Kdub has exposed the meat of the issue here. OP's complaint is valid but there are several other more salient points of contention. I'd like to see Kdub's list broken out into its own discussion.

While his list certainly has valid points, I think everything from wave 1 and possibly wave 2 gets a pass. You simply can not achieve the level of balance you guys are talking about before a game is released and played in the wild. No amount of playtesting g is going to catch everything so the first wave or two you have to expect to have some imbalances.

You absolutely can achieve that level of balance, but it requires some properly applied advanced mathematics.

Unfortunately that capability is not cheap in the marketplace. Most game companies (FFG absolutely included) are not known for hiring technical eggheads with the corresponding salary.

I know some Maths majors who'd love to be paid above minimum wage, let alone a competitive corporate salary.

Defensive cards should be more expensive than attack cards since the game is meant to be stacked in favour of the attack.

If you haven't tried Flight Instructor and Sensor Jammer on a VI ACD Whisper you don't know what you are missing. Makes Whisper survive a long time even against TLT's due to the Flight Instructor defensive reroll and sensor jammer. This is my standard kitting for Whisper these days when I run her.

I flew my Whisper with 2 Storms with AC and Cluster Missiles against the old standard Whisper(VI,Gunner,FCS,ACD) with 2 RGP's with PTL and AT at a recent tournament. I won the game 100-0. I made final table in this tournament against Feedback Array brobots and only lost due to FA. The round prior to final I played against two glitterstimmed brobots. Lost my Storms but Whisper took both brobots out on her own without taking a single damage.

Having a strong defence is incredibly valuable in the current meta. A ship that isn't on the table can't shoot.

With all this said, I do believe things are play tested quite thoroughly but putting more eyes on it yields more variance obviously. I think FFG and the Playtesters do a great job with these. Sure some things need to be FAQ'd and or clarified otherwise but for the most part they are doing a superb job. I was originally against the MOV big ship nerf but have since seen that it was VERY good for the game. It is way more fun to play now. I never ran a meta list before so the current broad meta is quite fun for me with my oddball underdog lists.

I took the Whisper (FltI/SJ/ACD/VI) and 2 Storms (x1/AC/PRocket/MkII) build out tonight. Holy crap... that's a ton of fun. And getting a Proton Rocket one-shot (4 Booms, 1 Kablam - Direct Hit) on Poe that had TL and Focus on it was just awesome. Whisper never took a hit in this one either.

With respect, you don't know what you don't know.

Maybe I don't want my competition getting too many good ideas from me if I start my own game company or do some consulting someday.

(...)

Not sure exactly what you mean by Wired keeping Ibtisam in a corner weeping, as it may just be her saving grace. Getting a guaranteed re-roll on a blank and all eyes may not be enough for me to consider taking her (lots of other ways to spend 29+ points), but it certainly makes her interesting.

Wired is very much alike her ability. Thus bereaving her of her "uniqueness" - much less incentive to field her to use a cool mechanic. As you now can get a very similar mechanic with just any pilot with an Ept slot.

Flight instructor. Has a less likely return, and fewer triggers, than its offensive counterpart Predator, uses a really good slot for other things, and is a stupid four points. Mind you it was a really long time ago they made that one. But come on, you didn't even use it as the bar to compare like upgrades to.

I don't really see the point of Ibtisam over, for example, a generic with Fire Control System or Advanced Sensors.

Regardless of her re-rolls, she's only got one green die to defend her, and with Crack Shot floating around it won't do her much good.

Speaking of, I too think Arvel should have an EPT slot standard. Stupidly, I accidentally did that in our league with PTL+Wired which made him lots of annoying, not-fun for both of us. Before you get excited I caught the mistake and reported myself, the records are getting modified now.

Flight instructor. Has a less likely return, and fewer triggers, than its offensive counterpart Predator, uses a really good slot for other things, and is a stupid four points. Mind you it was a really long time ago they made that one. But come on, you didn't even use it as the bar to compare like upgrades to.

I entirely disagree. It's a defensive upgrade, and one of the few ones at that. Sure, it's possible to work with the concept of a good offense beats a good defense, but in the changing shifts (and local flavour) of a seeing a lot of PS 1 and 2 ships, it's well worth it. I can only shoot at one ship per turn, but it's very likely that I'll draw fire from more than one. It works on every defense roll - whether or not it generates a benefit relies more on the rolls, but not the situation. Combined with Sensor Jammer, it can force an opponent to use their Focus when they'd rather not, and may just give that extra Evade to avoid a hit. I like it. YMMV.

Ymmv? Don't recognize that one :/

Your Mileage May Vary.

Ymmv? Don't recognize that one :/

Clearly you don't spend any time on TV Tropes.

Remember this wasn't intended to be a highly compeditive wargame, and balance was done in a much more primitive fashion accordingly, including an outright formula (Which is where the PS thing being 1pt per came from).

X-wings cost 21points because they felt that 5 X-wings was too good for 100pts, not because they were worth 21points. As noted, only limited playtesting in the first wave or two (Where the focus would have been on rules streamlining more than pointbuy balance, at that!) before they realised what a juggernaught they were breeding... well, they're better at it now.

And let's not forget what X-Wing actually was when you consider the original core set as the only product in the line (soon to be followed by Y-Wings and TIE Advanceds).

There were more pages dedicated to the cinematic play in the original manual than to the squadron building "advanced rules". It was a game about recreating the dogfights from the movies in scenarios included with the game or with its expansions.

TIE Advanceds were balanced back then when Imperials had wave reinforcements in those scenarios, while Rebels didn't.

Complaining that those ships weren't balanced for 100 points, deathmatch, no objectives, competitive play is like complaining that Descent monsters and heroes aren't balanced for 100 points versus, deathmatch, competitive play.

The game shifted focus when all of sudden people started ignoring a great part of the original rule book and the later large expansions scenario sheets, and restricted themselves to that half page of 100 point squadron optional advanced rules.

There were more pages dedicated to the cinematic play in the original manual than to the squadron building "advanced rules". It was a game about recreating the dogfights from the movies in scenarios included with the game or with its expansions.

If that were the case, you'd think they'd have put more effort into making playable scenarios as opposed to the hilariously lopsided ones they actually gave us.

Nope! Sure don't. And yes my mileage has carried significantly with instructor. For a hot minute it was at best a thought provoking pick in our area back in like wave four, but not anymore. If I want something with a crew slot to be defensive there are plenty of other, better, and cheaper ways I can do it in Imperials or Rebels, and there's not much vibe for it in Scum. I couldn't think of anything I'd have that instructor would get it's value on. What are you putting the thing into that's working right now?

There were more pages dedicated to the cinematic play in the original manual than to the squadron building "advanced rules". It was a game about recreating the dogfights from the movies in scenarios included with the game or with its expansions.

If that were the case, you'd think they'd have put more effort into making playable scenarios as opposed to the hilariously lopsided ones they actually gave us.

If by that you meant that they weren't mirror matches, you are right.

But the asymmetrical nature of those scenarios is what makes them great, and requires a totally different mindset from the 100-point deathmatches. My group played and replayed them and finding "the trick" is most of the time the greatest fun, as it leads to players discussing and strategizing out of the game, and coming out with a new plan.

I have to agree with Azrapse. I too lament the loss of the game's more cinematic focus.

I love competitive play a whole lot, but there's a huge amount of game that most people miss out on when they completely disregard the scenarios and campaigns.

Crafting custom campaigns is a bucket load of fun too, and I highly recommend it. Narrative gameplay can be an exciting experience, since you're likely to become attached to your pilots, regardless of their "tournament efficiency".

e: I should probably get around to typing up my own narrative campaigns and posting them online at some point.

Nope! Sure don't. And yes my mileage has carried significantly with instructor. For a hot minute it was at best a thought provoking pick in our area back in like wave four, but not anymore. If I want something with a crew slot to be defensive there are plenty of other, better, and cheaper ways I can do it in Imperials or Rebels, and there's not much vibe for it in Scum. I couldn't think of anything I'd have that instructor would get it's value on. What are you putting the thing into that's working right now?

Against TLT's it's decent.

Saw it on a Super Dash a week or so ago. Helped further crush a player with a mixed tie fighter/FO swarm.

Chances are it's going to save you a little health. Only overpriced by a point IMO.

In defense of Flight Instructor, he is great if you combine it woth Lone Wolf, that way you can reroll both blanks, and eyeballs.

This work great on Firesprays.

But when meta shifts from High PS pilots, i would like to try Whisper with sensor jammer, Flight instrctor and Lone Wolf.

In defense of Flight Instructor, he is great if you combine it woth Lone Wolf, that way you can reroll both blanks, and eyeballs.

This work great on Firesprays.

But when meta shifts from High PS pilots, i would like to try Whisper with sensor jammer, Flight instrctor and Lone Wolf.

With Flight Instructor against PS2 and lower you can reroll a blank instead of a focus.

It is the cost of a shield upgrade and I've used it quite a few times and so has my son in quite a few games. Above all it makes Whisper a tough nut to crack and the opponents shy away from shooting at her.

Re: Counter Measures:

I actually think that Counter Measures is costed about right. If you compare it to the gold standard of defensive upgrades- hull upgrade, which give you 1 additional hull- it should easily save you 1 hull in MOST games. But therein lies one of its 2 problems: it's too situational. CM is great if you're getting swarmed by 5-8 attacks in one round, or if it removes a Target Lock at just the right time. It's awesome if you go up against an ATC Advanced, or a swarm, or anything with target lock based ordinance. But then there are other times when luck and/or your opponent's list just aren't in your favor, and then it's wasted points.

But that's only secondary to CM's main problem: it's a modification, which means that it's competing with two of the best upgrade cards in the game: Autothrusters and Engine upgrade. And it just doesn't hold up against them.

You simply can not achieve the level of balance you guys are talking about before a game is released and played in the wild.

You absolutely can achieve that level of balance,

No, you can't.

Even you have admitted that your math wing dies not take into account all factors (such as the value of a ship's dial) and you've had 3 years to work on it. I've also seen you comment that you tweak your model based on major tournament results, which is not something that can be done until a game has been released.

With respect, you don't know what you don't know.

There are multiple models and processes that can be used. I have only published one. Maybe I don't want my competition getting too many good ideas from me if I start my own game company or do some consulting someday.

Wayyy off topic, but I think a better question is "Would you want that level of balance?". MtG has benefited greatly off of alternating ridiculous OP cards (which is exciting to players) and really mediocre cards (which helps settle out the field after omg OP seasons) for a while now. In that way the game always feels exciting and that you have something to beat somehow.

I have played games that felt very well balanced, but quickly became very boring, since it felt like many of your decisions at a given moment were made arbitrary because of the balance.I think players don't really want perfect balance. I don't enjoy those games as much as the ones where "so and so is broken, lets dogpile him".

Really psychological here: but it's very akin to the argument made in the Matrix. People don't want and can't accept Utopia. I have found that to be true. So while a mathematical model for balance may be possible, I think the real question is would anyone enjoy it and want to buy it?

You simply can not achieve the level of balance you guys are talking about before a game is released and played in the wild.

You absolutely can achieve that level of balance,

No, you can't.

Even you have admitted that your math wing dies not take into account all factors (such as the value of a ship's dial) and you've had 3 years to work on it. I've also seen you comment that you tweak your model based on major tournament results, which is not something that can be done until a game has been released.

With respect, you don't know what you don't know.

There are multiple models and processes that can be used. I have only published one. Maybe I don't want my competition getting too many good ideas from me if I start my own game company or do some consulting someday.

Wayyy off topic, but I think a better question is "Would you want that level of balance?". MtG has benefited greatly off of alternating ridiculous OP cards (which is exciting to players) and really mediocre cards (which helps settle out the field after omg OP seasons) for a while now. In that way the game always feels exciting and that you have something to beat somehow.

I have played games that felt very well balanced, but quickly became very boring, since it felt like many of your decisions at a given moment were made arbitrary because of the balance.I think players don't really want perfect balance. I don't enjoy those games as much as the ones where "so and so is broken, lets dogpile him".

Really psychological here: but it's very akin to the argument made in the Matrix. People don't want and can't accept Utopia. I have found that to be true. So while a mathematical model for balance may be possible, I think the real question is would anyone enjoy it and want to buy it?

I think the sort of balance that people are looking for in X-Wing is one where they can take their favorite pilot or ship and build a solid, competitive list around them. If X-Wing can pass that, it's probably balanced enough.

Re: Counter Measures:

I actually think that Counter Measures is costed about right. If you compare it to the gold standard of defensive upgrades- hull upgrade, which give you 1 additional hull- it should easily save you 1 hull in MOST games. But therein lies one of its 2 problems: it's too situational. CM is great if you're getting swarmed by 5-8 attacks in one round, or if it removes a Target Lock at just the right time. It's awesome if you go up against an ATC Advanced, or a swarm, or anything with target lock based ordinance. But then there are other times when luck and/or your opponent's list just aren't in your favor, and then it's wasted points.

But that's only secondary to CM's main problem: it's a modification, which means that it's competing with two of the best upgrade cards in the game: Autothrusters and Engine upgrade. And it just doesn't hold up against them.

Phew, I was worried nobody would talk about this.

I think, based on the situational...-ness... of the card, it should be 2 points. Not to mention, why would anyone pick it over Engine Upgrade or a nice, cheaper mod (on a slow, low-PS ship) like APL, Tactical Jammer, etc? 3-point situational 1-shot cards are rare, probably because they are so hard to use... Hot Shot Blaster is actually better IMO, because it's an offensive card that leaves you in control of its effectiveness, not your opponent.

You simply can not achieve the level of balance you guys are talking about before a game is released and played in the wild.

You absolutely can achieve that level of balance,

No, you can't.

Even you have admitted that your math wing dies not take into account all factors (such as the value of a ship's dial) and you've had 3 years to work on it. I've also seen you comment that you tweak your model based on major tournament results, which is not something that can be done until a game has been released.

With respect, you don't know what you don't know.

There are multiple models and processes that can be used. I have only published one. Maybe I don't want my competition getting too many good ideas from me if I start my own game company or do some consulting someday.

It doesn't particularly matter which model you use. They all require data to tune and without a released game you don't have a sufficient amount of it. Playtest data can get you part of the way there but within the small sample size of a playtest group you will get skewed results. Not to mention the issue of a meta developing within that small group, that in no way resembles the meta when released to a larger audience, which further skews things. Having said that... it's entirely possible that had X Wing had a bit more rigorous math applied to it during development that better results would have been obtained. But they still would have fallen short of the results obtainable after tuning things with years of numerous tournament results from a wide variety of only semi-dependent sources. Looking back now, whether with a model or with a critical eye it's easy to spot flaws. But with the data available then those models would be build on different underlying assumptions and be tuned wildly differently. Consequently the results would follow suit and we'd still have OP or undercosted cards, just maybe different ones.

As a sidenote, I find the whole "I know the answer but won't tell you because it's such an amazing idea that I'm going to keep it secret and make my own game with it" to pretty much be the Godwin's Law of game design discussion. You either have an argument to contribute or you don't. If it's an amazing secret that you don't want the wider world to know, great then keep it a secret and don't mention it. If you want to use it to claim something then reveal it. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Wayyy off topic, but I think a better question is "Would you want that level of balance?". MtG has benefited greatly off of alternating ridiculous OP cards (which is exciting to players) and really mediocre cards (which helps settle out the field after omg OP seasons) for a while now. In that way the game always feels exciting and that you have something to beat somehow.

I have played games that felt very well balanced, but quickly became very boring, since it felt like many of your decisions at a given moment were made arbitrary because of the balance.I think players don't really want perfect balance. I don't enjoy those games as much as the ones where "so and so is broken, lets dogpile him".

Really psychological here: but it's very akin to the argument made in the Matrix. People don't want and can't accept Utopia. I have found that to be true. So while a mathematical model for balance may be possible, I think the real question is would anyone enjoy it and want to buy it?

I think the sort of balance that people are looking for in X-Wing is one where they can take their favorite pilot or ship and build a solid, competitive list around them. If X-Wing can pass that, it's probably balanced enough.

To elaborate on WWHSD's point: making ships useful and "balanced" should not equate to a boring game. If it does, then you have designed your game wrong.

Mechanically, you want to design most games (X-wing certainly included) with an element of natural counters. Think paper rock scissors, but not to that extreme of 100% counters. Without counters there can only be one "best ship", which leads to an extremely boring game.

Not only do counters make for a much more interesting game than simply picking which ship is mathematically superior, it gives the designers some wiggle room to "get it wrong" and still have a reasonably healthy meta. This is more or less where X-wing is now. Only about 20% - 30% of the Pilot cards are actually viable in high level tournament play, but there is still a reasonable squad archetype diversity.

If X-wing had a better process for designing and costing pilot cards, then you could realistically aim to get around 75% to 90% of all pilot cards being viable in high level play. The metagame would then be more diverse than it is now, since there would be more viable ships, pilots, and mechanics.

However, it is very difficult to get there. Any game designer essentially has three levels of adjustments at their disposal:

1. initial design process to get a first cut at the ship mechanics and cost
2. feedback from playtesters
3. feedback from high level tournament results

The third is the real test, and you don't get that before the product ships, but it does feed forward into future designs, hopefully improving your process for steps #1 and #2.

There are multiple tools that you can use for each stage. As Forgottenlore pointed out above, you need more than one set of tools to determine game balance as a designer, otherwise stuff hits your blind spots and you'll get it wrong. However the common thread with each stage is that to do it "right", you should be pretty math-intensive in each of these three steps. The metrics and math looks totally different, but all require a solid fundamental understanding of the underlying game theory. The problem is that said tools don't publicly exist. Someone has to go create them. You should be able to follow the math with an undergraduate or master's degree in mathematics or related field, but to initially develop and validate the underlying models is more in line with advanced graduate research.

The end goal is for it to be completely invisible to the end-user. They can just grab whatever ships they want, and know that they can find a way to make a reasonable squad out of it.