I guess this can be seen as spoiler material for rebel players. Turn back now, if consider mission balance info a spoiler.

I read a lot about how missions seem to be heavily slanted toward one side or another in Jabba Realm campaign. My group has been experiencing this (though not as one sided as claimed to be) - yet, the I won as Imperial every story mission favoring my side, and lost every mission favoring the rebels.

Then it hit me. What if this imbalance was made on purpose by the game designers? What if the missions are heavily skewed to ensure balanced amounts of wins by each side *overall*? That is, instead of balancing individual missions, which is an extremely complex task, the designers have balanced the campaign on a larger scale?

Is this a good thing? Guaranteed campaign balance at the expense of mission balance? is there a point in playing the game if mission outcome is more or less decided in advance? If my hunch is correct, is it an ingenious solution to an impossible problem, or just lazy game design?

Are we playing the game or are we being played by the game?

I think that the banching mission options based on who wins or loses is intended both to make the game narrative match the missions as well as providing a small benefit to the losing side.

1 hour ago, Stompburger said:

I think that the banching mission options based on who wins or loses is intended both to make the game narrative match the missions as well as providing a small benefit to the losing side.

True is earlier campaigns, but in JR the rebels get to choose the next story mission, regardless of outcome.

1 hour ago, Mr Licorice said:

True is earlier campaigns, but in JR the rebels get to choose the next story mission, regardless of outcome.

At first they do, but not later. Are you just talking about the first few missions?

6 hours ago, Stompburger said:

At first they do, but not later. Are you just talking about the first few missions?

My experience with Jabba.

Both Hostile negociations and Overcharged seems very hard for the Rebel. i thought at least one of them should be "Rebel favorite", but which one? both seems almost impossibile with the few skill/weapon at the point of campaign.

Overcharged is hard for the rebels, but Hostile Negotiations less so. Imperials/mercenaries being locked in with the rebels does not usually end well.

11 hours ago, Stompburger said:

At first they do, but not later. Are you just talking about the first few missions?

shh... spoilers!

I mean, it depends on the campaign.

I think it's possible they could've tried to do this in the core campaign. For instance, A New Threat skews Imperial after an Imperial defeat on the previous, and vice versa for Under Siege.

But with stuff like HotE and Jabba's Realm not necessarily even following the "Win X Mission, play Y Mission" formula instead opting for more choice options, I don't really see how that's a viable theory any longer.

With very few exceptions, I've found every mission I've played to be winnable by either side. I think most missions that heavily favor one side or the other in the statistics tend to have a fairly obvious dominant strategy that the other side might just not notice on an initial playthrough. It's kind of difficult to explain without going into more detail, so let me talk about Hostile Negotiations for a bit:

16 hours ago, Mr Licorice said:

Then it hit me. What if this imbalance was made on purpose by the game designers? What if the missions are heavily skewed to ensure balanced amounts of wins by each side *overall*? That is, instead of balancing individual missions, which is an extremely complex task, the designers have balanced the campaign on a larger scale?

It is quite possible. I find "balanced mission" to be a highly difficult concept to achieve. What is a balanced mission? A mission that can be equally won by both sides? Well what if the rebel players have more experience than the imperial player? Should we say that a balanced mission is a mission that two equally experienced sides can equally win? But then, how will an experienced rebel player groups using some of the worst heroes (Biv and Saska comes to mind) perform against an experienced imperial player using one of the best imperial class deck available? Can we still talk about a balanced mission? And what if the rebel players are playing the mission for a second time? With the elements of surprise gone, it must give the rebel players an edge over the imperial player ...

16 hours ago, Mr Licorice said:

Is this a good thing? Guaranteed campaign balance at the expense of mission balance? is there a point in playing the game if mission outcome is more or less decided in advance? If my hunch is correct, is it an ingenious solution to an impossible problem, or just lazy game design?

I don't think it is lazy game design but a consequence of an expanding game. With more than 20 heroes, many imperial class decks, tones of Agenda cards and so many weapons and mods it seems like an impossible task to take into account each and every possible combinations that could break a mission.

I have no doubt that FFG is putting efforts into balancing missions but with the knowledge that someone might come up with a crazy combo that will often turn the tide to one side, or that an experienced imperial player will roll over new rebel players or that rebel players playing the same mission a second time will gain a significant advantage, etc.

38 minutes ago, IanSolo_FFG said:

I don't think it is lazy game design but a consequence of an expanding game. With more than 20 heroes, many imperial class decks, tones of Agenda cards and so many weapons and mods it seems like an impossible task to take into account each and every possible combinations that could break a mission.

I have no doubt that FFG is putting efforts into balancing missions but with the knowledge that someone might come up with a crazy combo that will often turn the tide to one side, or that an experienced imperial player will roll over new rebel players or that rebel players playing the same mission a second time will gain a significant advantage, etc.

This. A truly balanced mission (where both sides have exactly a 50/50 chance of winning) is impossible to achieve at this point, and it was close to impossible as soon as the first expansion dropped, IMO. I have plenty of fun playing the game, even when I know the odds are stacked against me, and that's all I think FFG should focus on. In the unlikely event that a truly perfectly balanced mission were somehow constructed, people would hate it and say it was a total cr*p shoot.

I think the idea that missions are specifically skewed for balance is also kind of self defeating.

If the game is so unpredictable in its combinations (and it totally is, in the best way) how could you possibly anticipate how and why a mission would be skewed in the first place (without making it blatantly so)?

Maybe we should just assume FFG knows what they're doing.

Also, @labcoat_samurai , that's pretty ruthless. I thought about doing that when I played the mission, too, but I ended up specifically pointing out to the Rebels that tokens weren't "safe" in those zones.

Still won, though. Getting lots of high speed and mobility units (like the dewback rider) helped a ton.

I imagine when they're testing the new expansions they just stick to that particular expansion and the core. So, if you're playing with the heros/class deck from the expansion in question then I guess the missions are as balanced as can be?

Otherwise, as has already be stated, there are too many variables going on which is great. ?

48 minutes ago, AphraFanBoy said:

I imagine when they're testing the new expansions they just stick to that particular expansion and the core.

I can't say how FFG does things, but if I were testing, I would have a mixture of playtesters - some have just the core box, some have everything, and anything in-between.

The introductory missions of full-length campaign come closest to being able to be tested sufficiently for balance because heroes have just their starters. After that some rebel groups will be able to "break" a mission here and there, but if the "broken" missions do not appear in the same campaign for the same heroes, it has to be acceptable collateral damage. There are just so many heroes, abilities, and combinations of abilities that some things are just bound to be easier for some combinations of them.

You should take a look at this. It's the information you're looking for straight from the designer's mouths.

8 hours ago, Tvboy said:

You should take a look at this. It's the information you're looking for straight from the designer's mouths.

I like the phrase they used: "avoiding negative experience".

I think that's probably the most important thing in campaign. It's almost impossible to say for sure if a mission is balanced or not, even if you played it. But as long as both sides had fun and could reasonably have had a shot at winning, I think the good experience is the ultimate goal.