That said, X-wing may be the best balanced miniatures game in the industry, but that doesn't necessarily say much. I have personally seen player burnout because game balance is lacking. The industry as a whole really does not understand how to get game balance right. If another game system with an equally compelling IP came out (Star Wars sets a really high bar), was equally as "fun", but was balanced much better so you could fly things like X-wings and TIE Fighters and not get murdered in tournaments, then that game could have a significant competitive business advantage.

Just metaphysically speaking, wouldn't the perfectly balanced game be boring? When everything is perfectly in alignment, outcomes become predictable. This is why chess is more enjoyable than checkers. And before everyone says that each chess piece is different but the game is perfectly balanced, let's remember than chess's Wave X came out in 1,000 A.D.

. A ps4 xwing should beat a ps4 tie fighter for example

Right. Predictable outcomes.

What makes you think a hypothetical balanced x-wing would be more predictable? If anything,imbalance makes games more predictable, not viceversa. Take the ps4 x-wing vs. ps4 TIE fighter example. If the game was balanced, 100 points of x-wings would be evenly matched vs. 100 points of TIE fighters, making the outcome unpredictable. Currently however, 100 points of Crack Blacks will beat 100 points of ps4 x-wings most of the time (predictable outcome) because one ship is plainly better than the other.

Just metaphysically speaking, wouldn't the perfectly balanced game be boring? When everything is perfectly in alignment, outcomes become predictable. This is why chess is more enjoyable than checkers. And before everyone says that each chess piece is different but the game is perfectly balanced, let's remember than chess's Wave X came out in 1,000 A.D.

Chess is not a balanced game: white wins more.

What a designer absolutely wants to avoid is some pilots always being inferior choices. That is poor game balance. If "the math" is done correctly, then it is invisible to the end-user... the game is simply more fun. Players have more options both tactically and strategically, have more freedom in list building, and the meta game diversity is maximized.

A. I had forgotten about that.

and

B. At the risk of turning this into the usual tourney vs. casual debate, ships that fail in the 100-point gladiatorial arena are not always inferior choices in larger point games. Unfortunately, few ever talk about that yardstick, except anecdotally. "This ship is inferior" leaves off "in 100-point matches."

As a case in point, I rarely use "discard this card" Actions and effects, because getting to do something once only in a 3 hour game is NOT necessarily the best investment in points. OTOH, the same card in a one hour game used at a critical moment is more likely to be a game-changer.

Lastly, since you are The Math Guy, what did you think of the dial discussion? It now seems to me that there are no formulas used in ship design. Or, are they just being coy about formulas by claiming they tweak points based on play-test feel?

The X-wing is a bad example though. It was designed as the baseline, all around workhorse fighter, while everything else in wave 1 was specialized to fill a role.

I think the B-wing would be a better example.

Just metaphysically speaking, wouldn't the perfectly balanced game be boring? When everything is perfectly in alignment, outcomes become predictable. This is why chess is more enjoyable than checkers. And before everyone says that each chess piece is different but the game is perfectly balanced, let's remember than chess's Wave X came out in 1,000 A.D.

Chess is not a balanced game: white wins more.

What a designer absolutely wants to avoid is some pilots always being inferior choices. That is poor game balance. If "the math" is done correctly, then it is invisible to the end-user... the game is simply more fun. Players have more options both tactically and strategically, have more freedom in list building, and the meta game diversity is maximized.

A. I had forgotten about that.

and

B. At the risk of turning this into the usual tourney vs. casual debate, ships that fail in the 100-point gladiatorial arena are not always inferior choices in larger point games.

Is this true though? As someone who doesn't venture beyond 100 point play as often as I'd like, I feel like if I played an epic game competitively (which if you were playing "competitive" epic I think you are missing the whole point, but anyways), a hoard of UBoats would squash just about everything in its path. Same with x7 Defenders.

Am I totally missing something in larger point play that would make these less effective?

Just metaphysically speaking, wouldn't the perfectly balanced game be boring? When everything is perfectly in alignment, outcomes become predictable. This is why chess is more enjoyable than checkers. And before everyone says that each chess piece is different but the game is perfectly balanced, let's remember than chess's Wave X came out in 1,000 A.D.

Chess is not a balanced game: white wins more.

What a designer absolutely wants to avoid is some pilots always being inferior choices. That is poor game balance. If "the math" is done correctly, then it is invisible to the end-user... the game is simply more fun. Players have more options both tactically and strategically, have more freedom in list building, and the meta game diversity is maximized.

A. I had forgotten about that.

and

B. At the risk of turning this into the usual tourney vs. casual debate, ships that fail in the 100-point gladiatorial arena are not always inferior choices in larger point games.

Is this true though? As someone who doesn't venture beyond 100 point play as often as I'd like, I feel like if I played an epic game competitively (which if you were playing "competitive" epic I think you are missing the whole point, but anyways), a hoard of UBoats would squash just about everything in its path. Same with x7 Defenders.

Am I totally missing something in larger point play that would make these less effective?

Don't forget the scum standard of 4x Brobots + 100 points of whatever. I do agree that uboats would be rather good (though you can only run 6, so you'll need 100 points of something else. Or do 4 brobots and 3 uboats or dengaroo) and defenders should still be quite good. I might actually be more interested in TIE/D defenders in epic than I am in standard play though. A free evade token is worth a lot less if you have 10 ships shooting at you than it is in standard play where you might only have 1 or 2 on a given round. And most of your defenders (if you had a full list of nothing but that) are gaining nothing from their evade tokens (unless you do juke glaives I suppose), whereas a list full of /Ds is getting 2 attacks per ship and all get to take advantage of it as long as they have shots.

Just metaphysically speaking, wouldn't the perfectly balanced game be boring? When everything is perfectly in alignment, outcomes become predictable. This is why chess is more enjoyable than checkers. And before everyone says that each chess piece is different but the game is perfectly balanced, let's remember than chess's Wave X came out in 1,000 A.D.

Chess is not a balanced game: white wins more.

What a designer absolutely wants to avoid is some pilots always being inferior choices. That is poor game balance. If "the math" is done correctly, then it is invisible to the end-user... the game is simply more fun. Players have more options both tactically and strategically, have more freedom in list building, and the meta game diversity is maximized.

A. I had forgotten about that.

and

B. At the risk of turning this into the usual tourney vs. casual debate, ships that fail in the 100-point gladiatorial arena are not always inferior choices in larger point games.

Is this true though? As someone who doesn't venture beyond 100 point play as often as I'd like, I feel like if I played an epic game competitively (which if you were playing "competitive" epic I think you are missing the whole point, but anyways), a hoard of UBoats would squash just about everything in its path. Same with x7 Defenders.

Am I totally missing something in larger point play that would make these less effective?

I've played a lot of Epic (mostly without Huge ships), it's a very different game.

12 rookie or red x-wings + 24 or 48 points of ships or upgrades would be a nightmare. It's a bit like TLT, sure it only does one 1 max per attack, but 4 of them focusing on one ship will melt it, tokens get stripped away and dice luck runs out, it's death by a thousand cuts.

X-wing absolutely should be balanced around competitive 100 point games with disregard to everything else.

This is the intended format, the format in which most games are played, including a majority of casual games, and the format in which the balance is actually important, because if you are playing a non-standard super casual game with friends you don't care about win ratio and can agree not to use overpowered combos.

Not to mention it's inpossible to balance ships for every possible house rules combination.

X-wing absolutely should be balanced around competitive 100 point games with disregard to everything else.

This is the intended format, the format in which most games are played, including a majority of casual games, and the format in which the balance is actually important, because if you are playing a non-standard super casual game with friends you don't care about win ratio and can agree not to use overpowered combos.

Not to mention it's inpossible to balance ships for every possible house rules combination.

Your opinion is bad, and you should feel bad for having it. I award you no likes, and may god have mercy on your soul.

Finally had a look at this. Nice to know about some of the background to ship dial designs.

But obviously weren't abiding by any sense of design process when they gave the jump master such a great dial

a large ship should not be out maneuvering an xwing

Have you SEEN star wars? The falcon is crazy maneuverable. If you dont like it, blame the fluff, not the designeds

Heck, forget X-wings. That thing outmaneuvered TIE fighters!

The Falcon is also a crazy hotrodded ship with some of the best bush pilots in the galaxy behind the stick. The way I see it, the Falcon dial represents a better calibre of pilot as well - one willing to virtually tear the ship apart to get the most out of it.

Good to hear a little bit from the design team.

So Thematic is suppose to be important. Really? So....Large ships fly faster than small fighter ships? Really. They turn better too? I get the Falcon but as for speed....in Hyperspace. Otherwise those TIEs were strafing the hell out it.

Best dials for large ships...wow.

Yes...I love this game but really having a huge problem with the dials of large ships.

Did you watch the new movie? where ray took a broken down millennium falcon and almost no pilot training and schooled 2 tie fighters? Out manoeuvred the crap out of them, one of them failed to make a bank and crashed that she made in the falcon.

Someone mad the 55-65 point ships can move.

Yup, all of the LARGE Ships come with BADASS ENGINES... so go figure... They Can Move!!!

Kind of like how a space shuttle is a Huge Ship but can outrun a small base ship like an F-16. Ridiculous. Everyone knows big things can't move fast.

Good to hear a little bit from the design team.

So Thematic is suppose to be important. Really? So....Large ships fly faster than small fighter ships? Really. They turn better too? I get the Falcon but as for speed....in Hyperspace. Otherwise those TIEs were strafing the hell out it.

Best dials for large ships...wow.

Yes...I love this game but really having a huge problem with the dials of large ships.

Did you watch the new movie? where ray took a broken down millennium falcon and almost no pilot training and schooled 2 tie fighters? Out manoeuvred the crap out of them, one of them failed to make a bank and crashed that she made in the falcon.

Someone mad the 55-65 point ships can move.

Yup, all of the LARGE Ships come with BADASS ENGINES... so go figure... They Can Move!!!

Kind of like how a space shuttle is a Huge Ship but can outrun a small base ship like an F-16. Ridiculous. Everyone knows big things can't move fast.

If the space shuttle could outmaneuver an F-16 in a dogfight, your argument might have some merit. But it can't.

Good to hear a little bit from the design team.

So Thematic is suppose to be important. Really? So....Large ships fly faster than small fighter ships? Really. They turn better too? I get the Falcon but as for speed....in Hyperspace. Otherwise those TIEs were strafing the hell out it.

Best dials for large ships...wow.

Yes...I love this game but really having a huge problem with the dials of large ships.

Did you watch the new movie? where ray took a broken down millennium falcon and almost no pilot training and schooled 2 tie fighters? Out manoeuvred the crap out of them, one of them failed to make a bank and crashed that she made in the falcon.

Someone mad the 55-65 point ships can move.

Yup, all of the LARGE Ships come with BADASS ENGINES... so go figure... They Can Move!!!

Kind of like how a space shuttle is a Huge Ship but can outrun a small base ship like an F-16. Ridiculous. Everyone knows big things can't move fast.

If the space shuttle could outmaneuver an F-16 in a dogfight, your argument might have some merit. But it can't.

There ARE NO F-16 in STAR WARS... BRAH. NASA either...

X-wing absolutely should be balanced around competitive 100 point games with disregard to everything else.

This is the intended format, the format in which most games are played, including a majority of casual games, and the format in which the balance is actually important, because if you are playing a non-standard super casual game with friends you don't care about win ratio and can agree not to use overpowered combos.

Not to mention it's inpossible to balance ships for every possible house rules combination.

Your opinion is bad, and you should feel bad for having it. I award you no likes, and may god have mercy on your soul.

But... He's right... 100 point is FFGs official competitive format. Everything else is just icing on the cake. He's not saying they should disregard the other formats altogether. He's just saying that choices have to be made since its impossible to balance for every game type, so since they have to choose, focusing on balancing the most popular game type in the game is the correct way to go.

X-wing absolutely should be balanced around competitive 100 point games with disregard to everything else.

This is the intended format, the format in which most games are played, including a majority of casual games, and the format in which the balance is actually important, because if you are playing a non-standard super casual game with friends you don't care about win ratio and can agree not to use overpowered combos.

Not to mention it's inpossible to balance ships for every possible house rules combination.

Your opinion is bad, and you should feel bad for having it. I award you no likes, and may god have mercy on your soul.

But... He's right... 100 point is FFGs official competitive format. Everything else is just icing on the cake. He's not saying they should disregardthe other formats altogether. He's just saying that choices have to be made since its impossible to balance for every game type, so since they have to choose, focusing on balancing the most popular game type in the game is the correct way to go.

X-wing absolutely should be balanced around competitive 100 point games with disregard to everything else.

This is the intended format, the format in which most games are played, including a majority of casual games, and the format in which the balance is actually important, because if you are playing a non-standard super casual game with friends you don't care about win ratio and can agree not to use overpowered combos.

Not to mention it's inpossible to balance ships for every possible house rules combination.

Your opinion is bad, and you should feel bad for having it. I award you no likes, and may god have mercy on your soul.

But... He's right... 100 point is FFGs official competitive format. Everything else is just icing on the cake. He's not saying they should disregardthe other formats altogether. He's just saying that choices have to be made since its impossible to balance for every game type, so since they have to choose, focusing on balancing the most popular game type in the game is the correct way to go.

except he did LITERALLY say to disregard everything else

Ok ok, I have selective reading. But come on, we know he didn't literally mean to disregard everything else. Just for balancing. Or, at least that's what I got from it...

...What did you get from the passage?

Good to hear a little bit from the design team.

So Thematic is suppose to be important. Really? So....Large ships fly faster than small fighter ships? Really. They turn better too? I get the Falcon but as for speed....in Hyperspace. Otherwise those TIEs were strafing the hell out it.

Best dials for large ships...wow.

Yes...I love this game but really having a huge problem with the dials of large ships.

Did you watch the new movie? where ray took a broken down millennium falcon and almost no pilot training and schooled 2 tie fighters? Out manoeuvred the crap out of them, one of them failed to make a bank and crashed that she made in the falcon.

Someone mad the 55-65 point ships can move.

Yup, all of the LARGE Ships come with BADASS ENGINES... so go figure... They Can Move!!!

Kind of like how a space shuttle is a Huge Ship but can outrun a small base ship like an F-16. Ridiculous. Everyone knows big things can't move fast.

for the record, in space your ship size has nothing to do with SPEED - which is how fast you are moving relative to a fixed position over time.

Size has everything to do with maneuverability (the ability to change your vector at various speeds) and acceleration (rate of change of speed).

The only reason in real life our massive aircrafts dont break crazy mach speeds like the F15 is because of structure integrity reasons. If that element was thrown out, in a straight line size would mean nothing in terms of max speed. Oh and btw mach speed is a variable number depending on altitude (would you believe me that the u-2 can technically break mach1? at altitude, which is 70k+ feet, it most certainly can)

In fact, in space where airflow resistance isnt a factor and if we ignore the structure integrity issues, a larger ship would probably outrun most small ships because of the sheer power their engines have to have to even push that thing. Once you get mass moving in a vacuum it keeps moving until it hits something or gravity grabs it the opposite direction. Now once we throw in asteroids, stations, huge ships, or anything else the bigger ship has to dodge and thus slow down, the smaller ship will catch them because they can turn at a higher speed due to less mass.

...

**** it the more i talk about this crap the more i realize just how bogus SW physics is lol

X-wing absolutely should be balanced around competitive 100 point games with disregard to everything else.

This is the intended format, the format in which most games are played, including a majority of casual games, and the format in which the balance is actually important, because if you are playing a non-standard super casual game with friends you don't care about win ratio and can agree not to use overpowered combos.

Not to mention it's inpossible to balance ships for every possible house rules combination.

Your opinion is bad, and you should feel bad for having it. I award you no likes, and may god have mercy on your soul.

But... He's right... 100 point is FFGs official competitive format. Everything else is just icing on the cake. He's not saying they should disregardthe other formats altogether. He's just saying that choices have to be made since its impossible to balance for every game type, so since they have to choose, focusing on balancing the most popular game type in the game is the correct way to go.

except he did LITERALLY say to disregard everything else

Ok ok, I have selective reading. But come on, we know he didn't literally mean to disregard everything else. Just for balancing. Or, at least that's what I got from it...

...What did you get from the passage?

I think he meant literally disregard everything else when balancing, but of course he doesn't have anything against playing other formats.

When you play another format you play casually anyway, so the powergaming doesn't (or shouldn't) take place, meaning that the balance doesn't have to be perfect.

X-wing absolutely should be balanced around competitive 100 point games with disregard to everything else.

This is the intended format, the format in which most games are played, including a majority of casual games, and the format in which the balance is actually important, because if you are playing a non-standard super casual game with friends you don't care about win ratio and can agree not to use overpowered combos.

Not to mention it's inpossible to balance ships for every possible house rules combination.

Your opinion is bad, and you should feel bad for having it. I award you no likes, and may god have mercy on your soul.

But... He's right... 100 point is FFGs official competitive format. Everything else is just icing on the cake. He's not saying they should disregard the other formats altogether. He's just saying that choices have to be made since its impossible to balance for every game type, so since they have to choose, focusing on balancing the most popular game type in the game is the correct way to go.

Well, if you are going to limit yourself to a single format, I don't think you should then complain that every ship produced does not do well in that microcosm. I doubt it is possible to achieve that level of perfection in every design, and you are asking the ships to be good in one very specific way--intense, more-or-less one-on-one dueling. If you are going to have a myopic field of play, let the chaff fall away to the casual players, and stop complaining that FFG isn't designing good ships. All the ships are good, when flown in the right milieu. But for every gold-medalist they produce, there will be a half-dozen or more that don't make the Olympics. It is the nature of things.

Sure, why bother balancing at all, Scyk works perfectly well in the 133 points Scyk-only format that John and Steven play every second Sunday at Steve's place.

Good to hear a little bit from the design team.

So Thematic is suppose to be important. Really? So....Large ships fly faster than small fighter ships? Really. They turn better too? I get the Falcon but as for speed....in Hyperspace. Otherwise those TIEs were strafing the hell out it.

Best dials for large ships...wow.

Yes...I love this game but really having a huge problem with the dials of large ships.

Did you watch the new movie? where ray took a broken down millennium falcon and almost no pilot training and schooled 2 tie fighters? Out manoeuvred the crap out of them, one of them failed to make a bank and crashed that she made in the falcon.

Someone mad the 55-65 point ships can move.

Yup, all of the LARGE Ships come with BADASS ENGINES... so go figure... They Can Move!!!

Kind of like how a space shuttle is a Huge Ship but can outrun a small base ship like an F-16. Ridiculous. Everyone knows big things can't move fast.

for the record, in space your ship size has nothing to do with SPEED - which is how fast you are moving relative to a fixed position over time.

Size has everything to do with maneuverability (the ability to change your vector at various speeds) and acceleration (rate of change of speed).

The only reason in real life our massive aircrafts dont break crazy mach speeds like the F15 is because of structure integrity reasons. If that element was thrown out, in a straight line size would mean nothing in terms of max speed. Oh and btw mach speed is a variable number depending on altitude (would you believe me that the u-2 can technically break mach1? at altitude, which is 70k+ feet, it most certainly can)

In fact, in space where airflow resistance isnt a factor and if we ignore the structure integrity issues, a larger ship would probably outrun most small ships because of the sheer power their engines have to have to even push that thing. Once you get mass moving in a vacuum it keeps moving until it hits something or gravity grabs it the opposite direction. Now once we throw in asteroids, stations, huge ships, or anything else the bigger ship has to dodge and thus slow down, the smaller ship will catch them because they can turn at a higher speed due to less mass.

...

**** it the more i talk about this crap the more i realize just how bogus SW physics is lol

Yeah because as I read your first sentences I was ready to be cute and reiterate they have POWERFUL Engines for that very reason.

You should just do what I learned to do a long time ago: JUST LOVE STAR WARS.

Sure, why bother balancing at all, Scyk works perfectly well in the 133 points Scyk-only format that John and Steven play every second Sunday at Steve's place.

...can I get an invite? Sounds awesome

X-wing absolutely should be balanced around competitive 100 point games with disregard to everything else.

This is the intended format, the format in which most games are played, including a majority of casual games, and the format in which the balance is actually important, because if you are playing a non-standard super casual game with friends you don't care about win ratio and can agree not to use overpowered combos.

Not to mention it's inpossible to balance ships for every possible house rules combination.

Your opinion is bad, and you should feel bad for having it. I award you no likes, and may god have mercy on your soul.

But... He's right... 100 point is FFGs official competitive format. Everything else is just icing on the cake. He's not saying they should disregardthe other formats altogether. He's just saying that choices have to be made since its impossible to balance for every game type, so since they have to choose, focusing on balancing the most popular game type in the game is the correct way to go.

except he did LITERALLY say to disregard everything else

Ok ok, I have selective reading. But come on, we know he didn't literally mean to disregard everything else. Just for balancing. Or, at least that's what I got from it...

...What did you get from the passage?

I took it that he meant we should LITERALLY disregard every other play-style when talking about balancing. You have selective reading, I'm an engineer and therefore VERY literal in my reading of certain things.

Now, I didn't see him say anywhere that people shouldn't play other styles, just that - in terms of balancing - if you can only realistic achieve balance for one format, it should most likely be the 'competitive' format. And, as he says, if you're not playing competitively, it shouldn't matter so much (also true).

So, I THINK I got exactly what he meant, I just couldn't pass up the chance for some gentle ribbing

Sure, why bother balancing at all, Scyk works perfectly well in the 133 points Scyk-only format that John and Steven play every second Sunday at Steve's place.

Which only means that you've never used Scyks effectively. Six Scyks vs. Gozanti ends the Gozanti fast.

Sure, why bother balancing at all, Scyk works perfectly well in the 133 points Scyk-only format that John and Steven play every second Sunday at Steve's place.

Which only means that you've never used Scyks effectively. Six Scyks vs. Gozanti ends the Gozanti fast.

So Gozanti is that poor in epic, eh?