13 minutes ago, Managarmr said:

Citation needed for "70%".

This.

Increasing 70% over the board very probably leads to an uninteresting 2-3-ship-squadron meta. I actually like that we can have mini-swarms and swarms. Increasing all pilot's cost skews towards squads containg very few aces and/or comboships - we are back at pure Ace/Combowing.

Well, the citation is me stating my opinion right there?

And I'd be increasing the costs of all the non-base pilots precisely to avoid enforcing a 2-3 ship meta and making generics more attractive vs the named pilots.

2 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

or how tractor beam tokens worked.

Interestingly changing how a token works, after testing hopefully, is merely editing a PDF now...

3 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Interestingly changing how a token works, after testing hopefully, is merely editing a PDF now...

True, though there are all the rulebooks and rules references in hand that would technically be "incorrect information." It's easier to fix than ship or upgrade cards, sure, but I think it'll still go against FFG's general design philosophy.

And I still feel like reworking the rules on Tractor Beams (an effect that's been around since the past 2.5 years of 1.0) this early into FFG's "GREAT NEW 2.0! NOW WITH MORE BALANCE!" would just go to show that, as far as well designed and well balanced ... well 2.0 is just "same s---, different day." Which pulls back the curtain perhaps a bit too much on the Great and Powerful Oz.

Better to just pretend that tractor effects are totally fine and totally not NPE and just price the Gunrunner into binder-oblivion to sit next to Luke-Gunner.

11 minutes ago, SOTL said:

Well, the citation is me stating my opinion right there?

And I'd be increasing the costs of all the non-base pilots precisely to avoid enforcing a 2-3 ship meta and making generics more attractive vs the named pilots.

But what is the basis of your opinion? How have you reached the conclusion that 70% of pilots costs can be raised? And can that methodology be repeated by others? I understand if it’s just a personal opinion, but if there is a more concrete basis for this opinion, it would make the pill you are selling easier to swallow.

1 minute ago, SabineKey said:

But what is the basis of your opinion? How have you reached the conclusion that 70% of pilots costs can be raised? And can that methodology be repeated by others? I understand if it’s just a personal opinion, but if there is a more concrete basis for this opinion, it would make the pill you are selling easier to swallow.

Between 1.0 and 2.0 the cost difference between a base generic in a ship and the top ace in that ship was roughly halved. I would widen that back out, maybe not quite as far as it was in 1.0 but more than it is now.

The on top of that general approach, which would touch pretty much everybody but the base generic in each ship, you would then pass over and tackle the standout problem pilots.

So, in response to some comments, you actually do want to cost something like the Gunrunner to where it's unplayable, or at least unplayable in a general sense. It's a counter to other elements of the game, breaks core rules and removes a lot of player agency.

As a counter to keeping specific pieces in check, this is perfectly acceptable, but as of right now, that is 100% not what it's being used for. It's costed so well that it can be freely included in any list and just the cost - stats ratio sans the ability is so good that even if you tractor nothing, you're still on curve, so it's just a jouster that also happens to hard counter certain playstyles.

This type of piece is massively problematic from a game design standpoint because the normal process of list uilding for scum just naturally answers certain archetypes with no real effort making them almost unplayable by accident.

Control should be an answer to something specific and, to keep it that way, should always pay a tax to avoid it being the default answer to a situation in order to avoid making your 2 player game a 1 player game.

18 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

So, in response to some comments, you actually do want to cost something like the Gunrunner to where it's unplayable, or at least unplayable in a general sense. It's a counter to other elements of the game, breaks core rules and removes a lot of player agency.

As a counter to keeping specific pieces in check, this is perfectly acceptable, but as of right now, that is 100% not what it's being used for. It's costed so well that it can be freely included in any list and just the cost - stats ratio sans the ability is so good that even if you tractor nothing, you're still on curve, so it's just a jouster that also happens to hard counter certain playstyles.

This type of piece is massively problematic from a game design standpoint because the normal process of list uilding for scum just naturally answers certain archetypes with no real effort making them almost unplayable by accident.

Control should be an answer to something specific and, to keep it that way, should always pay a tax to avoid it being the default answer to a situation in order to avoid making your 2 player game a 1 player game.

Didn't you just describe what Ace lists were doing in 1.0 against everything other than other Ace lists?

It IS a counter to something specific: High iniative knife fighting aces, who happen to be very competitively priced right now (and eternally popular due to I5-6 and repositioning). It is almost a liablity against slowrolling ordnance carriers and large ships. Up its cost slightly and make Han, Chiraneau, Asajj and Kanan competitive again, and I'm sure it'll see less use.

23 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

So, in response to some comments, want to cost somethingyou actually do like the Gunrunner to where it's unplayable, or at least unplayable in a general sense. It's a counter to other elements of the game, breaks core rules and removes a lot of player agency .

As a counter to keeping specific pieces in check, this is perfectly acceptable, but as of right now, that is 100% not what it's being used for. It's costed so well that it can be freely included in any list and just the cost - stats ratio sans the ability is so good that even if you tractor nothing, you're still on curve, so it's just a jouster that also happens to hard counter certain playstyles.

This type of piece is massively problematic from a game design standpoint because the normal process of list uilding for scum just naturally answers certain archetypes with no real effort making them almost unplayable by accident.

Control should be an answer to something specific and, to keep it that way, should always pay a tax to avoid it being the default answer to a situation in order to avoid making your 2 player game a 1 player game.

I completely agree. These reasons are why I and others believe a 6-10 points increase would be justified for this ship (I1 Jakku Gunrunner) then if FFG wanted they could also consider the other pilots on the chassis but right now the problem is a 28 point ship who is to cost and action efficent that is bordering on NPE.

While this ship surely isn't the only ship that WILL see a points adjustment in the very near future (possible Phantoms, Bombers, etc.) it should be the one looked at and scrutized the most.

6 minutes ago, SOTL said:

Between 1.0 and 2.0 the cost difference between a base generic in a ship and the top ace in that ship was roughly halved. I would widen that back out, maybe not quite as far as it was in 1.0 but more than it is now.

The on top of that general approach, which would touch pretty much everybody but the base generic in each ship, you would then pass over and tackle the standout problem pilots.

Okay. You’ve described what you would do, but not your reasoning why this works or is necessary.

To put things in context, your assertion that 70% of Pilots could use a price hike goes against some of my own obersvations and experiences. Therefore to accept what you are saying, I need to understand how you got to this conclusion. What have you tested? What's your methodology?

Oh go away.

16 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Didn't you just describe what Ace lists were doing in 1.0 against everything other than other Ace lists?

Yes, and it was cancerous and undesirable in 1.0 just like it is now.

1 minute ago, SOTL said:

Oh go away.

*sigh* I was afraid you’d go this route. I would like to understand your point of view, but I can’t if you don’t share how you got there. If you don’t want to go into that, that’s fine. But how do you expect people to go along with your suggestion if you aren’t willing to defend it?

29 minutes ago, SOTL said:

Between 1.0 and 2.0 the cost difference between a base generic in a ship and the top ace in that ship was roughly halved. I would widen that back out, maybe not quite as far as it was in 1.0 but more than it is now.

Absolutely.

This game is still 100% about moving after your opponents and repositioning. 2.0 has actually made that more true than less true, I think, with eliminating things like VI, narrowing the PS range, and the overall cost difference between Generic and Top Ace shrinking as you noted.

You have my opinion and why it's my opinion. I'm sorry that you were looking for a peer-approved dossier of irrefutable statistics on the FFG forums and I couldn't supply it.

Now move along and hassle the next guy to offer their opinion without citing all references in the proper Oxford style.

1 minute ago, MasterShake2 said:

Yes, and it was cancerous and undesirable in 1.0 just like it is now.

Yet wouldn't pricing a firm counter to those outside of what would be considered acceptable to justify its placement in a list just usher the very same cancer back in? There are counters to Gun Runners (large bases) and currently they are in the position a steep price hike to the Gun Runner would place it. Reduce the cost on allot of those, slightly increase the cost on the tug and it should get closer to being balanced. Price the tug to the point its inclusion is not viable and we are back to Ace wing.

1 minute ago, SOTL said:

You have my opinion and why it's my opinion. I'm sorry that you were looking for a peer-approved dossier of irrefutable statistics on the FFG forums and I couldn't supply it.

Now move along and hassle the next guy to offer their opinion without citing all references in the proper Oxford style.

I wasn’t asking for a peer-approved paper. I was asking for more information. A simple look into your thought process.

Just to put it on context @SOTL : in another thread you stated that you can see a decrease of about 10% on large based turret ships.

I don't want an Oxford style argumentation or for you to justify, just insight on your opinion/feeling about how this point change mixes with the ~70% pilots cost increase.

Do these stack? So decrease cost of e.g. Lancer by 10%, then smooth out the curve on high init pilots of that chassis?

13 minutes ago, flooze said:

Just to put it on context @SOTL : in another thread you stated that you can see a decrease of about 10% on large based turret ships.

I don't want an Oxford style argumentation or for you to justify, just insight on your opinion/feeling about how this point change mixes with the ~70% pilots cost increase.

Do these stack? So decrease cost of e.g. Lancer by 10%, then smooth out the curve on high init pilots of that chassis?

Yeah, there's balance fix that would do stuff like the Lancer, then a pass across all the ships/pilots to adjust the curve.

Part one makes each *ship* closer in level and part two makes each *pilot* more level within their respective ship.

5 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

Insert Luke GIF saying "amazing, everything you just said is false"

When we needed to balance anything in the past, we had to rewrite them.

Cloak got rewritten

Biggs got rewritten

Jumpmasters got a few rewrites

It's how this works. Even the designers said that point changes have a limited range of ability to change things.

We.... You didn t do anything.

If they would be re- writing the skills and the card we are right back where we stopped with the end off 1.0. Errata upon errata.... Upon errata.

I d say leave things as they are. It isn t overpowered. It is a handy tool. AS you may have seen in events, a whole lot off other fleets won.

6 minutes ago, Honest globalist said:

We.... You didn t do anything.

If they would be re- writing the skills and the card we are right back where we stopped with the end off 1.0. Errata upon errata.... Upon errata.

I d say leave things as they are. It isn t overpowered. It is a handy tool. AS you may have seen in events, a whole lot off other fleets won.

But those other fleets are generally using elements that are also undercosted, so....

1 minute ago, MasterShake2 said:

But those other fleets are generally using elements that are also undercosted, so....

...... All is balanced then.

6 minutes ago, Honest globalist said:

...... All is balanced then.

*Best Han Solo impression* That's not how balance works!

To be less quippy, we're not seeing enough variety from a competitive standpoint to call the current iteration of 2.0 and better than 1.0. Rebels are almost out entirely outside of the handful of good offerings, Empire is heavily leaning on Punishers and Bombers with only a few other competitive pilots/ships and Scum is very much ace(s) + quad or swarm + quad. In other words, wildly imbalanced would not be inaccurate.

Extended is bad mmmkay? Roll on Hyperspace.

1 hour ago, MasterShake2 said:

To be less quippy, we're not seeing enough variety from a competitive standpoint to call the current iteration of 2.0 and better than 1.0. Rebels are almost out entirely outside of the handful of good offerings, Empire is heavily leaning on Punishers and Bombers with only a few other competitive pilots/ships and Scum is very much ace(s) + quad or swarm + quad. In other words, wildly imbalanced would not be inaccurate.

Unfortunately, you're right.

2.0 is fantastically improved in terms of streamlined rules and mechanics, and is just ton of fun to play when you take some fun ships for a ride.

Sadly, once the really hyper-competitive (undercosted) ships and lists were being discovered, it is apparent that the true S-tier of 2.0 is pretty tiny, and the hyper-competitive meta is not much better than it was in 1.0..

When I'm looking at 4-Lom/Palob/Kavil/Quad and compare it to let's say Miranda/Nym, I'm really not sure which one is less obnoxious to play against..

EDIT: Just to add, I do believe that 99% of the game balance problems can be currently solved by bold points increases (and decreases) where needed.