21 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

In fairness, auto designers don't have to worry about people going out of their way to find the unsafe features of the car. The safety is as much a function of people trying to drive safely as it is a function of the car's construction.

Game developers, on the other hand, have to take into account people trying to break the game.

You wait until self drivning cars become legal in the US, people will find ways to get injured and sue.

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

In fairness, auto designers don't have to worry about people going out of their way to find the unsafe features of the car. The safety is as much a function of people trying to drive safely as it is a function of the car's construction.

Game developers, on the other hand, have to take into account people trying to break the game.

In fact, auto designers know their vehicle will face comprehensive testing by bodies established and maintained for the sole purpose of rating safety; the IIHS and NHTSA. Auto designers are also aware that drivers will operate their vehicles while ignoring every recommended safety precaution.

It is not about making every vehicle safe in every situation, but limiting the MOST NEGATIVE outcomes whenever possible (in the case of vehicle collisions.....DEATH!).

No one I know expects or really wants 'perfection' in game design, but expecting designers to work hard to limit the most NPE is fair.

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

In fairness, auto designers don't have to worry about people going out of their way to find the unsafe features of the car. The safety is as much a function of people trying to drive safely as it is a function of the car's construction.

Game developers, on the other hand, have to take into account people trying to break the game.

To expand on this, the goal of a car designer and driver are generally the same I.e. get to where you're going unharmed.

The goal of a developer is to create an engaging play experience, but the goal of the player in a head-to -head game is to win irrespective of engagement. This leads to a divergence between desirable game play (what the devs want) and optimal game play (the most efficient route to victory). The best a fame can really do is minimize the gap between these two elements as closing it entirely us virtually impossible.

Gotta be careful lowering costs of generic ships, as those like Howlrunner, Drea, Torkhil, etc become much more powerful. Lowering a generic just 2pts, can open up 6-10pts in a list spamming these generics and that can then push the list into OP or NPE status by all of a sudden giving a ship VTG, or afford Jendon for 45pts instead of a tie bomber at 35pts, or adding vader crew to jukers, etc.

I think the better solution to balancing generics is cost upgrades appropriately for them vs uniques or high initiatives. For instance, predator could be initiative costed and be 1pt for init 1-3, 2pts for init 4-5, and 3pts for init 6. Tech like Pattern Analyzer could be costed 3 pts for init 1-3. Making a single red squad vet with heroic and PA in a squad only 51pts and actually a nice inclusion in almost any squad, or a blue squad rookie t70 only 48pts with PA for actions after red maneuvers. These types of upgrade balancing is what I would prefer instead of lower blue squad rookies 2pts each and getting spammed.

Generics should not be measured by spam worthiness.

A ship like the G1A should have a role in many squads. Make cannons cost 1pt less on them, or make cloaking device only cost 2pts or collision detector 2pts. Cloaking device does not need to be 5pts across the board. Adv sensors could be 6pts on generic G1As. Now you can have adv sensors, collision detector, misthunter title, generic G1A for 51pts. Not bad.

FFG has an app that does all the costs automatically. Its not hard to balance upgrades to ships/pilots. They just need to do it.

30 minutes ago, wurms said:

A ship like the G1A should have a role in many squads. Make cannons cost 1pt less on them, or make cloaking device only cost 2pts or collision detector 2pts. Cloaking device does not need to be 5pts across the board. Adv sensors could be 6pts on generic G1As. Now you can have adv sensors, collision detector, misthunter title, generic G1A for 51pts. Not bad.

G-1A's only have a single sensor slot, even with the title (which adds a cannon slot to only 1). So Adv Sensors + Collision Detector does not fit. That said, why are you trying to build an Init 1 Adv. Sensors Blue Squadron B-Wing in S&V???

More directly, the level of granulation you're requesting will make list building annoyingly complex with each and every ship having differing cost lists for the upgrades they can take.

1 hour ago, wurms said:

FFG has an app that does all the costs automatically.

From a certain point of view.

1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:

G-1A's only have a single sensor slot, even with the title (which adds a cannon slot to only 1). So Adv Sensors + Collision Detector does not fit. That said, why are you trying to build an Init 1 Adv. Sensors Blue Squadron B-Wing in S&V???

More directly, the level of granulation you're requesting will make list building annoyingly complex with each and every ship having differing cost lists for the upgrades they can take.

Doh, meant cloaking device and adv sensors.

Every upgrade does not need to be specific per ship. Like crackshot at 1pt across the board is fine. Afterburners at 6pts is fine. Lone Wolf is fine. But things like Outmaneuver at 6pts is ridiculous. A few ships are REALLY good with it and can exploit it and that cost ruins it for everything else. Generic rebel awings could use a card like outmaneuver at 3pts over a bullseye card like predator at 2pts. I think there is plenty of opportunity to use the app to make certain unplayable ships more balanced, than adjusting points across the board and risking exploits.

EDIT: As it is right now with initative costs, etc., I still need an app, as I dont have all the different costs in my head, so no different than using an app per ship/pilot. How much is battle meditation on Ahsoka? Or angled deflectors on a G1A? I need an app.

11 minutes ago, wurms said:

EDIT: As it is right now with initative costs, I still need an app, as I dont have all the different costs in my head, so no different than using an app per ship/pilot. How much is battle meditation on Ahsoka? Or angled deflectors on a G1A? I need an app.

6 pts, though to be fair I've been dinking around with a Zuccus pilot, Angled, Lando crew build so it is in the front of my mind.

On 8/20/2019 at 2:50 PM, millertime059 said:

plus you used trick shot for the comp which is hilarious, as Trick Shot has all but disappeared. Crack shot and hull upgrade for the same price as Sabaac or Countdown? That seems closer to reasonable, no? Still better for the named, but drop two points and now its the same as Duchess. And a Black Squad with hull and crack or Duchess is much more interesting of a choice.

On 8/20/2019 at 2:51 PM, theBitterFig said:

Talk about a rigged example. Trick Shot is priced for Turret ships, where it's very powerful due to the on-table geometry of sideways-facing arcs. Now, strikers are better at most at making use of it, but it's clearly overpriced on a front-arc ship.

Duchess is probably a bit too cheap (Strikers, like TIE Defenders, should probably have the same price for all their current Limited pilots), but slipping Trick Shot into the comparison doesn't work.

My point wasn't to draw a skewed example. I realize Trick Shot is overpriced. My point was to show the identical cost point-for-point and Trick Shot is the only 4-point talent that a striker can take. I should have said:

"A crack shot seismic generic costs exactly the same as Duchess, which is absurd"

Please correct me if the statement is no longer true. The Black Squadron Scout is overpriced by about two to three points, and Duchess is underpriced by three to five points (hard for me to say as it depends so much on how well she's played). At the very least she should be more than Sabaacc and Countdown, and there's no one out there saying they're underpriced.

But going back around to my point: I think the Planetary Sentinel is in a pretty good place and making them viable does not require allowing the 6x spam list. I don't think that goes the same for the Alpha Interceptor. The only reason we're not seeing more striker generics is because the cost of upgrading them to named pilots is entirely trivial. the Interceptor meanwhile is missing good named options and those that exist make it an almost entirely different class of ship.

47 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

My point wasn't to draw a skewed example. I realize Trick Shot is overpriced. My point was to show the identical cost point-for-point and Trick Shot is the only 4-point talent that a striker can take. I should have said:

"A crack shot seismic generic costs exactly the same as Duchess, which is absurd"

Please correct me if the statement is no longer true.

I'm sorry, but that's also a silly example. It's true that the costs are the same, but it's utterly irrelevant.

Tacking things on to make the points equal doesn't strengthen your argument. It'd be fine to say "Duchess is only 4 points more than a Black Scout, which is absurd," just leave it there.

Actually, it weakens your argument. Seismic Charges become now something to consider. Maybe Han Solo is showing up again, and there's a benefit to destroying obstacles. You've changed the discussion from the value of a pilot to the utility of a build. I'm sure there are games when a CS/Seismic generic would be more valuable than Duchess.

7 hours ago, Explorator88 said:

No one I know expects or really wants 'perfection' in game design, but expecting designers to work hard to limit the most NPE is fair.

That's fair, but it's also a statement I don't think anyone is disagreeing with. As far as I can follow it @Darth Meanie simply said that perfection wasn't a realistic goal, at which point you brought up cars with 0% fatality rates, which sounded like you were contradicting him (i.e. saying we should shoot for perfection). Then I pointed out that it's not really a straight comparison (most drivers want to be safe, so even if they do foolish things, they usually don't actively TRY to have fatal accidents; whereas players can and do try to break the game to their benefit). Now you say perfection isn't a realistic goal, which is exactly what Darth was getting at to begin with. So, we're all in agreement and accomplished about as much as any standard Ferris wheel.

3 hours ago, JJ48 said:

That's fair, but it's also a statement I don't think anyone is disagreeing with. As far as I can follow it @Darth Meanie simply said that perfection wasn't a realistic goal, at which point you brought up cars with 0% fatality rates, which sounded like you were contradicting him (i.e. saying we should shoot for perfection). Then I pointed out that it's not really a straight comparison (most drivers want to be safe, so even if they do foolish things, they usually don't actively TRY to have fatal accidents; whereas players can and do try to break the game to their benefit). Now you say perfection isn't a realistic goal, which is exactly what Darth was getting at to begin with. So, we're all in agreement and accomplished about as much as any standard Ferris wheel.

I would never claim 0% fatalities was perfect; 0% accidents with $0.00 property damage and zero injury would be perfect. However, model years with 0% fatalities are a NEW THING, and generations of auto designers got us where we are today.

Most drivers are like most gamers, but some suicidal maniacs DO IN FACT drive head on into on-coming traffic, and while neither auto engineers, nor game designers can ever protect everyone from themselves or others intent on causing harm within a given system, working to limit the worst outcomes is not an unrealistic search for 'perfection'.

3 hours ago, Explorator88 said:

I would never claim 0% fatalities was perfect; 0% accidents with $0.00 property damage and zero injury would be perfect. However, model years with 0% fatalities are a NEW THING, and generations of auto designers got us where we are today.

Most drivers are like most gamers, but some suicidal maniacs DO IN FACT drive head on into on-coming traffic, and while neither auto engineers, nor game designers can ever protect everyone from themselves or others intent on causing harm within a given system, working to limit the worst outcomes is not an unrealistic search for 'perfection'.

Sometimes it does warm my heart when I hear of such systematic good and caution.