so this game has lots of "break points" that for whatever reason are being avoided. I'm not here to address those reasons or their validity.

generic strikers are 34 points so that you can't fly six of them, generic VCX and Decimators are kept above 66 so you can't fly three of them. The list is long, these are just examples.

why?

the ultimate goal of this seems to be to avoid spam of a specific type of ship. It's not necessarily so much that a generic striker is worth 34 points such that it's thought that 6 of them would be too good but they're not great ships. so they stay at 34, which if you ask most players, is too much if you were just going to put one of them in your squad but is where they need to be to prevent spam.

this is kind of tangential to my point so let's leave the striker here, but I wanted to start off by laying out what exactly break points are and why/how they arise.

so with these break points, the game is only saved from SOME spam, not ALL spam. What do I mean by this? my point is about archetypes, not specific pilots. Ok I lied let's look at the striker again. What if the generic striker went down to, say, 32 points but they added a couple uniqueness dots to it (I don't know how many, let's say four). Problem solved? I say not really. Because generic interceptors also exist and do kinda the same thing, so if we do the same for them, then you can fly three of each, which probably breaks exactly the same thing that we're afraid of with six strikers. Ok so let's expand this analogy. Obi Wan Kenobi is a named pilot, easy. No danger of spam here. Or is there? Plo Koon and Ric Olie also have i5, passive defense mods, tons of maneuverability, good dials, and fragile ships that don't do a ton of damage for their costs. Obi/Plo/Ric is about the same thing for the game as if Obi were a generic. It's spam.

Essentially, my point is that the game, by allowing triple ace lists, quadruple bomber lists, triple turret lists, or whatever kind of spammy archetype you can come up with, is failing to do what break points set out to do.

Let's go back to the triple ghost thing. People usually say that triple ghost would be a problem because some lists can't possibly chip through that much damage in a game. But what lists are these? aren't the lists we're talking about there also spam lists that skew the matchups and the game? ace spam is still spam.

So my point is this: the game needs some kind of way of preventing archetypal spam. My personal favorite way of dealing with this is the Legion-style unit types thing. Let's just say that all the ace pilots are the "ace" unit type and you can only have one per list. (before you get mad about the theme, we could also add some plot cards* that let you thematically bend the rules, like, I don't know, pay a couple points to have both Anakin and Obi Wan in the same list or something). Similarly, you could put types on just about anything, and remove the need for multi-dots on stuff while also solving the problem of similar ship spam (the strikers and interceptors example).

Ultimately this is just a random guy shouting into the void, I'm not a dev. But it's something I think we should think about when we talk about points and worry about so and so generic crossing a break point for spam.

*Star Wars Destiny reference, they're cards that aren't ships or upgrades that you would pay for in your squadbuilding but do other stuff than be on a ship (this is a tangential idea I've had for a long time and could be a mechanic used for other stuff, this is just a potential use of them). For tournament reasons let's say they'd count as destroyed immediately to prevent points fortressing with them or something.

TL;DR

triple ace lists are no different than letting three decimators or defenders or whatever fit

the game is not safe from spam purely using points

we need Legion unit types or some other cool solution that I don't know because I'm not a game designer

err.

idk. spam lists are very fun. But i would not find facing 4 VCX very fun. Stupid rebel large ships with way too many options and firepower.

I do want to try 6 strikers or ints, just to see if it really is good or fun or not.

Makes sense to me, I doubt 3 decimators would be competitive once people got experience flying against them. Ships should be priced on their stats and abilities not boogeyman spam. The only basic ships that actually have spam synergy are IGs...

I feel like 5 strikers and a TIE/ln would be good if 6 strikers were too powerful.

I think the "breaking points" is more about NPE than the power level of the squad.

Maybe 3 Decimators are not broken (I think they are), but the game evolves more to a throw dice and don't worry about anything.

I have the same opinion with the triple defender or VCX. They aren't funny. And I find their current price is fine.

About Strikers, Interceptors and other ships that aren't so tough, I don't know. We always have problems with high efficience squads.

If the game is about choices and calculated risk, the spam is not the way.

@Kieransi

I LOVE IT!!!

I love to spam

I love to field same-ship squads. Feels elegant and looks awesome.

6 hours ago, BenDay said:

Makes sense to me, I doubt 3 decimators would be competitive once people got experience flying against them. Ships should be priced on their stats and abilities not boogeyman spam. The only basic ships that actually have spam synergy are IGs...

I feel like 5 strikers and a TIE/ln would be good if 6 strikers were too powerful.

This. People often complain about T-65 for example, saying that the reason they cost 41is so that you can't put 5 ofthem on a list. The thing is, i'd rather have Tie Sabine with intimidation or Airen Cracken for double mods than have the 5th X-wing. They cost 41 points because that's what they're worth.

5 Strikers + Wampa can all ready be a thing if you're wanting it to.

I concur with the OP.

There's so shortage of games where you have force structures to help with this kind of thing, and it makes balancing easier, because if you're a little off, it's fine, you can only take so many of a thing. The low model count of X-wing complicates things a bit, admittedly.

If the game didn't have a competitive side, none of this would be an issue. It is leveraging even the smallest advantage that demonstrates the imbalances. That said, if it wasn't for the interest in the competitive side who knows if the game would have taken off. All we can do is accept it.

To quote Selma Bouvier "love me love Macgyver"

I agree that spam breakpoints are hugely arbitrary in alot of cases. That said lists like 5 Striker + Wampa are mostly terrible not because they cant be spammed. Its easily my favorite list in the game and I have a huge # of games with it. 6 Strikers would have the same problems that 5 Striker + Wampa has. The list would have to allow 7 strikers before it would become functional unless FFG introduces a highly restricted Hyperspace mode again. Playing the list well has very little pay off and razor thin margin for error, 6 simply isnt enough and would never be enough in this economy with current low Ace tax rates.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think the core problem (besides low prices or pips for Aces) is a lack of in game counter play built into individual ace/ship platforms.

Core Counter Play Mechanics That Probably Should Apply to Nearly Everything:

• Blocking - Should Deny Actions and Modification
• Stress - Should Deny Actions and Modification
• Obstacles - Should Deny Actions and Modification
• Repositioning - Should Require Stress or Loss of Modification

If these aren't set in stone as counter options against Aces the only real option is extreme efficiency ( think "Force" Using Generics ) or Control/AOE. If Blocking, Stress, and Obstacles were actually relevant 6 Striker starts to look functional along with many other mid-efficiency low/mid init lists. And Trip Ace lists could exist without as much risk to the game. End of the day though thats not what most of the player base is asking for. Its arguably a more interesting game, but not a more popular one.

TLDR: Even 8 Vultures with Networked and Struts is an actively bad list. Ace Pips are probably the easiest answer.

Break points shouldn’t really be a thing, adding an extra generic to the table vs a different filler ship isn’t necessarily a thing that will flip the generally useless base generic pilots from being bad to good.

Im not scared of 40pt X-Wings or 66pt Delta Defenders. If they were going to a problem then 41pt X-Wings would be at least doing SOMETHING but they’re not.

Honestly I think Alpha Sqd Interceptors are probably right at 30pts, same for Strikers. Fielding 6 at 33 not 34 is just putting six bad ships on the table, they need to be costed correctly for what the ship is and not held into being useless by some primitive fear of a break point.

34 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Core Counter Play Mechanics That Probably Should Apply to Nearly Everything:

• Blocking - Should Deny Actions and Modification
• Stress - Should Deny Actions and Modification
• Obstacles - Should Deny Actions and Modification
• Repositioning - Should Require Stress or Loss of Modification

I’m on board but some ships should get repositioning with a cost. Otherwise if things aren’t different enough you won’t feel like there’s enough difference between ships

11 hours ago, Kieransi said:

Ok so let's expand this analogy. Obi Wan Kenobi is a named pilot, easy. No danger of spam here. Or is there? Plo Koon and Ric Olie also have i5, passive defense mods, tons of maneuverability, good dials, and fragile ships that don't do a ton of damage for their costs. Obi/Plo/Ric is about the same thing for the game as if Obi were a generic. It's spam.

This seems like the key point here.

Now, I'm not personally a fan of 66 point TIE Defenders. I've flown a lot of Deltas in 2e to a rather good record, and I'm quite happy with them being slightly overpriced to keep them a bit more rare at the small-store level. However, treating 3 Defenders like a big no-no, while allowing Obi/Plo/Ric, just seems off.

Mostly, aces have to pay their taxes. They ought to realize that a 3% weath tax rate isn't punishment: it's a life raft. It's how they buy their way out of revolution by the lower-priced generics.

//

I'd also say that most of the 41/34 point breakpoints don't matter... but we probably shouldn't buff them much. I don't think we can accomplish a pleasant game only through mass buffs: I think there will probably have to be painful nerfs of the serious overperformers (that is, pretty much all aces), and even somewhat fair ships getting nerfs they don't really deserve (TIE/sf up a little?).

I don't think 30 point Alpha/Planetary will work, since that'd probably mean 25 point Scyks, and 23 point TIE/fo, and 19 point Z-95s. I don't think that'd wind up with the game in a healthy state.

11 hours ago, Kieransi said:

Obi Wan Kenobi is a named pilot, easy. No danger of spam here. Or is there? Plo Koon and Ric Olie also have i5, passive defense mods, tons of maneuverability, good dials, and fragile ships that don't do a ton of damage for their costs. Obi/Plo/Ric is about the same thing for the game as if Obi were a generic. It's spam.

2 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

This seems like the key point here.

yep that was the key point, probably should have pulled it out for the TL;DR or highlighted it somehow.

I also definitely agree with you that they should be nerfing more and buffing less, the lists that feel right are more the kinda B-tier stuff, the S-tier lists feel like they shouldn't fit in 200 points.

I'm just kinda worried that some stuff can't really be fixed just with points. Like, I don't know exactly what Obi, Plo, and Ric need to cost but the problem in my opinion is more that you can fly all three in the same list than that any one of them is overpowered*. /shrug

I'm not sure the tiny squad size of standard X-Wing would lend itself to "unit type" limits. If 500 or 600 Epic is ever going to work as a competitive format, they'll need something like that.

I like my 4 B-wings and 8 Vultures. I don't mind trip Aces. I guess I disagree with the OP and think that the game can be balanced with just points. With only two adjustments per year, I don't think it will be.

Also, I'm afraid FFG really likes the named aces and won't ever cost them correctly. Maybe better to say the Aces are costed for what they feel like they are worth on a kitchen table, casual game. High level, competitive players can get so much added value from them. Which means aces will probably always be at least a little too cheap.

Agree and disagree with OP.

I think PIPs are definitely needed for generics to cost ships more properly. Generic spam is usually same ship type because you need to fly formation. Something like strikers and interceptors will be hard to keep in formation and fly properly. So pips for both and letting someone fly 3 of each is drastically different than 6 of the same ship type. It the reason people dont fly strikers with howlrunner, etc.

Control how many of what ship type is in a list kills the game for many. Some people only like jousty lists and swarms, and others only ride and die with aces. Saying only 1 ace in a list allowed probably makes me step away from the game.

I think what FFG can do, is release configs, or some new "Squad" upgrade that give a minus points to a ship build if "THIS OR THAT" requirement is met. So there can be trip aces, but maybe a squad upgrade card (EPT?) that says something like "Equip on initiative 6 pilot only. Reduce cost of all non-unique B-wings by 1." Something to that effect. That will give you the ace+friends archetype and open up generic play for taking a single ace. Now you dont directly reduce cost of ships that may be "SPAM dangerous" but reduce them for archetype play.

I'm less afraid of 6 Strikers or 5 X-Wings than I am of what they might enable. The danger generated from 38 point Kihraxzs is not 5 of them, but from allowing 3 with Torkil and Seevor. Perhaps the danger of 40 point X-Wings lies in having 4X and a Leia Carrier. Perhaps the danger of 33 point Strikers is 4 Strikers with Targeting Computer and Jendon with Krennic and Tarkin. Maybe those aren't good lists, but I just want to point out that there is more to consider than "are X of a single ship chassis good?".

Point changes are a versatile tool that I am glad that we have, and I could live through a 6 Striker meta for six months too see if it works, but I hope that FFG is looking beyond just price points for fixes like maybe a Sensor slot for the TIE Aggressor, or a talent slot for I1 Interceptors, or a Device slot for TIE Reapers.

18 hours ago, Kieransi said:

Obi/Plo/Ric is about the same thing for the game as if Obi were a generic. It's spam.

While I agree with this sentiment, I think it is fairly evident at this point that these pilots are very undercosted. Ric himself is essentially an I5 Defender with 2 less shields for half the cost. And Jedi, particularly OB1, got too cheap. If some aces have broken pricing, the answer shouldn't necessarily be to create (potentially) broken pricing for generics.

1 hour ago, 5050Saint said:

While I agree with this sentiment, I think it is fairly evident at this point that these pilots are very undercosted. Ric himself is essentially an I5 Defender with 2 less shields for half the cost. And Jedi, particularly OB1, got too cheap. If some aces have broken pricing, the answer shouldn't necessarily be to create (potentially) broken pricing for generics.

2 less hp and 2 points of regen.

There's always Epic...

What about a Pilot Skill Cap? Each squad can have one PS 6 or lower and a separate PS 5 or lower choice. This way you could have no more than 1 PS 6 or 2 PS 5s in your list (or one 6 and one 5). There is a miniature game called Infinity in which squads are made with points but there is also another special weapons score that a squad can't exceed. It prevents the situation of, one less guy in your squad but everyone showing up with heavy machine guns.

On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2020 at 6:22 PM, Shockwave said:

5 Strikers + Wampa can all ready be a thing if you're wanting it to.

And it's not exactly tearing up the game. I still think the Striker is a bit too good to take 6 off (and that's coming from someone who uses them a lot) but I'd certainly be prepared to try 6 TIE interceptors.