I got the first question at the FFG in-flight conference

[AlexW 2,902]

 

 

 

If you look at the tournament lists, you see a very diverse mix of everything, not just new ships.  That right there is all you need to show that there is no power-creep.

 

Thats not what I see in the Regionals results thread.

 

 

Regionals suffers from being under the "ultra competitive/premiere" heading and skews results  people there are trying their best to win and if there is a 1% advantage in having a given build then everyone tries for that advantage creating a much larger perceived difference than under normal circumstances

 

When I am looking for balance of ships ideally I would have data where player skill was even. Higher stakes tournaments are the best I can get (especially the top third/top 8) since I can assume the player skill is roughly even towards the high end. Again balance comparisons are not about popularity. Since lists often have different ships and even if they have a common ship they have different upgrades/escorts I dont think a 1% difference could be accuratly measured. I strongly think it would not be magnified such that the TIE Advanced or A-Wing were at 0% representation in the upper end of lists if the difference was so minor.

 

 

The Top 8 is still absolutely are about popularity to an extent, though.   When 5 or 6  of the top 8 are, for example, Falcon lists, you have the best players playing the same lists.  The only way you could reasonably use that information by itself is if they were flying 8 different lists and the same list won consistently.  We're seeing the same lists win consistently but they're also the same lists making the top 8.   They're obviously strong lists, but it's nowhere near proof positive that things are imbalanced.

 

In the midst of tournament season, I see even the best players right now going a safer route, imitating each other and only experimenting on the fringes.  It's a big risk to take as the tournaments continue to ramp up, so lists will continue to stay narrow unless someone really manages to break the mold.

Edited August 16, 2014 by AlexW

[Mirrimon 196]

By popularity I mean how much people like a ship. I might like TIE Bombers more than TIE fighters but that does not mean it is better. The top players play the Falcon because it is a safe bet. It is a safe bet because the current balance state of the game means that it is a very efficient use of points compared to other options. The Falcon may not be the best ship in the game, but it is a very good ship. This gives me an idea of the balance of the game.

 

I did not say that looking to tournaments is the only way to look at balance, just that it is decent and easy.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Mirrimon

[MajorJuggler 7,752]

Regionals suffers from being under the "ultra competitive/premiere" heading and skews results  people there are trying their best to win and if there is a 1% advantage in having a given build then everyone tries for that advantage creating a much larger perceived difference than under normal circumstances

 

How can the Regionals be "skewing" the results though? Skewing the results away from what, exactly? Regionals, Nationals, and Worlds are by definition the most up-to-date competitive meta. The only "suffering" going on there are from the people that keep rolling all blanks! 

 

No, don't blame the the competitive meta for having narrow lists. All the competitive meta does is reveal existing balance flaws. The competitive meta is always going to try and find the optimal path, or the path of least resistance. Do you blame your doctor if he diagnoses you with a disease? No. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

The Top 8 is still absolutely are about popularity to an extent, though.   When 5 or 6  of the top 8 are, for example, Falcon lists, you have the best players playing the same lists.  The only way you could reasonably use that information by itself is if they were flying 8 different lists and the same list won consistently.  We're seeing the same lists win consistently but they're also the same lists making the top 8.   They're obviously strong lists, but it's nowhere near proof positive that things are imbalanced.

 

I'm glad that I added the stats tracking for squad / ship effectiveness. Almost without fail, ships that don't get brought very often ALSO don't do well even when they DO get brought. We do have proof positive that ships on the bottom are unbalanced poorly, in the negative direction. Ships on the top are another story.

Edited August 16, 2014 by MajorJuggler