5 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Tournament results are really the only thing that matters because FFG will make adjustments based on that data. They don't care if you win a game with 3 Interdictors until you win at a tournament, and they value that more the higher up the structure you can do it. Hence why Rieekan Aces was a problem. It can win at every scale, from casual to Worlds.

(Joking, of course: )

The Argument was made by someone else that they Nerfed Nose Punch without it winning anything Major

9 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Tournament results are really the only thing that matters because FFG will make adjustments based on that data. They don't care if you win a game with 3 Interdictors until you win at a tournament, and they value that more the higher up the structure you can do it. Hence why Rieekan Aces was a problem. It can win at every scale, from casual to Worlds.

I don't buy that is the only way they balance the game. I think that tournament games are a large part of it and they usually "fix" things that are taken too frequently but that's it. I doubt they will ever make the Victory viable in tournament, it would need a speed increase for that which I don't think will ever happen.

The Interdictor can't really be made worthwhile either due to its support role being weak in a 400p game.

If their points drop they are just going to be too effective outside tournament games which I think are as important. Not every piece need to be meant for top tournament games.

10 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

(Joking, of course: )

The Argument was made by someone else that they Nerfed Nose Punch without it winning anything Major

I think they did that just to spite you.

*FFG HQ*

"Hey look, Rhymer won GenCon. And Rhymer won Euros. And Rhymer won X. And Rhymer is in 60% of Imp fleets. Should we nerf?"
"Nah he's fine."
"Oh wow, Drasnighta won a tournament with Rhymer."
"What?! Dras won a game??? ******* nerf him. Make sure Rhymer is never used again and Dras can never win."

Pretty sure that's how it went.

10 minutes ago, jorgen_cab said:

I don't buy that is the only way they balance the game. I think that tournament games are a large part of it and they usually "fix" things that are taken too frequently but that's it. I doubt they will ever make the Victory viable in tournament, it would need a speed increase for that which I don't think will ever happen.

The Interdictor can't really be made worthwhile either due to its support role being weak in a 400p game.

If their points drop they are just going to be too effective outside tournament games which I think are as important. Not every piece need to be meant for top tournament games.

How else do you fix the game? As far as I am aware, tournaments are the only data that FFG collects in order to understand the game balance. How do they know what Joe-Schmoe is running and what he is winning with if FFG never gets a chance to collect his fleet? FFG does not allow players to ask for game changes or give advice on the game. You don't get to stroll up to Michael Gernes and ask him to buff Vics because you think they are cool.

So you have a populace that plays the game that is not recording data and there is no way to submit that data to FFG anyway, so how does FFG make changes based on those games? Hence why tournament play is more important than casual play in regards to fixing issues.

The alternative is:

"Man, We've got this awesome idea... Why not put in a Title so that you can shoot the enemy while they're still in their Deployment Zone... That'd be Unique and Awesome, right?"

"Dude, there's this guy who says you can already do that... Says he won a tournament with it..."

"Whaaaa? Screw him. Now our Way's the only way."

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

You don't get to stroll up to Michael Gernes and ask him to buff Vics because you think they are cool.

You totally can if you game at FFG HQ.

He just:

1) Laughs
2) Shakes his Head
3) Pretends to Listen
4) Listens but says he can't take advice.
5) All of the above, in not any particular order

Any ship should be able to find a home in a competitive fleet. A mix of ship types should beat a monoculture. Small variances in various fleet attributes can be compensated for.

But extreme fleet builds should have risks, and may not be viable at all. And that's ok. Putting all your points in one basket is extreme. 3 isds, 8 cr90s, both are extreme. 2 isds & 2 raiders? Not as extreme. 1 isd, 3 smalls& some fighters? Must be competitive to meet my definition of game balance.

Any ship should be able to find a home in a competitive fleet. A mix of ship types should beat a monoculture. Small variances in various fleet attributes can be compensated for.

But extreme fleet builds should have risks, and may not be viable at all. And that's ok. Putting all your points in one basket is extreme. 3 isds, 8 cr90s, both are extreme. 2 isds & 2 raiders? Not as extreme. 1 isd, 3 smalls& some fighters? Must be competitive to meet my definition of game balance.

If we're talking about extreme fleet builds, do fleets built around supporting 134 points of fighters not also count as extreme?

12 minutes ago, Valca said:

If we're talking about extreme fleet builds, do fleets built around supporting 134 points of fighters not also count as extreme?

Depends on what those squads do. 13 Y-Wings is extreme IMO. But 8 Tie/D is not. 17 Tie/F? Yes. 8 YT-2400? No.

Just now, Undeadguy said:

Depends on what those squads do. 13 Y-Wings is extreme IMO. But 8 Tie/D is not. 17 Tie/F? Yes. 8 YT-2400? No.

See, I'm not sure why it matters. A fleet which maximizes its squadrons is as focused on one aspect of the game as a fleet which eschews squadrons in favor of more ships.

26 minutes ago, Valca said:

If we're talking about extreme fleet builds, do fleets built around supporting 134 points of fighters not also count as extreme?

Not really because we have the base blueprints ever since wave 2; use 50% of your squadron max if your list is super duper good vs ships and want a cheap screen; use 75% if you want to destroy enemy squads and gain points from there; and use 95-100% for a list going for a concentrated bombing run (think "iconic rebel trench run"). Three different logical themes.

Just now, Valca said:

See, I'm not sure why it matters. A fleet which maximizes its squadrons is as focused on one aspect of the game as a fleet which eschews squadrons in favor of more ships.

Tie/D and YT-2400 can attack ships or squads equally as well. Y-Wings attack ships well, but not squads. Tie/F attack squads well, but not ships.

If you ran 5 Peltas, that is extreme. But 5 TRC90s is not. It's the role that they play in the fleet an how hard you pigeon hole yourself into that role.

1 Interdictor to mess with deployment or 3 Interdictors to mess with deployment?

8 X-Wings and Biggs or 3 X-Wings and Biggs with E-Wings and Y-Wings? Both have different roles and firepower.

This is why people had a hard time believing @Blail Blerg when he said squads were OP, and basing that off the number of squads, but not the content of squads.

Taking 18 Z-95s looks scary when you see someone won with 18 squads, but then you realize those are awful against ships.

I wanna run 16 tie fighters...

6 minutes ago, Gottmituns205 said:

I wanna run 16 tie fighters...

With your paintjobs, It'll look even the more awesome,too - double'y so with your Venator leading them.

1 hour ago, Undeadguy said:

How else do you fix the game? As far as I am aware, tournaments are the only data that FFG collects in order to understand the game balance. How do they know what Joe-Schmoe is running and what he is winning with if FFG never gets a chance to collect his fleet? FFG does not allow players to ask for game changes or give advice on the game. You don't get to stroll up to Michael Gernes and ask him to buff Vics because you think they are cool.

So you have a populace that plays the game that is not recording data and there is no way to submit that data to FFG anyway, so how does FFG make changes based on those games? Hence why tournament play is more important than casual play in regards to fixing issues.

It is pretty obvious they do internal testing of the game and that they know not everything is tournament viable and that some things will never be. They also most probably are well aware that some things such as the Victory or the Interdictor have uses outside tournaments and are happy to leave it at that.

If they still sell those models despite them not being viable for tournament but viable in other settings I presume that is good enough reasons to keep them as is.

I'm also quite sure they know the difference between tournament balance and casual balance versus campaign balance. They are most likely aware that different settings have different impact and try to keep it as balanced between these settings as possible.

I believe they will never "fix" Victories or Interdictors in any major way. The Interdictor are just way too expensive for a support ship in smaller games such as 400p, no real way to fix that. The Victory is just too slow for an offensive weapon in a tournament setting where you need lots of points to win.

If you lower the points for the Victory you will just make it too effective at points denial and winning strategies will require them in none tournament settings. I'm pretty sure they will not do that, no reason to when they already are effective in casual games.

I'm also sure that casual players are more numerous and important to sales so if you imbalance the game at that level they loose more money.

35 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Taking 18 Z-95s looks scary when you see someone won with 18 squads, but then you realize those are awful against ships.

Until 3 in a row off of a single command roll a double-hit on your star destroyer, leaving your front shields open to the incoming MC80 fire...

59 minutes ago, Valca said:

If we're talking about extreme fleet builds, do fleets built around supporting 134 points of fighters not also count as extreme?

To a degree, but not as extreme as 3 naked ISDs. Imagine a curve like a normal distribution. Now chop off the right tail of the curve. That chop is the 134 limit.

So, a 134 squad fleet might be 1 standard deviation from normal, but not all the way out at the end.

17 minutes ago, jorgen_cab said:

It is pretty obvious they do internal testing of the game and that they know not everything is tournament viable and that some things will never be. They also most probably are well aware that some things such as the Victory or the Interdictor have uses outside tournaments and are happy to leave it at that.

If they still sell those models despite them not being viable for tournament but viable in other settings I presume that is good enough reasons to keep them as is.

I'm also quite sure they know the difference between tournament balance and casual balance versus campaign balance. They are most likely aware that different settings have different impact and try to keep it as balanced between these settings as possible.

I believe they will never "fix" Victories or Interdictors in any major way. The Interdictor are just way too expensive for a support ship in smaller games such as 400p, no real way to fix that. The Victory is just too slow for an offensive weapon in a tournament setting where you need lots of points to win.

If you lower the points for the Victory you will just make it too effective at points denial and winning strategies will require them in none tournament settings. I'm pretty sure they will not do that, no reason to when they already are effective in casual games.

I'm also sure that casual players are more numerous and important to sales so if you imbalance the game at that level they loose more money.

Just FYI FFG has a major history of going back to less used ships and shaking things up. They haven't done anything yet to dissuade me from thinking they won;t release a repackage with a repaint for the Interdictor or VSD. You also have to keep in mind there is actually a lot of wiggle room in the armada rule set. They might not give you a straight point discount, but what if they give you a a cheap VSD only upgrade "Heavy Bracing - you may exhaust this card to to use a brace targeted by an accuracy. If exhausted you may discard this card to use a brace targeted by an accuracy." I'm not saying that is the fix but it's just an example of how you get new mileage out of ships.

2 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

The best thing you can do is make sure everything has a viable chance at being useful,

Sounds like a working definition of balance, to me.

39 minutes ago, jorgen_cab said:

It is pretty obvious they do internal testing of the game and that they know not everything is tournament viable and that some things will never be. They also most probably are well aware that some things such as the Victory or the Interdictor have uses outside tournaments and are happy to leave it at that.

If they still sell those models despite them not being viable for tournament but viable in other settings I presume that is good enough reasons to keep them as is.

There is an article floating around written by one of the guy who works on Magic. It points out there are three kinds of players, and they make cards that appeal to all three kinds.

The very short version is that Type A wants to win. They want the most effective cards, that do the most damage the fastest, so they can crush their opponent. Most Magic cards are for this guy. Type B wants to do something clever. It might be too unwieldy to be a good tactic, or it might just not be terribly effective, but it a nifty combination. Some cards are made for this guy. Type C wants to "have an experience." I'm not sure what that means in terms of Magic, but in terms of Armada, it's the guy who wants to play ISDs and TIE fighters, because that's what Star Wars feels like. And they make some cards for this guy, too.

My suspicion is that ISD is for the Type C player, and Interdictor for the Type B player. VSD might be for both, or neither.

Or I could be entirely wrong.

27 minutes ago, ImpStarDeuces said:

Just FYI FFG has a major history of going back to less used ships and shaking things up. They haven't done anything yet to dissuade me from thinking they won;t release a repackage with a repaint for the Interdictor or VSD. You also have to keep in mind there is actually a lot of wiggle room in the armada rule set. They might not give you a straight point discount, but what if they give you a a cheap VSD only upgrade "Heavy Bracing - you may exhaust this card to to use a brace targeted by an accuracy. If exhausted you may discard this card to use a brace targeted by an accuracy." I'm not saying that is the fix but it's just an example of how you get new mileage out of ships.

Sure anything is possible.. just don't see the slow Victory being viable in tournaments for winning big. The need some fundamental change for that.

Just now, jorgen_cab said:

Sure anything is possible.. just don't see the slow Victory being viable in tournaments for winning big. The need some fundamental change for that.

Hell a quantum storm type upgrade is probably all you need.

5 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

There is an article floating around written by one of the guy who works on Magic. It points out there are three kinds of players, and they make cards that appeal to all three kinds.

The very short version is that Type A wants to win. They want the most effective cards, that do the most damage the fastest, so they can crush their opponent. Most Magic cards are for this guy. Type B wants to do something clever. It might be too unwieldy to be a good tactic, or it might just not be terribly effective, but it a nifty combination. Some cards are made for this guy. Type C wants to "have an experience." I'm not sure what that means in terms of Magic, but in terms of Armada, it's the guy who wants to play ISDs and TIE fighters, because that's what Star Wars feels like. And they make some cards for this guy, too.

My suspicion is that ISD is for the Type C player, and Interdictor for the Type B player. VSD might be for both, or neither.

Or I could be entirely wrong.

I think you are spot on... their primary motivation is to make money so they need to appeal to all types of players. Leaning on the side that pays the most, whichever that side might be.

21 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

There is an article floating around written by one of the guy who works on Magic. It points out there are three kinds of players, and they make cards that appeal to all three kinds.

The very short version is that Type A wants to win. They want the most effective cards, that do the most damage the fastest, so they can crush their opponent. Most Magic cards are for this guy. Type B wants to do something clever. It might be too unwieldy to be a good tactic, or it might just not be terribly effective, but it a nifty combination. Some cards are made for this guy. Type C wants to "have an experience." I'm not sure what that means in terms of Magic, but in terms of Armada, it's the guy who wants to play ISDs and TIE fighters, because that's what Star Wars feels like. And they make some cards for this guy, too.

My suspicion is that ISD is for the Type C player, and Interdictor for the Type B player. VSD might be for both, or neither.

Or I could be entirely wrong.

I think this is the one you mean: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-2013-12-03

Not sure how those types would carry over to Armada as I think Armada has a lot more "hybrid" sorts.

Here is a more advanced article: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-revisited-2006-03-20