13 minutes ago, Mattman7306 said:

Exactly! Could you imagine if such iconic pilots as Duchess, howlrunner, Quickdraw, redline, and whisper were unplayable? They're my favorite characters from the movies!

You joke, but even just having a name can be the start of an attachment. I have no prior connection to pilots like QuickDraw, Greer, or Echo, but have grow one due to use. Their abilities add a bit of personality you don’t get with a generic. Not to say you can’t form an attachment to a generic (you and me all the way, Cartel Executioner), but when you have a name and an ability to add flavor, I think it’s easier to form bonds.

2 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

Wedge isn't Anakin, to be sure. Quickdraw isn't Anakin, either. Who cares? Some ships have different roles.

//

But I'm not sure I get what your on about.

On the one hand, you seem to be really frustrated with large orange numbers and passive mods being too cheap.

But Wedge is a large orange number with passive mods, and you... seem mad that he's overpriced?

Wedge is the reaper of Large Orange numbers and passive mods. His passive mods get worse as the enemy has fewer mods (removing one evade vs. 3/8ths of an evade). And he doesn't have the mobility to arcdodge like other ships, or keep defensive passive mods.

33 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

You joke, but even just having a name can be the start of an attachment. I have no prior connection to pilots like QuickDraw, Greer, or Echo, but have grow one due to use. Their abilities add a bit of personality you don’t get with a generic. Not to say you can’t form an attachment to a generic (you and me all the way, Cartel Executioner), but when you have a name and an ability to add flavor, I think it’s easier to form bonds.

likewise. I didn't even know who Guri and Sunny Bounder were until I started playing this game, but... I fell in love.

I created their personalities and mythos my way as I played them. And that was something I never expected when I first got into this game nearly four years ago, when I bought my first ship for its pilot and the character I created so many stories with when I was barely 9 years old... Bossk.

The Narratives Are There

Just now, Cloaker said:

likewise. I didn't even know who Guri and Sunny Bounder were until I started playing this game, but... I fell in love.

I created their stories and mythos my way as I played them. And that was something I never expected when I first got into this game nearly four years ago, when I bought my first ship for its pilot and the character I created so many stories with when I was barely 9 years old... Bossk.

The Narratives Are There

I had some previous history with Guri from Shadows of the Empire, but Sunny is another good example for me. No real love for the Scyk Chassis, but Sunny’s a blast, and become a favorite of mine. Haven’t used her as much in 2.0, but I did manage an all crit shot with her in one of the most recent games with her. The magic is still there.

3 hours ago, Cuz05 said:

Fair.

If you could also avoid turning the meta into a generic spam slug fest while you're fixing these things, I'd appreciate it. Cheers.

^^This

If you want generic spam slug fest, play epic.

6 hours ago, gamblertuba said:

All of those points would matter in untimed games. In timed, tournament games, they mostly don't. The winning strategy for many Jedi lists is to deal a bit of damage and run away.

3 hours ago, Biophysical said:

It would be nice if triple ace lists were actually punished for jousting jousting lists though. Between force, tokens, regen, and dodging while retaining offensive/defensive mods, most triple ace lists can head to head joust an efficiency list and make it a pretty even exchange. Even enough that once it turns into a maneuver game they have a huge advantage.

This one person's opinion is that if an ace list jousts an efficiency list it should be a mistake that is difficult to recover from. Right now, it's either a slightly suboptimal exchange for the aces or it's a straight up even exchange, and that's absurd.

Regen just needs to go away. It's sooooo bad for the game. It creates bad gameplay (RUN AWAY) and promotes bad gameplay (Joust with aces). It does not work like they want it to work. "Oh this ship must take a weapons disable to get a shield". News flash FFG, A SHIP THAT WANTS TO REGEN WASNT GOING TO FIRE THIS ROUND ANYWAYS! Regen is just bad. I dont think force jedi are a problem as they only have 2 green dice and Im sure most of us get them to half during matches, but lose cause of regen. So jedi are not invincible once regen is gone.

Kill regen.

Other than regen garabage, and some bad juju stuff like Nantex tractorbeams, the game is in a very good place. I think force needs to be re-evaluated and cost adjusted because if 1 force = 6pts, 3 force does not equal 18pts. The value goes up drastically with more force. There is a big difference between two force jedi, and three force jedi, yet plo and obi are only a 2pt difference, as is Mace and Luminara. 2pts for an extra force? YES PLEASE!

1 hour ago, Joker Two said:

A list of the game's most played ships starting with the setting's most iconic (and most skilled) pilots is hardly a condemnation.

If you sort that list by Average Swiss Rank (and ignore entries with less than 10 lists), in the top 40 there are:
• 2 Force-users : Ahsoka Tano and Saesee Tiin.
• 11 Initiative 5+ Pilots: Tomax Bren, Han Solo [Scum YT-1300], Kavil, Ketsu Onyo, Han Solo [Resistance YT-1300], Hera Syndulla, Dengar, "Midnight", Old Teroch, Talonbane Cobra, Thane Kyrell.

If you sort by Cut Rate (still ignoring entries with less than 10 lists), in the top 40 there are:
• 4 Force-users: Plo Koon, Kylo Ren, Inquisitor, and Obi-Wan Kenobi.
• 7 Initiative 5+ Pilots: Plo Koon, "Whisper", Kylo Ren, Lando Calrissian [Rebel YT-1300], "Quickdraw", Ric Olié, Obi-Wan Kenobi (with Soontir Fel just barely outside at 41).

If you sort by Wins (still ignoring entries with less than 10 lists), in the top 40 there are:
• 4 Force-users: Seventh Sister, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Plo Koon, Luminara Unduli.
• 4 Initiative 5+ Pilots: Whisper, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Ric Olié, Plo Koon.

If you sort by Cut Wins (still ignoring entries with less than 10 lists), in the top 40 there are:
• 4 Force-users: Jedi Knight, Ahsoka Tano, Saesee Tiin, Grand Inquisitor (with Obi-Wan Kenobi just barely outside at 41).
• 5 Initiative 5+ Pilots: "Scourge" Skutu, Han Solo [Resistance YT-1300], Saesee Tiin, Grand Inquisitor, "Whisper" (with Obi-Wan Kenobi just barely outside at 41).

So by what metric are these options overperforming competitively?

Puts a proper perspective on the ability to manage data in different ways to make arguments for or against certain things. I find that meta-analysis is only really useful in terms of what the archetypes are, not necessarily the power of individual lists.

27 minutes ago, wurms said:

There is a big difference between two force jedi, and three force jedi, yet plo and obi are only a 2pt difference, as is Mace and Luminara. 2pts for an extra force? YES PLEASE!

spot on diagnosis of a key imbalance issue

As far as your point on regen astromechs (as the other regen mechanics aren't really an issue) ... as much as I personally disdain it, maybe using it all of 3 times in as many years, I think it has a place in the game. It's somewhat canonical. The general 2.0 approach of costing an upgrade higher, however, all it does is encourage point fortressing in the game.

So what to do with it?

If we we allow it in Hyperspace, the "Basic or Introductory" format but remove it from Extended, the "Advanced" facet, just for a season, it'd be interesting to see how it affects squad compositions.

Yeah, I basically am saying 2.0's first ban list begins with R2 Astromech. But it wouldn't REALLY be banned... it is just an option, in a different format.

Apart from that, if we're looking for an easy fix?

Change the mechanic to include receiving a Strain token. Think of it as dedicating all available ship systems to repair damage... including manuevering controls...

Personally, I'd consider chasing the "meta" to be a downward spyral in and of it's self. Why? Because when people say "the meta" what they really mean is "the best and only viable options." And this really does ignore the fact that the top players aren't winning because of the ships they brought or the pilots they used in those ships. They are winning because they are skilled at the game and have a lot of practice with their list. If they had chosen different ships and practiced just as much, they would be preforming just as well. It's the player , not the list, which determines how well they do.

Assuming I had the same type and number of ships as the world champion along with the same upgrades, I could fly his list. Would I do anywhere near as well as he does with it? No way in ****. Just as I suck at flying Imperial. But I'm getting decent at flying Rebel Alliance. And this is entirely because that's the faction I play. That's what I have practice with. Even then, I'm better at using the Modified YT-1300, B-Wing, and T65 X-Wing then I am any other ship in my rebel collection. And this is entirely because those are what I have the most practice flying.

Here is a visual representation of the initiative of the top 50 pilots over the course of 2nd Edition so far. (Top 50 is arbitrary but for last set of data pilot #50 is Rose Tico and 51 and 52 are RAC and the Feethan Ottraw so it seemed like a decent cut-off?)

• Initiative 6 doesn't look too bad until you realize that the there are only 16 initiative 6's in the game so having 6 of them in the top 50 is a pretty severe over-representation.
• Maybe most useful is looking at trends over time. Initiative 5 is shrinking to make room for 2's and 3's. Things are getting better.
• Initiative 1 is a bad place for everything that ain't a vulture droid.

BTW- the excel spreadsheet I made uses meta-wing data and you can plug in any number to see how the top "X" pilots break down according to initiative. For example, the top 20 looks like this:

5 minutes ago, Faerie1979 said:

They are winning because they are skilled at the game and have a lot of practice with their list. If they had chosen different ships and practiced just as much, they would be preforming just as well. It's the player , not the list, which determines how well they do.

That's testable though and demonstrably wrong. A large amount of results for one list played by many different players can tell us whether a list floats to the top. In such cases, the contribution of the individual player is removed to a large degree. There are always some lists floating to the top.

13 hours ago, SabineKey said:

Someone sees “make them bad” and no amount of quotation marks can save the suggestion.

I thought people liked stuff that was bad.

13 hours ago, SabineKey said:

I can agree with the “less is more” statement and believe you should use that instead of “bad”. I know I’m being very particular about language, but when you get right down to it, words are basically it when it comes this form of communication and can easily cause misunderstandings and confusion when used improperly. Same with hyperbole. You spoke out against “consequence free double repositioning”, which doesn’t exist. Double repositioning comes with opportunity costs and token costs. Now, there is definitely an argument for “insufficient consequence to double repositioning” and I believe should be discussed more. But the hyperbole of “no consequence” muddies the waters. Heh, and maybe this is just my time on this forum showing, but I’ve seen plenty of people use puffed up exaggerations as facts. Heck, I’ve been guilty of it too. And it rarely leads to productive conversations.

I agree with the Gollop quote. I just think shoehorning it as the definition of an already defined word isn’t effective communication. And if you want change, effective communication is key.

Oh, you and your antiquated notion that words are for effective communication and should therefore have actual meanings!

8 hours ago, Faerie1979 said:

Not saying you're wrong. Force is a potent thing which can make ships with it incredibly sturdy.

3 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

Imagine the Worlds final with a bunch of generic TIEs and Zs.....

Seriously, I wouldn't want every list to be a swarm, but a high-level swarm v swarm match sounds pretty cool, actually.

2 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I thought people liked stuff that was bad.

That’s the Michael Jackson Conundrum, and should probably be left to a professional to unravel.

When you populate your list with top tier players, all of whom obsessively chase "The Meta" and spend a lot of time practicing with a given list once someone else proves it to be effective... Yeah, way to prove me wrong. Because top tier players who only play what is thought to be "the best" due to it winning tournaments when played by top tier players is so very much evidence that the list it's self is why they did so well. It can't possibly be player skill and hours upon hours of practice with a given list. No, it must be the list's composition.

Which isn't to say such a list it's self isn't effective. But the list is not the real reason the players are doing well with it. It is, as I already mentioned, the skill of the player that makes a difference. No list, no matter how strong it is considered to be in the meta, is going to make an unskilled player suddenly be able to win even a local tourney.

36 minutes ago, Cloaker said:

The general 2.0 approach of costing an upgrade higher, however, all it does is encourage point fortressing in the game.

That's clearly why Supernatural Reflexes is all over the meta. It's everywhere and there's nothing we can ever do about it. Those untouchable points-fortresses just completely kill the game. Other lists just can't win at high-level competitions.

😢 😢 😢

Of course this is sarcastic, but my point is there are diminishing returns. If you have to work hard enough to preserve those points, they become balanced between performance-requirement and achievement-reward. Increasing the price increases both, but it does shift the balance back to center as you don't have as much in your list, which both increases the amount of fire you're drawing and decreases your damage output. It's always a balance, and SR proves that it is achievable.

36 minutes ago, Cloaker said:

Yeah, I basically am saying 2.0's first ban list begins with R2 Astromech.

I'd much rather see any or all of the following:

• Objective-driven victory (like Marvel: Crisis Protocol, not like Legion or Armada – simpler is always better and anything other than full reorientation fails to root out the core issues). This would fix 90% of the issues with Organized Play and would make Casual play more fun as well.

• Rules change to keep half-points from coming back via regen

• Victory and MoV only by points destroyed, rather than both points destroyed and points preserved.

• Astronomical regen pricing that puts it in a category with SR or Gunner Luke: Fringe but acceptable option that's fairly priced. Failing that, pricing like Gonk: AKA trash.

I will say that I agree – the meta leans too strongly on ace-heavy and force-heavy lists. I understand that this makes some people less eager about the game, though I do fail to understand why anyone would be leaving now , as the game is clearly more diverse than it's ever been before in either edition. I further see the ace problem as easily fixable and very likely to be fixed very soon. The doom and gloom predictions perplex me. Why undermine the very version of the very game you love so much? It only serves to scare off new players with false accusations.

Everyone on this thread vastly underestimates both the power of price changes and the goodwill of the developers. No, they aren't pricing things to make XYZ the best thing on purpose; they're pricing for balance and they've always been clear about that. Of course they're far less likely to over -nerf Luke than Drea Renthal, but don't act like they'd never touch him (they already have and probably will again). It is not true that the developers do not want perfect or near-perfect balance. It is not true that points changes cannot effect very good balance. My only grievance is that it takes a long time to get from point A to point B. As in most aspects of business and development, I much prefer an incremental rapid-iterative approach to development. But that's minutiae, and the developers stress that they want to avoid frequent changes to provide a fairly reliable experience for players. I can respect that.

If the 23 point Academy pilot is the baseline, most force-sensitive aces need to go up by 6-7 points and most other meta aces/force wielders need to go up about 4. If the current meta is the baseline, most generics and mid-initiative pilots need to go down a little and most aces need to go up by 3-5.

People that say certain cards are "broken at any cost" don't seem to realize that:

• No card that exists in this game would be good at 177 points, which is the maximum limit of the developers.

• No card that exists in this game would be universally bad at 0 points, which is the minimum limit of the developers.

• Given sufficient granularity, there must be a price point in between "too good against everything and too bad against everything "

• Building a list around being good against certain things isn't competitively viable because you can't predict your matchups.

• If a card is between the points of "too good against everything and too bad against everything" it's matchup dependent, and because matchups can't be predicted, building against diverse lists is always the soundest approach.

• This creates a virtuous cycle that we have seen play out in the OP circuit. Balancing points always leads to greater list diversity and fewer hard counters.

All complaints on this thread are addressed toward cards that lean close to too good (Delta-7, TIE/v1) or too bad (Scyk, Jump, Starfortress) against everything. Cost buffs or nerfs can fix them and do fix them. We have a very, very strong track record of this. More changes may be needed, but they are not powerless to fix these problems. I would argue that there are cards that are poorly designed from a thematic or mechanical perspective (Punishing One, Inertial Dampeners, etc.), and an errata would be better for these, but these are rare.

"Too good at any price" applies only to cards that read something like "Setup: roll a red die. On a [crit] result, you win the game." Those are bad because they're not fun and they remove player agency. Aces and force-sensitive pilots do neither. Their problem is not their mechanics but their cost. In terms of cards that are actually put out by the developers and not issued a subsequent errata, the "Too good at any price " is strictly a myth.

3 hours ago, Cloaker said:

l et's preface this by noting that unskilled defensive dice mitigation is bad for the overall game in terms of rewarding true proficiency.

sure

3 hours ago, Cloaker said:

It removes the core onus of design, which is "Fly Better,"

maybe?

3 hours ago, Cloaker said:

and it leads to the current devolution of contests into 75 minutes slogs and chases.

does it? there are things other than unskilled defense dice mitigation that could cause that

3 hours ago, Cloaker said:

The rounds have gotten longer while amount of turns shorter in 2.0 (9-10 turns is probably about average)...

[citations needed]

3 hours ago, Cloaker said:

the games go to time now almost always.

they don't .

3 hours ago, Cloaker said:

This means less gameplay overall, so with less turns to really get in meaningful engagements, those precious few need all the free mods they can get.

again, need citation for turn count data. Also, having less turns doesn't mean you need free mods for the turns you get

3 hours ago, Cloaker said:

Hence, the rise of free mods as the primary means of increasing chances of victory now take precedence over skilled maneuver selection.

Maybe? there's a strong correlation between those free mods and highly re-positional ships, it'd be more fair to say that ships with a strong maneuver advantage are coupling that with free mods

3 hours ago, Cloaker said:

...ACES, HIGH INITIATIVE & THE FORCE/FREE MODS IS GOOD FOR OUR GAME

1) Mistakes get made. The Force, as a game mechanic, allows a new player to have the occasional error and yet they can still feel like they have a chance to keep their beloved named ace in the game a bit longer. Few things are more discouraging to a rookie x-wing player than seeing their favorite character destroyed early. Strange as it sounds, if it happens too often in the early stretch of a new player's gaming cycle it can dissuade them away from the game long term.

conversely, The Force, as a game mechanic, allows a veteran player to have the occasional error and no consequences out of it.

Noobtubes are good , but the design needs to be such that veteran players can't take advantage of it, which is not where aces, high i, force, and free mods are at.

3 hours ago, Cloaker said:

2) Speaking of Aces, new players, by and large, do NOT start playing this game to fly generics. The day a new prospective player walks into your FLGS, observes the pew-pewing, and says " Can I fly my favorite ship, a Generic Inquisitor ?" yeah.... not going to happen. New players need to see named characters to draw their prospective game identity/style from, whether to faction or a pilot, and FFG shrewdly ensures this is always at the forefront of their pilot costings. Generics, quite honestly, SHOULD rarely be used in ratio to unique pilots, and usually by experienced players talented enough to turn them into Unnamed Heroes of Legend over the duration of pla y.

Named characters are good for theme and drawing people in, I agree.
But first, for some people, star wars isn't just luke vs vader, but x-wing vs tie fighter.
Second making special characters more expensive makes them more interesting. If I'm flying wedge and luke and biggs and garven, they're 4 x wings with a bunch of different words on them, but luke and 3 generics is superstar luke leading the charge with his rebel squad.
battlefront usually isn't all hero vs hero for a reason. or from another disney IP: if everyone's super no one will be

3 hours ago, Cloaker said:

3) This game REALLY began with Wave 3. Let's face it---there has been a wonderful influx of new players who became attracted to the game by the new factions, specifically the Republic, and FFG wisely ensured Jedi in particular would be both competitive and easy to manage. And their Star Wars was the prequels---that's how THEY learned about or became intrigued by this awesome IP.

there is a difference between competitive and overly dominant (see noobtube video above)

3 hours ago, Cloaker said:

4) Taking into account Initiative as a core element, in which FFG essentially compressed all ranked pilots in the game by 46% (1.0 having Veteran Instincts and the race to 11 as the other staple card next to PTL) created such a swell of overlaps---specifically within Initiative 5---that Pilot Abilities Matter More Than Initiative. They've become more of the "deck building" aspect of the game than actual upgrades, crazy as it sounds. And why is that good? It's because it is easier for new players to keep up with their actual pilots, rather than a dizzying array of upgrade cards and innumerable token components.

maybe that's better? But conversely you've now tied deck building more strongly to pilot ability, so if I love luke but hate his ability, its harder to tweak him to be what I want. (I mean, I don't have skin in this game personally, but I could see it happening with a new player)

3 hours ago, Cloaker said:

Sense a theme here?

All of the things that we experienced players are apt to loath, (and which I am right there with you, Kaptin) allow this game to have a lower barrier to entry in terms of enjoyment and accessibility for new players to pick up.

But again, they could introduce mechanics and pilots to draw new players in while keeping good competitive balance for veteran players (see noobtube video above).

3 hours ago, Cloaker said:

If we don't bring in new players, make parts of the game open and able for them to win, 2nd edition doesn't get past 48 months. All of us veterans own the ship models for the OT factions for the most part---we don't really NEED a whole lot more to play and enjoy the game. I'm one of them. I'm firmly now in OT factions and Scum as my primary, and apart from a new paintjob every now and then and the curveball release (I'm looking at you, TIE Brute, because I am one of 9 people who think Solo is a top 5 SW film) I'm not spending as much anymore. I'm a TERRIBLE target audience for the long term health of the game. We need a game and ships and options where new players can come in and feel cool. And more importantly, spend $ to keep the game financially viable.

Same team

3 hours ago, Cloaker said:

SO HOW DO WE GET TO STILL HAVE A GAME PREDICATED MORE ON SKILL?

It's simple---get back to making Hyperspace second edition released ships only, with a culled ship count and with its own uniquely liberal point costing for Aces, The Force/Free Mods, and High Initiative.

same team

3 hours ago, Cloaker said:

Extended is the sanctuary of the hard-nosed vets.

that's... the opposite of what I've seen. Vets are more likely to be the ones interested in a restricted format.

3 hours ago, Cloaker said:

Think Hyperspace= Basic, Extended= Advanced. Price up unskilled mitigation aggressively. That's it, really. Two variants of the game---no different in philosophy then having objectives or epic--- where in Hyperspace Regen Foresight Obi-Wan CLT is 61 points, but in Extended he's maybe, let's say 67 or something.

6 Points isn't that much you say? It sure is to a skilled player looking to bid and put the burden of execution on their opponent. Extrapolate that uptick in costs for a few more ships, and it gets apparent real quick.

Would people play a format with different points though? When people thought hyperspace was the main format, ALL the events were hyperspace, no one wanted to play extended until worlds and the bigger events came out as extended. Rookie players don't want a training wheels format, they want to feel like they're playing the same game as Oli or DT.

Additionally a split like that splits up your player base which is generally bad, you can't run events where you just have rookie players, you won't have the numbers. And if you're letting veteran players into those events, its not like you can force them to run obi at extended points, so they'll just roflstomp the new players with easy mod obi.

The answer is better balance overall, and experienced players helping and teaching new players. not some

3 hours ago, Cloaker said:

So there you go. We need to keep the game wide open to new players now, but agreed, we need something to emphasize skill more as well. So many viewpoints, and I know mine is just one of many.

I agree

16 hours ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

Also, 'fun' fact- Soontir Fel is 93% of all TIE Interceptors! For every squad flown with a Saber Squadron Ace, there are ONE HUNDRED squads with Soontir Fel! This is worse than Boba's ratios in wave 1!

This might be or is probably true, but without going through everything by hand or having another source database I'm not sure how you'd be able to check. ATC is only checking number of lists with pilot X, not number of appearances of pilot X.

16 hours ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

Also, speaking of the FO, Kylo is in 70+% of all First Order lists. Its almost like he's just another Jedi.

Not sure where this number is coming from. I see 390 FO lists, 206 Kylos, and 205 Quickdraws, or just a little under 53%.

Obviously that's still a comically high number, and getting close to 7B counts at 67% (490/731). But, it seems odd to single out Kylo out and not Quickdraw and they're virtually identical, and of course Quickdraw isn't an aethersprite. I suspect it's because these are the highest "orange numbers" you can get in the faction with a price that isn't the punchline of a bad joke.

10 hours ago, Jarval said:

Looking at Advanced Targeting Computer, the pilots that really stand out to me as performing drastically above average aren't the Jedi. Both the Trade Federation Drone and Captain Sear have really good cut and win percentages - they've both got a cut rate of over 30%, and a win rate of over 60%.

This is why win rate can get a bit messy as things get more popular. As something gets more popular, it's win rate falls from both mirror matches and just saturation. For example, the 9 point proton torpedoes had a winrate under 50% IIRC, but obviously they were good. Or, rephrased: win rates are useless because if something is overpowered it'll have a 50% winrate since all lists will have it and half of them have to lose. When something is sufficiently popular the winrate always starts to trend down. I'm not making a statement on the power level of sear/separatists in general here, just advising caution on trying to draw conclusions from some of these numbers in isolation.

2 hours ago, Joker Two said:

If you sort that list by Average Swiss Rank (and ignore entries with less than 10 lists), in the top 40 there are:
• 2 Force-users : Ahsoka Tano and Saesee Tiin.
• 11 Initiative 5+ Pilots: Tomax Bren, Han Solo [Scum YT-1300], Kavil, Ketsu Onyo, Han Solo [Resistance YT-1300], Hera Syndulla, Dengar, "Midnight", Old Teroch, Talonbane Cobra, Thane Kyrell.

Lower is better here - this is a list of the worst performing ships in the game!

Avg Swiss Rank is the average swiss rank of a given pilot, normalized to a 100 person event. So a pilot that only has one appearance of 5th out of 20 would have an avg swiss rank of 25 (out of 100).

I agree with @jagsba that @Cloaker 's long post is something I can sort of get behind parts of but don't understand other parts. I agree that we need different formats and a way for new players to get into the game but if hyperspace isn't the competitive format nobody will play it. casual players already want extended more, to have more options. competitive players will play whatever the competitive format is and suck it up. if casual and competitive preferences align, there's nobody for the new players to play with unless they also play that same format. You can't just have a "new player format" and hope that veterans will take time out from playing the actual game to play the new player format with them. it serves no purpose then and seems condescending.

I do fully agree that competitive players and casual players need different points for different ships in order to maintain balance, but the only way that works is to have Extended as the casual format and hyperspace as the competitive format.

10 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

competitive players will play whatever the competitive format is and suck it up.

I think this is a bit of an overstatement. There are certainly those who will just play whatever format competitive is, but there are still competitive players who have no interest in Hyperspace, even if it is the only game in town. I think declaring Hyperspace the only competitive format would have a negative impact on attendance. Perhaps it would balance out, but it’s a cost that needs to be considered and weighed.

Just now, SabineKey said:

I think this is a bit of an overstatement. There are certainly those who will just play whatever format competitive is, but there are still competitive players who have no interest in Hyperspace, even if it is the only game in town. I think declaring Hyperspace the only competitive format would have a negative impact on attendance. Perhaps it would balance out, but it’s a cost that needs to be considered and weighed.

pretty sure we've had this debate a lot before lol

I don't want to take us too far down a side-tangent. personally I much prefer a well-balanced competitive game to having more options, and part of it is that I have the relatively unpopular opinion that listbuilding is sort of boring

I understand that a lot of people, especially scum players, don't like hyperspace and I kinda get it, I just don't think extended is tenable for balance reasons, new player reasons, or product release/availability reasons.

I'm not opposed to extended events but in my opinion they should be like epic, quickbuild, or evacuation of D'Qar - more casual side events. the prize ticket system is a good way to implement this kind of thing in my opinion.

3 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

I think this is a bit of an overstatement. There are certainly those who will just play whatever format competitive is, but there are still competitive players who have no interest in Hyperspace, even if it is the only game in town. I think declaring Hyperspace the only competitive format would have a negative impact on attendance. Perhaps it would balance out, but it’s a cost that needs to be considered and weighed.

One of the FLGS (well, local is a stretch, but still) runs a monthy small-kit. They tend to flip between Hyperspace and Extended.

Personally, I think Hyperspace should be the "major format" but just gotta scratch that Extended itch sometimes. There's too many fun, oddball ships to ignore them completely.

17 hours ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

I'll start off by saying that this is a serious post and not a way so that I can trick someone into asking what Ligma is

4 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

One of the FLGS (well, local is a stretch, but still) runs a monthy small-kit. They tend to flip between Hyperspace and Extended.

Personally, I think Hyperspace should be the "major format" but just gotta scratch that Extended itch sometimes. There's too many fun, oddball ships to ignore them completely.

I personally advocate for both formats to receive official support and events because I believed we need both. Well, we need what Hyperspace could be. Not what it is now.

7 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

pretty sure we've had this debate a lot before lol

I don't want to take us too far down a side-tangent. personally I much prefer a well-balanced competitive game to having more options, and part of it is that I have the relatively unpopular opinion that listbuilding is sort of boring

I understand that a lot of people, especially scum players, don't like hyperspace and I kinda get it, I just don't think extended is tenable for balance reasons, new player reasons, or product release/availability reasons.

I'm not opposed to extended events but in my opinion they should be like epic, quickbuild, or evacuation of D'Qar - more casual side events. the prize ticket system is a good way to implement this kind of thing in my opinion.

We have. I’m sorry if I keep re-hashing old points, it’s just that I believe very strongly that the optimal future for X-Wing sees both formats used in competitive events. As I’ve said before, I know that is the harder path, but I still maintain that difficulty of an action doesn’t make it the wrong course of action.

yeah idk

I struggle with what the definition of "competitive" is. I like the idea of side-events. like, main tourney hyperspace, and then there's epic, extended, and aces high side events. prize tickets for all.

the problem with extended being the main focus of any events is mostly product availability. do we want FFG to reprint 1.0 releases once stock of the extended ships runs out?

49 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Lower is better here - this is a list of the worst performing ships in the game!

Avg Swiss Rank is the average swiss rank of a given pilot, normalized to a 100 person event. So a pilot that only has one appearance of 5th out of 20 would have an avg swiss rank of 25 (out of 100).

Ah, thank you, good to know! In that case it is:

If you sort that list by Average Swiss Rank (and ignore entries with less than 10 lists), in the top 40 there are:
• 4 Force-users : Seventh Sister, Inquisitor, Plo Koon, Anakin Skywalker [N-1 Naboo].
• 5 Initiative 5+ Pilots: Plo Koon, "Blackout", "Null", Ello Asty, Corran Horn.