There are too many I5’s - the devs need to mix it up more. I hope there are none in wave four to six

2 minutes ago, freakyg3 said:

There are too many I5’s - the devs need to mix it up more. I hope there are none in wave four to six

But then how will FFG achieve ace power creep?

13 minutes ago, prauxim said:

But then how will FFG achieve ace power creep?

Notice, they didn't say too many I6s...

there are an unusual number of I5s ive noticed. Feels like a lot of the middle range PS from 1.0 got I5 for some reason instead of I4.

every ship should have full range pilot skill from 1 to 5, with unique pilots the only over 4. And lots of discounted point prices for low skill to non unique pilots, even more if their ship has not any special abilities...

Since now they are quite doing good.

Fair enough. I do expect Jar Jar will just do his turn backwards and somehow dominate the meta for 2-3 waves.

I don't think the problem is the number of I5s as much as it is that you simply lose too much by flying pilots, especially named pilots, below that level.

Some of them are a little too cheap, but mostly I just think it's players prefering to play with high initiative repositioning. Running five low initiative ships is simply more work than three I5s.

It's curious though, seeing some people complain about an overabundance of I5s, while others are saying aces are unplayable right now because I1-2 generics such as Scimitars and Gunrunners are too cheap.

4 minutes ago, Okapi said:

Some of them are a little too cheap, but mostly I just think it's players prefering to play with high initiative repositioning. Running five low initiative ships is simply more work than three I5s.

It's curious though, seeing some people complain about an overabundance of I5s, while others are saying aces are unplayable right now because I1-2 generics such as Scimitars and Gunrunners are too cheap.

it the same reason for some cry about Rebel Alliance, and here in Rome, IT, I actually have never loss with it, using a big ship moreover... It's all in the personal experience of the game - non enough to make a smooth analysis of the balance.

44 minutes ago, freakyg3 said:

There are too many I5’s - the devs need to mix it up more. I hope there are none in wave four to six

Low pilot skill pilots be like;

Well, if an I3 has a good enough ability, such as Palob or 4-Lom, then they will disregard the I5+ rule and become a very notable exception (and for that matter, a very efficient or annoying I! such as a Delta or an Academy can also become exceptions). Biggs, Jonus (yes, he's I4, but bear with me for argument sake), and Sabine also feel very much in the same boat. Perhaps Wampa is the ultimate example of a unique hitting above his initiative class. I feel like there are a lot more I3 and I4 uniques waiting to break free, but are hindered by either cost or not getting that special upgrade quite yet. For me, fun non-I5+ uniques that I haven't seen too much of have been:

• Garven and Esege, for some dank action economy
• Kestal for that anti-ace ability inside a Jonus formation
• Major Rhymer for having a 3 dice gun (with Barrage, focus assumed) that will always play with your green dice (because the main cost of Saturation Salvo, that being a charge spent, is hilariously negated by the excess of barrage charges)
• Countdown, for old time's sake. Same goes for Sabaac.
• Vessery, but tbf, his cost and Rex's are swapped for what they should be. Why pay extra for the lower initiative for extra mods* than for an abusive ability that synergizes with high-I juke?
• Kad Solus, for perhaps being the most efficient (yet most fragile) bearer of Elusive. The poor IG wannabe!
• Frost, for being a discount Boba (albeit with a discount return)
• Autopilot drone as a 12pt time bomb for the lols (no falcon attached)

1 hour ago, Okapi said:

Some of them are a little too cheap, but mostly I just think it's players prefering to play with high initiative repositioning. Running five low initiative ships is simply more work than three I5s.

It's curious though, seeing some people complain about an overabundance of I5s, while others are saying aces are unplayable right now because I1-2 generics such as Scimitars and Gunrunners are too cheap.

It's more about the way the easy accessibility of high PS ships makes running PS4 and below a great way to get shot off the board before you fire.

The Bombers and Gunrunners are both extremely cheap for what they do (having received considerable point discounts and upgrade buffs relative to 1.0) and can make up in point efficiency and ship count what they lack in PS. PS3-4 named pilots generally pay a hefty enough premium that they get shot off the board by higher PS lists but can't leverage the PS advantage enough against efficiency lists.

Mobile platforms with good firepower like the X-Wing or Interceptor can manage okay but ships like the Y-Wing or X1 get the shaft.

Price points for PS5 and 6 probably need to go up a bit.

They shoulda made it i1-5 instead of i1-6. Like who TF just ends their counting at 6? Do I have six fingers? six toes? six noses? WDFwhat do you want from me, half of base-dodecimal?

Okay, maybe i should get some fresh air.

Surely (I don't play 2.0) the lack of tiered costings for upgrades leads them to be more efficient on higher initiative pilots, just like 1.0.

If efficiency in points is a key part of list building, then expect things to still be skewed towards higher initiative pilots, or minimally upgraded hordes.

I'll leave before I get grumpy about 2.0 again...

Oh, that reminds me, if this is an issue perhaps it could be helped by the idea of pricing some upgrades by initiative.

I always thought that would be the real benefit of the app, albeit producing a paperwork nightmare for the Luddites, like me. KISS seems to be dominating tabletop gaming rules these days though (which isn't a bad thing, generally).

10 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

They shoulda made it i1-5 instead of i1-6. Like who TF just ends their counting at 6? Do I have six fingers? six toes? six noses? WDFwhat do you want from me, half of base-dodecimal?

Okay, maybe i should get some fresh air.

Drop everything down an initive except 1's, and maybe some 2's could become 3's if there is already a 1 but not a generic 3.

However, it's set now so hopefully point cost can be adjusted to compensate.

It could be further dumbed down to ini 1-2-3, where 1 get no abilities, 2 get the most interesting ones and 3 get circumstancial ones.

Can't wait for 3.0

I just don't understand the need for I 5 and 6 for everything. I tend to go with more ships on the table and that does me very well.

1 hour ago, heychadwick said:

I just don't understand the need for I 5 and 6 for everything. I tend to go with more ships on the table and that does me very well.

Its a combination of everyone wanting the crutch of having complete board knowledge before they activate, and the fact that many of the I5s are really, really good (Whisper, Redline, Boba, Luke, etc.).

They probably just need to put a higher price premium on the I5 level. I6 is costly and rare , but (fair point) there are quite a few I5 pilots out there. I don't mind that, but I do mind it when someone has a full squad of I5 pilots.

1 hour ago, BDrafty said:

They probably just need to put a higher price premium on the I5 level. I6 is costly and rare , but (fair point) there are quite a few I5 pilots out there. I don't mind that, but I do mind it when someone has a full squad of I5 pilots.

That's an interesting idea, seeing gnhow Luke gunner is treated, easy mode upgrades get big price penalties, perhaps that could happen to the pilot's too.

But would tournaments without named pilots be as fun?

I like seeing Wedge and Luke on the board, aswell as Vader, Boba and Han.

Maybe a little point increase.

The problem(s) have mostly been mentioned:

• A number of I5 pilots are undercosted or have some abusive combo that is undercosted. (Redline, Whisper, Luke, Boba, etc.)
• Upgrades will be proportionally more effective on more expensive ships. Especially those that depend on board knowledge. (Advanced Sensors, Sup Reflexes, Afterburners, etc.)
• I would add to those two that many of the generic options are not priced competitively at the moment.

I'd love to see more upgrades get tiered pricing based on either ship cost or initiative but I'm not sure that is going to happen. Instead, we just need to hope that FFG increases the cost on the dominant I5's and lowers the cost on many generics ( NOT bombers or tugs) and eventually the I5 logjam loosens up.

There aren't actually more i5s, they're just over-represented in what people are playing. Pilot counts by initiative:

1 - 26

2 - 43

3 - 57

4- 67

5 - 29

6 - 8

1 hour ago, Jo Jo said:

Its a combination of everyone wanting the crutch of having complete board knowledge before they activate, and the fact that many of the I5s are really, really good (Whisper, Redline, Boba, Luke, etc.).

I think the second part of this nails it more than the 1st tbh. Or the 1st part is a response to the fact of the second part.....

Um.

So. I'm not massively bothered by I value. I like ace types, but that starts at 4 for me. I'm more than happy to include lower I values in support and I'm not fussed about bidding past 196. I rather enjoy the challenge of moving 2nd and so I'll try to plan an equal benefit from shooting 1st.

BUT, a lot of the pilots I like happen to be I5. I imagine that's a widespread thing. So then, seeing the field, other people might well be thinking they need I5 too. And a bid. And thus the catwalk folks start strutting their 'meta' up and down on I5 at sub190...

I rather liked PS8 and kinda miss it. Better than good but not godlike... Think we could have dealt with In7 for the rareified few and bumped say 20% of the 5s to 6. But that's just off the top of my head.