Jump to content

sunevora

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I brought her to worlds and went 3:3 with her. One of the losses was agains Jeremy Howard who just outflew me, one I have to chalk up to dice (2 blanks in every attack roll for the whole game) and one was pretty much a disqualification (forgot that my K-Wing had the engine failure crit and I slammed after a 2-hard in the last turn of the game. Frank declared the K destroyed because of that, causing me to lose a game that would have been a sure win otherwise). None of that was a problem with Norra, and in the hands of a more capable pilot (or someone who remembers to use crit tokens) she would have been seen on the final day. She's not half bad, really. Edit: list Norra Wexley — ARC-170 29 Push the Limit 3 Tail Gunner 2 R2-D2 4 Alliance Overhaul 0 Ship Total: 38 Biggs Darklighter — X-Wing 25 R4-D6 1 Integrated Astromech 0 Ship Total: 26 Warden Squadron Pilot — K-Wing 23 Autoblaster Turret 2 Extra Munitions 2 Sabine Wren 2 Conner Net 4 Advanced SLAM 2 Ship Total: 35
  2. As far as I know, there are no official X-Wing tournaments on the German side of the border on that weekend. However, there are active communities in both Aachen (which is a beautiful city and always worth a visit anyway) and Mönchengladbach, who would be happy to organize a friendly tournament on Saturday or Sunday. Maybe the guys from RWTH Aachen University would be willing to show off their implementation of the game on a oversized touchscreen tabletop (you still use the actual models, but they have found a way to make the screen recognize the bases so you get perfect firing arc and manouvre position calculations). Send me a PM if you're interested, and I get things started.
  3. First, let me say that I feel for you having to start over with your dissertation. The same thing happened to be me after three years of research and experiments (someone left my research group and published parts of my ideas). Luckily, I found a new topic and all worked out in the end - it just took considerably more time than was initially planned. Since you mentioned usability evaluation of games (which is overlapping my field of study), I am happy to point you to the relevant literature if you have any specific questions there. Also, as part of the work in my former team, a colleague built a hybrid computerized tabletop version of the game (using a multitouch table and custom built bases for the ships that can be detected by the table with their precise location and angle). I can get you in touch if you are interested; maybe they have recoded data of played games available - it would be much easier to process than videos, I believe. Lastly, if languages other than English are no problem, there are a number of German YouTube channels featuring games from different European regional championships (e.g., Michael Geringer, "Flying Pink Unicorns of Death, Doom and Destruction", "Pirates of Tattooine", "Team Hooters"). It seems to me, however, that the meta and the play style differs considerably between X-Wing in continental Europe and the US/UK/Australia. This may a factor you have to take into account in your analysis.
  4. Just woke up at 5am for no apparent reason and was not too happy about it. Took my iPad, read you post... Totally made my day! :-) So good!
  5. sunevora

    BTL-A4

    Just saw this and thought I'd throw a couple of numbers in. A while ago, I wrote an X-wing damage simulator that can calculate the full probability density functions for any attack. So quickly running it for the configurations that someone proposed earlier (Y-Wing+BTL-A4+Predator+Blaster vs. Wedge, both fighting a focussed TIE-Fighter @ range 2) and not thinking too hard about the problems of the blaster turret (mostly that you cannot use it after a red maneuver), that's what it looks like: --- Y-Wing with BTL-A4 title, Predator, and Blaster Turret (using a focus token) vs. TIE-Fighter with focus @ Range 2 Damage Probabilities: p_0 => 0.2913 p_1 => 0.3425 p_2 => 0.2434 p_3 => 0.095 p_4 => 0.0248 p_5 => 0.0029 One-Shot Probability: 0.1227 --- Wedge with focus vs. TIE-Fighter with focus @ Range 2 Damage Probabilities: p_0 => 0.301 p_1 => 0.382 p_2 => 0.257 p_3 => 0.059 One-Shot Probability: 0.059 --- Considering that the Y-Wing is much beefier than the X-Wing, I'd give it a try. Even with the problematic dial (which can be partially remedied by (salvaged) astromechs), it should be able to put up a good fight.
  6. Only read the first post of this thread, so maybe it's already obsolete; but I have experience in Objective-C, Swift, Xcode, and Mac-related software development in general. I also have a finished swift app that calculates the complete probability density functions of jousting encounters between all ships that have been released so far (no movement, however, and yet without upgrade cards). Please let me know if anything of this is of any use for the project.
  7. I have played the CR-90 a couple of times now (and twice in a 150pts setting). I have lost all of the games to dual Firesprays with HLCs (supported by Jonus). Once these beasts get an approach vector on the CR-90's aft section and lay down some concentrated fire, the CR-90 can watch its reactor go up in flames. After that the big ship is pretty much dead in the water... For style, you can also put proton bombs on the Firesprays - the CR-90 does not take kindly to face-up damage cards.
  8. Probably because he's factoring the ability to not get shot at all which is down to actions, the dial, the playstyle and psychological factors: how long it lasts and dishes out rather than how much of a sustained barrage it can take. That information we only get from playtesting and is situation and strategy dependent: it's impossible to truly quantify. For example, the numbers aren't what keeps the Advanced out of tournaments, it's the belief that it's not worth running. The numbers indicate that belief is justified, but the belief is what keeps it out. No, it was the stock model, no upgrades. With your second comment, I wholeheartedly agree. The dial and the player's ability to use it defensively in a game situation to dodge arcs is nothing we can easily crunch the numbers on. But the topic of this thread was to assess the static defensive capabilities of ships (hit points and agility) and this is something we can, in fact, do mathematically.
  9. Not sure what you would regard as a good survival/damage/cost ratio but here's at least a comparison of survival/cost ratios between ships with similar damage (why are we having difficulty figuring these out?): Defender: survives 9 unmodified 3-dice attacks (or 5 focussed 3-dice attacks) 50% of the time survival/cost = 0.33 (for unmodified rolls) E-Wing: survives 7 unmodified 3-dice attacks (or 4 focussed 3-dice attacks) 50% of the time survival/cost = 0.26 Firespray: survives 11 unmodified 3-dice attacks (or 7 focussed 3-dice attacks) 50% of the time survival/cost = 0.33 YT-1300 (Chewbacca): survives 11 unmodified 3-dice attacks (or 7 focussed 3-dice attacks) 50% of the time survival/cost = 0.26 And some ships with less offensive potential: TIE-Advanced: survives 7 unmodified 3-dice attacks (or 4 focussed 3-dice attacks) 50% of the time survival/cost = 0.33 A-Wing: survives 6 unmodified 3-dice attacks (or 3 focussed 3-dice attacks) 50% of the time survival/cost = 0.35 Cheers, sune
  10. The survivability of a ship depends not only on its agility value and hit points (shield plus hull) but also on the kind of attacks it is submitted to. As for the example of the VT-49 and the B-Wing, they are not even close to being similar in terms of durability. Generally, averages are not a great statistic to look at when trying to determine how sturdy a ship ultimately will be. Even when you take the associated variances into account as well, you will easily get a wrong picture because the underlying distributions are not normal. In order to understand what is going on when ship A attacks ship B, you have to use the full probability mass functions for A's attack rolls (optionally including focus and target lock) and B's defense rolls (optionally including focus and evade tokens). These can then be combined to get the full probability mass function of this one damage exchange, and multiple of these can be convolved to see how a ship holds up under sustained fire and how many attacks it takes to bring it down. This is what we are interested in when we are asking about a ship's defensive capabilities. The math involved is not very advanced but still tricky to do by hand because the attack PMFs alone are four-dimensional; and convolving four-dimensional functions on paper is not my idea of fun (I am a computer scientist, however, and writing code that does exactly that for me just so happens to be my idea of fun). So, here's a bit of data for you: Let's look at unmodified attack and defense rolls for a moment, and let's pretend we have the matchup that was mentioned above, a B-Wing fighting a VT-47 (it is a nice example because if we assume range 2 all the time and assume that both can shoot every turn they do have the same attack). With the method outlined above we can calculate how many attacks the B-Wing needs to destroy the VT-47 with at least 50% probability (we could also use any other percentage as a cutoff, but 50% seems a useful bit of information). It turns out that we can expect the VT-47 to withstand an average of 11 unmodified 3-dice attacks before it will go down in half the cases. Vice versa, we can only expect the B-Wing to eat up an average of 7 unmodified 3-dice attacks before it's gone with at least 50% probability. Simply speaking, the VT-47 can take significantly more of a beating than a B-Wing and this is reflected in its cost. (As a side note: when normalizing these values over the cost of the ship they are almost the same again). If you have a look at the fully expanded probability tables you will notice a (fully expected) trend: Ships with less agility but more hull are sturdier against fewer but higher-quality attacks with many red dice. Ships with more agility but less hull are sturdier against more but lower-quality attacks with less red dice. Example: A cloaked TIE-Phantom (4 evade, 4 HP) can take an average of 5 attacks from an unmodified HLC (4 red dice) before it goes down with >50% probability. At the same time, it can be expected to withstand 16 unmodified A-Wing attacks (2 red dice). A Lambda Shuttle (1 evade, 10HP) can take an average of 6 attacks from the same HLC but will fall to the A-Wing in half of the cases after 14 attacks. To sum things up: 1) High Agi / low HP are not at all same-ish as low Agi / high HP. They are very different defensive profiles and have different strengths and weaknesses depending on your opponent's offensive capabilities and plan of attack. Cheers, sune --- P.S.: I may be writing an in-depth article on statistics and the defensive capabilities of all ships if anyone is really interested in the math stuff. P.P.S.: The most efficient ship in terms of defense for its cost is... the TIE-Bomber
×
×
  • Create New...