I like the idea of one or two "VIP (very important player) Customs" being included in our v-sets. However, it would need to be limited.
I imagine it working something like this...

If you donate over a certain dollar amount for a V-set, you may submit suggestions for 1 or 2 custom characters along with your donation.
You may include stats for your suggested characters or just submit the character's names. Then the designers for the next set would select one or two of those characters to include into their set. The "VIP" would need to understand that they will NOT be a part of the design process and they will NOT have a say in the final outcome of their suggested piece. The person donated money, it's not like they won the GenCon championship and should be given the same reward.

This way you won't have a VIP demanding that they have some ridiculous power piece being made their way.
However, our regular players would still get a chance to say... "yeah that character was my idea, that's my VIP character."
(Didn't realize that Etienne was logged into my computer, lol)

I think there's some great pieces in set 6! Cin Drallig?? Talon?? I can appreciate.

On a personal note, Set 6 produced Luke Skywalker Hero of Endor which is 1) my favourite piece in the game

Thanks Luke was my design.

I've heard this spouted before. It's a weak argument, mostly because it's too vague and subjective to really know what it means.

Table time at highly competitive tournaments? Mostly what we see play reports of fall in this category. Regionals, NZ tournies, GenCon, Vassal hootenannies, etc.

To top that off - there is so much net-decking in this game it's nuts. People play the same 12 squads (or slight variants) all the time. Even further than net-decking, sometimes someone literally builds the squad and hands it to another player to play. Lastly, some squads build themselves. Boba-Mira double swap is so painfully obvious that it was built independently by many players around the world shortly after vset 9 was released. Credit to NZ for being the first to do well in a high profile tournament, but we were well aware of the squad in America before that.

Anyway - the point here is that really makes a small sample of "what pieces see table time". Believe it or not people play that don't post on the boards. People run scenarios. People we know play casual games and events. There need to be lots of options. Designing stats is like adding tools to a toolbox. Some are very specialized and rarely used (but still useful in very specific situations), while others have broad application.

That aside - it's not a viable design strategy to try and push everything into top tier playability. We've seen what happens with that. First off, aiming for an exact power level is hard. The power 10 pieces need extreme focus and lots of playtesting. Try creating too many in a set and we get an "oops" power 11 or 12. Even if they all remain power 10s, too many in a set creates compounded power creep.





Agreed - but nobody is doing this. These are power level 1 pieces. Unfortunately, some people think if you create a power level 6 piece - it will never get played. This is simply not true. Maybe any certain player won't ever play that piece, but often someone will. As said before, if nothing else, in a casual/themed/fun game. Which is perfectly valid and these pieces need to still be made.

Also - sometimes a true power of a piece lies dormant for years. Creative squad building can come up with combos missed by the majority. Sometimes a piece thought to be tier 2 or lower can suddenly show up in a solidly tier 1 squad. Like I said - tools in a toolbox.




Agreed here.
But adding most of the set as top tier options is not the same as adding SOME options to tier one. Tier 2 (or 1.5 or however you define it) can easily become tier 1. All it takes is a missed synergy or a future synergy. I would argue that the bulk of the set should aim at tier 1.5 or tier 2. A few meta changing tier 1's in a set at max, and the rest themed/fun pieces.


Here's a general power level guide:

(updated with better definitions)
1 - Useless. In any squad, there is a better option to do the same thing. waste of plastic, paper, brain cells.
2 - Unplayable. While not strictly replaced by another piece, in any squad (even at a casual level) there is a better use for the points.
3 - Casual only. Interesting enough that you might want to pull it out for a casual game, but it will make your squad worse - even in a casual game.
4 - Mediocre/below average - If these pieces are in a competitive squad, they are making the squad worse.
5 - Average - Still almost always a better piece to go to, but in the perfect scenario it could be the right call
6 - Situationally good. You might see this piece in a competitive game, but it's either a reinforcements-only option or it really only fits into one specific build.
7 - Barely Competitive. These pieces are not out of place in a Tier 1 squad, but they are not pieces you would build around. Probably need synergy to work well.
8 - Decently competitive - can be found in tier 1 squads, but doesn't necessarily define the squad type
9 - Solidly competitive - can be the key that makes several squads tier 1
10 -Very strong, Undoubtedly competitive. These are pieces so strong that you build squads around them
11 - Stupid. Power piece. Pieces that get complaints about being broken. Strong tech pieces that show up in squad after squad after squad.

We as designers need to be conscious of spreading the power level out in each set.

Here's what we did on vsets 7 and 10 (I want to say they are using this system on set 11 as well, but don't quote me.) I believe they did something similar to this on sets 3 and 5 as well.

For a 54 piece set

Power 10 = 5 pieces (max)
Power 9 = 8 pieces
Power 8 = 14 pieces
Power 7 = 14 pieces
Power 6 = 8 pieces
Power 5 = 5 pieces
Power 1-4 = 0 pieces

Now hitting the mark exactly isn't a perfect science. But after we had the set list - we went through and ranked them all. This is harder than it sounds, and it is really beneficial to the process.

As the process goes, there does need to be some wiggle room. You start to realize as the set develops that a piece slated for a 7 is looking more like a 9, and needs to be, based on how the meta from last set is panning out (which is happening simultaneously as you are designing the next set). Or you realize that synergies between figures of your own set may be too strong, so that 8 you were going to make needs to be pulled back to a six. This is all fine. It's not hard and fast restrictions (even if you could accurately pinpoint the power level each time, which you can't always). The important thing here is you have a plan, and everyone on the team knows what to initially aim at. This helps prevent the set from being too top-loaded with high end pieces, and helps catch "oops" before they happen.

Many designers are on board with this system (or something similar). I even had one designer tell me, "Why on earth would a design team not use a system like this? It's so intuitive that it's inconceivable a designer would be against it." Some were skeptical at first but agreed in the end it was a very helpful tool. Some have never used this system. Some are willfully resistant to it. Unfortunately the latter mentality has caused some of the problems that we are still dealing with.


So to wrap it all up, we need to have a wide variety of power levels. No need for power level 1-4 anymore, but we need to be cognizant not to make only 9s and 10s (and when this is done, inevitably 11s pop up)

5s and 6s are necessary. 7s and 8s are the meat and potatoes of our game. At this point in our game, it actually takes MORE creativity to make a 7 or an 8. Anyone can make a 10 (or 11). Making broken pieces is not hard. Making balanced ones can be very hard. Designers should be excited at the challenge of making 7s and 8s. 5s and 6s are just plain fun to design. No need to worry about an oops here! 9s and 10s need to be very thought out, conscious, intentional designs that are playtested thoroughly.

IMHO- the fear of creating a "broken"(lvl 11) piece has be come so great, that we are ending up with a lot of meh
pieces.
I've seen set 10 & 11.
I watch pieces go from wow that's cool, to WTF, after designers slowly neuter the piece bit by bit, until it's something
I don't want to play.

I don't know, 5 power level 10 pieces a set doesn't seem all that bad, that is only 1 new piece for half of the factions in the game. If the power 10 pieces in the set are given to the weaker factions I don't neccesarily think boosting the bottom half of the faction heirarchy for the game is terrible, and it's not like power 10 pieces are just going to stop being designed as most people like seeing the big new pieces when the set releases. That being said, a bigger pool of level 5-6 pieces and a slightly smaller pool of level 8-9 pieces might not be a bad thing to help prevent some of the powercreep that has found it's way into the game.

faction defining and powerful are to vastly different things. i am fine with around 16-20 powerful pieces that can see play in multiple tier 1 squads, but 5 faction DEFINING pieces is a little much especially with all the power creep that has occurred already in the vsets.

faction defining in my eyes would be like pieces competing with thrawn, talon karde (fringe obviously), etc.

Edit, maybe if tim could show what he would consider a 7,8,9,10 would help clear this up for me.

The designers of V-set 6 were requested by a majority of the community to achieve several monumental tasks.
Create; playable trooper squads, usable vehicles, alternatives to Thrawn and Bastila squads, and a new Jar Jar... (seriously!) It was a huge task for any set of designers to accomplish AND do as Jason said, V-set 6 was highly successful in it's goals but failed to keep to the power level of where WOTC left us. We now have a new power level. However, at that time everyone was begging for V-sets to do exactly that. The result has taught us much about our V-sets and the amount of; community input, number of power level pieces, adequate playtests, playtesters voices being heard, need to be in each set.

I was among the minority NOT excited for V-Set 6, primarily because I play Jedi and Sith dudes and I hate friken Jar Jar (thanks to AceAce for constantly beating me with his stupid Jar Jar squads.) So I have to agree with Jonny that sometimes designers just need to be creative and make the good stuff. We could argue about how many of power level pieces per set till the cows come home. However, Tim's guide is very beneficial for design teams and playtesters to be on the same page as to where the power level of certain pieces are and where they were intended to be.

I was heavily involved in play-testing V-set 10 with Jason (and Weeks in his Ani/Obi piece). Both of them have a firm grasp on the game and are great designers. I don't even need to mention Daniel because he is just that good. Sure they each have their own unique viewpoints, but they always listen to all of the playtests being submitted by the community and PT committee. And were talkng a PT committee that includes some of the best squad builders and synergy abusers the game has ever seen. Guys like Dr Daman, Atmsalad, Jak.. Randy Barker, somebody's mom, ect. you get the idea...

This discussion has highlighted many of the lessons we have or could still learn since V-set 6.
With so much anticipation and community support I feel we can trust the design team for v-set 12 to get things right. I'm so looking forward to seeing Episode VII and then getting stat cards for the new movie characters. It's going to be so blasted cool.

Never have we ever created pieces like the nikto soldier and I am not suggesting that we use that piece as a guide line for future designs. What I am saying is not every piece needs to make an impact on tier 1 and 1.5 squads. Not even half the set needs to do that... Pieces can see plenty of play in tier 2 squads, lobot reinforcements, theme squads, scenarios etc.

I would think that would be exciting to create pieces that only really work well with tier 2 synergies. Gloom walkers, army of light, black sun, death watch and so on. Those squads are really fun to play! Death watch squads are my personal favorite and I even played it at a regional last year. You can create fun pieces that aren't top tier, it isn't go big or go home...


Well I think it is safe to say we have exceeded that power level and left it in the past, kybuck excluded of course. I could list pieces and squads, but there is no point. This is not some secret hidden in a back room.

Which is nice for how Tim designs. But not me. Or Dennis. Or any other designer. That casual pieces are so down low is a sign of your priorities. You can't force such a view on any other designer. I specifically design Sev'rance Taan with a CE that encourages her use in higher point games, rather than the standard. Not because I'm a fan of the format, but by being aware that not everyone plays the same way. And I personally view how Tim sees that list is far, far too narrow of a design space.

And saying "It's okay, it's a power 10 piece" is a very, very dangerous way to design.

But then again, there is a good reason why I'm not designing anymore.