34 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Everyone is fine with bids wars in theory, except how they play out in practice.

Same team.

I just see little harm in having it be random, so people don't just bring lists effectively trying to ensure "moving last" as their upgrade in every game by default.

The other side of the coin is that points not spend on moving last upgrades becomes free and make list stronger against everything else who didn't care about the bid.

I'm not sure what's best overall. I still dream on things like redline whisp soont at 182 or obi anakin torrents at 190 won't happen again.

Current jedi are in a pretty good spot bid wise, aren't them?

Passive sensor vader on the other hand is one of the worse offender since it's "reposition last" upgrade only cost 3

1 hour ago, Sunitsa said:

The other side of the coin is that points not spend on moving last upgrades becomes free and make list stronger against everything else who didn't care about the bid.

I'm not sure what's best overall. I still dream on things like redline whisp soont at 182 or obi anakin torrents at 190 won't happen again.

Current jedi are in a pretty good spot bid wise, aren't them?

Passive sensor vader on the other hand is one of the worse offender since it's "reposition last" upgrade only cost 3

bid points are also points that are untouchable unless you completely destroy the opponent's list. Plus the move-last, which further incentivizes the already-better big orange numbers.

The data indications the move-last advantage is relatively large, encouraging bidding over upgrades in big orange number mirrors, plus big orange number advantage over smaller orange numbers.

I basically don't understand why we need to "protect" bids and move-last advantage in regards to a list drastically increasing its odds of getting move-last advantage.


FURTHER, move-first advantage is very real in swarm mirrors. Basically, we're incentivizing deck building/combo-playing.

Like, if first player is random... it's not like people stop wanting to play big orange numbers - they're still good. People stop losing big orange number mirrors just because someone cut an upgrade stop pretending that they're 'hurting' their list with big bids (because the evidence indicates they're pretty clearly not, couple with these big orange numbers are vastly undercosted).

2 hours ago, Tlfj200 said:

The data indications the move-last advantage is relatively large, encouraging bidding over upgrades in big orange number mirrors, plus big orange number advantage over smaller orange numbers.

I basically don't understand why we need to "protect" bids and move-last advantage in regards to a list drastically increasing its odds of getting move-last advantage.

FURTHER, move-first advantage is very real in swarm mirrors. Basically, we're incentivizing deck building/combo-playing.

I'm not certain this is a good justification for random first player. If first player is as huge as you say, making it random will decide more matches at the start of the game which seems bad. With bidding you at least are, well... making a bid for who gets first player, so there is at least some agency. A droid swarm that forgoes a Discord for a bid on a near mirror so it get the blocking power, I feel is a purchased upgrade. They lose some capability against other lists in exchange for deciding first player.

The rub lies in when things aren't costed appropriately. If Slave 1 was around 5 points, someone would be making a choice or not to take it for the bid on other I5s, but at 1 point, there is no choice. Perhaps Boba, Maul, and Fearless could potentially be looked into for a 1 point uptick, as well. Those 1 point changes can make a decent difference. I know Proton Torpedoes finally bit the dust when they upped from 12 to 13 points.

3 hours ago, Tlfj200 said:

I just see little harm in having it be random, so people don't just bring lists effectively trying to ensure "moving last" as their upgrade in every game by default.

Kinda same team.

But honestly, I quite enjoy the bid game as far as I wish to play it. Beyond that, which is really not far, I'm not personally bothered about how far others wish to take it. I think it's just another unnecessary gamble, most of the time.

If there really wasn't ways to beat these massively deep bids, without bidding deeper, it would be more annoying. But there is quite a lot of ways.

So its fine?

Nearly.....

The whole bids too deep thing. Anyway.

I agree. Big bids are silly.

1 hour ago, 5050Saint said:

I'm not certain this is a good justification for random first player. If first player is as huge as you say, making it random will decide more matches at the start of the game which seems bad.

Until people stop bringing ships with bids in hopes of simply moving lasts, and instead building more well-rounded squads that can instead handle sometimes moving first.

1 hour ago, 5050Saint said:

With bidding you at least are, well... making a bid for who gets first player, so there is at least some agency.

Let's check this hypothesis

1 hour ago, 5050Saint said:

A droid swarm that forgoes a Discord for a bid on a near mirror so it get the blocking power, I feel is a purchased upgrade. They lose some capability against other lists in exchange for deciding first player.

That doesn't happen. They drop a strut instead.

Also, they will [you'd think, but probably not, because of how easily droid swarms win right now] just spread out a little so they're not so comically easily blocked. Presumably they have lost the i1 mirror first player choice at times.

1 hour ago, 5050Saint said:

The rub lies in when things aren't costed appropriately. If Slave 1 was around 5 points, someone would be making a choice or not to take it for the bid on other I5s, but at 1 point, there is no choice. Perhaps Boba, Maul, and Fearless could potentially be looked into for a 1 point uptick, as well. Those 1 point changes can make a decent difference. I know Proton Torpedoes finally bit the dust when they upped from 12 to 13 points.

I don't disagree. But it'll still remain that you'll be highly incentivized to bid against other high orange numbers most of the time (since high orange numbers have an awful lot of reposition).

21 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

Kinda same team.

But honestly, I quite enjoy the bid game as far as I wish to play it. Beyond that, which is really not far, I'm not personally bothered about how far others wish to take it. I think it's just another unnecessary gamble, most of the time.

If there really wasn't ways to beat these massively deep bids, without bidding deeper, it would be more annoying. But there is quite a lot of ways.

So its fine?

Nearly.....

The whole bids too deep thing. Anyway.

I agree. Big bids are silly.

I mean, I get it, but you've basically admitted you personally enjoy combo-wing.

I'm noting it's actually sorta pretty warping, and unfun.

Also, anyone that actually understands what they're doing with reposition aces bids as deep as they can.

Duncan and I did it in 1.0 on our worlds run.
Duncan did it again last worlds run.
Ryan Fleming did it with his triple scouts.

The examples are numerous.

Of course, the other option is to bring massive token stacking high agility resiliency, so you don't have to be right and can weather the storm.

So, we have that going for us too, I guess.

22 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

They drop a strut instead.

1 hour ago, 5050Saint said:

The rub lies in when things aren't costed appropriately.

14 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

you've basically admitted you personally enjoy combo-wing.

I've admitted to enjoying just about every wing there is. I've no shame

(2.0... there were things in 1.0 even I wouldn't touch)

and fair comment, in all the following. All I've said, basically, is that I'm fine with that whole approach to the game, because I don't have to play it to get by.

If you're aiming for world champ with it, and view it as a problem... Then, well, yeah. I guess? Maybe it is?

Not quite same team

2 hours ago, 5050Saint said:

making it random will decide more matches at the start of the game which seems bad.

Exposing the rot concealed underneath isn't a reason not to replace your flooring

If such a change happened, and certainly not suggesting it would, list building would be forced to change its approach to adjust for the risk of going first or seriously gamble that you either win the random initiative or your opponent didn’t bring an ace.

1 hour ago, LagJanson said:

If such a change happened, and certainly not suggesting it would, list building would be forced to change its approach to adjust for the risk of going first or seriously gamble that you either win the random initiative or your opponent didn’t bring an ace.

Simply asking, do you think random initiative incentivizes higher pilot skills at the table more often? If I can’t reliably decide initiative every time, would it not be better to bring a higher pilot skill ship every time to ensure I have at least 1 ship that moves after a good chunk of my opponents list even if I lose the bid?

2 hours ago, Tlfj200 said:

Until people stop bringing ships with bids in hopes of simply moving lasts, and instead building more well-rounded squads that can instead handle sometimes moving first.

What would you define as a well rounded squadron then? Mix of initiatives? Mix of chassis? Both? Neither? Is 5X well rounded because of its simplicity and because it ignores the bid, or is it not well rounded because all the ships are the exact same?

@5050Saint

The crux is, if you think struts are ACTUALLY worth more than 1... neat.

4 hours ago, Cuz05 said:

I've admitted to enjoying just about every wing there is. I've no shame

(2.0... there were things in 1.0 even I wouldn't touch)

and fair comment, in all the following. All I've said, basically, is that I'm fine with that whole approach to the game, because I don't have to play it to get by.

If you're aiming for world champ with it, and view it as a problem... Then, well, yeah. I guess? Maybe it is?

Not quite same team

I mean, you're actually allowed to like combo-wing, btw. I just don't.

But to be clear - you're absolutely allowed to like it.

3 hours ago, LagJanson said:

If such a change happened, and certainly not suggesting it would, list building would be forced to change its approach to adjust for the risk of going first or seriously gamble that you either win the random initiative or your opponent didn’t bring an ace.

Yes

2 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

Simply asking, do you think random initiative incentivizes higher pilot skills at the table more often? If I can’t reliably decide initiative every time, would it not be better to bring a higher pilot skill ship every time to ensure I have at least 1 ship that moves after a good chunk of my opponents list even if I lose the bid?

I honestly don't know if it incentives it more than it currently does. It might, but you're pretty encouraged to bring big orange numbers now anyway.

2 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

What would you define as a well rounded squadron then? Mix of initiatives? Mix of chassis? Both? Neither? Is 5X well rounded because of its simplicity and because it ignores the bid, or is it not well rounded because all the ships are the exact same?

So, I think many people may define that differently, but when I wrote that, I meant it more directed at the idea of a squad that solely survives, or thrives, when it moves last.

Like, if you're bringing 2+ ships that struggle to perform well moving first, that's not well rounded, and it's a list you are very clearly incentivized to bid heavily. If it's also good, that's a problem. Randomizing first player would make increase the risk of those squads, but less than the reflex reaction everyone here may be having, and here's why:

1. You only move first 50% of the time against same pilot initiative, but importantly;
2. You still actually have to face the same pilot initiative, like you do now.

So, honestly? it's sorta the same as it is now, EXCEPT FOR the fact that in same-orange-number mirrors, you SOMETIMES do not move second (or, rather, you cannot take steps to ensure you move second). In all other cases, you're still the second moverer-er.

2 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

Simply asking, do you think random initiative incentivizes higher pilot skills at the table more often?

Maybe and maybe not? I’m the last person who should theorize imagined metas, but I could see value in bringing one high ace in your list, but certainly not three fragile aces that depend on the last move. That said, one could counter the trend and lean in hard to that double-down on strengths/weaknesses. People seem to like that anyway...

I actually like the idea of bidding. It’s something in the lore of my first tabletop gaming with Battletech... but the movement system in X-Wing overpowers the move last scenario, which is strong in both games. Difference being in X-Wing you move all your highest initiative ships last as opposed to only one.

10 hours ago, Tlfj200 said:

Honestly, if each game randomly determined who first player was (rather than bidding), I think that'd be an incrementally better step than we have now.

Holy crap, that's genius! (Yes, it would be. And more than incrementally.)

The bid mechanics could probably be improved from where we are now. Would be fun to test it out since nothing is stopping it at all from being tested.

It doesnt solve i5 and i6 dunking on lower init in general. So I still think bid mechanic changes should be paired with the game itself being better balanced around moving first with guidelines on ship design to enforce that.

It sometimes feels like ships arent designed with the fundamentals of moving first against them in mind.

Passive mods should always be blockable to switch them off.

Hitting obstacles should prevent all actions and disable passive mods

Premovement repostion shouldnt exist at i5 and i6 or probably at all.

Double reposition should require stress specifically to prevent k turns and provide dial intel.

Stress should disable passive modification, to punish dial result adjustments.

Linked actions should always require stress (for same reasons double repo should)

Sense and other dial checkers shouldnt exist.

Multi arcs shouldnt have access to linked boosts or stressless boost + passives.

Completely re-write the force charge rules...and add charges to the chargeless force users.

Enforce constraints that reward the skills required to move first well. But mostly just start by changing the force charge rules...there so bad.

59 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

The bid mechanics could probably be improved from where we are now. Would be fun to test it out since nothing is stopping it at all from being tested.

It doesnt solve i5 and i6 dunking on lower init in general. So I still think bid mechanic changes should be paired with the game itself being better balanced around moving first with guidelines on ship design to enforce that.

It sometimes feels like ships arent designed with the fundamentals of moving first against them in mind.

Passive mods should always be blockable to switch them off.

Hitting obstacles should prevent all actions and disable passive mods

Premovement repostion shouldnt exist at i5 and i6 or probably at all.

Double reposition should require stress specifically to prevent k turns and provide dial intel.

Stress should disable passive modification, to punish dial result adjustments.

Linked actions should always require stress (for same reasons double repo should)

Sense and other dial checkers shouldnt exist.

Multi arcs shouldnt have access to linked boosts or stressless boost + passives.

Completely re-write the force charge rules...and add charges to the chargeless force users.

Enforce constraints that reward the skills required to move first well. But mostly just start by changing the force charge rules...there so bad.

It's like you actually want to like plot maneuvers and have it matter or something

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Holy crap, that's genius! (Yes, it would be. And more than incrementally.)

(Not all of this is a direct reply, just using your conversation as a staging point)

To be fair, there's a lot I can't foresee.

But the main argument against this is the pure problem that moving last is a significant detriment to ace lists/ace pilots. It can be valued anywhere between 6 to maybe even 15 points - this evidenced by bid values with a little guesswork on true value due to how often higher init aces can win when they move last).
I don't think anyone can argue that its much better in ace vs ace to move last 90% of the time, with known exceptions. Tourney data simply says this.

Because of this, If there's no bid, and you coin flip to determine initiative, in some matchups in this game, you're simply assigning a 15-20 lead to a certain player at random at the start of the game that a player can't influence.

I can tell you for sure, that's not better game play. Especially not in those matchups (ex. Soontir vs Soontir).
While it may have other positive repercussions that we can't foresee or predict (perhaps lower init becomes more valuable, a la repercussions of audacious balance), in many games its a huge non-agency luck introduction.

---

If the game was designed in a way that moving first shooting first had real significant advantages in almost all circumstances (a little like Armada objectives), then it would be fine to go to random bid (which I suspect would be a great balancing factor for Armada, but in that game too, being first or second is a big factor that flying doesn't always overcome).

Alas: this is Xwing's golden problem: Pilot Skill/Initiative was a beauty invention that avoided turn based play (like Armada and other games, horrible ew), BUT no one yet has figured out how to balance PS issues in a way that isn't outdated turn of the century 20yearsold rock-paper-scissors.
Rock-paper-scissors is now known to be nearly completely skill-less for modern game balance. See Starcraft2 which I strongly suspect the Xwing balance team has been paying close attention to.

Doesn't this exact same discussion happen every 3 months with the exact same ideas presented and with the exact same conclusion that bid wars is a symptom of something being undercosted.

First it was Aces of Legend, then it was Jedi now it's Boba/Fenn and I'm forgetting a lot of them in between. And wasn't all of those fixed with simply adjusting the point cost of the offenders.

50 minutes ago, Flurpy said:

Doesn't this exact same discussion happen every 3 months with the exact same ideas presented and with the exact same conclusion that bid wars is a symptom of something being undercosted.

First it was Aces of Legend, then it was Jedi now it's Boba/Fenn and I'm forgetting a lot of them in between. And wasn't all of those fixed with simply adjusting the point cost of the offenders.

Yes. Though changing the cost of offenders also addresses only symptoms. That is fine as long as we remain symptom-free. It will require constant attention from FFG though, and there's always something slipping through the cracks. Addressing the cause seems to be the more sustainable way. But the how is anyone's guess.

I used to believe that calculating the score as "200 - [points surviving]" would solve a lot. It also creates the new problem of confusion, and that could kill it. But generally, it solves the bid as points bunker. A mirror where you can't just defend as second player should be more interesting. I still lean towards it but I'm not so sure anymore because it might have additional side effects.
Let's say 200pt VaderSoontirWhisper vs 192pt VaderSoontirFifthbro (so much more fun!). Somehow the two Vaders survive, both at 76 points. Currently, the one with the 192pt list does not have to engage. He can bump, run, keep tokens for defense. In the 200-surviving way, they have to final salvo or they have to risk it. I guess that makes salvo the better choice, and that sounds like a bad side effect. It only happens with equal points ships. So, maybe it's still ok.
Another downside I see is that it emphasizes "points surviving" over "points destroyed". That should not actually matter, but who knows, people are affected by smaller changes in framing.

My gut feeling is that the whole pairing process would deserve a closer look and maybe a new solution.Bids are relatively inconsequential compared to matchup luck.

2 hours ago, Flurpy said:

Doesn't this exact same discussion happen every 3 months with the exact same ideas presented and with the exact same conclusion that bid wars is a symptom of something being undercosted.

First it was Aces of Legend, then it was Jedi now it's Boba/Fenn and I'm forgetting a lot of them in between. And wasn't all of those fixed with simply adjusting the point cost of the offenders.

To be fair, it was started by me this time while I was thinking about the games I used to play. I also noted there were problems and to move on.

7 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Because of this, If there's no bid, and you coin flip to determine initiative, in some matchups in this game, you're simply assigning a 15-20 lead to a certain player at random at the start of the game that a player can't influence.

Also to be fair... my idiotic suggestion also noted the coin flip was every turn. It makes that move last choice much more interesting for your fast fragile unit when each turn can change.

9 hours ago, Tlfj200 said:

The crux is, if you think struts are ACTUALLY worth more than 1... neat.

Infinite charge collision detector combo'd with an infinite charge Leia for blue hard stop maneuvers that doesn't cost an action or a charge. It's definitely worth more than 1 point. If it was 2, I'd be happier. Someone would actually have to choose whether they wanted them, since it gets considerably more expensive the more droids you take. The "I don't care about obstacles" strategy actually costs something.

If this was on any other ship, we be crying that it was a 10 point upgrade. I just want it to be 2. Consider a Han (Rebel or Scum) or Blackout that could indefinitely sit behind a rock for trick shots without obstruction bonus, or Braylen or Ten that could hard stop or rotate to clear stress then roll, focus, and re-stress up for double mods, or Phantoms that can infinitely land on a rock then decloak off.

7 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

(Not all of this is a direct reply, just using your conversation as a staging point)

To be fair, there's a lot I can't foresee.

But the main argument against this is the pure problem that moving last is a significant detriment to ace lists/ace pilots. It can be valued anywhere between 6 to maybe even 15 points - this evidenced by bid values with a little guesswork on true value due to how often higher init aces can win when they move last).
I don't think anyone can argue that its much better in ace vs ace to move last 90% of the time, with known exceptions. Tourney data simply says this.

Because of this, If there's no bid, and you coin flip to determine initiative, in some matchups in this game, you're simply assigning a 15-20 lead to a certain player at random at the start of the game that a player can't influence.

I can tell you for sure, that's not better game play. Especially not in those matchups (ex. Soontir vs Soontir).
While it may have other positive repercussions that we can't foresee or predict (perhaps lower init becomes more valuable, a la repercussions of audacious balance), in many games its a huge non-agency luck introduction.

I just want to be clear - we have that exact thing now, except one player randomly gets it before getting it to the player, neither player knows which has it, and it's functionally random, except the odds aren't exactly even, and both players dont know those odds going into the match.

Functionally nothing has changed, except the ONE MATCHUP where there are ties in the same orange number. All other matchups are unchanged.

In the tied orange number mirror, the difference is one player is auto-screwed, and we hand wave it like "well, they should have bid better!", as if we think it was 199 vs 194 and one "really wanted it more" than the other.

It could just as much be 185 vs 184, or 197 vs 195. Did someone 'deserve' to win at list building? Why did someone 'deserve' to be 'protected' at list building?

Again - in matchups where they are already the higher orange number, they are already protected at list building, functionally - this only matters for ties.

3 hours ago, Flurpy said:

Doesn't this exact same discussion happen every 3 months with the exact same ideas presented and with the exact same conclusion that bid wars is a symptom of something being undercosted.

If you bring a 15 point bid at i5, you're just playing without 15 points vs every i4 or lower list. (Except of course those points are super fortressed, which absolutely matters).

3 hours ago, Flurpy said:

First it was Aces of Legend, then it was Jedi now it's Boba/Fenn and I'm forgetting a lot of them in between. And wasn't all of those fixed with simply adjusting the point cost of the offenders.

Wait, is there a timeline where Soontir and Jedi had their point costs adjusted? Are there invites?

11 minutes ago, 5050Saint said:

Infinite charge collision detector combo'd with an infinite charge Leia for blue hard stop maneuvers that doesn't cost an action or a charge.

This is a dramatic mischaracterization.

12 minutes ago, 5050Saint said:

If this was on any other ship, we be crying that it was a 10 point upgrade. I just want it to be 2. Consider a Han (Rebel or Scum) or Blackout that could indefinitely sit behind a rock for trick shots without obstruction bonus, or Braylen or Ten that could hard stop or rotate to clear stress then roll, focus, and re-stress up for double mods, or Phantoms that can infinitely land on a rock then decloak off.

Okay, but... it says "Vulture Droid Only" on it. Yes, I agree that it would be fundamentally different if it was a 3/3/4/2 with a talent slot that could land on the rock, but... it's not?

13 minutes ago, 5050Saint said:

It's definitely worth more than 1 point. If it was 2, I'd be happier.

So, the long and short is I'm pretty sure that I'm not taking it at 2. Just like I didn't ever take it at 3. I don't think I know any CIS player who would? (Caveat; I don't know many, there are few of us).

I'm on team zero point struts, up Vulture base cost. If you think the value of a Strutted Vulture is 21 and not 20, that's a conversation, sure. But if you are giving me the choice, I'm not going to opt into the 2 point upgrade.

The nature of the design of Vultures is such that it rarely makes sense or is useful to have, like, 2 struts across 5 droids - and in this scenario, that's at the cost of a discord missile or 80% of a drk1. So if your balancing goal is to push CIS players to do that, uh, you're gonna struggle to get their buy-in.

4 minutes ago, svelok said:

I'm on team zero point struts, up Vulture base cost. If you think the value of a Strutted Vulture is 21 and not 20, that's a conversation, sure. But if you are giving me the choice, I'm not going to opt into the 2 point upgrade.

The nature of the design of Vultures is such that it rarely makes sense or is useful to have, like, 2 struts across 5 droids - and in this scenario, that's at the cost of a discord missile or 80% of a drk1. So if your balancing goal is to push CIS players to do that, uh, you're gonna struggle to get their buy-in.

I’m very much same team. Not taking struts also gives me the option of gas clouds again. If they are getting dropped to make room at one point, they are just getting dropped more often or entirely at more than one point.

8 minutes ago, svelok said:

I'm on team zero point struts, up Vulture base cost. If you think the value of a Strutted Vulture is 21 and not 20, that's a conversation, sure. But if you are giving me the choice, I'm not going to opt into the 2 point upgrade.

This is absurd, and I've heard more than one CIS player say it. You'd pay 21 points for a Vulture, but you wouldn't pay 21 points for a Vulture if 2 of those points were struts? It's fundamentally the better for a CIS player that way because they have a choice of 19 points or 21 points. That doesn't make sense, and I need you to make it make sense to me. Help me understand you.

That's like saying I'd take Boba at 90 with a 0 point Slave I title, but wouldn't take a 85 point Boba with a 5 point Slave I title.

19 minutes ago, svelok said:

This is a dramatic mischaracterization.

Mild hyperbole at best. Collision Detector on 66.6% of obstacles. True you cannot drive completely through them, but most of the time that is fine. Getting off of the obstacle restricts your dial, but barrel roll hijinks often negate that problem. The chargeless blue hard stop/rotate is real, and can be done on a ship by ship basis every turn, unlike Leia which is every 3 turns, every ship must do it that turn, is only white, and the ship must have a hard stop on the dial.

3 minutes ago, 5050Saint said:

You'd pay 21 points for a Vulture, but you wouldn't pay 21 points for a Vulture if 2 of those points were struts?

I'd pay 21 points for a Vulture, but I'd take a 19 point Vulture that doesn't have struts instead if you let me.