Jump to content

MajorJuggler

Members
  • Content Count

    5,589
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MajorJuggler

  • Rank
    MathWinger

Profile Information

  • Location
    Massachusetts

Recent Profile Visitors

7,533 profile views
  1. I just noticed this -- hadn't checked much in the way of social media over the weekend. too late to sign up for one now, oh well.
  2. that = [New Cost] = [Old Cost] * {1 + [Max Correction] x [Adjustment] } + [Scarcity Bonus] } So yeah that looks like a giant multiply. [Scarcity Bonus] actually ends up being negative if the bonus applies, I assume.
  3. Very cool! [edit -- yes, I did comment on this already upthread, but it's still cool so gets another thumbs up!] I might be reading that wrong, but did you mean to say: [New Cost] = [Old Cost] + { [Old Cost] x [Max Correction] x [Adjustment] } + [Scarcity Bonus] Since it looks like you're adding [Old Cost] twice. Just a suggestion - I would avoid a formula that adds / subtracts points, and instead would multiply the old cost by some coefficient: [New Cost] = round( [Old Cost] * [coefficient] ) where the mean coefficient for all ships is something close to 1. The rationale is that you want to change ship efficiency by some percentage. I only briefly skimmed so maybe it already works this way. 🙂 Also, 200 points is still not enough granularity for the really cheap stuff like vulture droids and TIE Fighters. Ah well.
  4. My first intro to pace of play was back in wave 4 when my 64 point, 8 hull Fat Han lost to a 65 point, 1 hull Fat Han at time, in a 60 minute round. Oops!
  5. Someday, eventually, FFG will stop making X-wing expansions. But that will likely not be for a very long time, so this is largely hypothetical. At that point I'm sure the community will keep the game going for a while. Apps etc wont disappear overnight. Community balancing would IMO result in a better balanced and more diverse meta game. There is so much data out there now that the greatest difficulty is not figuring good mathematical balance, but the human factor of what "should be good". Personally, I think it would be cool if the community came up with their own alternate point costs now, while the game is still live, and actually ran large tournaments with it. But generally there's not a ton of appetite for that because everyone is super focused on FFG format tournament events.
  6. Both approaches are very useful! Ideally the developers should be both predicting ship value ahead of time, and then also looking closely at tournament results after the fact. Alex has said that they do look at tournament results, but probably not in any sort of mathematically rigorous way like this. The third leg is to get quantitative data to tune your models, from actual games. I.e. how much more often do phantoms get to shoot due to their decloack shenanigans? This directly affects their cost efficiency, which hopefully is accounted for correctly in the models. Usually when a ship is at the extremes of tournament usage, you can go back and look at its cost efficiency and that will tell you why. Sometimes you might make a wrong assumption for a certain ship, cost it based on that, and then people figure out that it is either under/overcosted, and it shows up in tournament results accordingly.
  7. I think there's 2 parts to this: 1) Are they priced well compared to each other, 2) Are they priced well compared top tier stuff in the meta For the most part they are priced OK between themselves, but some of the named pilots are clearly a bit better, and this shows up in the numbers and their tournament usage. The obsidian and blacks cost a hair too much but even with a 200 point limit theres not much wiggle room. Compared to everything else in the meta, it really depends what the baseline should be. If you use the IN2 X-wing as a baseline then they are a bit too good, but for tournament play the meta is set by far better ships/pilots. Personally I would nerf the current top tier stuff rather than buffing tie fighters.
  8. The poor performance of the alpha squadron in first edition wave 2 is what actually prompted MathWing 1.0 back in 2014. After this analysis it was very clear that it was overcosted. MathWing 2.0 reinforced this. Then second edition costs came out, and they very obviously made the same costing mistake with the alpha in 2E that they did in 1E. I find this super disheartening, because FFG either: 1) intentionally overcosted it so we won't play it 2) Still doesn't understand the fundamentals of x-wing moneyball, 5 years after someone gave them step by step instructions on how to do their own evaluation.
  9. Yeah I need to finish doing my homework on this one. @Starslinger72 certainly didn't think they were worth it, but I would have to re-listen to see what exactly I said about it , I have already forgotten! I might come up with a slightly different answer in a week when I have the time to look at it closer. My initial reaction was to just plop 8 of those droids down on the table, all with charges, and see how it goes. Seems strong on the initial approach if you can get all 8 in range, then 6 should get to fire, so that's 18 red dice on the initial joust. It's the follow-up I am more worried about, as the ones with the best possible shots the following round will get popped before they can shoot, and it could snowball very quickly against them.
  10. I'm happy to hand over the reigns! I haven't done a particularly good job at maintaining it, so if @MidWestScrub wants to build up a new version, then we can ping @ffgjosh or someone else to swap out which thread gets pinned. Just do me a favor and maintain a link this 1.0 thread somewhere. 🙂
  11. MajorJuggler

    Shellshocked

    Yes, but did he have any TIE Punishers for Trajectory Simulator? I flew a game on vassal with a 6 TIE Swarm vs Redline / Deathrain / 2x Scimitars. There was basically no way for me to win that game, even avoiding the first round of protons I barely got half points on anything. I could try splitting up the swarm into 3+3, but then the TIE bombers would be just as good at jousting at that point without Howlrunner's buff on all the TIEs. Obviously, I have run the math on Barrage Rockets bombers and punishers, with and without jonus. ?
  12. The above was from my LGS, posted to our local FB page. I originally copied to our S&V slack chat and @Kelvan posted to the entire interwebs, which is fine. This local store (which actually has 3 locations) runs a tight ship and their Norton store is the defacto capital of competitive X-wing in Massachusetts. They are the highest 'tier' store on FFG's rankings, so always get preferential product treatment. So, if Battlegrounds doesn't have damage decks, then a lot of other stores don't either. The store is handling it as well as they can, but they have been dealt the short end of the stick. Chase also showed his entire email chain dealing with FFG/ANA and the distributor, although I didn't repost the email chain, just his summary. The TL;DR is that up until very recently the store expected to get one kit per Core set they pre-ordered, until suddenly they were informed this was not the case after he inquired a few days ago just before launch. In Battleground's case, they are giving out the promo decks in the order of pre-orders. I unfortunately didn't make the cutoff, so I am one that is affected. I still plan on picking up a core set, I'll just only have one tournament legal 2.0 deck. I have heard rumors that FFG will be printing / shipping additional damage decks but I haven't seen this confirmed anywhere yet. That would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.
  13. He's based out of Ohio, US, but the prices are all shown in AU. I checked his shipping link, and it didn't say anything about where he ships to. Got any more info on that?
  14. Done! Done! My messenger storage was apparently at 100%. I had cleaned it out a while ago, but it looks like FFG's backend added un-deleted all the messages that I had previously cleared out, weird.
  15. Yeah, it depends somewhat on the designer, but that certainly looks like the [edit: strong] trend. Philosophy of design is also different than understanding of design. Alex seems to appreciate that math is a useful predictive tool, vs Frank who has said in one of our interviews that XYZ specifically can't be done with math (ironically as I was implementing it during the interview). Max I don't know at all where he stands -- I have only heard him say that his primary concern is to make cards that is "fun".
×
×
  • Create New...