this is an answerable question

Upgrade: Fire-Control System [Sensor]
In 506 lists. Appearing 731 total times, on average 1.44 copies per list.
Cutrate: 17.59% (Baseline: 19.66%)
Taken by: 23.06% (731/3170) of ships with [Sensor] slots, 57.33% (731/1275) of all [Sensor] upgrades.
15.67% of swiss. Percent of each faction's lists:
Rebel: 7.06%
Empire: 48.02%
Scum: 1.23%
First Order: 39.76%
Resistance: 0.75%
Republic: 3.26%
Separatist: 0.97%
Average bid of squads: 4.89
Average initiative of equipped ships: 4.60
Average initiative of squad: 4.28
Most common pilots:
darthvader (177)
inquisitor (134)
quickdraw (123)
maarekstele (43)
grandinquisitor (39)

some other fun (or not fun) facts

• 65% of republic lists include the delta 7b config, 60% of republic lists include r2 astromech
• crack shot is in 39% of rebel lists
• 61% of copies of afterburners are on darth vader
• 42% of all copies of predator and 70% of all copies of targeting computer are on soontir fel,
• heroic is in 86% of resistance lists
• even at 7 points, Juke is still in 13% of imperial lists, and most commonly on whisper - a 64 point combo that released at 56 points and still sees play
• more points are spent on i5/6 pilots than on all i1/2/3 pilots combined - and that's not counting points spent on the strongest upgrade, "bid"

3 hours ago, svelok said:

some other fun (or not fun) facts

• 65% of republic lists include the delta 7b config, 60% of republic lists include r2 astromech

extra fun fact. if you restrict the population to ONLY republic lists containing a aethersprite for 7B or a athersprite/N1 for R2. those figures jump by about 10%

14 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

I mostly use AT.C to understand how bids might impact matchups I am practicing and to review upgrades that have large enough samples. I find the upgrade stuff to be the most interesting provided you have a working knowledge of common “builds” that might be behind the results.

As an example those Plo 7b numbers...yikes. Apparently Regen Plo disengaging to regen and tossing a token or taking a disarm/tractor token from a friend is pretty good? Bios right we probably didnt need data to tell us that. AT.C just gives little hints at level of correctness I guess.

Oh AT.C also helped me finally admit that Scorch is “fine, possibly bad” but not good. Also something my many many reps could have taught me sooner if I didnt kinda blind myself wanting Scorch to be solid. Turns out being able to k turn at all, ideally with mods or just shooting from a rear arc is kinda necessary functionality with passive aggressive collusion detector aces everywhere.

This is another great reason to use data, I simply don't have the time to grind out games and find things out for myself anymore. Before ATC, if i had an inkling that a ship or list concept might be good, i'd basically just ctrl F in list juggler and hope for to find something useful.

14 hours ago, punkUser said:

Good! But we're not done until the empty set is the most common *set* of upgrades for the majority of ships!

I personally don't think this should be true for turrets.

It's stupid that there's a turret on the model, the ships are clearly paying the turret tax, yet turrets are garbage.

0-1 point dorsal turrets WHEN

4 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I personally don't think this should be true for turrets.

It's stupid that there's a turret on the model, the ships are clearly paying the turret tax, yet turrets are garbage.

0-1 point dorsal turrets WHEN

Better to remove the tax on the unused slot... more chances for variety in lists

31 minutes ago, Brunas said:

It's stupid that there's a turret on the model, the ships are clearly paying the turret tax, yet turrets are garbage.

0-1 point dorsal turrets WHEN

Hopefully never?

I’m ok with control turrets... but straight damage turrets shouldn’t be too cheap.

I would be legit interested in a turret (or cannon) that inflicted other status effects. Where’s my strain secondary?

Is veteran turret gunner keeping new turrets out of development?

Edit: you can’t stop dumb opinions on the internet. I probably don’t really want control turrets, but until I see them I don’t know that.

1 minute ago, PaulRuddSays said:

I’m ok with control turrets... but straight damage turrets shouldn’t be too cheap.

y-wings, attack shuttle, vcx, scurrgs, aggressors, let them have their bonus arcs

think of it not as a traditional upgrade, but as a mobile arc they more or less inherently possess (but worse, eg, no range 3), but with the option of trading it out for alternative options (eg ion turret, whatever future busted turret wave 7 introduces)

23 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

Better to remove the tax on the unused slot... more chances for variety in lists

Tax the ships that would only be brought for the turret (Aggressor) instead of the turrets so you don't unfairly tax ships that may be brought for other reasons (ghost, shuttle... y-wing?)

May open up variety by allowing more efficient build options

Aggressor vs Bomber is a design space issue, that I don't believe you'll be able to solve with points. You either only make the aggressor good with a turret, or it takes the bombers position.

My opinion at least, and not backed by any major research...

10 minutes ago, PaulRuddSays said:

I’m ok with control turrets... but straight damage turrets shouldn’t be too cheap.

What's funny is, I'm far less okay with control turret (hi, ions!).

19 minutes ago, PaulRuddSays said:

I’m ok with control turrets... but straight damage turrets shouldn’t be too cheap.

You say that now, but when control aspects of any game get out of hand, they make the game miserable.

So Zeta Survivor TIE/sf are clearly solid at 32 points. Not world beaters, but solid efficiency ships.

If folks could take a Dorsal Turret Y-Wing for 32, would that be good enough to see play?

36 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

Better to remove the tax on the unused slot... more chances for variety in lists

Turret Tax is what, 2 points? That's a Dorsal Gray Y over a Zeta SF. Eliminating slot taxes can make me nervous, if the ship becomes too efficient without it. Like, we probably wouldn't want folks flying naked TIE Punishers as efficiency ships, for example.

Taking two points away, I don't think we'd run into any spooky, overly efficient ships, in general:

• BTL-A4 Y-Wing at 29, same as a TIE Bomber.
• TIE Aggressor at 26, 1 point more than a V-19 for a better dial and shield/hull ratio.
• Lok Scurrg at 43, which doesn't seem too far away from the prices of other medium-base ships with similar statlines.
• VCX-100 at 66, which would be controversial, but I'm not really sure they pay much of a tax for their turret slot... so they could just sit at 67 to stop the debates.
• Attack Shuttle would mean 32 Zeb, 40 Sabine. Eh, probably fine.

24 minutes ago, PaulRuddSays said:

Is veteran turret gunner keeping new turrets out of development?

They really ought to just variable price VTG. 3-4 points on stuff like YT-1300s with two fixed turret arcs (it'll still never see play, but it'd be fair compared to Veteran Tail Gunner), and crank the price when it allows actual double-taps.

It'd be a hassle and somewhat price-spreadsheet, which is a drawback in itself, but it'd be a lot more convenient.

34 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Turret Tax is what, 2 points? That's a Dorsal Gray Y over a Zeta SF. Eliminating slot taxes can make me nervous, if the ship becomes too efficient without it. Like, we probably wouldn't want folks flying naked TIE Punishers as efficiency ships, for example.

Taking two points away, I don't think we'd run into any spooky, overly efficient ships, in general:

• BTL-A4 Y-Wing at 29, same as a TIE Bomber.
• TIE Aggressor at 26, 1 point more than a V-19 for a better dial and shield/hull ratio.
• Lok Scurrg at 43, which doesn't seem too far away from the prices of other medium-base ships with similar statlines.
• VCX-100 at 66, which would be controversial, but I'm not really sure they pay much of a tax for their turret slot... so they could just sit at 67 to stop the debates.
• Attack Shuttle would mean 32 Zeb, 40 Sabine. Eh, probably fine.

Note: I didn’t say remove the turret slot tax.

Anyway removing the unused slot tax would require a massive points change to correctly cost the upgrades. I don’t see this as probable.

21 hours ago, PaulRuddSays said:

I saw Ford vs Ferrari this weekend and concur that people should see it.

I understood this post! I saw it too and thought it was awesome. It's called Le Mans '66 here though.

17 hours ago, svelok said:

some other fun (or not fun) facts

• 61% of copies of afterburners are on darth vader

We need to actually make this information useful.

Take the other 39% and how many of those Vader lists made cut compared to the 61% that did take afterburners?

Or compare TC Soontir making cut vs Predator Soonts vs naked Soonts.

9 minutes ago, wurms said:

We need to actually make this information useful.

Take the other 39% and how many of those Vader lists made cut compared to the 61% that did take afterburners?

Or compare TC Soontir making cut vs Predator Soonts vs naked Soonts.

I think you misunderstood the Vader/Afterburner statistic. It's not that 61% of Vader had Afterburners, it's that 61% of all Afterburners in use were equiped on Vader.

3 hours ago, Smikies02 said:

Tax the ships that would only be brought for the turret (Aggressor) instead of the turrets so you don't unfairly tax ships that may be brought for other reasons (ghost, shuttle... y-wing?)

May open up variety by allowing more efficient build options

Aggressor vs Bomber is a design space issue, that I don't believe you'll be able to solve with points. You either only make the aggressor good with a turret, or it takes the bombers position.

My opinion at least, and not backed by any major research...

What if we just had a curated format that generally only ever included one of the two?

1 minute ago, Cerebrawl said:

I think you misunderstood the Vader/Afterburner statistic. It's not that 61% of Vader had Afterburners, it's that 61% of all Afterburners in use were equiped on Vader.

4 hours ago, svelok said:

y-wings, attack shuttle, vcx, scurrgs, aggressors, let them have their bonus arcs

think of it not as a traditional upgrade, but as a mobile arc they more or less inherently possess (but worse, eg, no range 3), but with the option of trading it out for alternative options (eg ion turret, whatever future busted turret wave 7 introduces)

To reiterate, I think it's fine for those ships to add a mobile arc for 2+ points. None of them feel unfair where things stand. But if you drop Dorsal to 0-1 points, suddenly Y-Wing stock really takes off (for instance). In principle I think I'm fine with 2 point dorsals and ICT not lower than where it is?

4 hours ago, Tlfj200 said:

What's funny is, I'm far less okay with control turret (hi, ions!).

4 hours ago, Quack Shot said:

You say that now, but when control aspects of any game get out of hand, they make the game miserable.

Ion control is probably the worst, right? You're locked into one (known) maneuver, and droids are SOL. No agency, not very fun. I'm out on making ion easier.

I'm also out on tractor turrets.

I'm also out on dealing stress if you hit. (Edit: I might be in for a turret where the defender can cancel damage down to 1 by accepting stress tokens. Agency.)

I'm probably fine with a jamming turret, since we know that jamming beam is bad. I would be extremely OK with a weapon that "jams" force regeneration.

The design space I'm thinking of would be more for something like deplete or strain, especially if you set it up a la Vonreg so that it is assigned in the end phase. You could add some phrasing so that the status effect doesn't proc if the defender is stressed. You can prohibit it from being used as a bonus attack. You could have the weapon use double slots for turret/gunner.

All of this is highly speculative, of course. I'm dreading the rise of mag pulse missiles and expect them to be full on cancer. I might look at actual control turrets and recoil in horror, but I'm not convinced that control weapons are DEFINITIVELY worse than cheap mobile arc damage.

1 hour ago, Talonbane Cobra said:

I understood this post! I saw it too and thought it was awesome. It's called Le Mans '66 here though.

One of the reviews I read suggested that would have been a much more reasonable title, but maybe that may have dampened interest in the domestic market here?

It took some liberties with the truth, but overall I enjoyed it and have told my friends it was worth seeing. That was back in the days where you actually could take apart your cars and understand them... I had to jumpstart my car a few years ago and I had to check the manual just to find where they had hidden the battery! (It was hidden under a tail-light, and you had to undo part of the trunk to get to it. Very unfriendly to end-users.)

5 hours ago, Brunas said:

It's stupid that there's a turret on the model, ...

Oh no, is this the birth of Chris MAH THEME Allen?

57 minutes ago, PaulRuddSays said:

Ion control is probably the worst, right? You're locked into one (known) maneuver, and droids are SOL. No agency, not very fun. I'm out on making ion easier.

I’ve always hated Tractor Beams the most myself. @Brunas & @Tlfj200 said it in 1.0 on one of the casts, if tugboats were ever good, it’d ruin the game. Now we have tugs on steroids.

10 minutes ago, Quack Shot said:

I’ve always hated Tractor Beams the most myself. @Brunas & @Tlfj200 said it in 1.0 on one of the casts, if tugboats were ever good, it’d ruin the game. Now we have tugs on steroids.

Let's be real: there was a lot of 1.0 **** that ruined the game. I got onto triple gunboats at the end because at least it made the games quick, win or lose.

My personal take is that the Nantex is interesting design, but probably shouldn't have been released as-is because the best counterplay against them is done in list building.

18 minutes ago, PaulRuddSays said:

Let's be real: there was a lot of 1.0 **** that ruined the game. I got onto triple gunboats at the end because at least it made the games quick, win or lose.

My personal take is that the Nantex is interesting design, but probably shouldn't have been released as-is because the best counterplay against them is done in list building.

Yeah, but I don’t want 2.0 to be ruined. For myself personally, I don’t play enough anymore to actually see the Nantex on a regular basis. Or if I do, I don’t have faith in any of the locals to not screw up with it, except for when@Crimsonwarlock plays it, which at that point if he’s playing anything other than Quad Vipers I’m probably having a better time lol.

2 hours ago, catachanninja said:

What if we just had a curated format that generally only ever included one of the two?

Then you just force people to have 2 different sets of the 'same' ship when they change the legality of the format.

And if there was some sort of... Unlimited format, one will still be more efficient and push the other one out.