Two days ago I've sent an e-mail to FFG with my opinion on the current point update strategy, but comrades suggest me to re-post it here to attract necessary attention.

Here it is (excuse me for longreed):

Quote

Dear Fantasy Flight Games members, hello!

I suppose that at these days you receive a lot of feedback from X-wing Miniatures Game players. However, I also to give my feedback according the recent squad points cost update too.

Not a secret that points changes are supposed to be argued by some players affected, but what upsets me the most is that you continue to do it in the same manner as in the first time: when you want to impact too overpowered build, you strictly grow prices for all of its key components, both, eliminating this build from the meta rather than providing competitive alternatives, and also making all these components unavailable for others due to their overpriced cost.

For example, TIE Punisher was too powerful in the last half of the 2018. After you simultaneously raised costs for both TIE Punishers and upgrades they require they are virtually wiped out from the game. At least, I never seen any Punishers in game and even newer heard of them since that change. Besides, all the "heavy bomber" ships (not many, just about 3 distinguished ships in the whole meta) lost Trajectory Simulator (which was pretty fair for 3), and, so, any interest for bomb loading. The same happens now with other favorite builds: you continuously apply efforts to eliminate 4 Phantoms, rebel beef, fat Han and so on, and, I guess, if they still will be in game, you will rise them again until they vanish. But what a problem if such a strong end efficient builds exist if enough alternatives a given? Similarly, Tactical Officer is likely to disappear now: cost of 2 and crew slot occupation looked just fair payment for red coordinate fix. If nobody wanted Leia for 8 points, who will need to fix rather emergency action for 6? People will use it red, or not use it at all.

Another important point is that many upgrades giving too big advantages for certain ships or pilots are up so high, that players won't even think of trying them with any other ships. For example, it was before the first point update when I only seen Juke on a ship other that Phantom or Defender. The same is with Trickshots. For 1 point they were too cheap and became filler, while for 2 they are just okay: you do not take them brainlessly, but still can try to create an interestingly-playing squad not only on Han. {For example, I had my favorite build made of 2 B-wings with trickshots and HVK. It was efficient - though not overpowered - fun and unusual in play. But now it is dead by the squad points because of Han and the rebel beef}

On the Live Stream your representative, Max Brooke, proposed, that it's okay if upgrades would be useful only with limited number of ships and pilots. But it's not so. It's not ok, if an upgrade is ubiquitous and becomes a 'filler', and it's also not ok, if many upgrades are used with only strictly determined ships. It might be okay, if only very few upgrades are usable with very restricted amounts of pilots, as long as those pilots are provided with useful alternative options, and while most of the others upgrades can be sensibly applied to various ships and pilots.

If some upgrades are only taken with certain ships or pilots, and those pilots are never taken without those upgrades, it's as if these cards 'stick' to certain pilots, becoming their additional ‘personal ability’. These 'sticky upgrades' are killing one of the most basic, in my opinion, ideas of the game: variability. Not a secret that some cards link much better with some specific ships or pilots, giving them much bigger advantages, than to others. If you just raise prices for those upgrades and ships that use them, they will rather 'stick' to those ships, than be replaced. I mean, that those certain ships will be the last using them, still getting much more advantages than from any other upgrades, while for all other ships those cards are gone far beneath cost-effectiveness. (If continuing this way, both pilot(s) and upgrade will be eliminated from the meta rather than 'separated' from each other) And the more upgrades 'stick' to the ships, the less creativity and less room for unusual ideas lasts. Growing in number, such 'sticky upgrades' threaten to turn the Extended format into another version of Quick Builds.

I propose to allow players more possibilities for diverse and competitive builds rather than to eliminate present top builds from the game. Definitely, if a ship or an upgrade is overpowered, it should grow in price equally to its power, as a result, probably losing some secondary features and some of its attractiveness. However, growing it's price just because it links too good with something else is a dangerous way, rather restricting players' opportunities, that expanding them. After all, not-playing ships and upgrades are like 'dead weight' for the game.

Jukes and Trickshots are difficult cases, though. They can give moderate (rather opportunistic) opportunities for most of the ships, but for some they became 'must-have' due to their impact. Maybe, the time is for a bit complicated move: both upgrades should have their costs separated by their link with ship's or even pilot's ability.

For example, Juke's cost must grow only for ships, which abilities give them free evade or free evade action. I suggest making them 7 for TIE Phantom, TIE Defender and N1 and returning them to 4 for all others. The case of Trickshots, is even harder, as it links with pilot’s ability rather that with ship's. I see two ways to fix it. The easier one is to make it 4 for all ships with native turret weapons, as for those ships 'it's easier to maneuver in asteroids, still shooting opponent's ships'. This approach will affect most desired pilots Hans, Dash Renard, Lancer crafts (they're also interested in obstacles because of their tractor ability), and HVK, while other pilots of turret ships are not likely to take Trickshots anyway. The more precise way is to up them for the specific pilots, whose abilities encourage them to fly in obstacles, such as: Hans (rebel and scum), Dash, again, maybe, Lancers, Blackout and all Mining Guild TIEs.

The solution I propose creates an uncomfortable precedent of an over-complex cost management. However, until such an emergency occurs again, no need to apply it for any other upgrades. For example, obvious, that Arvel Crynyd always take Intimidation. Nevertheless, as an A-wing pilot, he has another Talent slot if desired, Intimidation is sometimes taken with various blocker ships, and Crynyd with Intimidation is not a problem for game balance, so there is no need to fix this upgrade.

Oleg Raynus, X-wing community of Sankt-Petersburg, Russia

All points are also supported by

Pavel Beryozov, X-wing community of Moscow, Russia

P.S. I also want to say a few words on the TIE Aggressor cost fixes. The cost, close to the TIE Bomber's cost seems to be fair for this ship. Unfortunately, in the current meta the best thing it can is to simply replace TIE Bombers in 'missile swarm'. You can make it so cheap, that people start to spam it as a beef, but do you want it? If you want to return TIE Aggressor in game, it requires not point reduction, but introduction of powerful and long-ranged turrets, that can serve as a main weapon. Only this way the ship can become flanker and 'role-player' it was supposed to be while released in 1.0.

P.S.S. On behalf of our community I also ask you to lower the prices for TIE Interceptor generic pilots and Turr Phennir, as now they are completely out of use.

What's your opinion on the proposal?

Just in case, I mentioned there only few changes that bothered me and realize it's not a complete list of misfixed upgrades and ships for general points reduction. Two main points I'd like to have discussed are:

1) general change in points update strategy (adding opportunities rather than eliminating current top builds)

2) how to deal with Juke and Trickshot

I think that tie aggressor Needs a configuration to get usefull, its problem is the bad design so maybe something new that works with its linked action could fix it making it interesting again.

And yes, interceptors have to go down.

On 7/4/2019 at 4:24 PM, Rain_SP said:

On  the Live  Stream your  representative, Max Brooke, proposed, that it's okay if upgrades would be useful only with limited number of ship  s and pilots. But it's not so. It's not ok,

Hard disagree here, man. it's totally fine if juke is good on ships that get free evades are the only ones that can effectively take juke at its cost. It's more about the design of Juke than any costing strategy you can come up with.

It's fine if the only ships that can effectively take autoblaster are the ones with 2 dice primaries.

It's fine if the only list that can effectively take Howlrunner have at least 5 ships.

Overall, I applaud your passion! It's great to have people giving a critical eye to a game they love and play. But maybe consider that these games designers are more capable than you are at balancing their game. Sure, sometimes it's not exactly what you want but in a lot of cases there's fans of the game just as passionate as you that might believe, for example, that Juke should go the way of Luke Gunner. Be cool, ride the meta, and do what you want, man.

Juke was badly designed; I'm happy for it to be priced out of the game.

In my opinion, it should have been 1 pt, but cost your evade to work. Then it makes sense for low Init pilots to take it, and gives opponents a choice about trying to shoot off the evade, or saving their focus for their own defence.

I also would have avoided giving any ships a 'free evade action' - defenders are priced to take this into account, Phantoms still aren't.

But your main argument, that upgrades should be viable options, is a fine ideal to aim for, just not necessarily one to hold the designers to achieving 100% of the time. I'd be more confident of their skill if they'd at least try some of Major Juggler's maths before releasing stuff, but they are getting the points to be more balanced as more revisions are released.

I like that ships are different and have different strengths and weaknesses, same with upgrades.

You cannot have any unique feel and flavor if everything is designed to be equally good in all builds.

44 minutes ago, Gilarius said:

Juke was badly designed; I'm happy for it to be priced out of the game.

In my opinion, it should have been 1 pt, but cost your evade to work. Then it makes sense for low Init pilots to take it, and gives opponents a choice about trying to shoot off the evade, or saving their focus for their own defence.

Your design is worse imo. Juke is already statistically worse on offence then just taking a focus. (Not to mention the fact it might be useless if your opponent takes a focus themselves).

Right now Juke is only good if you have a free evade. Your change would only compound that more, and at one point it would probably be a big boost to those ships even having to spend the evade.

The problem with Juke is it's a really crappy upgrade that can be really good if your ship has high action economy. Is that bad? I used to think so but I changed my mind. I decided I like having things have a feel or identity to them and not just become veteran instincts or push the limit and get stapled on to every ship.

So freaking glad players don't get to design this game.

1 hour ago, Gilarius said:

Juke  was badly designed; I'm happy for it to be priced out of the game. 

In my opinion, it should have been 1 pt, but cost your evade to work. Then it makes sense for low Init pilots to take it, and gives opponents a choice about trying to shoot off the evade, or saving their focus for their own  defence. 

Hard agree here. Or make it cancel a green die and cost your evade for 3 points.

On 7/4/2019 at 10:24 PM, Rain_SP said:

What's  your opinion on the proposal?

Just in case, I mentioned there only few changes that bothered me and realize it's not a complete list of misfixed upgr  ades and ships for general points reduction. Two main points I'd like to have discussed are:

1) general change in points update strategy (adding opportunities rather than  eliminating current top builds) 

I strongly disagree.

Specifically, what you seem to miss is that eliminating current top builds means adding new opportunities!

1 hour ago, Icelom said:

I like that ships are different and have different strengths and weaknesses, same with upgrades.

You cannot have any unique feel and flavor if everything is designed to be equally good in all builds.

Your design is worse imo. Juke is already statistically worse on offence then just taking a focus. (Not to mention the fact it might be useless if your opponent takes a focus themselves).

Right now Juke is only good if you have a free evade. Your change would only compound that more, and at one point it would probably be a big boost to those ships even having to spend the evade.

The problem with Juke is it's a really crappy upgrade that can be really good if your ship has high action economy. Is that bad? I used to think so but I changed my mind. I decided I like having things have a feel or identity to them and not just become veteran instincts or push the limit and get stapled on to every ship.

So freaking glad players don't get to design this game.

Hey, don't beat about the bush - tell me how you really feel!

2 hours ago, Icelom said:

I decided  I like having things have a feel or identity to them and not just become veteran instincts or push the limit and get stapled on to every ship. 

But now juke is stapled to Phantoms and Defenders, and Trickshot is stapled to Rebel/Scam Han. Those ships are always fielded with those upgrades, and nothing else uses them. As the upgrades still give those ships too much power, they continually go up, up and up. At some points, the ships they were stapled to will deny them. Then they’ll be completely out.
After all, I never suggested to make anything ubiquitous and auto-inclusive: it’s another bad side that I mentioned.

2 hours ago, Icelom said:

Juke is already statistically worse on offence then just taking a focus. 

Evade is generally defensive action, comparing with focus that’s both applied for attack and defense. For ships with free evade Juke gives a highly effective offensive instrument, that really annoys people, while for others it provides rather backup opportunity that lets them more free to take evades if they need to repel incoming fire, still leaving them minor offensive advantage. However Juke’s cost dictated by ‘free evade’ ships makes it far too expensive for a backup stuff.

3 hours ago, Gilarius said:

I'd be m  ore confident of their skill if they'd at least try some of Major Juggler's maths before releasing stuff, but they are getting the points to be more balanced as more revisions are released.   

Sometimes yes, sometimes not. For example, after the first points update, how many TIE Punishers you’ve seen fielded, and how many HVK’s? Those ships are likely to be pushed out of meta. Would you name it balance? Before the first points update, there were some overpowered builds that occupied top lines and had to be nerfed. What we had just now? 4 Phantoms and Rebel Beef are everywhere, then, fat Han and Imp. Aces. So, do you say it became more balanced? It’s not obvious. ‘Heavy bomber’ ships denied Trajectory Simulator and generally go without any bomb loadout. Do you think that’s how things should be?
Some of the fixes are good, while some are like smashes of a hummer. Such changes look rather emergency actions that fine tuning, and usually seem to rather brake that fix. Finally, they seem to be usually based on high performance of a single certain build with minor attention to other.
That's what mostly disappoints me.

I feel like this is a bit harsh. Personally, I think FFG have been doing a reasonably good job with point changes, although I wouldn't mind seeing slightly smaller, more frequent changes (say 3 per year instead of 2).

You say they're just increasing costs of the current meta lists instead of giving new opportunities, but I don't think that's a fair criticism. Firstly, increasing costs for current meta lists can give new opportunities, because it gives people room to try other upgrades or lists which were previously just less efficient than the best meta options. Secondly, FFG have also been trying to help things that haven't been getting used to make them more viable. Remember that the current Rebel meta is actually a result of a price decrease on Leia, who wasn't getting used on release. In the upcoming points change they're doing stuff like giving the JM5K a gunner slot and reducing its cost to try and help people get it on the table. Sure, there have been some cases where they've nerfed or buffed something a bit too much, but game design is hard and that sort of thing is always going to happen occasionally, unless they are very conservative with changes.

Regarding things like Juke: the way it's written means it will always be much stronger on ships that get a free evade (or reliably get multiple actions) than those that don't. There's not really a way to price it so that it's a choice for every ship. If you cost it low so it's worthwhile on ships with one action, no other talent will ever be used on free-evade ships. If you price it so that free-evade ships have to make choices about what talent they equip, Juke will be too expensive to be effective on single-action ships. FFG have elected to do the latter, which I am fine with.

FFG were heavy handed with Han Gunner last time around yet have no readjusted its cost. Boba went up last time and so did Marauder title which effectively nerfed scums best gunner option right out of the game. Moldy Crow title also jumped up in cost from 12 to 18pts last time around and still costs 18pts. Prior to 1st Points rotation I was playing Bobba/Marauder/Han Gunner+Kavil/DT/Proton Torps+2x Jakku Gunrunners

Fang Fighters remain well costed although remain rather fragile as well with no mod slot. I'd probably trade Concordia Dawns ability for a mod slot to allow shield upgrade or hull upgrade.

Scum remains near the bottom of the heap, bottom 3 from 7 factions. It does a little bit of everything but not anything really well. Some of its best pilots like Palob, Boba and Guri are expensive, you are paying a premium for those scum tricks. You are often left with hard choices about running 3 quality ships or 4 ships with a mix of filler ships (Jakku Gunrunner 32pts, Z-95 24pts, Mining Guild Tie 24pts) that just don't quite get the job done right now.

Summary: Points adjustments didn't give much to scum this time around. Shadowcaster title is good at 3pts, so is contraband cybernetics but hardly game breaking improvements. Dengar is cheaper now and with the title comes in at 64pts. pretty decent for an init 6 pilot but that dial is terrible. The issue for scum seems to be that its ships aren't actually good enough to be competitive without upgrading them to the point you will be playing one less ship than opponents most of the time. Maybe Bossk or Brobots will show up in a competitive squad.

1.0: We hate upgrades that are good on every ship that can equip them!

2.0: We hate upgrades that are only good on some of the ships that can equip them!

FFG: MAKE UP YOUR **** MINDS!!

I think FFG is going about the point adjustments the close to the best way they can go about it.

17 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

I strongly disagree.

Specifically, what you seem to miss is that eliminating current top builds means adding new opportunities!

Exactly, by nerfing top builds you automatically uncover new opportunities.

The only point I would like to address from your long email is:

On 7/4/2019 at 10:24 PM, Rain_SP said:

For example, TIE Punisher was too powerful in the last half of the 2018. After you simultaneously raised costs for both TIE Punishers and upgrades they require they are virtually wiped out from the game. At least, I never seen any Punishers in game and even newer heard of them since that change.

I understand the point about both hitting the pilot and its upgrades, as that seem like "double-over-nerfing", BUT I think this is necessary - and a lesson that FFG learned from the 1.0 Jumpmaster disaster, where they went for succesive soft-nerfs that individually seemed ok , but simply meant the jumpmaster keept reemerging as top-dog in different build-incarnations, which simply prolonged the pain, until it was finally nuked to oblivion. Instead they now hit the combo hard (but not so hard as the jumpmaster eventually got hit) to ensure the meta-changes (as you observed), then they can always reduce points softly if the Pilot needs some form of re-entry.

Importantly, I think a lot of the Forum peps, who are asking for point changes (nerfs or boots) or the approach to point changes, assumes that FFG wants to find the perfect equilibrium where all ships and builds are equally valid and all have an equal spot to win Worlds. I have a surprice for you, FFG do not want that , FFG are interested in a constantly changing meta (!), not only to make you buy ships but also to make X-wing a live, fresh, and vibrant game.

Finally, I personally do not want the perfect equilibrium either, I do not want a game where list-building is reduced to a random-number generator. That is not how the game should be in my opinion. List building shoud be a challenge and I enjoy spending time list building finding that cool and interesting combo that will make my points worth more. Naturally, I am also not interested in a game where there are only 1-3 builds in top 16 of all major tournaments. To be honest, I think the game is in a very very good spot at the moment, with a very wide open meta, and I think the approach FFG has taken so far is the right one. Is everything perfect, no, but it is prette darn good.

11 hours ago, Ysenhal said:

You say they're just increasing costs of the current meta lists instead of giving new opportunities, but I don't think that's a fair criticism. Firstly, increasing costs for current meta lists can give new opportunities, because it gives people room to try other upgrades or lists which were previously just less efficient than the best meta options.  Secondly, FFG have also been trying to help things that haven't been getting used to make them more viable. Remember that the current Rebel meta is actually a result of a price decrease on Leia, who wasn't getting used on release. In the upcoming points change they're doing stuff like giving the JM5K a gunner slot and reducing its cost to try and help people get it on the table. Sure, there have been some cases where they've nerfed or buffed something a bit too much, but game design is hard and that sort of thing is always going to happen occasionally, unless they are very conservative with changes. 

Eliminating current top builds is a possible way to give people options to come up with something new, that's true. But it's not the only way, and I'm not sure it's the best one. For example, first point change wiped out strong strikers list of the first half-year and enabled lists of turret ships and other durable ships such as Rebel beef. If those lists were enabled while lists being in use at that time not wiped out, wouldn't it have given people more options that they finally received?

Another side effect of the eliminating top builds strategy is that if currently too strong build is raised up by all it's meaningful elements, both ships and upgrades, all other players who tended to use them, even not in that very build that is directly hit, are forced to stop using them because of their overprice. If all key components of the targeted build would go up just 1-2 pts, so that it still can be assembled, just having to discard some of its secondary features, or, maybe, to downgrade some pilots (so it would be weakened rather that eliminated), collateral damage will be not that big. This way, not-targeted builds, sharing some cards with builds that are to be nerfed, would have just few of their cards up 1-2 pts, that's can be handled, especially, if some others of their cards are down a bit. If overpowered builds are just weakened, and, simultaneously, new options are provided, I see it as a sufficient fix. But as top builds are tend to be completely wiped out, so that their total price is raised to 220-230 pts to completely prevent them from being fielded, a lot of their elements are going up by 5-6 pts, which ruins many others, not-targeted lists.

Finally, I'd like to ask game designers to make changes more subtle and accurate: for example, if something plays too good, it must go up, but not to the point where it completely stops playing, like scum Han gunner, and if something doesn't play at all, it shouldn't become as cheap as it's auto-included as Leia. I totally agree, that current rebel meta was completely formed by the first points change, as it consisted of downpriced ships and upgrades, while no viable alternative was provided. But I'm not sure it's the best way to be.

11 hours ago, Ysenhal said:

Regarding things like Juke: the way it's written means it will always be much stronger on ships that get a free evade (or reliably get multiple actions) than those that don't. There's not really a way to price it so that it's a choice for every ship. If you cost it low so it's worthwhile on ships with one action, no other talent will ever be used on free-evade ships. If you price it so that free-evade ships have to make choices about what talent they equip, Juke will be too expensive to be effective on single-action ships. FFG have elected to do the latter, which I am fine with.

That's why I propose to make it 7 for three certain ships with 'free evade' ship ability (and expanding this list as more such ship types appear) and return it to 4 for all others

42 minutes ago, Sciencius said:

Finally, I personally do not want the perfect equilibrium either, I do not want a game where list-building is reduced to a random-number generator. That is not how the game should be in my opinion. List building shoud be a challenge and I enjoy spending time list building finding that cool and interesting combo that will make my points worth more. Naturally, I am also not interested in a game where there are only 1-3 builds in top 16 of all major tournaments. To be honest, I think the game is in a very very good spot at the moment, with a very wide open meta, and I think the approach FFG has taken so far is the right one. Is everything perfect, no, but it is prette darn good.

I'll rather agree with you point in general. List building is never a random generation for me, too, and I also don't want everything to be the same.

Finally, now we'll have to wait and see, how meta will change: if a month after we see more than six (better ten) build types on top of the tournaments (which are likely to be our menu for the next half of a year), we'll be able to say that things are turning around. Otherwise we'll have to admit we're gust circling around.

I just do not like things like "Now, all are playing Leia!", or "Then, all do not play Tactical Officer!". It sounds more suitable for some casual format than for the main game mode. If cards become more or less preferable, it's fine. If they go out of play or become auto-inclusive... it's not that fine. And.. yes, I prefer that players are rather encouraged to come up with something new, than forced to.

Man, I disagree. You are being pretty harsh on the developers, and, I'd be kinda shocked if your email was tested seriously, since it very much reads like "they nerfed my favourite toys, I want them back please."

Since you mentioned that Trajectory Simulator was fine at 3, let me suggest why it wasn't. As a 3 point upgrade, it entirely changed the way that you and your opponents flew. While, yes, it required taking bombs, it allowed you to double tap on damage if your opponents moved into a joust, or if you managed to catch them on one. It gave lists with it an often overwhelming advantage in the initial opening, either by forcing an engagement on their terms, or by forcing damage through before shooting. It also allowed you to clear out obstacles before you ever reached them, removing another key component of the game. Trajectory Simulator, due to the game-warping effect of its design, was not fair at 3.

And, maybe you don't see bombs in your meta, but I see plenty of bombs in mine. There's a guy who runs Boba with Protons, there's a guy who runs exclusively TID Bombers loaded to the gills, there are a few CIS players really looking forward to Bombardment Drone shenanigans...bombs are definitely not dead, the most oppressive use of them is just now properly costed.

As you also mentioned, pricing upgrades differently on individual pilots is a night are for tracking things. "Kitchen Table" players might struggle to make sense of it - and, if you put an upgrade on one pilot in your list, and then go to put it on another and it's 3, 4, 7 points more, and you don't know why, that's gonna be weird. And you're going to think it's a glitch, unless you know otherwise. It's simpler the way they are doing it.

We are also seeing things that were priced out, like Boba, slowly coming back down. The hard hit allows them to reintroduce things at their own pace. And, by cutting the best lists right out of the meta, it forces players to find and play something new. If they just forced you to cut one or two things from your Top Tier List, players might never do the experimenting needed to find new strong lists.

Finally, I like where the game is at. When you fly jank, and someone sits down next to you with four Phantoms, it feels bad. I would rather see that hard nerfed out of the meta, so that Jank and all builds are (theoretically) more viable, than have "bad lists" gain incremental point reductions that only allow you to fit more upgrades on already bloated ships, while the top tier lists lose one copy of Juke, or whatever, each time.

2 hours ago, Sciencius said:

Importantly  , I think a lot of the Forum peps, who are asking for point changes (nerfs or boots) or the approach to point changes, assumes that FFG wants  to find the perfect equilibrium where all ships and builds are equally valid and all have an equal spot to win Worlds. I have a surprice for you, FFG do not want that , FFG are interested in a constantly changing meta (!), not only to make you buy ships but also to make X  -wing a live, fresh, and vibrant game.

Quoting for emphasis. It's such an important point that is widely overlooked

3 hours ago, Rain_SP said:

If all key components of the targeted build would go up just 1-2 pts, so that it still can be assembled, just having to discard some of its secondary features, or, maybe, to downgrade some pilots (so it would be weakened rather that eliminated), collateral damage will be not that big.

I mean... can't rebel beef still be built, abet changing or "downgrading" some pilots? That seems to be exactly what happened?

3 hours ago, Rain_SP said:

Finally, I'd like to ask game designers to make changes more subtle and accurate: for example, if something plays too good, it must go up, but not to the point where it completely stops playing, like scum Han gunner,

I mean... maybe? There are so many upgrades that exists, it seems odd to fixate on the ones that have no been "pushed out" since new ones did "come in". Like, why *must* han gunner be always 'competitive'?

Like, this is basically measured by what shows up in top cuts, right?

Basically, I see why you're mad (since you laid it out), but I'm not sure I can relate to it. Sorry

I understand what the original poster is saying, but there is a bit of paradox:

1) If you limit the powerful upgrades so that they are only viable on certain ships, you limit the possibilities and diversity. This is true.

2) However, if you limit powerful builds, other ships which were not viable suddenly become viable, expanding the list of possibilities and diversity. This is also true.

Case in point, my beloved IG-88.

In v1.0: things spiraled out of control up to the point where my only hope was to dare believe that a special upgrade for it was coming (double cannon slot?). It never did.

In V2.0, initial launch: tropedoes, Vader on phantoms and alpha strike capabilities were too present and dangerous. They were not viable.

In V2.0, first point change: torpedoes are out of the equation, but people found 4 phantom juke and Dreadlocks. Rebel beef was also a pain, but manageable. Alpha strike and / or high health were still too high and IG-88 was not in a good spot, despite a point reduction for them.

In V2.0, recent point change: most lists with high alpha strike are gone. I have brought my IG-88 back since the point change and out of 12 games, I only lost one. So yeah, they are competitive again (very hard to pilot, however).

Several other chassis which could not face off against huge alpha strikes or coordinated jukes are also back in the game. The meta changes very slowly, however, and a lot of people only focus on where point reduction costs occured. Diversity goes up when overpowered lists are reduced in strenght (and yes, I say reduced, not eliminated). Both Drea (and Y-Wings instead of all Loks) and 4 phantoms can still fly. They are simply weaker than what they used to be.

8 hours ago, dotswarlock said:

Case in point, my beloved IG-88.

care to share ur squad list? 2 IG's or 2 and a 3rd support ship. on paper 3 naked IG's should work.

12 hours ago, Da_Brown_Bomber said:

care to share ur squad list? 2 IG's or 2 and a 3rd support ship. on paper 3 naked IG's should work.

Sure thing, the squad is only 1/3 of the puzzle anyway (the other parts being turn 0 or asteroid placement and the second one being strategy/statistics).

The build is IG-88 B and IG-88D with the following upgrades: Fearless, Advanced sensors, Ion cannon, tractor beam, proton bombs, deadman's switch, stealth device and IG-2000.

It's a funny build because most players look at the stack of upgrades and don't know how to react to it. Those that are new to the game don't pay attention and fall into every trap. Those that know the game are aware of all traps, but try to avoid them all, including those you had no intention of doing. It's a whole lot of fun!

EDIT: also the best way to pratice these types of builds is through the FlyCasual app. If you fly it 40 or 50 times that way (15 minute games) then you start getting the right feel for it.

Well, guys, I want to say, that I'm starting to apprehend your point now. Maybe, some things really should be thrown away of the game, as developers realize they were a mistake. I have to admit, that my attitude was such because I've just never played top builds nor against them, but favored some builds that were destroyed by the 'splash'. I just find hard to share your optimism that the game is going to become balanced after this change: for me it seems that we'll face a way more things that will have to be priced out before we'll get rid of distinct tops.

And there is always a minor amount of changes that bring concerns even to people sharing your point, not just me - that's also a reason.

It does feel bad when meta-contender builds go up by 30 points collectively. This happened to the old classic Boba and Redline builds. It’s now happened to the Beef and Quad Phantoms.

A little (or big) increase on EVERY component of a meta list is crazy.

Imagine if old Boba build had gone up by 10 not 30 points collectively. It would be less efficient but would still be played while also encouraging different build arounds to find the best efficiency.