Ok... I'm rather disappointed by the lack of understanding what balanced means in a game like this. I'm not going to call out anybody, but I am going to rant about what game balance is and isn't.

• A balanced game does not mean that one vs one, any ship should be able to beat a (example) Jumpmaster.
• A balanced game means an equal point list should have a reasonable chance at defeating another list of the same point value, if in a equal setting and mission goal environment when played by equal players.

1. different rock placements still cause different advantages for different lists
2. player decisions and skill matter more in a balanced setting such as I'm describing

• a 20 point ship could still beat a 50 point ship, but the fight should be weighted heavily in favour of the better ship. Hard counters are bad and shouldn't exist.

Our current imbalance is not that some ships are bad, it's that you pay too many points for the bad.

Dice creep, power creep, whatever words you choose to describe increasingly better designs that edge out old is a bad thing if the valuations are not in line with current designs. Older designs shouldn't live on shelves because of 'new sales are needed.' There is room enough for these new designs, but their point value should be equivalent to their enhanced abilities.

The meta is not stale in this hypothetical environment either because any combination equaling 100 is possible, new ships continue to be the new hotness, and older lists can be revisited without being completely invalidated. Options increase because all ships have reason to be included.

Now, this is hard. It requires proper design (math) early on to base future expansions with. FFG's original equation was flawed and they haven't stayed true to it. It's caused a few designs to rise above and below the curve and this wonderful spiral. The game is not currently in balance, but it's not too far off with most of the stuff. Some things are too powerful and some things are too weak for their point cost. The game doesn't need to be perfectly balanced either, just enough to prevent the tilt that's prevelant in list building outside controlled scenarios.

Anyway... Said my piece. I'm not asking people to stop demanding balance, I'm hoping to illuminate what it is people are really asking for. I'm hoping my rant gets through to at least one person who believes balance means an xwing should be able to beat a jumpmaster one on one, or whatever... Or that older designs should just be souvenirs of an older time fondly remembered. I hope somebody gets it, but really... I'm not holding my breath. It's the Internet and frankly, I'm not that good at making my point anyway.

I think one big problem is that basically every ship has their pilots go up one PS for every extra point in cost approximately, and then sometimes another point for EPT and/or pilot ability.

For ships that excel at arc dodging that means taking an "ace" gives you incredible value for the points even though it's more expensive than the generic and/or lower PS pilots for that ship.

On the flip side for ships that are mainly jousters, paying extra for the "aces" isn't always the best investment since they can die quick after you sank a lot of points into them.

Which means that depending on the ship, you often (but not always) mainly see just aces or just generics/lower PS pilots.

In an ideal game setting you should be able to choose either depending on your play style or what you're in the mood for. This was more the case early in the life of the game, but with both red and green dice constantly getting better and better over time that isn't the case now.

Not to mention that on a similar note, it used to be you traded offense for defense or vice versa. That's not the case much anymore. There's several ships in the game that have 3+ attack, 3+ agility, and a good chunk of hit points to go along with them.

I am fed up with people who think they know what balance in a game means explaining to me what balance in a game means - especially in this forum, and especially for this game.

17 minutes ago, any2cards said:

I am fed up with people who think they know what balance in a game means explaining to me what balance in a game means - especially in this forum, and especially for this game.

?????

Wait, I cast counterspell.

2 hours ago, LagJanson said:

I'm hoping my rant gets through to at least one person who believes balance means an xwing should be able to beat a jumpmaster one on one, or whatever...

Should a 30 points X-wing be able to beat a 30 points Jumpmaster one on one?

17 minutes ago, Azrapse said:

Should a 30 points X-wing be able to beat a 30 points Jumpmaster one on one?

Maybe, maybe not. Ships have strengths and weaknesses, and sometimes those strengths line up with the enemy ships weaknesses and the odds are in your favor. Sometimes it's vice versa. IMO, this isn't a bad thing as long as it doesn't reach extreme paper-rock-scissors levels where scissors have absolutely no chance against rock (*coughcoughpre-nerfTIEPhantomsandFatHancough*

However? If I'm understanding the OP correctly (and I think I am, and I agree with him), then in an ideal world there ought to be 30pts worth of ships (whatever they may be) that can hold its own against a 30pt Jumpmaster. And that 30 point X-Wing should have 30pt matchups that favor it, and some that don't.

So, when is your game coming out?

or should every wave just be another x-wing and tie fighter?

Yes it's a thing, get over it and play the game

49 minutes ago, Herowannabe said:

Maybe, maybe not. Ships have strengths and weaknesses, and sometimes those strengths line up with the enemy ships weaknesses and the odds are in your favor. Sometimes it's vice versa. IMO, this isn't a bad thing as long as it doesn't reach extreme paper-rock-scissors levels where scissors have absolutely no chance against rock (*coughcoughpre-nerfTIEPhantomsandFatHancough*

However? If I'm understanding the OP correctly (and I think I am, and I agree with him), then in an ideal world there ought to be 30pts worth of ships (whatever they may be) that can hold its own against a 30pt Jumpmaster. And that 30 point X-Wing should have 30pt matchups that favor it, and some that don't.

Okay.

Should a 33 points ________________ beat a 33 points Jumpmaster?

Fill up the blank there with whatever ship you consider that a Jumpmaster shouldn't be really a predator of by design.
Lets say... Y-wing? B-wing? A-wing? TIE Advanced? TIE Bomber? G-1A? Kihraxz? Starviper? YT-2400? K-wing?

If we struggle to fill up that blank to get a positive answer, then we have a problem.

1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:

?????

Wait, I cast counterspell.

I cast Summon Bigger Fish.

I think balance should only really be aimed for at a squad level. It's fine there being scissors/paper/stone matches at a lower level; Almost by definition, for example, a 'thunderstruck' TIE advanced is screwed against Omega Leader, despite the two being about the same points cost, because the latter denies dice modifiers and the former depends on them to work - that's not a fixable balance issue because it's a fundamental element of how those two game pieces function.

Equally, it's not "any ship should be able to win". Any ship with an elite upgrade can take (almost) any of the umpty-ump elite cards, but some pair up between pilot abilities and other available slots far better on a given ship than on others. You're unlikely ever to see calculation on any ship which doesn't have a means to use that critical in a special way...but that ability might rest on a different ship (a Black Squadron Pilot with Calculation is probably a nice filler in a squad with Kylo Ren).

However, you should be able to start with any given pilot, or at least any given ship, and produce (once all upgrades are fitted) a game piece which provides decent value to a squad.

Some ships do that too well. The 'balance at squad level' also applies to costs - having a useful build for a ship cost more than 16 points, or 20 points, or 25 points, or 33 points, crosses critical thresholds as to the number you can field and that means that last point is worth massively more.

Quote

A balanced game means an equal point list should have a reasonable chance at defeating another list of the same point value, if in a equal setting and mission goal environment when played by equal players.

If you assume equal player skill and bring any one 100pt Imperial Lists again 8 competitive Rebel/Scum and Imp Lists - then you will quickly discover that by your own definition - this game is not balanced.

That people often misuse the word 'balance', yes, granted.

2 minutes ago, Keffisch said:

If you assume equal player skill and bring any one 100pt Imperial Lists again 8 competitive Rebel/Scum and Imp Lists - then you will quickly discover that by your own definition - this game is not balanced.

Not just any one. But you must be able to elaborate a 100 point list that includes at least any one ship that has a reasonable chance to defeat the other list.

The game is not balanced if, under any circumstances, upgrades, and situations, bringing ship X in a list will lower your chances to win.

And unfortunately that is the case with many ships currently. Ships that always make you think "yes, but for the same cost I could bring this other one that would be just better".
Should the U-wing always defeat a Jumpmaster? Probably not.
But should bringing the U-wing always be worse than bringing something else? Should bringing the Jumpmaster always be better than bringing something else?
No. Not that either.

Stop Lagjanson. This post makes way too much sense for this forum.

Maybe not a perfect balance but there is say an expectation of balance.

So lets go back to when there were only 2 factions, Rebels and Imperials. So far Wave 4 and 5 this was the era of Paul Heaver who won Worlds with a Rebels list. Back then you had an interesting breakdown of dominate lists. Rebels were in the dominance with the likes Paul Heaver taking Worlds with Rebel Turrets. However the Fat Han list was vulnerable to the old Championship list TIE Swarms. What changed this was the release of the Phantom and a considerable amount of movement correction in the activation phase taking most of the guess work in the planning phase giving it less of an impact. The TIE Phantom ended the reign of the TIE Swarms, but it wasn't champion as it was weak to Fat Han. So we had a Champion list which was vulnerable to last years meta, and usurper to the former champion that couldn't seize the throne itself, and last year which could still retake the throne but had to contend with the usurper. It wasn't an even tie for 1st place, but 1st 2nd and 3rd place each had a check over one of the other which kept the idea of balance. Rebels held first place, Imperials held 2nd and 3rd. Not bad for only 2 factions.

So enter the 3rd faction, now by Wave 5 TIE Swarms were completely displaced by a new turret (Outrider HLC) which could kill swarms. Imperials got their own PWT which left enough room for their arc dodging assassin Whisper and the VT-49 could theoretically out-slug an Outrider. However the Rebels had large ship killer in the form of Corran Horn. Still Corran Horn had to be weary of Whisper. So now the question was what happened to 3rd place since a whole new list of combo archetypes from the last meta came up. Well cue in the 3rd faction.

For the longest time Scum had to deal with being the "adopted" child of the group. It was 3rd to the party, a Tyrion Lannister outcast compared to his older twin siblings. It had the lowest amount of ships so it was playing catch up up until wave 8. Still the expected balance was that given the all factions would have a place at the champions podium for 1st 2nd and 3rd place. Rebels has the point fortresses, Imperials had Palp Aces, and Scum had Brobots.

Well now cue in Today and clearly not all factions are equal. That doesn't mean there isn't balance, one could still point out that there are still 3 top lists that don't all contain the same ship, but it isn't a tri-fector sharing between Rebels Imperials and Scum. Or even Scum Rebels and Imperials. It is more of Scum, Rebels, and Scum get the 3rd where Imperials now have to settle for as the outcasts.

So there is where you see the issues with the community's perception of balance. It isn't to be true balance, where 100 points is always equal to 100 points, or Paper, Rock, Scissors, or that there is more than one ship that is dominant in the meta. The community's idea is that each faction has their viable competitive build and that each faction will be able to have one list in the top 4 or 5 if not the top 3. When you go to the final table and see that one faction has only one list that didn't make it to the semi-finals (or completely absent from the top cut) the notion of balance is lost on them.

Quote

And unfortunately that is the case with many ships currently. Ships that always make you think "yes, but for the same cost I could bring this other one that would be just better".

That, to me, is the killer - when a ship has almost exactly the same battlefield role, but is 'just better'.

A big part of the issue as well is the fact that these aren't just small bits of plastic; they are representative of things from Star Wars, and people will want to be able to take thematic combinations or iconic ships - I remember reading an article on the Game of Thrones card game about "faction loyalist" players.

Now, anyone who wants to specifically build a squad to a theme must accept it's not going to e 100% efficient compared to one built by someone to whom the artwork, names, and ship model pegs are all blank, and looks purely at in-game mechanics. But there is a difference between "putting yourself at a slight disadvantage in the name of having a cooler squad" (whatever 'cooler' means to you) and "did anyone catch the license plate of that articulated lorry that just ran over me?"

6 hours ago, Stronghammer said:

So, when is your game coming out?

or should every wave just be another x-wing and tie fighter?

Yes it's a thing, get over it and play the game

Eh? Ok, I read through every response to my foolish and frustrated post and can find understanding with all views, including @any2cards - who I can't fault at all for his post. I may not agree with every post, but I can understand where they are coming from.

This one... @Stronghammer - are you in the right thread? In no way did I ever imply that all we should see are classic designs. That's foolish and dooming to a game. New ships (or scenarios) are necessary to keep things interesting. New ships that totally replace and invalidate earlier designs are not.

By the by, my game is still three years in development and has balance issues still so don't be looking to buy it any time soon. Thanks for the interest.

10 hours ago, LagJanson said:

Ok... I'm rather disappointed by the lack of understanding what balanced means in a game like this. I'm not going to call out anybody, but I am going to rant about what game balance is and isn't.

• A balanced game does not mean that one vs one, any ship should be able to beat a (example) Jumpmaster.
• A balanced game means an equal point list should have a reasonable chance at defeating another list of the same point value, if in a equal setting and mission goal environment when played by equal players.

The game is unbalanced because some ships/pilots, when played in a 100pts squad (or more if epic) make the build much better than something without them. It happens that 3 of those (soon 4 with the Scuurg) are in the same faction: JMKs, Fenn and Asajj. On the rebel side they have Miranda and Biggs. There used to be the defenders for Imperials but now they have none.

They "fixed" one faction without doing the same for the other 2. Hence why people are upset and you see that many post on the forum.

I think most people understand balance and the problem is quite real...

4 hours ago, Marinealver said:

The community's idea is that each faction has their viable competitive build and that each faction will be able to have one list in the top 4 or 5 if not the top 3. When you go to the final table and see that one faction has only one list that didn't make it to the semi-finals (or completely absent from the top cut) the notion of balance is lost on them.

This

6 hours ago, Azrapse said:

Okay.

Should a 33 points ________________ beat a 33 points Jumpmaster?

Fill up the blank there with whatever ship you consider that a Jumpmaster shouldn't be really a predator of by design.
Lets say... Y-wing? B-wing? A-wing? TIE Advanced? TIE Bomber? G-1A? Kihraxz? Starviper? YT-2400? K-wing?

If we struggle to fill up that blank to get a positive answer, then we have a problem.

Oh I absolutely think there's a problem. Like I said, 30 pts of <fill in the blank> should be roughly equal to 30 pts of <fill in the blank with something else> in an ideal world. We do not live in an ideal world.

That being said, I personally don't think that the problem is as bad as some make it out to be. I feel that by and large the game is balanced, with 90% of the ships/cards out there being balanced with each other, while a few outliers are exceptionally good or are lagging behind a bit. Two of those that are lagging behind (Starviper and Kirahxz) are about to get a huge boost in the upcoming guns for hire expansion pack.

Armada is a pretty good example of asymmetrical game balance that x-wing doesn't do as well because of the huge similarities between ships owing to the game's simplistic rules system (though simplistic rules are a big advantage and probably contributed greatly to the game's popularity)

as an example, a cr-90a will literally never be able to kill an imperial star destroyer 1 on 1 in Armada. 3 cr-90as, a rough equivalent in points, however, can whittle it down with concentrated fire.

however, this is only true is the cr-90a player can avoid the Imperial Star Destroyer's forward arc at medium/close range because the amount of firepower it throws can easily pop a CR-90a. At long range, the nimble corvette has a much better chance of avoiding significant damage.

Victory here is not determined by raw points efficiency, but rather differing points efficiency depending on how well a player can leverage their ship's strengths. An ISD is a goddamn monster if you get its front arc in medium/close range of a target, but it's such a point sink that it is an utter waste if you cannot secure that arc. By contrast, cr-90s are always efficient but they will generally not have the same massive damage potential that an ISD is capable of.

I feel this is a far better implementation of game balance as X-wing ships have all largely the same strengths, I.e they shoot at range 1-3 with their typical dice compliment (outside range 1) which is often similar/the same as every other ship's dice compliment or at a 1 die difference. The extreme similarity between ships makes it possible to have ships that are strictly mathematically superior to other ships regardless of how the opponent plays.

not that I don't like or don't play x-wing, or that there aren't scenarios where some ships become far more effective than in others (esp TLTs, which tend to suck as at the range in which they can't be used) but the system simply doesn't allow for your skill to have as marked an impact on a ship's efficiency as in armada outside from a few specific cases

TL;DR, I think Armada is better balanced because your ship's efficiency is directly correlated to how well you can leverage its unique strengths. In x-wing, this isn't nearly as much the case hence why we can have "jousting values" in very clear cut terms

15 minutes ago, Thormind said:

The game is unbalanced because some ships/pilots, when played in a 100pts squad (or more if epic) make the build much better than something without them. It happens that 3 of those (soon 4 with the Scuurg) are in the same faction: JMKs, Fenn and Asajj. On the rebel side they have Miranda and Biggs. There used to be the defenders for Imperials but now they have none.

They "fixed" one faction without doing the same for the other 2. Hence why people are upset and you see that many post on the forum.

I think most people understand balance and the problem is quite real...

Indeed, there's a balance issue. Never claimed otherwise. Never claimed that wasn't why people are upset. Won't stop me from playing and having fun. It's a good game.

• Some individuals have claimed that because Ship A needs to be able to beat Ship B - My argument is because Ship A is less points, in an equal setting it should not beat Ship B consistently. Player skill and map setup changes that equal setting, of course.
• Some individuals have claimed that new ships should replace older designs. This is invalid. Just because a ship is newly on the market should not mean the older design should be thrown away. If the new design is that much better, it should cost that many points more to put in your squad though.

I'm arguing what game balance means.

7 hours ago, Herowannabe said:

However? If I'm understanding the OP correctly (and I think I am, and I agree with him), then in an ideal world there ought to be 30pts worth of ships (whatever they may be) that can hold its own against a 30pt Jumpmaster. And that 30 point X-Wing should have 30pt matchups that favor it, and some that don't.

Not sure if thats the OP point but if it is, name me 1 ship of equal cost that can go one on one with a Jumpmaster, Asajj, Miranda or Fenn? What ships are supposed to be the weakness of those 4?

Where the OP is correct is that you cant define balance taking just 1vs1 ship. Take Biggs for example. One on one hes just a weak Xwing. Put him in a squad and he becomes the best support ship in the game. Most people understand that though.

3 minutes ago, Thormind said:

Not sure if thats the OP point but if it is, name me 1 ship of equal cost that can go one on one with a Jumpmaster, Asajj, Miranda or Fenn? What ships are supposed to be the weakness of those 4?

Where the OP is correct is that you cant define balance taking just 1vs1 ship. Take Biggs for example. One on one hes just a weak Xwing. Put him in a squad and he becomes the best support ship in the game. Most people understand that though.

I'll refer you to my second post, made just a few minutes ago, probably while you were typing this.

7 minutes ago, Herowannabe said:

Oh I absolutely think there's a problem. Like I said, 30 pts of <fill in the blank> should be roughly equal to 30 pts of <fill in the blank with something else> in an ideal world. We do not live in an ideal world.

That being said, I personally don't think that the problem is as bad as some make it out to be. I feel that by and large the game is balanced, with 90% of the ships/cards out there being balanced with each other, while a few outliers are exceptionally good or are lagging behind a bit. Two of those that are lagging behind (Starviper and Kirahxz) are about to get a huge boost in the upcoming guns for hire expansion pack.

I believe that balanced game means any 100 pt list should have a reasonable chance to beat another. Of course, if you are trying to make an abysmal squad (all HWKs with no upgrades), then you won't win, but the base idea remains.

24 minutes ago, Thormind said:

Not sure if thats the OP point but if it is, name me 1 ship of equal cost that can go one on one with a Jumpmaster, Asajj, Miranda or Fenn? What ships are supposed to be the weakness of those 4?

Yeah, no... Well, sorta. I think you got my point, really. I don't believe Player A's 35 point ship(s) should totally rub Player B's 35 point ship(s) into the ground with no chance of recovery. It's not that there should be specific ships that are weaknesses to those listed, but that a player is able to exploit the weaknesses while using an equal value of ships and have a chance to win by doing so.

Miranda loaded up to 48 points should be a match by 4 TIE Academies (48 points) flown by an equal skilled player... While smaller guns, the TIEs can certainly hit a K-Wing easily enough. Blocking is a thing. The TIEs are faster in a normal situation and more maneuverable and evasive. They shouldn't be a hard counter, but they have a fair chance of victory. The reality however is that Miranda regens, drops auto damage bombs and SLAMs away to safety and has a TLT means that an engagement between equal players probably means Miranda is winning this engagement way more often than not. This says to me she's probably worth more than 48 points, or the TIEs were worth less than 12 each. It may be Miranda is undercosted, or maybe the upgrades she is equipped with is undercosted... but somewhere the valuation is wrong.

1 hour ago, LagJanson said:

Eh? Ok, I read through every response to my foolish and frustrated post and can find understanding with all views, including @any2cards - who I can't fault at all for his post. I may not agree with every post, but I can understand where they are coming from.

This one... @Stronghammer - are you in the right thread? In no way did I ever imply that all we should see are classic designs. That's foolish and dooming to a game. New ships (or scenarios) are necessary to keep things interesting. New ships that totally replace and invalidate earlier designs are not.

By the by, my game is still three years in development and has balance issues still so don't be looking to buy it any time soon. Thanks for the interest.

Wait ... wait ... wait ...

You have a game in development ... 3 years working on it ... limited play testing ... and it has balance issues? Seems to me I should be able to buy it now, as that is how most games these days are being released !!!

First, good luck on the development of your game ! Second, I want to commend you for taking some of the feedback you have received (fairly harsh from me) in stride, and recognizing that others have thoughts on this sticky issue, without just knee-jerk reacting ... it's refreshing.