Jump to content
tsondaboy

FFG you should be prudent and thrift about the points adjustment

Recommended Posts

Point adjustments should not happen too often or in a large scale and especially because people are whining on these forums.
Only things that clearly need re balancing, like the pre-nerf phantoms in 1.0 for example, should be addressed.
The last thing this game needs is to make frequent points adjustments in response to the random nerfherder that got whooped in a game and came on these forums just to complain about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current schedule is twice a year, so should hopefully give enough time for data collection and interpretation. With the first one coming at the end of this month, I am interested to see if the changes will be drastic or more conservative. I'm hoping it will be more of the latter to reduce over doing it, but it will be a case by case basis.

Edited by SabineKey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not see a reason for drastic changes unless something has dominated the meta due to a design flaw (see 1.0 phantoms and toilet seats).
If something is over used, because there is nothing else better in its place for the same point cost, then a slight adjustment downwards to other cards that the Devs would like to see being used more would suffice.

Share this post


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

With the first one coming at the end of this month, I am interested to see if the changes will be drastic or more conservative. I'm hoping it will be more of the former to reduce over doing it, but it will be a case by case basis.

I think you mean "latter". :) Drastic changes would be the definition of over doing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cordially disagree. I think an overly cautious approach will lead to large numbers of ships and pilots that are shy of viable remaining so. Requests for points decreases don't normally seem to be emotional (over)reactions, but calm speculation as to what may be reasonable. I think these requests should be given due consideration, especially based on comparisons across platforms and any tournament statistics.

Edit - crossposted with your second post, tsondaboy, which I agree with. :)

Edited by TheHumanHydra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheHumanHydra said:

I cordially disagree. I think an overly cautious approach will lead to large numbers of ships and pilots that are shy of viable remaining so. Requests for points decreases don't normally seem to be emotional (over)reactions, but calm speculation as to what may be reasonable. I think these requests should be given due consideration, especially based on comparisons across platforms and any tournament statistics.

The only poster that I have seen propose decreases from a reasonable angle is theBitterFig. The rest have been emotionally charged demands, mainly centered around returning a favored archetype of the posters from 1.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheHumanHydra said:

Requests for points decreases don't normally seem to be emotional (over)reactions, but calm speculation as to what may be reasonable.

Mate seriously, did someone just dropped you with a parachute to these forums?! 😛

When was the last time you saw people post calm and emotionless threads here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hiemfire said:

The only poster that I have seen propose decreases from a reasonable angle is theBitterFig. The rest have been emotionally charged demands, mainly centered around returning a favored archetype of the posters from 1.0

Hmm. Well, I certainly don't read the forums (especially long threads) very exhaustively, so it may be that I've missed most of the posts you've seen. I feel that I've seen a large number of reasonable suggestions, however (maybe TheBitterFig's prolific?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im expecting rebels to get cheaper stuff and scum and imperials to get more expensive stuff.

my suspicion is FFG will err on the side of 'moderate' adjustments.

by moderate I mean not many and not too big either way. There is just too little data to work with from competitive tournaments.

Edited by Da_Brown_Bomber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, tsondaboy said:

If something is over used, because there is nothing else better in its place for the same point cost, then a slight adjustment downwards to other cards that the Devs would like to see being used more would suffice.

Uh, then this becomes an adjustment system that has absolutely nothing to do with balance, and just a points-based popularity contest. 

Edited by Darth Meanie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Uh, then this becomes an adjustment system that has absolutely nothing to do with balance, and just a points-based popularity contest. 

Dont quote me out of context mate, I never suggested this should be the the only adjustments they should apply or the mechanism to do so.
Regardless, popularity of a particular ship or upgrade card is a straightforward indication of what is out of balance, either that's because a design flaw made something really popular or an overcautious approach left some cards in the unwanted section. So they should look at popularity as an indication for possible design flaws but not make it an automatic point adjustment mechanism.

Edited by tsondaboy

Share this post


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

Point adjustments should not happen too often or in a large scale and especially because people are whining on these forums.
Only things that clearly need re balancing, like the pre-nerf phantoms in 1.0 for example, should be addressed.
The last thing this game needs is to make frequent points adjustments in response to the random nerfherder that got whooped in a game and came on these forums just to complain about it.

What's it like, being wrong all the time?

There should be more than 2 point adjustments per year (at least 4), and they should be massive and run the risk of being deemed 'heavy handed' by some. 

The metas with the most popular support are right after FAQ/Errata in 1.0, or after a release. Why? The meta has yet to settle. Then it settles, and we have less fun, the mystery is gone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, tsondaboy said:

Dont quote me out of context mate, I never suggested this should be the the only adjustments they should apply or the mechanism to do so.
Regardless, popularity of a particular ship or upgrade card is a straightforward indication of what is out of balance, either that's because a design flaw made something really popular or an overcautious approach left some cards in the unwanted section. So they should look at popularity as an indication for possible design flaws but not make it an automatic point adjustment mechanism.

I left off one sentence that didn't contribute too much to the context of the post.

And I 100% disagree with the veracity of what you just said.  A large part of what made people mad in 1.0 is that the iconic (read: most popular} ships were being left in the dust.  Since this game is based on an extraordinarily well-loved IP, popularity might have absolutely nothing to do with balance, especially if the balance is fairly close already.

The last thing I want so see is this game getting fondled every 6 months because the devs want to see a new set of cards at the tables.

Edited by Darth Meanie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Darth Meanie said:

I left off one sentence that didn't contribute too much to the context of the post.

And I 100% disagree with the veracity of what you just said.  A large part of what made people mad in 1.0 is that the iconic (read: most popular} ships were being left in the dust.  Since this game is based on an extraordinarily well-loved IP, popularity will often have absolutely nothing to do with balance.

Reading through your post makes me believe we perceive popularity in a different way and talk about 2 different things.
You are talking about popularity of a ship in the Star Wars universe among star wars fans, while I am using it with a more literal meaning to point out the skewed preference towards a particular ship or upgrade card in the game. And I will agree with you that many people were mad in 1.0 for the fact that the most popular ships in the star wars universe where left in the unwanted section, because design flaws made specific ships and upgrade cards that had little to do with the "star wars canon" popular in competitive play. 

Share this post


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

Reading through your post makes me believe we perceive popularity in a different way and talk about 2 different things.
You are talking about popularity of a ship in the Star Wars universe among star wars fans, while I am using it with a more literal meaning to point out the skewed preference towards a particular ship or upgrade card in the game. And I will agree with you that many people were mad in 1.0 for the fact that the most popular ships in the star wars universe where left in the unwanted section, because design flaws made specific ships and upgrade cards that had little to do with the "star wars canon" popular in competitive play. 

Fair enough.

For you, popular = overplayed.

But I would hate to see the X-Wing get a nerf because iconic = popular = overplayed.

Edited by Darth Meanie

Share this post


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

So they should look at popularity as an indication for possible design flaws but not make it an automatic point adjustment mechanism

I agree; and for what its worth, I read it as “popularity” meaning a frequent choice in list-building. 

If something is seeing LOTS of use relative to other ships/pilots/cards it is a reasonable indicator that there might be a cost-power issue.  Frequency + results need to be looked at. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they’re going to make us wait for 6 months to see changes to the game, Id prefer they make changes that have a broad and noticeable impact, unless they somehow do achieve true balance. Especially so for this first update because the game’s in such a sorry state at the moment.

we saw what being cautious with tepid changes achieved when they nerfed the jump masters the first time.

And the second time. 

And the third time.

Edited by Tvboy

Share this post


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

Requests for points decreases don't normally seem to be emotional (over)reactions, but calm speculation as to what may be reasonable.

I’d echo this sentiment. The ‘emotionally charged’ reactions tend to come from people demanding points increases for whatever they’re consistently losing to (i.e. Boba or Redline, and their respective upgrades) rather than points decreases.

Personally I’d much rather see nerfs (point increases) kept to a minimum, and buffs (points reductions) to things which aren’t seeing much play being used to mix things up on the table.

5 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

centered around returning a favored archetype of the posters from 1.0

It would be much better to see some completely new archetypes emerge, things that rarely saw play in 1.0 and have remained relatively obscure in 2.0... so I’m keeping my fingers crossed for the poor E-Wings!

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

×