I don't claim to speak for everyone who's been on the design teams, because I know of a number of designers who think differently than I do. But I have spoken out in the past (and continue to do so, even in this thread) about things that I think need to be changed. So far, for the most part, my comments haven't changed anything...and I've been a designer twice now. Therefore, I'm not sure that it's really so much an issue of "the designers" as a whole not getting it right, since there has been very little continuity between sets. I think the issue is a broader one than that: We as a community aren't united on what we want to see in our favorite game.

On the one hand, some of us really enjoy the out-activate-and-smash squads (98.2% of the time with a tempo control piece), and really dislike the save-reliant aspects of the game (SSM, Avoid Defeat, etc). It seems like the main complaint here is that it's too easy for lucky (or unlucky) dice to rule the match, which makes it less a contest of skill and more a comparison of dice rolls.

On the other hand, some of us (myself included) really enjoy playing lower-activation squads, where every individual piece serves a specific purpose (other than acting as activation fodder). And the main complaint from this camp seems to be that it's just no fun (and even unfair) to activate your entire squad only to watch while your opponent decimates one of your main pieces (or else most of your squad all at once), and then avoids combat by locking doors in your face.

The arguments can go back and forth, with the NPE label being attached to everything but the kitchen sink (and really, who loves doing dishes?) but in the end I think it comes down to the fact that everyone enjoys different aspects of the game. Some love swarms, some love tanks, and some love scissors...some love jedi, some love shooters, some love grunts.

When the balance of power swings too far in any one direction (which many people think it has right now), people speak up. But until we can agree together on what is (or isn't) broken or flawed or an NPE, it's going to be nearly impossible to move forward with any sense of purpose. So really, if we want the designers to do a better job, then we as an entire community need to make it clear what we want to see. I think it's pretty clear right now that more swarms and melee-hate would be a bad idea, though. What is not clear is how we can best move forward. For that we need community input.


One more thing: I think it's worth mentioning that the designers are always responding to the meta. Quick example: some hack wannabe won the Championship in 2012 with Mace and GOWK, which led to everyone complaining about the power of SSM and Mace's infinite-crit-potential. What showed up in the V-Sets over the next year? Several "tank-busters" (Brutal Strike and OWF) and a powerful Vader with No Disintegrations. The designers are always looking to balance the meta. I think they've been doing a phenomenal job, all told. Sure, there have been a few missteps along the way (Poggle, Daala, Slaver), but for the most part I think that the state of the competitive game has only gotten better because of the designers' careful and insightful work on the V-Sets.

I hate tempo control the most, I'd love to see activation control. It's great in epic 500.

last night played a game and juice man brings 28 activations AND f--kin- Dodonna.
because of ourlove, I did NOT kill him. next time? maybe we'll ask the 8-Ball.

both of these thing s l o w the game down. I've never finished a game in the allotted hour
and it ain't me guys
so. I'm all in for activation limit, and some errata on tempo control, like only being used with X of less activations

To be honest, I threw in Dodo just before the match because, well, just wanted my Charging Fire Tantives to not die too soon.

Welcome to the game! It's great that you're back.

Minor correction: "...have attempted to address dominant meta strategies...." Sometimes these attempts have been effective (ie, Kelborn, Yammosk), but other times they have not. For example, as was mentioned earlier in this thread, a few years ago one designer said to someone who was bothered by Tempo Control, "Don't worry about it; we're fixing that," referring to the Mando CIO. And yet Tempo Control hasn't taken a hit at all. If anything, it's as strong as ever.

When these attempts are ineffective, I think that it's probably 90% because of a lack of agreement among designers about what needs addressing and how best to do it. That sometimes results in a scatter-shot approach to problem-solving, rather than the surgical precision that is needed to decisively solve the problem.

I'm with you here, about how it should not be the case that one player uses more time than the other (primarily because of squad selection). I even tongue-in-cheek suggested the chess clock idea, but it obviously won't work. That discussion is earlier in this thread (page 2 I think).

This being said, there is a world of difference between a fast player who's using a high-activation squad and a slow player who's using one. When you play against the fast player, you'll still be able to get a good number of rounds in, and so time usage is really not a concern. The first example to come to my mind in this is Gerry Russell (Darph Nader), who played a 20+ activation Naboo squad in 2012...he played lightning fast, and so we got something like 8-10 rounds in when we played each other in the Swiss rounds of the Championship that year. That was a really fun (and close!) match.

Both of you have very good points. For newer players it is very rough to play high act squads. When I came back I was used to playing a 16 act squad, I played a 22 act squad at the kokomo regional and I was slow as spit in my last two games. That was also do to the fact that I had never played against, or even seen most of the pieces for that matter, that my opponents were playing.

Especially in the play testing for gencon i have noticed that a high act squad with act control actually goes faster than one with an equal number of acts without act control. After they our activate you don't have to guess their moves and can adjust accordingly without much thought. I also want to thank the community for not getting all over me for being a slow player, but a couple of guys did have a honesty hour moment where we talked about speed.

That's good to address with new or slow players. If you want to have a prayer of getting 7 or 8 rounds in you are going to have to have your first 2 rounds take 10 minutes collectively. Not always easy, but with practice it is possible. My last game I played with a guy in my play group the first 2 rounds went under ten. I was running a squad with over 20 activations and act control. So praise the lamb I am getting faster, lol

Are we talking about tempo control or activation control?

Tempo Control is Dodonna/San/Ozzel; I don't think it necessarily slows the game down, though it certainly can. It does make the non-tempo player's turn more difficult because of all the extra counting and out-thinking that he has to do...and it can also make the tempo player take longer too, if he doesn't know his squad well and basically re-strategizes his end-of-round strike with each new phase.

Activation Control, on the other hand, is something else. Do we mean high activation squads when we talk about activation control? Then yes, those do make the game take longer, except in the hands of a fast player (as I've said). Or do we mean controlling the activations, in other words, an Activation Cap? This phrase, "Activation Control" is very vague.

Here's an Idea I brought up the last time this a topic like this was brought up.

Spynet Operative 5
HP 20
Def 15
Atk -
Dam -

Special Abilities
Cloaked
Report Activity (replaces attacks: sight; target enemy takes an immediate turn and is activated)


some possible tweaks could be: upping the cost
maybe also add in something like
Sabotuer (If your opponent has more unactivated characters in play than you this character gains Overload)

Everything that you posted was very well put and constructive. I completely agree that they have shifted the meta tons in the last 3 years and only had minor missteps from what could have been. When they do make something the community sees as a huge "mistake", they On my way! it, change it and seek not to repeat it. Everyone of the design team members has my respect.

You are very right that the community has different tastes when it comes to play style. Darkdracul termed it we are split between sabers and shooters. They game is meant to be played with this split and with people that bridge the gap or keep one foot on either side of the camp. It is hard to keep everybody happy though.

I would disagree that we have Rock-Paper-Scizzors at the moment. In fact a lot of people's frustration is that it's ______-paper-Scizzors. Yes a gowk squad just won a regional, but if a rock squad made it to the top 8 I think everyone would be shocked, I know I would. And no Durge on speeder doesn't count as rock and neither does cad bane in my honest opinion. Those are extreme Scizzors options, but they are beefy.

Unfortunately as the meta is now those have been the best options for a rock squad, especially if you throw asaj Nightsister into the mix. Right now though there just isn't any others. Regionals don't necessarily give you a good feel for what's tier 1. Some times a guy gets luck to. What did they say, the guy with gowk made 11 SSM saves in a row... Obi wan had the moves like jagger, that's for sure, lol.

Big +1

I have said before and I will repeat here - some of the worst games I've had in SWM are where I have the same number of activations as my opponent. Banning act control and putting a character activation cap basically makes that happen. Usually whoever makes the first big move, loses. So nobody wants to do that. You're both playing super cautious and trying to snipe an activation to gain the advantage.

When there is no limit, if you're playing a rock squad - you build with being out-activated in mind. So you can make the first big move. It's often your advantage to do so. Things actually happen in a game.

Now - as a designer, do I think the game is currently imbalanced? Yes, a little. Not as extreme as everyone is making it out though. So I would like to implement clever new abilities that strengthen lower activations and weaken higher activations. Not a silver bullet, but little bumps. The pendulum of balance swings much harder than people realize.

An activation cap and banning single act commanders would drastically change our game. I like our game. The way to change it is in subtle ways with new figures and abilities. Not with sweeping rule changes.

(Stands up and starts a slow clap)
Exactly, it wouldn't be the game I love anymore, right now we have a free market economy game. I say boo to socialism! Lol. I think we could all be very surprised where the game goes in a year and especially to. Who knows, maybe even sith will be Competetive! (Gasps!)