Jump to content

Sciencius

Members
  • Content Count

    673
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sciencius

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Outer Rim

Recent Profile Visitors

988 profile views
  1. No they were not, but most likely they will be in the "Hotshots and Aces" pack, so you will not be missing out if you converted.
  2. Picked up everything I wanted (and preordered) from wave 4 at my FLGS on release, but they were selling like hot-cakes, and today someone who had not preordered was told they had to hold selling wave 4 stuff and wait for one week hoping somebody did not pick-up their preorder. I think the Naboo fighter is in particular high-demand.
  3. Sciencius

    Wave 6

    Rebel-Resistance: could be what you suggest. Republic: Eta-2 Actis-class light interceptor Seperatist: Droid tri-fighter (interceptor type) but there are many options, for Seperatist they may go for the Sheathipede (to get a crew transporter), or they could go for Ventress' Ginivex-class starfighter.
  4. I think FFG is going about the point adjustments the close to the best way they can go about it. Exactly, by nerfing top builds you automatically uncover new opportunities. The only point I would like to address from your long email is: I understand the point about both hitting the pilot and its upgrades, as that seem like "double-over-nerfing", BUT I think this is necessary - and a lesson that FFG learned from the 1.0 Jumpmaster disaster, where they went for succesive soft-nerfs that individually seemed ok , but simply meant the jumpmaster keept reemerging as top-dog in different build-incarnations, which simply prolonged the pain, until it was finally nuked to oblivion. Instead they now hit the combo hard (but not so hard as the jumpmaster eventually got hit) to ensure the meta-changes (as you observed), then they can always reduce points softly if the Pilot needs some form of re-entry. Importantly, I think a lot of the Forum peps, who are asking for point changes (nerfs or boots) or the approach to point changes, assumes that FFG wants to find the perfect equilibrium where all ships and builds are equally valid and all have an equal spot to win Worlds. I have a surprice for you, FFG do not want that, FFG are interested in a constantly changing meta (!), not only to make you buy ships but also to make X-wing a live, fresh, and vibrant game. Finally, I personally do not want the perfect equilibrium either, I do not want a game where list-building is reduced to a random-number generator. That is not how the game should be in my opinion. List building shoud be a challenge and I enjoy spending time list building finding that cool and interesting combo that will make my points worth more. Naturally, I am also not interested in a game where there are only 1-3 builds in top 16 of all major tournaments. To be honest, I think the game is in a very very good spot at the moment, with a very wide open meta, and I think the approach FFG has taken so far is the right one. Is everything perfect, no, but it is prette darn good.
  5. Sorry, but I am not really sure what the purpose of this thread is? or quite understand it? What do you mean by "balance out generics" you want generics out of the game? and make it well-known aces only or?
  6. I second this. This would be fun and as the mechanism already exist in the game (without being overpowered), it will not skew gameplay to have one unique B-wing pilot with this ability.
  7. Not only does this sound complicated, but 10 attack dice(!) is not something I would like to see in X-wing. The Dash-Roark-Han 2 times 4 dice double tap was bad enough. You do know that a single focus can change 10 eye results to 10 hits right? and a single lock is not restricted to only rerolling a maximum of 3 dice...but up to all 10. Just try this with you dice now, you do not like the result. This is even worse than Dash-Roark-Han. And 4 round charging it up just means slow-rolling in the initial phase, not a game design to aim for either. Well, that is one way to put it, but I agree that this type of spike-damage is not great for the game, and near impossible to price correctly.
  8. I wholeheartedly support this. And I am sorry if it sounded like I devalued your work MJ, I certainly do not, I found your "jousting"-math very interesting and very important. The main problem with a pure tournament-data driven approach, is the pricing of the pilots rarely being played (for what ever reason) i.e. the scarcity-bonus as used here. Thank you for replying. 1 Haha, nice - and who cares about you not being a "real" statistician, as long as it is clear what method you have used. 2. Thank you for doing this and I am sorry I did not have the time to count the different positive and negative adjustments. Those numbers seems more reasonable, but perhaps also more akin to what ships we see played? You could add two colums in your spreadsheet one for each of the two types-adjustments, in addition to the sum the final adjustment, but again only a suggestion to satisfy my own curiosity, because I like your approach and want to understand the data. 3. Interesting, what you are telling me is that your have performed several sensitivity analysis, and arrived at very similar results - that is good, as that tells us that the data is sound.
  9. Very interesting analysis, unlike MajorJugglers pure mathemathical jousting models, you are simply letting the tournament data "speak" for themselves which is in some way the best. Thank you for this. I do have a few constructive comments: 1. I think you should rename the thread title to "New Idea for Point Costs - A Data- and Percentile-Driven Approach" 2. I noticed that practically all pilots in your spreadsheet have a reduced cost - practically all of them. That strikes me as odd - If every pilot gets a price-reduction then nothing is achieved and simply leads to inflation. I am wondering if the data is driven by your "scarcity-boost"? Would you kindly re-upload the spreadsheet, but this time, mark if the price-adjustment comes from adjustment or from scarcity bonus. 3. This has been mentioned, but data should also be weigthed by tournament-participant-size being top-dog in a 64-man tournament is a totally different beast than winning your 8-person laugh-it-up-fuzz-ball tournament kabooze.
  10. X-wing is growing and getting more and more popular. The number of tournaments have been somewhat constant, but tournaments attendance are now gathering 50-100 players its crazy. Just as important the Meta is WIDE-OPEN, for my last tournament, I dont think I saw the same list twice. As far as I remember, the closest was two Quad Phantom players, but even they did not have the exact same list, one was without the crack-shoot to get a bid. This just makes the game SO much enjoyable, everyone have a blast, and is what is fueling the interest for the game in our local community. Interestingly, the two new factions are of to a very slow start, with only few players investing in them and almost none bringing them to tournaments.
  11. For a moment there I read that as "Aboriginals Game Fair"....
  12. The introduction of ship-abilities (the small text below the pilot-ability some ships have) is a very smart move by FFG. Sure, ship-abilities could have been handled by a configuration, but this opens up for some really nasty combinations of cost, pilot abilities and configurations (the plague of 1.0). Now they have the possibility of locking ship-abilty + pilot-ability + cost together to ensure balance. In this way they could e.g. in an Imperial Veterans box introduce new TIE Defender pilots with a TIE/D-esque ship-ability, and even re-introduce Vessery flying a TIE/D but priced more expensively.
  13. Alternative changes could be to remove the torpedo slot and add two missile-slots making it a Barrage-Rocket Carrier. As far as I remember Scum does not have such an option.
×
×
  • Create New...