I was intending in sneaking a Bwing cannon upgrade into the Assault Gunboat "pack".

A double sided "Composite beam cannon" with a "Ready" and "Recharging" side.

I didnt want a dedicated Bwing pack, because I feel an Xwing fix that buffs the T70 is 2 birds with 1 stone, and the Ewing needs a rebalancing so non-corran Ewings can be used.

I'm curious what are some thoughts on a "errata aces" pack. I think this would be highly popular. Changes would include Major Rhymer dropping 3-4 points, R3 astromech being 0 points, a number of non-elite named pilots receiving an elite upgrade..

Thoughts? This would be a dream expansion for me irl so I would love to make it a thing here.

I'm curious what are some thoughts on a "errata aces" pack. I think this would be highly popular. Changes would include Major Rhymer dropping 3-4 points, R3 astromech being 0 points, a number of non-elite named pilots receiving an elite upgrade..

Thoughts? This would be a dream expansion for me irl so I would love to make it a thing here.

Might be a good place to put my "Keyan Farlander," "Marrak Steele" and "Ace Azzameen" unique, "generic pilot only" titles-that-dont-take-the-title-slot.

After playing my 4 matches with the Assault Gunboats, I can say they are too cheap to carry cannons. Here is my revised version of it (and some new/revised upgraded cards).

I hope there is a way to submit this to approval so we can try again the ship in future CCL seasons.

I like it, though integrated ion cannon would probably need some testing. You get less attack dice, but potential to do more damage than an ion cannon. Hurts more against low agility than it does against high (and a lot of low agi ships are already suffereing). At the very least it needs to be primary only so it doesnt ion when you homing missile someone.

Modular Launchers might need testing too. The bomb slot doesn't really bother me, and another missile wouldn't really only, but adding a torpedo slot for free means you can go from 2 missiles to 4 for nothing but an extra munition upgrade.

For a fact Areon was not my creation, I simply submitted an alternate version.

The original version of Aeron used the ORS stats, so it at least shared the same stats as another pilot in the same ship. It was your alternate version that changed up the stats to be different from any of the other existing pilots.

There was one universal title, Hutt Cartel, and it's only your opinion that it was dumb.

There were 2. Death Mark is also a universal title (in that it can be equipped on any ship in the faction). And yes it's my opinion. I believe other people have posted similar opinions, but I haven't gone back to look.

There were no rules when the season 1 started about card abilities being use in other card types,

and when I consider pilot abilities passed on from ship to ship the ridiculousness of Sabine makes mine less odd.

Pilot abilities staying the same when swapped to a new ship is a different situation than entirely unrelated cards having the exact same ability. And even Sabine has a different ability when she changes factions.

In the discussions as to how this committee that was put together on how some of the cards were to get "fixed" one of the cards that was discussed was my Underslug Blaster Cannon and I offered solutions, and yet somehow with all the complaining the fixes were ignored and it was the faulty original that was used? How was that possible? that some were changed and some were not; It seems to me that this committee failed, and that's not meant as "denigration or insult" but a very germane observation.

Gabe, you've been at the center of probably half a dozen nasty conflicts in season one; you especially are on thin ice. Be nice. Accusing other people of lying is not nice; continue doing that and being combative, as you are above, and you will be banned from season 2. Play nice, and we'll have no problems.

Regarding voting - yes, the voting patterns for your upgrades were very curious. If you really want to go into details, we can discuss it via PM.

With regards to the underslung blaster, the committee took a hard look at it and decided it was actually not a threat to balance. To my knowledge, no players used it in the tournament. If anything, that suggests that the committee was right, and the original was not a problem. If you want to take shots at the committee, I suggest trying to rake us over the coals for the assault gunboat - there might be good reason to do so in that case. As far as the underslung blaster goes, I think the committee functioned well.

I think half a dozen is an exaggeration. I've disagreed with people, as everyone has, and some people have blown that out of proportion. The rules for season 1 were changed on the fly and disagreements were bound to happen in that context; I don't think I should take any blame for that context, if anything absolve because of it.

The idea that there was anything irregular about "voting patterns" on my cards not being brought up before, but in this context (5 months later?) seems really convenient, no?

I also think that people complaining about any cards from season 1 still, after a committee was supposed to look at them, and as you say they looked at them, is rather odd.

By the way, saying someone is lying isn't as bad as the actual lying, I don't see how you can defend that.

It's already been said in this thread that the committee's job wasn't to change any card we might not like personally. The ONLY reason the committee was put together at all (and not until he last minute) is because it was noticed that a couple cards allowed incredibly overpowered combos and needed to be adjusted. The only thing that was to make minor adjustments to a few cards for balance reasons. The blaster cannon was decided to not be overpowered.

Just because the committee left cards doesn't mean we can't add card creating rules for the next season to prevent similar cards (or even the same ones) from being submitted next time around.

I have decided that my Rebel Ace pack will be called "Armed and Dangerous."

It will be Xwing and Bwing, and will attempt to Make Jousting Great Again.

It might be worth limiting aces fixes to singles hips instead of double packs like FFG does. Single ships means we don't have to balance 2 different ships directly alongside each other in a single pack. It also makes it so you don't run into a situation where people like the fix for Ship A in one person's pack, but not ship B, and meanwhile they like ship D in another person's pack, but not ship C that it's tied to. You could jsut vote for A and D directly and not B and C.

But but... I'm using one of my Xwing's unused "card slots" to make a *cough* Bwing system card that's actually an Ewing fix.

I mean, I could ditch the jammer beam to fit the system on the Bwing side, but then I need to figure out another Xwing card.

But but... I'm using one of my Xwing's unused "card slots" to make a *cough* Bwing system card that's actually an Ewing fix.

I mean, I could ditch the jammer beam to fit the system on the Bwing side, but then I need to figure out another Xwing card.

Wasn't aimed at you specifically . And Im certainly not opposed to 2 ship aces packs (I wanna see viper and kihraxz fixes), was mostly just wondering out loud if it might be better for simplicities sake to only have single ships.

But but... I'm using one of my Xwing's unused "card slots" to make a *cough* Bwing system card that's actually an Ewing fix.

I mean, I could ditch the jammer beam to fit the system on the Bwing side, but then I need to figure out another Xwing card.

Wasn't aimed at you specifically . And Im certainly not opposed to 2 ship aces packs (I wanna see viper and kihraxz fixes), was mostly just wondering out loud if it might be better for simplicities sake to only have single ships.

Yeah but there are so many ships that need fixes that one ship being fixed doesnt really do much. The ace packs dont HAVE to be two ships(Imperial Aces was just Interceptors) but it allows for a lot of design space to make stuff that works for two ships at once.

That and designing a brand new ship is a whole different ball game than buffing an existing one. Its easier, honestly. The difficulty cones in the size of the expansion, and keeping it all balanced.

PM me, Gabe. Your inbox is full.

I don't agree that you should be brushing this under the carpet, I think you should be acknowledging that the post I pointed out above was insulting and belligerent. After all you singled me out, it's only fair. He's not making any valid point about the voting process, and it's right after you asked people to be polite in their posts. Calling other people's cards dumb is way out of line: HEED YOUR OWN POLICIES. This has happened before. You spin it like I'm the only one you've ever had to speak to, but really to say I'm the only one you bother to speak to is closer to the truth.

You also have noticed that I'm pointing out contradictions, and you don't want to acknowledge that either. So the committee worked and did it's job but there are still cards you and others want to complain about? that's a contradiction that I would like acknowledged because some of those cards were my submissions. This is not troublemaking, THIS IS PROCESS RELATED. You can say that it was successful but I'm giving you evidence that it wasn't: I believe that I and others whose cards made the cut even past this committee deserve an answer as to why they are still on judgement. And if there isn't a good one then you have to acknowledge that this committee failed.

TC-4, the droid crew card, is the top example of what you're trying to get away with here. After the cards were submitted and voted on it was decided that copies of abilities "ship to ship" was okay but not "ship to upgrade" or "upgrade to ship," then cards of TC-4 with alternate abilities were submitted, and this committee still left in the mix the original that some people consider a problem. So now you get to site my card as a problem when there were corrections available and you just chose to ignore them. If it was voted through, and then the committee let it through, then you have no business complaining about it any further, or acknowledge that this committee failed.

Speaking of contradictions, you allow anyone in the world with a Google account to vote on these cards, advertised far and wide, whether they don't design cards or don't play in tournaments, or even not play the game at all. And then you wonder why odd stuff that doesn't appeal to you personally, and may not make the most kill efficient list when included in their builds, ends up floating to the top. That's really naive isn't it? Without thinking of who owns those Google accounts and why they are voting. And you have one vocal person complaining about what poor quality cards get voted in and complaining that you're considering changing the vote system, LOL, and that is one funny contradiction. It sounds like you're saying it's running okay as long as it gets you the final vote results you're expecting. My cards were made in good faith, very fluff slanted ideas and unique designs, but made in good faith, and though I didn't bank on that appeal I can see now more clearly why they got voted for; It's a broken process if the highest voted for cards are something you can complain about, tinker to taste, vote on again, and still complain about them.

After playing my 4 matches with the Assault Gunboats, I can say they are too cheap to carry cannons. Here is my revised version of it (and some new/revised upgraded cards).

I hope there is a way to submit this to approval so we can try again the ship in future CCL seasons.

I like it, though integrated ion cannon would probably need some testing. You get less attack dice, but potential to do more damage than an ion cannon. Hurts more against low agility than it does against high (and a lot of low agi ships are already suffereing). At the very least it needs to be primary only so it doesnt ion when you homing missile someone.

Modular Launchers might need testing too. The bomb slot doesn't really bother me, and another missile wouldn't really only, but adding a torpedo slot for free means you can go from 2 missiles to 4 for nothing but an extra munition upgrade.

Modular Launcher does not add an extra ordinance "slot", but replace a missile for a torpedo or bomb (exactly like this).

I will change the Integrated Ion Cannons to primary only.

After playing my 4 matches with the Assault Gunboats, I can say they are too cheap to carry cannons. Here is my revised version of it (and some new/revised upgraded cards).

I hope there is a way to submit this to approval so we can try again the ship in future CCL seasons.

I like it, though integrated ion cannon would probably need some testing. You get less attack dice, but potential to do more damage than an ion cannon. Hurts more against low agility than it does against high (and a lot of low agi ships are already suffereing). At the very least it needs to be primary only so it doesnt ion when you homing missile someone.

Modular Launchers might need testing too. The bomb slot doesn't really bother me, and another missile wouldn't really only, but adding a torpedo slot for free means you can go from 2 missiles to 4 for nothing but an extra munition upgrade.

Modular Launcher does not add an extra ordinance "slot", but replace a missile for a torpedo or bomb (exactly like this).

That's not exactly the same precisely because of Extra Munitions. You could get a second Assault Missile for three points less, because why? I guess because just as any other use of Extra Munitions reduces cost, but your Bomb Loadout is a bad example because it takes the Extra Munitions place. If you hadn't put Assault Gunboat only, then on a TIE Punisher it would be very different proposition by degrees. Did you ever consider putting Limited on it also, or were you interested in seeing a double torpedo or double bomb loadout?

As for the Integrated Ion Cannon, I think there are other options than restricting it to the primary, like writing in conditions for the secondary weapons or increasing the cost.

OK, here is the revised Gunboat expansion. Added Maarek just because.

After playing my 4 matches with the Assault Gunboats, I can say they are too cheap to carry cannons. Here is my revised version of it (and some new/revised upgraded cards).

I hope there is a way to submit this to approval so we can try again the ship in future CCL seasons.

I like it, though integrated ion cannon would probably need some testing. You get less attack dice, but potential to do more damage than an ion cannon. Hurts more against low agility than it does against high (and a lot of low agi ships are already suffereing). At the very least it needs to be primary only so it doesnt ion when you homing missile someone.

Modular Launchers might need testing too. The bomb slot doesn't really bother me, and another missile wouldn't really only, but adding a torpedo slot for free means you can go from 2 missiles to 4 for nothing but an extra munition upgrade.

Modular Launcher does not add an extra ordinance "slot", but replace a missile for a torpedo or bomb (exactly like this).

That's not exactly the same precisely because of Extra Munitions. You could get a second Assault Missile for three points less, because why? I guess because just as any other use of Extra Munitions reduces cost, but your Bomb Loadout is a bad example because it takes the Extra Munitions place. If you hadn't put Assault Gunboat only, then on a TIE Punisher it would be very different proposition by degrees. Did you ever consider putting Limited on it also, or were you interested in seeing a double torpedo or double bomb loadout?

Indeed, it gives you a double ordinance, but consumes the Modification slot, which is very important for missile/torpedo ships.

EDIT: Double bomb or double torpedo wouldn't hurt.

So to confirm I understand the process you're currently suggesting Babaganoosh,

1. The ships (both new and ace pack) are voted on and selected by the community.
2. A ship from the winners is developed into an expansion by the community collaboratively.
3. The finalised designs for that ship (assuming no consensus design was formed) are voted on by the community.
4. Proceed to the next ship and repeat steps 2 and 3 until all ships are designed.

Is that correct?

Given how you approach Modular Launchers I'd recommend having them as Torpedo by default. Players are very likely to use Extra Munitions so having Torpedo as the default reduces the number of upgrade cards needed and makes things slightly tidier.

I think you have it right, yes. here's an example of how I'm thinking things would go:

Take submissions for ace packs and custom ship expansion for rebels

Vote

Winning ace pack and rebel ship have another round of submission, where individual cards can be changed.

Vote on updated ace pack and custom ship expansion

Up/down vote on final products for rebel ace pack and ship expansion

Repeat with imperial and scum

Take submissions for ace packs and custom ship expansion for rebels

Is this just the ship or a complete designed expansion?

On the matter of voting, because I believe this is a valid concern gabe69velaquez raises: do your voting forms record the Google Account names of the entrants? It occured to me before that one person could simply vote twice and skew the results if not. It may be worth putting forum username on the form: in the event of multiple entries being submitted for the same username you can contact that user and ask which is theirs.

The forms don't allow the same account to vote twice. If you have multiple accounts, there isn't much I can do to really stop someone from voting again with their smurf account. Same goes for forum like-based voting, I'm afraid. Hopefully, people just respect the process and don't do it.

If someone has an idea that would prevent people from using smurf accounts to pad their votes, also allows forum lurkers to vote, and doesn't take a lot of work on my end, I'd be happy to take suggestions.

Does your intended process's first stage involve submitting ships (as in just the name of the ship) or completed expansion designs?

Complete expansion designsi

In that case, how about this?

Balance Committee

Before the contest, create a panel of three people. This is known as the Balance Committee. All members should have a good understanding of game balance so high level competitive players that build their own lists are ideal, as are players who mathematically analyse the game like MajorJuggler. Ideally this committee should not submit entries of their own: if a situation arises where there is no option but to put participants on the committee then those members must abstain from decisions regarding their own content. The Balance Committee does not decide what gets used, the community does. They simply ensure that what gets through is balanced.

Stage 1: Design Phase

Entrants submit entries in the form of an expansion modelled after the official FFG release model. They may submit an Ace Pack, which overhauls one or two existing small ships or submit a new ship entirely. The contents of an expansion are listed below. Some cards are listed as a maximum as some expansions rerelease old cards. Titles are included in the upgrade card maximum.

Entrants may post their designs on the forums for feedback but this does not count as submission: to enter your design it must be PMed to Babaganoosh in the form of a single image produced as card images (Strange Eons recommended) containing all components. Ideally use the same format as Odanan’s Assault Gunboat.

Expansion designs can be submitted by individuals or by teams. Teams can be formed at any time before submission: for example, if a user posted a design and then received a lot of feedback from another user that they used they could co-credit that forumer.

Updated designs from previous years can be re-entered.

Small Ship Expansion Type A

• Three generic pilots and three named pilots.
• Up to two relevant upgrade cards.
• Maneuver dial.

Small Ship Expansion Type B

• Two generic and two named pilots or one generic and three named pilots.
• Up to five relevant upgrade cards.
• Maneuver dial.

Large Ship Expansion

• One generic pilot and three named pilots.
• Up to five relevant upgrade cards.
• Maneuver dial.

Ace Expansion

• Up to two new generic pilots.
• Four new named pilots split evenly between the new ships.
• Up to eight relevant upgrade cards.

Stage 2: Voting

These then are entered into Google form to be voted on. For each expansion there is a 1 to 5 ranking which is used to score ships on design quality and interest. There is also an open comment box for users to add balance feedback. The winning three ships are the ships with the highest score regardless of balance feedback. Only one of each new ship can proceed to Stage 3: if two TIE avengers scored highest in Stage 2 then the highest scoring TIE avenger and the third highest scoring ship would proceed (unless it was also a TIE avenger in which case the first and fourth would proceed and so on.)

Stage 3: Balancing Phase

The Balance Committee collates the balance feedback for the top winning ships and posts the winners and any balance concerns there are with its initial form. The designer/s of the winning ship then can alter their designs according to feedback and resubmit them. They can turn to the community for assistance with this.

If the Balance Committee believes the design is now balanced enough for the tournament it proceeds to the finals, if not they return it to the designer with feedback on what needs to be fixed to proceed. A design cannot proceed to the final without the approval of both its designer/s and the Balance Committee. This simultaneously eliminates the problem of unbalanced content entering the tournament and entrants being upset that their designs are altered without their input and used in the tournament.

If the designer and the balance committee cannot reach an agreement before the deadline the design does not proceed to the final although this is unlikely to happen unless a confrontational stance is taken with the balance committee. In the event that this does happen the next highest scorer from Stage 2 is offered a place in the final.

Stage 4: Final Voting

The three finalists then enter a head to head vote: 1 versus 2, 2 versus 3 and 3 versus 1. The ship with the fewest overall votes is eliminated.

The winner of this category of the design competition is then the winner of the head to head between the two remaining ships.

Stage 5: Tournament

Once all categories have been completed players may then sign up to participate in the tournament. The tournament players and tournament players only may vote on the size of the custom card pool. If they vote for a small pool then the winner of each category is used. If they vote for a medium pool then the winner and second place of each category is used. If they vote for a large pool then all three finalists from each category are used.

After this is selected the Balance Committee may implement restrictions on any broken combos they see between custom expansions.

Time Structure (I see each block as a week apart from the tournament although this is very flexible)
https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/11o_Y2BE75MDRGVkd5zisKikOdHuwbO25PU5MRe93THs/edit

You also have noticed that I'm pointing out contradictions, and you don't want to acknowledge that either. So the committee worked and did it's job but there are still cards you and others want to complain about? that's a contradiction that I would like acknowledged because some of those cards were my submissions. This is not troublemaking, THIS IS PROCESS RELATED. You can say that it was successful but I'm giving you evidence that it wasn't: I believe that I and others whose cards made the cut even past this committee deserve an answer as to why they are still on judgement. And if there isn't a good one then you have to acknowledge that this committee failed.

TC-4, the droid crew card, is the top example of what you're trying to get away with here. After the cards were submitted and voted on it was decided that copies of abilities "ship to ship" was okay but not "ship to upgrade" or "upgrade to ship," then cards of TC-4 with alternate abilities were submitted, and this committee still left in the mix the original that some people consider a problem. So now you get to site my card as a problem when there were corrections available and you just chose to ignore them. If it was voted through, and then the committee let it through, then you have no business complaining about it any further, or acknowledge that this committee failed.

Also, as someone who didnt even play in the tournament, why is it so important to you?

Speaking of contradictions, you allow anyone in the world with a Google account to vote on these cards, advertised far and wide, whether they don't design cards or don't play in tournaments, or even not play the game at all. And then you wonder why odd stuff that doesn't appeal to you personally, and may not make the most kill efficient list when included in their builds, ends up floating to the top. That's really naive isn't it? Without thinking of who owns those Google accounts and why they are voting. And you have one vocal person complaining about what poor quality cards get voted in and complaining that you're considering changing the vote system, LOL, and that is one funny contradiction. It sounds like you're saying it's running okay as long as it gets you the final vote results you're expecting. My cards were made in good faith, very fluff slanted ideas and unique designs, but made in good faith, and though I didn't bank on that appeal I can see now more clearly why they got voted for; It's a broken process if the highest voted for cards are something you can complain about, tinker to taste, vote on again, and still complain about them.

As you've already said yourself, most of the "poor quality" cards in question are yours. And youre pretty much the one thats been concerned about how easy it is to spoof google votes. And you had, IIRC, 8 out of the 20 upgrades that went into the first season. No one else is conplaining that certain cards made it in over other cards or that the voting process is bad. Just that we dont think some types of cards should be allowed in the first place next season.

Most of the "complaining" in question was during the second round of submissions last season. Not after the final versions were voted in and we moved on and worked with what we had. The only "complaining" in this thread was commenta on ideas for card ssubmission rules until you wont let it go and we have to keep defending why.

After playing my 4 matches with the Assault Gunboats, I can say they are too cheap to carry cannons. Here is my revised version of it (and some new/revised upgraded cards).

I hope there is a way to submit this to approval so we can try again the ship in future CCL seasons.

I like it, though integrated ion cannon would probably need some testing. You get less attack dice, but potential to do more damage than an ion cannon. Hurts more against low agility than it does against high (and a lot of low agi ships are already suffereing). At the very least it needs to be primary only so it doesnt ion when you homing missile someone.

Modular Launchers might need testing too. The bomb slot doesn't really bother me, and another missile wouldn't really only, but adding a torpedo slot for free means you can go from 2 missiles to 4 for nothing but an extra munition upgrade.

Modular Launcher does not add an extra ordinance "slot", but replace a missile for a torpedo or bomb (exactly like this).

I will change the Integrated Ion Cannons to primary only.

Thats what I get for not reading close enough. Yah trading a missile for a torpedo or bomb (on a specific ship only) doesnt bother me at all.

In that case, how about this?

Balance Committee

Before the contest, create a panel of three people. This is known as the Balance Committee. All members should have a good understanding of game balance so high level competitive players that build their own lists are ideal, as are players who mathematically analyse the game like MajorJuggler. Ideally this committee should not submit entries of their own: if a situation arises where there is no option but to put participants on the committee then those members must abstain from decisions regarding their own content. The Balance Committee does not decide what gets used, the community does. They simply ensure that what gets through is balanced.

Stage 1: Design Phase

Entrants submit entries in the form of an expansion modelled after the official FFG release model. They may submit an Ace Pack, which overhauls one or two existing small ships or submit a new ship entirely. The contents of an expansion are listed below. Some cards are listed as a maximum as some expansions rerelease old cards. Titles are included in the upgrade card maximum.

Entrants may post their designs on the forums for feedback but this does not count as submission: to enter your design it must be PMed to Babaganoosh in the form of a single image produced as card images (Strange Eons recommended) containing all components. Ideally use the same format as Odanan’s Assault Gunboat.

Expansion designs can be submitted by individuals or by teams. Teams can be formed at any time before submission: for example, if a user posted a design and then received a lot of feedback from another user that they used they could co-credit that forumer.

Updated designs from previous years can be re-entered.

Small Ship Expansion Type A

• Three generic pilots and three named pilots.
• Up to two relevant upgrade cards.
• Maneuver dial.

Small Ship Expansion Type B

• Two generic and two named pilots or one generic and three named pilots.
• Up to five relevant upgrade cards.
• Maneuver dial.

Large Ship Expansion

• One generic pilot and three named pilots.
• Up to five relevant upgrade cards.
• Maneuver dial.

Ace Expansion

• Up to two new generic pilots.
• Four new named pilots split evenly between the new ships.
• Up to eight relevant upgrade cards.

Stage 2: Voting

These then are entered into Google form to be voted on. For each expansion there is a 1 to 5 ranking which is used to score ships on design quality and interest. There is also an open comment box for users to add balance feedback. The winning three ships are the ships with the highest score regardless of balance feedback. Only one of each new ship can proceed to Stage 3: if two TIE avengers scored highest in Stage 2 then the highest scoring TIE avenger and the third highest scoring ship would proceed (unless it was also a TIE avenger in which case the first and fourth would proceed and so on.)

Stage 3: Balancing Phase

The Balance Committee collates the balance feedback for the top winning ships and posts the winners and any balance concerns there are with its initial form. The designer/s of the winning ship then can alter their designs according to feedback and resubmit them. They can turn to the community for assistance with this.

If the Balance Committee believes the design is now balanced enough for the tournament it proceeds to the finals, if not they return it to the designer with feedback on what needs to be fixed to proceed. A design cannot proceed to the final without the approval of both its designer/s and the Balance Committee. This simultaneously eliminates the problem of unbalanced content entering the tournament and entrants being upset that their designs are altered without their input and used in the tournament.

If the designer and the balance committee cannot reach an agreement before the deadline the design does not proceed to the final although this is unlikely to happen unless a confrontational stance is taken with the balance committee. In the event that this does happen the next highest scorer from Stage 2 is offered a place in the final.

Stage 4: Final Voting

The three finalists then enter a head to head vote: 1 versus 2, 2 versus 3 and 3 versus 1. The ship with the fewest overall votes is eliminated.

The winner of this category of the design competition is then the winner of the head to head between the two remaining ships.

Stage 5: Tournament

Once all categories have been completed players may then sign up to participate in the tournament. The tournament players and tournament players only may vote on the size of the custom card pool. If they vote for a small pool then the winner of each category is used. If they vote for a medium pool then the winner and second place of each category is used. If they vote for a large pool then all three finalists from each category are used.

After this is selected the Balance Committee may implement restrictions on any broken combos they see between custom expansions.

Time Structure (I see each block as a week apart from the tournament although this is very flexible)

https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/11o_Y2BE75MDRGVkd5zisKikOdHuwbO25PU5MRe93THs/edit

Are there any existing small ship expansions with 1 generic and 3 named pilots? I know large ships generall use that format, and theres small ships with 2/2 or 3/3 for pilots. Should also allow a ship with all unique pilots and no generics if there are fluff reasons that it would make sense. I would argue large ships should allow more upgrade than small (as they typically have more than small ships do) and aces packs should also allow adding generic pilots as well as unique ones (both imp aces and vets add mid-ps generics with epts for instance)

I really hope the developers read these forums. I would love to see the AGB in the game in very much the way its been considered here.

I really hope the developers read these forums. I would love to see the AGB in the game in very much the way its been considered here.

I think ive read the decelopers basically arent allowed to read threads like this for custom stuff. Basically so if they DO create aomething similar, no one can say the devs copied their design or ideas