Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About punkUser

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

508 profile views
  1. Few more things today: Added equivalent ability to do bonus attacks to the Advanced Calculator via the "Use Previous Attack Tokens" switch. When enabled the simulation will maintain all the token states from the previous attack (i.e. whether you spent focus or not and so on) so in essence it will act like a "bonus attack" from the same ship. Note that you have the power to completely change the second attack in this forum (even changing pilot ability and so on) in ways that don't really represent the game, but it seemed pointless to restrict that on the "Advanced" form after all. It simply hides the various token-related inputs to avoid confusion. Increase number of attacks on the Advanced Calculator to 10 to handle VTG-spam type cases. There's a UI length cost to this of course, but again it's the "Advanced" form after all. Added presets for VTG Ion Y's to the Preset Calculator dropdown menu for convenience. Mostly UI changes but as usual let me know if you see any issues. Note that it's fairly easy to accidentally miss a token or field when filling out 9 attacks (with some inheriting tokens and some not) but that's the nature of the beast. The Preset Calculator is likely going to be the simplest way to play with the common bonus attack situations.
  2. Been a while but got a chance to add a couple more things today: Preset form now supports bonus attacks. The key difference vs. just making a separate attack is that attacker tokens are maintained between the regular and bonus attack. Now you can test double tap y's vs. hate vader and other fun Added some additional presets The plan is to expose similar functionality in the main calculator but via a different UI (likely an option to maintain tokens from the previous attack). Given that the UI was cleaner and more intuitive on the Preset calculator in this case I elected to expose it there first. As with any new functionality give it a try and see if you run into anything that seems wrong. Feel free to report issues here or via GitHub. Enjoy!
  3. Right, it's really just UI. The simulation is fully general to arbitrary sequences of attacks with arbitrary modifications on both attacker and defender with maintaining or resetting tokens however you want in between each. The question is just how to expose the useful cases in a way that makes sense from a UI perspective to someone who isn't necessarily a programmer I think we've hit a decent balance with the current tools (preset/advanced calculators, "durability", how to modify, etc) but there's always room for improvement. To some extent the purpose of making it open source was so that people could run arbitrary queries through the simulation without having to worry about the UI part. A decent amount of effort actually went into ensuring that the code interface to the simulation is simple and robust and separate from the UI part so that people could easily just grab the simulation core and run whatever they want through it. Alas it doesn't seem like anyone is using much of that (at least no one who has told me), including even the other programmers who it was targeted at. There's even some folks doing larger analyses where directly calling the sim would be ideal but instead they are doing it via manually copy-pasting results from the online tool :S Sometimes being lazy is actually a virtue in the programming world Long story short, arbitrary sequences of attacks where the attacker sometimes maintains tokens and such are definitely possible (you may recall they were there in the 1.0 calculator from the start since gunner-effects were more common) but so far have fallen below the benefit:UI complexity threshold in 2.0.
  4. Right that was true in 1e but Iden actually changes things a fair amount. To be honest I don't think it really matters because I think it's clear that no one wants to run Tie Swarms (despite their whining pre-2.0) and so the chance of swarm mirrors - let alone teching for swarm mirrors - is low
  5. If you don't lose any ships in the initial engage you're probably slightly better off with the 7... but that's unfortunately a bit of an if. Assuming a pure R2 engage and assuming gideon gets to trigger (realistically he will shooting last vs. tie fighters), there's a ~64% chance (http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi_preset/?d=gwAAQAAAAAAA&a1=AQM&a2=AQM&a3=AQM&a4=AQM&a5=AwM&a6=AwM) you lose a tie before the bulk of your guys fire. If that's howl, it's game over of course whereas that is nearly impossible with the named swarm. If it's another tie you're probably still at a disadvantage at that point as you're the same ship count with worse ships. If you end up with a partial R2-R3 engage that's less likely though and in that situation I don't think it's clear where the advantage lies. Agreed more bodies is nice once you get into "no actions" territory, but after the initial engage so many ships are k-turning that it's not as if you have a ton of ships getting both actions *and* good shots as well. And it's really hard to give up those `1-2 3 die shots... they're hugely better than even double modded 2 dice and almost required to threaten certain aces. TBH I haven't played the mirror enough to say for sure either way though... tie swarm mirrors aren't very fun and no one is flying swarms anyones so it hasn't come up much
  6. You're not wrong, but it's sort of asymptotic That said, I've still never really gotten the love of any of the prequel ship designs. They're not as offensive as "LOOK GUYZ WE CAN DO REFLECTIONSSZZZZ. RAY TRACING IS COOL RIGHT", but they're just "fine" for me. Interceptors are still the best. Most pointy bits wins final salvo rules when?
  7. Never heard that... it's pretty easy to fly regardless at the start and once **** hits the fan 6 vs 7 doesn't make much difference in my opinion. The reasons why I fly 6 instead of 7 are mostly: 1) You can't not take Wampa. You need 3 dice for some stuff - especially after howl dies - and he also confuses their targeting priority somewhat. 2) Gideon is similarly solid especially later in the game. 3) Having everything but howl shoot at i4 (with double swarm) is good. Let's you defer Wampa and Gideon to shoot last which does slightly more damage, or pick activation order appropriately if you think a target might die or is only in some of your arcs, etc. 4) Del Meeko's ability is pretty solid and critically not R1 so tends to work nicely once you get into the crazy K turning madness mid-game phase where no one has any mods anyways. 5) You probably win the ~mirror vs. 7 tie swarm most of the time since you can init kill stuff. There's one case where i4 matters a bit. Certainly don't care about arc dodging at i4... it occasionally comes up but with just BR and ties really wanting to take some sort of offensive action most of the time it's not super relevant.
  8. Right, it's hard to overstate how warping initiative-killing is on the ability to cost things appropriately. I personally wish they had entirely done away with it in 2.0 rather than just make "bands", but certainly that would have been a more fundamental change. But indeed the fact that one or even more generics can get wiped off the board before even getting a return shot is part of what warps the notion of "efficiency" squads being able to counter aces with deep bids. Obviously if I have *so many more* ships than you that I don't even care if I lose one or two before they shoot you can still swing the pendulum *eventually*, but I think it's clear that having 1-3 more "efficient" ships than a strong triple ace squad is still not enough since by the time you're into turn 2-3 of combat you are usually looking at pretty even numbers again and the aces are just hilariously better ships. Iden is the only really solid counter to this problem, and honestly we still haven't seen Tie Swarm do particularly well so far competitively compared to aces. And even in Iden squads people tend to run the named guys with abilities rather than "generic efficiency" because the abilities (read: sometimes I can throw 3 dice! but 2 dice totally matter guys, believe me :P) are almost always worth it even over another body.
  9. Right. I'd argue that "right now", all of the higher init generics are basically wasted points, other than cases where you "need" to waste those points to get a talent slot for a talent that is - by definition now - too cheap (trick shot, juke). The fact that only i1, i5 and i6 matter much right now doesn't *have* to the case, but conversely I don't see it changing any time soon. FFG doesn't seem to want to give us i5/i6 generics, nor restrict powerful pilot abilities to lower initiatives. Thus even if we do have a few powerful abilities on i1's and i2's, the fact is you can "have it all" and get an i5/i6 with a great ability, and many of those pilots/abilities/chassis get stronger at high initiative as well, making it a pretty easy win-win. It's not shocking that this is the majority of what we're seeing fielded even outside the "I'm an ACE" effect. FFG certainly *could* price these super-aces through the roof, but it seems pretty clearly by design that stuff like Luke, Poe, Boba, Vader, etc. feels strong in all aspects *and* sees significant table time. Given that, I'm not sure how we really dig out way out of the "generic initiatives don't matter" situation, and realistically I can't call FFG wrong for the balance they have struck here since I imagine the current setup appeals more to the majority of players. I'd personally be curious in a balance that was more about powerful abilities on low initiatives and high initiatives "just" getting the board knowledge advantages. That seems much easier to balance against one another than trying to figure out how valuable ex. Luke is against all combinations of 1-7 Tie Fighers then trying to pick a middle-ground that works "okay" for both the start and end of the game... Unfortunately there's significant thematic issues with that solution so I doubt we'll see it. This is one of the reasons why I think people need to get over the notion that there's some sort of "one correct/balanced price" for things. In reality there are tons of covariant factors in the game that prevent this simple notion of pricing being the case. For almost every case where someone can come up with a clear example where something is the "wrong" cost, you can come up with another one where it's clearly "wrong" in the other direction. At a certain point you have to accept that most upgrades for instance need to just be priced for somewhere just under their peak utility... that means they are going to be garbage on a lot of ships and stapled to a few still, but that's okay. And no, variable pricing is not the solution to everything...it's tempting, but the "there's no true correct price" argument strikes even more fundamentally the more you try and break things up; you're just creating the illusion that you have some idea of the complex optimization space. Let's be real for a second: the most important thing is that the meta gets shaken up every once in a while. All our grandiose notions of "everything is viable" (and don't try to define what that means too clearly else it falls apart) don't even pass the smell test in hyperspace, let alone extended. Honestly if every few months we just got a points update that randomly increased and decreased most upgrades by a few points with a bias based on how commonly it was fielded, that would probably accomplish the goal nearly as well as whatever the process is now
  10. I started running it with baffle to avoid this to some extent. Not currently hyperspace but using the deci's HP as a resource to be less predictable is usually a good strategy You can get by without Tua with Dauntless, but it's really nice to have an much more reliable. Agile gunner is just on that line of something I probably want as well but don't like having to pay the cost for
  11. I know but you can't consistently jam all of that off of 2 upsilons with 3 ships; even with 4 it's not super likely if they have evade tokens. And again where do you end up from this? You've done literally zero damage to their list and likely still lost a ship (or close to it at least) for your trouble since you probably had to spend focus on attack to get to this point as well. I think I'd still take some progress on one of the upsilons TBH There's some even more niche edge cases perhaps with Tavson since jam doesn't trigger his ability, but we're so deep into "not worth thinking about" at this point I think the point has been made...
  12. You don't strip both focus and lock a large percentage of the time in one shot... in fact if that's actually better then the ups just spends an evade and you never do. And even if it only has reinforce you only strip 2 tokens 26% of the time.
  13. Give that a try on the board 10x and see which works better And then listen to the mynock episode psychology portion on loss aversion I don't think stripping their focus and/or lock is gonna be worth how much further you still end up behind them at the start of the game...
  14. Right and the common case is only stripping reinforce: http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi_preset/?d=gUABAAAAAAAA&a1=AgM There's a ~15-20% ish chance of them spending a token anyways to avoid a second jam (equivalent), but a bunch of the token spending there is also likely tied up in the 15% (!) chance to straight dodge the jam shot as well. Obviously if it gets dodged it would have been the same either way, but it does skew the "jam" results because in 15% of those cases they'd *still* have the reinforce. Like you said, it's so close though that I'm happy to just round it to "never" and avoid tempting people to make bad choices. Beside the "it takes up weight in my backpack and board space" arguments are indisputably strong in comparison to its value
  15. No, the front 3 die is not a [mobile arc] attack so can't trigger off of VTG.
  • Create New...