Perhaps, the designers are making other thematic valuations that are not picked up in simple josting values- such as they want to see certain ship in play MORE than other ships B. I think by DESIGN some ships are simply made to not be as efficient by the point cost. I think that is a totally appropriate decision in my eyes.

I don't think the developers would have been aware of the concept of jousting values until I presented it with analysis in early 2014. The design of the CR-90 had almost certainly been locked in by that point anyway. I'm not sure when the earliest was that they could have started using the jousting values for, but given that wave 5 was available for early release only a few months later, it would have to be wave 6 at the earliest. Wave 6 was spoiled summer 2014, only a few months after I published the work, which implies the wave 6 design was also probably locked in by this point, meaning wave 7 may actually be the first wave that they could use the "jousting math". This also assumes that they know how to turn the crank on the math without messing up the calculations somewhere. Since they didn't invent the formula, and it is obviously different than the previous ones that they used, who knows what their approach is now.

This is Re: OP (because it's an interesting thread, but I'm too lazy to scroll through four pages of replies).

I think that in general, X-Wing is a fairly balanced game. Of course, no game survives contact with the player base; there will always be a few things that are just off. That's perfectly reasonable, and generally accepted. HOWEVER, I've always felt that FFG needs to look a bit more closely at the opportunity cost of new cards compared to old cards. I obviously have no actualy experience, but the feeling I get from playing the game is that they playtest new ships against old ships to see if they're balanced, rather than just testing a world in which the new ships exist. As a result, they generally avoid broken combos and whatnot, but fail to address the question would someone fly this ship, given the other options out there? Again, that's just a hunch, but it's my way of explaining why they end up producing ships that people just don't fly.

Perhaps, the designers are making other thematic valuations that are not picked up in simple josting values- such as they want to see certain ship in play MORE than other ships B. I think by DESIGN some ships are simply made to not be as efficient by the point cost. I think that is a totally appropriate decision in my eyes.

I don't think the developers would have been aware of the concept of jousting values until I presented it with analysis in early 2014. The design of the CR-90 had almost certainly been locked in by that point anyway. I'm not sure when the earliest was that they could have started using the jousting values for, but given that wave 5 was available for early release only a few months later, it would have to be wave 6 at the earliest. Wave 6 was spoiled summer 2014, only a few months after I published the work, which implies the wave 6 design was also probably locked in by this point, meaning wave 7 may actually be the first wave that they could use the "jousting math". This also assumes that they know how to turn the crank on the math without messing up the calculations somewhere. Since they didn't invent the formula, and it is obviously different than the previous ones that they used, who knows what their approach is now.

I don't think he was implying that they were using *your* jousting values. I think he was saying that maybe there were other concerns in their design beyond the basic math, and he was using the term "jousting values" to describe the math aspect). That's probably true to at least some extent (the phantom as a method to bring back higher PS, and thus named pilots), but I don't think they're really trying to make any pilots inefficient, and I'd guess they're certainly not trying to marginalize iconic generic ships like the x-wing.

Perhaps, the designers are making other thematic valuations that are not picked up in simple josting values- such as they want to see certain ship in play MORE than other ships B. I think by DESIGN some ships are simply made to not be as efficient by the point cost. I think that is a totally appropriate decision in my eyes.

I don't think the developers would have been aware of the concept of jousting values until I presented it with analysis in early 2014. The design of the CR-90 had almost certainly been locked in by that point anyway. I'm not sure when the earliest was that they could have started using the jousting values for, but given that wave 5 was available for early release only a few months later, it would have to be wave 6 at the earliest. Wave 6 was spoiled summer 2014, only a few months after I published the work, which implies the wave 6 design was also probably locked in by this point, meaning wave 7 may actually be the first wave that they could use the "jousting math". This also assumes that they know how to turn the crank on the math without messing up the calculations somewhere. Since they didn't invent the formula, and it is obviously different than the previous ones that they used, who knows what their approach is now.

True but I am sure they have a formula to help assign point cost to ships. And looking at your work, you show why certain ships are more popular in the meta and how you can predict which ships you will see more of.

Going back to the OP though, the question becomes what we should see. I think that question does not necessarily have a correct answer as it depends on how you view balance. In general, outside the cheapest ships, a lot of named pilots are a bit 'on-sale' (Meaning- worth upgrading from the basic version) as compared the generic equivalents (Corran, Han Solo, Fel).

Obviously, with the developers they want to see more Tie Advanced period; thus, we see the specific point adjustment through the 'free' systems upgrade.

Something that's probably worth considering, in discussions of what they do and what they know how to do, is that the game has a great deal of inertia at this point.

Look at the A-wing, for instance: MajorJuggler's work can't explain why Prototype Pilot + Chardaan Refit isn't more popular. Social psychology can, though. People value the familiar, and they don't change their minds easily.

So the game is dragging six waves' worth of releases behind it now, with all their attendant successes and frustrations, and a still-growing and increasingly competitive community of players. Mathematical balance is one major constraint on the designers' work, but in addition whatever they do has to be thematically appealing and either a good fit for the game's shrinking design space, or an expansion of it that doesn't frustrate players. It also has to fit into the game's rules framework, which hasn't expanded very well to fit the style and scope the game has achieved.

I'm not at all saying that we shouldn't hold FFG to a high standard. Speaking personally, I'd like to see every single game element they publish be usable in both competitive and casual settings. But where mistakes exist, a fair standard of judgment might look something like this: to what degree is the mistake an error, and to what degree does it represent an area where those multiple constraints point in different directions?

Something that's probably worth considering, in discussions of what they do and what they know how to do, is that the game has a great deal of inertia at this point.

Look at the A-wing, for instance: MajorJuggler's work can't explain why Prototype Pilot + Chardaan Refit isn't more popular. Social psychology can, though. People value the familiar, and they don't change their minds easily.

So the game is dragging six waves' worth of releases behind it now, with all their attendant successes and frustrations, and a still-growing and increasingly competitive community of players. Mathematical balance is one major constraint on the designers' work, but in addition whatever they do has to be thematically appealing and either a good fit for the game's shrinking design space, or an expansion of it that doesn't frustrate players. It also has to fit into the game's rules framework, which hasn't expanded very well to fit the style and scope the game has achieved.

I'm not at all saying that we shouldn't hold FFG to a high standard. Speaking personally, I'd like to see every single game element they publish be usable in both competitive and casual settings. But where mistakes exist, a fair standard of judgment might look something like this: to what degree is the mistake an error, and to what degree does it represent an area where those multiple constraints point in different directions?

Exactly the meta time component 'when' is another variable. People may just desire certain ships or fly/are familiar with certain ships/upgrades. Can the designers constantly chase this with point corrections to correct perceived imbalances in the game?

Re: Awing. Looking at List Juggler, the Awing usage is about 1/3 of the Bwing despite having about the same jousting efficiency. If I use MathWing 2.5 numbers then the Bwing efficiency ticks up by about 1.5%.

MathWing also tells a few other things though, that lots of small ships don't do well without partial point MoV without a form of control. The B-wing works in Panic Attack, the Awing has no such option.

Beyond that, the Final Cut rate of the Awing is around 91%, which is about where you would expect it from the numbers. The B-wing is doing well around 110%, partially because of its control aspect and system slot upgrades.

So you can't get a 100% predictive picture of everything just from math, but the trends are very consistent.

Also, as far as what formula they used, it was obviously garbage in wave 1 (see TIE Advanced). Alex also said that they got away from using that formula in wave 4, so again, their methods for pricing remain a mystery.

X-wing is well play tested and when there are issues they FAQ it with well reasoned changes.

you want a poorly play tested game...check out STAW and post this question on their BBG board.

This is true and a reason why i still see X-Wing being popular some years ahead.

Okay they had one or two things where i seriously ask myself how this could slip through playtesting. A few examples:

- Tie Swarms were dominant for a pretty long time. The Tie Fighter and all its pilots are crazy good value per point compared to all the other wave 1 and 2 ships and even when generally compared. The simple fact is that they are 1-2 points too cheap. When the game came out i played the intro game and 2 more games and i realized this. I said: "Either the X-Wing is overpriced or the Tie underpriced!" (and the X-Wing was without a doubt the most cost efficient ship Rebels had for a long time). I still say that the Tie was too powerful for its cost during all of wave 1 and 2 at least. How could this slip through playtesting?

- To remedy the low PS spam of ships they then made the Phantom and there they overshot the mark. The Phantom formed a whole new meta and the nerf it now got just confirms what i always thought about it. It was too powerful for its price. Even today if you compare the sheer stats, slots and mechanics, it's ridiculously good value. This ruined a lot of other ships (Defender, E-Wing anyone?) they were looking for a solution against low PS spam, but the playtesting should have shown that it is not wise to make a ship that makes anything in its priceclass look really bad.

But that's it already, and honestly they have always done a superb job with balancing efforts like the Advanced title, A-Wing ant interceptor buffs, and many more they did. This shows that FFG still cares about the evolution of X-Wing and that is great!

Concerning unused cards... Yes there are, as well as pilots. But often they then bring out something that makes said card or Pilot totally worthwile taking in a certain combo or configuration.

An ecample dor this would be Opportunist and Palob Godhali for ecample, or Farlander and Stay on Target.., so you see every Ship or upgrade may well se its second spring at some point!

I think to be fair to FFG for Wave 1 and the points values for the ships in it, I think a number of the values were decided with more of a nod towards number of hulls than jousting value. X-wings and Tie Advanced are 21 points so you can only run 4. TIE's were 12 points to limit to 8. Y-wings were 18 so you could run 5 but really were going to run 4 with turrets.

Prior to the game taking off this was not a bad call as to valuation.

I don't think it's really a matter of not making inefficient upgrades/ships, it's more a matter of making sure a you don't make a handful of obnoxious OP things that then make everything else inefficient in comparison. Maybe if Predator didn't exist we'd see more weapons engineers. If FCS wasn't around maybe we'd see more sensor jammer, etc. A wings wouldn't be that bad if they didn't have to face the wave 5 meta.

I ask you to go through your X wing gear and tell me there isn't a lot of stuff you don't use, or better still would not dare to take those ships/pilots/upgrades to a store game.

No matter what you think about FFG play testing.

You can't deny that ordinance and the ships that depend on them (tie bomber) were not play tested enough, out of all those cards all but a few ever see any use!

This lack of use is not the result of good play testing!

I am not saying they did not play test, or that the game suffered from poor play testing, I simply mean that there are a lot of components that go unused.

Please remember I only point this out because X wing is one of my most played game of all time and I care about the game