Jump to content

MajorJuggler

Members
  • Content count

    5,575
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MajorJuggler

  • Rank
    MathWinger
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
    Massachusetts

Recent Profile Visitors

6,442 profile views
  1. MajorJuggler

    XwingV2 jousting values

    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".
  2. MajorJuggler

    XwingV2 jousting values

    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.
  3. MajorJuggler

    XwingV2 jousting values

    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. :-)
  4. MajorJuggler

    XwingV2 jousting values

    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.
  5. MajorJuggler

    X-Wing 2.0 and ListJuggler Announcement

    Yup basically. I could keep doing stuff and let the devs use it, but... meh? That is one potential good side. The flip side is that for players that can figure out the good lists / combos first, it makes the local games even more of a turkey shoot. @sozin, the quote was from Nova Squadron Radio, it was one of our "ads" voiced by Chad, followed by: "... back when tournament results were compiled in the most heinous way possible... manually." Ed: "Whoa!" (apparently this is still burned into my brain)
  6. MajorJuggler

    xwing2estopgap squad builder

    I would suggest reporting any bugs to the reddit thread here: or to the git page: https://github.com/DevJonny/xwing2estopgap/issues
  7. MajorJuggler

    xwing2estopgap squad builder

    https://devjonny.github.io/xwing2estopgap/ I didn't write this squad builder, I just came across it! Citation: If you find bugs, please post them to either the reddit thread linked to above, or to the project's git page: https://github.com/DevJonny/xwing2estopgap/issues Enjoy!
  8. MajorJuggler

    Index of useful links

    I had already added it, but I added citation to your profile. :-) Thanks, added! I have one last 1.0 store championship this Saturday, and plan on wholesale updating the OP soon after. In the meantime, keep the new 2.0 links coming!
  9. This is great! I added it to the index of Useful Links right near the top!
  10. Yeah, but on the other hand, it should be a turkey shoot for those that can crack the code early.
  11. MajorJuggler

    Index of useful links

    Added. Is there an episode 1? added Gold Squadron podcast video channel added Live stream category, added channels. Renamed '3rd Party Templates and Tokens' to '3rd Party Acrylics'; removed greenman and added curled paw. added, thanks
  12. MajorJuggler

    central repository for all 2.0 pilots?

    @Kieransi that's fantastic, thanks!
  13. MajorJuggler

    central repository for all 2.0 pilots?

    Anyone know if there is a single repository that has all the up-to-date info on what pilots are in 2.0, and their abilities? I know Jeff Bizzak has been keeping one here, but not sure if it is up to date. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DMqgr3MQPStvLtLQRCLr0b_hcvNz53Sow7IGB7gXN_U/
  14. MajorJuggler

    Index of useful links

    Yeah that's a good idea. I should go clean up the links. In the meantime if you have good links to add list them here. 🙂
  15. MajorJuggler

    PSA: no public MathWing / ship evaluation for X-wing 2.0

    The original post has served it's intended purpose of making sure I dont get a bunch of 2.0 analysis requests and then have to re-explain each time that I'm not doing 2.0 analysis and why. From a purely pragmatic sense it doesn't matter if MathWing is just a useless magic rock, I will still get the requests for 2.0 once the point values are made known. I already get enough requests for 1.0, so posting once is easier. If you or other forum goers think that equates to having a massive ego, I frankly don't care one way or the other. What I do care about is not getting bombarded with a bunch of 2.0 requests that I either have to take the time to answer or impolitely ignore. Unfortunately I am getting trolley jousting math requests now instead. Until FFG announces a Trolley Expansion, I think I am obligated to answer these requests. Curses! Definately autothrusters. Very much an auto include for all trolleys.
×