41 minutes ago, caseycheesecake said:

If an eQuay is 8.5/10, and HK droids are 8.1/10, are you going to play the eQuay every time? That's the discussion here. Not every unit is going to be exactly as playable as everything else. Therefore you'll have to choose, personally, whether you'll be willing to not use the MOST efficient deployment for the sake of a themed list or CC continuity or whatnot. If you're willing to use a slightly less efficient card, then that becomes playable by definition. If you aren't, then what you're really saying is that you want as many units as possible to be exactly as good as each other - which is impossible and frankly, lame IMO.

Point being, there will always be a few "best" units in each faction. What we saw at Worlds was the difference between 8.5 and 8.1 and because it was so competitive, they all chose the 8.5. Simple as that. Even if it had been 8.5 vs 8.4, they would have chosen 8.5.

This is absolutely correct. It will be nice to have as many characters up to 8/10 as possible and everyone wants that---but I'm okay with it either way because what I enjoy most about the game is what happens when you sit down at the table and start playing. It doesn't matter so much to me how many of the same figures are out there or when those figures were released---it's about working with what you have to build the best list and working with the list you brought.

My point about the maps is that on certain maps some figures will be better than others so we may see a slight change in "what's best." It's just one more variable that may add to the diversity of what's considered "viable" and or "best."

The notion that Worlds was a group of people wanting to play with their shiny new toys with a bunch of time on their hands and money to burn is fairly juvenile. That's all I'll say about it for now because I was there so I'm biased. Just was never the impression I got.

1 hour ago, caseycheesecake said:

If an eQuay is 8.5/10, and HK droids are 8.1/10, are you going to play the eQuay every time? That's the discussion here. Not every unit is going to be exactly as playable as everything else. Therefore you'll have to choose, personally, whether you'll be willing to not use the MOST efficient deployment for the sake of a themed list or CC continuity or whatnot. If you're willing to use a slightly less efficient card, then that becomes playable by definition. If you aren't, then what you're really saying is that you want as many units as possible to be exactly as good as each other - which is impossible and frankly, lame IMO.

Point being, there will always be a few "best" units in each faction. What we saw at Worlds was the difference between 8.5 and 8.1 and because it was so competitive, they all chose the 8.5. Simple as that. Even if it had been 8.5 vs 8.4, they would have chosen 8.5.

There may be a difference in rating based on the list you are playing as well. Once other command cards come out for droids or whatever it is then HKs in some may lists may be an 8.5 and the eQuays would be a 8.1 or whatever. I don't think you can really compare these things in a vacuum.

Some units will perform better vs specific lists for instance and if you meta has a lot of people playing that list then that will upset the balance as well.

One thing I think that hurt the HKs is how few white dice we see in competitive play right now. With their double rerolls(one friendly and one opponent) they were the king of killing x-men and tri-force. Now with black dice all over the place it seems more often than not that the eQuays reroll is used on their own dice to try for better results. I just think the extra reroll from the HKs isn't helping as much as it was when OG Luke and Leia were being played more.

3 minutes ago, TheUnsullied said:

There may be a difference in rating based on the list you are playing as well. Once other command cards come out for droids or whatever it is then HKs in some may lists may be an 8.5 and the eQuays would be a 8.1 or whatever. I don't think you can really compare these things in a vacuum.

Some units will perform better vs specific lists for instance and if you meta has a lot of people playing that list then that will upset the balance as well.

One thing I think that hurt the HKs is how few white dice we see in competitive play right now. With their double rerolls(one friendly and one opponent) they were the king of killing x-men and tri-force. Now with black dice all over the place it seems more often than not that the eQuays reroll is used on their own dice to try for better results. I just think the extra reroll from the HKs isn't helping as much as it was when OG Luke and Leia were being played more.

The names don't matter. As the games goes on, there will be new TOP units and units 5, 10, 20% less efficient than them. Doesn't mean they're unplayable. People are just unwilling to give up an ounce of competitiveness so they choose the eQuays every time. Then we hear complaining that you have to auto-include (which gets boring) or nerf units to be competitive. There can never be a perfect balance of competitiveness and variety. People need to choose for themselves how much competitiveness they're willing to give up for the sake of having a fresh, fun list.

Now, assuming they were nerfed, then a new unit would be tops and would need to be nerfed. Then another. On and on until every unit is an indistinguishable blob and the game is ruined.

Ultimately, what I want to see is each faction separating themselves and creating an kind of rock/paper/scissors thing. This would keep the game balanced while ensuring the factions don't all have too similar units that water down the game.

1 hour ago, caseycheesecake said:

The names don't matter. As the games goes on, there will be new TOP units and units 5, 10, 20% less efficient than them. Doesn't mean they're unplayable. People are just unwilling to give up an ounce of competitiveness so they choose the eQuays every time. Then we hear complaining that you have to auto-include (which gets boring) or nerf units to be competitive. There can never be a perfect balance of competitiveness and variety. People need to choose for themselves how much competitiveness they're willing to give up for the sake of having a fresh, fun list.

Now, assuming they were nerfed, then a new unit would be tops and would need to be nerfed. Then another. On and on until every unit is an indistinguishable blob and the game is ruined.

Ultimately, what I want to see is each faction separating themselves and creating an kind of rock/paper/scissors thing. This would keep the game balanced while ensuring the factions don't all have too similar units that water down the game.

I'm more worried about different lists being able to rock, paper, scissors each other than different factions. It would be great if each faction had multiple lists that could be competitive.

Now some would obviously be considered the "most competitive" but as long as they have counters and can be consistently beat without crazy luck then I'm okay with that.

The question is: How big is the difference between the top list and something else.

We had the situation when 4x4 was the best thing. The actual problem was, that the next best thing had nearly no chance of winning. This defined the first world championships. It was not good.

One year later we had a quite diverse meta at worlds. Banthas, Troopers, Spytroopers ... and it was good! The difference between these lists was just not that big ...

Compare those 2 situations to what we have today ...

In Worlds the two top lists shared Elite Weequay Pirates, Onar Koma, and rebel care package. 4/9 (or 5/10) of the deployment cards (and quite a few command cards) were different. Thus, less than 56% identical.

3 hours ago, seef1033 said:

The notion that Worlds was a group of people wanting to play with their shiny new toys with a bunch of time on their hands and money to burn is fairly juvenile. That's all I'll say about it for now because I was there so I'm biased. Just was never the impression I got.

Personally, one of my goals is to have the shiny new toys with time and money to burn, so this is disappointing. lol.

48 minutes ago, a1bert said:

In Worlds the two top lists shared Elite Weequay Pirates, Onar Koma, and rebel care package. 4/9 (or 5/10) of the deployment cards (and quite a few command cards) were different. Thus, less than 56% identical.

Paul Heaver ran an exceptional list that day. I'd rather compare the Top16. There you will get more similarities than that.

Gideon, 3PO, Jabba's Realm's mercs, Greedo. These few made up like 90% of the Top16 lists.

If you want perfect balance in a game I suggest you play Chess.

As has been said, the only way to guarantee complete balance would be for each faction to have the exact same units. They can make them different deployment cards, different minis, different aliens, but same abilities. I don't think many people want this as that would completely take away any kind of faction specific elements.

Can you imagine Luke and Vader and Boba Fett having the exact same abilities? Now of course this would never happen as Boba shoots a gun, but that's not exciting, unique, or fun!

People will always "hack" games and find the best combos for competitive play.

With forums like this discussing power curves and damage probabilities, you're not going to get away from "hacking" unless people keep their findings secret, and even then, quite a few people will be able to determine what those "hacks" are through playing so often and testing things out.

"Fixing" units that have just recently come out seems like a bad idea to me. Sabs and RGs are collecting dust as a result of changes being made immediately. I consider them to be in the "lessons learned" category.

What I'd love to see the game evolve into is having the iconic heroes (Luke, Vader, Han, Boba, IG-88, etc.) be power houses that are all roughly at the same level. People will more than likely choose 1, 2, or maybe 3 of these characters per faction.

The iconic heroes will be supported by lesser heroes, again, maybe 1, 2, or 3 (Gideon, Vinto, Somos, etc.) that will provide some backup/flare for the iconic heroes.

Finally, we'll have the cannon fodder/generic units (stormtroopers, weequays, rangers, etc.) that will flesh out the ranks and put some numbers on the board.

That's a squad! Leader(s), supporting characters, troops to be ordered.

Some combinations will inevitably be better than others but perhaps not as fun to play, as thematic, and/or just plain dull!

If you want to win, then "hack" the game. If you want to create a thematic list to play, do that!

Lots of people went to Worlds (it would seem as I didn't) for competitive play and rewards/prizes. As it turned out, the rewards/prizes were for competitive play.

I said it in another forum and I'll say it again, why doesn't FFG just change how some of the prizes are handed out? Instead of having just the winners of games rewarded/getting prizes, why not recognize best painted Rancor in a list(and all figures for that matter), most thematic list, strangest list, goose-egg trophies, etc?

This wouldn't remove competitive play but it would encourage the use of a wider variety of figures/lists.

Just my two cents.

@Quigman

that's a pretty balanced assessment and a good way of looking at the game. Like you, something on my "wish list" would be to see some iconic figures really providing the backbone of competitive lists in every faction.

In the end, competitive IA is great either way in my book.

10 hours ago, Quigman said:

If you want perfect balance in a game I suggest you play Chess.

1. I really like chess.

2. Chess is not perfectly balanced, white wins significantly more games than black.

In a competitive game of chess, white has such a huge advantage that the black player is playing for the draw from turn one.

I think there's a bit of a missconception as to what exactly it means for one figure to be more powerful than another. Sure, a eWeequay might be better than an HK in a vacuum (8.5 vs 8.1, as someone pointed out), but as long as there are (reasonable, fairly common) situations where the HK is better, there's still a decision to be made. And I'm not talking about thematic reasons - if IA is a competitive game, it needs to be a competitive game regardless of theme.

The problem right now seems that there simply AREN'T enough situations where (for example) HKs might be better than eWeequays. So it's not really about nerfing the Quays or buffing the HKs, it's the context that needs to change. Command cards, maps, as well as opposing figures can have a big effect on this. I hope the FFG testing team is considering this, and not just handing out heavy-handed buffs and nerfs.

12 hours ago, DerBaer said:

1. I really like chess.

2. Chess is not perfectly balanced, white wins significantly more games than black.

Play Devious Scheme

1 hour ago, seef1033 said:

Play Devious Scheme

Or on the lam when they think they have check mate.

As some have pointed out, nerfing early figures has made them unusable and we hope FFG has "learned their lesson."

I would argue and give FFG credit, that they have absolutely learned as we haven't seen a nerfed figure since wave 1 (maybe 2, but I think those FAQs were just clarifications).

I started a thread on BBG when Jabba's Realm came out about removing the nerfs now that we have quite a few very strong figures. Seems like the community opinion was that most of those figures would still be over powered in the current meta. I think that probably holds true for about half of the urge tly nerfed figures.

I think FFG is doing great with how the game is evolving. I have no doubt that this exact same post will be taking place once another expansion or two comes out. And the answers will be the same, stronger figures will always be chosen in competitive lists, theme will be irrelevant in those lists, and if you aren't playing at world's or regionals, who cares what list you play....running a Rancor is always fun, even when Luke closes a door on its head!

56 minutes ago, wannabepudge said:

I started a thread on BBG when Jabba's Realm came out about removing the nerfs now that we have quite a few very strong figures. Seems like the community opinion was that most of those figures would still be over powered in the current meta. I think that probably holds true for about half of the urge tly nerfed figures.

I really think all of the erratted figures could be reverted back to original state except for the regular officers.

2 hours ago, TheUnsullied said:

I really think all of the erratted figures could be reverted back to original state except for the regular officers.

I would much prefer that they bring these old figures back up to the current power curve rather than nerfing the new figures. Since this thread is for fixing characters, here's my suggested fixes for old nerfs.

I can see overdrive still causing problems with the blast 2 surge on the rebel sabs, which could easily be worked around. I would give them back blast 2, but remove overdrive and just give them a second pierce 2 surge ability. That way you can still trigger a couple surges for pierce 4 while blast damage is being limited to 2.

The Royal guards for sure should get back the surge for 2 damage even if you keep the nerfed defense block to non-guardians. Maybe even keep the pierce surge. They're melee, so that is absolutely not overpowered.

Officers are mostly fine as is. I'd give them range 3 instead of two for a minor buff.