Or look at data-driven political analysis against traditional punditry. The polls in the race for the Republican presidential nomination are essentially unchanged since December:

I would not use political polls as examples

because they aren't always reliable. A few times Sanders has won a state against the poll's predictions.

more on the discussion's topic, and following along the lines of what MajorJuggler says, I think it's fair to say that game designers like FFG hire specific talents with a certain set of creative abilities. they probably don't think it's necessary to hire a quantitative analyst with a PhD in physics, math or similar expertise in statistical and quantitative analysis to help in the design process.

Actually, I think it is. Because it involves people. Thus, a bit of psychology is needed to understand voting habits.

Which sort of goes to the major disagreement I have with MajorJuggler's method. He is all about the technical balance. With a pure balance as a goal. But, I feel an imperfect balance is a much more interesting game. But, this essentially boils down to Euro games vs Ameritrash games. While I do think that the Ameritrash method has a bit more of a wider appeal, I don't think the Euro game approach is necessarily wrong.

The one game where the plan didn't come to pass is when he zoomed in Super Dengar on Redline and killed him turn two with Dengar's focus fire and Manaroo support. However, ZetaL survived both a R1 Super Dengar shot AND the return fire in-arc shot with only one shield damage - statistically near-impossible odds.

So I do hope you realize that you are saying that one game means the game is dice dependant, then saying the reason you win is your skill. I can see a 75% skill 25% dice split. If it was anything else you wouldn't see the same people winning every tournament set.

Just food for thought.

more on the discussion's topic, and following along the lines of what MajorJuggler says, I think it's fair to say that game designers like FFG hire specific talents with a certain set of creative abilities. they probably don't think it's necessary to hire a quantitative analyst with a PhD in physics, math or similar expertise in statistical and quantitative analysis to help in the design process.

More they don't have the money to hire someone like that. Those skillsets do not come cheap, and FFG would not have the profit margin to afford to actually employ them.

Further, there's more to the problem than that. I'm pretty good at the math (so is MJ, but bear with me), but do I have the lateral thinking needed? Sometimes there's more to the balance than just the prices, and a good designer needs to see that.

Palp might be worth 20pts, but if so he shield never, ever, be priced at that. The corrective choose-instead-of-roll would be the better fix.

This isn't to say they wouldn't benefit from a 'final pass' balance sweep, though. Maybe recruit worlds & nationals champs for blind price submissions?

Much as I'd hate to role myself out of at contributing, it's certainly one way to narrow the field.

I feel like I'm pissing into the wind a bit, but has anyone considered that a game balanced perfectly at 100 points isn't necessarily going to be balanced at 300 or more?

Or that not everything SHOULD be balanced for the 100 point dogfight? Forcing every ship to be able to pull it's weight in a furball might mean they miss out on opportunities to shine at things like destroying Epic ships?

There are more ways to play than the 100 point snoozefest, and I would hate for other point sizes and game types to be broken because we're seeking perfect balance for the tournament format.

I feel like I'm pissing into the wind a bit, but has anyone considered that a game balanced perfectly at 100 points isn't necessarily going to be balanced at 300 or more?

It seems, to me at least, fairly obvious that this would be the case, but at the same time there's no real solution to this 'problem'. You design at 100, then things are going to be askew at 300. But the reverse is true; if you designed for 300, things would be askew at 100. In fact, you pick any number and the same problem arises. If you design the game to be balanced at point value X, then that balance will be thrown out if you start playing at point value Y. There is no magic number where everything falls into place in all formats.

Or that not everything SHOULD be balanced for the 100 point dogfight? Forcing every ship to be able to pull it's weight in a furball might mean they miss out on opportunities to shine at things like destroying Epic ships?

There are more ways to play than the 100 point snoozefest, and I would hate for other point sizes and game types to be broken because we're seeking perfect balance for the tournament format.

You're probably not to take this well, but what can I do? Yes, the game should absolutely without fail be balanced for 100 point play.

There are a few of reasons for this. As I said above, you kind of just need to pick a number and run with it, and FFG chose 100 quite some time ago. But also, FFG don't have the data to balance things properly at higher (or even lower) point levels. How are they supposed to know that the Aggressor is overpowered in Epic, or that the Punisher is poor in Escalation?* They have hardly any tournament reports or official events to draw information from to make balance decisions. How do they tell which way to nudge the formats? That is, I suspect, partly why Epic, Team Epic, Escalation, etc are all restricted to being casual formats by FFG themselves. They probably realise that they can't keep them and the 100-point mode properly balanced at the same time.

* Note: I have no idea if these things are true or not, as I play these formats once or twice a year. Just making examples.

more on the discussion's topic, and following along the lines of what MajorJuggler says, I think it's fair to say that game designers like FFG hire specific talents with a certain set of creative abilities. they probably don't think it's necessary to hire a quantitative analyst with a PhD in physics, math or similar expertise in statistical and quantitative analysis to help in the design process.

More they don't have the money to hire someone like that. Those skillsets do not come cheap, and FFG would not have the profit margin to afford to actually employ them.

not sure what you think people with a PhD in physics or math are paid, but it isn't much, save for a few fields. for example, I remember my salary at the university of austin, TX, was about 40k I believe, not something that FFG can't afford, I think (and I have a PhD from Cambridge). I only managed to have enough money at the time because I was not a US citizen so I was actually tax-exempt (and also because I'm originally from europe hence I have no education debts). it is only for the few who get a semi-permanent or permanent (tenure) position that the salary increases significantly.

additionally, a lot of people with a PhD in physics or math are actually either unemployed or are employed in a field that is only tangentially related to their expertise.

sure there is a significant number of exceptions, for example quantitative analysts in finance can make half a million dollars per year, but it's highly competitive to get those jobs and it is a very stressing environment.

salaries in the industry or private companies can be higher than in academia of course, and it is possible to make 70k-100k (probably not at your first job though).

however, not any random doctor in physics or math would be a good choice to work, for example, at FFG. you need someone who has the right mind set and a love for the game. but I don't think cost is a factor.

Or look at data-driven political analysis against traditional punditry. The polls in the race for the Republican presidential nomination are essentially unchanged since December:

I would not use political polls as examples

because they aren't always reliable. A few times Sanders has won a state against the poll's predictions.

more on the discussion's topic, and following along the lines of what MajorJuggler says, I think it's fair to say that game designers like FFG hire specific talents with a certain set of creative abilities. they probably don't think it's necessary to hire a quantitative analyst with a PhD in physics, math or similar expertise in statistical and quantitative analysis to help in the design process.

Actually, I think it is. Because it involves people. Thus, a bit of psychology is needed to understand voting habits.

Which sort of goes to the major disagreement I have with MajorJuggler's method. He is all about the technical balance. With a pure balance as a goal. But, I feel an imperfect balance is a much more interesting game. But, this essentially boils down to Euro games vs Ameritrash games. While I do think that the Ameritrash method has a bit more of a wider appeal, I don't think the Euro game approach is necessarily wrong.

I am not sure you can have pure balance in a game that has a random component, in a sense. I'm not an expert at chess but you'd think it's almost perfectly balanced but I think white has a small advantage due to moving first.

what I think FFG could improve, and what a quant analyst could help with, is things like, certain ships are obviously overcosted compared to others. I don't even need to make examples I think. this type of balance would only improve the playability of more ships, hence improving choices and variety.

You're probably not to take this well, but what can I do? Yes, the game should absolutely without fail be balanced for 100 point play.

There are a few of reasons for this. As I said above, you kind of just need to pick a number and run with it, and FFG chose 100 quite some time ago. But also, FFG don't have the data to balance things properly at higher (or even lower) point levels. How are they supposed to know that the Aggressor is overpowered in Epic, or that the Punisher is poor in Escalation?* They have hardly any tournament reports or official events to draw information from to make balance decisions. How do they tell which way to nudge the formats? That is, I suspect, partly why Epic, Team Epic, Escalation, etc are all restricted to being casual formats by FFG themselves. They probably realise that they can't keep them and the 100-point mode properly balanced at the same time.

* Note: I have no idea if these things are true or not, as I play these formats once or twice a year. Just making examples.

I still think it's fair to acknowledge that not everyone is interested in competitive play, and not every ship needs to be created or balanced for the tournament format. It would be fine, for instance, if the Y Wing sucked at the tournament furball mission, but was excellent at burning down Epic ships in 300+ point games.

I feel like I'm pissing into the wind a bit, but has anyone considered that a game balanced perfectly at 100 points isn't necessarily going to be balanced at 300 or more?

Or has anyone even considered that X-Wing isn't balanced for a 100-point game?

In most wargames, it wouldn't matter if something were a point or two off price - either low or high - because the average size of the game is large enough that inefficiencies or over-efficiencies are absorbed in the margins, giving a player freer reign to pick something good and balance something less-good. There are always units that are broken awful (Fel's Wrath), but you can take something hyper-efficient (Darth Vader) and have margin for something that performs less than optimally but still can do a job (Imp Boba Fett).

However, in 100-point X-Wing, the margin is so razor thin that EVERYTHING you take HAS to perform at hyper-efficient levels, either based on sheer points efficiency or because your own skill can compensate for the sub-efficient choices. Juno Eclipse is almost as good as Vader with a lot of options to keep her very mobile and arc-dodgy, but you don't risk taking her when for just one more point you can have the best. Turr Phenirr is really mobile and can arc-dodge after taking a shot, but taking anything less than the hyper-efficient Fel or the control piece Carnor is too much risk at the point value.

I see the current 100-point limit as being akin to the classic cutdown version of Warhammer 40k, called 40k in 40 Minutes with 400 points, without the restriction GW had with no HQ or Heavy Support models, because those would have focused too much power in a single model and less powerful units would have struggled to deal with them, and the game would have devolved into who can take the strongest HQ/HS - sound like a familiar balance problem?

X-Wing feels unbalanced towards certain upgrades and models because it IS unbalanced... why? Because a tournament day HAS to have 8+ rounds? I hate actually complementing 40k, but three two-hour rounds resolve a top cut just fine.

Right now tournaments aren't necessarily won by the players with the most skill, but by the players with the most stamina. Nerds shouldn't put points into Constitution, just Int/Dex.

I'd like to see efficiency numbers if 200 points were the standard, or even 150. At that you could take inefficient models - say, a wing of Mangler Scyks? - because if they were outmanevered it wouldn't be the end of the world. You could have more than one tactic and a moment of bad dice luck wouldn't mean a lost game, just a lost ship.

X-Wing... feels like half a wargame at the 100-point level. Epic feels right, but I've done so few actual Epic games that judging it is hard.

And yet - people will downvote this because they'll say, "Oh, a 2 hour playtime is too long!" Really? Board games on average are designed for that time. Wargames have revolved around that time for decades. It's the average movie runtime, with some going towards 3 hours. And you think your attention span won't cover it?

I've played wargames in tournaments that require 3 hours(and epic games go closer to 3 than 2 hours), and having only 3 rounds is a real problem. 40k tournaments are trash tier and games of its ilk are garbage. Wargames, especially miniatures wargames, have been utter trash for decades. That's no reason to go back. I don't mind Warmahordes or even 40k game lengths, but I wouldn't want X-wing to be that because a lot of the appeal of the game is that most games can easily be completed in a 75 minute round.

BTW, in epic, it doesn't open things up as much as you might think. The epic ships are kinda trash mathematically aside from maybe the transport with some very specific upgrades and stuff that jousts well in 100 point play will joust well in epic. You can put down 12 TLTs in 300 point epic if you want quite easily.

I don't think palp is overpowered. Mostly because there isn't a great ship he fits into. The shuttle is only good for him because it's cheap, but it's a mediocre ship at best.

Mediocre?

. Without Palp who would fly a shuttle?

Yes? Up to Three of em actually.

With Lockdown (OL) and points to spare for added shenanigans.

I take it you never flew a death shuttle. Shame cause that thing is much better for its points then a patrol leader with Darth.

40k tournaments are trash tier and games of its ilk are garbage.

Maybe, but their tournament formats are not part of the reason. Coming from a wargaming background, it boggles my mind that people can't stomach the thought of a 2 day event. Or any kind of event that deviates from a specific set of tournament rules. To be honest, the X Wing tournament crowd appears to be a bit precious.

but I wouldn't want X-wing to be that because a lot of the appeal of the game is that most games can easily be completed in a 75 minute round.

I can't imagine many people would give up X Wing if the tournament format moved to 90 minutes.

BTW, in epic, it doesn't open things up as much as you might think. The epic ships are kinda trash mathematically aside from maybe the transport with some very specific upgrades and stuff that jousts well in 100 point play will joust well in epic. You can put down 12 TLTs in 300 point epic if you want quite easily.

Epic ships are not garbage.

Some things that are powerful in the tournament format are still powerful in Epic. Some things are not. The dynamic changes a great deal.

I take it you never flew a death shuttle. Shame cause that thing is much better for its points then a patrol leader with Darth.

The doomshuttle is way underrated, I agree. I've played it a few times with electronic baffle now, and it improves the ship hugely.

Its big weakness was always if your opponent toally ignored it, and let it sail on by the furball into irrelevance. Baffle means it stays exactly where you want it, and can no longer be ignored. Sits particularly well when wedged between asteroids, totally blocking off an area, helping to keep the enemy in arc.

It returns it to what it should be - a piñata full of wasps.

more on the discussion's topic, and following along the lines of what MajorJuggler says, I think it's fair to say that game designers like FFG hire specific talents with a certain set of creative abilities. they probably don't think it's necessary to hire a quantitative analyst with a PhD in physics, math or similar expertise in statistical and quantitative analysis to help in the design process.

More they don't have the money to hire someone like that. Those skillsets do not come cheap, and FFG would not have the profit margin to afford to actually employ them.

I would take a substantial cut on my most recent salary if I could (a) work on games I love, and (b) work remotely. This argument has not so far persuaded FFG to reply to my applications with anything but a form letter--probably because even a very low Ph.D. salary is still very distant from what FFG prefers to pay their developers.

By which I mean this: HEY! FFG! You can reach me by forum PM, phone, or email if you want me to get more involved with the design and development side of X-wing.

Or has anyone even considered that X-Wing isn't balanced for a 100-point game?

Yes, we have.

However, in 100-point X-Wing, the margin is so razor thin that EVERYTHING you take HAS to perform at hyper-efficient levels...

No, it doesn't. Your list overall has to perform at a greater level of efficiency than your opponent's list, which is a very different thing.

You say you want the game to play like the movies?

What's more like the movies then the insanely hard, seemingly hopeless fight against the evil Emperor whose very goal is to oppress you.

That's just rebel (scum) propaganda. The movies are really about a terrorist cell who uses starfighters (planes) to blow up the most powerful military installation in the galaxy (United states). For some reason in 1978 they saw the terrorists as the heroes. Now, not so much.

Terrorists attack civilian populations. You know, like blowing up an entire planet of civilians.

"Fear will keep the local systems, in line. Fear of this battlestation" - A terrorist.

There was this thing...happened during a war...2 cities...Japan..."terrorists"?

40k tournaments are trash tier and games of its ilk are garbage.

Maybe, but their tournament formats are not part of the reason. Coming from a wargaming background, it boggles my mind that people can't stomach the thought of a 2 day event. Or any kind of event that deviates from a specific set of tournament rules. To be honest, the X Wing tournament crowd appears to be a bit precious.

but I wouldn't want X-wing to be that because a lot of the appeal of the game is that most games can easily be completed in a 75 minute round.

I can't imagine many people would give up X Wing if the tournament format moved to 90 minutes.

BTW, in epic, it doesn't open things up as much as you might think. The epic ships are kinda trash mathematically aside from maybe the transport with some very specific upgrades and stuff that jousts well in 100 point play will joust well in epic. You can put down 12 TLTs in 300 point epic if you want quite easily.

Epic ships are not garbage.

Some things that are powerful in the tournament format are still powerful in Epic. Some things are not. The dynamic changes a great deal.

I think the majority of the X-wing audience comes from a CCG/CMG background, not a wargaming background. Which is why most people seem to prefer the cards than a rulebook and are not exactly super miffed about buying expansions for cards.

And once again, I think perfect balance (as unlikely as it ever to be achieved) would actually be a bit more of a boring game.

I think the majority of the X-wing audience comes from a CCG/CMG background, not a wargaming background. Which is why most people seem to prefer the cards than a rulebook and are not exactly super miffed about buying expansions for cards.

And once again, I think perfect balance (as unlikely as it ever to be achieved) would actually be a bit more of a boring game.

I think that's true to some extent and it means that cards with complex and varied interactions would have a tough time existing (or existing and not upsetting that balance), especially those that counter specific strategies or types of cards. At the same time, we do see ships that lack additional capabilities (low PS with no maneuver options) as very inefficient against a large variety of current lists.

I think the majority of the X-wing audience comes from a CCG/CMG background, not a wargaming background. Which is why most people seem to prefer the cards than a rulebook and are not exactly super miffed about buying expansions for cards.

And once again, I think perfect balance (as unlikely as it ever to be achieved) would actually be a bit more of a boring game.

I think that's true to some extent and it means that cards with complex and varied interactions would have a tough time existing (or existing and not upsetting that balance), especially those that counter specific strategies or types of cards. At the same time, we do see ships that lack additional capabilities (low PS with no maneuver options) as very inefficient against a large variety of current lists.

I don't know, several of the players I know used to play warhammer a bit, myself included. I just don't have the time to paint the minis and I think there are more x-wing players than warhammer players so it's easier to get games. also I spent $50 and I played some x-wing, I liked it, I bought more. warhammer isn't much fun if all you have is a single squad of Tau firewarriors or elven archers. warhammer's tactics only come into play if you buy several boxes

Which sort of goes to the major disagreement I have with MajorJuggler's method. He is all about the technical balance. With a pure balance as a goal. But, I feel an imperfect balance is a much more interesting game. But, this essentially boils down to Euro games vs Ameritrash games. While I do think that the Ameritrash method has a bit more of a wider appeal, I don't think the Euro game approach is necessarily wrong.

And once again, I think perfect balance (as unlikely as it ever to be achieved) would actually be a bit more of a boring game.

Using the phrases "perfect balance", "pure balance" and "imperfect balance" without defining them is a reductionist description that fails to accurately describe the state of affairs. It's a false dichotomy, and stating that I support one but not the other, without having defined the terms, is definitely putting words in my mouth...

If you believe that my intent is to reduce X-wing into a comparison of pure mathematical efficiencies then you have a gross misunderstanding. Understanding cost efficiency is a pre-requisite to good design (regardless how you choose to label it), however it is also independent of several other aspects of design, such as gameplay mechanics, differing functionality between units, and generally having a fun game.

A different set of phrases that more precisely captures the various design goals would include "asymmetrical balance", "player skill balance", and "unit viability balance". You can't achieve any of these without using the right technical balance tools. If a unit is garbage, it doesn't help your game at all, it just means that unit will never see play. Likewise, in X-wing we have <20% of the pilots representing >80% of the placement results. That's not indicative of a balanced or fun game.

The X-wing designers repeatedly talk about "diversity" in the meta game. They actually go out of their way, in any interview they seem to give, that the meta is always "the most diverse that it has ever been". This is lkely an unrealistic optimistic appraisal, but the point is that a diverse meta is indicative of a healthy and fun game, which only happens if it is technically well-balanced.

I would take a substantial cut on my most recent salary if I could (a) work on games I love, and (b) work remotely. This argument has not so far persuaded FFG to reply to my applications with anything but a form letter--probably because even a very low Ph.D. salary is still very distant from what FFG prefers to pay their developers.

By which I mean this: HEY! FFG! You can reach me by forum PM, phone, or email if you want me to get more involved with the design and development side of X-wing.

FFG essentially has two options:

1. Hire the best technical balance director that they can find.
2. Engage in a race to the bottom to save on cost.

It seems like you're trying to pitch yourself as something halfway in between, when their hiring strategy has clearly been a race to the bottom. They routinely hire people with zero game design background, or technical skills to achieve the former. They pay low wages and overwork their employees even relative to the rest of the game industry.

This isn't to say that the guys like Alex and Frank, and Jay Little, aren't great designers... but they simply don't have the background to really balance the game well.

I'm on the other end of the spectrum. I invented the systematic moneyball approach to evaluating X-wing. They designed the game, but I'm the one that figured out how to balance it correctly. I might be the *only* person with a proven track record that could be capable of being an effective technical balance director. It takes more than just a degree with letters, so it's hard to tell if someone is really qualified. If they wanted me to work for them, I'm not going to take a pay cut to do it even as a consultant. My time is valuable; if I'm working for them then I'm not working on eventually starting my own company.

But that's just me. I'm sure there are a lot of people that would be willing to work for them for less... at which point we start engaging in a race to the bottom instead of based on qualifications and market rate for a given skillset, and we're back to exactly where they are now anyway.

FFG essentially has two options:

• Hire the best technical balance director that they can find.
• Engage in a race to the bottom to save on cost.

It seems like you're trying to pitch yourself as something halfway in between, when their hiring strategy has clearly been a race to the bottom. They routinely hire people with zero game design background, or technical skills to achieve the former. They pay low wages and overwork their employees even relative to the rest of the game industry.

I'm aware that their past strategy has typically been to find people that are willing to work as inexpensively as possible.

I'll admit to pitching myself (in this almost certainly invisible-to-FFG context...) as a compromise, but I have (what I regard as) two good reasons for that:

• The ability to work remotely rather than relocating has substantial value to me. If I can work with no commute and my spouse can keep her job in our current relatively inexpensive town, I'd be looking for "only" about twice what they've historically offered their creative staff.
• At the moment I'm willing to take less than I might be otherwise, because I'm actively looking for a new job: they wouldn't have to head-hunt me away from anything.

You say you want the game to play like the movies?

What's more like the movies then the insanely hard, seemingly hopeless fight against the evil Emperor whose very goal is to oppress you.

That's just rebel (scum) propaganda. The movies are really about a terrorist cell who uses starfighters (planes) to blow up the most powerful military installation in the galaxy (United states). For some reason in 1978 they saw the terrorists as the heroes. Now, not so much.

Terrorists attack civilian populations. You know, like blowing up an entire planet of civilians.

"Fear will keep the local systems, in line. Fear of this battlestation" - A terrorist.

There was this thing...happened during a war...2 cities...Japan..."terrorists"?

Yes.

Which sort of goes to the major disagreement I have with MajorJuggler's method. He is all about the technical balance. With a pure balance as a goal. But, I feel an imperfect balance is a much more interesting game. But, this essentially boils down to Euro games vs Ameritrash games. While I do think that the Ameritrash method has a bit more of a wider appeal, I don't think the Euro game approach is necessarily wrong.

And once again, I think perfect balance (as unlikely as it ever to be achieved) would actually be a bit more of a boring game.

Using the phrases "perfect balance", "pure balance" and "imperfect balance" without defining them is a reductionist description that fails to accurately describe the state of affairs. It's a false dichotomy, and stating that I support one but not the other, without having defined the terms, is definitely putting words in my mouth...

If you believe that my intent is to reduce X-wing into a comparison of pure mathematical efficiencies then you have a gross misunderstanding. Understanding cost efficiency is a pre-requisite to good design (regardless how you choose to label it), however it is also independent of several other aspects of design, such as gameplay mechanics, differing functionality between units, and generally having a fun game.

A different set of phrases that more precisely captures the various design goals would include "asymmetrical balance", "player skill balance", and "unit viability balance". You can't achieve any of these without using the right technical balance tools. If a unit is garbage, it doesn't help your game at all, it just means that unit will never see play. Likewise, in X-wing we have <20% of the pilots representing >80% of the placement results. That's not indicative of a balanced or fun game.

The X-wing designers repeatedly talk about "diversity" in the meta game. They actually go out of their way, in any interview they seem to give, that the meta is always "the most diverse that it has ever been". This is lkely an unrealistic optimistic appraisal, but the point is that a diverse meta is indicative of a healthy and fun game, which only happens if it is technically well-balanced.

I would take a substantial cut on my most recent salary if I could (a) work on games I love, and (b) work remotely. This argument has not so far persuaded FFG to reply to my applications with anything but a form letter--probably because even a very low Ph.D. salary is still very distant from what FFG prefers to pay their developers.

By which I mean this: HEY! FFG! You can reach me by forum PM, phone, or email if you want me to get more involved with the design and development side of X-wing.

FFG essentially has two options:

1. Hire the best technical balance director that they can find.
2. Engage in a race to the bottom to save on cost.

It seems like you're trying to pitch yourself as something halfway in between, when their hiring strategy has clearly been a race to the bottom. They routinely hire people with zero game design background, or technical skills to achieve the former. They pay low wages and overwork their employees even relative to the rest of the game industry.

This isn't to say that the guys like Alex and Frank, and Jay Little, aren't great designers... but they simply don't have the background to really balance the game well.

I'm on the other end of the spectrum. I invented the systematic moneyball approach to evaluating X-wing. They designed the game, but I'm the one that figured out how to balance it correctly. I might be the *only* person with a proven track record that could be capable of being an effective technical balance director. It takes more than just a degree with letters, so it's hard to tell if someone is really qualified. If they wanted me to work for them, I'm not going to take a pay cut to do it even as a consultant. My time is valuable; if I'm working for them then I'm not working on eventually starting my own company.

But that's just me. I'm sure there are a lot of people that would be willing to work for them for less... at which point we start engaging in a race to the bottom instead of based on qualifications and market rate for a given skillset, and we're back to exactly where they are now anyway.

God you sound so arrogant and douchey. Please show me your resume of amazing games you designed, developed or helped balance?

Which sort of goes to the major disagreement I have with MajorJuggler's method. He is all about the technical balance. With a pure balance as a goal. But, I feel an imperfect balance is a much more interesting game. But, this essentially boils down to Euro games vs Ameritrash games. While I do think that the Ameritrash method has a bit more of a wider appeal, I don't think the Euro game approach is necessarily wrong.

And once again, I think perfect balance (as unlikely as it ever to be achieved) would actually be a bit more of a boring game.

Using the phrases "perfect balance", "pure balance" and "imperfect balance" without defining them is a reductionist description that fails to accurately describe the state of affairs. It's a false dichotomy, and stating that I support one but not the other, without having defined the terms, is definitely putting words in my mouth...

If you believe that my intent is to reduce X-wing into a comparison of pure mathematical efficiencies then you have a gross misunderstanding. Understanding cost efficiency is a pre-requisite to good design (regardless how you choose to label it), however it is also independent of several other aspects of design, such as gameplay mechanics, differing functionality between units, and generally having a fun game.

A different set of phrases that more precisely captures the various design goals would include "asymmetrical balance", "player skill balance", and "unit viability balance". You can't achieve any of these without using the right technical balance tools. If a unit is garbage, it doesn't help your game at all, it just means that unit will never see play. Likewise, in X-wing we have <20% of the pilots representing >80% of the placement results. That's not indicative of a balanced or fun game.

The X-wing designers repeatedly talk about "diversity" in the meta game. They actually go out of their way, in any interview they seem to give, that the meta is always "the most diverse that it has ever been". This is lkely an unrealistic optimistic appraisal, but the point is that a diverse meta is indicative of a healthy and fun game, which only happens if it is technically well-balanced.

I would take a substantial cut on my most recent salary if I could (a) work on games I love, and (b) work remotely. This argument has not so far persuaded FFG to reply to my applications with anything but a form letter--probably because even a very low Ph.D. salary is still very distant from what FFG prefers to pay their developers.

By which I mean this: HEY! FFG! You can reach me by forum PM, phone, or email if you want me to get more involved with the design and development side of X-wing.

FFG essentially has two options:

• Hire the best technical balance director that they can find.
• Engage in a race to the bottom to save on cost.

It seems like you're trying to pitch yourself as something halfway in between, when their hiring strategy has clearly been a race to the bottom. They routinely hire people with zero game design background, or technical skills to achieve the former. They pay low wages and overwork their employees even relative to the rest of the game industry.

This isn't to say that the guys like Alex and Frank, and Jay Little, aren't great designers... but they simply don't have the background to really balance the game well.

I'm on the other end of the spectrum. I invented the systematic moneyball approach to evaluating X-wing. They designed the game, but I'm the one that figured out how to balance it correctly. I might be the *only* person with a proven track record that could be capable of being an effective technical balance director. It takes more than just a degree with letters, so it's hard to tell if someone is really qualified. If they wanted me to work for them, I'm not going to take a pay cut to do it even as a consultant. My time is valuable; if I'm working for them then I'm not working on eventually starting my own company.

But that's just me. I'm sure there are a lot of people that would be willing to work for them for less... at which point we start engaging in a race to the bottom instead of based on qualifications and market rate for a given skillset, and we're back to exactly where they are now anyway.

God you sound so arrogant and douchey. Please show me your resume of amazing games you designed, developed or helped balance?

Majorjuggler seems to be right about things. He deserves to be an arrogant ******.

MajorJuggler put in a lot of (unpaid) work mathematically modeling this game. He understands what dice, hull, and shields are worth. He understands that there's more to the game than "jousting value," and in his older (published) version of math-wing, he even states this and calculates how much return you need to get on your investment in points. I imagine he gets sick of people accusing him of bias or creating self-fulfilling prophecies when simply stating mathematical results based on stated assumptions. I bet it's frustrating to see things released that are obviously mis-priced in this game that could easily have been fixed with some simple calculations at this stage in the game's development.

I hope people don't take his (free) contributions to the community for granted.