Lambda-Class Shuttle

Points - PS = 19 for Omicron Group Pilot and Captain Kagi

Points - PS = 20 for Captain Yorr and Colonel Jendon

Implies --> 0 points for Captain Kagi's ability

Implies --> 1 points for Captain Yorr's and Colonel Jendon's ability

Firespray-31

Points - PS = 30 for Bounty Hunter

Points - PS = 31 for the others

Implies --> 1 point for Elite Talent & Pilot Ability

TIE Interceptor

Points - PS = 17 for Alpha, Avenger, Saber

Points - PS = 16 for Royal Guard Pilot

Points - PS = 18 for "Fel's Wrath", Turr Phennir, Soontir Fel, Kir Kanos, Carnor Jax

Implies --> 0 points for Elite Talent @ Saber and Royal Guard Pilot

Implies --> -1 point for Royal Guard Pilot Boost

Implies --> 1 point for "Fel's Wrath"'s ability and Kir Kanos' ability

Implies --> 1 point for Elite Talent & Pilot Ability for the other unique pilots

= I got the impression that the Elite Talent Upgrade Slot is 0 points for all pilots that have it. You just pay for the pilot's ability. And sometimes the ability is 'for free', see Captain Kagi.

I think it is fairly obvious that most upgrades (Elite Talent, Torpedo, Missiles, etc) do not factor into the cost of the ship, shifting the cost to the upgrade.

UPDATE

TIE Interceptor

Points - PS = 17 for Alpha, Avenger, Saber, Cowall

Points - PS = 16 for Royal Guard Pilot

Points - PS = 18 for "Fel's Wrath", Turr Phennir, Soontir Fel, Kir Kanos, Carnor Jax, Lorrir

Implies --> 0 points for Cowall's ability. He clearly is a must-have!

Or, as the Royal Guard Tie suggests, they are playing with 1 pt for 2 pilot skill.

Or, as the Royal Guard Tie suggests, they are playing with 1 pt for 2 pilot skill.

VI suggests the same.

However, Rookie/Red and other examples hint towards 1 point for 1 pilot skill.

Yes, it is obviously the standard. But like all things, it is open to tweaking.

I'm pretty sure there is no set formula, FFG probably do what I do, look at the model in comparison to the closest analogs currently in the game, make a guesstimate of how much better or worse it is than them and then playtest. Though once they have the base ship, I do agree they add 1 point per PS and then fudge the value slightly due to any special named pilot skills.

Pointing models is one of those things it's really hard to make hard rules for, but decent designers can just look at and think that looks like 23 points instantly and be very close to correct, stick three designers in a room and it will be even more likely to be correct as they can all guess and then bounce any varience back and forth.

This.

Regressive point cost analysis on ships with asymmetrical functionality and non-quantifiable aspects (dial) DOES NOT WORK .

The analogy to the previously cited method is like an MBA grad fresh out of college applying analytics to optimize a process, but having zero understanding of the underlying mechanisms and therefore not not understanding the tradeoffs that he is imposing. The regressive approach is far too simple and makes too many assumptions.

A better method is to compare similar ships and then differentially adjust costs to factor in additional abilities, attack / defense / etc. This requires a good knowledge of statistics and Lanchester's Laws. An undergraduate degree in math, engineering, or related STEM field ought to do it, as long as you paid attention in your statistics class. It also helps if you can program, so you can simulate. Excel is inefficient at best unless you write macros using the Visual Basic code, and likely insufficient for the level of analysis required.

The third, and best, option, is to get a bunch of experienced designers / play testers together and arrive at a consensus.

FFG takes the third approach. It generally works very well, but there are a few outliers that don't make any sense.

Some of us though don't want to spend days playtesting, nor do we have a bunch of people willing to put up with our designs and try to work all the bugs out. Personally, I have a few designs I want to throw in the game, and it would be awesome to have a formula which is accurate and simple enough that I can put together a ship in a matter of minutes and throw it against a balanced enemy squad.

I see absolutely no harm in coming up with a decent formula that will at least partially mimic the pattern already established and come up with a reasonably balanced cost associated with an arbitrarily assigned value for A/D/H/S. It helps those of us who are casual players come up with stats and point costs for ships which don't yet have an official mini but which we like enough to want to include in our squadrons.

Some of us though don't want to spend days playtesting, nor do we have a bunch of people willing to put up with our designs and try to work all the bugs out. Personally, I have a few designs I want to throw in the game, and it would be awesome to have a formula which is accurate and simple enough that I can put together a ship in a matter of minutes and throw it against a balanced enemy squad.

I see absolutely no harm in coming up with a decent formula that will at least partially mimic the pattern already established and come up with a reasonably balanced cost associated with an arbitrarily assigned value for A/D/H/S. It helps those of us who are casual players come up with stats and point costs for ships which don't yet have an official mini but which we like enough to want to include in our squadrons.

1. Find a similar ship that has the same number of attack and defense dice.
2. Multiply the reference cost by the square root of the ratio of the new shields + hull divided by the reference shields + hull, rounding up.
3. Add points for everything else that is different or unique, such as cannon slots, turret, crew, better maneuverability, etc. Bear in mind that upgrades generally cost about twice as many points as what they are valued as a built-in ship cost.