3 hours ago, brownj23 said:

I disagree that Ion is overpriced. Do you really want a weapon to be cheap when it can remove all agency from your oppoent by getting behind them and then ion walking a ship off the board. I thought we did away with that in 1.0. A cheaper ion cannon could allow this to be a thing again. Sooo ion cannon should stay at 5 pts.

it takes 2 hits getting through to apply 1 ion. This is neither common nor predictable.you can put more on large ships, but they require more anyway. Only the B-Wing and Y-Wing suffer, and they’re the ones that want it to work in the first place!

Walking any ship off the board is a very unrealistic proposition in 2.0. Just look at 6x ion aggressors or 6x ion Scyks. They do very, very little of that and that's an absolute max scenario

They balanced it well with the damage requirement. The Ion Cannon Turret is priced well. The ion cannon is the exact same price for MUCH less versatility.

The turret is more about coverage or dealing that first damage. The cannon is almost strictly about the effects beyond the first, so deserves a significantly lower cost. No one’s saying it’s trash or that it should be free. 3 would probably be fair. It’s just mostly unworkable at 5.

On 11/4/2019 at 7:11 PM, ChahDresh said:

There is great danger in attempting to balance ships by affecting upgrades: you're using a very blunt instrument.

I realize this is a little late in coming, but I did think this was worth coming back to as I've been thinking on it for awhile.

The purpose isn't to balance ships by making their upgrades good; it's rather to make the upgrades all comparatively equal in efficiency. I'll explain what I mean.

On 11/4/2019 at 7:11 PM, ChahDresh said:

The most common ships for Empire, by hull count and list presence, were the TIE V1 and X1 respectively. For Separatists, say hi to the Vulture. For Scum, it was the Khiraxz by both list presence and hull count; for Resistance, the RZ-2 and T-70; for the First Order, the TIE/sf. These are all ships that can natively carry missiles. Improving missiles would not, in itself, increase list diversity; it could very well do the reverse, by strengthening these ships.

Most of these have very little use for the missiles I want buffed in the first place:

• The X1, the Kihraxz, and the T-70 already have a 3-dice attack, so they won't spend a single point to get one, much less 3; they simply don't need them. They would have use for Proton Rockets, but they don't tend to take them. Note that I do not think Proton Rockets need a significant price reduction. It mostly has its place, though it's perhaps slightly more niche than it could be. I'm more concerned with the lock-based missiles.

• The Vulture Droid already has access to excellent missile upgrades in the form of ESC and Discord. Would it prefer to take clusters, concussion, or Ion missiles? I highly doubt it. Would these make it more fearsome than ESC or Discord missiles? I certainly don't think so.

• The TIE/v1 actually did take missiles in most instances. Together with Jendon and FCS, there was a very nice synergy there. If you reduce the cost of concussion missiles, what new monster do you create? This brings me to my next point.

On 11/4/2019 at 7:11 PM, ChahDresh said:

And I know the response you'd make is, "well, then nerf those things"... but that has dangers, too.

Not, " then nerf those things." I'm not saying they need to be nerfed because they make missiles too good. They need to be nerfed regardless because they're over-performing, with or without missiles. Jendon is very good with the TIE/x1, and the TIE/v1 is even okay with jut FCS and no missiles.

On 11/4/2019 at 7:11 PM, ChahDresh said:

Not only is it difficult to change multiple variables at once and have confidence in the result,

I know that it is difficult. But small changes will have a minimally-detrimental outcome. Note that if you reduce concussions by 2, increase Inquisitors by 2, increase Jendon by 2, and increase Fire-Control System by 1, you've created a net increase in the overall cost of the list.

You don't know that missiles won't be a problem. You don't know that Inquisitors won't be a problem, and you don't know that Jendon won't be a problem, but you do know for certain that all together, they'll be less of a problem, because it's harder to fit them all together now. The same goes for Passive Sensors. It could go up by 1-2 points and still be quite useful, but somewhat less ubiquitous, which would be good for the game. We'd see more empty slots, but we'd also see more of the other upgrades taken (especially with a 1-pt decrease to some of them). Again, several very very small changes are better than a few large changes.

On 11/4/2019 at 7:11 PM, ChahDresh said:

but if you take that approach, you've recreated the illicit tax . It is inherently true that ships pay a price for their upgrade slots, but trying to fix that price is chancy.

Cannons? The lack of good cannons hasn't stopped B-Wings, Lambdas, Upsilons, T-70s, or Firesprays from being huge parts of the cut for their respective factions. Boost cannons, and you do nothing to narrow the gap between those platforms and their faction inferiors-- you've merely further strengthened them.

There are ships defined by their ability to take certain upgrades, such as the TIE Aggressor being defined by its ability to take turrets. In its case, the shortage of good turrets is a contributing factor to the ship's absence from competitive tables. Yet even there it's not the only thing: after all, the BTL-B has made a splash for Republic using the available turrets. Matchstick and Broadside are really good. Give them a better turret, and you start introducing secondary distortions.

Making stronger, less-janky illicits is like trying to use a tuning switch on an entire faction. That's playing with fire.

I don't follow completely. Would the Z-95 cost less if it didn't have the missile slot? Or the Kihraxz? Or the T-70? It's hard to say. You can't exactly balance in a vacuum. If the missiles are appropriately priced, it shouldn't have too much effect on their cost. It could somewhat more on a chassis like the Z-95 which has a good chance of getting some offensive boost out of it, but that's somewhat situational.

I don't have a problem with paying for slots per se . I think that the Sensor, Crew, and Tactical Relay slots in particular have had a premium associated with them, for good reason. What I have a problem with is paying for useless slots. If the illicits were particularly powerful, or were slightly underpriced as a nod to faction identity, then charging for the illicit slot could make sense, though it wouldn't be my favorite solution. As it stands though, there's almost never a reason to pay more for a Scum Z-95 than a Rebel Z-95. Having the "option" of equipping DMS doesn't matter at all when it isn't equipped.

I don't think we necessarily need stronger missiles, or stronger cannons, or stronger turrets at all. I think more options for turrets could be nice (again, to improve list diversity, and the type of role that a turreted fighter could fill), but new turrets don't have to do more damage than a dorsal or Ion turret. Maybe they could, with certain restrictions and requirements, and at a higher cost, but I don't think we need to fundamentally increase the power level of the turreted ships.

What I'm arguing for is not more powerful options, but more balanced pricing. I'd like to see most upgrades taken about equally, rather than having clear winners and losers. To be sure, some will be much more niche than others. Almost all Modifications are, and most illicits should be (which is why the slot should be free) specifically because of the distorting effect that an unequivocally powerful upgrade in either of these slots would have. Trajectory Simulator will also be limited to a few ships (Hyena, MG100, Punisher). Others have preferences. But who has any use for Ion Missiles, and would pay four points for that monstrosity? The rare opportunity for a completely unmodified double-tap at Range 2 isn't worth 5 points either, so cluster missiles are also almost completely unused. Take off just one or two points and they become interesting options. They don't inherently increase the power level of the ships that can carry them, but if you want to invest more in the offensive power of a ship, now you have that option without treating it like a centerpiece.

To be clear, I'm not trying to oversimplify the matter. Perfect balance is more or less impossible without perfect mechanics and infinite granularity. But better balance is something to strive for, and while on the one hand the fact that the game's balance is at an all-time high that doesn't mean it can't be improved, equally the fact that it can't be perfectly balanced doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve it. What I propose would be an improvement, not necessarily perfection.

On 11/4/2019 at 7:11 PM, ChahDresh said:

The idea of every card being useful is utopian in every sense of the word: an ideal to be strived for, but an unrealistic one. And that's okay. Trying to balance individual pilots or upgrades is a far more ambitious goal than trying to balance factions and ships. If we're in a position that such a degree of granularity is what there is to complain about, we are indirectly praising the devs.

I completely agree. I think they've done a phenomenal job with this game. I tell everyone I know what an exemplar X-Wing 2.0 is for living tabletop games. I look forward to many years of highly enjoyable play, and I hope more games follow in its footsteps.

On 11/4/2019 at 7:11 PM, ChahDresh said:

Let's be clear: I'm not saying I wouldn't like some neat cannons. I would love a reason to take cannons other than maybe an HLC because Defenders move in straight lines. But I want cannons in the game because I think using cannons would be cool-- not because I want them to somehow redeem the Scyk (and accidentally make Braylen better).

I also agree. The purpose is to improve thematics and increase diversity, not to raise the power level of any individual thing per se. But to do that, you have to make the thematic motivations align with the mechanical motivations. This is the essential task of a game designer; to make the player feel like the decisions they are making really do what they feel like they do. You blast the ship with an ion cannon because you want to immobilize it. You punch your ship into higher speed to get away from the pursuing enemies.

Gameplay issues arise when thematic decisions don't align with mechanical results. For example, equipping your B-Wing with Ion and Heavy Laser Cannons should make them more versatile fighters with a variety of powerful capabilities. As it stands though, the B-Wing doesn't get much out of these, and it would get more mileage out of an Advanced Proton Torpedo or Passive Sensors, which cost less. I want to make the canonical B-Wing loadout viable, and it works out in this case, because the offending party isn't showing up in other lists that have become problematic. The same goes for most missiles. And for certain talents, devices, crew, and gunners.

But I remain optimistic that we'll see this improved with the next update.

On 11/5/2019 at 6:26 PM, brownj23 said:

I disagree that Ion is overpriced. Do you really want a weapon to be cheap when it can remove all agency from your oppoent by getting behind them and then ion walking a ship off the board. I thought we did away with that in 1.0. A cheaper ion cannon could allow this to be a thing again. Sooo ion cannon should stay at 5 pts.

Basically, it makes no sense that it costs the same to have a forward arc Ion Cannon than a rotating arc Ion turret.

So yeah, on that principle, it is overcosted.

Also, keep in mind the amount of people that is playing a 3 evade ship with force nowadays (call it inquisitor or jedi on a delta 7), which makes it almost impossible to get through a second damage.

I don't believe it is costed correctly and that is the reason it is almost not played.

Double post by mistake

On 11/3/2019 at 12:19 PM, ChahDresh said:

TALENTS

Ships in the cut had a total of 179 talent slots. The most common choices for those slots were:

None (empty): 57
Crack Shot: 48
Heroic: 22
Ensnare: 13
Predator: 12
Intimidation: 5
All other choices: 22

I bet you, clever reader you, can figure out how many Nantex fighters were in the cut!

The major offenders for leaving slots unfilled were shuttles (Lambda/Ups/HWK)

WUT? lambda can haz talents?