9 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

I agree.

I think in an ideal world, all seven factions would have a viable list for each playstyle, because theoretically, we want anyone to be able to play one faction and be happy. Playstyles are something we like to bicker about a lot, but if you look at the pieces needed for these playstyles, all the factions need a fat high-init turret, a couple high-init reposition small bases, a good spammable generalist generic, cheap filler, flankers, bomb shenanigans, coordinate/support, and some sort of control piece (something with beams and maybe a control ability). So really each faction needs like 9-10 really good pilots spread across 3-5 ship types. Basically in order to achieve this goal every single thing in Hyperspace needs to be perfectly balanced, which is all but impossible (and I'm pretty sure none of us could do a better job balancing it than the current dev team).

So anyway, since it's gotta be one or the other, I'd rather the emphasis be on balancing the best lists for each playstyle than balancing all the factions, since most of us buy stuff from several factions anyway.

My real question is whether the phenomenon that drives this is really that people want multiple factions, or just fear of not having all the best stuff carrying over from 1.0...

What's the point of factions if they all do the same things?

43 minutes ago, jagsba said:

Do krayt opinions parroted and applied to different scenarios without critical thinking count as good or bad?

that one hurt

please stop dropping truth bombs, my ego is too fragile today

1 minute ago, jagsba said:

What's the point of factions if they all do the same things?

Having the same archetypes != doing the same thing.

For example, functionally, the tie fighter and the z-95 fill the same role, but fly differently. The tie has greater agility and maneuverability while the z is sturdier and has greater offensive capability.

13 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

all the factions need a fat high-init turret, a couple high-init reposition small bases, a good spammable generalist generic, cheap filler, flankers, bomb shenanigans, coordinate/support, and some sort of control piece (something with beams and maybe a control ability).

I think this is a very 1.0 way of breaking down the playstyles that exist

7 minutes ago, Mattman7306 said:

Having the same archetypes != doing the same thing.

For example, functionally, the tie fighter and the z-95 fill the same role, but fly differently. The tie has greater agility and maneuverability while the z is sturdier and has greater offensive capability.

If you've got a viable list for each playstyle in each faction, one will be the best though. The 2x2 aces/filler was an option in multiple factions but the republic one was what you mostly saw because it was the best

11 minutes ago, svelok said:

I think this is a very 1.0 way of breaking down the playstyles that exist

So which ones do exist in 2.0?

41 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

So which ones do exist in 2.0?

Dunno. Maybe to some extent we're maybe still figuring it out?

There are some big differences - things like bombs and ion were something you built a list around in 1.0; they're something you can put in a list that's already good without them in 2.0.

And the general compression/standardization of different types of ships means something like a large base turret has more in common with small base ships than they did before.

1 hour ago, Brunas said:

that one hurt

please stop dropping truth bombs, my ego is too fragile today

if you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish, and he'll drop a line in his bathtub and wonder why he's not catching anything

8 minutes ago, jagsba said:

if you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish, and he'll drop a line in his bathtub and wonder why he's not catching anything

what if I teach a woman to drop a jar in her bathtub?

4 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

what if I teach a woman to drop a jar in her bathtub?

Profit

1 minute ago, svelok said:

Dunno. Maybe to some extent we're maybe still figuring it out? 

There are some big differences - things like bombs and ion were something you built a list around in 1.0; they're something you can put in a list that's already good without them in 2.0.

And the general compression/standardization of different types of ships means something like a large base turret has more in common with small base ships than they did before.

I agree that we don't know. And I certainly wouldn't try to shoehorn the new ones into the old categories.

I think the poll about playstyles was an ok start, but there are different ways to group lists into archetypes.

If you make a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the night. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

The best way to talk about xwing is just to be super ridiculously specific about everything.

That way others can see and hear just how wrong you are and how/why you got there.

1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

The best way to talk about xwing is just to be super ridiculously specific about everything.

That way others can see and hear just how wrong you are and how/why you got there.

This, but unironically.

3 hours ago, svelok said:

Dunno. Maybe to some extent we're maybe still figuring it out?

There are some big differences - things like bombs and ion were something you built a list around in 1.0; they're something you can put in a list that's already good without them in 2.0.

And the general compression/standardization of different types of ships means something like a large base turret has more in common with small base ships than they did before.

Yeah IDK man

I was just listing off things that I feel like people miss if it doesn't exist. Like, CIS doesn't have an i6 small base arc dodger... oh wait nobody wants to fly them, instantly Sun Fac gets released. Or Empire doesn't have a fat turret, oh wait, RAC is hyperspace. Generally, whatever you want them to be, there's like 10 or so different kinds of pilot that you notice if they aren't available. Or maybe I'm just listing too many things and it should be 6, because that's the scientific magical number of items for human functional memory (see: you can start up a car or a boat or a truck without a checklist but not an airplane because there's more than 6 steps)?

Whatever you think the ship types are, my point is that ship types are more important than list archetypes because most of the best lists are mixtures of archetypes anyway (ace+joustbeef, ace+fatturret, joustbeef+flankers, fatturret+filler, joustbeef+ace+control, etc.). I think all the factions should have all the ship types so they can build the lists they want.

This was something I first thought about talking with Ethan (ER36) at GenCon (is he on these forums?).... basically what he was saying was that scum only had two "good" pieces at the time (Asajj and Nym) and they didn't play together well. Regardless of whether you agree with the assessment, I thought it was a cool way of thinking about lists as being combinations of pieces, and that a "healthy" faction has enough "good" versions of whatever type of piece you like playing that you can build a list you like out of those pieces.

3 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

The best way to talk about xwing is just to be super ridiculously specific about everything.

That way others can see and hear just how wrong you are and how/why you got there.

7 minutes ago, DoubleDown11 said:

This made me happy.

Random Saturday morning thought:

We did not update our understanding of the Grand Inquisitor, his ability changed!

Not only does he get the range 3 attack bonus (which is nice, sure), but he can also deny the opponent's range 1 bonus. That synergizes really well with his blue 1speed maneuvers, especially the 1hards. Add Sense on top and he is a nasty little monster who can handle if he for once doesn't arcdodge and ends up in r1. For only 57 points, and that puts him at filler/pocket ace level.

On the other hand, he also now gives a range 3 defense bonus regardless of his ability use, which sort of makes him Zuckuss at range 3 (and makes his sweet spot range 1-2). He’s pretty force hungry without Palp support, often forcing you to run on fumes and/or disengage to regain force, and the lack of autothrusters or fine-tuned controls hurts.

The shields are nice, though, and any ship with multiple Force can’t be ignored. I think he’s good but I’m not sure yet if he’s the best option in most lists at that cost, or if Soontir is just the better choice in most lists.

2 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

For only 57 points, and that puts him at filler/pocket ace level.

I think this might be pushing the (loosely defined!) notion of pocket ace a bit, 57 is starting to approach 1/3 of your list, which is more capital-A Ace territory. Especially difficult to look at him as a pocket ace in the faction of 42 point Duchess (or the 32 point TIE/ln’s, if you want to really stretch that definition in the other direction). 57 points is a non-trivial amount in most lists and I think moves him from your filler/fourth ship role to something the list is at least partially built around.

His cool Hyperspace Trial alt art is worth at least a few points on its own though!

EDIT: Is using Duchess, perhaps the most Pocket Ace of all Pocket Aces, as an example here misleading, similar to how people would occasionally use Pricing Anomaly Lu’lo as a pricing benchmark before the adjustment? It might be.

It shouldn't be ignored that he's a 3 AGI ship that can just token stack at will. Evade/Force/Force, sometimes spending those force to deny r1 bonuses is pretty stout, and doesn't have any speed requirements or extra force expenditure to get the evade. He's probably the most durable i5+ ship for the points you spend.

3 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

It shouldn't be ignored that he's a 3 AGI ship that can just token stack at will. Evade/Force/Force, sometimes spending those force to deny r1 bonuses is pretty stout, and doesn't have any speed requirements or extra force expenditure to get the evade. He's probably the most durable i5+ ship for the points you spend.

That's true, but he's then also a 2-die attacker in a meta that still has enough lot of 3-agi ships and force users to limit the damage that almost 1/3 of your list is contributing.

Don't get me wrong, I think he's pretty good, I'm just not sure just how good or if he's as good as the 1e Inquisitor admirers (myself included) hope.

1e, The Grand Inquisitor used to be such a great sniper. Autothrusters + Focus + Evade + "range 1 attack" meant he loved being at Range 3. None of that really works in 2e. Haven't played him too much, due to the cost, but at his current price, I think he'd be fun. I tend to believe he's probably a much better knife-fighting ace who enjoys being at Range 1.

Another stray thought: an Ace-level TIE/v1 without the force would also probably be a pretty fun ship. Low 40s for someone Init 5 or 6, equip Predator or FCS and Crack Shot, good to go.

16 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Another stray thought: an Ace-level TIE/v1 without the force would also probably be a pretty fun ship. Low 40s for someone Init 5 or 6, equip Predator or FCS and Crack Shot, good to go.

Ric Olié

Just now, SnooSnarry said:

Ric Olié

That's a ship that likes to do 3-speed moves, rather than 1-speeds. I see where you're going with it, but the playstyle is going to be entirely different with an N-1 and a v1. TIE/v1 is unique with those blue Hard 1 turns. It'd be a fun ship to fly as a wicked Pocket ace in the price range of Duchess, who is herself wicked cool, but again, completely different.