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.

There, people, you've heard the man.

Don't ask for any buffs/fixes ever again, just find appropriate house rules. You think Knave Squadron Pilot sucks? Ha! In our casual "Kill the Whale" format (1v1 against Captain Kagi in a Lambda, Lambda starts in the middle of the board and its enemy at range 3 behind it) E-wings win over 50% of the time!

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.

There, people, you've heard the man.

Don't ask for any buffs/fixes ever again, just find appropriate house rules. You think Knave Squadron Pilot sucks? Ha! In our casual "Kill the Whale" format (1v1 against Captain Kagi in a Lambda, Lambda starts in the middle of the board and its enemy at range 3 behind it) E-wings win over 50% of the time!

A. You assume I'm a man.

B. No house rules were used.

C. With enough arrogance, you can win any argument.

D. (C.) does not mean you are right.

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.

FFG does (willingly or not) strongly suggest that 100 point death match is the standard format of x-wing: the core rulebook recommends 100 points, the only accepted format for Formal and Premier events is 100 points (all other format can only run Relaxed events), currently only tournament rules that are properly maintained are the 100 point ones, there's probably several orders of magnitude more official events for 100 points than anything else etc.

Additionally, FFG has printed some ships and cards they have deemed unsuitable for 100 points play, which they have marked as only for epic/huge ships.

Given these things, I don't think it's unreasonable for anyone to expect that any ship or card should, unless otherwise stated, be suitable for 100 points play.

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.

Given these things, I don't think it's unreasonable for anyone to expect that any ship or card should, unless otherwise stated, be suitable for 100 points play.

They are all suitable for 100 point play. Some are just more suitable than others.

Perhaps I simply remember the days in the early '90s when M:TG started. There was no internet, there were no forums. People discovered combos through play and word of mouth. The best thing going for a resource was InQuest Magazine, which came out once a month. The point of playing the game was to discover strengths and weaknesses and combos that work. It was very hard to get a list of the best-of-the-best on a silver platter.

No matter how good every single component is, some are always going to be better than others, and no matter how micro thin the margin, only those few components are going to pass MathWing and/or meta muster and be used in the rarified arena of (hyper) competitive play. It is just impossible to produce a perfect game component every single time.

And many X-Wing players seem to be unable to accept rubies when they have diamonds.

dupe oops

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.

There, people, you've heard the man.

Don't ask for any buffs/fixes ever again, just find appropriate house rules. You think Knave Squadron Pilot sucks? Ha! In our casual "Kill the Whale" format (1v1 against Captain Kagi in a Lambda, Lambda starts in the middle of the board and its enemy at range 3 behind it) E-wings win over 50% of the time!

A. You assume I'm a man.

B. No house rules were used.

C. With enough arrogance, you can win any argument.

D. (C.) does not mean you are right.

Unless you are an attack helicopter I assumed correctly.

via Oxford dictionary:

I like rubies more than diamonds.

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.

There, people, you've heard the man.

Don't ask for any buffs/fixes ever again, just find appropriate house rules. You think Knave Squadron Pilot sucks? Ha! In our casual "Kill the Whale" format (1v1 against Captain Kagi in a Lambda, Lambda starts in the middle of the board and its enemy at range 3 behind it) E-wings win over 50% of the time!

A. You assume I'm a man.

B. No house rules were used.

C. With enough arrogance, you can win any argument.

D. (C.) does not mean you are right.

Unless you are an attack helicopter I assumed correctly.

via Oxford dictionary:

man

Pronunciation: /man/

NOUN (plural men /mɛn/)

1. An adult human male:

2. A human being of either sex; a person:

Ah, thanks. And now at least I know you have access to the OED in case you have any trouble with some of the bigger words.

The context of "man" here is most certainly in the singular, and not the descriptive and now little used term for humanity.

No matter how good every single component is, some are always going to be better than others, and no matter how micro thin the margin, only those few components are going to pass MathWing and/or meta muster and be used in the rarified arena of (hyper) competitive play. It is just impossible to produce a perfect game component every single time.

You are correct there Darth Meanie. It is impossible to produce a perfect game. But I do not believe it's impossible for FFG to produce a better balanced game. I believe it is safe to assume that in this game, some cards are set aside largely (not entirely, but largely) only for casual play due to game imbalances. So that's fine for casual play. It is alive and well and thriving as much as ever. No one in their right mind says, "Dang! Competitive play is ruining casual play! FFG keeps releasing these competitive fixes for all these ships that are perfectly fine in casual! The A-wing, the interceptor, the Defender... they are all too good in casual now!". I've said it before and I'll say it again- FFG catering towards competitive players and their competitive formats has no negative effect on the casual scene. If anything, it benefits both.

But what about the competitive game? Surely they will moan and complain until the end of eternity because they are never satisfied. But for a second, lets consider that casual players and hyper competitive players aren't all that different (gasp! ). Let's look at a story that is similar to one of someone I know-

Joey LOVES to play at the highest level. He gets a thrill out of it that he gets no other way. He also LOVES the Tie Punisher. There is something about the quirky "Hey, I'm a FAT bomber!" thing that just gets him. So Joey flies the Punisher every chance he gets. He has pushed it to its limit (even without being able to equip Push the Limit), and although he has had some amazing moments, such as when Deathrain planted a Conner Net on Soontir and killed him in two turns, he sees the weaknesses of the Punisher and knows it is overshadowed by ships which outperform it. He has affectionately become known as the "Tie Punisher guy" by the locals, but he longs to be the "win a tourney every other week" guy. He's torn. He wants to be the best, but he doesn't want to give up his beloved ship to do so. He quietly grows a distaste for the game, as once he gets to the top tables where he is facing players of equal player skill, he is dismantled due to an inferior ship holding him back. All he sees are the same 3-5 builds winning top level tournaments with the same 3-5 ships, and he begins to conclude the game is lacking the balance he wants from a game. "Why didn't FFG see that it was worse than these other ships in playtesting?" he thinks to himself. "It wouldn't even need to be the best, just good enough to compete."

Eventually, Joey stops going to tournaments. He tries casual play, but it just doesn't do it for him no matter how much he wishes it did. After a few months of not playing the game, he has lost all desire to play, and puts his collection up for sale.

Now obviously this is an extreme case, but I must ask- would games over 100 points be torn to shreds if the Scyk title was free? If the Virago title was simply a part of the Starviper upgrades and they also had green 1 and 2 turns? If the Tie Punisher was 2-3 points cheaper across the board? Now no playtesting was done with these theoretical "fixes", but my guess is both the 100 point format and other formats would appreciate if these ships came out of the box as stronger ships. Now you are right, the top of the line, no matter by how thin of a margin, will still be the top of the line. But the thinner that line, the more ships that see play as players can make up the small difference with piloting skill, play experience, and tactical knowledge.

So in this alternate reality where the top line is barely a cut above the rest, casual play is still as great as ever. And as a bonus, Joey isn't losing because the Agressor, or the Jumpmaster, or TLT carriers are simply better than his Tie Punisher straight out of the box. Now, it's close enough that Joey's skill and expertise makes up the difference. So Joey wins. And he wins a lot. No, the Tie Punisher isn't the best ship in the game. But in Joey's hands, it might as well be.

100 point deathmatch is rather objectively the most common COMPETITIVE format and the one all ships are (or should be) ultimately balanced around

Wouldnt kill them to introduce competitive scenatios later down the line (at LEAST on par with armada) but for now thems the breaks

snip

**** 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.

tbh its just so hard to ignore such things when it was your job for 6 years to understand basic aerodynamics and physics. Im no aircraft engineer, i cant design one, i just fixed them.

Only reason the physics of Startrek doesnt bug me is because whenever they break a basic law theres some fancy-spancy tech "cancelling it out" and the few times such things go out oh the ship goes nuts lol. That and they arent trying to fly through tight corridors at high speeds in space with what looks like a jet engine lol

No matter how good every single component is, some are always going to be better than others...

This is true.

... and no matter how micro thin the margin, only those few components are going to pass MathWing and/or meta muster and be used in the rarified arena of (hyper) competitive play.

This is a common misconception. If you have a set of ships that:

1) are very closely balanced relative to each other, and

2) have different capabilities and therefore will soft counter each other in distinct ways,

then the resulting steady state Nash Equilibrium dictates that ALL of those ships will see play in the hyper competitive meta even if some ships are slightly better than others. In other words, the squads/ships aren't perfectly balanced, but they are close enough that there is still a strong paper-rock-scissors effect in the meta, so they all see some play.

This is already happening right now, and it can be empirically observed in the tournament results. There are a variety of squad archetypes that are consistently making the cut at Regionals and Nationals. I can guarantee you that Palp Aces, U-Boats, Dengaroo, BroBots, Quad TLT, and Double Ghost are NOT all equally balanced relative to each other. There are relative winners and losers in that list. However, they all see successful play at the highest competitive levels. Why? Because as long as a squad isn't utterly dominated*, it will see some successful play at the highest levels due to the paper-rock-scissors effect. The best measure of how well-balanced a game is, is to look at how many viable archetypes and pilots there are in the competitive meta game.

If more ships were balanced better, like generic X-wings and TIE Fighters, then more ships would make it past the competitive gauntlet, and meta diversity would increase. It's entirely possible to balance the game well enough that every single ship sees competitive use in rough proportion to its overall slice of the pie. It's very difficult to achieve, and impossible without the right tools, but it is possible nonetheless.

And it would be more fun in the process, for both casual and competitive players!

* "Dominated" actually has a specific technical meaning in this context: if Squad A is better than Squad B in every possible matchup, then choosing Squad A is said to be a dominant strategy. Likewise, players will never choose Squad B, so it will never see play.

No matter how good every single component is, some are always going to be better than others, and no matter how micro thin the margin, only those few components are going to pass MathWing and/or meta muster and be used in the rarified arena of (hyper) competitive play. It is just impossible to produce a perfect game component every single time.

You are correct there Darth Meanie. It is impossible to produce a perfect game. But I do not believe it's impossible for FFG to produce a better balanced game. I believe it is safe to assume that in this game, some cards are set aside largely (not entirely, but largely) only for casual play due to game imbalances. So that's fine for casual play. It is alive and well and thriving as much as ever. No one in their right mind says, "Dang! Competitive play is ruining casual play! FFG keeps releasing these competitive fixes for all these ships that are perfectly fine in casual! The A-wing, the interceptor, the Defender... they are all too good in casual now!". I've said it before and I'll say it again- FFG catering towards competitive players and their competitive formats has no negative effect on the casual scene. If anything, it benefits both.

But what about the competitive game? Surely they will moan and complain until the end of eternity because they are never satisfied. But for a second, lets consider that casual players and hyper competitive players aren't all that different (gasp! ). Let's look at a story that is similar to one of someone I know-

Joey LOVES to play at the highest level. He gets a thrill out of it that he gets no other way. He also LOVES the Tie Punisher. There is something about the quirky "Hey, I'm a FAT bomber!" thing that just gets him. So Joey flies the Punisher every chance he gets. He has pushed it to its limit (even without being able to equip Push the Limit), and although he has had some amazing moments, such as when Deathrain planted a Conner Net on Soontir and killed him in two turns, he sees the weaknesses of the Punisher and knows it is overshadowed by ships which outperform it. He has affectionately become known as the "Tie Punisher guy" by the locals, but he longs to be the "win a tourney every other week" guy. He's torn. He wants to be the best, but he doesn't want to give up his beloved ship to do so. He quietly grows a distaste for the game, as once he gets to the top tables where he is facing players of equal player skill, he is dismantled due to an inferior ship holding him back. All he sees are the same 3-5 builds winning top level tournaments with the same 3-5 ships, and he begins to conclude the game is lacking the balance he wants from a game. "Why didn't FFG see that it was worse than these other ships in playtesting?" he thinks to himself. "It wouldn't even need to be the best, just good enough to compete."

Eventually, Joey stops going to tournaments. He tries casual play, but it just doesn't do it for him no matter how much he wishes it did. After a few months of not playing the game, he has lost all desire to play, and puts his collection up for sale.

Now obviously this is an extreme case, but I must ask- would games over 100 points be torn to shreds if the Scyk title was free? If the Virago title was simply a part of the Starviper upgrades and they also had green 1 and 2 turns? If the Tie Punisher was 2-3 points cheaper across the board? Now no playtesting was done with these theoretical "fixes", but my guess is both the 100 point format and other formats would appreciate if these ships came out of the box as stronger ships. Now you are right, the top of the line, no matter by how thin of a margin, will still be the top of the line. But the thinner that line, the more ships that see play as players can make up the small difference with piloting skill, play experience, and tactical knowledge.

So in this alternate reality where the top line is barely a cut above the rest, casual play is still as great as ever. And as a bonus, Joey isn't losing because the Agressor, or the Jumpmaster, or TLT carriers are simply better than his Tie Punisher straight out of the box. Now, it's close enough that Joey's skill and expertise makes up the difference. So Joey wins. And he wins a lot. No, the Tie Punisher isn't the best ship in the game. But in Joey's hands, it might as well be.

To me, it seems the only answer to this conundrum would be to sit back with everything, and rebalance, then move forward again. OTOH, it seems that many decry the notion of X-Wing 2.0, but also cannot stand one fix at a time (if it is not their favorite ship).

...I see now why I've taken such a break from these forums. We seem to have two kinds of people in this thread: those who understand math and those who decry efforts to balance the game.

A more balanced game hurts nobody. If someone is already having fun flying Scyks only, he or she may continue to do so. A more balanced game would do nothing except increase his or her winning %%. Why would anybody complain about that? Balanced games work competitively and casually; unbalanced games only work casually. If you like casual games, you have nothing to lose here--the game will still work and be fun. If you like competitive games, balance improves the experience. Why decry this?

They are all suitable for 100 point play. Some are just more suitable than others.

I disagree. You can play them all but that doesn't mean they're all suitable (as in balanced for) 100 points. You can field them, but why would you ?

Nobody realistically expects the game to be 100% perfectly balanced, but some of us wish it could be BETTER balanced, to the point there are no more ships that make you go 'why would I field this assuming I like winning from time to time?'

...I see now why I've taken such a break from these forums. We seem to have two kinds of people in this thread: those who understand math and those who decry efforts to balance the game.

A more balanced game hurts nobody. If someone is already having fun flying Scyks only, he or she may continue to do so. A more balanced game would do nothing except increase his or her winning %%. Why would anybody complain about that? Balanced games work competitively and casually; unbalanced games only work casually. If you like casual games, you have nothing to lose here--the game will still work and be fun. If you like competitive games, balance improves the experience. Why decry this?

Disagreeing with Mathwing and MajorJuggler's views doesn't mean you are against efforts to balance the game. How MajorJuggler has presented his ideal form of game design is not something I personally think is best for this type of game.

...I see now why I've taken such a break from these forums. We seem to have two kinds of people in this thread: those who understand math and those who decry efforts to balance the game.

A more balanced game hurts nobody. If someone is already having fun flying Scyks only, he or she may continue to do so. A more balanced game would do nothing except increase his or her winning %%. Why would anybody complain about that? Balanced games work competitively and casually; unbalanced games only work casually. If you like casual games, you have nothing to lose here--the game will still work and be fun. If you like competitive games, balance improves the experience. Why decry this?

EXCELLENT POST!

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.

Picking a single official format and focusing on it to the exclusion of all else is the most hare-brained short-sighted idiocy I've ever seen come out of a games studio.

A GOOD game remains balanced at a range of points values. And a good game encourages people to play at a range of points values. It allows units to be good at different things, so that each can shine in their own unique way as different meta game factors are considered for the variety of play options available.

Forcing everything to be competitive in the 100/6 format breaks the game. You can't have a ship that's good at 300 points but lousy at 100 points, because everyone whinges and whines about it not being 'viable'. You can't have ships or upgrades that specialise in dealing with Huge ships because guess what you don't see in 100 point games? Huge ships. It means ships that SHOULD perform a certain way are unable to, because they have to be crammed into the 100/6 format.

The way it's currently being handled, this game doesn't have the legs to last 25 years or more, in fact I'd be surprised if it makes a decade.

Just one question, predictability was mentioned and the question if a balanced game is more predictabale, i'm not really good with math but does it really matter if the games is balanced for predictability?

As far as i understand it to predict something you look at all the available data (the more the better) of a certain situation and then predict the most likely/logical outocme(s).

So if we now take a look at X-Wing we can know nearly everything, if i'm not mistaken (i don't know all cards + ships) the only "hidden information" is the chosen maneuver of the enemy ship but we can know all possible maneuvers of it dial, so if we take that and factor in all the other ships and the situation on the table we can predict that ships next move regardless of game balance, or not?

ANd another thing about predictability all games using dice have a certain unpredictability because even a 90% chance to hit soemthing can fail 3 times in a row, unlikely but can happen and we got also humans as players which can aslo be unpredictable as they are not always chosing the most logival move.

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.

Picking a single official format and focusing on it to the exclusion of all else is the most hare-brained short-sighted idiocy I've ever seen come out of a games studio.

A GOOD game remains balanced at a range of points values. And a good game encourages people to play at a range of points values. It allows units to be good at different things, so that each can shine in their own unique way as different meta game factors are considered for the variety of play options available.

Forcing everything to be competitive in the 100/6 format breaks the game. You can't have a ship that's good at 300 points but lousy at 100 points, because everyone whinges and whines about it not being 'viable'. You can't have ships or upgrades that specialise in dealing with Huge ships because guess what you don't see in 100 point games? Huge ships. It means ships that SHOULD perform a certain way are unable to, because they have to be crammed into the 100/6 format.

The way it's currently being handled, this game doesn't have the legs to last 25 years or more, in fact I'd be surprised if it makes a decade.

If your way is really the right way to go about things, then FFG needs to make it perfectly clear that is what they are doing with certain releases. If, say, there are some ships that are meant to be valuable in 300 point games and not as great in 100 point games by design, then they better make sure I know that when I'm purchasing their product because I'm gonna be miffed when I buy that ship and it does diddly squat in the most promoted and played format in the game.

And I have to ask- Are people seriously playing games over 100 point hyper competitively? That's part of the reason I see absolutely no issue with FFG balancing 100% solely on the 100 point format. It seems like the same people who are upset with FFGs focus on the 100 point game are the same who are telling tournament players they are playing the game the wrong way because they are playing to "win" and not for "fun" (which is silly anyways. They play to win because that's what is fun for them).

Unless FFG really pushes the competitive scene outside of 100 points by pushing organized play towards Epic or different point values, 100 points needs to be the basis for balancing. And I honestly think those with the "casual play to rule them all" mindset would actually be pretty miffed if FFG did start focusing competitive play on areas outside of 100 points, because all of your ideas about bad ships being good outside of 100 points would be crushed (or validated) to your own detriment as those formats become flooded with net lists and meta talk just as you see in 100 point.

I personally wouldn't mind if FFG put more focus on other formats, but as is now, 100 point seems to be doing great things for the competitive game.I don't think FFG is blind to the idea of expanding on their other formats, but their attempts at their events to have competitive Epic tournaments have been met with lukewarm reception, so they continue to leave it as a secondary interest.

The thing is... I see a very varied meta!

That there are a few ships that don't don't make top tables is not a tragedy. Utopia would be good but personally I see the game in a great state. People seem to think that a bit of maths applied to a not simple system will create balance. It won't, and it would probably create a far more dominant list in the meta as any error will be amplified (following the basics of chaos theory in an ordered system - Think Jurassic Park - the book) as the rest are behind due to being "balanced".

There will always be combos that stretch the system. Irrespective of doing maths. Again, maths is my profession. I don't say this lightly.

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.

Picking a single official format and focusing on it to the exclusion of all else is the most hare-brained short-sighted idiocy I've ever seen come out of a games studio.

A GOOD game remains balanced at a range of points values. And a good game encourages people to play at a range of points values. It allows units to be good at different things, so that each can shine in their own unique way as different meta game factors are considered for the variety of play options available.

Forcing everything to be competitive in the 100/6 format breaks the game. You can't have a ship that's good at 300 points but lousy at 100 points, because everyone whinges and whines about it not being 'viable'. You can't have ships or upgrades that specialise in dealing with Huge ships because guess what you don't see in 100 point games? Huge ships. It means ships that SHOULD perform a certain way are unable to, because they have to be crammed into the 100/6 format.

The way it's currently being handled, this game doesn't have the legs to last 25 years or more, in fact I'd be surprised if it makes a decade.

If your way is really the right way to go about things, then FFG needs to make it perfectly clear that is what they are doing with certain releases.

And I have to ask- Are people seriously playing games over 100 point hyper competitively? That's part of the reason I see absolutely no issue with FFG balancing 100% solely on the 100 point format.

Unless FFG really pushes the competitive scene outside of 100 points by pushing organized play towards Epic or different point values, 100 points needs to be the basis for balancing. And I honestly think those with the "casual play to rule them all" mindset would actually be pretty miffed if FFG did start focusing competitive play on areas outside of 100 points, because all of your ideas about bad ships being good outside of 100 points would be crushed (or validated) to your own detriment as those formats become flooded with net lists and meta talk just as you see in 100 point.

I personally wouldn't mind if FFG put more focus on other formats, but as is now, 100 point seems to be doing great things for the competitive game

1. Couldn't agree more, and maybe this is something FFG needs to think about. At this point, with 3 factions and a SOP of 4-ship releases, maybe one ship could be non-competitive. Heck, they could even label it "WARNING: Contains small parts. Batteries not included. May not be suitable for tournament play."

2. No. But it's not entirely fair to neglect that demographic. Using the "Joey and his TIE Punisher" argument above, the corollary argument is the casual player who endures Wave of Wave of Imperial fighters where, in truth, you get one model, one high PS pilot that adds to the meta, and the other 3 pilots are great for bookmarks.

3. Yep. It's nice that +100 play has no well-established meta. And I'm fine with heading off into my corner to play, and with the game being balanced, and with 100-points being the go to, et. al., but if, as a casual player, all I get are Arc-Dodging Imp Aces that suck in epic play, then I will be the one leaving the game.

4. True, but let's balance 100-point play with other possibilities as well. Huge ships are the most expensive component in the game. Having bought them, I want ships that support them.

That there are a few ships that don't don't make top tables is not a tragedy. Utopia would be good but personally I see the game in a great state.

Correction: a majority of the ships do not make top tables. This is also only one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that about 80% of the pilots are either obsolete due to power creep, or dead on arrival due to subpar initial design.

People seem to think that a bit of maths applied to a not simple system will create balance. It won't, and it would probably create a far more dominant list in the meta as any error will be amplified (following the basics of chaos theory in an ordered system - Think Jurassic Park - the book) as the rest are behind due to being "balanced".

Counterpoint: math applied to a not simple system has consistently predicted the game balance, for the past several years, and it has been quite accurate even using a model that is not yet fully functional.

Do you have any practical X-wing examples to illustrate any of your points?

But that 80% number tells a much different story now than say, in Wave 2. Or even Wave 5. Even with perfect balance, the number of pilots you see on the top tables will only get smaller of the total game as we continue to get many more new releases.

Which is why I like looking at the tier 2/tier 1.5 stuff for the greater health of the game.