1 minute ago, Larky Bobble said:

So you are ignoring the "multitude of other reasons" to justify your own statement.

Being able to clearly explain a point of view does not require agreeing with that point of view, but understanding such an explanation requires reading or listening fully what is said/written and being able to comprehend sentence structure. As in Icelom's:

51 minutes ago, Icelom said:

I5, and i6 are often just a crutch to compensate for poor flying.

and my:

11 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Playing higher Initiative pilots is easier ( thus perceived by many as a crutch) than playing the lower initiative ones

You can easily add that most Iconic characters happen to be higher init, which also lends to more people wanting to fly them. My observation on the real world cash investment a high init list requires over a low init list is also one, as is their higher probability of winning if both players are equal in skill and play well. You've done yourself no favors jumping to the conclusion you have...

2 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Being able to clearly explain a point of view does not require agreeing with that point of view, but understanding such an explanation requires reading or listening fully what is said/written and being able to comprehend sentence structure. As in Icelom's:

...

and my:

...

You can easily add that most Iconic characters happen to be higher init, which also lends to more people wanting to fly them. My observation on the real world cash investment a high init list requires over a low init list is also one, as is their higher probability of winning if both players are equal in skill and play well. You've done yourself no favors jumping to the conclusion you have...

Errrmmm.... Yeah! Just like supporting a lower league team makes you a REAL MAN! None of these glory hunting nambies, unless it is their home city! Maybe, just maybe... I can` t be arzed to give counterexamples. Stick to your guns, but repositioning ain` t what it used to be, apparently, and neither are linked actions and token stacks. That was 1.0. Efficiency in upgrades is the real crutch for high ini pilots. Personally I` ll play four RS Vets in 1.0 one day to be the squad, and Luke and Han another to be thematic heroes. But I don` t have a power gamer mentality, nor the ability or desire to play in tournaments. Happy flying!

35 minutes ago, Larky Bobble said:

Errrmmm.... Yeah! Just like supporting a lower league team makes you a REAL MAN! None of these glory hunting nambies, unless it is their home city! Maybe, just maybe... I can` t be arzed to give counterexamples. Stick to your guns, but repositioning ain` t what it used to be, apparently, and neither are linked actions and token stacks. That was 1.0. Efficiency in upgrades is the real crutch for high ini pilots. Personally I` ll play four RS Vets in 1.0 one day to be the squad, and Luke and Han another to be thematic heroes. But I don` t have a power gamer mentality, nor the ability or desire to play in tournaments. Happy flying!

I don't think he was saying what you are trying to imply. My guess is there is a phrasing issue here. More powerful pilots tend to be easier to use (they are more powerful so that is expected). Higher initiative tends to make a pilot more powerful because of the information advantage. The balance to more powerful pilots is that they cost more (which he was also saying).

As for more ships costing more money in the real world, that is another good example of a reason why you would see more higher initiative ships, but shouldn't impact the cost of said ships, along with the iconic pilot reason. Play style is another reason, even if higher initiative pilots are costed "fairly" (however that is defined) there will still be people who just like flying aces emulating Anakin and what have you. That problems that need to be addressed are if higher initiative is a little too efficient because of how it scales with many upgrades, and those half dozen to a dozen pilots who have powerful pilot abilities that just too efficient for the points (Redline being a clear example).

2 minutes ago, GeneralVryth said:

As for more ships costing more money in the real world, that is another good example of a reason why you would see fewer lower initiative lists

2 small changes to bring it in line with what I was trying to say. High initiative lists have a lower cash buy-in threshold, depending on the size of the ships' bases, than low initiative lists. Everything I did outline lends itself to "play style" though there may be a couple of additional factors I missed.

2 minutes ago, GeneralVryth said:

I don't think he was saying what you are trying to imply. My guess is there is a phrasing issue here. More powerful pilots tend to be easier to use (they are more powerful so that is expected). Higher initiative tends to make a pilot more powerful because of the information advantage. The balance to more powerful pilots is that they cost more (which he was also saying).

As for more ships costing more money in the real world, that is another good example of a reason why you would see fewer higher initiative ships, but shouldn't impact the cost of said ships, along with the iconic pilot reason. Play style is another reason, even if higher initiative pilots are costed "fairly" (however that is defined) there will still be people who just like flying aces emulating Anakin and what have you. That problems that need to be addressed are if higher initiative is a little too efficient because of how it scales with many upgrades, and those half dozen to a dozen pilots who have powerful pilot abilities that just too efficient for the points (Redline being a clear example).

But there is a clear attack on those pilots who opt for higher initiative in his tone, as cloudy as they are in short text. So I created an analogy after feeling another´ s pain at being told that they are using a crutch... Ididn` t debate those points you mention as I feel he is correct in them, like the other guy is also correct in his "multitude of other reasons".

So, be a REAL MAN! Fly named Ini 3 and 4 pilots! Even if they are caught in the no man´ s land of innefficient upgrades and innefficient firepower. Troll (previous 3 sentences) over.

Just imagine a world in which Vader, Anakin, Obi-wan, and Luke have to pay 14 pts for Supernatural Reflexes, where generic inquisitors and jedi knights only have to pay 10.

Doesnt that seem like a better world?

edit: let’s just all admit that it can be used as a crutch, while still accepting that many people will play it for a multitude of other reasons.

I think we all agree on that here, but we’re gravitating to absolutes in reading what others are saying.

5 minutes ago, SpiderMana said:

edit: let’s just all admit that it can be used as a crutch, while still accepting that many people will play it for a multitude of other reasons.

I think we all agree on that here, but we’re gravitating to absolutes in reading what others are saying.

This ^

16 minutes ago, SpiderMana said:

Just imagine a world in which Vader, Anakin, Obi-wan, and Luke have to pay 14 pts for Supernatural Reflexes, where generic inquisitors and jedi knights only have to pay 10.

Doesnt that seem like a better world?

edit: let’s just all admit that it can be used as a crutch, while still accepting that many people will play it for a multitude of other reasons.

I think we all agree on that here, but we’re gravitating to absolutes in reading what others are saying.

I certainly agree with the first point. There is some tuning that could be done in the point costs of higher initiative ships, especially around their interactions with certain upgrades.

On the second point, the word crutch is what bothers me. It implies someone using it is somehow less skilled, and it also assumes a definition of skill which may not be valid. I could just as easily argue that anyone who flies a swarm is using it as a crutch because there is less of a penalty for losing a ship. Of course that would be wrong, but no more wrong that saying flying a small list of high init aces is a crutch.

...or not. Agree to disagree, then? I'm not gonna argue this one, sorry.

5 minutes ago, GeneralVryth said:

On the second point, the word crutch is what bothers me.(1) It implies someone using it is somehow less skilled , and it also assumes a definition of skill which may not be valid. (2) I could just as easily argue that anyone who flies a swarm is using it as a crutch because there is less of a penalty for losing a ship.

(1) Some (not all) who do so are. (2) In some cases, just as in some cases with High Init, this is correct.

21 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

(1) Some (not all) who do so are. (2) In some cases, just as in some cases with High Init, this is correct.

That's true in the sense that in any game you are going to find varying range of skills, just as you are going to find a varying range of skills for each of the different styles of playing a game. The problem here isn't that there is a varying range of skills, but trying to imply that liking a certain style somehow makes one less skilled (in essence insulting anyone who likes that style). I have no problem admitting that styles have different strengths and weaknesses, and that there are probably some that are more efficient at the moment than others. There is just nothing to be gained by insulting a group of people because they like a certain style, which is what I was objecting to originally.

2 minutes ago, GeneralVryth said:

There is just nothing to be gained by insulting a group of people because they like a certain style, which is what I was objecting to originally.

If text carried tone as well as the words used, instead of just words, this would be easier to address. Unfortunately it doesn't, so what is implied is often assumed to be the extreme interpretation of what is written. Not much we can do about it.

1 minute ago, Hiemfire said:

If text carried tone as well as the words used, instead of just words, this would be easier to address. Unfortunately it doesn't, so what is implied is often assumed to be the extreme interpretation of what is written. Not much we can do about it.

True, and fair enough.

But.... high In isn't a crutch. If you run an ace list into a Drea/Sloane/Jonas Swarm, or turret support 4 ship lists, you better know what the **** you're doing or you're going down in flames. I've flown against these things with I4 and 5 double/triple ace lists and it's bloody hard work! The planning is intense.

It would be much, much easier to throw 30+ health and 15+ red dice down and say come at me bro.

Moving last is the weapon you buy in order to compete with such things.

17 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

But.... high In isn't a crutch. If you run an ace list into a Drea/Sloane/Jonas Swarm, or turret support 4 ship lists, you better know what the **** you're doing or you're going down in flames. I've flown against these things with I4 and 5 double/triple ace lists and it's bloody hard work! The planning is intense.

It would be much, much easier to throw 30+ health and 15+ red dice down and say come at me bro.

Moving last is the weapon you buy in order to compete with such things.

I agree with this completely, I was just trying to avoid this aspect of the debate because it becomes more subjective. If you define skill as the ability to plot maneuvers well to attack/avoid being attacked and block as necessary (which also requires being able to predict your opponent), then you could say a high initiative is a crutch because it makes the process a lot easier. There are other ways to define skill, some people would argue efficient list building is skill, does that make picking highly efficient ships a sign of good skill or a crutch? It just gets more subjective unless you plan on clearly defining what you are talking about. And usually as subjectiveness goes up so does the chance of misunderstandings.

9 minutes ago, GeneralVryth said:

I agree with this completely, I was just trying to avoid this aspect of the debate because it becomes more subjective. If you define skill as the ability to plot maneuvers well to attack/avoid being attacked and block as necessary (which also requires being able to predict your opponent), then you could say a high initiative is a crutch because it makes the process a lot easier. There are other ways to define skill, some people would argue efficient list building is skill, does that make picking highly efficient ships a sign of good skill or a crutch? It just gets more subjective unless you plan on clearly defining what you are talking about. And usually as subjectiveness goes up so does the chance of misunderstandings.

You are the one defining crutch as a bad thing.

No matter how you slice it, higher initiative is a crutch to help compensate for poor flying. (At all skill levels).

Dalan Oberos is the overlooked Starviper. Maneuverability is everything is 2e and he is the most maneuverable Starviper.

28 minutes ago, Icelom said:

You are the one defining crutch as a bad thing.

No matter how you slice it, higher initiative is a crutch to help compensate for poor flying. (At all skill levels).

That's because most people use it that way in a game context. Usually when I hear someone talk about something being a crutch, they mean it in the sense of "I would have won if you hadn't being using that crutch (or "overpowered") thing." In other words they only lost because their opponent used a "crutch". Maybe that has not been your experience.

Higher initiative enhances ones ability to fly a ship at all skill levels, and you pay points for that enhancement. It's like saying someone who beat a TIE Fighter with a TIE Defender or X-wing was using a crutch because they had a more powerful ship. It completely ignores the fact you have to pay more points for the advantage the ship provides.

20 minutes ago, Dengar5 said:

Dalan Oberos is the overlooked Starviper. Maneuverability is everything is 2e and he is the most maneuverable Starviper.

He also builds allot of stress quickly so locks himself out of actions allot.

55 minutes ago, Icelom said:

You are the one defining crutch as a bad thing.

No matter how you slice it, higher initiative is a crutch to help compensate for poor flying. (At all skill levels).

I find that passive mods, high health, high firepower and more than 3 ships also help compensate for poor flying.

Everything is a crutch. Or maybe there is no crutch.

Perhaps there is no easy mode that will allow you to beat a better player when flying poorly.

Apart from twin AdvS Defenders.

1 hour ago, Icelom said:

You are the one defining crutch as a bad thing.

No matter how you slice it, higher initiative is a crutch to help compensate for poor flying. (At all skill levels).

Higher initiative is a "crutch" to avoid dealing with the variance that even-PS or no-repositioning jousting entails, which puts you at the utter mercy of dice swings in 2.0

The issue isn't that it exists, it's that several PS5 pilots are extremely undercosted for the benefit their PS and abilities provide

Ahhh, finally we get to the crutch of the matter!

Sorry, I couldn't resist...

But we all know what the word crutch means in this context, and it isn't positive. It implies the presence of one who is lame.

At the end of the day high initiative pilots aren't going anywhere, and we are going to be seeing a bevy of new ones soon enough. You have Poe and Kylo coming as big names in wave 2 plus a half dozen others. And then wave 3 is going to have at least 3 high init Jedi (probably 4 or 5), not counting clones or whatever the Separatists are bringing. So let's turn this to do a different question. How much should the different initiative levels be worth?

Looking at the generics we see FFG values each additional init at +2 points up to init 4. Is that accurate? What about 5 and 6? Personally the jump from 1 to 2 feels insignificant if not a step backwards, and so should be worth no more than 1 point. The step from 2 to 3 feels similar, though slightly more significant. 3 to 4 feels important, I4 with a bid means you are moving after every other generic and a large majority of the uniques. So that should be worth 3 points. 4 to 5? Is a little tougher, I would say 4 or 5 points since with a bid you can now reliably move after all but a dozen or so ships that you can plan for. 5 to 6 doesn't feel more valuable than the jump to I5 unless some ability is involved. Pilot abilities obviously are going to play **** with this since some are way better with higher initiative while others don't care. Take a look a Soontir (an I6 that I think most believe to be fairly costed and balanced for what he does), he is 12 points than an I4 Saber, how much of that is init? How much is his ability? And how much is an adjustment for a ship ability that works better with higher inits?

I do not think the I5s are overpowered. More people fly high initiative ships because it is easier than flying swarms. There has not been that many tournaments, and most people will try out their favorite pilots first before experimenting.

45 minutes ago, GeneralVryth said:

Take a look a Soontir (an I6 that I think most believe to be fairly costed and balanced for what he does), he is 12 points than an I4 Saber, how much of that is init? How much is his ability? And how much is an adjustment for a ship ability that works better with higher inits?

While he has an easier time lining up his ability than say a prockets A-Wing or Scyk (better init and repositioning), this is fairly well counter balanced both by the points cost to field him (proportional to the other Interceptors) and by that if the player running him sneezes while setting his dial he's dead. I'd say he's balanced.

Using Scyks as my litmus (I run them and they're fun), the increase from the Spacer to the TPV feels off by a bit and could maybe use a reduction to the spread, but in counter Quinn feels like she's in about the right place cost wise (I3 + her ability for a base value of 35pts) so I'm not sure it is Init entirely were paying for in the increase. Upgrade slots also have a price tag to them, as it seems does increasing Init above 1 for having agility 3 in addition to the base Init tax. Looking at the Spacer vs TPV there is 2 for the increase in init, 1 for the Talent slot, and 1 tax for being a higher init with agi 3. Quinn adds 2 to this for her ability. Looking at the E-Wing though calls into question the init tax for agility since the spread between the lowest, I2, and the, next one up, I4, is only 2 points (also calls to question the tax on the Talent slot). In Scum the same applies to the StarViper (2 point spread between the Enforcer and the Assassin) though here there is a markup for both the single init and the talent slot. So there does not appear to a method here I can decipher.

I think the question comes down to, did they use a single base line (the TIE/LN) as they stated, or did they start with the LN, pick the lowest value ship in the other factions and balanced them against that, then adjusted based on the faction's lowest ship and how the ships being balanced perform in relation to it (a bit of a difference than just referring back to the TIE/LN, more steps = more margin for error). I.E. Bandit balanced to the TIE, Binayre balanced to the TIE, and then the Rebels are checked against the Bandit and Scum against the Binayre, then throw darts at a quartered board with a hole in the center. +1 top left, +2 bottom left, -1 bottom right, -2 top right, no adjustment dead center...