Okay, excellent. I was just wondering prospectively. I don't have any immediate plans for homebrew ships. Also, were I to make some, they'd probably be 'huge'. I imagine your equation is not set up to handle those.

Nope, I don't have any Huge ship calculations yet. Probably someday. It's still not clear to me what the CR-90 is even worth, let alone the transport.

Forgive me if I misunderstand, but I think that Major Juggler and Red Castle aren't actually talking about the same thing, and to me they both seem somewhat correct. Red Castle makes the point that values are context dependent, and I agree fully with this point. In a world of 1 AGI ships, 2 POW ships are excellent. In a world of 3 AGI ships, 2 POW ships leave a lot to be desired. I think this can't be argued against because the true offensive power of a unit is based on the difference between it's POW and the AGI of it's target, not on it's printed stat. I imagine the good Major's calculations take this into account, but as the result is a single number, it must average the efficiency of a given POW vs various AGI values. I may be wrong, I sincerely need to take a look at the doc, but I haven't had a chance yet.

Yes, the jousting values are dependent on the attack / defense meta. I calculate min / standard / max for both attack and defense, and return the standard value along with the extreme ranges on both extremes. The numbers I quoted here are just the normal values. After Regionals is done I'll re-evaluate what the meta looks like for attack and defense dice.

I'm still not seeing the problem with dial, gamewise or lorewise. Lorewise, it is fast. So fast, that going slow might be a bit more difficult for it. Gamewise, it is able to go slower than the Fighter or Interceptor, which is pretty big. Sure, you have to snake a bit with the 1 banks, but it is better for going slow than the 2 straight.

Reminds me of the Me262... too fast for his time.

Why tail a ship when you can strafe it, turn back on a dime and do it again?

Because, unlike WW2, you don't have an unlimited portion of the sky to strafe wherever you like, turn at your leisure, and come back when you desire. Because, unlike WW2, target speed doesn't affect accuracy and reaction times from enemy gunners.

From a game-wise point of view, the red 2 turn makes the ship equal or less maneuverable at that speed than other ships considered 'sluggish', like the Y-wing, the Bomber, or even the Lambda Shuttle.

Those ships were given those dials and maneuvers precisely to represent in-game their lore sluggyness. And no one complained. But I suspect that in the community, many felt offended to find that sudden and unexpected inability to turn in what have should been a superiority space fighter.

Second, the ship not only has unexpected inability to turn, It also has inability to adjust aim with green maneuvers, making it extra-susceptible to stress. Not only it generates stress if it tries to dogfight... It will also have a hard time removing it.

And regarding its speed, well, it's not the fastest ship around there to begin with... Certainly not more than the humble TIE fighter. The lack of built-in boost only increases its already high cost if you try to push its real speed or compensate the lack of maneuverability, which BTW, they feel like deliberate and bruteforced weaknesses to discourage people to take other modifications over EU.

That's why I believe people are so upset with the dial... Many drawbacks to pay for an experimental advantage. Many ships have 360º firing arc, which IMO, is better in practice than a white K-turn... And their dials, costs, and action bars aren't as much simultaneously compromised as the Defender's ones.

And by definition, an advantage should be something that puts you over something else. It's like saying: "Here, we'll give you an extra pair of arms, but in exchange, we'll cut your legs." Then, there's no advantage at all... you'll end up with the same number of appendages as everyone else... only you move awkwardly. Something similar can be said from the Defender's dial. Yes, it has an advantage no one else has... but so many other disadvantages, than in the end, it has no advantage at all... It only moves awkwardly.

The allusion to the Me262 is about the fact that it was too fast to make a hard turn, so it was shooting, going long then come back. So I personally think that they went this road (hard 1 and 2 red) to get this feeling. Problem is that they are limited to straight 5, so unless they gave a speed 6 ruler with the ship or let you borrow one from a Attack Wing player, they can't go over the 5. There was some game boundaries that they couldn't break, only way was to make the 5 a green to show that it still fly with ease at the maximum speed allowed by the game.

Which leaves you with the Boost action. But a problem come out if you give it the boost action; you raise the price. Right or wrong, FFG consider that the Defender is correctly priced. Giving it another action would have raise the price. Maybe not by 4 as if you took an Engine Upgrade, but still, it would have cost more. A lot of people are already arguing that the ship cost too much, don't raise the basic price. If you want to have boost, you can. If you don't, you don't have to pay for it.

Concerning the only straight green, I would also have loved it if they at least gave one green bank turn option. But they didn't. And they playtested the ship. Do you really think that all the playtesters didn't see this flaw? They didn't gave it for a reason. Maybe, just maybe, allowing this ship to clear stress easily made it too strong. Maybe, giving it 2 actions with PtL and the Boost possibilty made it too strong in certain case. Being able to barrel roll after a k-turn is nice, being able to barrel roll and boost after a k-turn any turn you want... I think would have created a couple of amusing thread. So, from a game design, you have to limit the possibilty. You can do it, but for a price; Take a wingman or Yorr and give PtL to the Defender and Boost.

As for the dial having many drawback, after flying it a couple of time. I can't agree anymore. I did when it was first announce. But now, I fell in love with it. It is different, you either love it or hate it. But in my case, I don,t need boost to make it viable, and I'm not sure if I came into a situation where the hard 1 or 2 was needed. Maybe that's because I flew a lot of stressed Interceptor with only one hard turn possibility and no k-turn that I love this one so much. I'm used to being restricted to only one speed hard turn. The drawback you are talking about is not a drawback in my case. The k-turn is usually a better solution anyway.

Concerning the only straight green, I would also have loved it if they at least gave one green bank turn option. But they didn't. And they playtested the ship. Do you really think that all the playtesters didn't see this flaw? They didn't gave it for a reason.

No, I'm sure they saw the flaw clearly. What I think is that they preferred to be over-cautious and go with it anyways.

The reason probably was that they a little afraid on how a white K-Turn would affect the meta. Unfortunately, both for the players and devs, it seems that the impact will be negligible... By lack of usage of the ship, mainly.

The next regionals>nationals>world will be the true Defender's acid test. We'll see if it really gets a hold in the meta or if it ends sharing hangar with the Advanced.

Concerning the only straight green, I would also have loved it if they at least gave one green bank turn option. But they didn't. And they playtested the ship. Do you really think that all the playtesters didn't see this flaw? They didn't gave it for a reason.

No, I'm sure they saw the flaw clearly. What I think is that they preferred to be over-cautious and go with it anyways.

The reason probably was that they a little afraid on how a white K-Turn would affect the meta. Unfortunately, both for the players and devs, it seems that the impact will be negligible... By lack of usage of the ship, mainly.

The next regionals>nationals>world will be the true Defender's acid test. We'll see if it really gets a hold in the meta or if it ends sharing hangar with the Advanced.

Nah you're probably right. I'm sure the people who are paid to design and playtest this game, which is almost certainly one of the best selling accounts for a popular game company, clearly saw an obvious and major flaw and were like "Meh toss it. Just ship it!" It was probably just a slow day and they decided to mess with all the players. /sarcasmfont/

I really don't like to be a downer on the forums because I do like a bit of healthy debate, but this "OMG a ship that has only been out for a month is totally broken and worthless!!!!" stuff is starting to get really annoying. The Defender has been out for mass use for a month. A MONTH! And already people are willing to decry it as being useless. Don't you think you should maybe give it a little time for people to figure out how to use it properly? Did everyone just immediately LOVE the HWK and the Lambda? No? Didn't think so.

IMO the next round of regionals>nationals>world will most certainly not be the Defender's acid test. It's too soon after release and people are still enamored with the Phantom and Z-95 more so than the E-Wing or the Defender. Probably next year's regionals>nationals>world will be a far better test. I know people don't want to wait that long to decry a ship as broken, but then again patience has kind of completely gone out the window in recent years in general...

The next regionals>nationals>world will be the true Defender's acid test. We'll see if it really gets a hold in the meta or if it ends sharing hangar with the Advanced.

Nothing will likely ever be as bad as the Advanced. Its usage is around 0.03% in the wave 3 Regionals meta. The Defender is at around 1% in the wave 4 meta after 7 tournaments.

Edit: to the above comment: in the history of the game, it has never taken more than a month or so for any of the "good" ships to catch on. HWK and Shuttle probably took the longest; the Shuttle being used more than the HWK.

Nothing will likely ever be as bad as the Advanced.

So useless.

Yeah I know the game it came from. It was a Pillar Of My Childhood. And I still don't see why all the hurt.

<SNIP>

...I once dealt FOUR CRITS to a Lambda shuttle. How awesome is that? Who else can do that? Put Vessery in the same squad as Whisper and with the right loadout, the two ships can get a focus, target lock, target lock, focus, target lock and focus for the action economy of two focus. Even Garvin and Dutch are hard pressed to match that.

I am sorry, would you be so kind as to break the 4 crit scenario down please? Thanks!

Vader is good, so it is hardly "useless".

The 4 crit scenario is easy with Rexlar. Once the shields are down, you can convert all your hits to crits with a focus. I did something similar. Got three hits, flipped them over to get the critical hit needed to kill my opponent's firespray before it attacked back.

Concerning the only straight green, I would also have loved it if they at least gave one green bank turn option. But they didn't. And they playtested the ship. Do you really think that all the playtesters didn't see this flaw? They didn't gave it for a reason.

No, I'm sure they saw the flaw clearly. What I think is that they preferred to be over-cautious and go with it anyways.

The reason probably was that they a little afraid on how a white K-Turn would affect the meta. Unfortunately, both for the players and devs, it seems that the impact will be negligible... By lack of usage of the ship, mainly.

The next regionals>nationals>world will be the true Defender's acid test. We'll see if it really gets a hold in the meta or if it ends sharing hangar with the Advanced.

You really don't give the playtesters a lot of credit, do you?

Not only they decided to put a ship on the market even though it has a flaw that, acording to some, make the ship unplayable (I personally don't think so), but they also couldn't predict how the white k-turn, that they've been playtesting for months, would affect the game. So they decided to overprice the ship just in case, while it looks like it took the community less than a month to figure it out. What are they hiring?

It's definitely not a ship for everyone, just like the Lambda. Some persons love that ship and make it work, and it can be nasty. Others, like me, don't really like how it fly and prefer to take something else instead. It doesn't mean the ship is bad just because it doesn't click with my playstyle. Maybe the Defender is just not for you.

This game is tied to the story. Ships are modeled to spec to match what they look like in the lore.

Their stats also reflect how they should perform in the lore.

The Defender does not do that.

Nicely timed!

Concerning the only straight green, I would also have loved it if they at least gave one green bank turn option. But they didn't. And they playtested the ship. Do you really think that all the playtesters didn't see this flaw? They didn't gave it for a reason.

No, I'm sure they saw the flaw clearly. What I think is that they preferred to be over-cautious and go with it anyways.

The reason probably was that they a little afraid on how a white K-Turn would affect the meta. Unfortunately, both for the players and devs, it seems that the impact will be negligible... By lack of usage of the ship, mainly.

The next regionals>nationals>world will be the true Defender's acid test. We'll see if it really gets a hold in the meta or if it ends sharing hangar with the Advanced.

You really don't give the playtesters a lot of credit, do you?

Not only they decided to put a ship on the market even though it has a flaw that, acording to some, make the ship unplayable (I personally don't think so), but they also couldn't predict how the white k-turn, that they've been playtesting for months, would affect the game. So they decided to overprice the ship just in case, while it looks like it took the community less than a month to figure it out. What are they hiring?

It's definitely not a ship for everyone, just like the Lambda. Some persons love that ship and make it work, and it can be nasty. Others, like me, don't really like how it fly and prefer to take something else instead. It doesn't mean the ship is bad just because it doesn't click with my playstyle. Maybe the Defender is just not for you.

How transparent is the playtesting process?

Do we know how they manage updates? Do the PTs have complete control of the final product? Is it just input?

Who makes the call?

I think your assuming that the PlayTesters have complete control of the final product. I don't believe that's the case.

Designer designs, Playtesters test.

Just because a ship was playtested doesn't mean we see any of the process, or know whose call it was for the final build. So assuming that it has to be all playtesters is just an assumption unless there's an open door posted somewhere on the process for this wave.

So yeah, I do believe that the playtesters could've said there's an issue with it, but if the chain of command errs on the side of caution then yeah, the Defender could have been output in this way.

I'm also one to believe that for the timeline they focused more intently on a ship that caused new rules to come out (Cloak/ Decloak) as an imbalance on cloaking has a much larger chance of breaking the game than some ship with 3s.

To ensure that there's no imbalance would be my priority if I was a designer or playtester.

But it's only speculation, from both side. I have no idea how they playtest their work, and neither do you, unless you are secretly one. I just prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt instead of burning them on the public place. Really, since I don't know how they do it, I really can't argue. But until it is proven that they had no words on it or that they deliberatly released it with a flaw that makes it unplayable, I won't condemn their work.

For my part, the ship works perfectly fine and I love to field it. I also don't feel handicapped when I use it, so I, personally, have no problem with it. You seems to do. That's too bad for you. Maybe use other ship instead? There is not much else I can say.

I've talked to some FFG playtesters. Much with likely all playtesting, it sounds like the designers are not beholden to the playtesters.

At least they do playtest, more than gw does that's for sure.

I do believe this game has more balance than most games I've played, but that doesn't mean that timetables, fear and office politics don't affect them.
If there's one ship they had to playtest and make sure it doesn't screw up the game it's the Phantom. The Phantom has new rules associated with it that no other ship has. Who knows how many different iterations of cloak they had to playtest and come back with: this is way too good or way too bad.
The point is that there have been statements made that the playtesters made the ships this way or that way (see Red Castle above) when I doubt that we even know the process or what's involved.
In the same way, saying that I don't give the playtesters credit is false.
If a ship is pushed out, yet you don't know how it's done, then how can it be the playtesters fault if you don't even know if it's them that finalized it?
It seems like many of you are assuming on the role of the playtesters and posting blanket statements defensively as a viable reason for the way the Defender was released. That's how I feel about it anyway.

It's like the game was designed and play-tested or something...

A-Wings and Tie Advanceds beg to disagree.

Except when you seemed to blame the play testers and designers here...

It's like the game was designed and play-tested or something...

A-Wings and Tie Advanceds beg to disagree.

Except when you seemed to blame the play testers and designers here...

That's my point. You very clearly point out that the game was play tested.

Pushing the assumption that it's playtested is pushing that there's nothing wrong on the bounds that it's playtested.

My statement has no bearance on playtesters, but on FINAL PRODUCTS.

You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to

Alright so if I, personally, think that the ship has been playtested enough and that the choice they made, be it by the playtester or the developper, is alright, I'm making false statement and don't know what I'm talking about. But, if someone else say that they, playtesters or developpers, did see a flaw and released it anyway because they were afraid of the impact or under time constraint, or saying that they didn't playtested them enough because they took more time with the cloak mecanic, that's okay.

Both side speculate.

I am merely trying to say that I am willing to put a little faith in people that are being paid to playtest and design a game over the rest of us who have only had a month to play with it. I don't think it is too much to assume that they may have a little more insight in to how each ship is best used over us at the beginning. In a few months time, our fresh eyes and perspectives may see things that they did not, but right now they are the experts, not us.

I am merely trying to say that I am willing to put a little faith in people that are being paid to playtest and design a game over the rest of us who have only had a month to play with it. I don't think it is too much to assume that they may have a little more insight in to how each ship is best used over us at the beginning. In a few months time, our fresh eyes and perspectives may see things that they did not, but right now they are the experts, not us.

But there's absolutely nothing wrong with us stating that we don't recognize it's value. That a lot of people can't readily recognize what justifies its cost or what makes it worth fielding is not strictly our problem; it's partly a design or communication issue. A ship like the phantom has very obvious value and it's easy to see that because of how it's designed. Whether people are right or wrong, perceptions will dictate the meta and ship purchases, so it's prudent for FFG to make a ship's worth as intuitive as possible.

They sell us the ship and we try it out. It's 100% contingent on us to sort of whether or not it's worth fielding in our 100 point lists. FFG does do that for us, although it would be nice to get the playtester's and designer's input on ships that leave people scratching their heads, wondering where or how it's supposed to fit in.

And there is nothing wrong with us recognizing its value. In fact, there is just no right or wrong here, just opinions. You don't like it, that's fine, I won't force you. Am I wrong to like the ship and how it is differently designed than just a Uber Interceptor? That's just my opinion.

I would hope no one disputes that, Red Castle.

We all have our own opinions.
I just wanted to point out that saying the Defender is perfectly fine because it has been playtested is a very biased statement.
Not only are we not aware of the process of playtesting, but we know from past experience that even if playtesting and design were synchronized that there are ships that don't get played very often (A-Wings and Tie Advanceds). This is evidence to me that the process is imperfect.
I enjoy most of the ships, but again, using the excuse that I should rely on playtesting and that they know what they are doing has little bearance on the usability of the Defender within the X-Wing community.
Although for that matter, only time will tell if even this thread has any bearance at all on the future of the Defender.

And there is nothing wrong with us recognizing its value. In fact, there is just no right or wrong here, just opinions. You don't like it, that's fine, I won't force you. Am I wrong to like the ship and how it is differently designed than just a Uber Interceptor? That's just my opinion.

But if it's worth fielding and/or competitive in a 100 point list, it needs to be demonstrated. There's a reason why this thread exists for the Defender and not the Z95 or Phantom. If it's just a misunderstood ship, surely a competent player who understands it can communicate this and demonstrate its potency against common competitive lists.

I want to be proven wrong about the ship. I own 1 of every wave 4 ship except the Defender; I own three Defenders! But ultimately, the burden of proof is on those who claim the ship is competitive in 100 point lists and can stand up to competitive builds. So far, the only data we have, whether or not it's inadequate, does not suggest that it is worth it. We have no evidence to the contrary! If someone's hiding something, let's see it!

Yeah I know the game it came from. It was a Pillar Of My Childhood. And I still don't see why all the hurt.

<SNIP>

...I once dealt FOUR CRITS to a Lambda shuttle. How awesome is that? Who else can do that? Put Vessery in the same squad as Whisper and with the right loadout, the two ships can get a focus, target lock, target lock, focus, target lock and focus for the action economy of two focus. Even Garvin and Dutch are hard pressed to match that.

I am sorry, would you be so kind as to break the 4 crit scenario down please? Thanks!

Range 1 with Brath on a shuttle, Outmaneuvered, target lock reroll, 4 total hits. Shields already gone, spend the focus token to flip all 4 damage cards faceup. Just like he was meant to do.

And there is nothing wrong with us recognizing its value. In fact, there is just no right or wrong here, just opinions. You don't like it, that's fine, I won't force you. Am I wrong to like the ship and how it is differently designed than just a Uber Interceptor? That's just my opinion.

But if it's worth fielding and/or competitive in a 100 point list, it needs to be demonstrated. There's a reason why this thread exists for the Defender and not the Z95 or Phantom. If it's just a misunderstood ship, surely a competent player who understands it can communicate this and demonstrate its potency against common competitive lists.

I want to be proven wrong about the ship. I own 1 of every wave 4 ship except the Defender; I own three Defenders! But ultimately, the burden of proof is on those who claim the ship is competitive in 100 point lists and can stand up to competitive builds. So far, the only data we have, whether or not it's inadequate, does not suggest that it is worth it. We have no evidence to the contrary! If someone's hiding something, let's see it!

The ship has been officially out for less than a month and the Phantom shiny new mechanic stole the show. Give the community some time.

For my part, I have yet to lose with:

Delta Squadron + HLC x2

Jonus + Predator

It tore Falcon lists appart and played very well against some XXBB list. I have yet to try it against a swarm, which I suspect will be a good counter and Phantom list, against which I think it can do pretty well if I cover my angles right, where I think the white K-turn will help a lot in trapping the Phantom.

Yeah that's the thing, there have been several posts on this very thread about good uses for the Defender that have been more or less ignored.

The generic pilots are some of the best HLC platforms in the game.

Vessery if used properly can be quite effective, especially paired with a Buzzsaw

And Rexler Brath is absolutely lethal against big ships. ThatOneGuy gave an example of that, and I have another:

Rexler Brath + Predator

Bounty Hunter + Seismic Charges

Omicron Group Pilot + Vader

or

Rexler Brath + Predator

Bounty Hunter

Omicron Group Pilot + EU + FCS

The first one is pure damage output ultimately ending with Brath dealing massive criticals fairly routinely. The second one is more effective against lists with big ships mixed with more maneuverable allies. I have yet to lose an epic game (2 played) or a game against a list containing a large based ship (6 games, including tearing through 3 of the popular HSF lists) when using these lists.