Hi everyone,

I'd like to address a couple points you've brought up. First, you're all correct that it's not the Survivalist that gains Medicine for the lost of Surveillance, but the Scout. Sorry about that!

Second, the changes to Linked were made because we felt reasonably confident in how the quality now works. However, we want to continue to evaluate Autofire before making any changes, if any changes are to be made. Currently Autofire has some significant penalties (with +1 difficulty for using autofire, and +1 difficulty for attempting to hit multiple targets), and we want to ensure that any changes we make balance autofire with other abilities appropriately, but also maintain the feel of firing a weapon on full auto. One thing to keep in mind, though. Autofire is supposed to be good, and we don't want to limit it or complicate it to the point where it becomes a hindrance or an otherwise worthless investment. 

The comparison between the cost of concussion missiles and lightsabers is not a concern for us, because lightsabers are also incredibly rare; one of the rarest items in the game. Concussion missiles and proton torpedoes are one-use weapons; so their cost has to be balanced so that players are willing to use them.

As far as the specialization trees go, we likely will not be able to release a complete set of revised trees. Some of the changes have specific reasons behind them that we cannot explain at this stage. However, the overriding goal was to ensure that each career had some access to defensive talents in at least one of its specializations. To do so, something was always going to have to come out. I'm guessing there may be some disagreement amongst testers as to which talents were more important to a specialization tree than others, and we'll be sure to take your feedback on this into account.

Thanks again, everyone, and keep up the good work!

Thanks for hopping in to clarify these points. I'll try to work Auto-fire into my future test sessions a bit more, so I can give detailed feedback with examples to aid your evaluation.

I'm not sure if you can address this or not, Sam, but are the dice pretty much locked in and final at this point in time? Will we be able to buy dice packs when the Beginner Box comes out, or will that more likely coincide with the release of the hardcover rulebook?

Again, thank you for continuing to provide more information and insight into the design process. It's been fun to be a part of this beta and to collaborate and offer thoughts and opinions on the game while it's in development.

Venthrac said:

Another question to add to your questions. Are the developers happy with the current state of the dice/ are the dice mechanics working as intended?

Venthrac is right: We really do appreciate that the devs, moderators, FFG for including us in the beta test portion of EotE development cycle.  Taking feedback from the community is great, but can really be a double edged sword and a massive headache for the developers.  It requires a lot of effort to separate the chaff from the wheat.  It has to be hard for you guys to say no to or ignore vocal demands while maintaining the humility to needed to acknowledge that the product you've months to years of blood sweat and tears into still has room for improvement.  

So, again, thank you FFG, Jay, devs, and mods.  Also, we all hope ynnen/Jay's health improves; Best wishes.

-WJL

LethalDose said:

On a totally separate note, Autofire.

FFG_Sam Stewart said:

So, here. "Autofire is supposed to be good." Yeah, I think we get that. I think any character who has ever been on the receiving end of an autoshot got that memo.

Unfortunately, I think modifying auto-fire has appeared to be one of my 'pet issues', and that context, much of what I say fails to appear objective and I worry that readers [and devs] think I have some kind of vendetta against the mechanism. I can only try to assure that this is not the case and tell you that I honestly feel that autofire should be an interesting mechanic, does have a place in the game, and should be a good combat option.  But it's simply too good in it's current form.

It is not my intention to see the mechanism nerfed into irrelevance.  I simply hope to see it more balanced, and therefore easier to use as a GM, than it exists in it's current state.

A lot of the problems I have with AF's current rules are based on common sense: one advantage doubles the firepower applied to a single character and no other weapon quality (saved linked, which has been modified) comes anywhere near this level effectiveness.  And then the quality can be activated multiple times, +1 hit/advantage, with no upper bound.

Increasing the difficulty of the shot is a good place to start, but it's insufficient to balance the mechanism.  The added difficulty die removes, on average about 3/4s of an advantage per roll (6 threats over 8 sides), and similarly reduces successes by about 3/8 each roll.  This penalty is minor, and really does very little leash the destructive force of AF under the current rules.  It is also really very easy to offset the penalty by the addition of boost dice, which are in no shortage in the game.  Increasing the number of dice being rolled does increase the variance of the results, which could be argued has an detrimental effect on the reliabilty of the roll, but these concerns are really quite minor.  I can show the math if anyone is interested, but no one ever is.

I see the cost in efficacy of the increase in difficulty to fire at a single target about equivalent to the efficacy cost from the cap that exists on linked.  The devs have stated above that linked needed an increase in price to be balanced.  If that's true, I think an increase in price on AF is also very easilty justified.  

In the current RAW, AF is very difficult to work with because of its massive damage output and cost disjoint with other qualities.  It needs work.

I'm open to alternative perspectives that still acknowledge what I've posted above, but it is not my intent to get drawn into a debate about specifics that really don't change or mitigate the fundamental nature of problem.

-WJL

+1 on the thanks to the devs - don't think for a second we don't appreciate what you're doing here!

But also +1 on giving us some concrete feedback on the dice mechanics AND the state of the dice (ie already set and in production or still malleable).

As for AF:  What if AF weapons are allowed to spend successes AND advantages to increase damage by one (1).  This way when you get shot in the face by a heavy blaster rifle with 1 success and 3 advantage, you take 13 damage instead of 40.  Still lethal, but not ridiculous?  Either that or run it liked the update to linked (2 adv per extra shot).

Am I the only one who feels that Dodge should not be found both as a row 1 talent and a row 5 talent? It just feels wrong, that as a thief, like I have to pay 25 points for a talent that costs an assassin 5 points. Giving the thief dodge is fine, but giving up a row 5 for it? I feel that row 5 talents should be inherently more powerful than a row 1, and while certain trees work that way not all of them do.

3WhiteFox3 said:

Well, in the Assassin's defense, they're part of a more combat-orientated career and are a combat-orientated specialiation.  Thief on the other hand is more about being sneaky rather than fighting, and Smuggler by itself isn't that much of a combat-orientated career.

Given that Assassin had to sacrifice Quick Draw (a really freaking useful talent) for Dodge, I do feel that Dodge is a bit underpriced here, as it should be at least a 10 XP talent.

Donovan Morningfire said:

But dodge isn't just something that is about being combat-oriented, in fact I think a thief would be someone very effective at dodging. That's the only way such a character could really defend himself. I don't see why he would be any less adept than the assassin whose main defense is not being seen. Maybe I can explain it better this way, someone with gymnastics training or tumbling should have the Dodge talent, right? Even early on, they are fast and would be hard to hit in a fight, but they aren't combat oriented either?

 I want to add my voice and also say thanks to the dev team for this incredible chance.  Im a huge Star Wars fan and I have been waiting for years for a suitable replacement to the good old d6 version of Star Wars.

No game will ever be perfect, but its a great honor to know we are asked to contribute in making this the best game it can be.

Some thoughts on a few of the Talent Tree changes, perhaps as possible alternatives to what's currently in the Week 8 Update?

Assassin - Instead of replacing Deadly Accuracy with Dodge, how about replacing Stalker, either at Column 2/Row 3 or Column 1/Row 4?  Again, I really think Deadly Accuracy is a near-perfect fit for the talent tree, despite how useful Dodge can be in a combat situation.

Scholar - Perhaps instead of the Column 2/Row 1 instance of Researcher being replaced with Grit, how about either the Column 1/Row 2 or Column 4/Row 2 instance of Researcher instead?  Leaning towards the Column 4/Row 2 entry personally.

Fringer - I'm really curious about the rationale behind this change, as Galaxy Mapper really isn't that hot a talent.  Suggestion would be to leave Let's Ride on Row 2, but just swap it's position in Column 1 with Skilled Jockey in Column 2.

Outlaw Tech - Honestly, as things currently stand, the Utility Belt talent is pretty darn useless, as there's no written restrictions on what sort of equipment you can spend a Destiny Point to "have on hand."  The book examples all match up to Rarity 1 objects, but again there's no documented restriction.  So instead of dropping Inventor (a great talent for this specialization), instead drop Utility Belt and put Side Step in it's place.

Slicer - While the link between Columns 1 and 2 at Row 4 is a definite improvement over how the talent tree was originally laid out, I'm kinda thinking either an additional link at Row 2 between Columns 1 & 2 would be nice (providing links at Rows 2, 4, and 5), or just one additional link at Row 3 (links at Rows 3 and 5).

Overall, I like the talent tree changes in this update, as it does provide at least a few defensive options for specializations and careers that didn't really have them before, particularly with the Week 7 revision to specialization costs, which I've pretty much come to accept as a fair trade-off for the decreased cost of non-career skills.

Thank you for addressing our concern. It has been great to participate in Edge's Beta.

FFG_Sam Stewart said:

Speaking of rare, what are the rarity of concussion missiles and proton torpedoes replacements? It is going to be weird if it is easier to replace warheads than grenades. Then again, warheads are restricted while grenades are not.

WahSword said:

Odds are also pretty good that you're not going to be able to walk into a military grade weapons dealer and walk out with a sleeve of concussion missiles for your ship like you might be able to do with frag grenades. You're probably going to have to go to a specialized dealer for them, which makes them a little bit trickier to keep in stock.