6 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

Epics yes! How can a little piddly-dink gun doing equal damage to an A-wing and a Corvette? TLT should not damage Huge ships. Auzituck?... I'll call it a feature and not a bug?

No other ships has a feature like that against secondary weapons. Why should the Auzituck and the TLT be any different?

27 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

That still just hamstrings TLTs against high agi ships, without providing that much benefit against lower agi ships.

It's supposed to.

TLTs are supposed to be good at killing low agi ships and bad at killing high agi ships. Instead they are good at killing anything and everything that doesn't have at least 3 agi/focus/evade.

2 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

It's supposed to.

TLTs are supposed to be good at killing low agi ships and bad at killing high agi ships. Instead they are good at killing anything and everything that doesn't have at least 3 agi/focus/evade.

Since when? And high agi ships (especially with auto thrusters) don't fear TLTs as much as low agi ships, so the change is unnecessary.

Since they were released AFAIK.

Though I have nothing first-hand to that effect, so I'll cheerfully acknowledge that I could be wrong.

Saying that the ships that aren't meant to fear them as much, don't fear them as much, doesn't change the fact that they still fear them more than they *should* do.

You don't seem to be grasping that I think TLT are too good against high agility ships, and am advocating for them to be made less good against high agility ships whilst still maintaining their goodness against low agility ships.

Though this woudln't actually be my preference of nerf, if I was properly expressing one. I'd prefer something that made them less automatic to fly - basically, something inspired by Synced Turret that made them only work to their fullest extent when attacking in arc and/or when attacking with a token of some type.

37 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

Epics yes! How can a little piddly-dink gun doing equal damage to an A-wing and a Corvette? TLT should not damage Huge ships. Auzituck?... I'll call it a feature and not a bug?

Fair enough. Not sure I'm sold on it, but I'm not happy with how effective they are at chewing through Epics, either.

48 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Since they were released AFAIK.

Though I have nothing first-hand to that effect, so I'll cheerfully acknowledge that I could be wrong.

Saying that the ships that aren't meant to fear them as much, don't fear them as much, doesn't change the fact that they still fear them more than they *should* do.

You don't seem to be grasping that I think TLT are too good against high agility ships, and am advocating for them to be made less good against high agility ships whilst still maintaining their goodness against low agility ships.

Though this woudln't actually be my preference of nerf, if I was properly expressing one. I'd prefer something that made them less automatic to fly - basically, something inspired by Synced Turret that made them only work to their fullest extent when attacking in arc and/or when attacking with a token of some type.

If you can't back up your assertion about the TLT's intended use, why are you still using it to make a point? If it is your opinion on the upgrade, then I'll leave it alone, but your wording makes it sound like a fact rather than an opinion.

7 hours ago, SabineKey said:

If you can't back up your assertion about the TLT's intended use, why are you still using it to make a point? If it is your opinion on the upgrade, then I'll leave it alone, but your wording makes it sound like a fact rather than an opinion.

Yah I probably could word it less categorically. Apologies.

It is an important question though, what was the TLT intended to do?

What it actually did was push nearly anything out of the meta that did not have lots of hitpoints or hyper defense. (e.g. Palp Aces w/ Autothrusters) TLT lists may not have dominated top tables but they were a very effective gate-keeper list. A card/list does not need to win tournaments in order to qualify as a problem. Edit to add: TLT had a fairly short reign as wave 8 introduced PS3 alpha striking U-boats and cleared them from the meta almost overnight.

I think TLT was intended to make an effective turret slot weapon, rather than drive anything in particular out of the meta.

6 minutes ago, Panzeh said:

I think TLT was intended to make an effective turret slot weapon, rather than drive anything in particular out of the meta.

But was it supposed to be better than a three dice primary against all target types? (OK, it is just about even against a zero agility target) Cuz that's what they did.

43 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

It is an important question though, what was the TLT intended to do?

What it actually did was push nearly anything out of the meta that did not have lots of hitpoints or hyper defense. (e.g. Palp Aces w/ Autothrusters) TLT lists may not have dominated top tables but they were a very effective gate-keeper list. A card/list does not need to win tournaments in order to qualify as a problem. Edit to add: TLT had a fairly short reign as wave 8 introduced PS3 alpha striking U-boats and cleared them from the meta almost overnight.

So, it has predators and prey, like everything else. Sounds good to me. You do know that you are also describing ordnance when you talk about what the TLT is suppose to have done to the meta, right? Also, I'm not seeing this "gate-keeper" mentality. Triple k-Wings should melt to TLTs, but they are still flying. That two ARCs and Jess Pava list shouldn't have made it high if you were right about TLTs.

TLT is definitely a few points too cheap. It's damage output benefit over 3 dice primary is well on the way to HLC level, but a 360-degree HLC costs 12pts. TLT should be 8 or 9 pts, IMHO.

37 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

So, it has predators and prey, like everything else. Sounds good to me. You do know that you are also describing ordnance when you talk about what the TLT is suppose to have done to the meta, right? Also, I'm not seeing this "gate-keeper" mentality. Triple k-Wings should melt to TLTs, but they are still flying. That two ARCs and Jess Pava list shouldn't have made it high if you were right about TLTs.

Oy. I'll try one more time but I understand it is pointless...

TLT Y-wings have a small handful of hard counters and are statistically favored against almost everything else. That is a "gate-keeper," a list that is unlikely to win events but puts pressure on a large number of other lists. Please don't confuse individual tournament results with overall effectiveness. I'm so tired of seeing variations on "X didn't win any regionals so it's fine" or "Y beats X so X is fine" that's just not how it works.

Let's use ordnance as a comparison. How much would you pay to make Cluster Missiles range 2-3 instead of range 1-2? (That is literally twice as much real estate.) How much to be able to shoot without spending the target lock? Now how much to not even need the target lock? Now make it a 360 turret, how much is that worth? Add that up. Was your answer 2 points? Cuz that is what a TLT costs. Straw-man? Yes. But, it does help put the TLT in some perspective.

45 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

Oy. I'll try one more time but I understand it is pointless...

TLT Y-wings have a small handful of hard counters and are statistically favored against almost everything else. That is a "gate-keeper," a list that is unlikely to win events but puts pressure on a large number of other lists. Please don't confuse individual tournament results with overall effectiveness. I'm so tired of seeing variations on "X didn't win any regionals so it's fine" or "Y beats X so X is fine" that's just not how it works.

Let's use ordnance as a comparison. How much would you pay to make Cluster Missiles range 2-3 instead of range 1-2? (That is literally twice as much real estate.) How much to be able to shoot without spending the target lock? Now how much to not even need the target lock? Now make it a 360 turret, how much is that worth? Add that up. Was your answer 2 points? Cuz that is what a TLT costs. Straw-man? Yes. But, it does help put the TLT in some perspective.

But it is how it works. Strong and weak match ups are an obvious gauge of how balanced a list is. If you want to blame something for the low amount of TLT predators, blame all the bombs and autodamage that are keeping Ace lists down. And tournament data is the most reliable source of data, as it shows us what is happening in fact, rather than by opinion. The fact that list's like Paul Heaver's Miranda, Biggs, and Stresshog won two system opens, as well as seem to be doing well on lower level of play make me doubt the "gate-keeper" title.

As for ordinance, you have to take into account the other advantages ordinance carries with it. It, unlike the TLT, can one shot some ships. Most of the popular ordinance has other special features, like added shield damage, added dice modification, and token/shield ignoring. You also have cards like long range scanners and guidance chips to add value to ordinance shots, as well as cards like Deadeye and Targeting Synchronizer that help take down the firing cost of ordinance. And, once again, you see more torp boats than you see TLTs at the top.

Even if I were to give in on the idea that TLTs were a problem, there is still the fact that it is a low grade problem, with bigger fish (like the Jumpmasters) which need to take priority.

12 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Even if I were to give in on the idea that TLTs were a problem, there is still the fact that it is a low grade problem, with bigger fish (like the Jumpmasters) which need to take priority.

Mmm, can we not try to fix a few things at once?

Just now, Stay On The Leader said:

Mmm, can we not try to fix a few things at once?

Okay. Then let's look at ways to fix Aces to get them back on tables, which involves doing something about bombs and auto damage. Still a bigger problem. We have keeping an eye on Mindlink to see if it needs adjustments. We have the Stressbot, which arguably keeps more lists down than TLTs. This is also not counting the unforeseen problems that might arise with each wave as they are introduced. Like I said, TLT is kinda of a small fish.

1 minute ago, SabineKey said:

Okay. Then let's look at ways to fix Aces to get them back on tables, which involves doing something about bombs and auto damage. Still a bigger problem. We have keeping an eye on Mindlink to see if it needs adjustments. We have the Stressbot, which arguably keeps more lists down than TLTs. This is also not counting the unforeseen problems that might arise with each wave as they are introduced. Like I said, TLT is kinda of a small fish.

Agreed on almost everything. I think the stressbot is probably fine (especially if you're nerfing TLT anyway) but otherwise your list is basically identical to my list.

Yes, because we don't yet have the GUNBOAT

7 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Okay. Then let's look at ways to fix Aces to get them back on tables, which involves doing something about bombs and auto damage. Still a bigger problem. We have keeping an eye on Mindlink to see if it needs adjustments. We have the Stressbot, which arguably keeps more lists down than TLTs. This is also not counting the unforeseen problems that might arise with each wave as they are introduced. Like I said, TLT is kinda of a small fish.

Aces are such a supressive archetype themselves that I'd rather not have them back in full swing. Stressbot on the other hand was a part of the Palpace vs. Poe meta (gross oversimplification, I know) and did not shut the aces out entirely. A powerful tool, but no silver bullet, unlike the one shot you for sure Sabine assisted Cluster Mine. Which I agree needs some amount of looking at.

I think the version with AC and autoblaster turrets is scarier, and more ruinous to aces.

1 hour ago, SabineKey said:

But it is how it works. Strong and weak match ups are an obvious gauge of how balanced a list is. -snip-

It is part of the picture yes. Two different questions.

1. Is it balanced in the meta relative to other lists.
2. Is it costed correctly compared to other ships/upgrades.

Question 1 is match-up dependent and fluid. The answers change regularly. Question 2 is a bit more objective and static. The TLT was the nail in the coffin for T-65's and B-wings. 24 points of Y-wing and TLT is simply better than anything that can be done with X-wings or B-wings.

Tournament data as a whole is are a very useful tool for evaluating ships and upgrades. Individual tournament results are next to useless.

Edit- pedantry

4 hours ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

Aces are such a supressive archetype themselves that I'd rather not have them back in full swing. Stressbot on the other hand was a part of the Palpace vs. Poe meta (gross oversimplification, I know) and did not shut the aces out entirely. A powerful tool, but no silver bullet, unlike the one shot you for sure Sabine assisted Cluster Mine. Which I agree needs some amount of looking at.

My mentioning of the Stressbot is not really linked to the plight of Aces. It was a separate point. I've seen too many lists trashed because of the threat of the Stressbot to think it is healthy.

3 hours ago, gamblertuba said:

It is part of the picture yes. Two different questions.

1. Is it balanced in the meta relative to other lists.
2. Is it costed correctly compared to other ships/upgrades.

Question 1 is match-up dependent and fluid. The answers change regularly. Question 2 is a bit more objective and static. The TLT was the nail in the coffin for T-65's and B-wings. 24 points of Y-wing and TLT is simply better than anything that can be done with X-wings or B-wings.

Tournament data as a whole is are a very useful tool for evaluating ships and upgrades. Individual tournament results are next to useless.

Edit- pedantry

I believe this is where the major difference on our views of the TLT comes out. What I'm getting from your points is that you think because it out does T-65s and B-Wings, it should be brought down. I think the TLT is actually a better standard of dependable and balance then the two before mentioned ships, so they should be brought up to that standard. The T-65 and B-Wing were released early on, when the designers were still learning. The TLT came out later, when they had experience and data to fall back on. I have more confidence that it is better priced and balanced than two ships that have been left behind.

As for tournament data, I was using the ARCs and Jess as an example of a larger pattern, corroborated by other low agi, mid health ships getting up to the top tables despite TLT's existence, including the previously mentioned Miranda, Biggs, and Stresshog.

You do realize the stresshog has a TLT? And Miranda often does too?

41 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

You do realize the stresshog has a TLT? And Miranda often does too?

The Stresshog has a hobbled TLT, that I'd bet they drop in a hot second for an Ion Turret of the same range increment. On Miranda, you have more of a point, but her primary strength come from her ability, and her bombing upgrades.

They also still fit the bill of the type of ship that you say are being hard pressed by TLTs, yet still make top cuts.

On ‎5‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 4:37 PM, SabineKey said:

Identified by who?

You are also killing off HWK based TLTs entirely, which seems to be one of the more accepted uses of them.

On ‎5‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 5:15 PM, SabineKey said:

Yeah, but about half a point, as I remember it. Not enough to go loco on it. It still doesn't warp the meta as other things have (and still do), and already has built in limitations anyone can take advantage of, with a little skill. If you want the TLT numbers to go down, you have to make the other turret options better.

When I did my original TLT analysis, it was at a time when generic filler ships were still cost efficient. B-wings, Z-95s, and TIE Fighters were all near the top of the game's power curve, with B-wings lagging the furthest behind within this set. The game had not yet progressed to the point of Acewing, where the best named pilots have a greater straight line cost efficiency than the aforementioned generics.

So, I analyzed TLT in the context of how good a 24 point Y-wing would be compared to a 12 point Z-95, TIE Fighter, or 22/24 point B-wing (+/- FCS). The straight-line jousting efficiency of the Y-wing + TLT is slightly lower than the B-wing, but it can get shots off significantly more often due to it's turret. As a result, its actual in-game cost efficiency (which can be quantified by applying analytics to game tape, but I digress) clearly ends up being higher than the B-wing, and is in fact even better than the Z-95 or TIE Fighter (empirical example: Dallas Parker's TIE Swarm loses in Worlds 2015 Top 16 to Quad TLT). TLT at 6 point was identifiable as power creep even before release and 0 playtesting (at least as per my analysis - note that I am not a playtester), as it rendered these previous ships largely obsolete overnight. You could still toss in a Z-95 if you had an extra 12 points laying around (i.e. Paul Heaver's 2015 Worlds list), but TLT was the far better choice to build a list around.

Vorpal Sword, who was part of the FFG playtesting group while TLT was being tested, also mathematically analyzed TLT, but we reached different conclusions. Post-release he made a public post defending TLT and explaining how its weaknesses can be exploited. Incidentally I had to correct some details of his math implementation, but it didn't really change his overall approach or conclusion. At the end of the day, tournament results are what matters, and they proved out my hypothesis that generic filler would be displaced by TLT. Vorpal may have changed his stance later, that TLT should have been costed higher, but I can't recall.

TLT should be AT LEAST 7 points for the Y-wing+TLT to be balanced relative to the B-wing, possibly 8 points. However, balancing the appropriate TLT cost as an upgrade on the Ghost where the platform costs >60 points is an altogether different balance problem than TLT on a 18 point Y-wing. In the Ghost's case you could increase the TLT cost much more and still have some viable Ghost+TLT squad lists. From a balance perspective, fixed-price upgrade cards are one of the fundamental problems with this game -- upgrades are always going to be the most effective on ships that are already more expensive to begin with, so a natural progression to "Acewing" and "Fatwing" are nearly unavoidable unless the designers are very well informed about all the potential upgrade permutations, and corresponding total ship values.