LAST BIG UPDATE : ( 02-18-17 ) Turns out that the X-Wing w/Integrated, TIE/SF, Kihraxz, HWK-290, E-Wing, and Starviper are all underpowered for the exact same reason . Details in the " What Ships Qualify for the Glass Cannon Bonus? " section.

***in process of updating Wave 11-14 ships as of 02-20-18***

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

*DISCLAIMER* : The formula is for ship stats ( red / green / hull & shields ) ONLY. It does not factor in pilot skill, dial, actions, etc. That comes after. This is the basis for where pricing can start.

With that being said, if a ship is supposed to be efficient then you can expect 100% accurate results.

WHAT THIS GUIDE WILL TELL YOU :
With this, you can determine EXACTLY how much you're paying for extra goodies like an exceptional dial, the auxiliary firing arc on the TIE/SF, how effective the "fixes" have been for historically bad ships including Lightweight Frame on the TIE/SF, and how FFG has historically erred on the side of caution when pricing new mechanics along with other things. This guide will NOT tell you how FFG determines the final value of their ships (which is likely a judgment call unbound by formulas), although you can see patterns in their logic... except for the TIE-Punisher. That's just darts thrown at a board.

Once we know how much a ship is paying for utility, we can explain with great precision and detail why ANY ship in the game may feel overpowered or underpowered. In a nutshell, all base-line stats for 3-AGI, 2-AGI, and 1-AGI ships are priced in direct proportion to the TIE-Fighter, (sort of) the Z-95, and (sort of) the B-Wing respectively. Why (sort of) the B-Wing? Because the B-Wing is not 100% efficient and the 12pt TIE-Fighter equivalent of a 1-AGI ship does not yet exist. Wonder what that would look like? Read on to find out!

This guide is also an extremely useful tool for those wishing to predict the costs of upcoming, custom, or otherwise hypothetical ships (say a ship with a 4 / 3 / 8 / 4 or 2 / 1 / 10 / 6 stat line assuming relatively normal dials/actions/upgrades). So if you want to make a custom ship and don't know where to start for pricing... this is for you.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
INDEX
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[AAA] Rules
aaa-1 = Step by Step
aaa-2 = The Basis for the Formula
aaa-3 = The Formula
aaa-4 = Offense Value Pricing for Primary Weapons
aaa-5 = Special Rules
aaa-6 = Main Examples
aaa-7 = Yet to Confirm

[BBB] Rebel

[CCC] Imperial

[DDD] Scum

[EEE] Large Ships

[FFF] Trends in Pricing
fff-1 = The "Glass Cannon Bonus"
fff-2 = What Ships Qualify for the "Glass Cannon Bonus?"
fff-3 = The "Fat Turret Penalty"
fff-4 = Accuracy Corrector on 2 ATK Ships
fff-5 = Taxes - Upgrade Bar
fff-6 = Taxes - Other

[GGG] Hypothetical Ships
ggg-1 = 2-ATK 1-AGI Equivalent of TIE-Fighter and Z-95
ggg-2 = 2-ATK 1-AGI Equivalent of TIE-Interceptor

[HHH] Final Thoughts
hhh-1 = Impressions
hhh-2 = Least Efficient Stat Lines
hhh-3 = Most Efficient Stat Lines
hhh-4 = Closing

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[AAA] RULES: HOW TO DETERMINE THE COST OF ANY SHIP'S BASIC STAT LINE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[ Conf:"X" ] = My confidence level regarding accuracy of rules, rated with letter grades "F" to "A." This is due to either extrapolation (lack of data) or an apparent change in the system. The default grade will be "A" unless otherwise stated.

[aaa-1] STEP BY STEP :
#1.) Determine AGI value of ship in question and use the following models as guides :
3-AGI = TIE-Fighter Academy Pilot [ 2 / 3 / 3 ]
2-AGI = hypothetical 100% efficient Z-95 model at 12 points with exactly [ 2 / 2 / 4.5 ] stats
1-AGI = hypothetical 100% efficient 1-AGI model at 12 points with exactly [ 2 / 1 / 6 ] stats
0-AGI = hypothetical 100% efficient 0-AGI model at 12 points with exactly [ 2 / 0 / 7.5 ] stats
#2.) Find the defense and offense values of the ship in question .
Defense values are determined by direct proportion to the listed basic models' hit points.
Offense values will be provided with a consistent and concise list.
#3.) Plug values into formula .
#4.) PROFIT!

[aaa-2] THE BASIS FOR THE FORMULA :
The TIE-Fighter is a thing of beauty. I have discovered that the Academy Pilot is one of the only pilots completely free of fluff. Even the Rebel and Scum Z-95's are not as efficient as the mighty Academy Pilot, each paying exactly 2/3 of a point for the Missile slot and PS2/Illicit. TIE-Fighter dial/actions/upgrades are considered "relatively normal" and do NOT factor into its cost . Completely variable free, cheapest ship in the game, and easily divisible at 12pts for nice round numbers, the mighty Academy Pilot is the perfect basis upon which pricing for all ships can start.

Offense and defense each account for exactly half a ship's base stat line value. The tricky part is that 2 red dice is priced as 100% offensive value, and 3 red dice is priced as 200% offensive value. This means that the game is priced so that two 2-ATK shots is equivalent to one 3-ATK shot. This tells us that FFG likely knew from the start that going from 2 red dice to 3 increases your expected in-game damage by a lot more than 50%, and so they priced accordingly. Good job, FFG. And now I present to you...

[aaa-3] THE FORMULA :
base stat line cost = 12 * [( offense value + 100) / 2]% * [( defense value + 100) / 2]%
This version uses values in proportion to the TIE-Fighter. Alternatively, you can use...

base stat line cost = 2( attack ) * [( hull + shields ) / (5 - agility ) + 1.5]
Credit to user "Blue Five" for this easier to use version of the same formula.

[aaa-4] OFFENSE VALUE PRICING FOR PRIMARY WEAPONS :
26.3% offense value = 1-ATK standard (HWK-290) [ Conf:D ]
100% offense value = 2-ATK standard, 1-ATK turret
200% offense value = 3-ATK standard, 2-ATK turret
300% offense value = 4-ATK standard, 3-ATK turret
400% offense value = 5-ATK standard, 4-ATK turret (Outrider w/HLC) [ Conf:C ]

[aaa-5] SPECIAL RULES :
AUXILIARY/MOBILE ARCS : Priced exactly half-way between a standard firing arc and turret.
GLASS CANNON BONUS : Small ships from this class sometimes have a 1pt cheaper cost than their stat line would suggest. See " The Glass Cannon Bonus " under " Trends in Pricing " for details.
LARGE SHIP BONUS : Receive a 12.5% price discount for their stats.
FAT TURRET PENALTY : This sub-class of large ships do not receive the "large ship bonus."

MOST IMPORTANT TRENDS : ***always a work in progress***
These are different from the special rules because there is:
(a) very little data to go off of
(b) they relate to final costs instead of stat costs (which are important for context)
(c) they are not technically rules, or...
(d) they are evolutions of previous rules

ACCURACY CORRECTOR : Any ship with 2-ATK pays an insane tax for the System slot.
CONSERVATIVE PRICING : FFG consistently tends to overprice new mechanics.
EARLY UTILITY PRICING : Back in the day, some things consistently costed insane amounts (like Missile slots worth 2 points and +1 pilot skill worth around +1pt).
FAT TURRET PENALTY "CONSOLATION PRIZE" : Wave 8 "Fat Turret" ships and beyond appear to get their first ~1-2pts of utility for free as mild compensation for the "Fat Turret Penalty" being a bit on the harsh side. This is an evolution of the "Fat Turret Penalty." [ Conf:B ]
GLASS CANNON PERIPHERY FLAW : Not technically a "rule" but a mistake on FFG's end regarding the current special rules for their own formula. Ships on the periphery of qualifying for the glass cannon bonus are consistently weak, missing out on an estimated ~1 point of utility. Take a good look at every ship in this category and you'll know what I mean. See " What Ships Qualify for the Glass Cannon Bonus? " under " Trends in Pricing " for details.

APPROXIMATE OFFENSE VALUES :
ACCURACY CORRECTOR : 162.5% offense value (2.625-ATK standard)
DORSAL TURRET : 200% offense value (2-ATK turret, 3-ATK standard)
UNGUIDED ROCKETS : 175% offense value (2.75-ATK standard)

[aaa-6] MAIN EXAMPLES :
[agility] Example : [ GLASS-C ] 200% offense, 200% defense = A {B} < E=96.4% >
[ GLASS-C ] = possesses a "Glass Cannon Bonus" (only on select small ships)
[ PERIPHERY ] = barely not qualified to be classified as a "glass cannon"
A = cost of naked stat line
{B} = official cheapest cost pilot
E = Efficiency. Raw stats of "B" vs. a TIE-Fighter (similar to MathWing's Jousting Value). This is not a good indicator of jousting ability for glass cannons and periphery ships.
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : How the community seems to feel about said ship, and how it compares to the formula.
EXPLANATION : Meant to put into perspective what you're paying for, how much, and why.
CONCLUSION : What does all this mean? How does it relate to the balance of the ship?

>>>>>>>>>> Now let's try to find the price of a ship ourselves! >>>>>>>>>>

[3 agility] TIE-Interceptor : [ GLASS-C ] 200% offense, 100% defense = 18 {18} < E=100% >
WALK-THROUGH : its 3-ATK is priced as 200% of a TIE-Fighter's 2-ATK, and it has identical defense value. Therefor, it would see a 50% total increase in cost since offense is valued as half a ship's cost.
12 * [(200+100)/2]% = 12 * 150% = 18
18 * [(100+100)/2]% = 18 * 100% = 18 {identical to official price of 18}
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : The Alpha Squadron Pilot feels weak, but according to the formula its stats are perfectly balanced. What could be missing?
EXPLANATION : The TIE-Interceptor is the first of many ships to feature a "glass cannon bonus." If you thought that its amazing dial and actions should cost something, then you are definitely right. Most ships don't get that kind of dial and actions for free, otherwise the TIE-Interceptor's final (official) cost for an Alpha Squadron Pilot (PS1) would be 19-20pts. However, because of its "glass cannon bonus," it's allowed to have them for free.
CONCLUSION : Still, its bonuses were the most conservative of the bunch because FFG tends to price cautiously when doing something new. You can expect other glass cannons to have slightly better bonuses with the newest ones being the most aggressively priced of the bunch.

[1 agility] Y-Wing : 100% offense and 133% defense (8/6) compared to base 12 point model which is the 1-AGI equivalent of the 3-AGI TIE-Fighter
12 * 100% = 12
12 * 116.67% = 14 {official price is 18}
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : A naked Y-Wing feels extremely underpowered, and indeed it is.
EXPLANATION : A Turret slot on a 2-ATK primary firing arc ships seems to be worth a lot.
CONCLUSION : The Y-Wing was priced with the expectation that it would always be equipped with a turret. Want to find out how much a Y-Wing w/title and Dorsal Turret should cost? Read on.

*DISCLAIMER* : Any deviations from official pricing does NOT mean the formula is wrong . The reason why I put both numbers there is to put into perspective how much you are are paying (and in rare cases saving) for utility. It is up to YOU to decide whether or not those precious points for utility are worth it .

[aaa-7] YET TO CONFIRM :
Where the exact cut-off point as to where a ship is entitled to the "glass cannon bonus." It is likely 133% defense value and below. The T-65 X-Wing, while efficient, may be missing out on its class bonus if it does indeed belong to the glass cannon subclass of small ships. Also working on finding the efficiency for a 4-AGI ship or pseudo 4-AGI like the TIE-Phantom.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[BBB] REBEL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[1] ARC-170 : 200% offense, 150% defense = 22.25 {25} < E=90.0% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Seems on the weaker side for its stats. Formula Checks out .
EXPLANATION : Paying 2.75pts for PS3, named pilot ability, unique and powerful Astromech + Crew combo potential, and weak auxiliary firing arc. Whether or not it's worth it is up to you.

[2] Attack Shuttle : [ GLASS-C ] 200% offense, 88.9% defense = 17 {18} < E=94.4% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Seems decent enough, and price is as expected. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : PS3, unique pilot ability, a turret slot, and a crew slot are packaged at a discount price of 1pt as part of its "glass cannon bonus."

[1] Auzituck Gunship : 250% offense, 150% defense = 26.25 {24} < E=109% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Everything is powerful. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : You're saving 2-3 points for the lack of K-turn and Target Lock. This thing is sturdy as ****, is awesome for the stats, and is even able to keep more nimble enemies in arc thanks to its 180 degree frontal firing arc. Add in some amazing pilot abilities, double crew, and great combos and you have a really amazing ship.

[3] A-Wing : 100% offense, 133% defense = 14 {15,17} < E=93.3%, 82.4% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Was indeed overcosted by 2pts at release. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : Missile slots appear to have paid ~2pt tax in the early stages of pricing ships. Paying 1pt for a badass dial, unique 5 green straight, and good action bar. Seems reasonable.

[1] B/SF-17 Bomber : [ FAT-T(C) ] 200% offense, 200% defense = 27 (~23.63 ) {25} <E=108%>
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Stats are just decent for the cost. Nothing amazing. Use for the abilities and upgrades.
EXPLANATION : If you're comparing generics then it has the exact same offense and defense percent rating as a Jumpmaster. This seems good until you realize that the Contracted Scouts boast an extra +2 pilot skill, a better dial including the coveted white Segnor Loop, and an EPT over the B/SF-17 Bomber. Although to be fair... Contracted Scouts are still unreasonably beastly even with the nerfs. Bombers aren't getting a whole lot for being ~1-2 points under their stat cost, especially considering that they lack a K-turn. Bottom line, running Crimson Squadron Pilots naked is kinda meh, so you're still better off running at least a few upgrades to highlight their strengths.

[1] B-Wing : 200% offense, 133% defense = 21 {22} < E=95.5% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Seen as slightly inefficient, but still a good ship. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : Paying 1pt for PS2 and good upgrade bar (System, Cannon, Torpedo x2). It is very consistent for System slots to be paying ~1/2pt tax.

[3] E-Wing : [ PERIPHERY ] 200% offense, 166% defense = 24 {27} < E=88.9% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : No surprises here. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : Paying a huge 3pt tax for an unused 3 AGI + Astromech + System combo. Why? Because regeneration (astromech) + high mitigation (agility, evade, etc) = overpowered. This combo right here is a great example of why a flat formula for determining a ship's final price is a terrible idea. Unfortunately, a naked generic is paying the price which explains why we only see Corran Horn. A -3pt retrofit title that removed the Astromech slot and gave it a minor ability worth ~1/2pt would very likely be enough to allow the generics to be viable.

[2] HWK-290 : [ PERIPHERY ] 26.3% offense, 111% defense = 9.5 {16} < E=??? >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : When was the last time you saw a naked HWK-290? Checks out .
EXPLANATION : This ship is designed to be played with a turret equipped. Anything else is folly. To determine whether or not the ship may be overpriced, I would need a turret that very closely mimics a primary weapon. Turns out we have one.

[2] HWK-290 w/Dorsal Turret : [ PERIPHERY ] 200% off, 111% def = 19 {19} < E=100% >
* SPECIAL NOTE : Dorsal Turret treated as 2-ATK turret primary
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Well... this is odd. Controversial .
EXPLANATION : Very interesting... this ship is 100% efficient. Well, you have to ignore the fact that it cant hit anything at range 3 with its turret and you're still usually rolling just 2 red dice but yeah. It also appears to be getting +1 pilot skill and a Crew slot as compensation for the fact that it's incapable of landing attacks at range 3 with its turret and (let's be real here) its primary weapon. Still "feels" a bit weak, though. Since it qualifies as a periphery ship, my theory is that it is entitled to a partial "glass cannon bonus" that it is likely not receiving. A great example of how a perfectly efficient stat line may not necessarily translate to a perfectly balanced ship.

[1] K-Wing : 200% offense, 150% defense = 22.25 {23} < E=96.7% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Overcosted when naked, but still sees solid play. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : Paying less than a point for a VERY impressive upgrade bar, PS2, and SLAM.

[3] Sabine's TIE : 100% offense, 100% defense = 12 {13,14} < E=92.3-85.7% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Good, but pays a lot for utility. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : 1pt for PS3 and a pilot ability is simply amazing. "Sabine's Masterpiece" at 1pt is very fairly priced, and you pay exactly what you would expect for a Crew and Illicit slot (both of which are usually priced at ~1/2pt). This is also the cheapest Crew ship the Rebels have and the only ship aside from the YT-1300 that can have Illicit for them. Very unique.

[2] T-70 : [ PERIPHERY ] 200% offense, 133% defense = 21 {24} < E=87.5% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Supports theory that it was over-costed by 2pts at release. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : They likely didn't want to literally just replace the regular X-Wing, so they based the price for the T-70 on an already over-costed ship.

[2] T-70 w/Integrated & 0pt Astromech : 200% offense, 155% defense = 23 {24} < E=95.8% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Even with "fix," it is indeed not as efficient as other ships. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : However, it's not supposed to be as efficient. You're paying exactly one point for Boost, Talon Roll, PS2, and Tech slot. You are also paying full price for any Astromech you equip. Stays true to the 'all-around' nature of the original X-Wing featuring added fluff to its actions, upgrades, and dial at the cost of efficiency.

[2] X-Wing : [ PERIPHERY ] 200% offense, 111% defense = 19 {21} < E=90.5% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Supports theory that it was over-costed by 2pts at release. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : PS2 and conservative pricing. During the early stages of the game, they may have thought that it would be too powerful to have 5 in a squad.

[2] X-Wing w/Integrated & 0pt Astromech : [ PER ] 200% off, 133% def = 21 {21} < E=100% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : With a 0pt Astromech, it is perfectly efficient. Controversial .
EXPLANATION : "Fix" put its stats perfectly in line with a bonus +1 pilot skill to boot. Despite public opinion, the ship has indeed appeared in swarm in several 2016 regional lists, so it could just be that people are still hung up on it being terrible when it's actually not. Fair warning, while the ship stats are now as efficient as a TIE-Fighter, the catch is that you are FORCED to pay full price for any Astromech you equip, so this ship is still not as efficient as a TIE-Fighter in practice because you are paying a minimum of 1pt of fluff for Astromech and pilot skill. This explains why some people may "feel" that the X-Wing is still underpowered. Remember, this also says nothing about named pilots being over or underpriced.
* SPECIAL NOTE : There is also good reason to believe that it is entitled to a partial "glass cannon bonus" since its defense value is only 133%, and both the Heavy Syck and Protectorate Starfighter are each getting glass cannon bonuses at those defense values.

[1] Y-Wing : 100% offense, 133% defense = 14 {18} < E=77.8% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : As expected, a naked Y-Wing is hugely over-costed. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : It appears that the Y-Wing was always expected to be played with a turret and later with possibly the title. Let's find out how effective the title "fix" was.

[1] Y-Wing w/title & Dorsal Turret : 200% offense, 133% defense = 21 {21} < E=100% >
*SPECIAL NOTE : Double attack treated as 200% offense. Hurts more than a 3 ATK primary at range 1 while losing its secondary turret attack at range 3, so it kind of evens out.
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Seems usable enough. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : Would you look at that... it's priced PERFECTLY now. Its dial is still mediocre, but it has the benefit of having an above average upgrade bar and PS2 as compensation.

[2] Z-95 : 100% offense, 88.9% defense = ~ 11.33 {12} < E=94.4% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Solid swarm ship, but it's no TIE-Fighter. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : Less efficient than a TIE-Fighter. Paying 2/3 of a point for PS2 and Missile slot.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[CCC] IMPERIAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[2] Alpha-Class Star Wing : 100% off, 155% def = 15.33 {18}
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : As expected, no one ever runs this ship naked. With one good upgrade, however, it turns into a menace. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : Since we already have a TIE-Bomber costing 16 points for 6 hull, anything less than 17 points would be unlikely. Like most 2-ATK secondary turret users, its cost is balanced with upgrades in mind. If we pretend a powerful ordnance, say Homing Missiles, followed by a turn of no attacking equates to roughly 3 attack dice on average (I'm just guessing here), we could expect the lowest cost pilot plus ordnance to cost around 22-23 points. Even though I'm pretending something like a Homing Missile every other turn averages out to roughly 3 attack dice, in practice it's better because front-loaded damage is better than constant damage. Also, with the introduction of better missiles, like Harpoon Missiles, this ship can stay quite potent for cheap. Throw in SLAM, LRS, and good options and it's easy to see why the generics are so powerful.

[3] TIE-Advanced : 100% offense, 166% defense = 16 {21} < E=76.2% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Holy overpriced ships, Batman! Checks out .
EXPLANATION : During their early pricing days FFG figured that a Missile upgrade slot and Target Lock were worth 2pts each and +1 pilot skill was worth 1pt for 5pts total. Evidence of Missile upgrade tax can further be seen with pre-retrofit A-Wings. With the TIE/x1 title you are paying 5pts for Accuracy Corrector on a 2ATK ship, which is rather unique and a disproportionately big upgrade for them relative to a 3ATK or more ship, and it also makes it difficult to quantify. Remember that Accuracy Corrector also frees up your actions, meaning you're able to tank up with Evade Tokens on a 3 AGI generic with a lot of HP. That is all likely factored in.

[3] TIE-Advanced w/Accuracy Corrector : 162.5% off, 166% def = 21 ? {21} < E=100%? >
CALCULATED VS PERCEIVED OFFENSIVE VALUE : Assuming 21 is a balanced number, Accuracy Corrector on this ship would be equal to 2.625 red dice. From my experience it does feel well above 2-ATK and below 3-ATK, so the numbers seem about right.
EXPLANATION : Hard to quantify, but all of FFG's other fixes have been pretty spot on so far. Believe in the FFG that believes in you.

[3] TIE-Advanced Prototype : 100% offense, 133% defense = 14 {16,17} < E=87.5%, 82.4% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : No one seriously uses Sienar Test Pilots. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : Paying 2pts for the only hard 1 green turns in the game, exceptional dial, PS2, and cheapest boost/barrel combo in game. With title you have extra action economy and access to evade via TL. Problem is... this ship's offensive value is holding it back, so while it's paying for unique dial/actions it can't DO ANYTHING WITH IT. Especially since Sienar Test Pilots have trouble locking onto anything due to their low PS. This explains why you don't see the generics; you're paying for mobility/utility/economy on a ship that can't utilize said mobility/utility/economy well enough. Inquisitor is an exception since he actually has high pilot skill and does damage.

[2] TIE-Aggressor : 100% offense, 111% defense = 12.67 {17} < E=74.5% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION :
EXPLANATION : Never ever EVER run this naked! This is designed to be played with a turret, Unguided Rockets, or something. Now let's find out how good it is with Dorsal Turret.

[2] TIE-Aggressor w/Dorsal : 200% off, 111% def = 19 {20} < E=95.0% >
* SPECIAL NOTE : Dorsal Turret treated as 2-ATK turret primary
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION :
EXPLANATION : You're paying 1pt for double Missile slots and PS2. It's essentially an Imperial HWK-290 that costs 1pt more and lack of access to Pulse Ray Shield, and that doesn't sound appealing. However, it DOES have access to TIE upgrades including Lightweight Frame and Twin Ion Engines, and it's the first small ship for Imperials to feature a Turret slot. Still, I'm a bit worried about the viability of this ship like this. It's true that it does have a base 2-ATK instead of 1-ATK, but I'm hoping it has a decent dial to make up for the 1 extra point it's paying over a HWK-290. Now let's find out if equipping Lightweight Frame helps.

[3] TIE-Aggressor w/Dorsal & LWF : 200% off, 139% def = 19-24 {22}
* SPECIAL NOTE : Dorsal Turret treated as 2-ATK turret primary
* SPECIAL NOTE : "24" assumes ideal conditions for LWF (which is rarely going to happen)
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION :
EXPLANATION : If Lightweight Frame is assumed to have exactly 50% up-time, then on average a TIE-Aggressor w/Dorsal Turret and LWF has a stat line worth 21.5pts . It's also the first turret ship to have 3 agility... so that's gotta mean something. Equipping a TIE-Aggressor with LWF improves its efficiency just a bit, so I believe this is the way to go.

[3] TIE-Aggressor w/UR & LWF : 175% off, 139% def = 17.42-22 {21}
* SPECIAL NOTE : Unguided Rockets treated as 2.75-ATK standard primary
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Seems rather subpar. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : With UR & LWF, its statline averages 19.71 points for 21 points, which is pretty lame. So unless you're running an AutoBlaster Turret + Unguided Rocket build or are using Double Edge, using Unguided Rockets on any TIE-Aggressor seems rather questionable. The ship as a whole just isn't efficient enough.

[2] TIE-Bomber : 100% offense, 133% defense = 14 {16} < E=87.5% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Needed help at first, and so it got a veteran's pack. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : 2pt tax for impressive upgrade bar and PS2. Cheapest potential double crew in game.

[3] TIE-Bomber w/LWF : 100% offense, 167% defense = 14-18 {18} < E=77.8-100% >
* SPECIAL NOTE : "18" assumes ideal conditions for LWF (which is rarely going to happen)
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : n/a
EXPLANATION : If Lightweight Frame is assumed to have exactly 50% up-time, then the TIE-Shuttle's stats are worth 16pts. This means that it is still paying a 2pt tax for PS2 and cheapest double Crew slot in game. This upgrade is mostly for flexibility when making a list and adapting to the meta.

[3] TIE-Bomber w/UR & LWF : 175% offense, 167% defense = 19.25-24.75 {20} < E=96.3-124% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : n/a
EXPLANATION : Stat line averages to 21.5 points... which is pretty darn good considering that I'm only treating LWF as 2.5-AGI instead of 3 and UR as 2.75-ATK instead of 3. It looks like this can be a formidable jouster, and in best case scenarios is a makeshift TIE-Defender with a lot of quirky weaknesses. Finicky... but potentially potent.

[3] TIE-Defender : 200% offense, 200% defense = 27 {28,30} < E=96.4%, 90.0% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Sucked at first, now everyone and their dog uses it. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : FFG valued the white K-turn at ~3 points before. The "TIE/x7" value brings it down to 1 above the estimated value not even including the evade token, meaning that the evade and white K-turn are now package priced for a whopping 1pt. What a deal! Also means you're paying 4-6pts with the TIE/D title for a cannon + normal attack, and people have trouble justifying that cost.

[3] TIE-Fighter : 100% offense, 100% defense = 12 {12} < E=100% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : The golden standard for efficiency. Checks out in spades.
EXPLANATION : Perfection. 100% free of any and all variables. The rock upon which all ships are priced.

[3] TIE-FO : 100% offense, 133% defense = 14 {15} < E=93.3% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : People were unsure at first, recognize it pays for utility. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : Paying 1pt for TL, arguably best dial in game, and Tech slot.

[3] TIE-Interceptor : [ GLASS-C ] 200% offense, 100% defense = 18 {18} < E=100 %>
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Public opinion says they are overpriced at PS1. Controversial .
EXPLANATION : I've noticed a trend... low PS glass cannon generics that rely on focus/evades for defense don't seem to do too well. I suspect that this is because in order to do any reasonable damage, they need to spend their actions on offense leaving them even MORE vulnerable. I suspect that all the TIE-Interceptor needs to be as good as its stat line suggests is someone like General Hux to pass out focus tokens to it. This will give an Interceptor a much bigger boost than say if a B-Wing or T-70 generic had double focus. Overall it is priced relatively appropriately, harder to use effectively, and the first ship to receive the "glass cannon bonus" (it gets its dial and actions at no cost). However, its "glass cannon bonus" is the most conservative of the bunch. When you compare it to the new glass cannons, it is highly likely that it up to 1pt over-costed (although it is the only generic glass cannon arc-dodger with evade on its action bar, so it DOES possess something unique).

[2] TIE-Phantom : [ ????? ] 300% offense, 88.9% defense = ~ 22.67 {25} < E=90.7% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Generics rarely see play, although not terrible. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : Paying 2.33pts for PS3, Crew slot, System slot, and it's the only ship in game with native Cloak. Takes finesse to make the best use of its utility. There are also too many variables to determine if it has a "glass cannon bonus," although based on comparison to the only other 4-ATK glass cannon in the game, the Heavy Syck w/HLC, it is extremely likely that it has one. This means that it's paying more like ~3-5pts for its utility.

[3] TIE-Phantom w/LWF : [ ????? ] 300% off, 133% def = ~ 22.67-28 {27} < E=90.7-104% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Viable "fix" for generic Phantoms? Maaaybe? Checks out .
EXPLANATION : If Lightweight Frame is assumed to have exactly 50% up-time, then on average a TIE-Phantom w/LWF has a stat line worth ~ 25.33pts . This means you are now paying ~1.67pts for native Cloak, PS3, Crew Slot, and System slot. Does not factor in potential "glass cannon bonus."

[1] TIE-Punisher : 100% offense, 150% defense = 15 {21} < E=71.4 %>
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Poor Punisher... Cries .
NO EXPLANATION : I have no explanation as to why FFG made this ship so horridly priced outside of its estimated range. What was their reasoning? Opportunity cost for slots? If so, then why doesn't the K-Wing pay the tax at the same price? It doesn't have an impressive or unique dial or action bar. The only half-assed reason I can give is that aside from the TIE-Advanced, it is the only ship in the game with a primary 2-ATK dice that also has access to Accuracy Corrector, and the TIE-Advanced does it worlds better! Rest in peace, good friend...

See "Accuracy Corrector on 2-ATK ships" for more heart-wrenching details.

[2] TIE-Punisher w/LWF : 100% offense, 200% defense = 18 {23} < E=78.3% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Will it fix the TIE-Punisher? No... no it will not. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : It went from 6pts over its stat line to "only" 5pts over. That's progress... I guess? Oh, and did I mention that it means you have to get rid of your Guidance Chips or Long-Range Scanners?

[2] TIE-Punisher w/UR & LWF : 175% offense, 200% defense = 24.75 {25} < E=99% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : People actually use it now! Only occasionally, yes... but still! Checks out .
EXPLANATION : Wow, if you wanted to run a Punisher now as a beat-stick then you actually can. Shame that it still sucks with ordnance, but hey... you can use it for something !

[2] TIE/SF w/title : [ PERIPHERY ] 200% offense, 133% defense = 21 {23} < E=91.3% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : As expected, it has a weaker stat line than normal. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : For all those that said it "felt" 2pts overpriced... they were right (if you exclude the TIE/SF's utility). Surprisingly, however, the ship as a whole is priced relatively appropriately. The catch is that you're paying exactly 2pts for stuff most of the time you don't necessarily want or need: a weak auxiliary arc, PS3, and good upgrade bar (System, Missile, and Tech). PS3 is usually worth ~1pt, System is usually worth ~1/2pt, meaning the weak auxiliary arc is likely priced at ~1/2pt or less. It's likely not underpowered, it just was never meant to be efficient for its stat line.

[3] TIE/SF w/title & LWF : 200% offense, 200% defense = 21-27 {25} < E=91.3-108% >
* SPECIAL NOTE : "27" assumes ideal conditions for LWF (which is rarely going to happen)
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : TIE-Defender stats in ideal conditions. Debatable "fix?" Checks out .
EXPLANATION : Well, well, well... would you look at that! If Lightweight Frame is assumed to have exactly 50% up-time, then the TIE/SF stat line is worth 24pts! What does this mean? It means you are paying HALF of what you used to be paying for its utility. Weak auxiliary arc, PS3, and good upgrade bar packaged for 1pt is a pretty sweet deal, but you still have to get your money's worth out of said utility. Otherwise, you're just wasting a point.

[3] TIE Silencer : 200% offense, 200% defense = 27 {26} <E=108%>
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Huh... this is an oddity. Sienar-Jaemus Analyst seems great for the cost, yet it isn't used as much. Anomaly?
EXPLANATION : It's like it's already receiving a glass cannon bonus, being 1 point cheaper and having +3 pilot skill. Yet, despite all this it still doesn't see as much play as I would expect. Personally, I'd say it's a combination of the TIE Defender is so much more durable and easier to use for 1 point more while also having a lot of negative attention for being a small-based ship in a large-based box and a big price tag. It's like... why would I want to buy this? Honestly, though, the Sienar-Jaemus Analyst seems like it would be pretty good. This is easily one of the best Imperial generics.

[2] TIE-Striker : [ GLASS-C ] 200% offense, 88.9% defense = 17 {17} < E=100% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : People seem to think the generic is alright. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : As expected, it is as efficient as a TIE-Fighter. However, it gets its title for free as part of its "glass cannon bonus."

[3] TIE-Striker w/LWF : [ GLASS-C ] 200% offense, 133% defense = 17-21 {19} < E=89.5-111% >
* SPECIAL NOTE : "21" assumes ideal conditions for LWF (which is rarely going to happen)
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : People seem to think LWF is the way to go. Controversial .
EXPLANATION : Lightweight Frame on or off are both perfectly 100% as efficient as a TIE-Fighter assuming 50% up-time. What Lightweight Frame does, however, is allow the TIE-Striker to adapt to the meta, adapt its price to fit different lists, and allow for greater expression of pilot skill for both players. Still gets its title free as part of its "glass cannon bonus."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[DDD] SCUM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[1] G-1A : 200% offense, 133% defense = 21 {23,24} < E=91.3, 87.5% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : As expected, it has a higher price than stat line suggests. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : 2pts for PS3 and exceptional upgrade bar. Crew, System, Illicit... none of those come free, and its dial still isn't that great. Never run a generic naked.

[2] Kihraxz : [ PERIPHERY ] 200% offense, 111% defense = 19 {20} < E=95.0% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Yuuuup... it is most definitely overpriced. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : It is paying exactly 1pt for its Illicit slot, which is about double what all other ships pay. Whether you believe that 111% defense entitles it to at least a partial "glass cannon bonus" is still up for debate, although I'm inclined to say "yes." This means that the Kihrazx is likely missing out on ~1.5pts of utility for its price at 20pts.

[2] Kihraxz w/title : [ PERIPHERY ] 200% offense, 111% defense = 19 {20} < E=95.0% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Hey... it's usable now! Checks out .
EXPLANATION : Considering that it was initially around 2pts overcosted, I'd say that Vaksai are worth it if you personally feel that you're getting a good 3+ points of utility out of it. No, loading it up with Munitions Failsafe or other filler garbage doesn't count. This will get better with time.

[1] Kimogila Fighter : 200% offense, 133% defense = 21 {22} < E=95.5% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Costs 22-23 points, as expected. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : B-Wing stats. PS3 by itself is usually worth an extra 1pt, and normally I'd believe all the utility on the ship would warrant an additional extra point. However, due to how aggressive costs have been lately, my prediction of 22 points was spot on. Everything seems accounted for.

[3] Protectorate Starfighter : [ GLASS-C ] 200% offense, 133% defense = 21 {20} < E=105% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Seems to be a decent enough generic. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : 1pt cheaper, amazing dial, and good action bar are packaged as part of its "glass cannon bonus" (see "trends in pricing" for details). This is arguably the most aggressive "glass cannon bonus" in the game alongside the Heavy Syck w/Mangler, which comes as no surprise considering that the bonus is has gotten more and more generous each wave, slowing inching closer to where glass cannon generics should be.

[2] Quadjumper : 100% offense, 111% defense = 12.67 {15} < E=84.4% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Way too much utility for me to analyze properly. Unknown .
EXPLANATION : Paying 2.33pts for reverse dial, unique upgrade bar (only Scum ship with Tech so far, cheapest crew in game, cheapest bomb in game), and potential Tractor Beam shenanigans. That doesn't even include the 2pt mod, yet. You're paying a LOT for utility, so make sure it's worth it.

[1] Scurrg H-6 Bomber : 200% offense, 166% defense = 24 {24} < E=100% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Even before release, I saw that this thing was paying absolutely zero tax for any of its extensive options. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : Yup, definite power creep. This ship is getting its ENTIRE upgrade bar for free. The dial isn't bad, and the pilot skills are good. There's a good reason both the generic and unique pilots see a lot of play, even with "Genius" nerfs and such.

[3] Starviper : [ PERIPHERY ] 200% offense, 166% defense = 24 {25} < E=96.0% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Supports theory that it is over-costed slightly. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : Good action bar. FFG anticipated that the Segnor Loop would be powerful enough to warrant a ~0.50-1.00pt tax since this was the first ship to feature it. Apparently, they were wrong. Once you account for the fact that it's a "periphery ship," the Starviper is likely ~2.0pts overpriced.

[3] Starviper w/title : [ PERIPHERY ] 200% offense, 166% defense = 24 {22} < E=109% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Hey, it's usable now! Checks out .
EXPLANATION : Pricing seems spot on, and it has a nifty ability. Honestly, I would have expected 23 points, but they have been handing out utility for free with the most recent waves. 22 is for the better, especially since it's still not the best generic out there but still not bad.

[3] Syck (Light) : 100% offense, 100% defense = 12 ? {12} < E=100%? >
* SPECIAL NOTE : defense value does not account for paper mache hull
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Same stats and price as TIE-Fighter. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : At this point you're trading defense and lack of a Modification slot for utility in the form of PS2, Target Lock, and above average dial.

[3] Syck (Medium) : 100% offense, 100% defense = 12 {14} < E=85.7% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Of course it's overpriced. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : 2pts to give a TIE-Fighter PS2, Target Lock, and green 1 banks. Bleh. Easily ~1pt over-costed, and 13 points might still be too high for what you're paying for.

[3] Syck (Heavy) w/Mangler : [ GLASS-C ] ~200% offense, 133% defense = 21 {20} < E=105% >
*SPECIAL NOTE : offense value does not account for crit ability and treats weaker range 1 and stronger range 3 as cancelling each other out.
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Sucked bad before fix? Checks out.
EXPLANATION : More efficient than a TIE-Fighter for its stat line, but there is a very good reason for that. 1pt cheaper and special crit ability are packaged as part of its "glass cannon bonus" (see "trends in pricing" for details). Fix puts it perfectly in line with all other glass cannon generics.

[3] Syck (Heavy) w/HLC : [ GLASS-C ] ~300% offense, 133% defense = 28 ? {23} < E=122%? >
* SPECIAL NOTE : HLC treated as 4-ATK primary for calculation purposes
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Formula cannot account for HLC variables. Unknown .
EXPLANATION : This is a really tricky one. It is most definitely receiving a "glass cannon bonus," but we can't tell for how much. It can't crit, it's missing a huge amount of damage at range 1, and it is arguably the most glassy of cannons (up there with a TIE-Phantom). However, you're saving anywhere from ~5-7pts for all that! Is it worth? I... don't know. 4-ATK glass cannons are really high-risk high-reward, so whether it's worth is up to you and how well you fly and protect it.

[2] Z-95 : 100% offense, 88.9% defense = ~11.33 {12} < E=94.4% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Solid swarm and filler ship. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : Less efficient than a TIE-Fighter. Paying 2/3 of a point for Missile and Illicit slots.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[EEE] LARGE SHIPS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Large ships receive a 12.5% savings on their stats for being harder to maneuver and bigger targets.

[agility] Example : [ FAT-T ] 200% offense, 200% defense = A ( B ) {C} < E=90% >
[ FAT-T ] = possesses a "Fat Turret Penalty" (only on select large ships)
[ FAT-T(C) ] = possesses a "Fat Turret Penalty Consolation Prize" (only Wave 8 and onward)
A = small ship equivalent cost
( B ) = with "large ship bonus" factored in
{C} = official cheapest cost pilot
E = Efficiency. Raw stats of {C} vs. a TIE-Fighter
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : How community seems to feel about said ship.
EXPLANATION : This is meant to put into perspective what you are paying for, how much, why, and how it relates to the balance of the ship.

>>>>>>>>>>

[3] Aggressor : 200% offense, 266% defense = 33 ( ~28.87 ) {36} < E=91.7% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Tough cookie, and indeed it is. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : ~7.13pts for PS6, unique pilot ability, exceptional upgrade bar (including the only Cannon x2 in the game), EPT slot, exceptional actions, exceptional dial, and free title access. That's amazing! You have to be understanding, though, that part of the reason this particular ship can afford to get away with such ludicrously insane bonuses for such a low cost is due to the fact that it's a big, fat, large ship with medium pilot skill that thinks it's an arc-dodger, and those things don't mesh well together.

[2] Firespray-31 : 250% offense, 222% defense = 33.83 ( ~29.60 ) {33} < E=103% >
*SPECIAL NOTE : auxiliary arc priced as half-way between a turret and standard firing arc
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Seems overcosted. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : ~3.40pts for PS3, good upgrade bar, and free title access. PS3 usually costs ~1pt, so the Firespray is likely ~1-2pts overcosted.

[0] Ghost : 300% offense, 213% defense = 37.6 ( 32.9 ) {35} < E=107% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Seems alright. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : 2.1pts for PS3, exceptional upgrade bar, and unique Turret + System combo.

[0] Decimator : [ FAT-T ] 300% offense, 213% defense = 37.6 ( 37.6 ) {40} < E=94.0% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Sees good, solid use. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : 2.4pts for PS3 and rare triple Crew slots. Seems about right considering that Crew is usually valued at around half a point each and PS3 on bigger ships worth ~1pt. Likely designed before the "consolation prize" for Fat Turrets was established, meaning there is an extremely high chance that a Patrol Leader is missing out on ~1-2pts of utility. The crazy part is that this still sees use despite that. Darth Vader and Palpatine are likely to blame.

[2] JumpMaster 5000 : [ FAT-T(C) ] 200% offense, 200% defense = 27 ( ~ 23.62 ) {25} < E=108% >
FORMULA vs PERCEPTION : Overpowered as balls. Checks out .
EXPLANATION : "Fat Turret Penalty Consolation Prize" allows a Contracted Scout to only spend ~1.38pts for EPT slot, PS3, exceptional upgrade bar, and unique Salvaged + Crew combo. Oh, and did you notice something?
CONCLUSION :

From 2 attack dice to 3 attack dice is not 100% more offense

... The tricky part is that going from 2 -> 3 attack dice is priced as DOUBLING its offensive value. ...

Erm... how is going from 2 to 3 a "doubling" or "100% more"...

By my reckoning, it's 50% more:

+1 die on a base of two;

Going from statistically 1 hit/crit to 1.5 hit/crit.

...

TIE-Interceptor has 100% more offense (3ATK) than a TIE-Fighter (2ATK), therefor it would see a 50% increase in cost ...

I haven't read into your formula, but wouldn't that correlate better? (TIE Int = 50% increase in Offense therefore 50% increase in cost)

- - - -

In my own opinion, whilst there may be some formula for generating the ball park starting point, I would expect the final cost would be fine-tuned after play-testing and considering additional factors.

You have a nice approximation that doesn't take into account dials, upgrades, or actions. But it's not "it".

I, too, have my own formula. It, too, comes close almost all the time (and I do attempt to account for dials, upgrades, and actions). But I sincerely doubt it's "it" either.

Well, the fact of the matter is, while FFG probably has their own spreadsheet which has some similar amalgamation of maths to rough out a pricing, I suspect they don't use solid, cold hard numbers to price all things, and instead have a non-maths discussion on how they feel the cost should integrate into games, and what they mean with some upgrades, etc. Like how based on the numbers, the Striker generic EPT should be 19 points, but clearly FFG does not want you to run that play, so you have 20 instead.

This formulation is interesting though, I'd like to see more

Erm... how is going from 2 to 3 a "doubling" or "100% more"...

By my reckoning, it's 50% more:

+1 die on a base of two;

Going from statistically 1 hit/crit to 1.5 hit/crit.

I'm going to quote myself here: " The tricky part is that going from 2 -> 3 attack dice is priced as DOUBLING its offensive value."

Everyone should know that double of 2 is 4. We're all on the same page? Good. What I'm saying is that the very rough skeleton formula for determining ship cost (before factoring in dials, actions, and whatnot) VALUES going from 2 red dice to 3 red dice as a lot bigger of a jump than merely a 50% statistical increase in damage. It's mathematically 50% extra dice, but they determined that this jump is WORTH more than the numbers imply. My guess is because they already factored in green dice into the equation and that in practice 2 red dice is more like 1 hit on average and 3 dice is more like 2 hits on average. They're reasoning that one 3 red dice shot is worth two 2 red dice shots.

You have a nice approximation that doesn't take into account dials, upgrades, or actions. But it's not "it".

I, too, have my own formula. It, too, comes close almost all the time (and I do attempt to account for dials, upgrades, and actions). But I sincerely doubt it's "it" either.

Of course not. My formula is for base ship stats (red/green/hull/shields), nothing more. You need to use your judgement for the rest. I'm just laying the ground work.

From 2 attack dice to 3 attack dice is not 100% more offense

oh god they dont teach reading comprehension anymore do they

he didn't say it was 100% more offense. He said that FFG treats it as 100% more offense.

I don't know what do with this information....

This reads more as you having a theory and then creating the facts to fit it.

This only works if a) you don't take dials into account, b) you apply upgrades developed later as a justification for ship costs years older.

From 2 attack dice to 3 attack dice is not 100% more offense

oh god they dont teach reading comprehension anymore do they

he didn't say it was 100% more offense. He said that FFG treats it as 100% more offense.

Which he only thinks they do because it fits his model.

From 2 attack dice to 3 attack dice is not 100% more offense

oh god they dont teach reading comprehension anymore do they

he didn't say it was 100% more offense. He said that FFG treats it as 100% more offense.

Which he only thinks they do because it fits his model.

And probably because it makes sense as soon as you consider green dice. Assume the targeted ship rolls one evade every defensive roll (not unreasonable).

With TL+Focus attacker

3 atk will have an expeccted damage of roughly 1,8

2 atk comes in at roughly 0,9

From 2 attack dice to 3 attack dice is not 100% more offense

oh god they dont teach reading comprehension anymore do they

he didn't say it was 100% more offense. He said that FFG treats it as 100% more offense.

Which he only thinks they do because it fits his model.

And probably because it makes sense as soon as you consider green dice. Assume the targeted ship rolls one evade every defensive roll (not unreasonable).

With TL+Focus attacker

3 atk will have an expeccted damage of roughly 1,8

2 atk comes in at roughly 0,9

You can't figure out a base price for a ship without considering the whole ship, including the dial and upgrade slots.

If you do that, it's too simple to say that FFG considers 3 attack 100% increase over 2.

I came into this thread expecting to see an amusing GIF about roulette, blindfold darts or gypsy palmistry.

I am disappointed.

FFG's "pricing formula" is picking a number of out the air that feels right and tweaking it up and down based on playtesting.

You can't figure out a base price for a ship without considering the whole ship, including the dial and upgrade slots.

If you do that, it's too simple to say that FFG considers 3 attack 100% increase over 2.

And I did. The beauty of the TIE-Fighter and the Z-95 is that not only are they the cheapest, they are also meant to be efficient meaning that they are free of clutter bringing up their costs. All you have to do is assume that the Z-95 and TIE-Fighter dials/actions are considered "relatively normal" and modify prices up (white K-turn) or down (Lambda Shuttle) from there. That's it.

It's simple, elegant, and I didn't even have to modify my formula ever. In fact, I was mathing out the values in my original post on the spot. I just noticed patterns in the pricing beforehand but never bothered to apply it to as many ships as I could. Turns out just about everything was spot on, save the Kihraxz Fighter estimate which surprised me quite a bit.

EDIT: In fact, I should go back to my original post to clear this up about the whole dial and actions bar bit.

From 2 attack dice to 3 attack dice is not 100% more offense

oh god they dont teach reading comprehension anymore do they

he didn't say it was 100% more offense. He said that FFG treats it as 100% more offense.

Which he only thinks they do because it fits his model.

And probably because it makes sense as soon as you consider green dice. Assume the targeted ship rolls one evade every defensive roll (not unreasonable).

With TL+Focus attacker

3 atk will have an expeccted damage of roughly 1,8

2 atk comes in at roughly 0,9

You can't figure out a base price for a ship without considering the whole ship, including the dial and upgrade slots.

If you do that, it's too simple to say that FFG considers 3 attack 100% increase over 2.

Well, given how most of the forum's playerbase considers 3 the only acceptable level of attack without augmentations, I think that treatment is correct.

The problems I see with the theory are 1) X-Wing development has changed hands at least once, and likely the ship design process has also changed, and 2) the X-Wing and Y-Wing predate the Z-95 and B-Wing and so cannot be priced based upon their attributes.

If I spend about 30 minutes thinking about this, I am certain I can come up with a formula, completely different from yours, whose by-product will end with the same results as yours.

The point is that I can take all of the existing relevant data and make it fit many, many different formulas. Further, I can tweak it if I want it to include or not include various parts of the puzzle, such as dials, bases, etc.

While it is possible when this game was first in the development stages there may have been some form of "formula" considered, anything currently being developed would have to take into consideration the play testing involved to make sure it is reasonably balanced against the whole.

Due to the nature and pieces of this game, I highly doubt any fixed formula is used anymore.

Having said that, if you enjoy this type of hypothesis/puzzle solving, more power to you. Just another way to gain enjoyment from the game.

[2] X-Wing w/Integrated : 100% offense increase, 50% defense increase = 22.5 {official 22+}

That would explain the success of a few 4XZ squads in the 2016 regionals season. Unfortunately now is just generally a bad time to be a low PS jousty ship, so this fix didn't really do much for the poor X-Wing.

FFG doesn't have a program that spits out the answer because there are too many factors to consider for a one size fits all equation to work. You can absolutely do the analysis, but it requires a variety of techniques for modeling the different aspects of the game. (Search for "MathWing")

FFG starts with an estimate and then play tests a lot. I don't know how much more they crunch numbers now than in the past. I'd guess at least a bit more, but the are diminishing returns to this.

FFG doesn't have a program that spits out the answer because there are too many factors to consider for a one size fits all equation to work. You can absolutely do the analysis, but it requires a variety of techniques for modeling the different aspects of the game. (Search for "MathWing")

FFG starts with an estimate and then play tests a lot. I don't know how much more they crunch numbers now than in the past. I'd guess at least a bit more, but the are diminishing returns to this.

And what factors might those be?

Your post is confusing because you say "FFG starts with an estimate and then play tests a lot." This ENTIRE THING is about determining how "FFG starts with an estimate." There, you said it yourself. The OP is giving you the starting estimate. That's it. Nothing more.

The Mysteries of the Universe seem to be so clear now!

Out-friggin-standing, Cookie! Don't pay any heed to some of these doubters and negative Nancy's! You stated from the beginning that this wasn't an end-all be-all formula, but you were only trying to sort out why FFG has done the things they've done. I thoroughly enjoyed reading through your post, and I challenge some of the naysayers to come up with their own formula to discredit yours.

Whether FFG uses a formula or not is beyond my realm of concern, but at least with your formula you used a constant to help evaluate each ship. Some results were in line with common community opinion, some weren't. But I'm sure we can all agree that your formula was at least close to explaining the rationale behind their pricing "model". And even on the ships your formula "failed" on (Punisher) we can at least agree it still falls in line with perceived value and meta usage. Thakns for putting in the leg work.

Your post is confusing because you say "FFG starts with an estimate and then play tests a lot." This ENTIRE THING is about determining how "FFG starts with an estimate." There, you said it yourself. The OP is giving you the starting estimate. That's it. Nothing more.

Wouldn't be surprised if they pluck it out of the air.

Also, you are the OP. Why are you talking about yourself in third person?