I'm gonna go out on a limb here, albeit a well climbed one, and say any modifications to the points costs will cause stir and rebuttal far more than happiness. We all must understand that the designers will have already given their biggest time allocation of analysis of X-wing when they were designing 2.0 and not now that it's out, they simply cannot afford the time as they are designing new 2.0 factions/ships and lots of other games. The changes will be modest at best.

I have a real "let go your feelings" understanding that the designers now keep one thing that they allowed to be lost in 1.0 as the game grew into the far resources of SW legacy: 'yes, we understand that there will always be some pilots/ships/mods that stay at the top of the game and some will stay in the middle or lower --such is the life of a game-- just just make d**n sure those at the top directly reflect and bolster the main characters in the Mouse's movies so we can sell more s**t.'

50 minutes ago, Gibbilo said:

You can't take the torps out of the list without also directly hurting the generics who rely on said torps for efficiency.

If anything, this whole post made an argument to increase the cost of the Aces who run the torps, not the torps themselves....

Increase the cost of the Aces, so you can only run two torps instead of three. The generics are the same. Suddenly the whole scenario falls apart.

(I suppose you could also in isolation increase the cost of torps on specific ships only, but I think they are trying to avoid that for now)

To be clear, I am totally 100% on board with making aces more expensive.

The thing is that torps are better the higher your initiative is, because of how locking works. The generics move up at I1/2/whatever and focus, then the aces get to move up at I5/6, take locks, and fire their torps at range 2/3 to init-kill a generic. So what started out as 3x 4 dice shots vs 4x 4 dice shots on paper , in reality is 3x 4 vs 3x 3 .

2 hours ago, Gibbilo said:

You can't take the torps out of the list without also directly hurting the generics who rely on said torps for efficiency.

If anything, this whole post made an argument to increase the cost of the Aces who run the torps, not the torps themselves....

Increase the cost of the Aces, so you can only run two torps instead of three. The generics are the same. Suddenly the whole scenario falls apart.

(I suppose you could also in isolation increase the cost of torps on specific ships only, but I think they are trying to avoid that for now)

Some of the problematic alpha lists have bids of 11-17 points. The cleanest solution is to raise both the high initiative pilot prices and protorp prices, since both are undercosted. The magnitude of how much either should change, or the split between them, is not something I’m comfortable speculating on.

I’m OK with pushing I5 and I6 prices enough that I4 generics get their day in the sun, but it’s a fine line between that and pricing high initiative pilots out altogether. Lots of people play the game so they can be Luke, Wedge, Boba, etc., and I’m confident they have a design goal that all the fan favorites from movies are playable.

Just to make sure that this idea gets out there more explicitly, the developer goal is not make aces ‘amazing,’ or generics ‘good,’ or to make theme lists ‘bad,’ it’s to make sure that people can reasonably choose to play whatever they think is fun. The lists don’t need to balance against each other directly, but overall a good player should have a fair chance regardless of what kind of squad they’re running.

4 hours ago, PaulRuddSays said:

Some of the problematic alpha lists have bids of 11-17 points. The cleanest solution is to raise both the high initiative pilot prices and protorp prices, since both are undercosted. The magnitude of how much either should change, or the split between them, is not something I’m comfortable speculating on.

I’m OK with pushing I5 and I6 prices enough that I4 generics get their day in the sun, but it’s a fine line between that and pricing high initiative pilots out altogether. Lots of people play the game so they can be Luke, Wedge, Boba, etc., and I’m confident they have a design goal that all the fan favorites from movies are playable.

Just to make sure that this idea gets out there more explicitly, the developer goal is not make aces ‘amazing,’ or generics ‘good,’ or to make theme lists ‘bad,’ it’s to make sure that people can reasonably choose to play whatever they think is fun. The lists don’t need to balance against each other directly, but overall a good player should have a fair chance regardless of what kind of squad they’re running.

which I5/I6 squads with torps have a 11-17 point bid?

43 minutes ago, Gibbilo said:

which I5/I6 squads with torps have a 11-17 point bid?

Whisper, Redline, Fel

1 minute ago, Crit Happens said:

Whisper, Redline, Fel

So...topr (singular)? I reiterate, the problem is Redline, not torps.

2 hours ago, MasterShake2 said:

So...topr (singular)? I reiterate, the problem is Redline, not torps.

I can’t quote back to the first page of this thread, but @svelok laid out a pretty clear scenario with X-Wings that have an 11 point bid and get off triple torps at I5/I6. The problem is not Redline (alone), the problem is that Redline is a particularly undercosted case of a general problem, i.e., higher initiative pilots are generally priced too low. Because of how the lock mechanic works, and because hyper defense was removed, you’ll naturally get a race to the bottom on the bid. If all you fix is Redline, you’ll still see alpha strike torp lists...

edit: one or two alpha torps is probably not something I’d be worried about. Whisper/Redline/Fel is a problem because Whisper, Redline, Vader, and torps are *all* mispriced.

24 minutes ago, PaulRuddSays said:

I can’t quote back to the first page of this thread, but @svelok laid out a pretty clear scenario with X-Wings that have an 11 point bid and get off triple torps at I5/I6. The problem is not Redline (alone), the problem is that Redline is a particularly undercosted case of a general problem, i.e., higher initiative pilots are generally priced too low. Because of how the lock mechanic works, and because hyper defense was removed, you’ll naturally get a race to the bottom on the bid. If all you fix is Redline, you’ll still see alpha strike torp lists...

edit: one or two alpha torps is probably not something I’d be worried about. Whisper/Redline/Fel is a problem because Whisper, Redline, Vader, and torps are *all* mispriced.

He only cites that triple X-Wing torps happen, but reviewing the tournament results show pretty clearly that rebel triple torp lists aren't really a thing, or at least aren't a thing that's performing well enough to care about from a design standpoint...and by itself, that's why I don't think torps themselves are a problem or problematically costed. If torps are the problem, then torp spam lists that don't involve Redline would be all over the place, not just in general, but in cuts. In reality, they're in the minority. Most rebel lists that actually do well are 4 ships with maybe 1 torp between them and the 3 ship torp lists are in the minority by a wide margin.

21 hours ago, Dreadai said:

Current points costs are enough of a source. Look at Resistance A wings vs rebel A-Wings. Same cost but gain blue 3 bank, rear turret and a tech slot

Ok, I see where you are coming from but for me that just isn't strong enough evidence. Personally I think that Resistance A-wings have just come out before the point re-balance at which rebel A-wings will be modified a little.

4 hours ago, william1134 said:

Ok, I see where you are coming from but for me that just isn't strong enough evidence. Personally I think that Resistance A-wings have just come out before the point re-balance at which rebel A-wings will be modified a little.

I really hope they do more than modify rebel A-Wings a little ... they need to add another talent slot, and reduce cost ,,, then you hit the issue of maybe opening up a swarm that is too strong currently Green squadrons in rebels are 34 ... clearly pointed to stop you from running 6. Any point cost means you get 6 in a list and then things get interesting!

8 minutes ago, Dreadai said:

I really hope they do more than modify rebel A-Wings a little ... they need to add another talent slot, and reduce cost ,,, then you hit the issue of maybe opening up a swarm that is too strong currently Green squadrons in rebels are 34 ... clearly pointed to stop you from running 6. Any point cost means you get 6 in a list and then things get interesting!

Yeah, the 34 point generics that aren't particularly doing well - A-Wings, Strikers, Interceptors, etc (again, specifically the generics) need the rest of the game to go up. The power level of aces is too high for the generics to compete, and making the generics cheaper just pushes out the generics beneath them (6x A-Wings makes Z's sad)

Unless they change points on >70% of pilots I'll be disappointed.

I'm prepared.

1 hour ago, SOTL said:

Unless they change points on >70% of pilots I'll be disappointed.

I'm prepared.

Would you want most of these to be 1-2 point changes...? That’s a lot of content to change, and I don’t think 70% of pilots are *grossly* wrong.

For everything I5 and above, sure, I could be down for 70%+

3 minutes ago, PaulRuddSays said:

Would you want most of these to be 1-2 point changes...? That’s a lot of content to change, and I don’t think 70% of pilots are *grossly* wrong.

For everything I5 and above, sure, I could be down for 70%+

They compressed the points significantly in 2nd Ed - difference between base generic and top elite in a chassis. Along with other changes that have made higher initiative more important in 2.0 than it was in 1.0 it's been a disastrous change that has all but wiped out I1-4 ships that don't have some incredible pilot ability.

I would undo a lot of that points compression across pretty much all ships. It maybe means adding a couple of points onto the I3-I4s and 4-5pts onto the I5-6s.

That pass would be outside of then going back and changing points for balance (eg. after putting Redline's cost up 4-5pts for being Initiative 5, I'd than go back put more points on again for his action economy).

9 minutes ago, SOTL said:

They compressed the points significantly in 2nd Ed - difference between base generic and top elite in a chassis. Along with other changes that have made higher initiative more important in 2.0 than it was in 1.0 it's been a disastrous change that has all but wiped out I1-4 ships that don't have some incredible pilot ability.

I would undo a lot of that points compression across pretty much all ships. It maybe means adding a couple of points onto the I3-I4s and 4-5pts onto the I5-6s.

That pass would be outside of then going back and changing points for balance (eg. after putting Redline's cost up 4-5pts for being Initiative 5, I'd than go back put more points on again for his action economy).

Seconding exactly this.

I won't be upset if almost every change is at most 4-5 points, so long as the coverage is wide enough.

I think there's 4 outlier cards that need to go up roughly 4-5 pts, and an even smaller number of cards that need to drop roughly 4-5 pts. Everything else that could be changed doesn't need more than 1-2 pts in either direction.

EDIT - which is not to say that I would oppose more sweeping changes; I would also like to see pilots generally pay more for I5+; I just don't think balance is in a terrible state outside the small number of oppressively underpriced outliers

15 minutes ago, SOTL said:

They compressed the points significantly in 2nd Ed - difference between base generic and top elite in a chassis. Along with other changes that have made higher initiative more important in 2.0 than it was in 1.0 it's been a disastrous change that has all but wiped out I1-4 ships that don't have some incredible pilot ability.

I would undo a lot of that points compression across pretty much all ships. It maybe means adding a couple of points onto the I3-I4s and 4-5pts onto the I5-6s.

That pass would be outside of then going back and changing points for balance (eg. after putting Redline's cost up 4-5pts for being Initiative 5, I'd than go back put more points on again for his action economy).

Seems perfectly reasonable, although I agree that I don’t see it happening in Extended.

Would you be looking for FO / Resistance changes as well, ideally?

1 minute ago, PaulRuddSays said:

Seems perfectly reasonable, although I agree that I don’t see it happening in Extended.

Would you be looking for FO / Resistance changes as well, ideally?

In terms of points compression? Yes I think so. I'm looking at the upcoming Hyperspace format and finding it's hard to justify fielding ANY pilot that's not I5 or I6. You'll be getting close to 10pt bids at I6, I think, just because there's going to be such congestion at those initiative values.

That needs spreading out a bit by making the mid-lower initiative pilots more attractive.

Didn't FFG just change a tournament format for L5R because the community didn't like it?

I mean I doubt they're reading this thread, but clearly they listen.

7 minutes ago, grandmoffjoe said:

Didn't FFG just change a tournament format for L5R because the community didn't like it?

I mean I doubt they're reading this thread, but clearly they listen.

With all due respect, I think you’ve confused causation. They can fix things when they’re bad without listening to the players at all. All they have to do is watch some streams and/or check out List Fortress (in X-Wing, at least).

I hope to god the devs don’t read the forums. They might get contaminated by some of the worst ideas in here, and that’s a lot of options...

3 hours ago, PaulRuddSays said:

I hope to god the devs don’t read the forums. They might get contaminated by some of the worst ideas in here, and that’s a lot of options...

If they can't weed out solid criticism and good ideas from cantankerousness and idiocy, then they need to change careers. They should be at least dipping into every avenue of player-satisfaction feedback they have.

2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

If they can't weed out solid criticism and good ideas from cantankerousness and idiocy, then they need to change careers. They should be at least dipping into every avenue of player-satisfaction feedback they have.

The signal to noise here is bad, and my understanding is they already don’t have enough hours in the day. Our community talks - a lot - and there are many players with well-above-average insight about the game, you included. They can collect a lot more information, more efficiently, in almost any venue other than the forums.

I would like to think, with no evidence for this whatsoever, that the NDAs that playtesters signs also include a venue for ongoing balance feedback after launch.

11 minutes ago, PaulRuddSays said:

The signal to noise here is bad, and my understanding is they already don’t have enough hours in the day. Our community talks - a lot - and there are many players with well-above-average insight about the game, you included. They can collect a lot more information, more efficiently, in almost any venue other than the forums.

I would like to think, with no evidence for this whatsoever, that the NDAs that playtesters signs also include a venue for ongoing balance feedback after launch.

I'm with @Jeff Wilder . While there is a lot of chaff to sift thru out here, there is some valid feedback to be found. And usually the best ideas/discussions can be found in a single multi-page thread--right now I would say that this thread and the "Can FFG Change Your Mind" thread offer some pretty useful insights in the viewpoints of the community.

Maybe it won't change what they are doing, but maybe it lets them at least address things in some talking points the concerns of the community.

And, IMHO, they are creeping the boards.

14 minutes ago, PaulRuddSays said:

The signal to noise here is bad

IMO, the signal to noise ratio here is only bad if you're a completely indiscriminate reader. There are many topics that are obviously not of value in a S:N way, and there are many posters that are obviously not of value (full stop). Likewise, there are some posters whose posts I find valuable even when we fundamentally disagree, and I think that says quite a bit about these forums. It's not at all difficult, IMO, to get a very worthwhile read of perceived and real problems and ideas for fixes here. If I didn't think so, believe me, I would not spend my time here.

Finally, just to pull the implication fully into the open, I think there is value to FFG's devs in simply knowing that a huge swath of consumers don't like (or do like) something ... even if the consumers' reasons for not liking it are spurious and/or specious. Just having a feel for the pulse of the game in an egalitarian place like these forums is valuable.

19 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Finally  , just to pull the implication fully into the open, I think there is value to FFG's devs in simply knowing that a huge swath of consumers don't like (or do like) something ... even if the consumers' reasons for not liking it are  spurious and/or specious. Just having a feel for the pulse of the game in an egalitarian place like these forums is valuable.

That's actually a very good point worth reiterating.