Generic spam is still too prevalent and boring. I think the chassis are priced fine generally, and its great to have generics be good, but right now they're too good without enough differentiation. Therefore, we need more critical upgrades that diversify the choices of generics and how they fly.

Ex. Bwings could get a damage increasing upgrade, or occasional multi-attacks.

Xwing's need something.

These critical upgrades should nearly work like titles or 1.0-fix-cards. They need to change the way that the generics work, make synergies to build off of. (ex like the 1.0 Tie Adv evades, or ATC with locks, or something). I actually enjoyed the 1.0 fixes for their creativity, they were beyond what I expected. Even though they became obsolete due to power-creep, value-based assessment (certain generics were just plain better), they were fundamentally fun.

1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:

Generic spam is still too prevalent and boring. I think the chassis are priced fine generally

I think these two things are kind of incompatible.

If generics are too prevalent, they're probably not priced fine. I'm starting to think the baseline power level is just a bit too high, and seeing nearly every ship tick up a point or two might be pretty good.

1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:

its great to have generics be good, but right now they're too good without enough differentiation. Therefore, we need more critical upgrades that diversify the choices of generics and how they fly.

So what's running through my head: Scyks are almost what we want. Choice of cannon, so a lot of them have a different feel.

Seems like, as much as it gets some dirty looks, maybe an Upgrade Slot Tax would be a good idea. If the costs of ships are higher, but the upgrades are cheaper, then more folks will take the upgrades.

A while back, I had this absurd idea: most upgrades should be free. Now, I think it's less of a good idea than a good thought experiment. Ultimately, I think it'd really need a different whole X-Wing, where we'd be OK with most upgrades not really worth anything. With a different points base (20 instead of 200 point games?), even a single point of upgrade cost could represent an order of magnitude in power level. But there might be semi-viable half-measures.

• Classic taxes. Ships pay more for the slots, but the upgrades are a lot cheaper. Something could happen like nearly all the ships with Turret Slots seeing their cost go up, but the cost of turrets go down.
  • For example, 28 or 29 point TIE Aggressors, but Dorsal is free, and Ion is 3 points.
  • This is also the only option that isn't a real book-keeping nightmare.
• Vaksai-style reductions. Some or all slots on a ship have reduced prices for upgrades.
  • The example that's always in my head is E-Wings. Suppose they get a big reduction in Droid costs that other Astromech ships don't get. E-Wings get a lot of mileage out of either R4 or R3, and kinda R2 as well, and the three droids lead to radically different playstyles. One is a knife-fighter. One has flexible alpha striking and strong 2nd round beta strikes. One can hit-and-run with regen.
• A "use as you will" upgrade budget. This might have been a @dezzmont idea, one that at first I hated, but maybe I'm coming around on. Suppose ships are mostly more expensive, but depending on their strength, they might get 0 or 2 or 5 or 10 points in bonus points to spend on upgrades.
  • For example, maybe Rebel A-Wings remain where they are in generic prices (29/32), but get a budget of... 4 points to spend on upgrades. Baron of the Empire TIE/v1 and RZ-2s don't get a budget. This lets the Rebel A-Wing be more able to take expensive and ship-defining talents like Snap Shot, or invest in Missiles, but doesn't lower the baseline prices too low, so they won't gain massive efficiency..
  • For stuff like B-Wings and X-Wings, they can keep their respective 5 and 4 ship breakpoints. Maybe X-Wings can take a cheap droid now. Maybe B-Wings get a heftier budget, to help them go with Config and Cannons, or maybe they invest in Torpedoes, or maybe they just do Sensor Shenanigans. Probably folks like Ten and Braylen get smaller budgets than generics.
  • Basically, it's a realization that too many buffs can lead to massive efficiency problems, so it might be better to make things spicier with upgrades that don't wreck whatever efficiency you already have. Most upgrades are fine, particularly on generics.

I know an example @Blail Blerg used in another thread was the idea of X-wings going down to 39 or 38, and B-wings going down to 40, which better reflect their 'real value' but create the problem of passing a major breakpoint. 39 X-wings let you make a 5 ship list that replaces an X-wing with a U wing, or multiple B-wings. 40 point B-wings just flat out lets you make BBBBB which would be a nightmare to fly against. So those points changes can't ever happen despite the fact these ships are arguably not worth their current cost and 'should' be lower still. They are at a 'real' points floor in a way that makes it sorta impossible for them to get better unless something changes across the entire points philosophy of X-wing.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

I'm starting to think the baseline power level is just a bit too high, and seeing nearly every ship tick up a point or two might be pretty good.

I thought this myself, but was afraid to say it because its a fairly radical idea. Its a good way to push more power into upgrades though. A big problem ATM is that upgrades are a bad deal because raw stats are so cheap at the moment and stats help protect MoV, upgrades (generally) don't. Upgrades tend to be priced for their optimal synergies, which is a mixed bag. Ideally you shouldn't balance around 'best case scenario' but 'a realistically optimal synergy.' But the problem is the best ships to hold upgrades tend to have very similar qualities (mainly they are already very good and avoid bleeding MoV) that make distinguishing lower tier ships by upgrades hard. I think the Rebel Y and the Scyks are the only ships that really thread that needle and feel really good to 'kit out' due to the very unique nature of their slots and pricing.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

This might have been a @dezzmont idea, one that at first I hated, but maybe I'm coming around on

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

Vaksai-style reductions. Some or all slots on a ship have reduced prices for upgrades.

Its important to note that Vaksai style reductions are essentially an alternate framing of free upgrade points. In general 'free stuff' is more intuitive than 'discounted stuff.' Also feels better, the human mind likes knowing it got something, and appreciates getting it for cheaper a bit less. Its why most marketing deals frame things as 2 for 1, not 50% off, unless they can shock and awe you with a huge percentage or the product is not one you can or would buy two of. You can limit the free points by slot as well, though I am not sure that is strictly necessary. I suppose there is a case on astromech ships that also have torp slots but it isn't a great tragedy of ships take the torp over the mech in my book. The big advantage to slot based points in my book is that it lets you do stuff like apply a tiny discount to every slot on a ship when the slots are somewhat redundant or undesirable, so that you can effectively subsidize thematic but ill advised things, like taking bombs on Y-wings (Though here is hoping Concs change that!).

Still, it ultimately is the same idea just flipped about: You lower the price of the ship in terms of how many upgrades you can fit in, without altering how many stats your list can get.

49 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Classic taxes. Ships pay more for the slots, but the upgrades are a lot cheaper.

Then you just get people complaining that their ship is more expensive than a ship in another faction just because it has an upgrade slot it doesn't use. Didn't Z95s originally do this?

2 minutes ago, dezzmont said:

Its important to note that Vaksai style reductions are essentially an alternate framing of free upgrade points. In general 'free stuff' is more intuitive than 'discounted stuff.' Also feels better, the human mind likes knowing it got something, and appreciates getting it for cheaper a bit less.

On the other hand, a lot of advertisements framed this as "the more you buy, the more you save!" When I saw it in first edition, I definitely thought of it as getting a free point for every upgrade on the ship.

Just now, Matanui3 said:

the more you buy, the more you save!

This went very out of vogue, as it is not intuitive. There are a few different guidelines on how marketers and advertisers handle this, such as the rule of 100 (Don't use an absolute value to denote a discount until the price is over 100 dollars. So 25% off is better than 2.50 off on a 10 dollar item, but on a 200 dollar item you say 50 dollars off), but the general idea is you don't want to abstract things too much. Keep the lizard brains focused on what they are getting.

The standard way to demonstrate a 'more you buy, the more you save' model is to say '2 for X' or 'Buy one, get the second one for X percent off/X dollars off.' Again, depending on a few other factors.

1 hour ago, dezzmont said:

I know an example @Blail Blerg used in another thread was the idea of X-wings going down to 39 or 38, and B-wings going down to 40, which better reflect their 'real value' but create the problem of passing a major breakpoint. 39 X-wings let you make a 5 ship list that replaces an X-wing with a U wing, or multiple B-wings. 40 point B-wings just flat out lets you make BBBBB which would be a nightmare to fly against. So those points changes can't ever happen despite the fact these ships are arguably not worth their current cost and 'should' be lower still. They are at a 'real' points floor in a way that makes it sorta impossible for them to get better unless something changes across the entire points philosophy of X-wing.

Its already been done. People have tried 5Bs against current meta. Its fine.

2 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

4 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Generic spam is still too prevalent and boring. I think the chassis are priced fine generally

I think these two things are kind of incompatible.

If generics are too prevalent, they're probably not priced fine. I'm starting to think the baseline power level is just a bit too high, and seeing nearly every ship tick up a point or two might be pretty good.

I would invite you think a little more about this. Because it really isn't as incompatible as you may suspect. Really think about it.

Generics seriously do suffer from a lack of options against higher initiative. I agree, it takes a lot more effort to be a good player via blocking than it does to _slightly_ out initiative them.

On the surprisingly polar opposite end, current aces are finally getting to price points so high that they are actually not strong value in a 9 turn game because they can't get enough time on target and burn through bulk/generic-spam fast enough. Is ace play hard? Kind of: yes, it takes some skill to do efficiently in 9 turns, no, its still easier than fighting uphill against initiative via blocking only.

Most of the generic chassis seem to be near the right place and the right place is relatively competitive. But they need more diversity than simple efficiency value. When all you have to do is create a spreadsheet and figure out which generics give you the most value and run that (+an ace to give you some better targeting focus and list strength-via-diveristy), the game becomes solved very quickly, as we've seen over the last few month.

The chassis seem to be near the right place (with some tweaks) in terms of their value vs other values and upgrades in the game.

6 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Generic spam is still too prevalent

Citation requested - how much "generic spam" is there, and how much is "the right amount?"

I disagree with pretty much every assumption in the OP post, but at least most of them are subjective (I very much don't want to play the version of X-Wing you describe; and that's fine, people can have preferences) but this part is quantifiable.

Like, there's nonstop talk about generic Scyks... with the Cartel Spacer in a whopping 1 out of every 50 lists. Somehow the attention being directed towards generics has supernovaed beyond their actual showings.

7 hours ago, Matanui3 said:

Then you just get people complaining that their ship is more expensive than a ship in another faction just because it has an upgrade slot it doesn't use. Didn't Z95s originally do this?

Ships I like to fly all have torpedo slots that never get used because the best torpedo is too expensive. I liked 4x Red Squadron Veteran with proton torpedoes better than 5x Blue Squadron Escort. And one of the big things lately is how to make T-65 better. Maybe give them back affordable torpedoes?

What if there was only one generic pilot per ship? In most cases, the I3-4 + talent slot generic is worse than the I1-2 non-talent one. If the cheapest generics are priced to be a point over the breakpoint for an extra ship, the cost consistency that FFG wants to keep between the generics make the mid Ini generics unattractive.

Looking at the empire, there are a few ships that synergize with talents and all of them differ from the classical scheme of I1->3 + talent slot costs 2 points:

• TIE x1 I2->3 + talent slot: 3 points
• TIE Phantom I3->4 + talent slot: 5 points
• TIE Interceptors I1->4 + talent slot: 5 points
• Defender I1->4 + talent slot: 7 point

The first thing to note is the generics on these ships are rarely seen, while named pilots are seen more often. I guess the reason is that they get more milage out of upgrades than their generic friends.
Then, then you have to note that all these ships have ship abilities or linked action that synergize with talent upgrades in some way.

What if the low init pilots for those ships didn't exist?
I suspect that the I4 + talent slot defender could go down to 67-69 points and that probably would not create oppressive lists.
Maybe the I4 + talent slot phantoms could go down to 44 or 45 so only 2 of them can equip Juke.

Since all of the ships above aren't really fit for swarms, it wouldn't be a problem to just 'delete' the low Ini pilots from the game. For the TIE/ln, it would probably make sense to delete the I2 pilot, get the I3 down to 24 and keep the talents as they are.

I do like the idea of a complimentary upgrade budget, which varies from ship to ship. It would make ordnance carriers more useable, for example, as you don't have to worry about room for ordnance vs break point. Make Y-wings cost 40 points but have 12 points of complimentary upgrade budget? You won't be seeing the 7 ships with 8 hp each list, but they'll still be quite useable in their canon role.

Likewise ships with very limited upgrade choices could remain the same, or have a minor price bump. Like Fangs might go up 2 points and get a 2 point upgrade budget. Same with the scyk, 3 points up and budget.

The big head scratcher is what to do with ships like the Kihraxz. Tons of slots, rarely used. Push them up 7 points and give them a 10 point budget? Would anyone play 45 point Kihraxz with say DMS, CC, and Shield upgrade?

Some of the "it's cheap trash, why bother with upgrades?" ships could also benefit, maybe even without a point hike. Give Z-95s 3 points budget, without a price hike? Let them take ion missiles for free, or pay a point or two for something better?

9 hours ago, Matanui3 said:

Then you just get people complaining that their ship is more expensive than a ship in another faction just because it has an upgrade slot it doesn't use. Didn't Z95s originally do this?

Of course, the scheme only really works if the upgrades are cheap enough to use. A Slot Tax requires an Upgrade Social Safety Net , as it were. If you're paying for both the slot and the upgrade, things get awkward.

If you're paying for the slot and the upgrade is radically discounted, well, that's just a form of ship feature. It's the TIE/x1 Advanced, which pays for a "missile" it can't unequip. Y-Wings or TIE Aggressors could easily pay more for the ship, but the turret is free. Same as how the turret is free on a TIE/sf or RZ-2. Except, those turrets aren't free. RZ-2 is more expensive than an RZ-1. TIE/sf is more expensive than a TIE Bomber. They've paid the tax for their turrets, and got those turrets. Y-Wings paying a turret tax could work, if they get that turret.

But maybe it's designed a bit differently, and they could use their refund to buy turrets or bombs or torps on a Y-Wing. This has potential to be better than just underpriced Y-Wings, since at some point, raw efficiency can get too high. It might be for some stuff right now, like vanilla TIE Bombers. What if they cost 3 points more, but got 4 points of Missiles/Torpedoes/Bombs for free? You'd get to do more of what's cool and distinctive about a TIE Bomber, but the potential for less exciting efficiency spam would be reduced.

8 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

I would invite you think a little more about this. Because it really isn't as incompatible as you may suspect. Really think about it.

I have. If ships are too prevalent, the most common reason is they're cheaper and more efficient than their neighbors. That's probably not very well priced.

Things can be fairly priced but dull, to be sure. I just don't think the right solution is to slash and slash and slash prices on dull ships to the point where they're competitive, and then give them all a bunch of fix cards (that will no doubt be real $$$$ money expensive) so they aren't boring anymore.

Skip the price slashing, and do something else. We've got all these existing upgrades, and if we can make them cheap on the right ships, that'd add spice, and buff power, but while not just overwhelming the interesting parts of the game with efficiency.

I think 5B would be less interesting than 4B (+Z?), if your B-Wings all got a choice between Free Double Tap or Free Torpedo or Free Advanced Sensors.

9 hours ago, dezzmont said:

Oh, I still think you're wrong about a bunch of stuff.

But basically, yeah, slot taxes or vaksai or freebee-budget all reduce to mostly the same thing. There's just advantages and disadvantages to each.

• Taxes are simple. They're automatic and always factored into upgrade costs. But it's one fewer lever to dial, and very one-size-fits-all.
• Vaksai is something we're kind of familiar with, and it's another dial to adjust, but it's kind of restrictive. It only hits certain slots. If someone is a Torpedo-Y-Wing fan, but can only get bomb or turret discounts, well, that's not super fun.
• Freebee-budget is flexible and open and gives players a lot of choice. It's also kind of a mess, and the one most open to "why don't we just reduce the price of the ship more?" criticisms. I guess it goes to the question "Is there a limit to how much efficiency is good?" I've got my answer (I kinda think there is), but it's an open question.

4 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

Things can be fairly priced but dull, to be sure. I just don't think the right solution is to slash and slash and slash prices on dull ships to the point where they're competitive, and then give them all a bunch of fix cards (that will no doubt be real $$$$ money expensive) so they aren't boring anymore.

You’re saying the same things I am. No. I don’t think this working very well.

I finally got into 2.0. I couldn't find anyupgrade that deals splat damage to formations. Like the old ones did...

A splat damage missile or torp would be a natural detterant to generics en masse. It would at keast keep them apart so they can be picked off or arc dodged more easily...

5 minutes ago, Larky Bobble said:

I finally got into 2.0. I couldn't find anyupgrade that deals splat damage to formations. Like the old ones did...

Like Diamond-Boron, Concussion, and Cluster missiles?

1 hour ago, Spinland said:

Like Diamond-Boron, Concussion, and Cluster missiles?

Or proton or concussion bombs or seismic charges.

Yeah... I can't find anything, either.

This is rather heavy handed.... BUT, I’m ready for it. It fixes the “true value” vs “spam value” problems, forces list pilot/upgrade disparity, and helps to create a more Squad of Adventurers feel of each having their own special thing (even if generic pilot skill is the only variation).

BEHOLD:

Rules Reference Page 1

Golden Rules:

”You may not have more than three of the same upgrade or pilot in a squad.”

Possible variations:

“... squad. This does not include configurations.”

”... in an extended or hyperspace format squad.”

The problem with not allowing more than 3 of the same pilot or upgrade in a squad is that you just move the problem to mixed generic swarms. Also, some upgrades are fine to spam in my opinion.

10 hours ago, Cerebrawl said:

The big head scratcher is what to do with ships like the Kihraxz. Tons of slots, rarely used. Push them up 7 points and give them a 10 point budget? Would anyone play 45 point Kihraxz with say DMS, CC, and Shield upgrade?

Maybe, though the biggest issue with lots of slots is the lack of good and diverse upgrades to put in them. The only non-ship-specific Modifications I can even think of off the top of my head are also the most boring: add some health or add a defense die (and thus potentially more health). And then you have things like the TIE Bomber or the Hyena, where they have a million ordinance slots and you aren't supposed to fill them all.

43 minutes ago, dezzmont said:

The problem with not allowing more than 3 of the same pilot or upgrade in a squad is that you just move the problem to mixed generic swarms. Also, some upgrades are fine to spam in my opinion.

Even mixed generic swarms are more interesting.... but it mainly challenges the efficiency curve to going ahead and picking named pilots.

It’s not perfect but moves things towards “ideal Xwing” and away from meta gaming value imho.

Also shared ps is a huge efficiency factor by itself. Cutting it in half is good.

nevermind

7 hours ago, Spinland said:

Like Diamond-Boron, Concussion, and Cluster missiles?

5 hours ago, underling said:

Or proton or concussion bombs or seismic charges.

Yeah... I can't find anything, either.

Nah...

I'll check out the diamond boron, but I'm talking about the direct 1 damage to all ships in range one missiles (when hit). The ion torp also, everything in range 1, wasn't it? They've gone. Exposing a damage card effect is puny in comparison, especially on the opening joust.

Something should put fear into generics in the opening joust that is much weaker against aces. The game is lacking that part of the tic tac toe, if people's complaints here are true.

Bombs? Who was talking about bombs....?

....

Edit: I was wondering why I was unfamiliar with the DB missiles...

Double slot! And a charge for the effect (which is the least thematic rule ever?)...! I'll admit the crit potential is nice but.. it sucks in comparison.

1 hour ago, Larky Bobble said:

Bombs? Who was talking about bombs....?

You just mentioned "upgrades," you didn't specifically mention "missiles."

14 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

Rules Reference Page 1

Golden Rules:

”You may not have more than three of the same upgrade or pilot in a squad.”

I just hate it.

I don't think that actually fixes anything, and it also ruins entirely ways to play X-Wing that are well-loved by large parts of the community.

Mostly, spam isn't a problem. If B-Wings were 36 points to make a silly example, they'd be too cheap, and even if someone had to run 3B 2X or 3B 2U instead of 5B, there's still an efficiency problem even if the spam problem is solved. Capping ships in a list--particularly with a one size fits all that makes no distinctions between a TIE Silencer and a Z-95--just seems to me like a terrible idea.

I guess my solution to boring spam isn't to eliminate the spam, but to add toppings. Like, maybe one player wants bombs as their topping, maybe one player wants astromechs, maybe one wants sensors. I'd rather have than than just to keep reducing the costs of ships again and again and again until they're so efficient the game gets boring.

Get Hawaiian--SPAM with seaweed and rice.

Mmmmm.... yeah I like that.