There are certain ship/upgrade combinations that create an NPE and ships with upgrade slots that never get used because adding the upgrade is not cost effective. The current point adjustment method can't fully address these cases. If an upgrade is costed to high to rein in one specific ship pairing it hurts every ship that take that upgrade. Conversely if an upgrade cost is lowered to much to help encourage its use on one platform it could completely break another platform.

To address both of these instances I propose introducing upgrade specific cost modifiers for ships and pilots. These modifiers would be indicated as 0-3 arrows next to a ship's upgrades. The direction and number of arrows next to the upgrade would indicate the point modification. For example the TIE Advanced x1 could have one arrow up next to its system icon and two arrows down next to the missile icon, indicating that any equipped system would cost one point more and any equipped missile would cost 2 points less. Furthermore Vader could have two arrows up next to the modification upgrade.

In addition to the cost modifiers there would have to be a few other items to consider: should certain upgrades could be marked as non-modifiable (free R4s or Contraband Cybernetics sounds like a bad idea), should negative upgrade costs be allowed, how would cost modification work for double upgrade slots?

I think adding this ability to modify individual upgrade costs for ships and pilots can help address certain toxic combinations (Juke/Phantoms, Adv. Sensors/Guri) without over penalizing other ships that would use those upgrades. It would also allow ships that are not usually cost effective with upgrades to become more viable (ordinance carriers).

I've had ideas like this before, but I like the visual implementation of it in the PDFs. Overall, I'd want to keep such modifiers pretty rare on most ships, but it'd be an interesting way to enable some edge cases. if it's too widespread, I think it gets too confusing.

For example, I think Rebel A-Wings would love a decreased cost missile option. That gives them a potentially distinct feel from Resistance RZ-2s, by upping their offense at a low cost, without lowering their base price so low they'll crowd out TIE/sf and Scyks.

System on /x1 might not be a good idea though, since the non-Vader *really* need system upgrades. Passive Sensors or FCS seem pretty vital to operating one.

Other thoughts: I probably wouldn't bother with non-modifiable upgrades. Let it be a nice perk, or a design constraint in assigning the bonuses. Double-slots upgrades only get the bonus/penalty once.

I agree that this method should not be a widespread mechanic and would be best for addressing specific upgrade cost imbalances.

Lower cost on RZ-1 missiles was one of the main uses I thought of as well. Also using cost modifiers to make the Rebel and Scum HWKs, Y-wings and Z-95s feel more unique other than just the Illicit slot. Maybe give Scum Y-wings cheaper torpedoes and Rebel Y-wings cheaper turrets. There are a lot of possibilities balance tweaks this way.

4 hours ago, Asaverino1019 said:

introducing upgrade specific cost modifiers for ships and pilots. These modifiers would be indicated as 0-3 arrows next to a ship's upgrades. The direction and number of arrows next to the upgrade would indicate the point modification. For example the TIE Advanced x1 could have one arrow up next to its system icon and two arrows down next to the missile icon, indicating that any equipped system would cost one point more and any equipped missile would cost 2 points less. Furthermore Vader could have two arrows up next to the modification upgrade.

In addition to the cost modifiers there would have to be a few other items to consider

This would turn listbuilding into an activity about as fun as balancing chemical equations. Hard pass.

This seems like a pretty nifty idea. Like has been said, I wouldn't want to see this on every ship and pilot, but in moderation it could help some platforms get the tools they need while keeping certain combinations from being too potent and/or cheap. Complexity could possibly get to be an issue if this happens for loads of ships and pilots, but that's why we have squad builders that already take this stuff into consideration for us right?

It's amazing how easily most of this would be solved with the game going fully digital with list building/point costs, then they could set each upgrade with an individual cost for each ship or even pilot.

I find this a little bit OTT, I think I'd rather try other balancing/scaling options than this.

Thanks for putting time in and sharing the idea, perhaos others will like it, or it might get worksopped into something a little cleaner and more palatable.

1 hour ago, RejjeN said:

It's amazing how easily most of this would be solved with the game going fully digital with list building/point costs, then they could set each upgrade with an individual cost for each ship or even pilot.

While possible, that sounds super tedious for the developers.

1 minute ago, 5050Saint said:

While possible, that sounds super tedious for the developers.

balancing anything well is tedious, but it's good to have the tools implemented ahead of time if possible, and they wouldn't really need to use this for -most- upgrades, just the ones that become problematic in one way or another.

2 hours ago, RejjeN said:

It's amazing how easily most of this would be solved with the game going fully digital with list building/point costs, then they could set each upgrade with an individual cost for each ship or even pilot.

While that sounds handy, it would turn listbuilding into a Secret Art Known Only To Those With The Coding.

All of this opens a can of worms of minutia of pricing upgrades by chassis, pilot, faction, interdependence to other chosen Upgrades, etc. etc. etc.

Listbuilding becomes so stupidly unpredictable that a PDF of game values would become a tome of cross-reference values, and causal players would never have a clue how to build even with an electronic interface except thru trial-and-error, because point values would all be on a sliding scale.

IMHO there is already plenty of variable pricing in this game already. More is definitely unnecessary.

I'm not really understanding the arguments against OP's idea personally. I get that adding the scale for pricing that OP suggested might take some getting used to, and would definitely cause at least some confusion at first as any sweeping change would. However OP already suggested a means by which upgrade icons on your list builder of choice could be tweaked in such a way as to indicate what upgrades will have their costs changed and by how much they will increase or decrease depending on what ship or pilot you're putting them on. Due to the nature of point costs shifting every 6 months, most players already rely almost entirely on their list builder of choice to keep track of the cost of really everything, including those cards that are on sliding scales determined by initiative or base size, so the complexity it adds to list building feels almost non existent. Sure it might seem confusing at first that upgrade X costs more on Pilot Y than Pilot Z, but it's something we all adjusted to pretty quick when scaling by initiative was first introduced. It's more complex than what we have now, yes that is true, but most of that complexity feels mitigated if not eliminated entirely by the tools we already use to craft our lists. Even the PDF's that list point values would only need to add the proposed up and down arrows next to upgrade slots for this idea to be implemented, so cluttering the PDF's isn't really a problem either.

If perfect balance is our ultimate goal, does it really make sense to stick with a system that essentially requires certain upgrades be costed into uselessness on almost every platform, when there's only a handful of problem pilots that cause that pricing to be necessary? The Tie Phantom/Juke situation really encapsulates a big issue scaling like this seems to be intended to address. If this scaling were to be implemented, suddenly Juke doesn't need to be useless on everything but a Phantom and can be brought down to a more reasonable starting price. There are other examples I'm sure but I'm drawing a blank on them so I'll leave it at that.

Not saying this system is perfect, but it does seem like an intriguing idea with a lot of potential. It's a notion worth at least giving a second look, particularly if proposed issues with it seem to be non issues once list builders are accounted for. I'd love to hear more from the detractors though. Game design is a fascinating subject and I'd love to hear more perspectives on this idea.

16 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

For example, I think Rebel A-Wings would love a decreased cost missile option. That gives them a potentially distinct feel from Resistance RZ-2s, by upping their offense at a low cost, without lowering their base price so low they'll crowd out TIE/sf and Scyks.

I think that this would single handedly fix the rebel A-wing. The ship's ultimate problem is it needs tools to accomplish things, but buying upgrades on it is super questionable because your handing over score and throwing good points after bad.

I think there is also a really elegant way to implement this without new upgrade cards or complex math on the spreadsheet: Just create a new column for 'free upgrade points.' You can't limit it to upgrade type, but it would let the RZ-1 get, for example, a reduced cost on Starbird Slash and reduced prices on missiles. It would be a good way to tweak a lot of ships that aren't really in their ideal spot, like the Scum Falc, the T-65, or some of the named HWKs, by upping their points-performance ratio when upgraded, without upping it when they aren't.

7 hours ago, dezzmont said:

I think that this would single handedly fix the rebel A-wing. The ship's ultimate problem is it needs tools to accomplish things, but buying upgrades on it is super questionable because your handing over score and throwing good points after bad.

There's something cool about the Boom-And-Zoom and Block-And-Lock of Rebel A-Wings with missiles. I know some folks onhere made suggestions where they get reload, but I really don't think that'd get the job done, since stronger-but-more-expensive A-Wings aren't where it's at. It's pretty easy for an A-Wing to not live long enough to fire all their missiles. What they need is to be cheap enough.

Like, Phoenix with Homing Missile and Crack Shot (or Concussion + Marksmanship?) would be a very interesting 33 point ship. The missiles are probably the 2nd wave of the attack. Approach focus, maybe even focus when blocking, then zoom past and lock, and circle around and finish stuff off with Missiles. Is it the most effective strategy? Maybe not, but it's a coherent one, and a set of tactics that's interesting. If split up into two pods of 3, you'll be great flankers, and maybe half the squad starts getting missiles in early.

Missiles, at very least, mean that an ignored A-Wing will be able to gain offense, and that'd be something which would feel pretty right for the A-Wing thematically. Zippy flanker that can cut someone apart with missiles if ignored. It's also really a different feel from the Resistance A-Wing.

7 hours ago, dezzmont said:

It would be a good way to tweak a lot of ships that aren't really in their ideal spot, like the Scum Falc, the T-65, or some of the named HWKs, by upping their points-performance ratio when upgraded, without upping it when they aren't.

Generic G1-A are a go-to in my mind... if they had cheaper crew, that'd be a really interesting spot for them.

Give Scum Falcon the same missile reduction as the A-Wing! Han with Missiles is probably an under-rated ship at live prices.

I go back and forth on cheaper torpedoes on Wedge and Luke, since they're kinda the reason for high priced torpedoes in the first place...

2 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

There's something cool about the Boom-And-Zoom and Block-And-Lock of Rebel A-Wings with missiles. I know some folks onhere made suggestions where they get reload, but I really don't think that'd get the job done. It's pretty easy for an A-Wing to not live long enough to fire all their missiles. What they need, IMHO, is to be cheap enough.

Like, Phoenix with Homing Missile and Crack Shot (or Concussion + Marksmanship?) would be a very interesting 33 point ship. The missiles are probably the 2nd wave of the attack. Approach focus, maybe even focus when blocking, then zoom past and lock, and circle around and finish stuff off with Missiles. Is it the most effective strategy? Maybe not, but it's a coherent one, and a set of tactics that's interesting. If split up into two pods of 3, you'll be great flankers, and maybe half the squad starts getting missiles in early.

Missiles, at very least, mean that an ignored A-Wing will be able to gain offense, and that'd be something which would feel pretty right for the A-Wing thematically. Zippy flanker that can cut someone apart with missiles if ignored. It's also really a different feel from the Resistance A-Wing.

Step 1 is probably 27 point Phoenix Pilots. Step 2 is maybe a 2-point decrease on missile costs for all RZ-1s if necessary? Or perhaps XX-23 Thread Tracers will help enough.

Just now, Npmartian said:

Step 1 is probably 27 point Phoenix Pilots. Step 2 is maybe a 2-point decrease on missile costs for all RZ-1s if necessary? Or perhaps XX-23 Thread Tracers will help enough.

I'm bearish on Thread Tracers. They're a lock-based missile, or so it looks. I'm not sure it really enables the same kind of play.

Part of what I like about the idea of cheap missile A-Wings is they have to get the locks the Hard Way, but they're a ship which makes that fun.

1 minute ago, theBitterFig said:

I'm bearish on Thread Tracers. They're a lock-based missile, or so it looks. I'm not sure it really enables the same kind of play.

Part of what I like about the idea of cheap missile A-Wings is they have to get the locks the Hard Way, but they're a ship which makes that fun.

I do think the School of Hard Locks is a fun part about A-Wings as well, but with (hopefully) an i5 ace coming soon, there could be room for an ace+gang style squad where the ace chucks out a tracer and then you eat 4 or 5 homing missiles.

In addition, A-Wings just feel built for prockets so those do catch my attention as well.

19 minutes ago, Npmartian said:

In addition, A-Wings just feel built for prockets so those do catch my attention as well.

TIE/v1 are built for PRockets, with both Focus-Boost and Focus-Roll options.

A-Wings are OK with them.

2 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

TIE/v1 are built for PRockets, with both Focus-Boost and Focus-Roll options.

A-Wings are OK with them.

Yeah, but there's an A-Wing in the art, so you're wrong.

I'm inclined to agree but they've got potential, especially with Jake

On 9/30/2020 at 7:20 PM, Hippie Moosen said:

If perfect balance is our ultimate goal

It's not.

A perfectly balanced game is dead, boring, stale, finished.

A living game remains perennially slightly out of balance, because the new stuff makes it so.

Furthermore, the more effort wasted in the minutia of perfect balance is effort stolen from creative, progressive game design.

Some cards fail as the game marches on. Some will be reborn when the right combo comes along.

I'd rather see the game create more components, some of which fail, than constantly have each card get microsurgery.

3 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

It's not.

A perfectly balanced game is dead, boring, stale, finished.

A living game remains perennially slightly out of balance, because the new stuff makes it so.

Furthermore, the more effort wasted in the minutia of perfect balance is effort stolen from creative, progressive game design.

Some cards fail as the game marches on. Some will be reborn when the right combo comes along.

I'd rather see the game create more components, some of which fail, than constantly have each card get microsurgery.

I agree mostly, i like enough balance that its not just obvious whats bad and whats not, ive been enjoying most if not all of x-wing 2.0

Havent played 6 Nantex yet, or early Quadjumper Swarm + Drea 😅

At that point just do ship equipment and training guides in 3rd edition. Something similar to 40k codex system. One of the reasons I promoted the app back in first Ed was that if well made (here's to hoping the new one is) it could have kept track of things like this.