|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/10/2010
Posts: 756
Location: The Shadowlands of Kashyyyk
|
I have a question regarding V-Set design. When making new versions of existing figures, Wolf Sazen for example, got a new version in Undying, Wolf Sazen, Jedi Master. Is the philosophy to replace the old version? Update the old version? Or Make a whole new version?
I'm making no judgements against the team, im a fan of the vsets even if i dont agree 100% with some decisions, designs etc...
In the Wolf Sazen example, i cannot see it as anything other than a full on replacement. He's given huge additions to his kit, a better stat line and he costs 2 less!
Again not saying it's a bad thing (Big fan of Sazen, and the Original was Desperately underwhelming even at the time).
I'm just curious if this is the "general" intent with most designs or if it's just an occasional result?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/30/2008
Posts: 1,288
|
(Few things will sucker me in to posting faster than a thread titled "Design Philosophy".  ) You'll get different answers from every designer, because there isn't a standard or unifying "philosophy" on the team, but here's my personal answer: My preference is not to completely obsolete any given piece with a new version, but if the old version is totally unplayable, I see no problem with "replacing" it. I don't think it's a good idea to let the badness of an old piece stop us from making a good new piece. Sometimes the new piece is even less "good"/"competitive" than the old one (Mara Jade Skywalker Jedi Master vs. Mara Jade Jedi). So yeah, it does happen sometimes. Wolf is a good example, because the old one was totally unplayable. Any new one HAD to be an upgrade or it wouldn't really be worth making. It's not like the new one is a world beater or even used competitively. Bastila Shan is another good example; the old one was useless. I don't think there is any problem with the new one being very good. But if the old piece is good, it's preferential to not outright replace it. Sometimes a new piece is better in some ways and fits the competitive meta better therefore getting played more, but the old piece is still better in other ways. I don't think Luke Hero of Endor is explicitly better than Luke Rebel Commando, they're totally different pieces that do different things and fit in different squads. That's totally fine, and I think preferable. Hope that answers your question.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/31/2010
Posts: 1,628
|
perspective from an outsider.... sometimes instead of making a new piece you will see things like the v-set version of cade skywalker... he had to give out bounty hunter +6 and twin attack to the two pieces he helps to even make people consider playing them. It is rough to do that kind of thing with all characters though because now any future character whose name contains jariah syn or deliah blue have to be thought of for both what they gain from cade and from what they could gain from every other faction.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/10/2010
Posts: 756
Location: The Shadowlands of Kashyyyk
|
Echo24 wrote:(Few things will sucker me in to posting faster than a thread titled "Design Philosophy". ) You'll get different answers from every designer, because there isn't a standard or unifying "philosophy" on the team, but here's my personal answer: My preference is not to completely obsolete any given piece with a new version, but if the old version is totally unplayable, I see no problem with "replacing" it. I don't think it's a good idea to let the badness of an old piece stop us from making a good new piece. Sometimes the new piece is even less "good"/"competitive" than the old one (Mara Jade Skywalker Jedi Master vs. Mara Jade Jedi). So yeah, it does happen sometimes. Wolf is a good example, because the old one was totally unplayable. Any new one HAD to be an upgrade or it wouldn't really be worth making. It's not like the new one is a world beater or even used competitively. Bastila Shan is another good example; the old one was useless. I don't think there is any problem with the new one being very good. But if the old piece is good, it's preferential to not outright replace it. Sometimes a new piece is better in some ways and fits the competitive meta better therefore getting played more, but the old piece is still better in other ways. I don't think Luke Hero of Endor is explicitly better than Luke Rebel Commando, they're totally different pieces that do different things and fit in different squads. That's totally fine, and I think preferable. Hope that answers your question. Yeah i like this. Like you said some people really do just need a new better version. I Was just curious if the idea is always to create a new and better version that replaces the old. I know it doesnt always happen either, for example opinions are divided over which Nute Gunray is better (I prefer the original). But its good to know that you wonderful folks aren't just looking to completely replace the originals.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/23/2010
Posts: 3,562
Location: The Hutt, New Zealand
|
Generally, it seems like it's easier to boost non-uniques with CEs etc, than for Uniques.
If it's a weak unique, it's better to remake most of the time IMO. I like what Jan Ors does for Kyle Katarn though - but Kyle did have lots of good things going for him (stats, stealth, hit points), just needed that extra offensive boost from Double and Opportunist.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/30/2008
Posts: 1,288
|
It's not always feasible or desirable to make a new piece to boost old pieces, but Jan Ors is probably my favorite example of it. She's cheap enough that when designing the new Kyle in V-12 we didn't care that she was going to always be played with him and just costed him appropriately with that in mind.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/3/2014
Posts: 2,098
|
There are lots of examples of replacing and lots of examples of trying to boost old.
However, there are examples of trying to help a piece be payable and going way too far or not Far enough.
It must be very difficult to try and essentially make a new piece by boosting an old.
Take Wedge Antilles being boosted by corellian legend way too much and still not tier 1.
And Jacen Solo boosting Limits just giving her gma just doesn't do enough to make her playable.
It seems hey hard to do without replacing them sometimes.
I think the better route is to remake and to be very very picky about who can be boosted and it still be worth it.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/23/2010
Posts: 3,562
Location: The Hutt, New Zealand
|
jen'ari wrote:Take Wedge Antilles being boosted by corellian legend way too much and still not tier 1. I think there's probably a decent competitive squad there, it's just not as broken as everyone was saying when it was released, and you have to give up Disruptive from the other Han.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,428
|
Where possible, I think every piece should have its own niche. I don't like it when a piece completely replaces another one. Especially the more iconic pieces. Like BHC Luke replacing Grand Master Luke Skywalker. Not a fan of that. But that one really wasn't designed to replace GMLS... it was designed for a particular GenCon event (the Bounty Hunter's Challenge).
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/3/2014
Posts: 2,098
|
Competitive, sure. Tier 1 I don't see it.
I remember a lot of people saying it was broken.
But I also remember alot of people saying it is silly to give out so much stuff to one person.
The fact that you can give so much and it not be tier 1 showed that there are done really powerful pieces out there that balance that power combo out. It also reinforces the idea that it is very difficult to make a boost design that works and is still really fun.
|
|
|
Guest |