Jump to content
MidWestScrub

[Blog] How to get Juke back in the Game: Or A Case for Instance Scaled Pricing.

Recommended Posts

I love the idea, but as stated in the article, the real difficulty comes in determining points destroyed.  Yikes.  I mean, I suppose that could easily enough be coded into any given app...even going so far as, like, say, an official ffg scoring app?  With a timer function?  Dream big?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Kleeg005 said:

I love the idea, but as stated in the article, the real difficulty comes in determining points destroyed.  Yikes.  I mean, I suppose that could easily enough be coded into any given app...even going so far as, like, say, an official ffg scoring app?  With a timer function?  Dream big?

As long as it is multiplicative, it would be fine since the upgrades would all cost the same. The additive model wouldn't, so point costing might too complicated for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem isn't Juke, and it never was; things like Defenders and Phantoms (which were the only free evade ships until the N-1) were experimental designs in Legends (and canon for the Defender) and probably should have all been Limited.

If they'd simply made it impossible to take four Sigmas, Quad Phantoms with Juke wouldn't have been an issue (admittedly nothing would've stopped double named Defenders, Whisper/Echo, etc). What they're doing now is flailing about rendering upgrades obsolete/useless with successive points changes because certain ships break things and they didn't have the foresight to anticipate it.

Alternatively, they could just remove the Talent slot from generic Phantoms and Defenders, and the problem goes away entirely.

As for Heroic, as a Resistance player, I'll keep the 1pt per ship option thanks ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I for one fully appreciate and support @5050Saint in arguing that Heroic should start at 0 points

 

15 minutes ago, Stryker359 said:

As for Heroic, as a Resistance player, I'll keep the 1pt per ship option thanks ;)

I can't please everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Stryker359 said:

The problem isn't Juke, and it never was; things like Defenders and Phantoms (which were the only free evade ships until the N-1) were experimental designs in Legends (and canon for the Defender) and probably should have all been Limited.

If they'd simply made it impossible to take four Sigmas, Quad Phantoms with Juke wouldn't have been an issue (admittedly nothing would've stopped double named Defenders, Whisper/Echo, etc). What they're doing now is flailing about rendering upgrades obsolete/useless with successive points changes because certain ships break things and they didn't have the foresight to anticipate it.

Alternatively, they could just remove the Talent slot from generic Phantoms and Defenders, and the problem goes away entirely.

As for Heroic, as a Resistance player, I'll keep the 1pt per ship option thanks ;) 

Personally. I feel they missed an opportunity to hard bake 'chassis limits' into the rules. They already say you can't take more than 8 ships, and we already rely on a squadron builder (well, most of us do) so it wouldn't be too difficult to say "Hey, you can only take a maximum of 2 Defenders" this means if they need to they can cost defenders sub 66 points but not have to worry about someone flying 3 because it's hard baked into the rules.

The problem is this is yet another invisible barrier that is added to the game. There were already mumblings and grumblings about 'invisible points and slots' when 2.0 was annouced and to this day there are people who are pig-headed enough to say "NOPE, THIS IS A MINIATURES GAME, NO TECHNOLOGY DESPITE IT ONLY BEING PART OF THE SETUP OF THE GAME AND HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH PLAYING THE GAME ITSELF."

Too on the nose? Ah well. While I appreciate what I suggest might be a good idea for game balance, they also have a point that it adds another barrier to list building complexity and entry.

Is it an interesting idea: Sure.
Is is a good idea: That's debatable and would require testing.

I can see circumstances where you would want to price a ship at a certain level, but by doing that you allow an extra point and that's where the break is. The argument is, if you can't take 5 Y-Wings in a list even though you can fit it in with points...instead of filling it with upgrades you'll just find another ship to fill the space instead.

Edited by Ebak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Roller of blanks said:

Unique dots.

Boom.

Putting dots on the chassis was my big idea, especially when the 'multiple limited dots' were introduced for 2e. I would have liked to see (and it could still be Errata'd) two limited dots on the chassis for limited run/prototype ships such as the defender and a single dot on truly unique ship chassis like the heavily modified rebel Sheathipede.

(Rebel Sheathipede is more flavor than balance though)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Roller of blanks said:

Unique dots.

Boom.

This works for Juke or Snap Shot, but seems like a terrible system for keeping an upgrade like Crack Shot unspammable but still useful and useable by multiple ships.

Adding dots to generic pilot that didn't have them before, I am all for, as well.

Edited by 5050Saint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ebak said:

Personally. I feel they missed an opportunity to hard bake 'chassis limits' into the rules. They already say you can't take more than 8 ships, and we already rely on a squadron builder (well, most of us do) so it wouldn't be too difficult to say "Hey, you can only take a maximum of 2 Defenders" this means if they need to they can cost defenders sub 66 points but not have to worry about someone flying 3 because it's hard baked into the rules.

Not the worst thing they could do, but in itself insufficient.  Limiting ships above a breakpoint doesn't give them much room for buffing them.  Cutting Defenders to, say, 60 points, and running two of them with an 80 point ace (Vader, Whisper) is still going to be a nasty list.

Artificial chassis limits to enforce breakpoints might allow a ship to just barely drop below a breakpoint, underpriced ships will still be more powerful for their cost than they should be, and that's something to avoid.

19 minutes ago, Ebak said:

The problem is this is yet another invisible barrier that is added to the game. There were already mumblings and grumblings about 'invisible points and slots' when 2.0 was annouced and to this day there are people who are pig-headed enough to say "NOPE, THIS IS I A MINIATURES GAME, NO TECHNOLOGY DESPITE IT ONLY BEING PART OF THE SETUP OF THE GAME AND HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH PLAYING THE GAME ITSELF."

I don't hate the technology, but just because it could be used, that doesn't mean it's a great idea.  Some might be, some might not.

Full spreadsheet prices, with upgrades having different prices on different ships, is possible, but that complexity has a price, and I'm hard pressed to think of many places where it'd be really worth it.

Like, we could give Juke a unique price so that it's usable in the niche, not-too-bad spots, but still expensive on Phantoms and Defenders, but is that really worth it?  Is the benefit to the game worth the trade-off?  Is Juke on Sabine so important to the game that?  I wouldn't say so.

For other upgrades, maybe there's a few where one pilot is just too strong, but I think I'd rather do a banlist than a price spreadsheet.

2 hours ago, MidWestScrub said:

@5050Saint makes a case for a new scaled pricing system. Check it out here and let us know what you think. 

**** juke.  It can stay dead.  I can respect the Juke clickbait hustle, @5050Saint , but naw.  It'll always be too FeelsBadMan.  A fair price for Juke on Whisper--even as a singleton in a list--is much higher than a fair price for Juke on Sabine or Seevor, and there's never going to be a good way to square the circle.

Does this make sense on other stuff?  Hrm.  Harder question.  Singleton Snap Shot is probably fine.  For Heroic, I dunno....

I guess... it seems like a reasonable solution, but I don't know if there's a big enough problem to warrant it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 5050Saint said:

This works for Juke or Snap Shot, but seems like a terrible system for keeping an upgrade like Crack Shot unspammable but still useful and useable by multiple ships.

Adding dots to generic pilot that didn't have them before, I am all for, as well.

Is spam Crack Shot a problem?

Suppose 6 Crack Shots on Green A-Wings, presuming RZ-1s get buffed sometime, or 6 Barons of the Empire with Crack Shot.  That seems like a less problematic list than the Worlds Runner Up of Wedge, Braylen, Jake, Bount, generic with 4 Crack Shots.  Which in turn seems like a less problematic list Boba/Koshka with 2 Crack Shots, or some hypothetical Soontir/Whisper/Grand Inquisitor or whatever.

I kinda don't think the number of copies per list necessarily corresponds to the problems posed by Crack Shot--I kinda think it was a bigger issue that folks who aren't spam generics take it.  If CS was limited to those ships, where they want a fast one-and-done talent rather than trying to get repeated value, I think we wouldn't care as much.  But when it's the most common talent on high init aces--because nothing else provides the same value, that's when it kind of needed a change, to prevent ubiquitousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Is spam Crack Shot a problem?

Suppose 6 Crack Shots on Green A-Wings, presuming RZ-1s get buffed sometime, or 6 Barons of the Empire with Crack Shot

I imagine 6 Crack Shot Nantexans is going to be a problem once people notice how good it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, 5050Saint said:

I imagine 6 Crack Shot Nantexans is going to be a problem once people notice how good it is.

Yeah, but that's a case of the Nantex probably being a point or two too cheap.

Like, we've talked a bunch about how BotE kinda outshines the RZ-1, but Nantex at 29/30 for Init 3 Talent, and Init 4 2xTalent really puts the Phoenix and Green to shame.

Don't get me wrong, Crack Shot should be 2 and not 1 point.  But I believe that if a ship is fair at 31 points with Talent Slots unfilled, it'll be fair at 33 with Crack Shot.  If a 6x Crack Shot list is unfair or problematic, I think it'll be because the ship should 32 points, not because it has 6 Crack Shots instead of 3 or 4.

Edited by theBitterFig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 5050Saint said:

I imagine 6 Crack Shot Nantexans is going to be a problem once people notice how good it is.

I just looked over Nantex prices.

Init 3 went from 34 -> 29.  Init 4 went from 38 -> 30.

The more I think about it, that's massive.  Possibly too much of a buff.  Like, would 32-34 like RZ-2s be inappropriate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

-"Snap Shot has some fun synergies with some named pilots that would consider taking it if the talent weren’t priced the same as Juke currently is. Pilots such as"

Graz would also profit from an affordable Snap Shot. Granted, he would not trigger often. But if it was cheap...

-"Trick Shot was likely increased in price because of its spammability, and as such, has nearly disappeared"

Mining Guild Ties could spam it, but a lot of people bring debris or clouds anyways, so if it is not too cheap no problem?

I always had the impression the main culprit for the price hike here was Rebel Han (and esp the Han shot first leading to panic button mode at FFG), Han should absolutely be charge based on his ability.

"With Trick Shot at 1 or 2 points for a single ship, perhaps pilots that have a natural synergy with it like Blackout, Scum Han, and Dash Rendar can consider taking it."

Oh, Wulffwaro with his wide 180 degree arc would take it immediately as well (easy to go to 5 dice when damaged).

Scum ships with some kind of turret arc with Q'ra crew as well.

 

Edited by Managarmr
Spelling

Share this post


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

-"Trick Shot was likely increased in price because of its spammability, and as such, has nearly disappeared"

Mining Guild Ties could spam it, but a lot of people bring debris or clouds anyways, so if it is not too cheap no problem?

I always had the impression the main culprit for the price hike here was Rebel Han (and esp the Han shot first leading to panic button mode at FFG), Han should absolutely be charge based on his ability.

This.  MG TIEs and folks like Sabine or Blackout or Auzitucks paid the price, but it really felt like it was the turrets driving the nerf.  It was stronger and easier than Predator for someone like Lando or Han or double-tap Dash.  Or Boba.

Back when Crack Shot was 1 point, it kinda felt like a stretch for a small-base single-arc to take Trick Shot for 2, without some special synergies.  Not so much spam, but larger single-copy offenders.

That said, I guess RZ-2 A-Wings contributed, and I always felt like it'd be a natural fit on the Nantex.  But that's a TURRET thing.

Share this post


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

I always had the impression the main culprit for the price hike here was Rebel Han

 

38 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

That said, I guess RZ-2 A-Wings contributed, and I always felt like it'd be a natural fit on the Nantex.  But that's a TURRET thing.

I had assumed it was RZ-2 spam that did it. Dash/Roark probably had a strong hand in the upcharge, too, but that has since been errata'd so that shouldn't be a factor now. If Trick Shot Rebel Han was the problem, they should stop lowering him in price.

Scum turret with Trick Shot (even Han) have felt very underwhelming as Scum turrets are 2 die shots. Upping a shot to 3 dice while giving you opponent another defense die (excepting Qi'ra) isn't worth 4 points, in my opinion. If it is good on Wulffwarro, that is probably fine, as he is already over-priced.

1 hour ago, Managarmr said:

Graz would also profit from an affordable Snap Shot. Granted, he would not trigger often. But if it was cheap...

There were a couple that I didn't list that I new of, mainly ones that added a die on a conditional basis like Graz, Scum Han, Wullfwarro. Shadowcaster title was another thing that has synergy, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Juke should have just been semi-limited (2 dots). Same for any card that gets better the more copies you play. Same for generic pilots that FFG doesn't want people to run more than 2 copies of in a list but have to keep them at an incorrect 66 points cost to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Like with a few things in the game, it's not a matter necessarily of point cost (in any form) or uniques limitations. Juke is just not a fun card. Wasn't in first, still isn't in second. It's a *powerful* card. But power doesn't translate to fun all the time. Interaction in a game is fun, and juke doesn't really interact with the opponent in a fun way. Juke is just a double action or double mod grant depending how you slice it. You get two mods for the price of one action, and that action often comes as a freebie. That level of economy is way too strong.

I would rather just see juke get an errata on it's ability in a future 2.5 version. And reworked ground up. Especially since nothing about it's name has anything to do per se with hitting a target of an attack. Juke would make more sense to me as a buff up to your evade. Like "while evading, you may gain a strain to reroll a die while defending". But let it just be a niche thing or dead entirely until then. 

Edited by ForceSensitive
Autocorrect, you try so hard

Share this post


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

Like with a few things in the game, it's not a matter necessarily of point cost (in any form) or uniques limitations. Juke is just not a fun card. Wasn't in first, still isn't in second. It's a *powerful* card. But power doesn't translate to fun all the time. Interaction in a game is fun, and juke doesn't really interact with the opponent in a fun way. Juke is just a double action or double mod grant depending how you slice it. You get two mods for the price of one action, and that action often comes as a freebie. That level of economy is way too strong.

I would rather just see juke get an errata on it's ability in a future 2.5 version. And reworked ground up. Especially since nothing about it's name has anything to do per se with hitting a target of an attack. Juke would make more sense to me as a buff up to your evade. Like "while evading, you may gain a strain to reroll a die while defending". But let it just be a niche thing or dead entirely until then. 

I had a Juke redesign in mind.  While you perform a primary weapon attack, if you are evading, you may reroll 1 of your [eye/focus] results.  Passive offensive mods, but weak ones which don't stack with a Focus token or a Target Lock.  The Force or FCS can cooperate some, but it's pretty thin.  Meanwhile, it's a buff to an attacker's dice, rather than a debuff on the defender's dice, and that'll always be more pleasant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

am I in the wrong timeline?

people think the newly priced Nantex is too good????

comparisons to the extremely sad RZ1 aside, which would probably be a 26-27pt ship if it was released tomorrow in a different faction, what on earth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/20/2020 at 3:22 PM, 5050Saint said:

I imagine 6 Crack Shot Nantexans is going to be a problem once people notice how good it is.

It could be an ok list...but a problem for extended seems unlikely. You can bring Trip Empire or Trip Jedi kill two and the game mostly just ends. 

Edited by Boom Owl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2020 at 9:18 AM, Kleeg005 said:

I love the idea, but as stated in the article, the real difficulty comes in determining points destroyed.  Yikes.  I mean, I suppose that could easily enough be coded into any given app...even going so far as, like, say, an official ffg scoring app?  With a timer function?  Dream big?

Multiplicative seems to be THE WAY. Additive has many issues it faces from being a bit more unintuitive, to points calculations, to being a terror to code (although multiplicative is possibly also irritating to code in) and others I have heard.

On 8/20/2020 at 10:01 AM, Stryker359 said:

The problem isn't Juke, and it never was; things like Defenders and Phantoms (which were the only free evade ships until the N-1) were experimental designs in Legends (and canon for the Defender) and probably should have all been Limited.

If they'd simply made it impossible to take four Sigmas, Quad Phantoms with Juke wouldn't have been an issue (admittedly nothing would've stopped double named Defenders, Whisper/Echo, etc). What they're doing now is flailing about rendering upgrades obsolete/useless with successive points changes because certain ships break things and they didn't have the foresight to anticipate it.

Alternatively, they could just remove the Talent slot from generic Phantoms and Defenders, and the problem goes away entirely.

As for Heroic, as a Resistance player, I'll keep the 1pt per ship option thanks ;) 

They errata a white limited dot on all defenders/phantoms to reflect their experimental nature. This removes generic swarms and is mechanically much simpler than making a chassis limitation. Yes you could still have I4 Defenders, but you can only realistically fit two of them. For the I1 Defenders, maybe make them so they are double dotted, and probably keep them at the points they are at or around there to avoid Vader & Some Cool Dudes. People have to use listbuilders in most cases anyways so the card being changed isn't a huge deal, and people can just put a drop of whiteout next to the pilots if they need a more lasting reminder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Multiplicative points costs creates a higher 'points resolution' which I think X-wing needs, as it solves the 'too good it spammed' problem. I am a fan, especially because it encourages you to fly lists of diverse ships intended to work together (Because, in theory, the first upgrade of a type is going to be 'undercosted' in this hypothetical) rather than just hurling as many of the same ship with the same upgrades as you can into a list.

Most wargames have mechanics that heavily discourage 'monolists' and it is slightly weird X-wing does not save for with aces not generally having enough pilots on one ship with a given initiative score.

One potential fix for Vader Defenders is for the increases to be linked to a ship tag (Elite, or Experimental, for example), similar to how other games categorize elite units and prevent you from taking a whole bunch of them at the same level of efficiency as you take one or two. So Vader, the Defenders, and Phantoms (I personally feel its time for Vader and Whisper to part ways) all scale together, encouraging their use as a lone powerful piece filling out a more generalist force rather than a gang of completely overstatted thugs with fantastic dials. 

Edited by dezzmont

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...