"..But point-costs in the App was the Chosen One, the one that will bring Balance to X-wing!! You speak of the prophecy of the One App."

As the title says, with point costs moving to the App, FFG can change the point costs and adjust the costs of Pilots, Upgrades (and combinations there-off), and hypothetically everything will never be overpowered or underpowered, as point costs can just be adjusted down or up accordingly, until everything will be in balance, but is this in fact true?

Of course by making the cost ridiculously low or high a Pilot/Upgrade may be "Fixed" or "Nerfed" to oblivion, but that does not necessarily bring balance and make perfect/good/fun lists and games.

I will argue that adjustments to point-costs cannot solve everything and not bring perfect balance: The problem is list-building with a point-limit, which basically turns the game into a discrete optimization problem i.e. the KnapSack problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knapsack_problem).

Let me try to argue this using a few examples (using 1'ste edition costs):

1. The "Imperial Trainee" (lowest cost TIE striker) is 17 points, with a 100pt limit that allows you to fly a maximum of 5 ships. ie. a mini-swarm. You can build other mini-swarms using Kihrax, Fang, TIE Interceptors, Scycks etc. Now, swarms of TIE strikers have not been dominating the meta lately, primarily due not due to 1st edition turrets, in particular TLT, and the inability of the TIE Striker to take autothrusters. No I know TLT and turrets are gone for 2nd edition, but for the sake of argument, these are just as valid constraints as other to-this-date-unknown 2'nd edition problems, which we will now solve by adjusting the point cost.

So the "Imperial Trainee" is under powered -> ok let us change the cost 1 point down to 16 points. For the individual ship and using Math-wing etc. the efficiency has been improved by adjusting the cost. So Fixed? Balance achieved? Nope, we are now able to field 6 Tie Strikers in a 100pt limit. That 1 tiny point adjustment gave us one additional ship, the power of the list has jumped in a huge step. 6 times 3 attack dice and 6 ships to kill is a lot harder than 5. Notice there is no middle ground here..

2. Dengaroo: The old unnerfed Dengaroo actually had up to 8 free points to "squander" as you please without breaking the core mechanic of the list that gave it such huge dominance. Changing the point costs slightly on the different cards or pilots would never be enough, you had to break the list to curb it.

Other cases can be made, but I hope this brings my point across: Even with the point costs in the App, it is important that FFG thinks very hard about the game-mechanics they introduce into the game and how the different ships and upgrades have to be balanced against each other, otherwise the same type of meta dominated by a few archetype lists will evolve in 2'nd edition, as we have seen in 1'st edition. Just now dominated by some new NPE mechanic.

That, being said, I think they have taken steps in the right direction: here I am in particularly thinking about the "charge" mechanic which seems to be linked to the majority of mechanics that gave us problems in 1'st edition, fixed Initiative (Pilot-skill), removal of bonkers-action economy, and also the removal of 360 turrets. However there are also some signs like "Luke" (crew), and the 4-dice Rebel bias which has me slightly worried, and even though the TIE Punisher seemed improved, I was missing some "core-special" ability that made it interesting, but we will see.

(Note this is in NOWAY meant as a negative post about 2'nd edition. I have pre-ordered 1 Core-Set and 2 of each of the 3 Conversion kits and I am SO psyked for this game and cannot wait until 13'th Spetember. Actually, the 2 hour unboxing yesterday was to me more intertaining and had be glue to the screen more that "The Last Jedi", I have have already watched it a second time).

1: Moving up to 200 points adds some middle ground. And maybe for a cycle or two, there are 6-striker swarms. If it turns out they're OP, they can be moved back down to 5 and the Imperial Trainee doesn't get to be flown in a massive swarm, but instead gets flown as an agile and manoeuvrable filler and blocker.

2: So you break the list by increasing the cost signficantly, not just a little bit. Make it impossible to field both ships at once at all. Or remember that it's not just points but slots that the app can vary, so you take away the upgrades that make it work.

And 3, to answer the general point: I'm not expecting balance to be perfect. There will always be a best list, and always be something in the doldrums at any given time. It's not avoidable in a living game which releases new content regularly.

What I'm expecting is for balance to be *better* and *more quickly adjusted*. Relatively few ridiculous Tier S standouts, and relatively few ridiculous Tier Z terribles, and a LOT more in Tier A and B, playable at a competitive level with good practice and knowledge, and a bit of luck in matchups and/or good list planning to cover your weaknesses.

Important point: Not only does the app allow for flexible point changes to ships, it allows for variable costs of upgrades for different ships as I understand it, which is key for a ship like Dengar, as well as changes to upgrade slots.

I think there will still be problems and broken combos, but they have a variety of ways to fix it that don’t just involve just changing one card for everyone, which sometimes ends up breaking it the other way.

1. Increasing the point-cost resolution from 100pt to 200pt does alleviate the issue somewhat, but does not change the fundamental problem, it is still a discrete optimization problem.

2. Variable upgrade-slots beyond the point-cost, and yes also the variable cost for combinations of specific upgrades on certain ships, is an important point, and goes a long way to quickly address some issues, but if the game is not designed properly: Right below one OP list, lies the next OP list, and then next OP list, and then....

But I agree, this is much better. The reason for my post came from yesterdays FFG unboxing, where I did notice some stark differences between ships and pilots, and then followed by many posts and discussions here on the forum that point-adjustment will fix everything.. which I do not agree on.

21 minutes ago, Sciencius said:

"..But point-costs in the App was the Chosen One, the one that will bring Balance to X-wing!! You speak of the prophecy of the One App."

As the title says, with point costs moving to the App, FFG can change the point costs and adjust the costs of Pilots, Upgrades (and combinations there-off), and hypothetically everything will never be overpowered or underpowered, as point costs can just be adjusted down or up accordingly, until everything will be in balance, but is this in fact true?

Of course by making the cost ridiculously low or high a Pilot/Upgrade may be "Fixed" or "Nerfed" to oblivion, but that does not necessarily bring balance and make perfect/good/fun lists and games.

I will argue that adjustments to point-costs cannot solve everything and not bring perfect balance: The problem is list-building with a point-limit, which basically turns the game into a discrete optimization problem i.e. the KnapSack problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knapsack_problem).

Let me try to argue this using a few examples (using 1'ste edition costs):

1. The "Imperial Trainee" (lowest cost TIE striker) is 17 points, with a 100pt limit that allows you to fly a maximum of 5 ships. ie. a mini-swarm. You can build other mini-swarms using Kihrax, Fang, TIE Interceptors, Scycks etc. Now, swarms of TIE strikers have not been dominating the meta lately, primarily due not due to 1st edition turrets, in particular TLT, and the inability of the TIE Striker to take autothrusters. No I know TLT and turrets are gone for 2nd edition, but for the sake of argument, these are just as valid constraints as other to-this-date-unknown 2'nd edition problems, which we will now solve by adjusting the point cost.

So the "Imperial Trainee" is under powered -> ok let us change the cost 1 point down to 16 points. For the individual ship and using Math-wing etc. the efficiency has been improved by adjusting the cost. So Fixed? Balance achieved? Nope, we are now able to field 6 Tie Strikers in a 100pt limit. That 1 tiny point adjustment gave us one additional ship, the power of the list has jumped in a huge step. 6 times 3 attack dice and 6 ships to kill is a lot harder than 5. Notice there is no middle ground here..

2. Dengaroo: The old unnerfed Dengaroo actually had up to 8 free points to "squander" as you please without breaking the core mechanic of the list that gave it such huge dominance. Changing the point costs slightly on the different cards or pilots would never be enough, you had to break the list to curb it.

Other cases can be made, but I hope this brings my point across: Even with the point costs in the App, it is important that FFG thinks very hard about the game-mechanics they introduce into the game and how the different ships and upgrades have to be balanced against each other, otherwise the same type of meta dominated by a few archetype lists will evolve in 2'nd edition, as we have seen in 1'st edition. Just now dominated by some new NPE mechanic.

That, being said, I think they have taken steps in the right direction: here I am in particularly thinking about the "charge" mechanic which seems to be linked to the majority of mechanics that gave us problems in 1'st edition, fixed Initiative (Pilot-skill), removal of bonkers-action economy, and also the removal of 360 turrets. However there are also some signs like "Luke" (crew), and the 4-dice Rebel bias which has me slightly worried, and even though the TIE Punisher seemed improved, I was missing some "core-special" ability that made it interesting, but we will see.

(Note this is in NOWAY meant as a negative post about 2'nd edition. I have pre-ordered 1 Core-Set and 2 of each of the 3 Conversion kits and I am SO psyked for this game and cannot wait until 13'th Spetember. Actually, the 2 hour unboxing yesterday was to me more intertaining and had be glue to the screen more that "The Last Jedi", I have have already watched it a second time).

Man.. your posts are deep.

thanx alway a nice read.

With both a more granular point structure and variable upgrade slots we should see much better balance with many many more ship types becoming viable.

Besides, the initiative restructuring alone will let many genetics have a fighting chance, altho I do wish stress (and maybe ion/tractor) had some effect on initiative. A stressed Vader or Wedge should be a bit slower to react unless they had a special ability to ignore the effects of those tokens on their initiative. Soontir or Han would have been the perfect pilots to have ‘anti-stress’ abilities to preserve their initiative order.

oh well.

This is a pretty tricky problem to solve in a points-based game. It also goes other way - if, for example, there's a 50-point build for the BTL-A4 Y-wing that is a little oppressive, you can't increase the cost of any component by even 1 point without dropping the list down to three "good" ships plus some filler - a huge nerf for a single-point increase.

I suspect any ships we see on release that cost 23, 26, 29, 34, or 41 points were found to be a little under-powered in playtesting, but were inflated to keep the number of ships in a squad where FFG things they should be. This is actually what happened with the X-wing in 1st edition - they thought it wasn't really worth 21 points, but they didn't want to see lists with 5 X-wings.

4 hours ago, kraedin said:

This is a pretty tricky problem to solve in a points-based game. It also goes other way - if, for example, there's a 50-point build for the BTL-A4 Y-wing that is a little oppressive, you can't increase the cost of any component by even 1 point without dropping the list down to three "good" ships plus some filler - a huge nerf for a single-point increase.

I suspect any ships we see on release that cost 23, 26, 29, 34, or 41 points were found to be a little under-powered in playtesting, but were inflated to keep the number of ships in a squad where FFG things they should be. This is actually what happened with the X-wing in 1st edition - they thought it wasn't really worth 21 points, but they didn't want to see lists with 5 X-wings.

Yes, indeed. And thank you for another good example to this effect.

In fact, I used to think then with a few exceptions that in 1'ste edition they tended to price the ships rather nicely to the 100pt, they just did not have the overview of which power-builds could be made with the existing set of upgrade cards available and thus missed the mark more often than they got it right - and now they have taken the step to touch the price point.

No game will ever be perfectly balanced. The designer of Magic the Gathering wrote a few blog articles about that (among many other things, I just linked the first in that series). Some pilots and upgrades will be better than others. Having a healthy variety of "best" builds makes for a fun metagame. Un-fun mechanics that are top tier or a top tier that consists of few playstyles is what causes complaints.

I'm hopeful that the app will allow upgrades like Twin Laser Turret to be appropriately nerfed, and for underperforming ships (like 1.0's A-Wing, TIE Punisher, etc.) to be buffed to allow most things to be somewhat competitive. FFG's in-house balancing hasn't been great, so by getting the chance to change things after the entire community plays with a release, they'll be able to get closer to that ideal balance. And tournament ban lists or other less severe modifications will help greatly with variety.

Anyone who has ever played a game involving points knows that points are rarely, in fact, an actual balancing factor.

A point to note is you don’t necessarily have to balance for a swarm of generics for a ship. The tie fighter probably needs balance along those lines, but in general, if, as in your example, dropping a striker by 1 point to get 6 makes it op, it doesn’t necessarily have to be “balanced” and good as a full swarm if you can do it at 17 points and have it balanced for other purposes. The tie defender for instance, in 1e you can fit 3 in a list. Based on the buffs in 2e, it’s entirely possible you won’t be able to run 3 in a 200 point list anymore. In which case the generics might not be “balanced” just running two of them. But one in another list might be fine. Or 2 plus something else. Or 2 aces, etc. full swarms of generics are not the only thing that matters for whether a ship is “balanced” or playable

Middle ground can be made. Fraction of points or just setting the game to 300 points and readjust the ships again.

Even upgrade slots can be added or removed. I think they only thing that can't be added is actions (outside of fix cards).

Good analysis. And I share your scepticism. Esp with FFG's track record so far on balancing.

However, we still do not know much about the app.

It could, in addition to the tuning by

-point costs

-upgrade slots on ships

even contain another level of tuning by a few list restrictions to avoid problematic "supersynergies". Like e.g. if you have Nym, you cannot have Dengar as well, if you have Miranda no Dash,... (whatever, these are only illustrations).

I was thinking these same thoughts recently, thank you for articulating it well. The constraints of the 200-pt list will make some ships simply better, in that they fit.

Here's another feature this dynamic pricing allows them. If you ever followed the balancing Blizzard did with Starcraft, every once in awhile you'd encounter a patch where they did something like "So and So was given +2 health". The balance tweak was super minor, and it was used by the designers to sort of 'shape the meta'. They dropped hints on units and combos to try without really making them that much more powerful.

I hope FFG can take advantage of something like that as well.

The power of the app based point cost does open up a neat balancing tool they could use.

Example:

1x tie striker costs 16pts, second costs 17pts

Things like that are possible for a more dynamic balance if you want to do it.

(i don't think they will do that but they can if they need it.)

12 hours ago, Sciencius said:

I will argue that adjustments to point-costs cannot solve everything and not bring perfect balance

You are correct. 2.0 has brought a little bit of quality forum content like your post. ? The shadow caster with a 2-attack mobile arc is a dead ship. No cost reduction can save it.

People won't like this, but generic jumpmasters are set to be even cheaper. 45 points in the new system would be a good starting point. Even with that, the new dial probably means it's a dead ship. Here's some other likely outcomes for 2.0

• X-wings should cost 43 points (no 5x X-wings lists)
• Strikers at 33 points would be fine (6x strikers, but they're all I1)
• TIE Defenders should DEFINITELY be limited to 2x in a list (probably 68 point generics)

7 minutes ago, Dengar5 said:

You are correct. 2.0 has brought a little bit of quality forum content like your post. ? The shadow caster with a 2-attack mobile arc is a dead ship. No cost reduction can save it.

Speak for yourself. I’ll absolutely be putting it on the table still. Especially if ketsu comes across with the same pilot ability where it doesn’t actually matter what track value the mobile arc has if it’s pointed forward anyway

7 minutes ago, Dengar5 said:

People won't like this, but generic jumpmasters are set to be even cheaper. 45 points in the new system would be a good starting point. Even with that, the new dial probably means it's a dead ship.

Not sure where I think the jumpmasters will end up. Worse dial, worse primary weapon, worse title, but it also got a torpedo slot back so triple toro scouts could possibly be a thing again at the start.

7 minutes ago, Dengar5 said:

Here's some other likely outcomes for 2.0

• X-wings should cost 43 points (no 5x X-wings lists)
• Strikers at 33 points would be fine (6x strikers, but they're all I1)
• TIE Defenders should DEFINITELY be limited to 2x in a list (probably 68 point generics)

Agreed that xwings will probably be max 4 in a list, though even 41 points might be okay. Expecting min 67 for defenders

7 minutes ago, Dengar5 said:

You are correct. 2.0 has brought a little bit of quality forum content like your post. ? The shadow caster with a 2-attack mobile arc is a dead ship.

It really isn't.

It has the best dial of any large ship.
It has unique mechanics and the Force.

I'm pretty sure the title will help it out greatly.

It lost boost, but having boost caused it to be a problem.
It lost half a dice average attack... It took a hit, sure... But consider the other possibilities.

Also, green dice are much weaker and token stacking doesn't exist.

The Shadowcaster will be a prominent scum ship bringing utility into the game with tractor beam, stress and illicit upgrades. It will not be a pure combat ship, true, but you have Boba as the perfect combat ship, pretty much wrecking face for everyone everywhere

2 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

Also, green dice are much weaker and token stacking doesn't exist

Token stacking is more limited*

Defenders can do it, phantoms can do it, Grand Inquisitor can effectively do it with evade action + force, soontir can do it possibly other pilots we haven’t seen yet

12 hours ago, Sciencius said:

I will argue that adjustments to point-costs cannot solve everything and not bring perfect balance: The problem is list-building with a point-limit, which basically turns the game into a discrete optimization problem i.e. the KnapSack problem

Part of the points problem is in the list-building phase, as you say.

The other part of the points problem is that points don't mean the same thing across different ships, because some ships are drastically more difficult to kill than others. Making those ships more expensive isn't the answer (until you hit a large enough drop in squad efficiency in your discrete optimization problem) because being more expensive makes those ships more effective at what they're trying to do anyways, which is to secure the game-win condition of "I've killed more of your points than you have of mine".

It's similar to what you say about Dengaroo, but it's a little different than that.

If you put 42 points of Corran Horn on the table, depending on what your opponent has and how it plays out, that's 42 points he has a low chance of getting, because there are many situations I can think of where Corran in a 1-on-1 a) wins outright, or more problematically b) cannot be damaged/shot at enough to kill. On the other hand, if you put a 42 point Redline down on the table, that's 42 points that are generally considered "low-hanging fruit" because it's not hard for most of the ships in the game to do enough damage to kill Redline unless Redline kills them first. When there's THAT factor in play, when there are certain conditions that you can achieve with a certain ship but not other ships that pretty much make it impossible to lose that ship, that's when there's real problems with point balance. They are trying to get rid of them, but you can already see from certain pilots that those situations aren't disappearing in 2.0.

When the above is possible, you ask the question, "if there's a ship that I can fly into a situation where I can't lose, how can I make that ship as expensive as possible without giving up my ability to reliably get to that condition?"

If the default game balance answer to that is "make it more expensive" then it hasn't been balanced. It can make the end-game harder to get to by hurting the rest of the squad, but also makes it more difficult to be beaten if/when you get there.

16 hours ago, Sciencius said:

"..But point-costs in the App was the Chosen One, the one that will bring Balance to X-wing!! You speak of the prophecy of the One App."

As the title says, with point costs moving to the App, FFG can change the point costs and adjust the costs of Pilots, Upgrades (and combinations there-off), and hypothetically everything will never be overpowered or underpowered, as point costs can just be adjusted down or up accordingly, until everything will be in balance, but is this in fact true?

Of course by making the cost ridiculously low or high a Pilot/Upgrade may be "Fixed" or "Nerfed" to oblivion, but that does not necessarily bring balance and make perfect/good/fun lists and games.

I will argue that adjustments to point-costs cannot solve everything and not bring perfect balance: The problem is list-building with a point-limit, which basically turns the game into a discrete optimization problem i.e. the KnapSack problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knapsack_problem).

(Note this is in NOWAY meant as a negative post about 2'nd edition. I have pre-ordered 1 Core-Set and 2 of each of the 3 Conversion kits and I am SO psyked for this game and cannot wait until 13'th Spetember. Actually, the 2 hour unboxing yesterday was to me more intertaining and had be glue to the screen more that "The Last Jedi", I have have already watched it a second time).

I'm pretty sure that the ability to remove certain key slots from ships to compensate for a point decrease is all that will be necessary. Like, if the TIEbomber goes down to 14 points, but cannot equip any modification or missile upgrades, then it's not going to be anywhere near as intimidating. The app also presents the opportunity to limit specific upgrade cards from a ship. Like no VI on any ships of PS 7 or above, as a 1.0 example. Or no engine upgrade on high PS ships. It can give you way more finesse about what to do with the limitations of point adjustments.

FFG really missed an opportunity though - going from 100 to 200 points was great, but if they'd taken it further - to 1000 or 2000, they could have really pinned down every ship without worrying too much over adjusting upgrades.

And yeah, that unboxing was more intriguing - and had more unforeseen developments - than the 300+ million dollar blockbuster movie of the year...

Point 2). You can make limitations in app that fielding certain combinations of ships and upgrades significantly increases their cost. Ffg talked about this.

On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 2:32 PM, AlexW said:

Important point: Not only does the app allow for flexible point changes to ships, it allows for variable costs of upgrades for different ships as I understand it, which is key for a ship like Dengar, as well as changes to upgrade slots. 

I think there will still be problems and broken combos, but they have a variety of ways to fix it that don’t just involve just changing one card for everyone, which sometimes ends up breaking it the other way.

Exactly. Talking in 1.0 terms, Expertise mattered so much more on PWTs with amazing dials (Dengar) because they were never stressed and always had a shot, but cost the same to equip as they did on a Black Squadron Scout. Now, they can cost proportionately more on said ship.

The specific argument of strikers - remember that strikers have apparently gained cross-section canon bomb slots, so they now have more options to spend their 40-points-a-ship in a 5-ship swarm.

Equally, if the elite Black Squadron Scout (presumably Initiative 2 or 3) is available as a 5-ship swarm (albeit with less spare point per ship) then that's an option too. I do like a swarm of 5 TIE/sk generics, but I'm not going to die in a ditch over which TIE/sk generic.

Let's call the goal 'dynamic equilibrium' rather than 'perfect balance' and I think we'll be OK

37 minutes ago, Handler said:

Let's call the goal 'dynamic equilibrium' rather than 'perfect balance' and I think we'll be OK

This is an interesting take on it as well.

Do you think they'll allow certain metas to form and run for awhile instead of attempting to balance everything completely? I think it's inevitable that people will still flock to certain types of lists (though hopefully not identical pilot layouts). And now, instead of having to issue FAQs and Errata, they can just point adjust and cycle through the ship lists? Would people get burned out on that or would it keep it interesting?