52 minutes ago, SOTL said:

On the TIE Fighters, at least, are people taking into account the 2 they get from the Core set as well?

You're going to have 6 TIE dials after buying kit & core, and that's likely to be plenty for play purposes.

Yes, but that's irrelevant to the talk of conversion.

11 minutes ago, redxavier said:

Yes, but that's irrelevant to the talk of conversion.

Not really. Unless people are asking for 4 more TIE dials because they think they're going to field 10 TIE Fighters.

12 minutes ago, SOTL said:

Not really. Unless people are asking for 4 more TIE dials because they think they're going to field 10 TIE Fighters.

I want all my TIE fighters to be converted, yes. It doesn't matter why. (If you're really curious, it's 40% OCD, and 60% because I want a salable unit, should I decide to divest of some ships at some point.)

It should be completely obvious that "buying more 2.0 TIEs" isn't relevant to "converting 1.0 TIEs."

7 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I want all my TIE fighters to be converted, yes. It doesn't matter why. (If you're really curious, it's 40% OCD, and 60% because I want a salable unit, should I decide to divest of some ships at some point.)

It should be completely obvious that "buying more 2.0 TIEs" isn't relevant to "converting 1.0 TIEs."

But it's relevant to how many ties you can actually run. If someone wants to convert 20 TIE Fighters, that's not on FFG for making it expensive, that's on the player for wanting to run more ships than they've probably ever actually run.

8 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

But it's relevant to how many ties you can actually run.

Yes. So what? Maybe I want 10 converted TIEs because two or three people play with my kit?

It isn't on FFG to make it "cheap" to convert a large collection. It is on FFG that they've created an imbalanced Conversion Kit, where the most popular ships do not have correspondingly high numbers for conversion, thus creating an imbalance on average, no matter the size of one's collection.

To put it another way, I don't particularly have a problem needing to spend $100 to convert my Imperials. I do have somewhat of a problem that I'm going to end up with dozens of basically worthless -- even for trade or sale -- extra conversions because the CK they made was poorly balanced ... even extended over the collections of multiple people. (In fact, as more collections are accounted for, the imbalance gets worse, because that's how an imbalance works.)

1 minute ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Yes. So what? Maybe I want 10 converted TIEs because two or three people play with my kit?

At which point you're supporting 2-3 players. So, again, it's not surprising that it'd cost more. If 3 people each had separate collections, they'd have 3 separate kits. Why should 1 person supporting 3 players get a pass just because it's "one" collection?

1 minute ago, Jeff Wilder said:

It isn't on FFG to make it "cheap" to convert a large collection. It is on FFG that they've created an imbalanced Conversion Kit, where the most popular ships do not have correspondingly high numbers for conversion, thus creating an imbalance on average, no matter the size of one's collection.

To put it another way, I don't particularly have a problem needing to spend $100 to convert my Imperials. I do have somewhat of a problem that I'm going to end up with dozens of basically worthless -- even for trade or sale -- extra conversions because the CK they made was poorly balanced ... even extended over the collections of multiple people. (In fact, as more collections are accounted for, the imbalance gets worse, because that's how an imbalance works.)

IMO it's balanced just fine. As I've pointed out plenty of times, everyone's collection is different. The only reason I personally actually purchased more than 3 tie fighters from the core set and base expansion is because the gozanti came with more. But I have 6 kihraxz, 6 scyks, 3 G1As and 5 protectorates. For rebel, similarly, I only own so many x-wings because they were included in multiple different packs. But I have 2 ghosts, and regularly fly 2 attack shuttles. No matter what numbers of any ships you include in a conversion kit, there will be people that complain that it doesn't cover their colleciotn perfectly. Doing half of a list of each ship is about the "fairest" way they can do it, an dmeans that you're guaranteed to be able to fly any legal list with 2 kits, and *most* players are probably able to fly most of what they were before anyway with only 1.

3 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

At which point you're supporting 2-3 players. So, again, it's not surprising that it'd cost more.

I literally just wrote that that is not the concern. This thread is about converting 1.0 ships to 2.0 ships as efficiently as possible .

Quote

IMO it's balanced just fine.

Your opinion is flatly incorrect. I've collected data showing it. In pretty colors, even.

The Scum CK is fairly well balanced in reflection of existing collections. The Rebel CKK is pretty poorly balanced in reflection of existing collections. The Imperial CK is horribly balanced in reflection of existing collections.

That's simply fact; it's not opinion.

20 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

They did a terrible job estimating demand (if they even tried) with Decimators, Lambdas, Gunboats, U-wings, Rebel TIEs, and the Sheathipede. So far it's looking like it's going to be tough to literally give those individual kits away. TIE fighter kits, in particular, are going to be highly in demand.

This is just my opinion here...

I think FFG built their conversion kit numbers to give you enough to fill a full 200 pt list. So maybe they anticipate that you will only be able to field 2 Decimators or 3 Gunboats (or whatever) in a single list. Not sure if the TIE's factor in the same way, as they also expect to sell a new Core to everyone for the damage deck, and two TIE's are in there.

1 minute ago, papy72 said:

I think FFG built their conversion kit numbers to give you enough to fill a full 200 pt list. So maybe they anticipate that you will only be able to field 2 Decimators or 3 Gunboats (or whatever) in a single list. Not sure if the TIE's factor in the same way, as they also expect to sell a new Core to everyone for the damage deck, and two TIE's are in there.

I don't think that's likely, as they have said the TIE is 24 points, which means eight TIEs will fit in a 200 point list.

I think they just did their best "eyeballing" to do a fair and balanced CK. They didn't actually gather data on the numbers. Their eyeballin' was good enough for Scum, fairly bad for Rebels, and utterly terrible for Imperials.

2 minutes ago, papy72 said:

This is just my opinion here...

I think FFG built their conversion kit numbers to give you enough to fill a full 200 pt list. So maybe they anticipate that you will only be able to field 2 Decimators or 3 Gunboats (or whatever) in a single list. Not sure if the TIE's factor in the same way, as they also expect to sell a new Core to everyone for the damage deck, and two TIE's are in there.

It's literally half of the number of each ship you can run in a 200 point list, rounded up, minimum of 2 copies of each ship. TIE Fighter is 24 points, you can run 8, you get 4. The gunboat (in 1e) you can run 5, so you get 3. I've heard they were planning to keep the x-wing limited to 4 in 200 points again, so you get 2. One of the developers (I think alex) literally said so on stream at one point (or maybe in one of hte team covenant videos? I've seen a lot of video content, so don't remember exactly where).

1 minute ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I don't think that's likely, as they have said the TIE is 24 points, which means eight TIEs will fit in a 200 point list.

I think they just did their best "eyeballing" to do a fair and balanced CK. They didn't actually gather data on the numbers. Their eyeballin' was good enough for Scum, fairly bad for Rebels, and utterly terrible for Imperials.

There's no "eyeballing". 2 kits covers 200 point games of spammed generics.

14 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I literally just wrote that that is not the concern. This thread is about converting 1.0 ships to 2.0 ships as efficiently as possible .

Your opinion is flatly incorrect. I've collected data showing it. In pretty colors, even.

The Scum CK is fairly well balanced in reflection of existing collections. The Rebel CKK is pretty poorly balanced in reflection of existing collections. The Imperial CK is horribly balanced in reflection of existing collections.

That's simply fact; it's not opinion.

I see 7 people on your spreadsheet. You need a LOT more than that to have a good data set. And it doesn't really change a lot. As I said above, they're "balanced" so that 2 kits will cover any 200 point list.

Also, there's the question of how many people actually plan to FLY the ships they're missing. Plenty of people have bought ships for upgrades, or gotten extra copies of ships (like the bomber) from expansions they bought for other purposes. So while you might yhave more of a ship than a singel conversion kit will actually cover, not eveyrone will USE all of those ships.

Apologies if I've already said this here - I can't remember which threads I have, but...

The base TIE Fighter dial didn't change. I don't think it matters if you don't get enough conversion kits for all of them because you can still just use the old dials. The only thing that changed was that green maneuvers became blue maneuvers. As long as you can handle that...

Also, TIE Fighter Dials can be found in the rebel kit, from Sabine's TIE. I don't know too many rebel players who have multiples of those, so I'd imagine there will be several of those floating around as well. Soeven if you aren't buying rebel kits, I'm certain you'll be able to trade with those who did.

I don't think base TIE Fighter dials will be in short supply, by any means.

3 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

I see 7 people on your spreadsheet. You need a LOT more than that to have a good data set.

I think we both know the trend is too strong to ignore, and will not reverse as I collect more data.

Quote

And it doesn't really change a lot. As I said above, they're "balanced" so that 2 kits will cover any 200 point list.

If so, it was a terrible metric for them to use. By using that metric, they created a Conversion Kit that is actually terrible at efficiently allowing conversions.

Which is my entire point.

1 minute ago, direweasel said:

The base TIE Fighter dial didn't change.

That's true. It's also irrelevant to converting Imperial collections.

7 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

It's literally half of the number of each ship you can run in a 200 point list, rounded up, minimum of 2 copies of each ship. TIE Fighter is 24 points, you can run 8, you get 4. The gunboat (in 1e) you can run 5, so you get 3. I've heard they were planning to keep the x-wing limited to 4 in 200 points again, so you get 2. One of the developers (I think alex) literally said so on stream at one point (or maybe in one of hte team covenant videos? I've seen a lot of video content, so don't remember exactly where).

There's no "eyeballing". 2 kits covers 200 point games of spammed generics.

I see 7 people on your spreadsheet. You need a LOT more than that to have a good data set. And it doesn't really change a lot. As I said above, they're "balanced" so that 2 kits will cover any 200 point list.

Also, there's the question of how many people actually plan to FLY the ships they're missing. Plenty of people have bought ships for upgrades, or gotten extra copies of ships (like the bomber) from expansions they bought for other purposes. So while you might yhave more of a ship than a singel conversion kit will actually cover, not eveyrone will USE all of those ships.

That explains why 2 kits fit me fairly well, for alot of ships I purchased enough to run a full squad of generics (or close)

So I lucked out and my collection is close to their kit philosophy.

2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

That's true. It's also irrelevant to converting Imperial collections.

Conversion means change. If it didn't change, there's nothing to convert. You'll still get all the 2nd ed pilots and upgrade cards and such. What difference does it make if you are using the 1st ed dial on a few of your ships, if they are unchanged? Not trying to be a smartass, just legitimately trying to understand the difference.

6 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I think we both know the trend is too strong to ignore, and will not reverse as I collect more data.

If so, it was a terrible metric for them to use. By using that metric, they created a Conversion Kit that is actually terrible at efficiently allowing conversions.

Which is my entire point.

No matter what they did people will complain. If you include 8 tie fighters in an imperial conversion kit, then anyone that doesn't care about tie fighters but wants 5 tie strikers complains about the useless tie fighters and wishes there wer emore strikers instead. Another player complains because they didnt get 5 interceptors, the next player is upset they didn't get 5 gunboats. And ANYONE that buys 2 conversion kits because they want other ships now has 16 tie fighters when they can only use 8 in a standard game anyway.

23 minutes ago, direweasel said:

Conversion means change. If it didn't change, there's nothing to convert. You'll still get all the 2nd ed pilots and upgrade cards and such. What difference does it make if you are using the 1st ed dial on a few of your ships, if they are unchanged? Not trying to be a smartass, just legitimately trying to understand the difference.

First, actually, we are unlikely to get all the 2.0 pilot cards. If the CK comes with four Black Squadron Ace cards, that's how many I can field at an official tournament, no matter how many 1.0 TIE fighter dials I own. In a related vein, we don't even know if 1.0 dials will be legal for official events.

Quote

No matter what they did people will complain.

That's just apologistic nonsense. There's even an aphorism for it: "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Sure, they can't make everyone happy, and it's silly to try. But they could have made better balanced CKs, making more people happy. It would have been trivial to survey 100 X-Wing players, collecting the data for an "average" collection. But they didn't do that. They just went with another -- inaccurate -- metric.

I am a huge fan of 2.0, and even I am upset by how badly they flubbed the Imperial CK. Listening to people make irrelevant and incorrect arguments excusing it gives me a lot of insight into why the anti-2.0 people are making stupid and emotional arguments against it. It's a matter of degree, not kind.

You, for instance, saying "People would be upset to get eight TIE fighters if they don't own eight TIE fighters, but own five TIE strikers," completely -- and IMO deliberately -- ignoring two hugely relevant facts -- (1) more people own large numbers of TIE fighters than large numbers of strikers, meaning (2) TIE fighter excess conversions could be easily traded for striker conversions.

@ Vander

And so... One starts a forum to look for any obvious discrepancies, which TIEs and X wings obviously are, and one accumulates data so that "averages" are found. This allows dials to be traded and everyone satisfied.

As is, I will have 6 fieldable TIEs, yes, but two lonely TIEs will look on. No chance of a second box as all my other Imp options are well covered. I doubt I'll be able to get dials at a reasonable cost, as they will be gold dust...

Personally, I imagine FFG giving away dials on store Tourney nights to fill the demand.

20 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

First, actually, we are unlikely to get all the 2.0 pilot cards. If the CK comes with four Black Squadron Ace cards, that's how many I can field at an official tournament, no matter how many 1.0 TIE fighter dials I own. In a related vein, we don't even know if 1.0 dials will be legal for official events.

That does make sense. I'm sure you're right about the limits on individual cards. Thanks

In this topic: irrational justifications for irrational behaviour.

When Jeff said "I want a saleable unit" I was literally like 'oh, finally a reason that makes sense for having dials for every ship' and then I thought "no wait, that's awful economics to sink $50 dollars into creating two whole TIEs you can sell for $10 each".

We are just rehashing the Vontoothskie argument with a different skin. The conversion kit distribution is fine, the only ship that looks significantly wrong is the TIE but when you consider base set dials that's fine too. If you want to oversupply what's immediately useful it comes at additional cost and demanding the rest of players have to overpay for their kit just to supply what your daft collection needs is very selfish.

3 minutes ago, SOTL said:

When Jeff said "I want a saleable unit" I was literally like 'oh, finally a reason that makes sense for having dials for every ship' and then I thought "no wait, that's awful economics to sink $50 dollars into creating two whole TIEs you can sell for $10 each".

Yes, that would be awful economics. It's also not what I meant. I'm a little tired of explaining what should be obvious, though.

Quote

The conversion kit distribution is fine, the only ship that looks significantly wrong is the TIE but when you consider base set dials that's fine too. If you want to oversupply what's immediately useful it comes at additional cost and demanding the rest of players have to overpay for their kit just to supply what your daft collection needs is very selfish.

Again, this is flatly incorrect (and apologist). The Imperial CK kit is horribly imbalanced. The imbalance grows with every addition to the sample size. If the CK ship distribution was "fine," the imbalance would lessen as new entries are added to the sample size.

But hey, whatever you want to think. We're in a post-facts world, after all.

2x kits give you enough to field a full squad of just one ship type for every single ship type.

That means no one needs more then 2x kits per faction.

That's the design, what you are asking for is either more total ships with increased counts of popular ships causing the price to go up and still necessitating 2x for people who swarm anything not "popular".

Or reducing counts of less popular ships and increasing counts of more popular thus making some people need 3-4 kits per faction if they swarm none popular ships.

I can understand your point Jeff, but I also see logic in ffg's reasoning. (Disclaimer ffg's distribution works well for me, so some bias is probably present). Basically if you want to swarm you need 2x kits or you need to trade.

Also Jeff you have a very small and very localized set of data. Metas and what was popular vary wildly by region. Not saying your data is incorrect just that it might be.

Anyways I like how ffg did it, it's not perfect distribution but it makes sense.

18 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Yes, that would be awful economics. It's also not what I meant. I'm a little tired of explaining what should be obvious, though.

Again, this is flatly incorrect (and apologist). The Imperial CK kit is horribly imbalanced. The imbalance grows with every addition to the sample size. If the CK ship distribution was "fine," the imbalance would lessen as new entries are added to the sample size.

But hey, whatever you want to think. We're in a post-facts world, after all.

Asking people who are bad at life to contribute to a survey about life does not produce a good survey result. Adding more bad results only makes it more wrong.

2 minutes ago, Icelom said:

Also Jeff you have a very small and very localized set of data. Metas and what was popular vary wildly by region. Not saying your data is incorrect just that it might be.

This is my biggest problem with the data. It's 7 players from one local meta. 2 have 0 scum, one has only a few scum ships. But apparently every player that has scum has exactly 2 slave 1s, and all but 1 have 2 shadowcasters. 1 has 0 rebel. It looks like a relatively imperial heavy group.

If you want good data, make a shared spreadsheet and let anyone and everyone on the forums go put in their own numbers.