With 2.0, FFG will have the ability to tweak the power of basically any card in the game, without compromising the information on our cards. Should an effect, a pilot or a ship be too much or too little, they could change the costs easily.

Aside from typos, unclear wordings, or mistakes (actual errors that the errata is for), there are no strong incentives to modify the text of a card. In fact, one could argue that if you CAN keep the game healthy without changing texts, you should be doing so. That way you can keep your cards relevant for the longest time.

However, I put it to you, this is the wrong way to think about design, and it will lead to similar problems as the tools of 1.0 did.

In some cases, there are effects that are just too powerful or too weak to be balanced by point values alone. Some argue Luke Gunner is one such card. Old Palp had a similar issue according to some. There is simply no indication that such effects will no longer plague the game after 2.0, especially with the ludicrous release schedule FFG alludes to.

Disregarding these problems, and trying to fix them with point values will either result in cards with minimal costs that are still not played, or cards with exorbitant costs that will not be played either.

What I am trying to get across, is that both solutions need to be used simultaneously to achieve a healthy game state. The old X7 was treated right, making the Evade an action, therefore depending on player skill to work, instead of ignoring counterplay options. The decision to change that card's text is the right one, even if we account for the possibility of changing the cost. The mechanic was unfair, and it was made fair, while retaining the cool parts. Similarly, in some cases, raising or decreasing costs is the right way to go, especially when a card does everything the card needs to do, but it is still a sub-par option compared to others.

So, here's hoping that FFG realizes this and will not lock the mechanics of every card in, however useless or powerful they might be, and will use every tool available to them to make the game right.

Can we wait a little, before we prejudge the new philosophy the development team believes in. We literally haven’t even had an official release and already we’re getting these posts.

They've said before they're willing to use errata as a last resort

One does not preclude the other

Though the specific case of gunner luke is utterly beyond saving unless they release an entirely new card

I’m leaving any previous opinions aside for now.

Your claim is: point adjustments for balancing instead of errata is not a good idea.

Your reasons are:

1) Some effects are too strong/weak for point adjustments to be sufficient.

That‘s it, that‘s the only reason you give.

Why? You just assert this without any reasoning. Why is an adjustment of points not good enough? And not enough for whar exactly? I think you are mixing two things here: balancing the game and making as many cards as possible as well balanced as possible. Errata is better for the second, but points is easier and better for the first because more fine tuning can happen and because it‘s faster and easier to understand and use.

6 minutes ago, Cgriffith said:

Can we wait a little, before we prejudge the new philosophy the development team believes in. We literally haven’t even had an official release and already we’re getting these posts.

Okay. Now go back, and read my post again. Nowhere in it I judge anything.

This is an answer to the people (and there are quite a few of them on this forum) who say. "Oh they will just adjust the cost". "They will drop the advanced with a point, and it will all be solved".

This is an answer to a mentality in players.

1 minute ago, ficklegreendice said:

They've said before they're willing to use errata as a last resort

One does not preclude the other

Though the specific case of gunner luke is utterly beyond saving unless they release an entirely new card

It's what I am afraid of. We've seen FFG's last resort. It ain't pretty.

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

1) Some effects are too strong/weak for point adjustments to be sufficient.

That‘s it, that‘s the only reason you give.

Yes.

Your point being?

I tell you how this works normally. I say something, I say why I think what I say, maybe I illustrate with examples. I have done that.

If you disagree, you can tell me why, present an argument in the favor of your point, and you can explain why you think what you say.

My claim is "Some effects are too strong/weak for point adjustments to be sufficient." can stand on its own. I gave a few examples of it. If you disagree, which is fine, you can tell me why.

7 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I think you are mixing two things here: balancing the game and making as many cards as possible as well balanced as possible.  Errata is better for the second, but points is easier and better for the first because more fine tuning can happen and because it‘s faster and easier to understand and use.

This doesn't make any sense.

Nowhere in my post do I mention the number of cards available to the game. I don't state that we should have as many balanced cards as possible as a goal, or even a passing notion. It is completely irrelevant how many cards are in the game, or how many of them are balanced.

Errata should be used for toxic effects that promote unhealthy gameplay, and lack counterplay options.

Points adjustments should be used for otherwise healthy effects, that are either lacklustre or too powerful.

The two different solutions are required, because there are two different problems they can solve.

If you have a toxic effect, no matter what you do with it in terms of costs, it will remain toxic. It might become unplayably expensive, but it will not have more counterplay options, or fairer effects on the game.

What you are talking about here, has nothing to do with anything I've said.

36 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

Y  our  point being? 

I was just surprised that you make such a claim with one reason, and then don‘t support that reason.

36 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

I  tell you how this works normally. I say something, I say why I think what I say, maybe I illustrate with examples. I have don  e that.

If you disagree, you can tell me why, present an ar  gument in the favor of your point, and you can explain why you think what you say. 

36 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

My  claim is "Some effects are too strong/weak for point adjustments to be sufficient." can stand on its ow  n. I gave a few examples of it. If you disagree, which is fine, you can tell me why. 

Cool, let‘s have a discussion!

36 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

T   his    doesn't make a  ny  sens e

36 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

Nowhere  in my post do I mention the number of cards available to the game. I don't state that we should have as many balanced cards as possible  as a goal, or even a passing notion. It is com  pletely irrel   eva  nt how  m  any ca  rds are in  the g  ame, or how many of them are balanced.    

[...]

I  f  you have a toxic effect, no matter what you do with it in terms of costs, it will remain toxic. It might become unplayably expensive  , but it will not have more counterplay options, or fairer effects on the game.

Yes, I know you didn‘t mention it.

My point does matter, however, because that reason is implicit in your claim. Let me explain:

If the only goal is to remove toxic effects, unhealthy gameplay and lack of counterplay then the adjustment of points can be sufficient. Increase the points to 150 and nobody will ever use it. The goal is then reached because the toxic effect is removed. It effectively bans a card from the game.

But you do not want that. One possible reason why is because this removes cards from the game. And that means you had a hidden, unknown assumption: it is better to have more cards playable than fewer. Playable is here congruent with „better balanced“. This includes of course „more counterplay options“, and that means you have just confirmed what I suspected.

36 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

Errata  should be used for toxic effects that promote unhealthy gameplay, and lack counterplay options.

Points adjustments should be used for otherwise healthy effects, that are either lacklustre or too powerful.

The two different solu  ti  ons are required, because there are two different problems they can solve.

See, now you gave some more reasoning to your point. Your argument now is:

1) There are two different problems for balancing:

a) toxic effects promote unhealthy gameplay and toxic effects lack counterplay options

b) healthy effects that are just a bit too strong or too weak

2) point 1.a should be solved by errata, point 1.b should be solved by point adjustment.

thus: Some effects are too strong/weak for point adjustments to be sufficient.

thus: using only points over errata is not a great idea.

You would now next have to further explain why some balancing problems have to be or are better solved with one or the other (points or errata).

I'd be happy to be shown anything degenerate from the old game that couldn't be solved by adding points to it. Maybe it's there, but I doubt it.

I believe you are blowing a perceived problem out of proportion. The examples you gave are both debatable and corner cases, thus for a bigger majority of the cards, points (plus slot adjustment) should be sufficient to deal with problems. There can be problems that aren’t “cleanly” solved by the built in controls, but the option of errata still exists. This should be a last resort weapon, after the built in controls have been tried.

You say this is the wrong way to think about it, but can you provide the right way? Remember, the old way was also not flawless, and using both is already covered.

1 hour ago, Cgriffith said:

We literally haven’t even had an official release and already we’re getting these posts.

To be clear, 90% of these posts are from the same 2 or 3 people who repeat their complaints ad nauseam. Don’t make the mistake of thinking the frequency of their complaints corresponds to how most of the community feels.

It's actually more convenient for us to not have constant errata and therefore game material that has to be cross-referenced with what their game-legal errata

Plus, the ultimate errata to the JM5k (upgrade slot culling) can now be trivially accomplished on the app as the ship cards no longer have printed upgrade icons

The rest is just learning how to not make stupidly busted abilities, which ffg has so far clearly shown with all the currently spoiled second edition content

Embracing limited mechanics (charge/force, arc lock, range specific, while focused/evading etcetcetc) makes it far easier to balance things

1 hour ago, Old Sarge said:

To be clear, 90% of these posts are from the same 2 or 3 people who repeat their complaints ad nauseam. Don’t make the mistake of thinking the frequency of their complaints corresponds to how most of the community feels.

I understand that, it's getting tiresome is all.

6 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

Depends  on your definition of "solving the problem". 

You can price a problem card into oblivion, but it isn't really solving the problem, it makes it go away.

I think there is a point value for everything in 1.0 that lies somewhere between degenerate and unplayable. It's not black and white. Maybe for old Palp it's 15 pts instead of 8. Maybe for the old x/7 it's +3 pts instead of -2. I dunno the numbers, but I'm sure they're there.

1 minute ago, Commander Kaine said:

I'm fine with only having errata in edge cases, I'm not fine with the "last resort" method you suggest.

For example, the 1.0 JM5K could have been easily fixed with the points reduction method alone, but at the time that was a tool that FFG decided isn't available to them. The result is over a year of repeated nerfs that did not address the problem, but decreased the viability of certain builds that would have been fine, if not for the crazy value the Jumpmaster had.

"last resort" implies that there is a reluctance to make the decision, and as I argued in the OP, I understand why. Cards are useless unless they are accurate, so FFG will try their best to make the card remain as it is, for as long as possible. Don't wait for that long. I'd rather have a healthy game, and a useless card (I will print the erratad card and slip it in the sleeve anyway) than a game that makes me feel sour, because a few devs don't want to rewrite cards, because its more convenient for them.

The right way is to decide which method is more beneficial for the health of the game, and then choosing that. As soon as possible. As opposed to the lazy way, which stretches the problem, only using the convenient method.

But you seem to be laboring under the impression that the difference between those that can be fixed by points change and those who are better off with a hard errata will be clearly seen, despite that not being the case. They will tinker with it with built in tools, not sit on their hands. Only after other options have been exhausted should more drastic measures be done. As @ficklegreendice pointed out, the final Jumpmaster nerf is built as part of the controls in place, thus making their need to use erratas less needed.

you are assuming laziness when you don’t actually have the data to prove it. FFG’s hands were tied in 1.0 because every change had to be approved by LFL. 2.0 controls bypass this problem and allow for more problems to be tinkered with to find a solution before going with the harder approach. There’s not corroboration for your lazy concern as 2.0 isn’t even officially out yet and has different circumstances than 1.0.

This is also on top of a concept I think is very important, which is letting the community try to sort out issues first. Your “do it quick, do it now” attitude allows knee jerk reactions to take hold. “Well I couldn’t beat X with Y, so X has to be nerfed” complaints are a dime a dozen and should be first seen to by players building lists. Gunboats had a nice little 15 minutes of fame and could be a challenging list to go up against, but the community figured out how to deal with it. If you move too fast to change things, you rob the community of a chance to learn and overcome, a reason to like the game for some.

So, your “right way” doesn’t actually solve all the problems, just shifts them.

22 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

It's actually more convenient for us to not have constant erratad and therefore game material that has to be cross-referenced with what their game-legal errata

Plus, the ultimate errata to the JM5k (upgrade slot culling) can also be trivially accomplished on the app as the ship cards no longer have printed upgrade icons

The rest is just learning how to not make stupidly busted abilities, which ffg has so far clearly shown with all the currently spoiled second edition content

Yeah, cross referencing schucks. Bad cards schuck more. Errata never bothered me, after the first game I learned about it.

The ultimate errata to JM5K was... not the best. The dial was still cancer, and it just greatly reduced the builds that were viable. It did accomplish the goal it set out to do, but, I'd argue that the cost was a bit too high. Player satisfaction was not optimal. Had the JM5K been published in its final 1.0 form initially, sure, that would have worked. But in the end it just felt mangled. Never played scum, and I could not be accused for having sympathy for scum players.... But it was inelegant.

The stupidly busted abilites... Sure. I can see that FFG is getting better at it.

But, once again, I'm not advocating for mass changes or anything like that. I just want people to consider that both methods have benefits and drawbacks, and focusing one just one is not necessarily virtuous.

14 minutes ago, YourHucklebrry said:

I think there is a point value for everything in 1.0 that lies somewhere between degenerate and unplayable. It's not black and white. Maybe for old Palp it's 15 pts instead of 8. Maybe for the old x/7 it's +3 pts instead of -2. I dunno the numbers, but I'm sure they're there.

So, let's talk about the X7

It helps an overpriced chassis that didn't see much competitive play, despite being quite potent statwise.

It adds an action free token, making it resistant to stress, bumps, rocks.

And you suddenly have a problem. The evade it gives, is okay, flavorful, gottagofast, etc. Increasing the price for it leads back to the original problem of the Defender, being overpriced, while not solving the issues the card gave.

IF the answer lies within increasing the cost of the card, you will still have a ship that has 6 health, 3 agi and gets a free evade every time it dials in a 3+ speed move, regardless what happens afterward. That's kinda difficult to kill, and lacks counterplay. If you have a 2 dice attack, you can forget about damaging the ship all together. No matter how many points will the ship costs, that situation will be present. 2 dice attacks can't really hurt an old X7 defender, regardless of the circumstances.

This is bad.

However, by rewriting the card, so that the extra benefit of the card can be countered by blocking, stress, and rocks, options will open up for the opponent. Instead of having an invulnerable ship that straight up shuts down anyone with an attack dice of 2, you have a ship that WHEN PLAYED WELL, does the same thing. Stress the ship or block it, and it will go down.

Is it possible that there is a magical number, that could make the X7 title work balance wise? I doubt it. Against lists with 2 dice attacks, the value of old X7 is far too great, while against lists that don't block or can't deal stress, the old X7 and the new is almost identical, so there a price increase wouldn't be warranted.

2 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

But you seem to be laboring under the impression that the difference between those that can be fixed by points change and those who are better off with a hard errata will be clearly seen, despite that not being the case. They will tinker with it with built in tools, not sit on their hands. Only after other options have been exhausted should more drastic measures be done. As @ficklegreendice pointed out, the final Jumpmaster nerf is built as part of the controls in place, thus making their need to use erratas less needed.

you are assuming laziness when you don’t actually have the data to prove it. FFG’s hands were tied in 1.0 because every change had to be approved by LFL. 2.0 controls bypass this problem and allow for more problems to be tinkered with to find a solution before going with the harder approach. There’s not corroboration for your lazy concern as 2.0 isn’t even officially out yet and has different circumstances than 1.0.

This is also on top of a concept I think is very important, which is letting the community try to sort out issues first. Your “do it quick, do it now” attitude allows knee jerk reactions to take hold. “Well I couldn’t beat X with Y, so X has to be nerfed” complaints are a dime a dozen and should be first seen to by players building lists. Gunboats had a nice little 15 minutes of fame and could be a challenging list to go up against, but the community figured out how to deal with it. If you move too fast to change things, you rob the community of a chance to learn and overcome, a reason to like the game for some.

So, your “right way” doesn’t actually solve all the problems, just shifts them.

Is there a source stating that LFL needed to check stuff (even errata), or is that just a rumor? I never seen it confirmed anywhere, people just repeat it on the forums. Please provide source. (or stop asserting it as a fact)

I addressed the JM5K argument above.

Using less drastic measures first, then using heavier tools is not a good solution because:

Why use 3 tools, if you can solve the problem just using 1?

FFG is not likely to roll back previous nerfs, like they didn't with the JM5K. This could result in overdoing stuff.


I agree with the speed thing, but I feel the track record FFG has, we should be worrying more about too slow reaction times, rather than too fast.

I also feel like this last point of yours is a bit of a false flag. I advocate getting it right for the first time, not doing it hastily. I'd be fine if there was a grace period for each release. (Like no balancing is done on a ship in the quarter it is released, all errata is saved for typos and stuff)

You're conflating the problem of the original x/7 being undercosted with most of the original 2 ATT ships being overcosted.

I think points adjusting is much better than changing the text on a card. I want my cards to do what they say, and not have to refer to a FAQ constantly. It is better for new players that way, as they do not have to look up a FAQ online to see what their cards do if they want to play a balanced game.

Adjusting just the points of a card can balance any card.

13 minutes ago, YourHucklebrry said:

You're conflating the problem of the original x/7 being undercosted with most of the original 2 ATT ships being overcosted.

Ehm... sure. Everything is relative. Most ships in the game vs 1 upgrade... I'm not sure if that's the right way to look at it, but whatever floats your boat.

I'm having trouble following your logic. This stuff all makes sense:

1) old Defender was overpriced

2) x/7 title includes a price reduction and a spiffy ability

3) spiffy ability is overpowered

OK yup. Here's where you lose me:

4) increasing the cost would return the ship to its original overpriced state

???

4 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

I'm having trouble following your logic. This stuff all makes sense:

1) old Defender was overpriced

2) x/7 title includes a price reduction and a spiffy ability

3) spiffy ability is overpowered

OK yup. Here's where you lose me:

4) increasing the cost would return the ship to its original overpriced state

???

Why was it overpowered?

Was it because the benefit it provided (free evade after 3+ speed move)

Or was it because it denied counterplay (the evade is actionless, stress and bump resistant)

If the X7 was OP because it added a free evade after a 3+ move, then increasing the costs is the right solution.

If the X7 was OP because it denied counterplay, rewording the card is the right solution.

The benefit itself, is not overbearingly powerful, especially if there are ways around it. Lacking a weakness was the problem. No matter what price you tag on it, that remains. Like Luke Gunner, it completely shuts down certain lists. If you priced it more aggressively, like Luke, it might not have been a problem, because nobody will play it.

I view that as a suboptimal solution.

I was in another thread, and this was the Next Unread Topic. I read the title and thought, "Hmm...sounds an awful lot like Commander Kaine...Do I really want to read this?" I clicked. "Sigh. Yep, Commander Kaine is at it again.

To be fair, he has a good point, and the TIE/x7 example illustrates it perfectly. But as fickle said, the developers never said errata was out the window, just a last resort. And remember, in First Edition they were bound and determined NOT to change points, except with cards that came in new expansions. I do think they'll blend both methods.

If they don't, I guess I'll look for your thread on that topic in the future.

1 minute ago, Commander Kaine said:

Ehm... sure. Everything is relative. Most ships in the game vs 1 upgrade... I'm not sure if that's the right way to look at it, but whatever floats your boat.

What? No I'm saying it's not relative, it's math. And telling me 2 ATT ships can't handle an original x/7 isn't relevant when they aren't seriously in the game at all. It's a problem they aren't in the game, but it's a different one.

A single guaranteed evade result per turn doesn't mean something doesn't have counterplay. How do you counter C3PO? Multiple guns on target, right? Same principles with the x/7, but they were undercosted to the point where they could outgun you as well. Raise the cost and they shouldn't outgun you easily, they instead have to whittle you down and maneuver well enough to avoid heavy fire, getting the most use out of their free evade by staying alive for multiple turns.

1 minute ago, Parakitor said:

I was in another thread, and this was the Next Unread Topic. I read the title and thought, "Hmm...sounds an awful lot like Commander Kaine...Do I really want to read this?" I clicked. "Sigh. Yep, Commander Kaine is at it again.

To be fair, he had a good point, and the TIE/x7 example illustrates it perfectly. But as fickle said, the developers never said errata was out the window, just a last resort. And remember, in First Edition they were bound and determined NOT to change points, except with cards that came in new expansions. I do think they'll blend both methods.

If they don't, I guess I'll look for your thread on that topic in the future.

I am actually with @Commander Kaine on this one.

But, as @ficklegreendice has previously stated, errata is not out of the question for any solution.

1 hour ago, Commander Kaine said:

Yeah, cross referencing schucks. Bad cards schuck more. Errata never bothered me, after the first game I learned about it.

The ultimate errata to JM5K was... not the best. The dial was still cancer, and it just greatly reduced the builds that were viable. It did accomplish the goal it set out to do, but, I'd argue that the cost was a bit too high. Player satisfaction was not optimal. Had the JM5K been published in its final 1.0 form initially, sure, that would have worked. But in the end it just felt mangled. Never played scum, and I could not be accused for having sympathy for scum players.... But it was inelegant.

The stupidly busted abilites... Sure. I can see that FFG is getting better at it.

But, once again, I'm not advocating for mass changes or anything like that. I just want people to consider that both methods have benefits and drawbacks, and focusing one just one is not necessarily virtuous.

So, let's talk about the X7

It helps an overpriced chassis that didn't see much competitive play, despite being quite potent statwise.

It adds an action free token, making it resistant to stress, bumps, rocks.

And you suddenly have a problem. The evade it gives, is okay, flavorful, gottagofast, etc. Increasing the price for it leads back to the original problem of the Defender, being overpriced, while not solving the issues the card gave.

IF the answer lies within increasing the cost of the card, you will still have a ship that has 6 health, 3 agi and gets a free evade every time it dials in a 3+ speed move, regardless what happens afterward. That's kinda difficult to kill, and lacks counterplay. If you have a 2 dice attack, you can forget about damaging the ship all together. No matter how many points will the ship costs, that situation will be present. 2 dice attacks can't really hurt an old X7 defender, regardless of the circumstances.

This is bad.

However, by rewriting the card, so that the extra benefit of the card can be countered by blocking, stress, and rocks, options will open up for the opponent. Instead of having an invulnerable ship that straight up shuts down anyone with an attack dice of 2, you have a ship that WHEN PLAYED WELL, does the same thing. Stress the ship or block it, and it will go down.

Is it possible that there is a magical number, that could make the X7 title work balance wise? I doubt it. Against lists with 2 dice attacks, the value of old X7 is far too great, while against lists that don't block or can't deal stress, the old X7 and the new is almost identical, so there a price increase wouldn't be warranted.

Is there a source stating that LFL needed to check stuff (even errata), or is that just a rumor? I never seen it confirmed anywhere, people just repeat it on the forums. Please provide source. (or stop asserting it as a fact)

I addressed the JM5K argument above.

Using less drastic measures first, then using heavier tools is not a good solution because:

Why use 3 tools, if you can solve the problem just using 1?

FFG is not likely to roll back previous nerfs, like they didn't with the JM5K. This could result in overdoing stuff.


I agree with the speed thing, but I feel the track record FFG has, we should be worrying more about too slow reaction times, rather than too fast.

I also feel like this last point of yours is a bit of a false flag. I advocate getting it right for the first time, not doing it hastily. I'd be fine if there was a grace period for each release. (Like no balancing is done on a ship in the quarter it is released, all errata is saved for typos and stuff)

There was a panel at the Nova Open last year where it was mentioned. I'm having a hard time relocating it, so maybe you will have better luck.

Your Jumpmaster argument is actually grounds for why I think errata should be a method of last resort. It's inelegant, it angers people, and it can only do so much. And you are absolutely right about it being unlikely for FFG to roll back an errata nerf, hence why the new method of looking to points first is preferable.

You ask why use 3 tools when 1 will do, but how do you know the other tools won't work? Why use a tool that is cumbersome and can anger people when there is another one that could work for less upset? By your reasoning, dropping nukes should be the first thing tried to resolve a problem. So, instead of going to an extreme method, doesn't make more sense to try out more simplier methods first that have a chance of working?

While you claim you want it right the first time, that's actually going to further slow down the process. With the current system, there is room for small tweaks to see if it was enough.

I am interested to hear if these wants are based on actual experience. Have you taken direct part in balancing a game?

2 hours ago, Commander Kaine said:

Using  less drastic measures first, then using heavier tools is not a good solution because: 

Why use 3 tools, if you can solve the problem jus  t using 1?   

You are still using 3 tools at that point, just all at once and one of the key tenants of interation and by extension scientific experimentation: never change more that one variable at a time.