Jump to content

Fanfan

Members
  • Content Count

    191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fanfan

  1. Can you PLEEEAAASE share the match logs. With work and kids I barely have the occasion to play, so blog posts and battle logs are what are maintaining my Armada pleasure alive!
  2. I am a little bit concerned about the Onagers. Aren't they just strong against absolutely everything ? I'd like to be wrong, but I wonder if the sentence: "Onager vs. whatever isn't all that difficult tbh." is not getting more and more right. Don't they just completely kill the ship-to-ship game ? yes, other ships hit harder at short range, but there are so many things to prevent them from getting there, or already in shambles. They're not even that weak in defense for a ship under 100 points, with 10 hull - 5 front shields and good tokens, despite ridiculing everything else in terms of offensive power. I think FFG scored a massive hit succeeding at making the SSD competitive but not excessively strong. But my initial worries about the Onagers being too easy too strong are really not getting cured following this tournament.
  3. I expected a very casual watching after downloading your log ... it turned out into a tedious work at refreshing my German!
  4. I have been praising the meta widely until now .... but Moralo ? The earlier everyone will beg for a fix the better ... To me, it's very simple : our game is currently unplayable competitively (or at least so boring that I would not consider attending). It will be back on track after the erratum.
  5. We had more than 2 years figuring the current meta. And what do we get winning the last major tournament ? - A tier 3 Admiral who's been considered average since wave 1 - 4 DIFFERENT combat ships and no transport support (in a 2 activation vs. 6 activation metaworld ... supposedly.) Also, with a low upgrade commitment. - a 'mid-point' squadron component with a base of X-wings. Another stunning example of the richness of the Armada meta ! At the point where we are, there is NO SHIP that I would be surprised seeing in the winning list of a major tournament. Which other game can say that, especially in a meta we had all the time to study ? The two new biggies + SSD will be super welcome anyway, but let's one last time praise how awesomely diverse the current meta has been.
  6. You're doing amazing. Standings + a couple 'list snapshots' of top tables would put it over the top
  7. OK, I did a first read through, and I don't want to comment yet on balance and play experience ... but what a stunning amount of work and quite entertaining to read!
  8. And even if I like Clone Wars less than the original trilogy ... I feel that an accessible campaign starting at 200, and a new core with two new factions might be the best things that could happen to expand the player base of the game.
  9. But it's really the 2 new sizeable ships that make me happy, because it feels it's on top of Clone Wars
  10. 'Clone wars will be separate factions'
  11. And two 'quite sizable ships' by the end of the year. I am pretty enthusiastic.
  12. Subscribed. Being able to watch the Worlds finals meant a lot to me. I could not attend this year, but can really enjoy high level games. And this year felt special : - first imperial victory - first European victory - Nathan reaching finals two years in a row - and again with a list with cards noone ever seen played at high level (Hera last year, Ketsu this year), with a medium squadron commitment ... - Tokra winning it with a Centicore-centered list ... not sure that's what the meta predicted. We have had years trying to figure the current meta, and both finals list still manage to be somewhat surprising ... - and the game felt quite tight and very well played. It was very important to me to be able to watch that live, and I guess it was for others too. The slow pace of products is one thing, but communicating about competitions is another one, much easier to fix. I don't play tons of Xwing, but I certainly enjoy watching Gold Squadron podcast to 'keep up' even while I can't attend many tournaments.
  13. I still don't get why FFG doesn't 'hire' a live blogger about their world championships And by 'hiring', I mean just give that person a SSD or a pile of promos. I would love to see/watch/read about the next matches. Anything.
  14. It means that i am more interested in reading about your losses than your wins. Not because I delight myself in seeing the best ones fail, but because I am assuming you win most games and that your losses are probably hard-fought battles at the highest level, so, very worth reading/watching. My first line is disguised praise. How did you feel about Gar Saxon ?
  15. I just hear about it from a facebook post from Victor Naqvi, indicating thak Yik Au, from Toronto, won it with 38 (!) and JJ finishing third with (30), and quite a solid attendance, with the following list: https://armada.ryankingston.com/fleet/37478/?fbclid=IwAR1tjSXvvvA_UEGZrT08Oum95j6rukuLudBLw_qjyuU9O_CwWvOeqBzNyZk but indeed a bit more insight about the tournament would be very appreciated Toronto is still an Armada powerhouse, even if not the most present in vassal tournaments.
  16. I hope you have a log to share for us to see the match !
  17. Hi JJ, I would not say that your wins are boring but ... I just read that you did not win the Minnesota regional. Did you play against the winning list (I think a Liberty Raddus drop + rogues) and can you comment about how the match went ?' Are there match-ups that you consider unfavorable with your well-seasoned almost-always-winning list ? Thanks!
  18. I am wondering if the app to fix points would not solve everything ... Make demo and Yavaris significantly more expensive (in the 20+ point range?), flotillas a but more expensive, Nebulon-Bs and victories a bit cheaper. Strat advisor and the activation-trumping officers a bit more expensive. All of that would make 'first-lasting' considerably more expensive, and bring back to the game ships we more rarely see. Besides that, I feel the current Armada meta is worth praising: I have a very good idea what the best list is in X-wing, Legion, etc (or maybe between 2-3 lists), best decks for L5R, game of thrones, and I have almost always had that impression at any point in time. It's arguably when I did not know what was best that I felt the games were at their top. For Armada ... I just don't know. Look at how diverse the top cut for the Vassal world cup is ... Most ship bases are represented. Squadron-less or full squadron are present and apparently competing at similar levels. And we had a loooong time to figure the meta out, yet the very best list eludes me, which I feel is a strong sign for a healthy meta. And I am not talking about the details between a couple upgrades, but whole fleet design.
  19. In V1, I had a "whole game" model, where each turn, the model would give a shot at determining the odds of being able to shoot at each given enemy ship, at what range, and which would be the likely most profitable target (most often being the previously damaged ship) But it would require significant revision to have it run with solid assumptions for V2, and would not help that much anyway in determining the relative strength of each ship, maybe just help determining favorable match-ups. It looks like this tool would be much closer to what you would be interested to see. I agree a better assessment for the offensive power of each ship, for example, would be to try to determine a representative sample of all the shots a ship is taking, against which target, at what range and with which available tokens/mods in offense and defense, in a competitive setting. This is obviously quite challenging. The best way to make that feasible (I think) would be to have a formatting of VASSAL tournaments that would allow an easy compiling of this - We're not really there yet. Or maybe a group of dedicated players 'recording' the actions of their games - I would not recommend such an effort. So, the whole question is 'Which simplification leads to a fairly accurate model anyway ?' 'What assumption considerably reduces the complexity of the model and/or its data collection without harming too much the accuracy of its depiction ?' And I really do think there are 'efficient shortcuts' that don't degrade too much the accuracy of the results, yet make it possible for a data scientist to get a decent idea of the respective jousting power by ship with a reasonable time involvement in model building. In V1, this kind of tools felt like it gave me a better comparative knowledge of each ship, less biased by my all-natural mindset related to the last experience playing a couple games with that ship. And almost at all times, there were ships that stood particularly high on this list considering the additional options they offered in comparison to similarly efficient jousters ... they were regularly indeed the most competitive ones, and this numerical analysis would tell us that even before getting the extensive table experience to figure it by regular means.
  20. The comparison I am making is with the TIE Advanced in V1, that scores 2 damages at range 2 both in its ATC version and in its accuracy corrector version, the latter not even requiring a lock that you might not be able to get, and allowing an evade for example. You're not being rude : if I have been missing something and my logic is flawed, I will be just glad to try fixing it based on the feedback I get. I have barely played any V2, so, I certainly misrepresented a couple things.
  21. Yes, that's why I did not use the most recent vassal logs, as i felt the 2nd edition would be closer in terms of gameplay to XwingV1 in ~2015, when ordnance did not get its boosts yet. But I agree my assumptions will probably change as the 2nd edition settles in. I went with my best early guesses.
  22. We do disagree on the TIE advanced - not being willing to spend the lock is really a thing. And even then accuracy corrector was arguably a better alternative to advanced targeting computer for many low PS variations of the ship in V1. I do indeed consider the base version of the V2 advanced as fairly weak. I will test a little more VaderV2 to forge an opinion on him. But yes, you're right on the Fang fighters, I thought I had Concordia face-off modeled, but I forgot to toggle the option. I would still not consider it a defensive powerhouse. It used to only be vulnerable at range 2 thanks to Autothrusters. But it's indeed better than my current depiction. I will post a correction. That was a lot of ships to model at once and I got a little less careful than the progressive first edition building of the model.
  23. My mistake actually. It looked suspiciously low, and I realized I had entered '1' as its green dice value. I will proofread the list and repost it. Ewing is indeed the very worst non-turret ship.
  24. It does not consider dials indeed. A goal of these jousting models is to address : how much do you pay for these dials and actions ?
  25. I am not sure if anyone had posted something like that yet. And I figured it could be informative for interested people. I am putting all games I like into statistical models. For X-wing, I think the big picture of what I do is similar to Juggler, but I am certainly less prolific at sharing and providing amazing tools and records to the community. A couple specifications that might differ from other jousting models: - The offensive value of each ship is estimated from the average number of damage it does per turn to an agility 2 ship - I chose that as 2 green dice is really close to the global average as what you expect in defense. - The defensive value is estimated from the number of 3-dice shots the ship can handle in average before going down. 3-dice is a decent average of the shots a ship takes. There are more ships with 2 red dice than 4 red dice, but the range 1 bonus is such that 3-dice is very close to the average of what a ship suffers. A little sophistication is that I used a library of vassal tournament playoff logs to figure out the average number of shots occurring at long, medium and short range, and respectively index the breakdown between those in my model. It turns out that range 2 shots are significantly less frequent than close and long range shots. I also used these logs to estimate how often a ship uses action-driven mods in defense and offense. And it turns out that Offensive modifications are more common, mainly due to focus firing depriving the target of defensive tokens when taking multiple shots in the turn. Here are the results using the first list of point values released . And a few of the conclusions I drew from those : no major completely unfair outlier. The ships at the bottom of the list indeed offer much more in terms of flexibility than the pure jousters on top. I have indicated the ships benefiting from broader arc options (in green the ships with 2 arcs with the same fire power, or a 180 arc, in light green the ships with a weaker secondary arc, and in orange the turrets. Even among ships with no additional arc option, the ones on the bottom have often much more flexibility or power concentration Winners: - Swarms are back (on top) where they should be - Tie bombers are now on the TIE fighter / Z-95 jousting level. - Several ships don't get taxed much for the options they offer: - Alpha gunboats would almost be decent jousters as they are, but of course they're way better when decently clothed - TIE phantoms are not 'that low' in terms of jousting for the great options they provide - the swarm of naked HWKs was the worst possible V1 list ... well it looks like it is the most cost-efficient turret now, and by far. You really don't pay that much to be able to move their arc - Auzitucks are still up there: they're almost average jousters, but it does not consider their wide arc and reinforce ... Losers: - The E-wing is really priced too high - I think that's the only big mistake of this first path at assigning points - The Tie advanced is priced as it was in V1, but with a much weaker ability, and it was not seeing play. And even Vader really costs a premium. - The VCX-100 and the Jumpmaster really took a blow, probably some overcompensation after disgusting many players for the last years of V1 I would say that the selection of playable ships looks very large, provided there is no outlier on the 'too strong' side that's hidden there. Good start!
×
×
  • Create New...