zero9300
-
Content Count
174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by zero9300
-
-
even one of the stormtrooper about to raid docking bay 84 or whtaeve it is 'lets solo escape' because hes annoyed as hes been demoted from ATAT driver to stormtrooper... why you ask... because in a simulator he makes the ATAT kneel down when attacked by airspeeders so they cant be tripped up... the imperials dont want this weakness revealed so hes sent to a stormtrooper unit to keep him quiet... which makes no sense at all, they'd just kill him and claim it was an accident.
That would be something he should be promoted for, not demoted. Rather than go on a tirade about how stupid that story sounds, I will resolve to just not read it.
-
cos I beat him a couple of times and now he thinks they're overpowered.
Any advice for him?
It was the obvious three, although only Soontir had PTL, which I gather from other threads people seem to think is necessary on all of them. I gave Carnon Opportunist which obviously didn't leave enough points for an EPT on Turr. Although now I think of it, it would make more sense to give Turr Opportunist, wouldn't it?
What kinds of lists does he fly?
If he doesn't already use any of them, I would suggest a few possibilities he can throw into a list that would help a lot against interceptors:
-Biggs, he will keep the fire off any other glass cannon in a list to buy time to maneuver that ceptor into its sights
-Darth Vader crew, on a shuttle or a decimator, he can guarantee a critical straight into hull, even if the attack is evaded
-Gunner crew. Improving your chance to squeak a damage through on the interceptors can give you an edge, given they have so little hull
-Turret ship. You can force the interceptor to trade shots, which will usually end up with the turret ship outlasting an interceptor. (autothrusters can complicate this, but it can still help)
-A higher PS bid with good joust strength. By moving after the interceptor, it is committed to its final position without knowing your move.
-Double Stress/action denial. Interceptors need their actions to boost/barrel roll out of arc, evade/focus when turtling in arc, and even TL/focus when maximizing damage. Denying them actions by piled on stress or blocking will make them easier to pick apart.
-Ion cannon [turret or otherwise]. Tagging an interceptor with ion (particularly if stressed) will put the pilot in peril the following turn.
-
Playing tabletop x-wing, I find myself never sitting.
-
I think Alex Davey is right. You still wouldn't see anyone seriously trying to put a bunch into a squad relying on their primaries alone, as they are still not points efficient in a joust and will not have positional advantage against about anything out there.
However you wouldn't be pressured into spending points on the turret to avoid having zero offensive presence when the real reason why people want to bring hwks are the abilities.
-
Dace is interesting alongside other ships that, too, can ion. As you increase the chance that at least 1 ion will be dealt per turn, his ability is adding an increasing damage output to your squad. With the ion cannon turret approaching an expected damage output of a tie fighter (depends on target), and effectively doubling the damage of [any] one ion cannon in the squad, you could match dace with a pair of btl y-wings and a pair of z-95s, you then have the damage output that is around a 7-8 tie swarm, but having a ps9 bid with VI mixed in shooting outside his arc, potential 3 ion tokens per turn of control, and fewer ships to get into range. In this sense, dace can be used with ion to add control to a list while sacrificing squad durability instead of typically making a compromise in damage output to fit ion in.
And when compared with Jan, I think dace's ability is a head above her's mostly because of timing and a nuance to the probability. Jan's ability forces her to take the stress before the roll to modify one attack per turn, with the chance of an improved damage result being approximately equal to the chance of a single attack dice having a hit/crit result (less than that if there is a possibility of that dice being canceled). Dace's ability will force him to take on stress ONLY IF he can improve a damage result. Dace's chance of an improved damage result is going to be (100%-(Probability of net 0 damage from an ion cannon)# of ion cannons)
(note: if the ion cannons in the squad fire at different targets or if different tokens are available at the time of one shot to another, the probabilities for each shot may be different; simply take the product of each cannon)
If we take a hypothetical situation to compare the two abilities, a 3-agility ship in range of 3 ion cannon attacks. Let's assume there is a 50% chance of the defender having defensive focus to spend on each attack independently. (this is heuristic, it is the number I have used in my previous calculations on single attacks, and is unclear if it is really favoring the defender or not, perhaps the ion cannons are shooting 3 different 3-agility ships, but I am not going to bother changing it this moment) I will also assume the attackers have a focus available for attack.
For the 3-agility target, the chance of dealing absolutely zero damage is 40.89%. If that is the only ion cannon shot per turn, dace's ability has a 59.11% chance of improving damage per turn.
At 2 ion cannon turrets in the list, the chance of both dealing absolutely zero damage is (40.89%)2 = 16.71%. Dace's ability now has an 83.28% chance of improving damage per turn.
At 3 ion cannon turrets in the list, the chance of all 3 shots missing is (40.89%)3 = 6.83%. Dace's ability now has a 93.17% chance of improving damage per turn.
Jan's chance of improving a result will be assumed to be the change in average hits/crits as attack dice are increased by 1. We will make the same assumption about defensive focus availability. The improvement chance is going to then depend on the strength of the attack and how much you can modify that single attack.
The average hits/crits with just a focus for:
- 2 attack dice are 0.42
- 3 attack dice are 0.93
- 4 attack dice are 1.57
- 5 attack dice are 2.27
Thus, the improvement for any attack is going to be the average of an attack 1 dice higher minus the average of the base attack [divided by 1 attack dice for a probability]:
- 51% of improving a base 2 attack
- 64% of improving a base 3 attack
- 70% of improving a base 4 attack
We see, as said earlier that as we increase the number of base attack dice rolled, Jan Or's probability of improving an attack approaches the probability of a single dice for that attack (the 5th dice added to the base 4 dice attack is not often canceled by defense dice, so the improvement chance is getting close to the 75% base chance of a hit/crit per dice) Without spending points or eating an action for a turn to get a target lock + focus attack into the mix, Jan's chance of improvement is still under dace's chance of improvement with 2 ion cannons in a list firing with focus only even in the 4-base attack case.
What are the average hits/crits with focus + target lock?
Well here they are:
- 2 attack dice are 0.59
- 3 attack dice are 1.34
- 4 attack dice are 2.25
- 5 attack dice are 3.19
This makes improvement chances:
- 75% of improving a base 2 attack
- 91% of improving a base 3 attack
- 94% of improving a base 4 attack
Conclusion:
The 3-agility case is just one of the possible cases, but was meant to be illustrative. If we lower the agility of the target, Jan's improvement chance more quickly approaches that of the outcome of a single attack dice (50% for no focus/tl, 75% for just focus, 93.75% for focus & TL), but Dace's chance of improvement with multiple ion cannons will more quickly approach 100%. For Jan to beat dace's improvement chance with only 2 ion cannon turrets in the 3-agility case, a focus + target lock on an ally is necessary with no fewer than a base 3 attack. If we take a 2-agility target, the ion cannons will miss 23.1% of the time, making dace's improvement chance per turn with 2 ion cannon turrets to be 94.7%. Already that improvement chance is higher than anything Jan can throw out, even a base 4 attack with target lock and focus buffed to 5 attack dice (though that is how much it takes to match).
Another element to consider is that Jan Ors costs 2 additional points, and will get the most out of her ability if she is teamed with at least a 3-attack or HLC ship that can get free TLs/rerolls alongside focus reliably each turn. Dace has a cheaper price tag, and can be economically paired with BTL y-wings to add ion cannons. Maximizing his improvement chance [his synergy] is also coming in at a lower cost than Jan as adding BTL ion y-wings is cheaper than getting a reliable TL+focus enabling upgrade onto any 3-attack ship. With equivalent points investment, I can't think of any corner case where Jan's damage improvement becomes more economical than dace's, and in a matchup against each other, Jan's allies will have to make up their cost with superior positioning. Though this is nebulous whether dace is still "worth having" if Jan Ors is not, but I think he has potential.
heychadwick reacted to this -
A good starting point would be to calculate the expected damage output of the autoblaster turret. Assuming the turret always fires(ignores range), canceling only critical results by defense dice, and the same expected damage output assumptions (except for range) as MJ's post #3, the autoblaster turret average uncanceled dice is 1.6 times higher than a regular 2-attack dice attack.
1.6 EDO is fairly promising, and if we plug this EDO into a ps2 who only spent 2 points on this turret (no title), the y-wing sees a fantastic joust efficiency of 97.26%. Though, yes, this is a fantasy. An extreme case. Not all that often will we see range 1-only jousting occurring, and the other extreme case would be to look at joust efficiency of the y-wing using its primary weapon and a 2-points liability, having been denied range 1 shots with the autoblaster. Things get hairy at a 75.1% efficiency. Gross. Which one do we trust? The obvious answer is that it will depend on how often you get your range 1 shots in. If we use the post #3 range expectations, we can heuristically say the efficiency will be 97.26% 30% of the time and 75.1% 70% of the time. a sickening 81.74%. Play-testing would give you a better sense of how often you will actually get those range 1 shots.
For the y-wing with a title, let's take an EDO of 1+ 30% * 1.6. You then have 93.17% joust efficiency.
These fast and loose numbers are not on the dot, and are probably glossing over the real math behind the average hits, particularly BTL-S3 y-wings that are replacing only range 1 shots that may have the option of having 3 attack dice. Writing a pair of scripts that either add the autoblaster shot for range 1 (BTL-A4) or replace the range 1 attack with the autoblaster (BTL-S3). The BTL-S3 script also calculates if the average hits from the primary would yield higher damage and only adds the better result to the total. Leaving the range bins from post #3 alone.
The resulting EDOs are 1.0676 for the BTL-S3 and and 1.480 for the BTL-A4.
That gives the -S3 a 77.85% joust efficiency and the -A4 a 93.18% efficiency.
Conclusions to draw from this analysis are that the BTL-S3 with an autoblaster have a large required efficiency to overcome. It could be possible to make up with the shots able to be made outside the arc, though the range 1 limitation and small base will make it fairly difficult. BTL-A4 with the autoblaster is pretty good, but still has a small deficit in efficiency. Some magical things happen with the -A4 if you start shifting higher probabilities of shots into range 1, at another 10% inside range 1 (5% removed from range 2 and range 3) the joust efficiency goes up to 101.48%. Being able to throw an additional 2 dice that are uncancelable at range 1 is very powerful for 2 points. The more often you are at range 1, the greater your efficiency becomes. In a good control list, I could see A4s with autoblasters being a damage exploitation backbone. On the other side of the coin, keeping out of range 1 against autoblaster y-wings will mean your opponent is using one of the worst primary attackers in-game with an extra 2 points tacked on.
e: the calculation still isn't 100% accurate(not accounting for the fact that spending a focus on one attack makes it unavailable for the other, and the likely durability value decrease), but it is clear where the numbers begin to lead.
MajorJuggler reacted to this -
For ordnance that doesn't modify dice in a peculiar way, like proton rockets, the primary function I made can be used to find the same thing.
I still am just playing around with numbers with a plastic pail and shovel, so I apologize for the poor presentation, but I thought this was pretty funny.
I noticed people using proton rockets with a-wings. It isn't super common, but people try to make it work.
Against a cloaked phantom, a focus+TL proton rocket shot is adding 9.31JV of damage over a focus+TL primary weapon shot. Now that is swinging a big hammer. And it makes sense, 5 focused and target locked dice have a lot of capability to headshot a phantom, especially if it has even just 1 point of damage.
-
Yes, all else being equal, you can either make the attack 2 ships overpowered, or you can make the attack 3 ships underpowered, or some combination of both. 2 attack ships will always be more cost effective carriers because their marginal damage increase is greater. To really "fix" this you need some external change, like all ordnance costs -1 on TIE bombers and Y-wings, and/or an easier way for them to get a Target Lock.Well, considering the PS2 y-wing an illustrative example and some hand-waving, you have a ship that is 'overcosted' by ~3 points without any upgrades at a total cost of 18. If we price the torps at 3 (or whatever number of points the torps make a difference by), put one on a y-wing, it is still overcosted by 3 points, but has added 3 points to its total cost at the predicted value rate (thus, these are 3, "100% efficient" points added). This does increase efficiency, but it will continue to be <100%. Target lock difficulty aside, still, people will not use a non-positional ship that is not very close to 100% efficiency in jousting (or they will not succeed if they do). If indeed the torpedoes are a 3 point value to the y-wing, but costed at 2 points (if that is indeed the point-filler value for 3-atk ships), putting one on a y-wing will make it cost 2 points more but give it 3 points value. Thus it is now only undercosted by 2 points. A second torpedo may make it overcosted by 1 point, being worth ~21 points while costing 22. This puts it in line with b-wings by predicted value, though behavior on the field is going to be flavor-fully different.
Now that same torpedo on a 3-atk ship (or on a warthog y-wing) is increasing cost at the predicted value rate, making the torpedoes a fair filler option. I think that is close to making sure the upgrade is not a terrible choice on either kind of ship.
I am not sure of the specific numbers on 1 or 2 point torpedoes or what their predicted points values actually are yet, and is a topic worth more study.
-
Excellent work! This is very similar to the kind of analysis that I have been meaning to do with ordnance, although I would intentionally assign the "value" as a simple ratio of (cost/health)*damage.
One good conclusion from this is that you should always kill the glass cannons first.
I would also re-run the numbers assuming the base ship has 2 attack, not 3 attack. TIE Bombers and Y-wings are really the ideal ordnance carriers, (or anything with only 2 attack, really) because they see the greatest increase in damage from 2 base dice to a missile/torpedo. So you actually have to balance ordnance around the 2 attack ships. If you balance their cost around the 3 attack ships, then it becomes overpowered on 2 attack ships. (Difficulty of acquiring the Target Lock notwithstanding, which is a separate issue entirely.)
Indeed it does seem to say glass cannons should always be killed first, but that number is also the difference in JV removed of torpedoes vs primaries. The difference protons make grows as agility increases, grows as target damage output is increased, and decreases with target total health.
By pricing off the target's JV curve, it is likely that it will come very close to (cost/health)*damage as the shots calculated near full health will be lower than (cost/health) while killing blow damage will be [much] higher than (cost/health). I specifically wanted to make sure that if ordnance will significantly give a better chance of a killing blow, earlier than primaries alone, that it would have significant worth.
I forgot about the TIE bomber, as likely most people have. I don't like only pricing the torpedoes, specifically, based on just 2-atk ships because the ships that mount them have low efficiency on their own. The lowest PS y-wing generics are 84% efficient, the bombers are 92%, and I don't want to think about the M3-A's 90% after adding another 2 points onto it. If for 1-2 rounds of shooting you have 100% efficiency by pricing torps by the 2-atk ships, you are then back to just primaries with low efficiency, people probably still wouldn't use them. I like to think that the reasons for why these ships are less efficient shooting their primaries is because FFG priced them with the torpedo slot being worth some number of points and not just naively thinking that they would be competitive with them as wholly *optional*. That for those 2 torpedo volleys, they would be above 100% efficiency for their statline, then drop to below 100%, making the torpedoes a kind of disposable efficiency for the 2-atk ships. By pricing by the 3-atk ships, one can ensure that the 2-atk ships get disposable efficiency while the 3-atk ships get something more equivalent to a filler option with the same upgrade(is that something desirable in this game? I don't know yet). Pricing to be efficient only for 2-atk ships will make 3-atk ships practically NEVER take torps (which they currently don't), and almost NEVER will 2-atk ships see use as torp delivery services (which they currently don't).
Missiles may be another story, as many of the specific 2-atk ships that may mount have good efficiency without them, and so would be alright to price by...I'd have to put more thought into them. Each wave FFG seems to be refining how they price ships and who gets what upgrades, so its hard to use a single upgrade to bridge gaps between ships that all can carry them.
Either way, here are some numbers for 2-atk ships:
edit: note that before I had range 2 and range 3 rows mixed up, I will correct my mistakes when I get some more illuminating data.
At this point, I am not 100% convinced of anything by the numbers by either 3-atk or 2-atk.
-
I finally sat down and did the math for what I originally set out to do: a function that finds the mean JV removed by a single volley (of proton torpedoes, for example). I made one specifically for proton torpedos and one specifically for primary weapons, with hit/crit PDFs calculated and indexed inside (when I revise this method, I will make a general one that will simply be passed the already-calculated PDF).
The function is target-dependent, so I have parameters for the target's hull, shield, agility, and expected damage output. Representative examples of ships likely to be in meta could be used to judge the average worth as well as corner cases for munition value.
The calculation of the mean JV removed involves multiplying the change in JV from a damage outcome by the probability of that outcome. This calculation is iterated for each health value from maximum hull/shield to 1 hull with weight on each, signifying the probability that the target will have any possible JV value at the time the volley starts. *This is still an approximation as my durability calculations are not currently adjusting the mean rounds to destroy*
The equations put simply find:
mean JV removed += (initialJV - damagedJV) * Prob(initialJV) * Prob(damage dealt) for each possible initial JV; for each possible damage outcome
Criticals that are double damage are explicitly calculated and included in damage outcomes
Assumptions made in calculating for the Proton Torpedoes and the Primary weapon were:
- Defender has focus 50% of the time.
- Defender health at the time of the volley is equally weighted from maximum health down to 1 hull.
The defender focus assumption is simply to be consistent with other calculations done. Because we do not know what time or what health the defender may actually be at when the volley takes place in any game, it is easy to assume any possibility to be equally likely. The reality of those possibilities may have a modal nature or are weighted greater closer to maximum health (especially for torpedoes, which probably will be used at the first opportunity), but it is harder to pin down what those probabilities actually are without a more complicated model of what damage the rest of the squadron/previous rounds may have resulted in.
Assumptions in the function for specifically calculating Proton Torpedoes:
- The attacker has a target lock available (this attack is assumed to happen)
- Only the single focus -> crit modification is available
- Range is irrelevant (this attack is assumed to happen)
I want to just look at simple action economies for the moment, for simplicity's sake. The target lock is spent performing the attack in this case, so I want to compare it to the primary weapon having the same action economy. If I were to include having focus available for modification of the torpedoes, I would compare it against a primary attack with focus + target lock.
For primary weapons, Attack, focus, # of rerolls, and range are parameters of the function.
Assumptions made in this comparison of Primary attacks to secondary:
- The attacker has 3 base attack
- The attacker has a focus available
- The attacker has no rerolls
- First, the primary volley is substitute for a range 3 torpedo attack (mean JV removed is compared to that of the torpedo)
- Second, the primary volley is substitute for a range 2 torpedo attack (mean JV removed is compared to that of the torpedo)
- Third, the attack has a 50/50 chance of replacing a range 2 or range 3 torpedo attack (mean JV removed is just the average of these two cases)
The value of a munition to a ship is going to depend on how much better that attack is than the primary of the ship itself. Currently, torpedoes are mountable on ships with 2-atk or 3-atk, but all 2-atk ships with torpedo slots currently available (y-wings and scyks[Lol]) can use their titles and secondary weapon upgrades to achieve damage outputs near or above 3-atk ships. If I assumed that the primary weapon shots of equal action economy would be taken with target lock instead of focus, the numbers would shift in favor of primary attacks due to increased chance of crits, but the focus is a more likely substitute action most of the time.
I ran the numbers for a few representative examples of ships. Here are the meanJVremoved from a proton torpedo volley:
The same ships with primary at range 3:
Primaries at range 2:
And this last table just displays the difference in JV removed between a torpedo shot and a primary shot at range 2, range 3, and then the average (assuming 50/50 chance of range 2 or range 3)
Precursory Conclusions I draw from these first numbers:
The expected difference a Proton Torpedo will make is going to be 1-2 extra JV removed from the enemy. The higher agility the target, the bigger difference it seems to make (the proton torpedoes are less likely to get completely swamped on a roll). Note that the assumptions related to the primary having a focus as the substitute action as well as the weights assigned to defender initial health being a uniform distribution are assumptions in favor of the proton torpedoes. I need to do a bit more analysis and make my tables less sloppy sometime this week. I am scared to look at the deviation, which is probably very high for low-hp ships.
I think my initial guess that proton torpedoes should be worth 1-2 points instead of 4 feels a little bit vindicated, but it is difficult to say what something *should* be priced compared to just these numbers. Knowing that FFG is probably hiding the cost of the torpedo slot in the cost of the ships that bear them, I'd almost feel comfortable to say that they would be fine at 1 point each (if it had to be an integer) for the upgrade itself, though such a change would be fairly radical and difficult to convincingly justify. (and possibly make the b-wing a little too happy)
MajorJuggler reacted to this -
The x-wing from generics to uniques need a trick to either break it out if the jousting archetype, or gain more efficiency in the jousting archetype, and the upgrade needs to be cheap enough to be worth having.
Right now, it is put squarely in the joust category with no repositioning actions out of the box. In that category, however, it has a sub-par efficiency.
Let me put this in perspective: the generic rookie x-wing has 88.3% joust efficiency. This efficiency is beat by the efficiency of btl-a4 ywings, refit awings, bwings, z-95s, tie fighters, the upcoming new tie advanced, tie interceptors (yes, even generic), tie bombers (sad, isn't it), lambdas, ACD phantoms, M3-a interceptors (with or without title), and ig-2000.
Generally, they are beating only the turret ships, generic firesprays, star viper, defender, and ewing. None of these are quite the same role as the x-wing.
To be flat out beaten in their own role by the more maneuverable ships is pretty damning. I just don't see the assertion that they are fine being a position that is defensible. The question is of course, how do we fix it?
-
Not a good idea for being available on all ships/pilots. Also those numbers are poorly valuing what they are debuffing.
They did this "negative cost" upgrade idea already with the a-wing, and they pseudo-copied the idea for scyks (both make the ship cost 2 points more expensive to keep your secondary weapon slot). I don't think these options are bad for repeating the design philosophy to 2 different cards, but are bad because they fail their purpose: to allow you to build these ships for multiple roles. Scyks are not an efficient option without the title when compared to z-95s; how many players do you see doing well with scyks without the title (heck, even with the title--without the cannon)? Besides occasional proton rockets, how many a-wings are doing well and carrying missiles? The ships end up generally type-cast despite these "options".
-
Yeah that looks like what I have at the top of post #122.
The processing time is why I calculate HitCritPDF() just once and then index into it later. The iteration of calculating rounds to kill is actually the slowest part for me, but that also has to do with dynamically reallocating memory (lazy programming).
Edit: I just noticed the other half of your post. I'll try and elaborate later.
I revisited my scripts to do some debugging for insight. I looked at the runtime for the HitCritPDF calculations and learned what was in front of my face the whole time: the longest calculations seem to be the zero-hits and zero-crits cases, the next longest are zero-hits non-zero crits cases, and the non-zero hits case being the quickest. Before I realized this, I was getting alarmed stepping over the HitCritPDF() function while calculating the entire array; the slowest calculations are all being done first.
In the zero hit and zero crit case, for each possible evade result, the function was summing the probability of all hit and crit possibilities beneath the number of evades (the permutations of which become more numerous with a higher evade result). If I had been more clever and farsighted, I would have made a cumulative function for attackdice that was desensitized to difference between hits and crits. It would certainly cut down the the number of operations in the calculation. Non-zero crits and zero hits might not be so simple to resolve, but has fewer permutations I'd wish to lump together. Regardless, it is indexed for use in other calculations anyways.
So the slightly more interesting insight is that calculating JV of a ship at different levels of healthiness shows what we had already touched upon briefly before; the first few points of hull/shield damage done are a small portion of a ship's worth.
These are numbers for MeanRTD() of a tie fighter converted to its JV (maybe an approximation, as I am not adjusting crits on hull still). When the tie fighter loses its first hull, it is at 66% of its full health, 72.8% of its full durability, and 84% of its full joust value, which shamefully reminds me of this Neil Patrick Harris quote. Even at 1 hull, 33% of its full health, 50.3% of full durability, it has 68% of its full joust value.
These numbers are cute and all, but does the math agree with intuition? I'd say so. These exercises are not considering playing for points-destroyed in a timed-tournament environment, but if my tie fighter has even 1 hull, it has considerable value firing at full strength and drawing at minimum of a single shot to destroy. When selecting targets from the other side of the table, I am going to make shots that are likely to remove the most value from the field--the ships closest to death that I am likely to kill.
MajorJuggler and Oenomaus reacted to this -
Well if you take numbers straight from MJ's tables and equations,
Pjousting = {Expected Damage Output} * {Expected Durability}
Ptotal = Pjousting * {Non-jousting coefficient}
jousting value = 12*( Pjousting(1 / 1.85) + (1/150)*(Pjousting(1 / 0.8) - 1) )
total value = 12*( Ptotal(1 / 1.85) + (1/150)*( Ptotal(1 / 0.8) - 1) )
We need to know a 3-attack a-wing's expected damage output, durability, and its non-jousting coefficient
Tablewise the "standard meta" numbers are:
expected damage output:
3-dice: 1.7058
expected durability:
A-wing: 1.336
non-jousting coefficient:
A-wing + Refit (vs PS): 1.071 1.078 1.085 1.092 1.099 1.106 1.113 1.12 1.127So the joust value becomes: 18.87Total Value for ps1(with refit) is: 19.60If you subscribe to keeping the joust efficiency the same, you can take the JV/.938 of the PS1 pilot and get 20.12 points (with refit)MajorJuggler reacted to this -
You could use a lambda/fringer/ORS with tactical jammer.
Then be a big jerk and put biggs behind it.
-
Dutch and any imperial ships without targeting computers.
And throw in vessery with them just because.
-
New calculations for HitCritPDF including the assumptions in post #122
Calculation speed is starting to get noticeably slow. Probably because the assumptions multiply the number of loops by 4 and some change for reroll calculation. Time to index.
e: Just indexed HitCritPDF and calculation speed is up quite a bit. The shots to kill distribution for the tie fighter matches the one in your post #122. For the critical hit adjustment mentioned in post #3, would you mind elaborating on that? Is it enough to count the (crits on hull)*(probability) and calculate the average damage intake from there?
-
Here's what I get (with the assumptions you ran) for shots to kill:
100* DurabilityPDF_3_3_0{2} =[9.3470 18.7668 19.3426 16.2045 12.1966 8.5860 5.77103.7489 2.3721 1.4699 0.8954 0.5377 0.3190 0.18740.1090 0.0630 0.0361 0.0206 0.0117 0.0066 0.00370.0021 0.0012 0.0006 0.0004 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001]Looking at your picture, I think we have the same thing. It might be off a little depending how you handled HLC.
These numbers do in fact match mine, which relieves me of my doubts in the RoundsToDestroy() code. It appears that to make data that would match, I could probably redo my HitCritPDF() function for the more advanced action economy and expect it to work properly.
My functions definitely need some technical refinement before I do a quantity of calculation. I have been writing them in javascript and testing them in a spreadsheet, which is not the best environment for calculation speed but pretty quick for acceptance testing and making pretty pictures of the data.
MajorJuggler and Baron Soontir Fel reacted to this -
After Completing a RoundsToDestroy script, I realized that something may be off. I tested the mean rounds to destroy in comparison with a few ships. The normalized numbers were very close, but not quite equal to your numbers (1.8799 for tie defender, 2.208 for the firespray, 1.17 for x-wing). I still need to add the adjustment to critical damage weight, though.
A pretty picture:
Oenomaus and MajorJuggler reacted to this -
Just completed a HitCritPDF() function for damage/critical damage given an agility. Lots of for loops. Tomorrow I will try to convert to the Mean rounds to destroy.
I would check your math, but I'm not sure what your function inputs are.
I wrote a function that is input a desired damage and critical damage (the rows and columns of the table above) as well as the agility of the defender. The result should be the probability that a shot will inflict that desired damage and critical damage (after canceling attack dice results by defense dice).
For now, I have the "standard" meta assumptions as you have specified in post #3 (range, attacker, focus availability for attacker and defender) inside the function, but they would be easy for me to change if it became interesting enough for me to do so. For now, I am happy with trying to recreate the method.
Does that table not agree with your HitCritPDF array for agility 2 defender and std meta assumptions? I haven't had time to check my math thoroughly so far, mostly I was happy that the resulting table summed to 100%.Looking at the script, again, I realized I did not turn critical results to hits from the HLC case. My remedy is to just duplicate the attackdice function with different math accordingly.Does this table agree with the array you would have for the probability density function for the damage that an agility 2 ship will suffer from one shot?
e: I apologize for bugging you on this, I simply feel the need to unit-test my attempts to make the computer spit numbers at me.
MajorJuggler reacted to this -
Just completed a HitCritPDF() function for damage/critical damage given an agility. Lots of for loops. Tomorrow I will try to convert to the Mean rounds to destroy.
Punning Pundit and MajorJuggler reacted to this -
Analyzing a one-off attack is fundamentally different since it doesn't deal continuous damage, but rather a one-time damage boost. For starters, you have to look at the damage difference between the expected damage from the secondary attack and the expected damage from a primary attack at the same range with the same action economy.It's a good idea, I will have to think about it some more. Using the jousting value curve might be a better idea, but now your answer depends on how much health your target has. The simple way to analyze ordnance is to figure out the damage delta and then multiply that by the target ship cost, divided by its hit points. So for example if shooting a TIE with a secondary weapon yields an extra 1 hit of damage on average, then that would be worth 1*12/3 = 4 points. I have some preliminary results using this method that I have not published. This is also much easier to calculate than full jousting values, so I'm a little surprised that nobody else has actually sat down and done this yet.
The insight that I am looking for is, "If I put on ordnance, how much additional damage-in joust value-do I inflict for that single attack?" I can calculate how many additional hits I can expect during that attack, but that means little to me if I don't relate it to a value. The 0.43-0.68 additional average damage from proton torpedoes to a decimator from an x-wing or b-wing is certainly not worth 4 points (the simple way says this is ~1-1.5 points, probably depressingly less when using the JV-curve). Maybe 0.97-1.26 against an interceptor is. The simple method is simply unconvincing to me, though.
Moving the calculations to the JV curve, as you say, demands we know the health of the target(and range, agility, focus, etc.). An approach I suggest would be to test for how much JV is decreased by an attack for each level of health the target may have (possibly weighted, but this is already a large quantity of calculation) and find the mean. Do this for the primary weapon (with same action economy) and the ordnance and find the difference in JV removed from the target. Throw a bin of meta-specific targets into this calculation and you can get an idea of the value.
Maybe I am crazy, but I seriously think proton torpedoes, for example, would be fine at 1-2 points, but obviously I need to do the calculations.
I sat down last night and started on some scripts recreating your durability calculations. I have done some of the simple dice math in tables before, but I made a pair of independent PDF functions for attack and defense dice, respectively. Next on the to-do list is making a script that will loop through the PDF functions multiplying the probability of an outcome by its weights (in range, attack dice, attacker/defender having focus/etc.). Probably index those results, as it is not often changing, but going to be used a lot.
Punning Pundit and MajorJuggler reacted to this -
I am curious about the probability density formula you used for expected durability. I'd like to calculate what JV or even ship value is left after a ship takes damage or is affected by a change in agility.
This insight could be used to appraise the values of ordnance, think on the margin for damage done by value, and even be made a tool for tracking value throughout a match.For example, a PS1 Tie Defender at full shields has JV of 23 by your calculations.
(Pjoust=1.91*1.7058, etc.)
Once he has lost his shields, his durability is that of a Tie Fighter (Pjoust=1*1.7058)
From your equations, his JV becomes 16.09--still 70% of the jousting value he had at full strength having lost ~7 JV. At 76.6% joust efficiency, that damage to the shields was worth ~9 points.
Another example, more on the margin, a PS1 E-wing starts with 21.1 JV and 78.3% joust efficiency.
(Pjoust=1.639*1.7058)
After the first point of damage dealt to him, his durability is that of an A-wing (1.336)
His new JV is 18.87, 89% of his joust value still on the table. His loss of 2.23 JV divided by his efficiency makes that first shield point worth 2.84 points.
I don't really know what the calculation is for expected durability for numbers in between (tie fighter left on 1 hull, z-95 without shields, etc.), as I have not put in anywhere near as much work as you have done, and statistical/probability analysis is not what I do all that often
. Would you mind explaining the formula in more detail?MajorJuggler reacted to this
My friend needs help countering TIE Interceptors
in X-Wing
Posted
I wouldn't agree completely. You can use Boba's ability to get rerolls and shoot a target outside range 1. Perhaps the enemy in range 1 is touching bases, is out of arc, or trying to make Boba switch targets. I think that the HLC could be a defensible upgrade given that Boba in practice is not super great fighting other big ships 1 on 1 without a bit of an offensive bonus that can work outside range 1, but an argument could be made in favor of another pilot if PS 8/10 is not that desirable in your firespray.