Jump to content

Jeff Wilder

Members
  • Content Count

    2,818
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jeff Wilder

  1. Episode 75 of Wide World of Wargaming (X-Wing) (last time!) is now available. https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-9j8jr-e5ad16?utm_campaign=w_share_ep&utm_medium=dlink&utm_source=w_share Unfortunately, no time to do a blurb for this one, as I had to physically come into my office and do actual work. The horror. We discuss about half, maybe a bit more, of the points changes, and then reveal our new name (which we all really like)! Sorry for the radio silence for a while ... we've had some audio troubles, losing an entire episode. Vince managed to save this one. Y'all have a good week!
  2. Two more good quick-turnaround trades from @CoffeeMinion!
  3. I love the E-wing, so I enjoyed that. One very minor thing: it's "jibe with," not "jive with."
  4. At long last, my trade list is up-to-date.
  5. Hey, you underestimate us. I have a really good grasp on distribution and variation from the mean and standard deviation ... and I'm still really strong at dice-complaining!
  6. What do I do? I don't talk about rolls in this way, and I wish folks wouldn't. As far as I'm concerned, HHM and HMM are just expected rolls in the mass of 75% of all three-die rolls, and HM (at 50%) is the same for two-die rolls. (On the other hand, I'll seethe pretty hard at my fifth FB in a row with Optics RZ-2s.) How other people decide? Beats me, really, but I could guess. CB is 9.5 points in the table in my original post, and HF is 9.5 points. HF seems more "visually representative," so my guess is that more people would call that an "average" roll.
  7. I think wurms is restating what I hypothesized in my original post as the reason people like to call HFB the "average" roll: it "visually represents" every face of the attack die ... as long as you don't count crits. It's just one of those fuzzy things that folks strangely consider relevant.
  8. Couple of things: First, my silly little model assumes fair dice. Second, the study @Brunas mentioned used real "mechanical" dice rolling. Third, these two statements appeared within two paragraphs of each other in the Backgammon link above which ... shudder. I continue to have the weirdest feeling that you're low-key screwing with us, Baaa. I don't intend that as an insult ... if it's true, in fact, it's pretty artistic, and I respect that.
  9. Out of curiosity, which streams? I don't think I've ever heard a stream commentator do this, although Ryan often checks the calculator on Fly Better. I might enjoy those streams. Well, Rebellions are built on hope!
  10. The problem is that, in a practical sense, that is not a feasible thing to do when commentating on a game or when participating in a game. It's not really even feasible when commenting on a recorded game, though (speaking as a huge nerd) I would enjoy seeing some gateofstorms pop-ups added by content providers on some of the more unusual occurrences. Similarly, it's not a practical suggestion that commentators and players stop making judgments about the value of rolls standing alone. Your suggestion is a perfect suggestion, but it's not a workable suggestion. I'm trying to make a workable suggestion that, while not perfect, is at least "less wrong," given that the activity is -- with a probability of 1.00, BTW -- going to continue. I think I've been pretty clear -- in the original post and in subsequent replies -- that I don't have any expectation that it's perfect.
  11. I have to admit, I'm not sure what you mean here. (Oddly, it almost feels like a low-key joke.) My understanding of probability, while better than most X-Wing and poker players, is still very basic. I have no formal training in it (nor any math class past my sophomore year in high school) ... I was just born lucky with a better-than-average instinctive feel for it. I end up brute-forcing a huge number of combo/permutation problems that would be pretty simple to calculate if I learned how.
  12. Just to add a little bit of context: I am addressing the tendency of X-Wing players and commentators to talk about rolls, whether "good," "average" or "bad." And they usually do that without regard for dice modifications available: i.e., they are usually strictly talking about what shows on the dice. For reasons discussed, that is a problematic way of looking at things, in a strict sense, but there is some validity in ranking rolls from "phenomenal" to "abysmal," right? I mean, in the absence of corner cases, CCC is better than HHH. Without other information, does anybody disagree? And HHH is better than FFF, and FFF is better than BBB? (Yes, I know that in the absence of a way to modify your focus results, they are effectively the same result, but without knowledge of whether a ship has the ability to modify focus results, does anybody disagree that FFF is a better roll than BBB?) That's the reason that I assigned values to results, and thus values to the full roll, to get a spectrum of roll values to look at (albeit, again, without regard to dice modifications available). I couldn't really think of another way to do it, if in fact we can all agree that CCC (or even CHH) is a "better" roll than HHH. Really, without consideration of dice modification, players and commentators should consider every HMM and HHM raw roll as equally worthy of calling "average," if they're (we're) going to call rolls average at all.
  13. @punkUser - Personally speaking, I'd like you to advertise whatever calculator you're talking about more explicitly. This is good stuff.
  14. It's the first. I don't think it's possible to stop people from calling a roll "average," so I would be a little happier if they'd expand what they call an "average" roll, though. It's really striking: you'll see a player roll HFB and hear it called "exactly average," and then the same player will roll HHB and have it called "really good." It's like ... wut? This sort of thing really is contributing to the misunderstanding of probability, and probability is already not intuitive.
  15. Agreed. I don't really have any objection to calling it an "expected" roll, or a "normal" roll. It's just that when it's referred to an "the average roll," it's misleading people who don't really understand that it's actually noticeably sub-average.
  16. That was super helpful, but some people are just never gonna give up on what they think, or let go on what they believe.
  17. https://imgur.com/YprsAxD (Sorry for just the link. I'm working, and my firm has some weird stuff locked down.) EDIT: I left off CFB, which is also only 0.5 from "average."
  18. While that idea appeals very greatly to the ironical part of me (which, admittedly, is like 80%), we do think we've found a name all three of us like. It's thematically and personality appropriate, it's short, and it should lend itself well to a logo. Stay tuned!
  19. Episode 72 of Wide World of Wargaming (X-Wing) is now available. This episode was recorded on (I think) July 6th, 2020. https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-vpd7j-e2e7b8?utm_campaign=w_share_ep&utm_medium=dlink&utm_source=w_share In this episode, Vince makes a statement addressing his recent troubles, and his intentions going forward. IMO, it's worth listening to. In addition, we have Drew's wonderful wife, Sherry, on the show to help us discuss toxicity in X-Wing. There's otherwise not much to this episode, but (I'm listening as I type this) I think it's pretty good conversation. As an aside, we are looking for a new name for the podcast, as (due to other games under the umbrella) the Wide World of Wargaming brand is going on hiatus. (My favorite so far is "Rancor Pit," but it didn't get the love from Vince and Drew that I think it deserves.)
  20. Well, Paul, I don't know if you care or not, but you're pretty much the only double-tripper for me. Everything I've seen you say for a long time has been player- and fairness-focused, and you've used your status to say those things and make them stick even if they weren't popular. So, no, "used to admire, now don't" doesn't fit anymore. FWIW.
  21. Vince, please stop now. They are not going to stop until you stop. You all feel righteous. The dog-piling does not stop until the prey stops biting back. So just stop. Don't bring Facebook here, please ... I say that with literally no regard for whether you are right or wrong.
×
×
  • Create New...