10 hours ago, Dwing said:

But in a perfectly balanced game

Will people pleeeeeaaaassssseeeeeee stop using this as a benchmark.

To wit, other failures of humanity in an attempt at perfection:

• Eradicating poverty
• 100% vaccination rates
• Crashless cars
• Eliminating human error with technology
• Microwaving popcorn without burning the first bag

It's ain't a thing, folks, so stop lobbing it up as a comparative endpoint.

2 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

It's ain't a thing, folks, so stop lobbing it up as a comparative endpoint.

Ehhhhhhhhh, that's kind of like saying: "To see a world with a 100% vaccination rate, X, Y, and Z systems would have to be in place. However, that isn't realistic, so scrap that idea."

Sure maybe we'll never reach it, but we can always try. You don't get in your car and start driving until you know where you want to go. Personally, I believe very, very good game balance is possible with existing systems. I wouldn't say that the adjustment schedule or the devs' habits would necessarily be conducive to this level of game balance, but that won't stop me from advocating for it.

2 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

You don't get in your car and start driving until you know where you want to go.

Um...some of us do start driving before we know our destination, at times...

4 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

I 100% agree with this assessment. I also think it just slightly misses the point.

The point of the whole Alpha Interceptor topic is not because we want 6x Interceptors to be a viable list (it never will be and it really shouldn't be – it's too high-variance). It's because the Alpha Interceptor doesn't have any specific role that it fills right now. It's much too fragile and expensive to be a filler or blocker. I would like to see the Alpha Interceptor at 32 points, not primarily because I want to fly 6x Interceptors (though I think it would be fun I don't think it should be viable – and it wouldn't anyway), but because I want to be able to use 1-2 interceptors to fill out an otherwise complete list without shooting myself in the foot.

The problem is that the devs seem to think that 6 Interceptors would be broken kinds of good (they wouldn't though; see 5x + Wampa), and for that reason they won't reduce the price to a viable level. I think they should reduce the price anyway, not because I think all spam lists should be good (basically no spam lists should be good; good spam lists is a sign of an OP chassis), but because I want the generic interceptor to be viable in some capacity elsewhere.

Yeah, I know. I just also know I disagree with some folks on the relative value of the Alpha Interceptor, so kind of elided over it.

Unpopular Opinion: I think the Alpha Interceptor is equal in value to the Planetary Sentinel Striker. A bit higher variance, but with more control over their maneuvers. The variance can be for good or ill... 10% chance for a tokenless Interceptor to pop on a single focused 3-red attack, but a 12% better chance to take no damage at all.

2 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

A bit higher variance, but with more control over their maneuvers.

Very, very debatable. We don't have to belabor it, but in brief I would say: Both can get double-reposition, but only one can get it stress-free. Both can get focus-reposition, only one can do it stress-free. Only one can get pre-maneuver reposition. Only one can partially complete a boost and still not lose its primary action. Only one can run through an obstacle and still get its action. It's true that 3 agility is mathematically a little better than 4 hull, but practically speaking it's extremely variance-prone and initiative-killing is much more of a thing on 3 hull. I personally think it's only a 1-2 point difference but the Alpha Squadron Pilot is strictly worse than the Planetary Sentinel.

I largely believe that the Striker generics aren't used much mainly because the named pilots are a bit underpriced (a trick shot generic costs exactly the same as Duchess, which is absurd) whereas the named Interceptor pilots are costed about right, but the generics still don't see use. Similarly, while a 6x Interceptor list is too variance-prone and too easily initiative-killed to be worth much of anything competitively, the Striker chassis almost entirely negates those problems to the point that I feel a 6x Striker list could be genuinely abusive. There's really no way to tell except by trying it, but unfortunately, I doubt the devs will give us that opportunity.

1 minute ago, ClassicalMoser said:

There's really no way to tell except by trying it, but unfortunately, I doubt the devs will give us that opportunity.

I mean, you could always play a casual game with a buddy who doesn't mind letting you try.

45 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

I largely believe that the Striker generics aren't used much mainly because the named pilots are a bit underpriced (a trick shot generic costs exactly the same as Duchess, which is absurd)

I agree with most of what you said, but this.

It isn’t that the named pilots are undercosted, but that the Black Squad is hilariously overcosted.

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.

And I have flown a lot of every single striker pilot.

35 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

(a trick shot generic costs exactly the same as Duchess, which is absurd)

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.

//

I guess a lot of what I meant is that Striker-style movement is... unique. You've got to adapt to it, get into that Ailerons groove. There's a lot more guess-work, since you have to pre-visualize both aileron and dial, with potential for massive cascading bumps if you get it wrong. Personally, I kinda stink at it. But Interceptors? They've got the same flow as any other ship in the game. Move, then take actions. There's less two-step guessing.

Interceptors also can more easily switch between the extremes. Do a little, do a lot. 5-straight plus Boost is faster than a Striker can go. 1 hard without a movement action is slower.

We've kinda had this discussion before. I think they're close enough to equal to not justify a point difference. You think Squints should be cheaper.

1 hour ago, ClassicalMoser said:

Ehhhhhhhhh, that's kind of like saying: "To see a world with a 100% vaccination rate, X, Y, and Z systems would have to be in place. However, that isn't realistic, so scrap that idea."

Sure maybe we'll never reach it, but we can always try. You don't get in your car and start driving until you know where you want to go. Personally, I believe very, very good game balance is possible with existing systems. I wouldn't say that the adjustment schedule or the devs' habits would necessarily be conducive to this level of game balance*, but that won't stop me from advocating for it.

Eh.

And I could argue that such a view will leave you in a perpetual state of dissatisfaction.

*Also, I don't think it's fair to lay this at the dev's feet. They are kicking out a pretty spectacular game at the moment, IMHO. Perfect balance for XWM can only be achieved when all the variables are in place and can now be adjusted in a closed system against one another. This means there are no new releases, and the game is over, and none of us want that.

I guess I'm just being semantic, but I guess I'd rather see things couched against "what I would like to see in the next iteration" rather than "perfect balance."

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

Will people pleeeeeaaaassssseeeeeee stop using this as a benchmark.

To wit, other failures of humanity in an attempt at perfection:

• Eradicating poverty
• 100% vaccination rates
• Crashless cars
• Eliminating human error with technology
• Microwaving popcorn without burning the first bag

It's ain't a thing, folks, so stop lobbing it up as a comparative endpoint.

You're right.

I just want to make sure you're also saying this: "Very good balance/high diversity is very possible"

Starcraft 2 is a game I'd consider highly successful for strong balance and diversity. It was plagued with standard balance issues before, but nowadays has stabilized into an exceptionally diverse game.

Xwing 2.0 also is generally a lot better than 1.0. Though the problem is that FFG doesn't seem to be acknowledging the frameworks its built on. We don't have much of a policy for instance of not creating upgrades in the future that are straight up value/double mods. The lack of easy double mods definitely keeps the power level of this game down. (See force as that annoying exception)

11 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

You're right.

I just want to make sure you're also saying this: "Very good balance/high diversity is very possible"

Yeah, I can say that. But I am also going to say that the best way to get there is NOT thru ships+upgrades+points.

It's going to be thru battlefield manipulation and scenario diversity, allowing ships to shine and fail based upon a spectrum that has yet to exist in the game.

There's my Audacious Balance. I hope it's coming in the card packs.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

Yeah, I know. I just also know I disagree with some folks on the relative value of the Alpha Interceptor, so kind of elided over it.

Unpopular Opinion: I think the Alpha Interceptor is equal in value to the Planetary Sentinel Striker. A bit higher variance, but with more control over their maneuvers. The variance can be for good or ill... 10% chance for a tokenless Interceptor to pop on a single focused 3-red attack, but a 12% better chance to take no damage at all.

A more unpopular opinion:

How good are people's perception of points - In general, people who don't play that ship and a large diversity of high meta games I think have a hard time even in 1.0 differentiating on 1 point. So, in 2.0, two points.

Generally, in 2.0, one point is kind of below the threshold of player skill variance, general luck and the ability of many players to percieve over only a few games.

Having multiple (even if not the whole list all one thing) helps to multiply minor overpowered/underpowered feelings within 1-2 points.

3 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Yeah, I can say that. But I am also going to say that the best way to get there is NOT thru ships+upgrades+points.

It's going to be thru battlefield manipulation and scenario diversity, allowing ships to shine and fail based upon a spectrum that has yet to exist in the game.

There's my Audacious Balance. I hope it's coming in the card packs.

Don't know what you're talking about, you're gonna have to elaborate.

1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:

Don't know what you're talking about, you're gonna have to elaborate.

I mean that Standard is a one trick pony.

All ships only need to be good at a single thing in a single milieu: kill another ship in a field of 6 rocks.

If you diversify the mission parameters and/or diversify the battlefield, you will exponentially diversify the number of ships that have a job to do. Now, the trick will be picking the right ship for the right job, and fighting on a field of your choosing.

For example, what if winning the bid meant selecting the terrain (ergo, an environment card) instead of chosing to go 1st or 2nd??

Then, a generic ship of the right chassis type might be way more valuable than an ace of the wrong chassis type.

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

I mean that Standard is a one trick pony.

All ships only need to be good at a single thing in a single milieu: kill another ship in a field of 6 rocks.

If you diversify the mission parameters and/or diversify the battlefield, you will exponentially diversify the number of ships that have a job to do. Now, the trick will be picking the right ship for the right job, and fighting on a field of your choosing.

For example, what if winning the bid meant selecting the terrain (ergo, an environment card) instead of chosing to go 1st or 2nd??

Then, a generic ship of the right chassis type might be way more valuable than an ace of the wrong chassis type.

I like this idea. You should expand on it.

5 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Will people pleeeeeaaaassssseeeeeee stop using this as a benchmark.

To wit, other failures of humanity in an attempt at perfection:

• Eradicating poverty
• 100% vaccination rates
• Crashless cars
• Eliminating human error with technology
• Microwaving popcorn without burning the first bag

It's ain't a thing, folks, so stop lobbing it up as a comparative endpoint.

There are model-years of cars today with a 0% fatality rates; meaning no driver or passenger has died in an accident in those vehicles. Engineers found ways to decrease the most-negative outcomes involved with driving those vehicles; game designers could shoot for such a standard.

I am joining this conversation late, and I will go back and dutifully read all the posts, and I may even contribute an opinion or two, but I want to just say this: @Blail Blerg, it has been a long time since I have been so triggered as I was when I read the words "best balance", "diversity", and "Starcraft 2" in the same sentence. I'm still a little shook...

3 minutes ago, Explorator88 said:

There are model-years of cars today with a 0% fatality rates; meaning no driver or passenger has died in an accident in those vehicles. Engineers found ways to decrease the most-negative outcomes involved with driving those vehicles; game designers could shoot for such a standard.

? Balance points in games are subjective in nature, vehicle fatalities are very objective. Comparing the two is disingenuous. While FFG should, and is, work to keep the game balanced, it will never be "perfect"...

5 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Having multiple (even if not the whole list all one thing) helps to multiply minor overpowered/underpowered feelings within 1-2 points.

Okay, let's stop for a minute to discuss this because this point here ^ is not wrong and also proves why much of this thread IS wrong. You are 100% correct that, on a platform that can be taken en masse, minor points adjustments make a huge difference, far more so on any platform where you can only take 1. For example, if a Trade Federation Drone is a 20pt ship and Grappling Struts is a 2pt upgrade, then taking 8 TFDs with GS puts you 16pts ahead of the curve, a full 8% advantage and that's both of those only being off by 1pt each. This is also why spam is a core blind spot of most design groups and why I generally look for potential spam when I'm involved in a playtest because a small difference in points means little if you take 1-2, but can be catastrophic if you take the max available.

It's also noteworthy in this discussion that a small points change will prevent spam or make it less viable, but not adjust the value of the piece as an individual pick for example, if the X-Wing is actually a 40pt ship, but you pay 41pts for it, does that make any real difference if you're only taking 1? It does, however, prevent you from taking 5. Is there any reason for it to be at 40 since it won't affect it's status an individual pick? No, there isn't. Literally all 40 does over 41 is make it more spammable and "pile o' identical things" is not a desirable optimal way to play the game. Therefore, the correct solution is 41. This is exactly why the "If they dropped it by 1 more point I could spam it harder" argument is deeply and fundamentally flawed.

This is also why your above, and totally correct, statement is antithetical to a thread that is increasingly about just putting ships into a lower cost bracket to make them more spammable and increase the likelihood of that minor additional value being a massive problem.

5 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

For example, what if winning the bid meant selecting the terrain (ergo, an environment card) instead of chosing to go 1st or 2nd??

Then, a generic ship of the right chassis type might be way more valuable than an ace of the wrong chassis type.

I like the thought of there being a limited pool of Environment Cards for a tournament, stated well in advance. Say, three or four environments, so players don't have to take every possible option into consideration... with 12 environments between the Obstacles and Devices packs, that'd probably be too many to remember.

For each individual game, the player with the deeper bid could choose [pick environment from among the pool] or [pick first player]. Ideally, the environment pool would be selected so that lists good in one environment might be bad in others.

One cool thing: first player sets 3 out of the first 4 obstacles. A player who really wants to go second would get more asteroids tossed in their face.

//

In theory, I like the way that Imperial Assault tournaments were run (from what little I know about how they were run... I read a little about them a while ago, but never dug deep). Each season had like 3 missions. Each round of a tournament would use a different scenario, I think randomly determined and announced with pairings. My understanding is that you almost never won using the mission, but it served as a driving force to get the fighting going.

11 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

Yeah, I know. I just also know I disagree with some folks on the relative value of the Alpha Interceptor, so kind of elided over it.

Unpopular Opinion: I think the Alpha Interceptor is equal in value to the Planetary Sentinel Striker. A bit higher variance, but with more control over their maneuvers. The variance can be for good or ill... 10% chance for a tokenless Interceptor to pop on a single focused 3-red attack, but a 12% better chance to take no damage at all.

Personally, I find the Adaptive Ailerons ability much more useful than Autothrusters at lower Initiatives. In the Interceptor I prefer arc dodging and getting a shot so I get more value out of Autothrusters at higher Initiatives. Now I’m sure an Alpha as a blocker is nasty but I’d much rather take a TIE/ln in that role. The Striker in general seems more durable to one shots and I’m more likely to take a shield upgrade as it’s cheaper than on an Interceptor. I also like the flexibility of upgrade slots on the Striker and don’t like the two mod slots on an Interceptor.

I don’t think any points decrease would encourage me to take them. I don’t like the role Alphas fill.

13 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Will people pleeeeeaaaassssseeeeeee stop using this as a benchmark.

To wit, other failures of humanity in an attempt at perfection:

• Eradicating poverty
• 100% vaccination rates
• Crashless cars
• Eliminating human error with technology
• Microwaving popcorn without burning the first bag

It's ain't a thing, folks, so stop lobbing it up as a comparative endpoint.

You might be talking your x-wing arguing to a silly place...

5 hours ago, Dwing said:

You might be talking your x-wing arguing to a silly place...

Fair enough.

But it's the same silly place as "if/when the game is perfectly balanced."

26 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Fair enough.

But it's the same silly place as "if/when the game is perfectly balanced."

Is the whole topic of the thread is it not, to balance some ships out, to get us to that "perfect" game balance. Off course this is a never ending pursuit in an ever evolving game, but striving for it, is not silly I believe.

14 hours ago, Explorator88 said:

There are model-years of cars today with a 0% fatality rates; meaning no driver or passenger has died in an accident in those vehicles. Engineers found ways to decrease the most-negative outcomes involved with driving those vehicles; game designers could shoot for such a standard.

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.