Jump to content

MajorJuggler

Members
  • Content Count

    5,586
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MajorJuggler

  • Rank
    MathWinger

Profile Information

  • Location
    Massachusetts

Recent Profile Visitors

6,953 profile views
  1. 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!
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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. 🙂
  8. 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. ?
  9. 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.
  10. 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?
  11. 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.
  12. 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".
  13. For ships that have uncertain real-world triggering rates that's exactly what I do: sweep the trigger rates over a variety of ranges (usually just 0% to 100% in 10% increments) and calculate the resulting efficiency at each point. If there's just one input variable (like x7 triggering) then it's a pretty simple 1D plot. If there are 2 input variables then it's a more complicated 2D plot, or equivalently a larger 2D table of results. If there are more degrees of freedom then it gets annoying to look at (the technical term for higher dimensional plots is actually a hyperspace). In any event, based on the resulting efficiencies, if you have 1-2 input variables then you can trivially look at the table to determine what trigger rates result in the ship being underpowered / overpowered / in the goldilocks zone. In the case of the TIE Advanced I can distill it down to 3 representative variables: how often it has a useful target lock going into the start of the round how often it takes a new target lock action that becomes useless how often it takes a focus action without having a target lock #1 is a multiplication of 2 factors: [probability of not spending the target lock on the previous round] x [probability of target still being around to shoot at next round] 1a can be hard-coded to something like (1/2)^3: i.e. always spend the lock to modify dice. It's a simplistic approach but not totally unrealistic. A tactical player might also save the locks from range 3, hoping to use them next round at range 1-2, so you can nudge this up a little. 1b can be varied across a range, like 20% to 80%. #2 can also be varied across a range: say 0% to 50% #3 I can slave to be relative to #2, lets call it half the rate of #2, so that the probability of taking a useful target lock action is 1-(1.5x #2). Again, an approximation, but a good start without having any analytical data yet. Using those ranges gets you in the neighborhood, which says that the IN2 TIE Advanced is probably slightly less terrible than most people would assume. But it's almost certainly not as good an an X-wing. The crit effect will help it (I haven't modeled this for the v2 TIE Advanced yet), but it still won't be anywhere close to the cost efficiency of an ATT2 TIE Fighter buffed by Howlrunner. I'm not publishing results for 2nd edition so don't want to put specific numbers out there, but it's also a fairly obvious conclusion, that people will naturally figure out about half a game into playing with 2E. The validation step is getting analytical playtesting data to see what real-world trigger rates can be, but as @SOTL has pointed out this is not something that FFG does, in part because even if they had that data they wouldn't know what to do with it.
  14. I can approximate pretty well the likelihood of a ship having focus for either attack or defense with my action economy modelling, given that you know what tokens it starts with in the beginning of the combat phase. I have had that functionality for a couple years now, and is the missing link that makes the jousting numbers actually useful for a wide variety of pilots, which have a wide variety of action economies. In this case, the main problem is figuring out what useful tokens the ship has going into the combat phase. If you can distill it down to the following, then you can get the net action economy going into a combat round: Chance of having a TL at the start of the round leftover from the previous round, AND you'll be able to use this TL on your target equivalently, the chance of not having a useful TL going into the start of the round. (1-the above) Then: The chance that the ship can take a token action, i.e. no bump, stressed, or single action reposition (I'm using the same default global % chance that I'm using as a default for all ships) Then: The chance that the ship takes a target lock but then can't spend it this round to attack that target (same net effect for this round as no action this round + no useful TL entering the round) The chance that the ship takes a target lock and can use it this round The chance the ship intentionally takes a focus this round, without having a target lock on anyone. That yields the probabilities for a 4-state outcome. (technically 5, which consolidate to 4). Then just use that in the jousting calculator blender, and you get... an answer. :-)
  15. I have been debating how exactly to model generic TIE Advanced in 2.0. I'm modelling a full action economy, so I have to make some assumptions about how often the TIE Advanced will be taking a TL action vs a focus action during a round. For reference a vanilla ship's action economy going into the round is pretty basic... either take a focus action, or not. I haven't done it yet so this is a good excuse to put some thoughts onto paper. It seems like there are 5 different scenarios: #1-2: already has a target lock on what will be the eventual defender later this round. No new token action this round. (bump or barrel roll) Takes the focus action #3-5: does not have a target lock on what will be the eventual defender later this round. No new token action this round (bump or barrel roll, or take a target lock on someone that isn't the eventual target) take the focus action take the target lock action on what will be the eventual target So in net the possibilities are: ATT3 + TL, no focus ATT3 + TL + focus ATT2, no tokens ATT2 + focus ATT3 + TL, no focus The 1st and 5th scenario lump together into the same result. If I were in charge of playtesting at FFG, I would instruct the playtesters to go collect analytical data about the % occurrence rate of each of these scenarios, and then enter those values into my scripts to calculate the resulting jousting value. Or, more specifically, I would calculate across a range of values to show the relative ship performance as a function of player decisions impacting the action economy. OK, now that it's done, guess I'll go code this up tonight. Vader is already done. :-) I would love to pick your brain about what you think the % occurrence rates would be for each of these scenarios. P.S. this assumes the scenario probabilities are range-independent, which is not entirely true, but it's a solid starting point.
×
×
  • Create New...