In X wing, with everything else being equal, a higher PS will always mean higher point cost for a ship, because its generally better to move second and pretty much always to fire first.

But as i wrote, its generally better to move second, not always.

I cant count the times I 've put a low pilot skill ship in my fleet, either because it performs fine regardless of its PS, or because i want to use it as a blocker.

I have never, ever chosen a PS2 version of that ship over a PS1. Have you guys?

PS1 is cheaper, and all i sacrifice is the chance of firing first if my opponet fields a PS1 or -depending on initiative- PS2 ship. Besides it being cheaper, i am more likely to get a block, which is probably why i want with such a low PS ship.

Wouldn't things be way more interesting if a PS1 ship was more expensive than the PS2? It makes a lot of sense for some (i know, not all) ships and it would have a significant impact on the variety of PS ships flown.

Am I missing something important? Cause we all know its better to have a ship that is good at one thing than average at a lot of things (in this case mid PS compared to super high or super low PS).

In X wing, with everything else being equal, a higher PS will always mean higher point cost for a ship, because its generally better to move second and pretty much always to fire first.

But as i wrote, its generally better to move second, not always.

I cant count the times I 've put a low pilot skill ship in my fleet, either because it performs fine regardless of its PS, or because i want to use it as a blocker.

I have never, ever chosen a PS2 version of that ship over a PS1. Have you guys?

PS1 is cheaper, and all i sacrifice is the chance of firing first if my opponet fields a PS1 or -depending on initiative- PS2 ship. Besides it being cheaper, i am more likely to get a block, which is probably why i want with such a low PS ship.

Wouldn't things be way more interesting if a PS1 ship was more expensive than the PS2? It makes a lot of sense for some (i know, not all) ships and it would have a significant impact on the variety of PS ships flown.

Am I missing something important? Cause we all know its better to have a ship that is good at one thing than average at a lot of things (in this case mid PS compared to super high or super low PS).

Well, there aren't very many generic ships where you're paying for a 1 PS difference with the same ship; and when you are, there's usually a difference in options (Saber vs. Avenger is one example I can think of and I rarely have seen an Avenger and certainly not in a competitive list).

In a meta where generics are relevant (that is not our current meta), that extra point usually gets you two PS and can be worthwhile. I believe that in 2013 World's (?) Paul Heaver paying the extra point to get a PS 4, above swarms, allowed him to kill a ship before it could. In another example, when TLTs first came out a lot of players in my meta were running PS 2, so I started running PS 3 Ties to again kill one before it could shoot.

Blocking certainly has advantages, but there are ships/builds that don't care about it as much and good players can plan to avoid it, and there's also the possibility of having both in a list (like 3 Green Squadron A-wings and one Prototype)

Edit: I think there is certainly a discussion to be had that as it relates to pilot abilities, PS still seems to determine point cost and that shouldn't be the case, but it's probably way too late for that change to be made in general, though I think Tomax Bren being cheaper than Rhymer was a recent example of that. But, in terms of generics, that extra PS can be worthwhile (or not), but that depends greatly on the meta.

I'm of the opinion that there should not be a linear relationship between PS and cost. However, there still should be a positive correlation. With the exception of the 12pt -> 13pt ships (Z95, TIE/ln), 1pt buys you 1PS. Yet not all PS gains are equal, nor are all ships equal.

As a ship becomes more expensive, the named pilots (and the higher priced named pilots at that) become better deals. The E wing is the epitome of that, where Corran Horn is the only pilot worth flying. He pays 7 points for +7 PS, and then 1 point for his (awesome) ability. This is off of the base price of 27 points for a PS1. So he's paying a 3.7% premium for each PS. Compare this to a cheap ship, such as Serissu, who pays 6 points for +6 PS, and nothing for her ability. This is on a base of 14 points, which means she's paying 7.1% premium for each PS.

Now I chose two extreme examples, but Serissu is playing twice as much for her PS increase over Corran, which is why Corran is such a "good deal" compared to the Knave or Blackmoon, and Serissu is never considered. If a PS increase was a 5% increase of ship cost, then that would equalize this a bit (though it'd be very difficult to implement in a 100pt squad system). Leaving the base cost of the Scyk alone, Serissu would be 18.2 points, and the base price of a Knave would be 25.9 points.

But it goes beyond just the bias of the ship. As Haritos pointed out, the increase from PS1 to PS2 isn't that big of a deal, but the increase from PS7 to 8 is huge, and 8 to 9 is arguably even more important. As such, perhaps one should be paying a 3% increase from 1->2->3, 4% for 4->5->6, and 6% for 7->8->9 or something like that. But all of that would be leading to almost separating the pilot from the PS.

Dang...you're really onto something here

Would the idea be that the PS3-5 pilots be the cheapest, then the PS1-2 generics, then the PS6+ would cost most?

...Hm. But wouldn't that just say right then and there, "Here is the least efficient one to use?" and then we'd have even more costing problems? The more points you spend are paying for that higher skill.

I am also of the opinion that PS should not be linear in costs.

I had been arguing for a gradiated scale like the following.

PS 1 - 3 costs +1 per point.
PS 4 - 6 costs +2 per point.
PS 7 - 9 costs +3 per point.

But Now I'm kinda toying with the idea that perhaps the PS scale should be a hockey stick.

PS 1 - 6 costs +1 per point.
PS 7 - 8 costs +2 per point
PS 9 costs +4 more.

Just an idea.

Maybe my brain is fried from working all day and I'm just not getting it, but how would costing lower PS generics higher than higher PS generics help at all to diversify the PS being flown? If a PS1 generic was more than a PS2 generic almost everybody would just fly the PS2 generic instead. What am I missing?

I am also of the opinion that PS should not be linear in costs.

I had been arguing for a gradiated scale like the following.

PS 1 - 3 costs +1 per point.

PS 4 - 6 costs +2 per point.

PS 7 - 9 costs +3 per point.

But Now I'm kinda toying with the idea that perhaps the PS scale should be a hockey stick.

PS 1 - 6 costs +1 per point.

PS 7 - 8 costs +2 per point

PS 9 costs +4 more.

Just an idea.

I'd rather see the ship costed as a whole and PS just be a piece of that whole. It would be nice to continue to see stronger pilot skills at the mid PS levels, but maybe with cost on par with Higher PS ships that don't have as good of an ability. It seems like outrageously costed PS 9 ships would just result in most PS 9 ships also not being used which I don't think does a ton to help either.

Maybe my brain is fried from working all day and I'm just not getting it, but how would costing lower PS generics higher than higher PS generics help at all to diversify the PS being flown? If a PS1 generic was more than a PS2 generic almost everybody would just fly the PS2 generic instead. What am I missing?

My thought was that today, if you wanna go low you re probably gonna go as low as it gets, so for example everyone flies ps1 when going for generics.

Now if you cost the ps1 more and suddenly everyone starts flying ps2 ships, there is space for a new role: ps1 blockers. So you at least have a choice to make now, instead of it just being a no brainer "as low as it goes cause it cheaper."

I think we all agree that if everytime you are given a choice between the ps1 and ps2 version you go with the ps1, theres something wrong with the balancing/costing there.

So: I think there are a few things going on, but this is an excellent discussion.

So firstly: proper scaling depends on proper initial pricing. For instance: Corran is properly priced because his ability is worth. ~4 points, but he only pays 1 point for it. At the same time, the E-Wing hull is overpriced by ~4 points. If Corran had the same 35 point cost, but Maarek's ability, we would never see him. Conversely: a 23 point Knave would see play, but not be OP.

The other thing: reposition actions are worth more at a higher PS. Being able to Boost at PS9 is simply worth more than being able to Boost at PS1. Barrel Rolling, however, is _really_ good at PS1-2, mediocre at 3-7, and good again at 8-9.

In this sense, we can say that a generic PS1 Squint should cost ~16 points, but a Generic PS8 TIE Interceptor should cost about 24 points, and a generic PS9 should cost roughly 26 points. (Carnor Jax has an EPT and Pilot ability. And Soontir is roughly exactly where he needs to be.)

The other broad point is this: while a higher PS _can_ be turned into survivability, it doesn't always offer enough to be worth what a formula might dictate. B-Wings, for instance, can barrel roll, and the generics are properly priced. However! The high PS ships can be focused down quickly enough that if they look threatening, they will absolutely be destroyed in the first or second round of fire. Maybe at 30 points, we'd see more Ten Numb, but I suspect he'd still get wiped off the board first- his ability is strongly offensive, and his innate defense is weak.

(Edited a bunch of stuff, because I forgot I wasn't on Twitter and hit "send" after the first sentence)

Thought I posted already...

I have started using adaptability to decrease a pilots PS to keep the squad acting together. Having one PS for the whole squad is worth it. Lower PS is not that big of a boon, yes you can block, but late game it loses it's potency. I love saying people are wasting points on high PS pilots.

The problem is its not just PS, but pilot ability as well. Until recently (Ryad) the best pilot abilities were also at highest pilto skill (Soontir, Wedge, etc).

Now, if the best pilot abilities were at middling PS, you'd have a solid rationale for linear pricing, because there's a real choice for the player: take the higher PS to be able to react and shoot first, or the better pilot ability with the poorer reaction and firing.

Imagine swapping Soontir Fel's and Fel's Wrath's abilities while keeping the same price and pilot skill and you'll get the idea.

Then there are three viable price ranges:

PS 1-3: Blockers, low cost generics

PS 4-6: Great pilot abilities

PS 7-9: PS advantage; middling pilot abilities.