Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SpiderMana

Rebel Points Scare? (AKA the 3 Nautolan Thread)

Recommended Posts

Especially with the Rz-2 points being revealed, with either i5 pilot costing less than the Rebel’s lone RZ-1 i4 pilot, many have begun to assume the RZ-1 will get its second talent slot back and/or see a significant points reduction. Myself included.

But what if they only balance ship costs within faction? Or perhaps more accurately, what if they have to? If the RZ-1 has to keep its points up to be balanced compared to the Z-95, but the RZ-2 has to keep its points down to remain appropriately costed compared to the T-70?

Is this ridiculous? Is this a realistic fear?

I can’t say I’ll be terribly upset if I have to stick to Resistance for decent A-Wing play, but it would be nice to be able to fly them better in Rebels, too.

Edited by SpiderMana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is always the possibility for the RZ-2 to go up a little bit from where it is, and the RZ-1 to go down a little. Split the different.

I think the fear that FFG will keep the RZ-1 higher costed to ensure the Z-95 stays relevant, is more ridiculous than realistic for 2 reasons. First, it assumes that FFG would intentionally keep a ship under-powered to prop up another ship, instead of trying to balance both (which is the logical goal, and theoretically FFG's stated one). Second, it assumes FFG would prop the Z-95 over the A-wing, the latter of which is a well known original trilogy ship, and the former already has a solid home in another faction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dengar5 said:

I can 100% confirm that the forum will be very unhappy with whatever the point costs get set at.

I mean. Agreed. Just throwing the thought out there as I haven’t seen it discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Rebel A’s have to come down and get that second talent slot to be playable. Maybe only a few points each just to afford a second talent. Juke/crack shot A’s might be fun on the Rebel side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think gaining an extra Talent slot and going down 2 points would be fair, however any more than that and then you need to consider bringing down things like the Tie Fighter and Interceptor down, both of which have less hull/shield but would be more expensive and have worst dials than an A-wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Larky Bobble said:

Errrmmm....

Do they have to sell the new A-wing model or the old one? Sorry for being cynical, but I was expecting this. Expect a real adjustment six months to a year after release, when sales drop.

And then expect the new hotness to be undercosted.

That’s a **** reason. I get it from a business standpoint, but points are hardly affecting my purchases. I want new spaceships, I want them to be pretty. I’d much rather they be balanced than undercosted. :(

Share this post


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

Errrmmm....

Do they have to sell the new A-wing model or the old one? Sorry for being cynical, but I was expecting this. Expect a real adjustment six months to a year after release, when sales drop.

And then expect the new hotness to be undercosted.

Eh... if they get caught doing stuff like this on a regular basis they will end up with a really POed customer base. I fully expect A-wings to come down in price and probably get a second talent slot. But if you want a reason to go with your cynicism mine would be I also expect the A-wing to be re-released in Wave 4 alongside the Falcon and Interceptor (with probably a couple ST re-releases and maybe 1 new ship apiece for the PT).

 

6 minutes ago, Darth evil said:

i think gaining an extra Talent slot and going down 2 points would be fair, however any more than that and then you need to consider bringing down things like the Tie Fighter and Interceptor down, both of which have less hull/shield but would be more expensive and have worst dials than an A-wing.

If they get to the point TIE Fighters need to go down, I think instead you will see everything go up.

28 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

The second talent is pretty bunk without something magical, like heroic

Just really need a cost decrease is all 

I can think of a few nice combos. Predator and Crackshot would be pretty mean. Realistically Crackshot plus anything would be fine on most A-wings if you need cheap. Also, it would help setup for Wave 4 if they release a new talent in the re-releases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GeneralVryth said:

Second, it assumes FFG would prop the Z-95 over the A-wing, the latter of which is a well known original trilogy ship, and the former already has a solid home in another faction.

Z95s going to be outclassed by the Mining Guild Tie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GeneralVryth said:

If they get to the point TIE Fighters need to go down,

Considering the price of the mining guild Tie, that might actually happen. While the Guild Sentry costs more then the Academy Pilot, the Guild Surveyor is cheaper than the Black Squadron Ace.  Granted, the Ace has one extra ini, but I get the impression, the FFG came to the conclusion that high ini on 2 dice peashooters isn't as relevant without an impactful ability. Just compare Green Squadron Expert to Talli on the RZ-2.

Edited by Duskwalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well balancing within a faction simply is not going to work because for what it is worth the adjustable point scale are to be balancing all the factions. There will be a faction that is on top (which will see a cost increase) so factions on the bottom won't see that much. Now if a ship is noticeably absent in faction paring we might see a 1 or 2 point discount across the board depending on what works. But again it is likely they are considering faction characteristics on which ship gets rebalancing treatment.

I don't think Rebels have to worry too much for point increase (except for maybe Luke but that is a big maybe). As far as A-wings sure Resistance has the better version (just like the T-70 was better than X-wings in Wave 7). However as with the rebels it depends on what lists can the Resistance make with those A-wings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, GeneralVryth said:

Eh... if they get caught doing stuff like this on a regular basis they will end up with a really POed customer base. I fully expect A-wings to come down in price and probably get a second talent slot. But if you want a reason to go with your cynicism mine would be I also expect the A-wing to be re-released in Wave 4 alongside the Falcon and Interceptor (with probably a couple ST re-releases and maybe 1 new ship apiece for the PT).

 

GW got away with p'ing off their customer base for at least 15 years playing the same game. When you've got a product with relatively inelastic demand, otherwise known as "plastic crack" for hobbies, and people are hooked you can annoy your player base for a while...

As I stated, when it was announced, the App reduces the incentive for them to playtest. It also lets them play games with initial points levels, that are then "fixed". In general you should expect the real new releases (as opposed to 2.0 relaunches) to be skewed towards undercosting, as overcosting them is just bad for business. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Larky Bobble said:

When you've got [...] "plastic crack" [...] people are hooked, you can annoy your player base for a while...

[...] you should expect the real new releases [...] to be skewed towards undercosting, as overcosting them is just bad for business. 

Correct. However slightly undercosted is better then DOA, and keeps the meta in flux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes sense to me to consider the RZ-2 experimentally priced according to the RZ-1. It'll give a better picture of where the RZ-1 needs to be, come January. Then pop the RZ-2 up a bit if necessary. The next month may give them an idea if that's so but I don't see it being too strong, if it has to stay where it is. It can be adjusted in the next iteration.

Minor efficiency differences between factions is a part of balance too. The factions have different ways of making use of that efficiency and what works for one, doesn't for another, and is therefore worth less to them.

But that's all too complicated to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Larky Bobble said:

Errrmmm....

Do they have to sell the new A-wing model or the old one? Sorry for being cynical, but I was expecting this. Expect a real adjustment six months to a year after release, when sales drop.

And then expect the new hotness to be undercosted.

This.  When 2.0 came out one of the major features (that y'all as a group loved, I might add) was that points would change after the ship was out in the wild.  Ergo, we know almost every ship can be incorrect upon release.

13 hours ago, SpiderMana said:

That’s a **** reason. I get it from a business standpoint, but points are hardly affecting my purchases. I want new spaceships, I want them to be pretty. I’d much rather they be balanced than undercosted. :(

Maybe not for you, but they might for some.

I'm not saying that FFG is trying to imbalance things on purpose, but if I were designing the game and knew that I could change things down the road, I would rather hedge my bets and guess too low on points and have people jump on the new stuff for awhile than price it too high and have people wait to buy for it to be fixed down the road.

If people want the new releases, the meta changes/"stays fresh", which is the only design goal I see stated consistently.  I people don't want the new releases cuz points, then there are no sales and the meta stays the same for another whole Wave.

Edited by Darth Meanie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always better attribute something to incompetence, rather than malice.  Rather than point-costing things to boost sales, I think it's much more likely they screwed up the points values of A-Wings and are attempting to correct with the RZ-2s (and the RZ1s will be catch up in January).  As we've seen multiple times, when they try to correct something, they often overdo it.  Ref:  The curb-stomped Jumpmaster in 2.0.  Things will settle out eventually, but it will probably take years.

Share this post


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

It's always better attribute something to incompetence, rather than malice.  Rather than point-costing things to boost sales, I think it's much more likely they screwed up the points values of A-Wings and are attempting to correct with the RZ-2s (and the RZ1s will be catch up in January).  As we've seen multiple times, when they try to correct something, they often overdo it.  Ref:  The curb-stomped Jumpmaster in 2.0.  Things will settle out eventually, but it will probably take years.

FFG is known to be incompetent at points costing in X-wing, so you are right to attribute some of the bad results to this factor. Some costing 'problems' are DEFINITELY made to boost sales. The clearest example to date is the complete nerfing of the jumpmaster and its replacement by the very similar $40 Scum Falcon, which has very aggressive points costing. Scum Lando just won a big tournament.

Ultimately don't let your feelings be changed by where the bad costing comes from. Whether from incompetence or greed, it is all bad for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Larky Bobble said:

GW got away with p'ing off their customer base for at least 15 years playing the same game. When you've got a product with relatively inelastic demand, otherwise known as "plastic crack" for hobbies, and people are hooked you can annoy your player base for a while...

As I stated, when it was announced, the App reduces the incentive for them to playtest. It also lets them play games with initial points levels, that are then "fixed". In general you should expect the real new releases (as opposed to 2.0 relaunches) to be skewed towards undercosting, as overcosting them is just bad for business. 

I wouldn't say 15 years. GW started the premium price searching (annual price increase) in 2009 and by 2014 they lost most of their business. Dropping metal models in place of resin, changing their publication model, scrapping fantasy to make it more like 40k. By then many players have moved onto Warmachine/Hordes or X-wing.

Edited by Marinealver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×