Jump to content
N'Kata

The curious case of Boba Fett

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Koing907 said:

FFG could automate points adjustments. Just take the top 10 cards, and add 25% points to each. Take the bottom 10 cards, and reduce the cost by 50%.

Rinse, repeat.

This post may be sarcasm.

Sounds funny, but this actually might work out very lol. 

Once a year after worlds: 

Obviously fix some obvious stuff, and then after that: 

80% doesn't change based on this alone. 

top 10% used -  each card adds 1 point

bottom 10% never used - each card drops 1 points to a minimum of 1 point. 

 

Would be pretty interesting. I mean, it would still take 3 whole years for Fel's Wrath to drop 3/200 points (or 1.5 points in 1.0 value). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were lots of complaints in the late 1.0 that X-wing is not X-wing anymore, and only wired **** like Scurrgs or K-wings are flying. 

So here we are: 2.0 is all about iconic trio: Vader, Luke and Boba. 

I like it. 

Boba is strong, but someone has to be strong. It's good it's him. Is not OP or NPE by any means. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Sounds funny, but this actually might work out very lol. 

Once a year after worlds: 

Obviously fix some obvious stuff, and then after that: 

80% doesn't change based on this alone. 

top 10% used -  each card adds 1 point

bottom 10% never used - each card drops 1 points to a minimum of 1 point. 

 

Would be pretty interesting. I mean, it would still take 3 whole years for Fel's Wrath to drop 3/200 points (or 1.5 points in 1.0 value). 

Well, I called it sarcasm because I don't think adjusting points is very good for balancing the game. I think in our hypothetical scenario where the adjustments happen automatically, we'd just see the most power for the points ships/upgrades churn to the top, while the previous top 10 cards fall off when their power gets too expensive, fall down, and then get the discount and climb back up the meta ladder to the top again. It would be amusing to see the meta churn like that, but I don't think it would be good for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Koing907 said:

Well, I called it sarcasm because I don't think adjusting points is very good for balancing the game. I think in our hypothetical scenario where the adjustments happen automatically, we'd just see the most power for the points ships/upgrades churn to the top, while the previous top 10 cards fall off when their power gets too expensive, fall down, and then get the discount and climb back up the meta ladder to the top again. It would be amusing to see the meta churn like that, but I don't think it would be good for the game.

I think you have to keep in mind scale: Once a year, only the top and bottom 10%, and only by 1 point. 

One could also say that if the rate of Used between the bottom-percentile 30% and bottom-percentile 10% are not different enough, then no change is made. (We would likely be at a mature meta at that point) 

And don't fool yourselves: a meta always arises. 2.0 will not avoid meta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, StriderZessei said:

No. Juke is pretty situational, and only good on a handful of ships. It's nowhere near strong enough to merit a nerf. 

You didn't quote my full statement on Juke. I didn't suggest increasing its cost flat, I suggested changing it to variable cost based on I (it's vastly more useful on I5+ than lower Init) and add extra cost for ships which gets passive Evades like the Defender and Phantom.

I also agree it's not strong enough alone per se. But it's an auto include on Whisper and Rexler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, westiebestie said:

You didn't quote my full statement on Juke. I didn't suggest increasing its cost flat, I suggested changing it to variable cost based on I (it's vastly more useful on I5+ than lower Init) and add extra cost for ships which gets passive Evades like the Defender and Phantom.

I also agree it's not strong enough alone per se. But it's an auto include on Whisper and Rexler.

And I'm arguing it doesn't need to be nerfed just because it's good on two or three specific pilots/ships. The talent isn't great against things that seem to be becoming prevalent in this early meta: Luke, ships with Perceptive Co-Pilot, etc. 

Defenders are already stupidly expensive; why nerf them indirectly? 

Edited by StriderZessei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, StriderZessei said:

And I'm arguing it doesn't need to be nerfed just because it's good on two or three specific pilots/ships. The talent isn't great against things that seem to be becoming prevalent in this early meta: Luke, ships with Perceptive Co-Pilot, etc. 

Defenders are already stupidly expensive; why nerf them indirectly? 

And I'm not saying nerf it, I'm saying change to variable costing. The end cost may well end up the same for those two if FFG decide to model it that way, but cheaper for I1-2, I3-4 pilots and ships without passive Evades. You have to agree the value of Juke varies with these factors, no?

Juke cost should not be affected by Defender cost. If Defenders are too pricy, lower them. Adjust Juke separately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, westiebestie said:

You didn't quote my full statement on Juke. I didn't suggest increasing its cost flat, I suggested changing it to variable cost based on I (it's vastly more useful on I5+ than lower Init) and add extra cost for ships which gets passive Evades like the Defender and Phantom.

I also agree it's not strong enough alone per se. But it's an auto include on Whisper and Rexler.

Its auto-include on those ships because of their built in ability to generate an evade token every turn in addition to their normal action, if flown right. The points cost for that ability is baked into the ship cost up front, so why charge a premium to the upgrade when the upgrade's cost has little to do where we see it applied? You aren't making it less likely to see it used on the I5-6 ships we see it on, you're just guaranteeing we won't see it on a lower tier ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, JasonCole said:

Its auto-include on those ships because of their built in ability to generate an evade token every turn in addition to their normal action, if flown right. The points cost for that ability is baked into the ship cost up front, so why charge a premium to the upgrade when the upgrade's cost has little to do where we see it applied? You aren't making it less likely to see it used on the I5-6 ships we see it on, you're just guaranteeing we won't see it on a lower tier ship.

Because it makes the upgrade useless for everyone that can't generate evade tokens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ignithas said:

Because it makes the upgrade useless for everyone that can't generate evade tokens.

Juke is already useless for anyone that can't generate an evade token. Or do you mean "an evade token in addition to another token"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SOTL said:

Not everything is supposed to be equally good on everything.  THAT'S THE POINT.

That's the purpose of variable costing.  It's why they introduced it. It's a great, great idea to balance these types of things which are not near equally useful on everything.  

28 minutes ago, JasonCole said:

Its auto-include on those ships because of their built in ability to generate an evade token every turn in addition to their normal action, if flown right. The points cost for that ability is baked into the ship cost up front, so why charge a premium to the upgrade when the upgrade's cost has little to do where we see it applied? You aren't making it less likely to see it used on the I5-6 ships we see it on, you're just guaranteeing we won't see it on a lower tier ship.

Read my next post again please. It's this exact thing variable costing would solve. Currently we ONLY see it on high I ships and it's not viable on a lower tier ship. That's what I would like them to adress. 

Maybe I need to exemplity.

E.g. they could make Juke cost

2pt for I1-2

3pts for I3-4

4pts for I5-6

+2pts if the ship you fit it to can generate passive Evade tokens by ship/pilot ability, e.g. Defender, Phantom, IG-88C (+ other IGs who share title). 

That would mean it cost 6pts (4+2) on Rexler with that costing ruleset, but 5 (3+2)on IG-88C and 2 (2+0) on a Cartel spacer. Adjust numbers as needed to achieve desired target balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, westiebestie said:

That's the purpose of variable costing.  It's why they introduced it. It's a great, great idea to balance these types of things which are not near equally useful on everything.  

Read my next post again please. It's this exact thing variable costing would solve. Currently we ONLY see it on high I ships and it's not viable on a lower tier ship. That's what I would like them to adress. 

Maybe I need to exemplity.

E.g. they could make Juke cost

2pt for I1-2

3pts for I3-4

4pts for I5-6

That would mean it cost 6pts (4+2) on Rexler with that costing ruleset, but 5 (3+2)on IG-88C and 2 (2+0) on a Cartel spacer. Adjust numbers as needed to achieve desired target balance.

Lowering it for ships its not so good on is one thing, but I think 6 is too much on anyone. It has a greatly decreased value if you're shooting alone at a focussed/forced ship. With Defenders in particular being so expensive, that's not an unusual situation. All you're effectively using it for in that case, is a limited token strip. Like most things 2.0, you still have to play into it to get your points worth. Once you maximise it's performance, it becomes powerful, but it doesn't have that power baked in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have to adjust points in both directions otherwise why bother. Raising the cost of competitive cards without lowering the cost of non competitive cards will just end with a lot stuff never bring played. 

There is a balance they just need time and info to find it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1 hour ago, Cuz05 said:

Lowering it for ships its not so good on is one thing, but I think 6 is too much on anyone. 

The points in my example were just an example. You can replace the numbers with others, I just wanted to illustrate the principle.

 

37 minutes ago, SOTL said:

FYI: It's not the point of variable costing.  If it was they'd use variable costing on more than 1% of upgrades.

I believe it is, and they should use it in as many places as they can IMO, if the objective is to make the game as balanced as possible. They just implemented it in some places initially to see how things pan out before adjustments, and probably because of time/testing constraints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, westiebestie said:

 

 

The points in my example were just an example. You can replace the numbers with others, I just wanted to illustrate the principle.

 

I believe it is, and they should use it in as many places as they can IMO, if the objective is to make the game as balanced as possible. They just implemented it in some places initially to see how things pan out before adjustments, and probably because of time/testing constraints.

If you're going to illustrate an example, you're better off being specific and realistic with it. Otherwise you're spitballing fantasies and whatifs, and you leave too many holes to be punched in your theory. For "example", what pilots at I-1/2 can take a pilot talent mod? (spoiler alert, it ain't many, if any - I can't think of a single one off the top of my head). On top of that, now you're advocating for a discount to Juke for Echo, which is contrary to your previous stance.

No one here is unclear on how variable costing works. We're disagreeing with you that it's necessary for Juke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JasonCole said:

If you're going to illustrate an example, you're better off being specific and realistic with it. Otherwise you're spitballing fantasies and whatifs, and you leave too many holes to be punched in your theory. For "example", what pilots at I-1/2 can take a pilot talent mod? (spoiler alert, it ain't many, if any - I can't think of a single one off the top of my head). On top of that, now you're advocating for a discount to Juke for Echo, which is contrary to your previous stance.

No one here is unclear on how variable costing works. We're disagreeing with you that it's necessary for Juke.

My points example is reasonable but an example of how it could be implemented, since some posters seemed to misunderstand variable costing. Maybe the total is too high and could be reduced 1p across the board on my numbers but no need to call it unrealistic. There are other models and can be other numbers if the game balancers think otherwise.

I did not previously say Echo needs to pay equally as much as Whisper for Juke, on the contrary. You are also misreading my numbers even though you claim to understand them and you are putting words in my mouth saying I want to discount Juke for Echo. Echo would pay 5pts (3+2) for Juke with my example model, I don't see how that would be a discount from todays' 4?

Let's agree to disagree on Juke.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, westiebestie said:

I believe it is, and they should use it in as many places as they can IMO, if the objective is to make the game as balanced as possible. 

That's not the objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...