Not sure what your point is. Forbiddencookie says in the title that his formula is a statline value formula and repeats that several times.

*** 03-17-17 UPDATE ***
Added Wave 11 ships. I'll get around to doing revisits of the TIE-Bomber and TIE-Punisher soon. I'll copy/paste my analysis of the Wave 11 ships right here for your convenience.

[1] Auzituck Gunship : 250% offense, 150% defense = 26.25 {24} < E=109% >
Whoa whoa whoa... what's going on here? I'm telling you guys, there is a VERY high chance this thing is going to have a crap dial. Otherwise, this thing seems a good 3 points under-costed. I'm guessing its hard turns are going to be red, and it will have no K-turn. This ship is also odd in that it doesn't have Target Lock.

[2] TIE-Aggressor : 100% offense, 111% defense = 12.67 {17} < E=74.5% >
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
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, 166% 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)
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/Unguided Rockets : 200% off, 111% def = 19 {19}
* SPECIAL NOTE : Unguided Rockets treated as 3-ATK turret primary
Seems fine since it's priced as expected. Remember that this is not a "true" 3-ATK primary since there's a lot of little quirks like being weak to stress, not being able to Focus + TL attacks, better at range 3, etc. This version should be good with LWF, too, with an average of 21.5pts in stats at a cost of 21pts.

[1] Scurrg H-6 Bomber : 200% offense, 166% defense = 24 {24} < E=100% >
I'm seriously thinking there's a mild power creep going on here. This ship is getting its ENTIRE upgrade bar for free. We can't see the dial, yet, but since it has Talon rolls it's unlikely to be terrible. I would have expected it to be paying a 1pt tax, especially since it has a valuable Crew slot that's usually worth ~0.5pts. This ship is efficient even when run naked. Hmm....

UPDATE PLEASE

Yeah I'll give you your update.

The Auzituck is going to be AWFUL for this game's health.

Your attitude is awful for this game's health.

I haven't factored in dials into account, yet, so I suppose I can do it for the Gunship. However, at this point I believe it would be better just to give my impressions so far.

TIE-Aggressor
It's weak. Seriously, even without using any formula just compare it to a TIE-Bomber or HWK-290. It has the stats of a Jakku Gunrunner for 2 extra points and less goodies.

Now, there are 2 ways to build this... one is with Unguided Rockets, and the other is with a Turret. If you decide to use Unguided Rockets then quite frankly you're better off with a TIE-Bomber which has one more health for one point less. If you decide to use a Turret then a HWK-290 for either Rebel or Scum is looking more promising due to being a point cheaper and with access to a Crew slot for cheap support and also an Illicit slot for Scum.

Based on this, there are only 2 ways a generic Aggressor will see play:
(#1.) One is that the secondary turret slot provided by the Aggressor may lead to a new powerful combination (Imperial ion control?) when used in conjunction with the rest of the Imperial fleet, meaning it may be used not so much because it's powerful but because of unseen synergy or its ability to cover a large Imperial weakness. I'm not optimistic about this happening.
(#2.) The other way an Aggressor will see play is if turns out to have an above average dial. If it's dial is not better than a TIE-Bomber then there is NO REASON to use an Aggressor over a Bomber if you're using Unguided Rockets. Now, next comes the interesting part. If you notice... there is currently only one small ship with a turret that can be considered to have a "good" or at least "decent" dial, the Attack Shuttle. Only the Attack Shuttle and the Y-Wing have a K-turn as far as small ships with turrets are concerned. In order to make up for the lack of Crew slot while also costing an extra point, a TIE-Aggressor needs to have a significantly better dial than both a HWK-290 and a TIE-Bomber. The only nimble small ship turret platform is the Attack Shuttle, but that thing is a real glass cannon overall. If it has a good dial, the TIE-Aggressor CAN have a real niche in the game as the game's most agile small ship turret platform, fully equipped with a unique potential 3 agility (LWF) to make for an extremely obnoxious ship. High agility, high maneuverability turret. If the dial is crap... well...

Auzituck Gunship
Hot ****, the Kashyyyk Defender is tough. I can guarantee you that the generics will see play. It has everything a good generic needs.
(#1.) It has good (but not great) jousting power.
(#2.) It can be obnoxiously tanky.
(#3.) Until you get behind it, it is harder to arc-dodge which allows them to get a lot of shots in.
(#4.) It can function as a sturdy support ship with double crew and high synergy with Tactician (180 degree arc).

3ATK, 1AGI, and 9HP are worth 22.25 points, and it costs 24. So you're paying 1.75 points, lack of K-turn, and lack of TL for a 180 arc, Reinforce, and double crew slot. Once you factor in the typical cost of a 180 arc, this ship has HUGE savings for lack of K-turn (2-3 points). This ship is by no means weak AT ALL. While I do believe this is potentially on the "too strong" side, I would like to add that this ship does indeed have clear weaknesses. During the first pass of the game, this ship's alpha strike jousting potential is on the weaker side, so it's not like it's a pure ball of stats like the Lambda Shuttle. No other small ship in the game is as helpless as this one if something gets behind it , so that also makes this a special case scenario. Look at the Upsilon Shuttle, for example. The Upsilon is INCREDIBLY efficient, but it has the same weakness. Do you hear the forum screaming that the Upsilon is way overpowered? No. Why? Because people understand its weakness, and its absurd efficiency can be beaten with adequate skill. Same rule applies here. Also, as the article states, this ship is EXTREMELY predictable, easily telegraphing its intent for the turn via its actions. Final verdict is that this is a very strong ship that can make an excellent filler, tank, or support, but it can still be beaten if you play around its strengths.

I'd point out to the benefit of the TIE Aggressor, the edge it has over ships like the HWK and Y-Wing as turret carriers in that it has Barrel Roll natively, either of those ships would have to add +2 points to throw in Vectored Thrusters (and lose their mod slot) barrel rolling can be very important in turret strategy to keep opponents in or out of certain range bands.

EDIT: I'm also curious on your thoughts of the math with the Kihraxz and StarViper fixes we've seen previewed. And can something as broad (yet still requiring you to spend points typically) as Vaksai even be quantified like that?

24 minutes ago, f0rbiddenc00kie said:

If you decide to use a Turret then a HWK-290 for either Rebel or Scum is looking more promising due to being a point cheaper and with access to a Crew slot for cheap support and also an Illicit slot for Scum.

Or....maybe you're running an imperial list and want a small base turret in it.

Quote

Now, next comes the interesting part. If you notice... there is currently only one small ship with a turret that can be considered to have a "good" or at least "decent" dial, the Attack Shuttle.

So...proof that the dial isn't the most important thing for a turret ship, given that the attack Shuttle is the least used rebel turret carrier.

3 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

So...proof that the dial isn't the most important thing for a turret ship, given that the attack Shuttle is the least used rebel turret carrier.

Very true. However, unlike the Attack Shuttle, this has the potential to be both maneuverable AND relatively sturdy turret with LWF. A good example of a maneuverable and sturdy turret is Fat Han. It's nowhere near as crazy, but the concept is in the same ballpark. Also, as UnitOmega pointed out, it does indeed have Barrel Roll over the HWK-290 and Y-Wing, so it appears to be headed in the right direction so far.

49 minutes ago, f0rbiddenc00kie said:

Very true. However, unlike the Attack Shuttle, this has the potential to be both maneuverable AND relatively sturdy turret with LWF. A good example of a maneuverable and sturdy turret is Fat Han. It's nowhere near as crazy, but the concept is in the same ballpark. Also, as UnitOmega pointed out, it does indeed have Barrel Roll over the HWK-290 and Y-Wing, so it appears to be headed in the right direction so far.

Oh I wasn't saying it'll be a bad ship. I think it has the potential to be quite good. Said barrel roll and lightweight frame give it a good gimmick of its own compared to the hwk or the ywing. I was just saying I don't think it has to have a suppers dial to be a good ship. I wouldn't be surprised to see it somewhere similar to the hwk or ywing dial.

FFG said it was "relatively open", so I'd wager it's probably like, on par with a TIE Fighter but slower overall. Maybe only the one K-turn. It might have a pair of red turns, but if it lacked those for just 2-3 white pairs of white turns in there it might be an edge on the Y and the Bomber.

But I can't say I actually understand what FFG means when they say stuff like that anymore.

13 minutes ago, UnitOmega said:

EDIT: I'm also curious on your thoughts of the math with the Kihraxz and StarViper fixes we've seen previewed. And can something as broad (yet still requiring you to spend points typically) as Vaksai even be quantified like that?

Both the Kihraxz and StarViper are in the whole "periphery" and "glass cannon" range of ships with 3atk behind 2-3 agility and lower health, meaning they should BOTH have more utility and/or stats than their points would suggest.

Kihraxz stats are worth 19 (but that's misleading), and it currently costs 20. It's likely a good ~2 points over-costed just for stats ALONE, not including any free utility it may be entitled to. The Vaksai is actually a very elegant fix. The generics are likely to be loaded with 1-2pt upgrades, meaning it has a very limited (and controlled) pool it can choose from. I would say as long as you personally feel you're getting at least good 2-3 free points worth out of the Vaksai title every game, the generics are great to run. With that being said, many people would consider XX-23 Thread Tracers (0), Munitions Failsafe (0), Black Market Slicer Tools (0), Guidance Chimps (0) for 20 points total. That does indeed save 3 points. However, considering that you may often play games where you won't even be USING any of those besides BMST, that build still sounds a bit on the weak side. I would personally run a Vaksai with at least one upgrade (not including BMST) that has a little more "oomph" to it, like Pulsed Ray Shield.

The formula in this thread does not account for rising pilot skill, but the Vaksai title also seems to address how expensive the higher skill pilots are. You're likely going to be spending more valuable upgrades on someone like Talonbane Cobra or something, so they should feel a lot better for their cost, too. I would try to hit feeling like I'm saving more like ~3-4 for them.

As for Starviper Mk II, I'm almost inclined to say it's around ~0.5-1 point UNDERCOSTED now. The stats for a basic Starviper are worth 24 not including any bonuses it should be entitled to, meaning I would personally expect it to be ~23 or maaaaybe 22 bare naked with no fancy ability. However, this is 22 WITH a fancy ability! To be fair, though, aside from blocking... its actions and special roll ability are MUCH better suited for higher skill pilots than lower skill pilots. Because of that, I doubt the generics will be out of hand. However, the generics are now strong filler. The generics have good punch, good defense (even better with Pulsed Ray Shield), and are solidified as the BEST blockers in the game with PS1, boost, and FOUR barrel roll options for a huge area coverage.

Starviper Mk II is a huge thumbs up from me. Its stats are in line now, and all they did was make it even better at what it was already a champion at. If you have an Intelligence Agent on your squad, these buggers can be very obnoxious. I look forward to playing 2 of these as wingmen to a ~50pt large ship anchor.

Considering the new and upcoming revisited ships expansions you've done pretty well at estimating

3 hours ago, D00kies said:

Considering the new and upcoming revisited ships expansions you've done pretty well at estimating

Absolutely. It's fascinating to read all the angry and negative reactions on the first page, only to see now that his formula also has predictive power - which any theory needs. It always has to explain the present and predict the future to be worth its salt. @f0rbiddenc00kie did an amazing job here!

9 hours ago, UnitOmega said:

Your attitude is awful for this game's health.

Oh can it, this is the one time I've ever been strongly negative about a release. I even warmed up to the damned TIE/Pupu.

10 hours ago, f0rbiddenc00kie said:

As for Starviper Mk II, I'm almost inclined to say it's around ~0.5-1 point UNDERCOSTED now. The stats for a basic Starviper are worth 24 not including any bonuses it should be entitled to , meaning I would personally expect it to be ~23 or maaaaybe 22 bare naked with no fancy ability. However, this is 22 WITH a fancy ability! To be fair, though, aside from blocking... its actions and special roll ability are MUCH better suited for higher skill pilots than lower skill pilots. Because of that, I doubt the generics will be out of hand. However, the generics are now strong filler. The generics have good punch, good defense (even better with Pulsed Ray Shield), and are solidified as the BEST blockers in the game with PS1, boost, and FOUR barrel roll options for a huge area coverage.

Correction: a basic statline of 3/3/4/1 is worth 24 points according to your formula . It is clearly not actually worth that, otherwise we would have been seeing them on physical table costing only 1 point more. A more accurate model places the jousting value of a 3/3/4/1 statline between 20-21 points. When considering PS (i.e. getting taken off the board before it can shoot), it's closer to 19 points. The generic Starvipers have gone from being horrendously overpriced at launch, to merely being moderately overpriced.

1 hour ago, MajorJuggler said:

Correction: a basic statline of 3/3/4/1 is worth 24 points according to your formula . It is clearly not actually worth that, otherwise we would have been seeing them on physical table costing only 1 point more. A more accurate model places the jousting value of a 3/3/4/1 statline between 20-21 points. When considering PS (i.e. getting taken off the board before it can shoot), it's closer to 19 points. The generic Starvipers have gone from being horrendously overpriced at launch, to merely being moderately overpriced.

To be fair to forbiddencookie, the 24 points is strictly from the formula, before his "glass cannon bonus" that would reduce it from there. Though I pretty much agree with the rest. I disagree with his comment that 23 would have been fine, and am not even completely really okay with 22 + the fancy barrel roll. Similarly, he says good things about the protectorate at 20 points, even though it's genetics are also too expensive. Compared to the generic protectorate id probably say about 21 for the starviper, but since the protectorate should also be at least one point cheaper, if not 2...

1 hour ago, MajorJuggler said:

Correction: a basic statline of 3/3/4/1 is worth 24 points according to your formula . It is clearly not actually worth that, otherwise we would have been seeing them on physical table costing only 1 point more. A more accurate model places the jousting value of a 3/3/4/1 statline between 20-21 points. When considering PS (i.e. getting taken off the board before it can shoot), it's closer to 19 points. The generic Starvipers have gone from being horrendously overpriced at launch, to merely being moderately overpriced.

Sorry, I was under the impression that the whole "according to my formula" thing here is implied. As pointed out in my trends, since it falls into the glass cannon territory I would expect its cost to be less than what the formula would spit out. I would have thought it would have costed 23 with an ability if being conservative with 22 being very aggressively costed.

5 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

To be fair to forbiddencookie, the 24 points is strictly from the formula, before his "glass cannon bonus" that would reduce it from there. Though I pretty much agree with the rest. I disagree with his comment that 23 would have been fine, and am not even completely really okay with 22 + the fancy barrel roll. Similarly, he says good things about the protectorate at 20 points, even though it's genetics are also too expensive. Compared to the generic protectorate id probably say about 21 for the starviper, but since the protectorate should also be at least one point cheaper, if not 2...

Yeah, another way to look at it is that with the TIE-Interceptor currently costing 18 and the Protectorate costing 20, it's hard allow the Starviper to cost 21 or less without revisiting the other 2.

Just now, f0rbiddenc00kie said:

Yeah, another way to look at it is that with the TIE-Interceptor currently costing 18 and the Protectorate costing 20, it's hard allow the Starviper to cost 21 or less without revisiting the other 2.

How often do you see alpha squadron interceptors? An old ship being bad should not stop them from making new ones actually playable. If the generic protectorate had been 18 points at ps1 for instance, I bet we'd see more them in play. Maybe even at 19 points. At 20 points, not so much. And even comparing them to the interceptor, if you compare fenn to soontir then ps1 to alpha, the ps1 should be a point cheaper. As for protectorate vs starviper, personally I don't think the starviper should be more that 1 point more expensive than the protectorate fighter. Literally the only difference on the pilot cards is the 1 shield gained by the starviper. They have an identical stat line otherwise and the exact same action and upgrade bars. The 1 shield is balanced out by the ability to take the title on the protectorate. If the title saves 1 damage in a game, it was as good as a shield. If it saves more, it's now better. The protectorate with title and the starviper naked should be the same cost IMO. And thats not even considering the better dial on the protectorate.

Im fine with only -3 points on guri and xizor and with the fix, but I still can't see ever running more than one starviper in a list because you need the virago title and the system slot to make it a good ship. Without that, I'll just run a protectorate instead (or something else entirely, since neither of the ships' generics are really that good)

Oh, I understand what you're saying, and I agree that the TIE-Interceptor is overpriced. I'm just pointing out another way to look at it.

As far as a Protectorate with title vs. a Starviper, that's a very fair comparison. Still, the damage saved via the title is something you need to "earn," so I can understand it being cheaper. You have to have them in arc, so it's not like it's handed out for free like an extra shield.

The thing about basic starviper, interceptor, protectorate etc. cost not matching the general perception is the "glass cannon low PS consolation prize" (which FFG refuses to give)- specifically, while the chassis cost evens out for the best pilots, the generics are very easy to nuke before firing. Losing a TIE Fighter before it fires is easier to accept, since you're only losing out on 2 attack dice (and higher PS TIEs are less likely to go down without doing nothing).

Losing a fifth of your list before it does anything is much more punishing than losing 1/8th of it.

Do you plan to include better pilots in the formula? I know it'd multiply your work by around 5 to do them all by hand, but if you figured it out, I could probably write a program to automatically analyze all pilots in the game.

The thing is you're labouring under the misconception that FFG are trying to balance ships to their cost. There's little evidence of that.

I appreciate your work @f0rbiddenc00kie and although it can be scrutinized in points and nit-picked (as everything in life can), it seems to me to have about the best base-line analysis of ship squad cost vs. ship stats that I've seen. It also seems to dovetail in many ways to the lists of ships taken to tournaments and doing well in them. In addition, it gives credence to some of the complaints about the games struggling ships.

Well done sir! Keep up the good work; for we are in always in need of more good work around here.

46 minutes ago, SOTL said:

The thing is you're labouring under the misconception that FFG are trying to balance ships to their cost. There's little evidence of that.

Seeing as 44 ships check out and 13 don't (and guess what, it's the troublemakers) I'd say they must be using as their starting point at least.