So will we get a points change or not.

I think I recall people saying we would get a point update, but not sure if it will be in June or July. Also regardless I doubt it will be in the begining of the month, last time we had a point update in the June/July area I think it was late June.

This is also saying nothing of everything going on between riots and the pandemic. I am personally just gonna wait and think the changes will come in July, if they come earlier, nice. If not then I am not sitting on the edge of my seat to see if Poe drops in points.

It looks like last year the "Summer" points change went into effect July 10th, so it's probably going to be at least another month.

Wouldn't have thought so. Regardless of what has been said previously, I doubt there's going to be any significant changes or announcements until Organised Play is ready to resume.

And I doubt there's any real need for any changes until Organised Play is ready to resume, either.

As pleasant a distraction from reality as this hobby can be, there's far more important things to consider at the moment.

This generic/health-tank spam meta is getting a bit boring now. Its a good time to throw in some change.

3 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:

Wouldn't have thought so. Regardless of what has been said previously, I doubt there's going to be any significant changes or announcements until Organised Play is ready to resume.

And I doubt there's any real need for any changes until Organised Play is ready to resume, either.

As pleasant a distraction from reality as this hobby can be, there's far more important things to consider at the moment.

The FFG community contact people told us on Discord back in April that Max is still planning on a points and format update of some kind, but the extent of the update is still being discussed (it may be more minor than January).

3 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

This generic/health-tank spam meta is getting a bit boring now. Its a good time to throw in some change.

Lol. Looks you guys might hate my guts. But you can’t deny that I’ve predicted quite a few balances in line with FFGs reasoning, including details of audacious balance.

so get off your emotional horses and use your brains.

9 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

This generic/health-tank spam meta is getting a bit boring now. Its a good time to throw in some change.

5 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Lol. Looks you guys might hate my guts. But you can’t deny that I’ve predicted quite a few balances in line with FFGs reasoning, including details of audacious balance.

so get off your emotional horses and use your brains.

I guess, first, what is your definition of "generic/health-tank spam" lists or ships before we move forward with any other discussions.

14 hours ago, RStan said:

I guess, first, what is your definition of "generic/health-tank spam" lists or ships before we move forward with any other discussions.

6 gunboats. 42 hp behind 2 agility. Its unkillable. Its undefeated except against the mirror. Its winning everything. This must be what hes talking about right?

Darn I should gotten more gunboats then!

the questions you guys need to be asking is is 8Fo generic spam or tank?

how about 5Fo + stuff?
how about Vader 6 ties

how about fenn scurggs Scyk

You want to use scoffing to ridicule me but I was right many times already and publically posted predictions and reasoning.

On 6/1/2020 at 3:13 PM, Blail Blerg said:

This generic/health-tank spam meta is getting a bit boring now. Its a good time to throw in some change.

So what you're saying is... audacious balance was bad, actually?

25 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

So what you're saying is... audacious balance was bad, actually?

It’s unbalanced by a lack of upgrades for differentiating spam, middle initiative is also too weak or underpowered now comparatively (with the nerfing of beef and i4 joust), a single ace is still proven strong but more of them often leads to a lack of damage (something that many players have not experienced/witnessed at the highest levels of efficiency)
the main lack of upgrades to make different choices of genetics important is a critical issue.
also Multiple attack arcs are a huge problem of new efficiency.

so no. Audacious was the best thing to do, because it gives generics a great reason to exist. But now we have to adjust accordingly and diversify other possible choices.

spam and lists that don’t die before time is called are overwhelming the low firepower of other lists such as 2 ace + support lists.

I hope you understand your history: generic value is the benchmark that 1.0 and 2.0 have used for efficiency, starting with howl swarm, xxbb then bbbbz then 5x. These are baselines for point comparison. I hope you all see how many point changes I’ve nailed also with detailed addition as to why those values are correct.

6 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

I hope you all see how many point changes I’ve nailed also with detailed addition as to why those values are correct.

You want a medal? 🏅 Here you go.

On 6/2/2020 at 9:14 AM, Blail Blerg said:

Lol. Looks you guys might hate my guts. But you can’t deny that I’ve predicted quite a few balances in line with FFGs reasoning, including details of audacious balance.

so get off your emotional horses and use your brains.

9 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

You want to use scoffing to ridicule me but I was right many times already and publically posted predictions and reasoning.

7 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

I hope you understand your history: generic value is the benchmark that 1.0 and 2.0 have used for efficiency, starting with howl swarm, xxbb then bbbbz then 5x. These are baselines for point comparison. I hope you all see how many point changes I’ve nailed also with detailed addition as to why those values are correct.

The only thing I understand after reading this thread, good sir, is that you certainly don't suffer from an overabundance of humility.

On 6/1/2020 at 8:13 PM, Blail Blerg said:

This generic/health-tank spam meta is getting a bit boring now. Its a good time to throw in some change.

Is this possibly more of a Hyperspace than Extended issue? Certainly looking at the recent Space Jam events, there seems to be a real mix of list archetypes around, and (Separatists aside) just spamming generics doesn't seem to be particularly dominant. There's not been much in the way of Hyperspace events recently, so it's harder to get a clear idea of what's going on there.

(I'm not suggesting that Extended is the one true way either, Hyperspace is definitely my preferred way to play X-Wing.)

Space Jam Anecdote #3: (Roughly)
75% of 148 lists are 2-4 ships
25% of 148 lists are 5+ ships
25% of the 4-2+ are 5+ ships
2 of the 148 are Oli's List

Ship counts: Average: 3.95

All I have learned is that its not really useful to draw conclusions from one or even 3+ big tournaments.

On 6/2/2020 at 12:14 AM, Blail Blerg said:

Lol. Looks you guys might hate my guts. But you can’t deny that I’ve predicted quite a few balances in line with FFGs reasoning, including details of audacious balance.

so get off your emotional horses and use your brains.

and tonight on 'Too Far Up Your Own ***', we meet a miniature game player who thinks he speaks for the community on what is good and bad to the point he insults his fellow community members intellect and emotional stability.

@Ebak

In my experience, cancerous forum presences rotate. They'll burn out and leave quicker than chill users who enjoy discussions, but there'll always be someone to replace them.

I'm unsure for balance purposes FFG doesn't just put dots on ships like they do for separatist. 4 generic phantoms a problem. Don't up the points. Just dot them to 3 or 2. Some of these ships need to stay low, Like the gun boats, but can see a problem with spamming them. So place dots to limit how many can be in a list. Boom. Done. Another way to adjust balance.

Making underpriced ships into limited ships still leaves them underpriced. For example, if you could only bring two Juke Sigmas, but they were still 50 points each like they were at release, that's still a massive balance issue that shouldn't happen. There's a pretty narrow range of stuff that is {a} fairly priced {b} a problem at 4+ per list {c} not a problem at 2 per list.

I mean, FFG should have that tool, be willing to make stuff limited, but it often won't fix a problem, certainly not as simply as "Boom. Done."

I'm not convinced that Juke Sigmas would be a problem at 50 each if they were limited to 2. A big part of what made the quad phantoms so strong was two things: (1) greater control than most squads over when and where to engage, thanks to the ability of the whole squad to crab-walk around with decloaks, and (2) the multiplicative strength of Juke making each Juke card stronger than the last. The closest you can get to replicating the quad phantom strengths is probably Juke Rexler [or another defender with a talent slot] plus double Juke Sigmas - but that's already possible now with the 55-point Juke Sigmas, and I don't think that squad's seen any major success.

In other words, Juke Sigmas are exactly the kind of case where limiting could be a useful control. It would be mechanically messy though because limited status is something meant to be on the card, plus there's no rules-structure in place to limit the number of a specific ship frame in play currently, only the number of a specific pilot.

Yeah @Dasharr it’s kinda late now but it would have been nice if uniqueness dots were on the PDFs rather than the cards

2 hours ago, Dasharr said:

I'm not convinced that Juke Sigmas would be a problem at 50 each if they were limited to 2. A big part of what made the quad phantoms so strong was two things: (1) greater control than most squads over when and where to engage, thanks to the ability of the whole squad to crab-walk around with decloaks, and (2) the multiplicative strength of Juke making each Juke card stronger than the last. The closest you can get to replicating the quad phantom strengths is probably Juke Rexler [or another defender with a talent slot] plus double Juke Sigmas - but that's already possible now with the 55-point Juke Sigmas, and I don't think that squad's seen any major success.

Does this make a case for upgrades that cost scale with each copy in the list?

17 minutes ago, Scum4Life said:

Does this make a case for upgrades that cost scale with each copy in the list?

There's a case for a lot of ways to scale points cost. Namely, cost every upgrade by cost of the pilot. Cost multiplicative upgrades like juke, networked, etc by number in play. Scale cost of aoe buffs like howl or Drea by number of wingmen, etc.

It's just that the case against doing this is pretty rock solid- the marginal value to "true balance" of the required added complexity sacrifices ease of entry and play.

Honestly, it's fine if you never put juke on ships that don't get free evades. It's fine that you'd never run fewer than 6 networked ships in a list. Etc. Not every card needs to be competitive for every possible build you can put it on.

17 minutes ago, Ablazoned said:

There's a case for a lot of ways to scale points cost. Namely, cost every upgrade by cost of the pilot. Cost multiplicative upgrades like juke, networked, etc by number in play. Scale cost of aoe buffs like howl or Drea by number of wingmen, etc.

It's just that the case against doing this is pretty rock solid- the marginal value to "true balance" of the required added complexity sacrifices ease of entry and play.

Honestly, it's fine if you never put juke on ships that don't get free evades. It's fine that you'd never run fewer than 6 networked ships in a list. Etc. Not every card needs to be competitive for every possible build you can put it on.

We already have upgrades that scale by initiative, base size and agility.

I dont think it is unreasonable for Example cannons to cost 1-2 less on 3 attack ships.

Has the community found these too complex, or had a negative impact on the game?

Perhaps the Delta-7B title interaction with Agility based upgrades is an example.

Is it possible these changes will be rolled back perhaps in future updates?