Probably going to get shot down with this statement, but here goes. Up until last year, X-Wing has been an incredibly well balanced game.

To be fair, it's still a fairly well balanced game, and FFG seem to work quite hard to fix things when the balance is broken (as we've seen with the recent FAQs.) The only things that are difficult to fix with an FAQ are point costs of ships/upgrades (can make them better value with upgrade cards like Tie/X1 but not make them more expensive) and manoeuvre dials. And the only ship that's massively broken points wise I'd say is the Jumpmaster (way too cheap, especially if you compare it to the YT-2400 which has a similar stat line, costs more, and less upgrade slots. Also explains why they've had 3 goes at fixing it so far.)

But I've noticed a bit of a power creep of extra green on dials that doesn't seem to be reflected in points costs. If we exclude the nimble Tie series, your typical ship in early waves either had 4 green moves (X-Wing, B-Wing, Z-95), or two for the clunkier ships (Y-Wing.) Since wave 7, they seem to have been going nuts. the YV-666 has an extra green, the Jumpmaster, U-Wing and ARC-170 have 6 green moves. The Shadow Caster has a ridiculous amount of green for it's point cost.

It makes the older ships more redundant, and reduces the effectiveness of stress upgrades like tactician, flechette torpedoes and Raymus Antiles, and makes things like Atani Mindlink more powerful. Some of it doesn't seem to fit thematically either; I'm not sure why a huge freighter like a YV-666 is easier to fly 3 forward than a T-65 X-Wing, or why a bulky troop carrier like the U-Wing would be easier to fly than a nimble freighter like a YT-1300?

Also, why can ships that are not very agile like the Quadjumper or the Scrrug H6-Bomber do sloops/ talon rolls when the agile E-Wing can't?

Is it power creep, or just adding more green?

What's the definition of power creep?

Not all change in development is power creep.

Jacob

I think that by using the term Power Creep, you've just answered your own question.

Would you happily take B-wing's dial, or the dreadfully HWK's one today? Just compare Y-wing to Arc, 4 more greens just like that. Upsilon Vs Lambda, ugh!

What was once the defining factor for the ship's feel, is now too much of a DoA burden for the FFG sales.

4 minutes ago, jkokura said:

Is it power creep, or just adding more green?

What's the definition of power creep?

Not all change in development is power creep.

Jacob

It's power creep if they add more green but it's not reflected in the squad point cost of the ship

Outside of PTL carriers, I'm not picking ships based on the green on their dials

xwing is just as imbalanced today as it has always been. What is causing the imbalance changes every wave.

I won't comment as to Power Creep, but I do not care for the larger ships especially freighters being more nimble than fighters.

Just now, VanderLegion said:

Outside of PTL carriers, I'm not picking ships based on the green on their dials

It extends beyond the greens though. At one point you could only K turn, and it was red, then it was white, then there were red sloops, then there were red trolls, now there are white sloops... The game keeps adding maneuvers to ships and giving ships better dials. And you're not really paying for these new moves. Take the TIE/LN and the TIE/FO, for 3 points, you're gaining a shield, green 2 turns, red 2 sloops, the TL action, the tech slot, and you only lose the red 3 K. I would argue that the loss of the 3K (but maintaining the 4k) is about on par for adding the green turns, which means you've added at least 1 point worth of dial (2 sloops), and probably at least 1 point of slot/action, which means you're paying one point for the shield. I'd call that power creep. Short of the ability to fit 8 into a squad (or 7 with one being HR), the /FO is hands down better than the /LN for only 3 points more.

8 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

Outside of PTL carriers, I'm not picking ships based on the green on their dials

But your opponent might, making your tactician or R3-A2 less of a threat

2 minutes ago, Khyros said:

It extends beyond the greens though. At one point you could only K turn, and it was red, then it was white, then there were red sloops, then there were red trolls, now there are white sloops... The game keeps adding maneuvers to ships and giving ships better dials. And you're not really paying for these new moves. Take the TIE/LN and the TIE/FO, for 3 points, you're gaining a shield, green 2 turns, red 2 sloops, the TL action, the tech slot, and you only lose the red 3 K. I would argue that the loss of the 3K (but maintaining the 4k) is about on par for adding the green turns, which means you've added at least 1 point worth of dial (2 sloops), and probably at least 1 point of slot/action, which means you're paying one point for the shield. I'd call that power creep. Short of the ability to fit 8 into a squad (or 7 with one being HR), the /FO is hands down better than the /LN for only 3 points more.

I ignored the ships from TFA core set in my example as the T-65's are massively over-costed, but the Tie FO give you a lot more for not many more squad points

14 minutes ago, baxio said:

It's power creep if they add more green but it's not reflected in the squad point cost of the ship

Or, is it a correction of past design choices which didn't balance early ships well agains stress, or stressful maneuvers.

I think the question still stands. Is it actually power creep, which is yet to be defined really clearly in this case, or is it a matter of improved understanding of how to properly design a ship around the dial?

I would say that, given your own ignoring of the imperial faction, you're missing that the designers introduced a title that wholesale gives Ties access to green banks. Which ships does this particularly help? Not really the newer ones, but certainly the earliest ones.

I would say that rather than power creep, I would say the designers are doing a better job on the current ships, and that the early ships that you're pointing out to have issues aren't properly designed given the current game parameters. That's just my response to the question.

Jacob

1 minute ago, jkokura said:

Or, is it a correction of past designers who didn't balance early ships well agains stress, or stressful maneuvers.

I think the question still stands. Is it actually power creep, which is yet to be defined really clearly in this case, or is it a matter of improved understanding of how to properly design a ship around the dial.

I would say that, given your own ignoring of the imperial faction, you're missing that the designers introduced a title that wholesale gives Ties access to green banks. Which ships does this particularly help? Not really the newer ones, but certainly the earliest ones.

I would say that rather than power creep, I would say the designers are doing a better job on the current ships, and that the early ships that you're pointing out to have issues aren't properly designed given the current game parameters. That's just my response to the question.

Jacob

Fair enough, I take your point on board. It does make it harder for them to back and add green to older ships though and bring them on a par with the new ships

2 minutes ago, Khyros said:

It extends beyond the greens though. At one point you could only K turn, and it was red, then it was white, then there were red sloops, then there were red trolls, now there are white sloops... The game keeps adding maneuvers to ships and giving ships better dials. And you're not really paying for these new moves. Take the TIE/LN and the TIE/FO, for 3 points, you're gaining a shield, green 2 turns, red 2 sloops, the TL action, the tech slot, and you only lose the red 3 K. I would argue that the loss of the 3K (but maintaining the 4k) is about on par for adding the green turns, which means you've added at least 1 point worth of dial (2 sloops), and probably at least 1 point of slot/action, which means you're paying one point for the shield. I'd call that power creep. Short of the ability to fit 8 into a squad (or 7 with one being HR), the /FO is hands down better than the /LN for only 3 points more.

One ship has a white k-turn, and 1 ship has a white sloop in one direction. It's not like they're giving them to every ship. The normal red sloops and trolls don't bother me, it's just different options for turning around, neither is inherently better or worse than a k-turn, it all depends on the situation. I couldn't tell you how many times I've wished I had a normal k-turn on my starviper instead of being forced into a sloop to turn around. As for the shield on TIE/FOs, you don't typically bay a lot for extra health built into the chassis like you do a hull or shield upgrade card. The FO is hadns down better than the LN if you ignore the price, but WITH the price difference, its NOT inherently better, it depends entirely on how you want to use it.

1 minute ago, baxio said:

But your opponent might, making your tactician or R3-A2 less of a threat

They might, but that's not something I plan my whole squad around. If a ship has less greens but fits what I want for the list, that doesn't bother me.

Just now, baxio said:

Fair enough, I take your point on board. It does make it harder for them to back and add green to older ships though and bring them on a par with the new ships

I guess it might be two different ways to look at it. Your premise seems to be that the early game was the right way, and the current game is broken or changed in someway. I think I'm looking at it is that the current form has developed better, more fully, and early choices in design are popping up as issues. 3 straights on the X-Wing should be green. The early ties should have had more green banks.

Although I agree with one point, it's hard to understand 'fluff' wise about how transports and frieghters have all this green, and some other ships have none. The thing I'm thinking in regards to this is that 'gameplay' trumps 'fluff' sometimes. Seems like some of those examples above, if those moves were not green, would likely push those ships to the more 'unusable' end of the scale. Having large base ships with the greens they do render them more useable. Just my thoughts.

Jacob

The biggest case of dial creep has to be the progression from Lambda to Upsilon. Not only did the hard 2 go from red to white, but that thing has a fricking 1-turn? Are you kidding me?

On the subject of the U-Wing vs YT-1300: I wouldn't call it easier to fly, or nimble. Its dial is basically an HWK-290 with less red and no turret. It can only turn around if it sets up a turn in advance.

Yes, it has more green, but only having hard 2s makes it pretty ungainly to fly.

6 minutes ago, PhantomFO said:

The biggest case of dial creep has to be the progression from Lambda to Upsilon. Not only did the hard 2 go from red to white, but that thing has a fricking 1-turn? Are you kidding me?

It's only 'creep' if it's significantly better for similar cost or the new stuff is undercosted or something. The Upsilon is from a time period 30+ years later than the lambda, and has a better dial, but it's also 9 points cheaper for the generic. It's not like it's a new 21 point shuttle with a way better dial. And the dial should have always had a white hard from the start. adding one to the new shuttle is just doing it right instead of hampering itself because of past mistakes. Similar to the TIE Avenger baing a lot like a hwk with a 2 die primary.

11 minutes ago, PhantomFO said:

The biggest case of dial creep has to be the progression from Lambda to Upsilon. Not only did the hard 2 go from red to white, but that thing has a fricking 1-turn? Are you kidding me?

And it only took 7 waves for the Empire to get a shuttle that had an decent dial, rather than an atrocious one. Oh my, look at that "power creep".

I wouldn't call it power creep. But as more ships come out it is increasingly harder to come up with a movement set unique to that ship. Now cross faction ships means that a new movement set would not be needed but again with the traditional straights, banks, turns, and Ks the design space was getting crowded. We already have ships with identical attribute profiles, (A-wing & TAP, Avenger & Hwk-290). Therefore a lot of other maneuvers (stop, s-loop, t-roll, reverse) has been added to open up the movement profile for future ships.

Now as for green creep I haven't seen any dial as impressive as the original TIE Interceptor or A-wing. The IG-88 dials were as good as they get IMHO. Now sure there are ships that are getting more green as you look at the U-wing but it also has a lower attribute values with a higher point cost. I think the overall package even things out. But it is nice to see someone taking notice of the dial and seeing what the power is other than just looking at the 4 big numbers and thee point cost.

29 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

The normal red sloops and trolls don't bother me, it's just different options for turning around, neither is inherently better or worse than a k-turn , it all depends on the situation.

Fair, but with exception to the Star Viper, most ships that have a Troll or Sloop has a K turn as well . While we're talking about the SV though, it's a Wave 6 ship, so it's clearly smack dab in the middle of the game at this point, neither early or late. Let's take a look at wave 1-5 ships vs. wave 7-10, specifically around number of turn around options.

Wave 1-5, 23 Turn arounds, 18 ships, 1.28 average

0 HWK, Lambda, VT-49

1 X Wing, Y Wing, TIE/x1, B Wing, TIE/SA, Z-95, YT-2400, TIE/D*

2 TIE/LN, A Wing, YT-1300**, TIE/IN, FS-31, E Wing, TIE/P

*Or 4 if you're (Imp Aces, post W8) Ryad.

**Or 4 if you're equipping the (HOTR, Post W8) new MF title.

Wave 6 (for completion sake), 6 turn arounds, 3 ships, 2 Average

1 M3-A

2 SV

3 IG-2000

Wave 7-10, 28 turn arounds, 16 ships, 1.75 average

0 YV-666, K Wing

1 Kirhaxz, TIE/PUN, VCX-100, TIE/v1, ARC-170, Lancer, U wing, Quad jumper***

2 TIE/SF, TIE/Striker*, G1-A, Sabine's TIE**

3 JM5K, T-70, TIE/FO, Protectorate

*One could argue that this has 6 options (8 via Duchess)

** Does Sabine's TIE count here since it was just a rebel release of a W1 ship?

***But it does have 3 NEW MANEUVERS not seen elsewhere to go backwards.

So, you can see that the newer ships have more ways to turn around - you can no longer just block the 3/4 K turn and know that your opponent will be running away.

Edit: And as far as just giving more options versus power creep - take a look at the ships representing the meta, List Juggler can provide data, but I'm pretty sure the lists we're all talking about (at least pre-FAQ) were Parattanni (Protectorate (3), JM5K (3), Lancer (1)), Palp Defenders (Defender (White/Green 1), Shuttle (0)), Dengaroo (JM5K (5) x2), Kanan/Biggs (VCX-100 (1), T-65 (1)), Miranda/Dash (K Wing (0), YT-2400 (1)), and Trip Ks (K Wing (0) x3)... With the exception of Palp Defenders, you'll see that everyone either has several options to turn around, or a turret....... I'll let you make your own conclusions based on that.

3 minutes ago, Khyros said:

Fair, but with exception to the Star Viper, most ships that have a Troll or Sloop has a K turn as well . While we're talking about the SV though, it's a Wave 6 ship, so it's clearly smack dab in the middle of the game at this point, neither early or late. Let's take a look at wave 1-5 ships vs. wave 7-10, specifically around number of turn around options.

Wave 1-5, 23 Turn arounds, 18 ships, 1.28 average

0 HWK, Lambda, VT-49

1 X Wing, Y Wing, TIE/x1, B Wing, TIE/SA, Z-95, YT-2400

2 TIE/LN, A Wing, YT-1300, TIE/IN, FS-31, E Wing, TIE/P, TIE/D

Wave 6 (for completion sake), 6 turn arounds, 3 ships, 2 Average

1 M3-A

2 SV

3 IG-2000

Wave 7-10, 28 turn arounds, 16 ships, 1.75 average

0 YV-666, K Wing

1 Kirhaxz, TIE/PUN, VCX-100, TIE/v1, ARC-170, Lancer, U wing, Quad jumper***

2 TIE/SF, TIE/Striker*, G1-A, Sabine's TIE**

3 JM5K, T-70, TIE/FO, Protectorate

*One could argue that this has 6 options (8 via Duchess)

** Does Sabine's TIE count here since it was just a rebel release of a W1 ship?

***But it does have 3 NEW MANEUVERS not seen elsewhere to go backwards.

So, you can see that the newer ships have more ways to turn around - you can no longer just block the 3/4 K turn and know that your opponent will be running away.

Defender only has one turn around (unless your countess, then you have four/five)

Call it "Mechanic Creep" or at least I have been calling it this for about 4 months now. Next week I think I will be trying out a 3 x B-Wing uniques with the JM5K dial to see how big the impact of the dial has over time. This is not even considering that large based ships have better dials.

I do agree with you. All the naysayers are missing the point of the core mechanics and the long term affects that they have on the game. All the crying about stress and other combo-cards is amplified with the dial mechanic creep. While one person was correct about newer technology would have better capability, there has to be a long term plan for the game rather than only fly Force Awakens ships. In addition, I don't think technology in the Star Wars universe actually progresses at the same speed we are experiencing in our world.

Another point is that the design team seems to temper the Imperials and the Rebels quite a bit more than the scum.

No matter what, Mechanic Creep contributed from the dials is a problem, cannot be nerfed, and it will continue to grow.

Personally I would count pairs of sloops or trolls as a single turn around vs 2 separate ones.

4 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

Personally I would count pairs of sloops or trolls as a single turn around vs 2 separate ones.

Why? A sloop left is a completely different move than a sloop right. One could be blocked by a rock or yield no shot, while the other might get you out of arc and setup a R1 attack. They shouldn't be counted the same.

Defender only has one turn around (unless your countess, then you have four/five)

Fixed. Thanks for the catch.

5 minutes ago, Khyros said:

Wave 1-5, 22 Turn arounds, 18 ships, 1.22 average

0 HWK, Lambda, VT-49

1 X Wing, Y Wing, TIE/x1, B Wing, TIE/SA, Z-95, YT-2400, TIE/D

2 TIE/LN, A Wing, YT-1300, TIE/IN, FS-31, E Wing, TIE/P

Wave 6 (for completion sake), 5 turn arounds, 3 ships, 1.66 Average

1 SV

2 IG-2000, M3-A

If you include the Z95, y-wing, hwk and firspray for scum, similar to sabine's tie below, you add

0 HWK

1 Y-wing, Z95

2 FireSpray

which leaves you at 9 turnarounds for 7 ships, or 1.28 average, save as before

Wave 7-10, 27 turn arounds, 19 ships, 1.42 average

0 YV-666, K Wing, Upsilon

1 TIE/PUN, VCX-100, TIE/v1, ARC-170, Lancer, U wing, Quad jumper***, TIE/SF

2 TIE/Striker*, G1-A, Sabine's TIE**, Kihraxz, JM5K, T-70, TIE/FO, Protectorate

*One could argue that this has 6 options (8 via Duchess)

** Does Sabine's TIE count here since it was just a rebel release of a W1 ship?

***But it does have 3 NEW MANEUVERS not seen elsewhere to go backwards.

So, you can see that the newer ships have more ways to turn around - you can no longer just block the 3/4 K turn and know that your opponent will be running away.

This is more what it would look like if you count sloops/troll pairs as 1 turn-around instead of two. You also forgot the upsilon in wave 10. And you listed 18 ships for wave 7-10 but oly counted 16 for the calculation.

Numbers here don't look nearly as dire. Slightly higher number of turn arounds post wave 6, but not significantly so.