerful and so reliable, that you either have to kill something in your first attempt, run away, or you die?

2 years ago, with 150 being the standard, you did not have that problem. Only a few factions could put out enough attacks to whittle Obi down. Now...

_________________
Bloomilk Ambassador


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: GOWK. Yes, sorry, this had to be brought up
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:28 pm 
Warmaster
Warmaster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 677
Location: Danville IL
TimmerB123 wrote:
As for people hopping on the bandwagon - Bastila is an excellent point. Count the number of Bastila squads last year, and count them this year. There were a VAST number more. I don't have an exact count but I'd guess that it tripled or quadrupled the number of players using Bastila in the championship. And many people consider Mace GOWK even easier to use - so yes I think we will see a TON of it in the next year.


Hasn't this already occured. Mace in the face was debuted by UrbanShmi at the Lansing Regional. When the next regional came up (Owensboro) I think 6 Mace squads were there out of 13. The Penn regional soon after had Mace taking several spots in the top four. Pretty much from then on Mace varients have had strong appearances at most regionals. From there it was used heavily in the smaller events at GenCon. I think overall the people who are going to play it have at some time or another this season. I can't imagine it getting more prolific then it already is.

_________________
Winning a tournament always allows doing whatever is within the rules to win. - Billiv15


[===0=]=============>


Sentinel for Life!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: GOWK. Yes, sorry, this had to be brought up
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:35 pm 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:57 pm
Posts: 3502
Sithborg wrote:
But here is the counter point: What happens when the attacks get so powerful and so reliable, that you either have to kill something in your first attempt, run away, or you die?

2 years ago, with 150 being the standard, you did not have that problem. Only a few factions could put out enough attacks to whittle Obi down. Now...


Scott's has a great point. Damage output has increased dramatically in recent years; something needs to be done to change that. SSM just straight reduces a character's average damage output by half. That really isn't that bad. Force Points and Mettle make it worse, but Force Points are an exhaustable resource. I don't really care about any anecdotes about how one time GOWK made his SSM save the first time every time for 10 attacks straight; that's way out of the ordinary and it's like saying "My Atton Rand rolled a 1 3 times in a row, he sucks" or "My Chewbacca and Ewoks on AT-ST rolled a crit for 80 damage, it's an amazing piece!". With damage increasing like it has, without strong defensive abilities like SSM everyone will just play big nuke damage squads and whoever gets the first hit or wins the key init will win the game. Having a character that can wade into battle and not die is an important part of the meta in general, and that's just not realistic without some powerful damage mitigation.

_________________
"An elegant, easy-to-understand concept or mechanic that accomplishes 95% of what you want is much better than a clunky, obtuse mechanic that gets you 100%" - Rob Daviau

"You can't per aspera ad astra unless there's some aspera in front of your astra. And that means sometimes the aspera gets you." - Donald X. Vaccarino


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: GOWK. Yes, sorry, this had to be brought up
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:44 pm 
Dark Lord of the Sith
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:38 am
Posts: 1959
Echo wrote:
Sithborg wrote:
But here is the counter point: What happens when the attacks get so powerful and so reliable, that you either have to kill something in your first attempt, run away, or you die?

2 years ago, with 150 being the standard, you did not have that problem. Only a few factions could put out enough attacks to whittle Obi down. Now...


Scott's has a great point. Damage output has increased dramatically in recent years; something needs to be done to change that. SSM just straight reduces a character's average damage output by half. That really isn't that bad. Force Points and Mettle make it worse, but Force Points are an exhaustable resource. I don't really care about any anecdotes about how one time GOWK made his SSM save the first time every time for 10 attacks straight; that's way out of the ordinary and it's like saying "My Atton Rand rolled a 1 3 times in a row, he sucks" or "My Chewbacca and Ewoks on AT-ST rolled a crit for 80 damage, it's an amazing piece!". With damage increasing like it has, without strong defensive abilities like SSM everyone will just play big nuke damage squads and whoever gets the first hit or wins the key init will win the game. Having a character that can wade into battle and not die is an important part of the meta in general, and that's just not realistic without some powerful damage mitigation.

this coming from the guy that made 24 cesta saves in a round...................Sorry it had nothing to do with your post. I am still mad move that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: GOWK. Yes, sorry, this had to be brought up
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:53 pm 
Major Tierce
Major Tierce

Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 3201
Thanks TheHutts for doing my work for me. From his research, out of all the regionals out there (and UrbanShmi debuted Mace in your face there and Brad had used Mace/GOWK at the Cap City Champs in Jan) only Hinkbert (3 times), myself at PA, and Trevor on vassel were able to guide a squad with Mace to the Top 4. So that stat right there is telling enough to me that Mace isn't the dominating force either. We all know that the talk all regional season was of Mace and Weir and how to beat one or both of them.

_________________
When I left you I was but the learner . . . now I am the master.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: GOWK. Yes, sorry, this had to be brought up
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:56 pm 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:57 pm
Posts: 3502
LOL! I think 3 years is a pretty long time to hold a grudge about one game. :lol:

But that's a perfect example of my point. My very first ever GenCon championship game was against Jonny back in 2009, he was playing Gungans and I was playing Slow Cannon. We played on his map (Jedi Temple) and he got some good positioning on me and hit me with a LOT of Cestas, but I made way more than half of my saves against him. That would be a terrible reason for saying that his squad sucked, because it was a far outlier of a game. On average, he should have gotten some more damage through and maybe beaten me.

_________________
"An elegant, easy-to-understand concept or mechanic that accomplishes 95% of what you want is much better than a clunky, obtuse mechanic that gets you 100%" - Rob Daviau

"You can't per aspera ad astra unless there's some aspera in front of your astra. And that means sometimes the aspera gets you." - Donald X. Vaccarino


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: GOWK. Yes, sorry, this had to be brought up
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:03 pm 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
TimmerB123 wrote:
As for people hopping on the bandwagon - Bastila is an excellent point. Count the number of Bastila squads last year, and count them this year. There were a VAST number more. I don't have an exact count but I'd guess that it tripled or quadrupled the number of players using Bastila in the championship. And many people consider Mace GOWK even easier to use - so yes I think we will see a TON of it in the next year.


There will be 2 additional sets legal before the next GenCon. 1 of them is already out there, and has stuff in it - as I have said consistently - that allows for attacking without a response. Also, there are going to be other characters with similar damage negation capabilities going forward that will be (IMO) as attractive to play as GOWK/Mace. So it will mitigate some of the "bandwagon hopping" about which you are concerned.

Quote:
As it was explained to me, when the change was made back to SSM as it reads on the card, it was on the basis of: "We'll see if it works. If it turns out to be a problem we'll change it back." So this conversation needed to happen no matter what.


I'm not sure who you spoke to or where you got this information, but I have doubts that anyone said anything so concrete. More likely they said a lot more than this, including things like, "We want to see what v-set 4 and 5 will do to the game to address the power of SSM along with how it performs on its own at GenCon." But I have not ever heard anyone say it should or would just automatically be changed back just because it might do well at a convention. If it had been beaten, or if a top player hadn't run it, I wonder if we would be having this discussion.

Quote:
It looks to me like SSM will likely not change back and that is fine. I got a lot out of this thread.

I am still concerned about this game slipping too fast towards more luck and less skill, but that conversation is for another thread. The best players can of COURSE use these tactics and do even better (Josh and Trevor are clearly top notch), but it's a slippery slope.


This is something the designers are aware of as well.

_________________
Click here to check out all the people who have realized the truth. Someday you will, too.

"I would really, really like to not have anything else happen at the end of the round other than things just ending." -- Sithborg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: GOWK. Yes, sorry, this had to be brought up
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:18 pm 
Warmaster
Warmaster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 677
Location: Danville IL
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
But I have not ever heard anyone say it should or would just automatically be changed back just because it might do well at a convention. If it had been beaten, or if a top player hadn't run it, I wonder if we would be having this discussion.


Things are the most broke when the top players broke them. When your top players aren't running it then it means it has a flaw or is subpar for the tourney scene. The fact that a top player did choose to run it shows its strengths and when that top player beats other top players in the top level of competition it clearly shows it is a cut above and probably needs to be looked at.

_________________
Winning a tournament always allows doing whatever is within the rules to win. - Billiv15


[===0=]=============>


Sentinel for Life!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: GOWK. Yes, sorry, this had to be brought up
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:58 pm 
Imperial Dignitaries
Imperial Dignitaries
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:42 pm
Posts: 3599
Location: New Jersey
I don't think that, just because GOWK/Mace won the Championship, that we therefore need to consider the pieces broken. That's just silly.

Every year, SOME player is going to win the Championship, and that player will beat several other top players on the way to victory. It is simply false logic to deduce that the pieces someone used are broken simply because he/she won a tournament with them.

_________________
"Don't give the tool more credit than the master." --Weeks
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: GOWK. Yes, sorry, this had to be brought up
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:08 pm 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:03 pm
Posts: 2525
Location: Anderson, SC
thereisnotry wrote:
I don't think that, just because GOWK/Mace won the Championship, that we therefore need to consider the pieces broken. That's just silly.

Every year, SOME player is going to win the Championship, and that player will beat several other top players on the way to victory. It is simply false logic to deduce that the pieces someone used are broken simply because he/she won a tournament with them.


Had Gerry won we'd be complaining about Naboo's, had I won we would be talking about Revan and Kaan, had Jak or Lou won we would be saying Bastilla is broken for winning twice in a row. Every year its the same thing from September to November.

_________________
Bald is beautiful.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: GOWK. Yes, sorry, this had to be brought up
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:14 pm 
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:17 am
Posts: 2931
LOL, that all the pieces are from v-2. Naboo, Kaan, Jaq, and even Mace for that matter. V-2 (and I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who thinks this) is "broken" fanboy set. I put broken in quotations cause I don't want to say broken but others will. And I heard fanboy set from numerous people, meaning that the majority of pieces in V-2 are overpowered and undercosted. There's a different thread of someone complaining about Kaan, and we all know the Naboo are just plain stupid. I heard someone complain about the Klatoonian Cap'n being undercosted just about a week before Gen Con. I just found it funny that the pieces you mentioned were from V-2 and is one of the most "broken" sets.

_________________
"But one thing I have learned in this process is that flavor can't override the good of the game."
-urbanshmi2-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: GOWK. Yes, sorry, this had to be brought up
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:41 pm 
Third Jedi from the Left
Third Jedi from the Left
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:51 am
Posts: 134
Location: E-Town PA
sthlrd2 wrote:
LOL, that all the pieces are from v-2. Naboo, Kaan, Jaq, and even Mace for that matter. V-2 (and I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who thinks this) is "broken" fanboy set. I put broken in quotations cause I don't want to say broken but others will. And I heard fanboy set from numerous people, meaning that the majority of pieces in V-2 are overpowered and undercosted. There's a different thread of someone complaining about Kaan, and we all know the Naboo are just plain stupid. I heard someone complain about the Klatoonian Cap'n being undercosted just about a week before Gen Con. I just found it funny that the pieces you mentioned were from V-2 and is one of the most "broken" sets.


Pellaeon, Revan, Yammosk and Bastila all come from V-set 1 and V-set 3 has popular support pieces like Evazan, Momaw, and Figrin D'an. All the V-sets are obviously going to have great and useful pieces, they just seem to focus on different aspects of the game. V-set 2 just has the recent pieces that bring the pain.

_________________
"Anything worth killing is worth over-killing" - Darph Nader


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: GOWK. Yes, sorry, this had to be brought up
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:17 am 
Warmaster
Warmaster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 677
Location: Danville IL
thereisnotry wrote:
I don't think that, just because GOWK/Mace won the Championship, that we therefore need to consider the pieces broken. That's just silly.

Every year, SOME player is going to win the Championship, and that player will beat several other top players on the way to victory. It is simply false logic to deduce that the pieces someone used are broken simply because he/she won a tournament with them.


I didn't say they were broke because they won the championship but I do think that we should look into them though to make sure they are not, which is what I feel like were doing here.

The one thing this game has against it is that things tend to last. In Magic generally for a year you will have a "trendy" deck. The deck rotates then a new "trendy" deck comes into power. We have no rotation, and I do think because of that the powers that be and Vset designers have a responsibility to be harsher on their assessment of a figure and its place in the game because one mistake can last the games lifetime.

@Sithlord - I agree with the "fanboy" assessment but it would be SOOO hypocritical for me to complain because Im a "fangirl" and there are quite a few figures I love in that set.

_________________
Winning a tournament always allows doing whatever is within the rules to win. - Billiv15


[===0=]=============>


Sentinel for Life!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: GOWK. Yes, sorry, this had to be brought up
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:42 am 
Third Jedi from the Left
Third Jedi from the Left
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:51 am
Posts: 134
Location: E-Town PA
urbanjedi wrote:
Thanks TheHutts for doing my work for me. From his research, out of all the regionals out there (and UrbanShmi debuted Mace in your face there and Brad had used Mace/GOWK at the Cap City Champs in Jan) only Hinkbert (3 times), myself at PA, and Trevor on vassel were able to guide a squad with Mace to the Top 4. So that stat right there is telling enough to me that Mace isn't the dominating force either. We all know that the talk all regional season was of Mace and Weir and how to beat one or both of them.


One more I would like to add to this, Trevor and I both played GOWK/Mace at Frosty Con, which was in February, and we played each other in the finals. This was, imo, one of the first big tourneys after the SSM change. Personally I still think they did the right thing with GOWK, but I just wanted to mention this.

Now if GOWK actually does dominate this fall perhaps SSM could revert in the next rules update, but unless that happens (which I doubt will) I think it should stay.

_________________
"Anything worth killing is worth over-killing" - Darph Nader


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: GOWK. Yes, sorry, this had to be brought up
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:29 am 
Imperial Dignitaries
Imperial Dignitaries
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:42 pm
Posts: 3599
Location: New Jersey
hinkbert wrote:
Now if GOWK actually does dominate this fall perhaps SSM could revert in the next rules update, but unless that happens (which I doubt will) I think it should stay.

This.

As I said, any changes should not be knee-jerk reactions, but rather the changes should come after sufficient evidence has surfaced that SSM does, in fact, need the nerf.

I have a feeling that Mace/GOWK are going to lost a lot of their luster pretty soon. I have...forseen it. :emperor:

_________________
"Don't give the tool more credit than the master." --Weeks
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 121 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights style by Scott Stubblefield