1 hour ago, MajorJuggler said:

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.

But since the B-Wing has become obsolete, why should we use it as the basis of price comparison? Like I said above, as the game has moved on, the older ships become more faulty as ways to determine value. I personally think that instead of trying to bring things like the TLT down to the B-Wing level (aka limited use), efforts should be made to raise the older material to the newer standards.

42 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

But since the B-Wing has become obsolete, why should we use it as the basis of price comparison? Like I said above, as the game has moved on, the older ships become more faulty as ways to determine value. I personally think that instead of trying to bring things like the TLT down to the B-Wing level (aka limited use), efforts should be made to raise the older material to the newer standards.

Good question.

The power creep is on, and gaining speed. It seems the designers want to slow down the creep, but aren't sure how to do that. On the one hand, on the Empire side of things they neuter Palp and X7 ---the X7 which caused some of the Alpha strike lists to appear in the first place, and Palp because, well--- but it also practically killed the use of fragile Ace squads which is the Imps historical bread and butter. Now the Ipms best shot is flying the Rebel-like TIE/SF and await the Rebel-like Aggressor TLT spam. What?? On the scum side they nuked super Zuckuss ---but everyone knew he was OP, even those who used the s*** out of him--- and rained in Manaroo, even though she wasn't the real issue, which was, and still is, her chassis and dial. Perhaps Mindlink could have been taken down a notch so it isn't such a chain reaction of power, IDK. But then they put out new ships all the time without repairing the heart of the game.

The train is building speed.

2 hours ago, SabineKey said:

But since the B-Wing has become obsolete, why should we use it as the basis of price comparison? Like I said above, as the game has moved on, the older ships become more faulty as ways to determine value. I personally think that instead of trying to bring things like the TLT down to the B-Wing level (aka limited use), efforts should be made to raise the older material to the newer standards.

You asked who did the TLT analysis, I was providing some historical background.

Fixing the current game is another problem altogether, albeit one more closely aligned with this thread. In my opinion, balancing the game properly for its long term health has to start with being able to design future expansions without continually creating powercreep. Otherwise even if you nuke the entire system now and get near-perfect balance, it's likely to just get broken in the future anyway.

31 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

You asked who did the TLT analysis, I was providing some historical background.

Fixing the current game is another problem altogether, albeit one more closely aligned with this thread. In my opinion, balancing the game properly for its long term health has to start with being able to design future expansions without continually creating powercreep. Otherwise even if you nuke the entire system now and get near-perfect balance, it's likely to just get broken in the future anyway.

Fair enough.

12 hours ago, SabineKey said:

But since the B-Wing has become obsolete, why should we use it as the basis of price comparison? Like I said above, as the game has moved on, the older ships become more faulty as ways to determine value. I personally think that instead of trying to bring things like the TLT down to the B-Wing level (aka limited use), efforts should be made to raise the older material to the newer standards.

But, for me, it was the TLT which made the B-wing obsolete. I played B-wings almost exclusively in waves 4 and 5. Phantoms and fat turrets were a pain. Arc Dodgers were nasty. But TLT Y-wings are incredibly hard to beat and a soull-crushing way to lose.

Honestly, I don't think the TLT should be range 2-3. Would it ruin the game to switch the range restrictions for the TLT and blaster turret.

I like to ask this question: Is TLT good for the game? Or, would more people have more fun if TLT didn't exist?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

Quote

Or, would more people have more fun if TLT didn't exist?

I for one would be ecstatic.

Quote

Honestly, I don't think the TLT should be range 2-3

Give the defender his/her range bonus at Range 3 and I think it would be miles better.

It would mean that the TLT player would have to find the R2 sweet spot consistently, with what is otherwise an undercosted turret weapon.

8 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

Honestly, I don't think the TLT should be range 2-3.

Seriously.

One thought I had was to make it range 2-3 in arc, range 3 out of arc.

20 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

I think we all know the answer to that question.

An obvious yes because they put the final nail into the coffin of fat PWTs? Seriously, I don't think the misery of waves 4.5-6 has been reached again, yet.

1 hour ago, gamblertuba said:

But, for me, it was the TLT which made the B-wing obsolete. I played B-wings almost exclusively in waves 4 and 5. Phantoms and fat turrets were a pain. Arc Dodgers were nasty. But TLT Y-wings are incredibly hard to beat and a soull-crushing way to lose.

Honestly, I don't think the TLT should be range 2-3. Would it ruin the game to switch the range restrictions for the TLT and blaster turret.

I like to ask this question: Is TLT good for the game? Or, would more people have more fun if TLT didn't exist?

The writing was already on the wall for the B-Wing's demise. I took a 3B and an E list to a regionals back when Scum first came out. One of my losses was to 4Bs with accuracy corrector. That constant damage was too much for the B-Wings, and they went down hard. TLTs might have given B-Wings the push, but it is not what's keeping them down.

Why shouldn't it be range 2-3? It seems to fit the notion of a hyper-accurate weapon to have trouble locking on at close ranges. A lot of Torps and missiles use that logic. As for the Blaster Turret, yes it would. The Blaster Turret is crap (an opinion founded on long experience with it). Changing its range doesn't fix that. At least take away the need to spend the focus token, then we can talk.

I do think the TLT is good for the game. It helped take Fat Turrets down a peg, it has kept ships like the Y-Wing and the HWK relevant, and it actually separates the idea of damage and accuracy. The last question is a very far reaching and more troublesome due to how that would have effected the meta for 3 (soon to be 4) waves.

3 hours ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

An obvious yes because they put the final nail into the coffin of fat PWTs? Seriously, I don't think the misery of waves 4.5-6 has been reached again, yet.

Not everyone played the game during those waves. I entered the game during Wave 7 where TLT, stress, and regeneration were running rampant. My first store tournament almost every list I played against was TLT-centered. The number of turrets I faced at that tournament almost put me off from the competitive scene from the get go. What's the point of dogfighting if you don't have to look at your enemy? I get that for some people it was the lesser of the two evils, but for me TLT was the ultimate boogeyman. One that has never left the game.

1 minute ago, defkhan1 said:

Not everyone played the game during those waves. I entered the game during Wave 7 where TLT, stress, and regeneration were running rampant. My first store tournament almost every list I played against was TLT-centered. The number of turrets I faced at that tournament almost put me off from the competitive scene from the get go. What's the point of dogfighting if you don't have to look at your enemy? I get that for some people it was the lesser of the two evils, but for me TLT was the ultimate boogeyman. One that has never left the game.

Believe me, Decimators and Falcons were much worse offenders. My first tournament was when wave 4 was barely out and it was all dogfighting. My second one...no list in the top 4 didn't contain a Falcon. TLT may be annoying, but Predator Gunner Han is on another level of not caring about arc. At least TLTs reward you for range one, the PWT actually punishes it!

If I could turn back time, I'd ask FFG to print forward and rear facing arc lines on every ship base so that effects could trigger when attacking a ship from front, rear, or side. In a real dogfight, hitting a target that is flying perpendicular to you is extremely difficult. Bonuses could be applied when attacking from within the rear "quadrant" of a defender and turrets would be less effective when firing to the side.

Problem is, one of X-wing's biggest selling points has been its simplicity. How much simplicity are you willing to sacrifice? Everyone is going to have a different answer.

On 5/2/2017 at 7:34 AM, Admiral Deathrain said:

[Stressbot is] powerful tool, but no silver bullet, unlike the one shot you for sure Sabine assisted Cluster Mine.

Wait, what?

Even with a perfect 3-node Cluster Mine drop (which IME is difficult to do against a Small ship), a Sabine-assisted kill is not guaranteed even on a 3-HP ship, much less a 4-HP ship. When I recently flew Ahsoka-Wardens, I had at least two instances of rolling 1 hit on 6 dice. (I also had one instance of rolling 5 hits on 6 dice, but that's irrelevant against a 3- or 4-HP ace.

Bombs are tough to use, conventional wisdom notwithstanding. It's a different skillset from, e.g., arc-dodging, but it's not particularly easier, IMO.

I would like to see Sabine available to all factions, I think, but I don't know about a nerf. (Maybe a tiny nerf, but maybe not.)

I'd actually prefer to see Advanced Slam nerfed. Perhaps "same maneuver" in lieu of "same-speed maneuver."

1 minute ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Wait, what?

Even with a perfect 3-node Cluster Mine drop (which IME is difficult to do against a Small ship), a Sabine-assisted kill is not guaranteed even on a 3-HP ship, much less a 4-HP ship. When I recently flew Ahsoka-Wardens, I had at least two instances of rolling 1 hit on 6 dice. (I also had one instance of rolling 5 hits on 6 dice, but that's irrelevant against a 3- or 4-HP ace.

Bombs are tough to use, conventional wisdom notwithstanding. It's a different skillset from, e.g., arc-dodging, but it's not particularly easier, IMO.

I would like to see Sabine available to all factions, I think, but I don't know about a nerf. (Maybe a tiny nerf, but maybe not.)

I'd actually prefer to see Advanced Slam nerfed. Perhaps "same maneuver" in lieu of "same-speed maneuver."

I actually agree with that, but ultimately you one shot them more often than not, don't you? Arcdodging and minedropping are very similar, both playstyles rely on making descisions based on perfect knowledge of the boardstate. I enjoy mines a lot (heck, I played that back in wave 4!), but I had to retire the K-Wings as they were too supressive.

Just now, Admiral Deathrain said:

I actually agree with that, but ultimately you one shot them more often than not, don't you?

I actually don't, but I'm nowhere close to a great player.

Cluster Mines are horrible, because you've got a bunch of ships reliant on agility in their points cost and attacks that ignore agility. The equivalent would be like a gun that removed half your hull in damage with each shot, and made the Ghost/Deci/Falcon unplayable.

Sabine is too good, and Cluster Mines need their errata reversing.

4 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Cluster Mines are horrible, because you've got a bunch of ships reliant on agility in their points cost and attacks that ignore agility. The equivalent would be like a gun that removed half your hull in damage with each shot, and made the Ghost/Deci/Falcon unplayable.

The bombs don't ignore agility, they ignore AGI. Agile, low-HP ships can still avoid getting bombed with careful flying. And agile, low-HP ships, can still mount effectively unanswerable attacks on low-firepower, non-agile ships like K-wings. With careful flying.

By definition, bombing requires ships to be close to their targets and potentially very vulnerable. And Cluster Mines, in particular, are subject to the vagaries of randomness. To make up for that, they need to be actually effective.

Quote

Sabine is too good, and Cluster Mines need their errata reversing.

I disagree in both cases. Sabine and Cluster Mines are why bombs get played at all in competitive play. If you don't want bombs to be playable competitively, returning to pre-Sabine and pre-fixed Cluster Mines is certainly the way to go.

Better that than this.

1 minute ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Better that than this.

Than what, exactly? (Not a snide question. I'm wondering if I missed something.)

9 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

The bombs don't ignore agility, they ignore AGI. Agile, low-HP ships can still avoid getting bombed with careful flying. And agile, low-HP ships, can still mount effectively unanswerable attacks on low-firepower, non-agile ships like K-wings. With careful flying.

By definition, bombing requires ships to be close to their targets and potentially very vulnerable. And Cluster Mines, in particular, are subject to the vagaries of randomness. To make up for that, they need to be actually effective.

But tournament results are showing that the Aces form of careful flying is harder to get working at this point than Bomber careful flying. If it was the same level of care, we should see more even distribution of both lists, but we don't.

Just now, SabineKey said:

But tournament results are showing that the Aces form of careful flying is harder to get working at this point than Bomber careful flying. If it was the same level of care, we should see more even distribution of both lists, but we don't.

I think there's a lot of stuff working against aces right now (BMST, ISYTDS, Gunner, HSCP, RAC, Asajj), so laying their woes 100% at the feet of bombs is off-target. (BOOM.)

You certainly won't get an argument from me that the anti-ace train has easily gone at least a couple of stops too far.

6 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I think there's a lot of stuff working against aces right now (BMST, ISYTDS, Gunner, HSCP, RAC, Asajj), so laying their woes 100% at the feet of bombs is off-target. (BOOM.)

You certainly won't get an argument from me that the anti-ace train has easily gone at least a couple of stops too far.

100%, no. I will concede that. But, based on personal observations and testimony from imperial players I know, it is the biggest predator currently out there. Most of the others are stuff they've dealt with before directly (RAC, Gunner), have dealt with in another form (Ventress's stress control), or have good defenses against (ISYTDS). HSCP and BMST are more worrying, but also aren't as big as bombing currently, and can be countered easier than Bombs by Aces.

48 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I think there's a lot of stuff working against aces right now (BMST, ISYTDS, Gunner, HSCP, RAC, Asajj), so laying their woes 100% at the feet of bombs is off-target. (BOOM.)

You certainly won't get an argument from me that the anti-ace train has easily gone at least a couple of stops too far.

BMST - rarely played. ISYTDS - actually bad against Aces who can dodge the crits. Gunner/HSCP - rarely played. RAC - see Gunner/HSCP and ISYTDS. Asajj - legit issue.

Bombs? HUGE issue.

I don't play Imperial Aces competitively, but I can sympathize flying Fenn vs Sabine crew. Anecdotally, the last 4 games with Fenn vs Sabine crew, Fenn has done a combined total of ONE damage. Some of that is situational and bad choices on my end, but if I were an imperial player I would see Sabine crew as a hard-counter to any Imperial Aces list. I would not be playing Imperial Aces competitively right now even if I were really good at them.