2 hours ago, Hatemonger said:

I feel like this is the single best piece of evidence that a list is undercosted. I mean, it's literally saying "my list works as well as other ones that cost 20 points more".

The relevant turn-of-phrase I like: If the bids are this deep, the ships are too cheap.

I occasionally like to think of bids in terms of upgrades.

Crack Shot is still a 1 point upgrade as of Season 6, summer 2020.

Crack Shot is a game-winning, competitive-tier upgrade.

How many Crack Shots can your squad bid and still be competitive against the field?

That, in my opinion, is a very very relevant question for our current extended meta - one that has yet to materialize an answer.

My personal hunch: You probably shouldn't bid more than a couple crack shots or you're toast .

4 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Fresh eyes and hopes versus the crusty salt of dried tears, sweat and blood of the past.

@Cpt ObVus and @Wazat if some of the guys you're talking to seem awfully dismissive or uninterested in a discussion then it's because they've had the exact same discussion many times. To give 3 examples:

• We've even had a poll a quite a while back, and I think roughly 2/3 of players said they play XTMG because of Star Wars, while roughly 1/3 did not care much or at all about that part. Unfortunately, the motivation is subjective.
• The "there's always something OP" or "always a problem child" argument is simply not true. We're not mindless robots, we can agree that a certain width of performance levels is fine. But that width, too, is subjective.
• "Soontir lives and dies by dice variance" is not wrong, but we can look at aggregated results to see whether that variance pushes him closer to 2 or 1 X-Wing. It seems reasonable speculation that he's too close to 2 X-wings. But all you need is for an anecdote that contradicts the aggregated data and the discussion heats up a notch.

We're all obsessing over points when the choices on the table matter much more. The people advocating for a 69pt Soontir or the Poe Principle want that the choices on the table have an even larger impact. I agree with that, but I also love actions other than focus. Most of the ships I play have a boost action, for example. A-Wings, T70s, YT1300, imperials, silencer and /ba, Jedi and N1. I would probably struggle to find something I like playing if there was no ship with boost. Even the sloane swarm has 2 ships with boost and a reaper, 7 out of 9 lists I play at the moment have more than one boosting ship! And I like pilot/card abilities because they give me the feeling that a clever use can turn a game around and allow me to catch up if I somehow fell behind. I want that to be possible, especially in a game with dice. That's my fun type, and X-Wing satisfies that.

I think there are pretty rational arguments for one over the other. But in the end it's about a balance between the two, no-words and words. FFG has to maintain a balance where they hit the most popular combination of the two. If that is in a spot that I or someone of us does not like then that's bad for that person. But that does not make the game bad.

I hear you. And I do fully acknowledge that my rookie status brings with it certain blind spots. But I’ve played other “customizable list” games in the past, some of them very seriously, and each of those (Magic: The Gathering, the old—and now basically defunct—Decipher Star Wars Customizable Card Game, Armada) had balance issues and discussions which are nearly identical to these. I even got heavily involved for a time in the SW:CCG Player’s Committee Design discussions which carried the game on for many years after Decipher lost the license to produce new cards, and all of the various subjectivity issues you’re talking about are not new to me. There were players who played that game because it was a Star Wars game, and players who played it because it was a wickedly clever and interesting competitive game with an active tournament scene, but who hadn’t even seen all the films. There were a surprising number of people who couldn’t have cared less if a newly designed card was named “Darth Vader” or “Random Cantina Alien #4.” And that vocal segment led that game to a place where (for a time) many recognizable main characters were represented by unplayably poor cards, and many of the most competitive tournament staples were random background guys. And it led to a great many dissatisfied players.

The trick is to keep as many people as possible, as happy as possible.

I don’t necessarily know every badass tourney list inside and out, but I know a fairly balanced game when I see one. I so far haven’t encountered anything that seems horrifically out of balance in X-Wing. I like that the designers have left built-in safety valves in 2.0 (flexible costing and upgrade bars), so that anything that does ride too high for too long can be tuned to a “safer” place, and anything that’s mired in obscurity for a while can be boosted to a place where people may want to give it another look. It’s genius, really, and in the age of nearly universal internet access, I think a lot of games should be doing more things like this (I even advocated for it over in the Armada forums... those guys weren’t having it. :)).

I think what really gets me about the discussion on aces here is that some of the cost increases being advocated for are *massive*. Slapping a highly variable pilot like Fel with a 20% points increase seems an unwise (and I think unwarranted) overreaction to what may be frustration by... certainly not everyone. If Boom Owl were calling for a 2-5 point hike to a few guys, I’d probably just shrug and figure it might be worth a go. But the sheer magnitude of the increase smacks of personal frustration, and seems too radical a shift... especially considering that these are dials that can be turned very slowly over time. 1-2 points this cycle, another point or two next cycle, to find a good balance point.

As for the question of the appropriate size of a bid, it strikes me that part of the reason that aces lists want comparatively large bids (and is 10% of the available points total really THAT egregiously large? Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn’t seem large to me) is so that these lists can effectively fight other ace lists. They don’t need a bid to do their thing against a list of i4’s, or a swarm of i1’s; they get their shots in first against those guys anyway. Against those guys, that 10% is just money left on the table, and that serves as a bit of a balancing factor in itself, while the ace lists are left in a race to the bottom. That’s probably a good thing; a built-in limiting factor.

It’s also (I think) a fairly interesting mechanic; in Armada (where certain lists live and die by winning the bid against all comers), it actually leads to needing a ruthless efficiency in list building, which is its own sort of compelling minigame. Those who can’t master the art of hard cuts are usually better off using lists that don’t need a bid. I *like* that. It highlights another dimension of player skill, and rewards those who master it.

The analog in Magic (I imagine a few of us have played that game) is probably best exemplified in the deckbuilding phase, where one has to decide how many of their 60 cards are “lands,” or resources. Highly aggressive, lean, efficient, and fast decks which seek to burn the opponent out in 4-6 turns might play as few as 18 lands; slower, more defensive control decks might need as many as 25-27 lands, and there’s a real art to figuring out how to effectively cut “action” cards for resources, and vice-versa. And there are plenty of players who hate both styles, and want them nerfed into obscurity, and plenty who would never play anything else. And that game’s lasted more than a quarter century.

16 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

As for the question of the appropriate size of a bid, it strikes me that part of the reason that aces lists want comparatively large bids (and is 10% of the available points total really THAT egregiously large? Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn’t seem large to me) is so that these lists can effectively fight other ace lists. They don’t need a bid to do their thing against a list of i4’s, or a swarm of i1’s; they get their shots in first against those guys anyway. Against those guys, that 10% is just money left on the table, and that serves as a bit of a balancing factor in itself, while the ace lists are left in a race to the bottom. That’s probably a good thing; a built-in limiting factor.

The problem is that they aren't really sacrificing against i4s or i1s, and it results in a world where a 180 point list can beat a 200 point one semi-consistently with equally skilled players, which should not be the case. It's not a case of betting that the bid is more important for you than upgrades as it is vs. equal initiatives, it's safety in the knowledge that your list is more efficient than the opponents list to such a degree that you do not need to the the points. No ace player unrealistically making "hard cuts" until the meta gets ace centric to an even crazier degree than it already is. Even then, some ace lists have tools to avoid needing the bid, such as passive sensors, that enable them to pack in even more crazy efficiency.

Tldr: while the idea of a race to the bottom sounds like a great limiting factor, in practice aces are so wildly undercosted that it doesn't happen.

51 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

The problem is that they aren't really sacrificing against i4s or i1s, and it results in a world where a 180 point list can beat a 200 point one semi-consistently with equally skilled players, which should not be the case. It's not a case of betting that the bid is more important for you than upgrades as it is vs. equal initiatives, it's safety in the knowledge that your list is more efficient than the opponents list to such a degree that you do not need to the the points. No ace player unrealistically making "hard cuts" until the meta gets ace centric to an even crazier degree than it already is. Even then, some ace lists have tools to avoid needing the bid, such as passive sensors, that enable them to pack in even more crazy efficiency.

Tldr: while the idea of a race to the bottom sounds like a great limiting factor, in practice aces are so wildly undercosted that it doesn't happen.

I understand. And yes, I also get that something like Passive Sensors Vader allows for bending that (you don’t need a bid if your ace can take his actions during Engagement).

I suppose I would say, vis-a-vis the question of why and how a 180 point list should be able to fight a 200 point list: Why shouldn’t that be the case? We have many knobs and levers to turn when building and playing, and one of those is the bid. That a 180 point list can beat some 200 point lists is not (as I see it) a “problem.” The problem arises when a 180 point list arises that has a high win rate against “X” number of other competitive lists, where X = “Too Many.” And that’s the issue; “too many” other lists is a somewhat subjective benchmark.

And here is where I’m definitely not going to pretend to know more than I do; I have not seen enough hard info to know if a particular problem list has arisen in the meta which is eating everything else alive and has no (or too few) natural predators. I’m guessing people are worked up about Fett & Fenn (I hear they tear it up in the right hands). But most of what I’ve heard about the “ace menace” hasn’t really addressed either of them directly, and HAS gone off about guys like Fel and Vader. And I know that the latest meta must be having some trouble in both producing usable data, and in evolving, because world events have conspired to stagnate that iterative process. Maybe things need more time to settle?

As to lists that can cheat the bid (like Passive Sensors Vader), rather than slapping a 10-30% increase on anybody with an initiative greater than 4 (the proposed solution), I’d be much more interested in hearing things like, “Maybe Passive Sensors’ cost should be tied to initiative, and ramp sharply at 5, and sharply again at 6,” or “Maybe Passive Sensors’ cost ought to be tied to Force Charges on the pilot card,” which both seem like possible solutions, or possible steps in the right direction, rather than the pretty drastic and over broad measures proposed thus far.

3 hours ago, Cpt ObVus said:

I don’t necessarily know every badass tourney list inside and out, but I know a fairly balanced game when I see one. I so far haven’t encountered anything that seems horrifically out of balance in X-Wing.

That's one of the big sources of dispute. When is it good enough? And the problem is that the answer also depends on the player style and skill.
We have maybe 1 good ace player in our small country and a disproportionate amount of beef. At the same time, players from here pushed at least two lists onto the international stage and those were picked up immediately (4U after Italy and Paris SOS; this horrific scum salad with SolSixxa, Seevor, and then some mix of Zuckuss/4Lom, 2 IonSpacers, Kimogila). That's the type of list we get more here, control and beef. As a result, SloaneSwarms are quite ok here, even though I think the design is bad by punishing an opponent for playing the game.
My point is, even "fairly balanced" can be skewed and complaints about balance are much easier than complaints about individual players' list preferences. If someone genuinely likes to play Triple Upsilon then we're just not compatible within the game. That's nobody's fault, it's just an unfortunate situation. But it does lead to overly heated balance discussions. And if someone never encounters a good arcdodger player then the constant calls for points increases seem really unwarranted.

What we hopefully can agree is that arcdodgers generally have a higher skill- and performance ceiling. I speculate that a perfectly played arcdodger list is nearly unbeatable except by dice variance. If the superpower of a local player is to see the matrix and play arcdodgers incredibly well, then there is much more reason to take a very critical look at them. And just to make sure: some of those you're arguing with are very good arcdodger players. They are not frustrated that they get beaten, they are frustrated that it feels unfair when winning. Definitely not me, but I'm also more on a middle ground.

2 hours ago, Cpt ObVus said:

I suppose I would say, vis-a-vis the question of why and how a 180 point list should be able to fight a 200 point list: Why shouldn’t that be the case? We have many knobs and levers to turn when building and playing, and one of those is the bid. That a 180 point list can beat some 200 point lists is not (as I see it) a “problem.” The problem arises when a 180 point list arises that has a high win rate against “X” number of other competitive lists, where X = “Too Many.” And that’s the issue; “too many” other lists is a somewhat subjective benchmark.

And that's where I disagree. If less than 200 points win against 200 points then there are several possible reasons:

• player skill
• dice variance
• non-optimal list building of the 200pt list
• undercosted for the <200pt list

Player skill and dice variance is eliminated by large numbers of recorded games. If we had 200 games of a matchup then it's fairly unlikely that the 180pt list player was always the better and lucky one. We can look at the opponent's list and remove that, too. If a list can have 20 points of non-optimal choices that add no value and win anyway then something is undercosted.

The 20pt jump seems ridiculously high, but the underlying reasoning is IMO not wrong: just add up aces to 200 points. Vader, Whisper, Soontir without upgrades are on 177. That's 23pt of margin. The worlds winning list is at 176. These ships all have amazing abilities and are extremely valuable without upgrades. You could increase their cost by 8pts each ( or in % of base cost: +9 Vader, +8 Whisper, +7 Soontir) and land at a similar spot to what was advocated earlier. BoomOwl said Soontir should get a 6* and Vader a 7* cost. If the above sounds reasonable then you're very close to his position already. I wouldn't go that far, but I'm also of the opinion that small (1-3) point changes don't really matter unless you spam them.

3 hours ago, Cpt ObVus said:

But the sheer magnitude of the increase smacks of personal frustration, and seems too radical a shift... especially considering that these are dials that can be turned very slowly over time. 1-2 points this cycle, another point or two next cycle, to find a good balance point.

Counter point: Leia crew started at high cost (7-8?), was reduced to 2 points, and is now back up to 6 points. The radical shift put her on the radar when I guarantee you that a 1-2 points decrease would have had people shrugging. So with that in mind, why not go the other direction? Increase by 6-8 points, and then decrease slowly over time to find a good balance point? Frog in boiling water and all that.

2 hours ago, Cpt ObVus said:

As to lists that can cheat the bid (like Passive Sensors Vader), rather than slapping a 10-30% increase on anybody with an initiative greater than 4 (the proposed solution), I’d be much more interested in hearing things like, “Maybe Passive Sensors’ cost should be tied to initiative, and ramp sharply at 5, and sharply again at 6,” or “Maybe Passive Sensors’ cost ought to be tied to Force Charges on the pilot card,” which both seem like possible solutions, or possible steps in the right direction, rather than the pretty drastic and over broad measures proposed thus far.

Sure, and you'll probably find many here agreeing with you on that. There was an interesting discussion on a recent WideWorld of Wargaming podcast episode ( @Jeff Wilder ) where they discussed that almost every upgrade has different value depending on the carrier. Not just initiative or force charges, but for individual pilots. A shield upgrade pushing up the threshold is much more valuable than one within the threshold for a general example. A stealth device on Whisper or Rey is much more valuable than on another 2 or 1 agility ship, for a pilot based example. But that makes the game too complicated. There has to be a balance between allowing listbuilding mistakes and dynamic costing. Who is the target of balance changes, the average player or the guy seeing the matrix?

To make a long story short: 2.0 is in a good place. It could be better. How much the Poe Principle would improve it depends on many individual circumstances. Some people want to emphasize how good it is right now, some want to emphasize how much better it could be.

e: I might read too much into this, but it really reminds me of larger, older questions. Some like to preserve the status quo because ultimately it isn't that bad. Sudden, radical change could easily destroy the fragile balance we have now and lead to miserable times before it's corrected. Others see the possible improvements of all the remaining problems, without explicitly acknowledging how far we've come. Willing to change the status quo and to risk something because it can be reversed if necessary. Different strokes for different folks.

ITT: a bunch of idiots who don't know how to play X-Wing very well.

If you can't beat it whine about it.

@GreenDragoon most of what you said there is good, but then you say " I speculate that a perfectly played arcdodger list is nearly unbeatable except by dice variance." which is both completely false and just feeds into their narrative. If that was true we'd see arc-dodgers winning everything and they patently don't, especially since the January points changes when the game was handed on a silver platter to generic swarms.

Right now people shouldn't be talking in definitive terms about what condition the Extended game is in because since the January points change there have been virtually no major Extended events or seasons to test it. But those few events that have happened haven't been crushed by aces all over the place. Yes an aces list won Space Jam, but it was the only one that did particularly well in a field against A-Wings, Scyks, Boba/Dengar, Academy Pilots etc.

There is no evidence to support anybody arguing that aces are too good. Or arc-dodging is dominant. Or anything of the type.

The only reason to think aces are too good is that you're not good against them and you want FFG to fix your problem for you because you lack the wit to do it yourself.

And you can see that's true because these opinions have been held by these people for years and years. Unchanged by what is actually happening on the table they have an irrational hatred that shouldn't be allowed to infect the community.

And regardless of the fact that the game they want to see is, on the little evidence we have available, the game we have now.

https://tabletop.to/gsp-space-jam-championship/lists

There’s the Space Jam lists. There are only 5 of Soontir ‘gotta cost 70ps or I’ll puke’ Fel in the whole event and they all did badly.

All the successful imp aces list had dropped Soontir because he’s weak. But when I said as much a few pages ago all I got was the ‘wtf?’ face from people who literally have no idea what is happening in the game.

Your ignorance is not a good defense.

4 hours ago, Stay OT Leader said:

https://tabletop.to/gsp-space-jam-championship/lists

There’s the Space Jam lists. There are only 5 of Soontir ‘gotta cost 70ps or I’ll puke’ Fel in the whole event and they all did badly.

What's the definition of doing badly? One was #12 in swiss, one #28.

5 hours ago, Stay OT Leader said:

ITT: a bunch of idiots who don't know how to play X-Wing very well.

If you can't beat it whine about it.

Are you like this in person? I find it hard to believe you are. I've seen/heard your name dropped by UK folks a fair amount, folks who seem like good people, and they appear to like you. Like, if a Worlds ever happens and we're both there, I'd like to meet you and have it be a fun meeting.

I'm not sure if I'm one of the idiots. I've beat triple aces plenty, I only brought up the 5A games because I felt I did most everything right, my opponents agreed I did most everything right, and it didn't really matter. I don't think 5A is an amazing list, but I think it's good enough I should have won those games, so that made me raise an eyebrow.

5 hours ago, Stay OT Leader said:

Yes an aces list won Space Jam, but it was the only one that did particularly well in a field against A-Wings, Scyks, Boba/Dengar, Academy Pilots etc.

Yes....3 copies of that exact list were in the top 16 and Boba is also an ace...so there's that.

4 hours ago, Stay OT Leader said:

https://tabletop.to/gsp-space-jam-championship/lists

There’s the Space Jam lists. There are only 5 of Soontir ‘gotta cost 70ps or I’ll puke’ Fel in the whole event and they all did badly.

All the successful imp aces list had dropped Soontir because he’s weak. But when I said as much a few pages ago all I got was the ‘wtf?’ face from people who literally have no idea what is happening in the game.

Your ignorance is not a good defense.

Not to mention LVO included Soontir winning along with another in top 16. Clearly this is too small of a data size though to make any appropriate opinions right?

EITHER WAY, Soontir shouldn't be the highlight of this conversation...I'm staring at Vader and Whisper more...granted I don't think Soontir should be exempt from around a 5ish point increase.

6 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

That's one of the big sources of dispute. When is it good enough? And the problem is that the answer also depends on the player style and skill.
We have maybe 1 good ace player in our small country and a disproportionate amount of beef. At the same time, players from here pushed at least two lists onto the international stage and those were picked up immediately (4U after Italy and Paris SOS; this horrific scum salad with SolSixxa, Seevor, and then some mix of Zuckuss/4Lom, 2 IonSpacers, Kimogila). That's the type of list we get more here, control and beef. As a result, SloaneSwarms are quite ok here, even though I think the design is bad by punishing an opponent for playing the game.
My point is, even "fairly balanced" can be skewed and complaints about balance are much easier than complaints about individual players' list preferences. If someone genuinely likes to play Triple Upsilon then we're just not compatible within the game. That's nobody's fault, it's just an unfortunate situation. But it does lead to overly heated balance discussions. And if someone never encounters a good arcdodger player then the constant calls for points increases seem really unwarranted.

What we hopefully can agree is that arcdodgers generally have a higher skill- and performance ceiling. I speculate that a perfectly played arcdodger list is nearly unbeatable except by dice variance. If the superpower of a local player is to see the matrix and play arcdodgers incredibly well, then there is much more reason to take a very critical look at them. And just to make sure: some of those you're arguing with are very good arcdodger players. They are not frustrated that they get beaten, they are frustrated that it feels unfair when winning. Definitely not me, but I'm also more on a middle ground.

And that's where I disagree. If less than 200 points win against 200 points then there are several possible reasons:

• player skill
• dice variance
• non-optimal list building of the 200pt list
• undercosted for the <200pt list

Player skill and dice variance is eliminated by large numbers of recorded games. If we had 200 games of a matchup then it's fairly unlikely that the 180pt list player was always the better and lucky one. We can look at the opponent's list and remove that, too. If a list can have 20 points of non-optimal choices that add no value and win anyway then something is undercosted.

The 20pt jump seems ridiculously high, but the underlying reasoning is IMO not wrong: just add up aces to 200 points. Vader, Whisper, Soontir without upgrades are on 177. That's 23pt of margin. The worlds winning list is at 176. These ships all have amazing abilities and are extremely valuable without upgrades. You could increase their cost by 8pts each ( or in % of base cost: +9 Vader, +8 Whisper, +7 Soontir) and land at a similar spot to what was advocated earlier. BoomOwl said Soontir should get a 6* and Vader a 7* cost. If the above sounds reasonable then you're very close to his position already. I wouldn't go that far, but I'm also of the opinion that small (1-3) point changes don't really matter unless you spam them.

Counter point: Leia crew started at high cost (7-8?), was reduced to 2 points, and is now back up to 6 points. The radical shift put her on the radar when I guarantee you that a 1-2 points decrease would have had people shrugging. So with that in mind, why not go the other direction? Increase by 6-8 points, and then decrease slowly over time to find a good balance point? Frog in boiling water and all that.

Sure, and you'll probably find many here agreeing with you on that. There was an interesting discussion on a recent WideWorld of Wargaming podcast episode ( @Jeff Wilder ) where they discussed that almost every upgrade has different value depending on the carrier. Not just initiative or force charges, but for individual pilots. A shield upgrade pushing up the threshold is much more valuable than one within the threshold for a general example. A stealth device on Whisper or Rey is much more valuable than on another 2 or 1 agility ship, for a pilot based example. But that makes the game too complicated. There has to be a balance between allowing listbuilding mistakes and dynamic costing. Who is the target of balance changes, the average player or the guy seeing the matrix?

To make a long story short: 2.0 is in a good place. It could be better. How much the Poe Principle would improve it depends on many individual circumstances. Some people want to emphasize how good it is right now, some want to emphasize how much better it could be.

You make a lot of interesting points here, and don’t take me as categorically disagreeing or dismissing them. I’m not.

I want to emphatically agree with your last point. I tend to be very “progressive” in my approach to game design and balance; if there are problems, fix them! I guess I just remain unconvinced that this game has big problems. I AM still collecting evidence on that point. I suppose what I’m saying is, “show me the problem before we smack a bunch of game pieces with sharply costed increases,” which nobody has really done yet.

If the Space Jam tournament lists that Stay OT Leader just posted are indicative of the larger tournament scene as a whole, I can say that most customizable list games would KILL for a metagame this healthy and diverse. You can sometimes look at M:TG tournament decklists and (when the meta’s kind of unwell) find that the top ten players at ALL of the big tournaments in a given month are playing one of two lists, within 1-5 cards of each other. I am not seeing anything close to that in the Space Jam lists.

Are there some pieces that appear often? Yes. Whisper & Vader, along with a third, seem to show up frequently. Boba Fett and a strong wingmate. Droid Fighters in large numbers. Are those things in and of themselves a problem? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on just how dominant they are.

I imagine that the Separatist swarms are the result of that faction having a core identity that encourages swarms with Networked Calculations, Tacticsl Relays, etc. It’s also a pretty “young” faction, with fewer options. It probably needs time to evolve, and more pieces to play with.

Boba Fett does seem, at a cursory glance, to be a VERY popular piece, and when a faction like Scum, with a massive variety of pieces, gravitates so heavily to one really expensive option, that does raise a yellow flag that bears further investigation. Maybe the Firespray should lose an upgrade slot, maybe the whole class should be considered for a moderate points increase, maybe just Fett should get one... and maybe the problem is less that Fett is undercosted then that perhaps other in-faction options are OVERcosted. And maybe it’s that people need more time to solve the “How to fight Fett” puzzle. I’m NOT making these arguments, I’m just pointing out that there are lots of variables at work here, and rushing out to slap big points increases on entire classes of cards is not the way I’d go.

Same thing with Vader/Whisper. But don’t forget, this IS Star Wars. I think Vader OUGHT to appear frequently. So should Fett, and Solo, and Maul, and Poe, and other marquee characters. It’s a balancing act.

Thing is, I look at that kind of list diversity and see a rich metagame. I’m not sure they were shown in ranked order, and maybe the top five lists were all Droid Swarms or something. That could also indicate trouble. But really, when you’ve got that many lists in a game with only this many pieces and there isn’t a ton of exact- or near-exact-list duplication, it’s a good sign. How many different lists or list types can ever be tops at one time anyway? 1? 2? 5?

Yes, the ideal is that EVERY ship be playable in some context, but it isn’t realistic (or even necessarily desirable) to expect every single card to be good. Some of the skill of listbuilding is to evaluate current trends and identify pieces that aren’t good, or aren’t good at the moment, or aren’t good in the list you’re building, and leave them off.

I’d like to see more ranked tournament lists. I feel like this really informs the discussion.

As a final note: I just don’t agree with your take on bid. There is nothing inherently wrong with a bid of any size being good. The question is not, “Should people be able to win with 175-180 point fleets?” The question is, “Does this particular variety of 175-180 point fleet have an unacceptably high win rate against the field?”

In M:TG, they have a balance team whose job it is to monitor tournament results, identify problems like, “Card X appears in 43.4% of major tournament lists, and has a win rate of 61%,” and come up with solutions like bans, if necessary, or bans on cards that contribute to supporting the problem card. I would hope (and imagine) that X-Wing’s balance team is doing something similar. The nice thing is, here, they seldom, if ever, need to ban anything, because of the variable cost structure.

On 5/10/2020 at 10:59 PM, Boom Owl said:

• Unlike most other power aces in the game Poe is susceptible to “traditional” in game counter play tactics.

....

• Premovment Upgrades Are Actually Expensive Enough to be a Non-Factor
  • ....
• Black One is Poe's most broken under costed upgrade option
  • ...
• To get the most value from Poe you mostly have to minimize reposition and dial errors.
  • ...

Compare [68-72pt] Poe to the rest of the “Ace” field:

• i5/i6 Aces that are no where near the "Poe Principles" either due to cost or mechanics.
  • Soontir ( 53 )
  • Vader ( 67-76, 89 )
  • Grand Inquisitor ( 52 )
  • Duchess ( 42-59 )
  • Whisper ( 60-71 )
  • Rex ( 81-91 )
  • Redline ( 75 )
  • Guri ( 74 )
  • Boba ( 85 )
  • Kylo ( 76 )
  • Holo ( 54-61 )
  • Anakin ( 67-82 )
  • Obi Wan ( 52-67 )
  • Plo ( 48-63 )
  • Sun Fac ( 82 )
  • Luke ( 62 )
    
• i5/i6 Aces that are already almost following the "Poe Principles"
  • Fenn Rau ( 68 )
  • Old T ( 56 )
  • Talonbane ( 50 )
  • Blackout ( 63 )
  • Quickdraw ( 57-61 )
  • LeFrance ( 49-51 )
  • Vonreg ( 57 )
  • Han ( 80 )
  • Leia ( 79 )
  • Lando ( 79 )
  • Wedge ( 55 )
  • Thane ( 48 )
  • Corran ( 66 )
  • Midnight ( 42 )
  • Tomax ( 35 )

...

Main point here is that for 2.0 to ever become consistently something other than just i5/i6 Ace-Wing we need more i5-i6 pilots designed and priced according to the Poe Principles.

For context.

11 minutes ago, gennataos said:

I’m not sure if I'm one of the idiots. I've beat triple aces plenty, I only brought up the 5A games because I felt I did most everything right, my opponents agreed I did most everything right, and it didn't really matter. I don't think 5A is an amazing list, but I think it's good enough I should have won those games, so that made me raise an eyebrow.

I wanted to address this earlier... it seems fair to say that sometimes there’s just such a thing as bad matchups. And to be fair, you brought a very non-diverse list; all low-initiative ships, all with relatively little firepower, all low health.

It’s my experience in Armada that when you bring multiple ships of a type that aren’t sort of “balanced generalists,” but are instead “specialists,” you’re often opening yourself up to matchup problems. For example, Nebulon-B Frigates are affordable long-ranged artillery pieces, but highly vulnerable to flanking due to weakly defended broadsides, average to low maneuverability, terrible side shields and an unimpressive hull. They’re the sort of thing you want 1-2 of, not 4-6 of, because one good, strong, knife-fighting flanker can potentially work its way straight down your line, devastating each one in turn. The same thing that is strong against PART of your list is now strong against ALL of your list, and certain things will just dominate you.

I haven’t flown enough X-Wing to say for sure, but a swarm of A-Wings sounds like a list with some big gaping holes in it. A couple of ships that do well against an A-Wing individually seem like they ought to tear through five of them without much trouble. Which isn’t to say swarms don’t work, they do. But maybe five is an insufficiently large swarm of RZ-1’s (which doesn’t really look like the game’s best ship to begin with).

I forget what you said you were facing, but it sounded like a pretty bad matchup. Would you agree?

4 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

I wanted to address this earlier... it seems fair to say that sometimes there’s just such a thing as bad matchups. And to be fair, you brought a very non-diverse list; all low-initiative ships, all with relatively little firepower, all low health.

It’s my experience in Armada that when you bring multiple ships of a type that aren’t sort of “balanced generalists,” but are instead “specialists,” you’re often opening yourself up to matchup problems. For example, Nebulon-B Frigates are affordable long-ranged artillery pieces, but highly vulnerable to flanking due to weakly defended broadsides, average to low maneuverability, terrible side shields and an unimpressive hull. They’re the sort of thing you want 1-2 of, not 4-6 of, because one good, strong, knife-fighting flanker can potentially work its way straight down your line, devastating each one in turn. The same thing that is strong against PART of your list is now strong against ALL of your list, and certain things will just dominate you.

I haven’t flown enough X-Wing to say for sure, but a swarm of A-Wings sounds like a list with some big gaping holes in it. A couple of ships that do well against an A-Wing individually seem like they ought to tear through five of them without much trouble. Which isn’t to say swarms don’t work, they do. But maybe five is an insufficiently large swarm of RZ-1’s (which doesn’t really look like the game’s best ship to begin with).

I forget what you said you were facing, but it sounded like a pretty bad matchup. Would you agree?

They were RZ-2s. Resistance 5A has been a meta staple, to some degree, since Resistance launched. It's not a great matchup, but not so bad that outplaying your opponent should result in a loss all that often.

10 minutes ago, gennataos said:

They were RZ-2s. Resistance 5A has been a meta staple, to some degree, since Resistance launched. It's not a great matchup, but not so bad that outplaying your opponent should result in a loss all that often.

I know you mentioned variance when you brought this up, but I forget how and scrolling up is bad.

I've played against a bunch of 5A and obviously seen most sides of trip Imps. To me, if you're out-playing your opponent and still straight up losing, in that match, then variance must be a factor. It really does only take a small shift on the greens in a few key turns to swing those games, I've been there plenty. Reds are expected to be strong for both, but if that costs a couple more focus tokens than it needs to, the game just goes with it.

In my experience, 5A is decent early and does really well if it gets a couple positive rolls going into the mid game, to keep a 4th gun on the table. But that 4th has to stay relevant or they don't push enough damage before dropping to 3 or reaching time.

Imperials don't cope well with multiple blanks on 2 or 3 key roles.

5 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

To me, if you're out-playing your opponent and still straight up losing, in that match, then variance must be a factor.

You'd think that'd be the case.

The match-up isn't the point. The entire point of why I brought it up in the first place is that it made me think that high-init aces and/or force might be a problem.

I...don't know what else to say. People can choose to believe me, believe I know what I'm talking about, or not.

But you’re playing a squad that’s precisely aiming at the space in green dice defense that is best protected by force points. Paying for mid-I pilots and abilities and perfectly happy to lord that advantage over other players but sulking if somebody paid more to do the same to you.

I’m sorry that some things are good against you. It must really suck.

2 minutes ago, gennataos said:

You'd think that'd be the case.

The match-up isn't the point. The entire point of why I brought it up in the first place is that it made me think that high-init aces and/or force might be a problem.

I...don't know what else to say. People can choose to believe me, believe I know what I'm talking about, or not.

Ah. I must have been tired when I read RZ-1’s. I didn’t think they were a “thing.”

As to the culprit in your loss: it’s possible to play a game and lose (or win), and not get the full picture of what the causes were which led to the effects.

Maybe you nailed it, though, and maybe high initiative Force using aces just crush 5A every time. That still wouldn’t mean that the problem lies with the ace list being too strong against the entire field; rather, that’s the very definition of a bad matchup.

5 minutes ago, Stay OT Leader said:

But you’re playing a squad that’s precisely aiming at the space in green dice defense that is best protected by force points. Paying for mid-I pilots and abilities and perfectly happy to lord that advantage over other players but sulking if somebody paid more to do the same to you.

I’m sorry that some things are good against you. It must really suck.

... which is a very succinct (if also rude) way of saying what I’m saying: it seems like matchup is exactly the problem.

As an aside: these sorts of balance discussions are always sort of fraught anyway, plus the world is a kind of scary and unfriendly place right now. Can we cool it a little with sarcasm and accusations of idiocy and whining and all that? I really don’t want to watch a good discussion go down in flames because we could have been a little more polite.

11 minutes ago, Stay OT Leader said:

But you’re playing a squad that’s precisely aiming at the space in green dice defense that is best protected by force points. Paying for mid-I pilots and abilities and perfectly happy to lord that advantage over other players but sulking if somebody paid more to do the same to you.

I’m sorry that some things are good against you. It must really suck.

So, no sharing a beer at Worlds for us. Got it.

7 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

Ah. I must have been tired when I read RZ-1’s. I didn’t think they were a “thing.”

As to the culprit in your loss: it’s possible to play a game and lose (or win), and not get the full picture of what the causes were which led to the effects.

Maybe you nailed it, though, and maybe high initiative Force using aces just crush 5A every time. That still wouldn’t mean that the problem lies with the ace list being too strong against the entire field; rather, that’s the very definition of a bad matchup.

The match-up isn't the point. The point is that, from my understanding, 2.0 strives to shrink the gaps between list tiers, the hope being that better play trumps better lists. I've felt the game has done that, for the most part. These instances I brought up had nothing to do with "woe is me, I lost", but rather opening my eyes to there still being some work to do on that front.

1 hour ago, gennataos said:

Are you like this in person? I find it hard to believe you are.

And this is a mild example. When I see SOTL post something my heart always sinks, because no matter which side he takes or what he has to say, the way he says it will usually result in a worse, more hostile, more toxic discussion. It seems to be the environment he thrives in and actively seeks to create, whether or not that's actually true. Whatever he's like in real life, he presents himself here with an air of hostility and superiority, and I'm not the only one who hates it. There's always a better way to present arguments and rebut arguments than his way.

Maybe it's the nature of text not conveying inflections in voice and body language that would soften or even completely re-contextualize everything he says. Maybe it's that his attitude toward people changes when he's not face-to-face. My assessment of him may be completely unfair. But lord I don't like him visiting.

I don't know that you can really talk to him about his methods... in my experience, you try replying to him directly and he just disappears for several pages and ignores you.

Scanning back through the last 8 pages, I'd love a less hostile discussion, but that's hard in forums because... haha... because forums. I wonder what this discussion would be like in person... would one person dominate with shouting and condescension and viscerally pouring out toxicity (and would people in the room sit there and take it, or throw 'em out?), or would people act like they do at my LGS where we disagree but talk about why without curb-stomping anyone with dissenting opinions? I always wonder this. I like having these interesting discussions that can change my mind or at least give me an understanding of why people disagree with me. They're good discussions to have... until certain people show up and make things artificially hostile.

1 minute ago, gennataos said:

So, no sharing a beer at Worlds for us. Got it.

The match-up isn't the point. The point is that, from my understanding, 2.0 strives to shrink the gaps between list tiers, the hope being that better play trumps better lists. I've felt the game has done that, for the most part. These instances I brought up had nothing to do with "woe is me, I lost", but rather opening my eyes to there still being some work to do on that front.

I’LL have that beer with ya. 😄

I’m sure that (part of) the aim of 2.0 is to help iron out balance issues. But it’s unrealistic to believe that a game like this can have zero matchup dependency.

You played a “skew” list; that is, you took one (more accurately, a small number) of the game’s mechanics and leaned into it HARD with your quick, maneuverable, lightly-armed fighters. Your opponent played a list full of ships which seem to prey upon such ships. A swarm of more generalist ships (X-Wings, to the extent they’re swarmable?) might see better results against the same opponent.

Skew lists just always have bad matchups. And they probably should.

Eliminating all matchup issues probably means the designers aren’t doing enough to differentiate the various game pieces. Which leads to homogenaiety. Which leads to a really boring game.

It’s fair that the sheer numbers of utter idiots in this place triggers me more than anywhere else. I can’t make out the few sane members in the sea of rancid nonsense. Sorry if you one if the good ones and I didn’t adjust for that.

Im going to leave for another year. One week of this place is all I can stand before I want to start committing genocide.

1 minute ago, Stay OT Leader said:

It’s fair that the sheer numbers of utter idiots in this place triggers me more than anywhere else. I can’t make out the few sane members in the sea of rancid nonsense. Sorry if you one if the good ones and I didn’t adjust for that.

Im going to leave for another year. One week of this place is all I can stand before I want to start committing genocide.

Man, you seem pretty ****** up.

I look forward to your next incarnation. not really