There is _always_ going to be some ship that is the most efficient you can get for the points. In a straight up point for point battle, _some_ ship is just going to win. So, what ship ought that be, for the game to be in it's healthiest state?

One of the thoughts I've had is that it should be the _blandest_ possible ship at the cheapest price. PS1. No reposition action. Minimal hull. Minimal shields. 2 attack. Maybe _1_ attack! 2 agility, maybe _1_ agility! A super bland dial.

Currently, there are 3 ships that come close to filling that niche: The (Rebel) Z-95, the (Imperial) TIE l/n, and the M3-A Interceptor with the Light Scyk title. As I understand it, none of them are currently the most efficient ship in the game, but that's a conversation for another day.

If any of those ships (or all of them!) were the most efficient, then we would know that bringing burst damage would _always_ be a useful tool. But we'd know that we wouldn't _have_ to bring burst damage in order to do anything. We'd be able to bring arc dodgers and know that they'd have prey- but we would also be able to bring heavy jousters, because they'd be able to survive the fire of a ship we'd be seeing a lot of. U-Boats would have been far less scary if we were seeing lists with 3 or 4 Z-95s that were capable of earning their points back. Similarly, Xizor gets much better if he had wingmates that were super efficient on their own. And Palpatine is simply not a huge threat when he's up against several good lists with 5 or 6 low value ships.

One of the weirder outcomes of this realization is that a naked T-65 X-Wing should _not_ be an efficient ship. That 3rd attack die would push too hard for every list to be able to survive it's weight of fire. Similarly, an ideal-world B-Wing should need to be filling at least 1 or 2 of its slots in order to get maximum effect. And a Knave Squadron with a point reduction sufficient to make it efficient would be _awful_ for the game.

For those of us who like to theory craft about game design, we should keep in mind what makes a ship unique, and emphasize its strengths and unique role within a fleet. For most ships, we should _not_ be aiming at "efficiency" without requiring the ship to be played to its uniqueness. For instance: The TIE Striker's Imperial Trainee should not be "efficient- that 3rd Red Die would be problematic. But if it can get 3 points of value out of Adaptive Ailerons, then it's become an interesting and different part of a fleet.

So: What makes a ship unique? If you have an idea, what makes your ship "inefficient", and how can it be played to make up for that deficiency?

FWIW, isn't what you describe pretty much the dominance of TIE Swarms in waves 1-2?

Going by raw stats, the most efficent ship in the game is actually the Lambada Shuttle, but it often gets overlooked because of how poorly it can bring that firepower to bear.

The Xwing and Bwing, at least after IA, are on equal ground (but that ground has been passed up by newer ships). The Xwing loses it's modification slot, has a useless torpedo slot, and doesnt have an EPT before PS7. The Bwing, meanwhile, has access to barrel roll, but relies heavilly on it's red maneuvers, locking down the aspect that makes it "better" and forcing it to use one of it's highly predictable green maneuvers to recover. it has plenty of slots, but is most efficent when those slots are unused, and it's aces take more points than their PS and pilot abilites earn back.

14 minutes ago, haslo said:

FWIW, isn't what you describe pretty much the dominance of TIE Swarms in waves 1-2?

Yes, ish.
FFG made a concerted effort to kill the TIE Swarm in favor of named ships (CF: Predator). What they didn't do- and where I think the conceptual mistake came from- was not give other ships cool things to do. One of the reasons the Phantom was so dominant was that it was the first ship that could be efficient _without_ being a jouster. This, unfortunately, lead to a few other issues.

13 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Going by raw stats, the most efficent ship in the game is actually the Lambada Shuttle, but it often gets overlooked because of how poorly it can bring that firepower to bear.

Before the X7 nerf, the most efficient ship in the game was the Delta Defender with the X7 title. I'm not sure if it still is, but I would not be surprised. The Lambda's dial (difficult as it is to quantify) is enough to keep it from being purely "efficient"- for the reasons you state.

29 minutes ago, Punning Pundit said:

Before the X7 nerf, the most efficient ship in the game was the Delta Defender with the X7 title. I'm not sure if it still is, but I would not be surprised. The Lambda's dial (difficult as it is to quantify) is enough to keep it from being purely "efficient"- for the reasons you state.

It very likely still is, if you do not consider synergy. Looking at the full list Mindlinkers beat them and maybe did so even before the nerf.

Efficiency is crap. Durability and token/dice stacking is the path to winning.

Why would one think efficiency in small packages is a good idea? I wish it was. Broken big monster turret platforms that heal... that's a good idea in this meta

30 minutes ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

It very likely still is, if you do not consider synergy. Looking at the full list Mindlinkers beat them and maybe did so even before the nerf.

Not considering synergy is kind of what I'm getting at. If your ship isn't purely efficient, then it needs to do _something_ to earn back it's points. I think it's healthy for the game for ships that don't need to do anything special to earn back their points to _also_ be pretty bland.

Take the "Protectorate Starfighter". If the Zealous Recruit were the most efficient ship in the game, it would shut out anything that can't take or give burst damage, plus anything that can't deal with arc dodging. Plus at PS1 it would be a great blocker, so you'd put a crimp into anything that needs actions. That's _before_ you consider the title, or higher PS ships, etc.