Jump to content

punkUser

Members
  • Content Count

    305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by punkUser

  1. So like... what do you do for 2 die attacks? Pick your favorite die faces?
  2. What does this even mean? The mean of "what" distribution and how is that distribution being "visually represented" by - presumably - one sample from it? Why not HBB or HFF or any other individual result? But it *is* wrong and misleading, hence this thread. If you don't want to go "all mathematical" on streams that's great, but then don't make claims like your rolls are above or below "average" or this specific roll is "average". If people say things that are pretty wrong in ways that consistently cause folks to make bad decisions and rationalizations, I think we're well into the territory of where we're allowed to call them out on it To put it another way, if you say "my dice are bad" I'm definitely allowed to tell you "no they aren't" or at the very least "prove it"
  3. How much money? Asking for a friend.
  4. Krayt's and Fly Better folks do it frequently, but I've heard it on occasion on GSP or similar as well.
  5. Such a thing would not be terribly hard to do FWIW and has been discussed. I do think it's not too uncommon for people to do a quick gut check while commentating a game with the calculator though. Certainly a lot of streams I've watched have checked their assumptions with it. I think it's reasonable to expect people to only comment on the *results*, not the *roll* regardless of calculator use. Is it useful for someone to freak out when they roll 3 blanks, but then target lock it into 3 hits? Obviously not, no matter what you think of "either" "roll". This isn't just an edge case it's fundamental; the more people are thinking about "rolls" and the less about "results" the more likely they are to make largely erroneous statements and judgements. And while those sometimes benefit me on the table, they more often just turn into whining about dice which is simply tiresome. So yeah my advice (which I consider totally practical) will continue to be: stick to talking about whether Kylo was likely to take 2 damage there or less/more. If you can talk about how much he was likely to take that *turn*, even better. You can develop a gut feeling for that kind of thing the exact same way people *think* they have a gut feeling about raw rolls. And checking your gut after the game lets you improve it over time.
  6. Sure but when you go too far down this path the question just becomes... why are you doing this in the first place? In what situation are you trying to put some sort of "value" on a roll outside of the context of modifications available? Obviously there *are* cases where these things are not true and we can call them 'corner cases', but why are we even making all of these assumptions in the first place? What's the *actual* question being asked on specific terms? Usually when people go down paths like this it's because they have some sort of agenda and they want some sort of validation of Steps 1-3 of their process so that they can claim that their broad conclusions and statements they draw from Steps 4-10 are "mathematically valid". If you want a mathematically valid answer you first need to ask a mathematically valid question. Right but as you probably noticed when doing the exercise, the specific values you assign for these affects your conclusions, even if you maintain the ordering you defined above. I'm sure you agree this is a bit of a red flag and leads back to the question... what are we even trying to do in the first place? I'm being pedantic because this really needs to go a step further: players and commentators *should not be considering or commenting on the 'averageness' of raw rolls in the first place*, because that is precisely the misunderstanding that is leading to incorrect statements being made. It's not that we need to "fix" the specifics of how they are doing that, we need to correct the fundamental idea that "rolls" can be "average". So not to put too fine a point on it, but only results after modding can be "average" in this context, and in determining that you absolutely should incorporate *as much* information about the game context as possible (mods at a minimum, but even doing it across multiple attacks is more useful where no player agency would cause problems). It's tempting to try and generalize and simplify this in ones mind but seriously it's already quite simple: put the exact situation you are facing/that happened into the calculator with as much detail as possible. Look at where the result you got landed in the distribution of results and decide whether it was a reasonable expectation or not and whether [the player] should modify their decision making next time. That's basically it.
  7. Yeah, or just "HH" vs "H" even since how many blanks you have doesn't matter. i.e. you're counting results not looking at die permutations.
  8. Yep but it's worth noting that that applies to *every* case, not just specific mods. You can't pick a value that you consider representative out of the distribution of rolls then mod *that* and claim it is representative of the distribution of *results*. You have to apply your mods to *every* possible roll separately and then combine those *results* based on the probabilities of those rolls. Yes it gets tedious for anything beyond the simple cases. If only someone wrote a tool to automate it... (or is that too close to "advertising" on these forums)
  9. If your intention here is to convince people that talking about "the average roll" is nonsense in the first place, same team! If it's to instead shift the discussion to trying to argue that "no, HHB or some other result is actually the average" and thus I can feel validated complaining when I get (whatever thing I think is worse than that) then super nope - that's the same mistake about distributions everyone else is making. Ex. the frequency of HHB and HHF is identical, and indeed that's true for any permutations of blanks and focuses obviously. Assigning focus a "higher value" from the point of view of X-Wing is not really meaningful... either you have a focus mod you are willing to spend or you don't when you roll those dice. If you do then focuses are hits and you're rolling a 6/8 die. If you don't, they're blanks. Obviously rerolls and other mods factor into this too, but that's the whole point: the only meaningful thing to measure from a roll distribution is the results *after modding*, not the "roll" itself. None of this making up "values" for dice or results or anything else - it's a pretty simple probabilities and distributions. Usually when people get confused it's because they are asking questions or making assumptions that are fundamentally flawed. Ex. there's no such thing as an "average *roll*" (only average results), as you are pointing out here.
  10. I went over this on the Fly Better podcast about dice as well: the *average* is a property of a distribution of rolls. The average may not even appear in the distribution. The notion that a given sample from that distribution is "average" or something is almost always a misunderstanding. Also using any of this sort of data to try and decide if you think your rolls were "above or below average" is not meaningful outside of all of the context of the game, although I fully realize this a losing battle as no matter how well people know the math, they are going to continually find a way to blame something extrinsic for undesirable outcomes. That doesn't make it right or even a meaningful question though I will however request we not conflate the word "average" with *most common result*. We already have a word for that: the "mode" of the distribution. I'd also be remiss to not point out that there exists a tool that not only tells you the actual "average" number of hits for a given roll, but shows you the full distribution with fancy JavaScript interaction and everything. Feel free to use it to check your assumptions
  11. ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTAS
  12. Nope, I'm asking how! Hmmmmm. Maybe real world fighters should switch to gamepads! In reality gamepads are so horribly *imprecise* that game developers need to add heavy assistance and auto-aim to make them remotely playable. Do not confuse this with the input device being precise itself... joysticks are *far* more precise than gamepads (simple physics on that one... longer lever and all). Mouse is another story... it's quite precise but it's not really appropriate for 1:1 flying where you're looking for relative rather than absolute motion. Games like Battlefront 2 also make concessions to mice by adding some amount of gimbaling on weapons to make it playable as well. If you mapped your mouse axis 1:1 to relative pitch/yaw/roll it would similarly be unplayable. Where the developers land in terms of how much assistance to apply to the different methods is yet to be determined, but it seems clear they are gonna hit further towards "sim" than Battlefront 2 did. Obviously gamepad is going to be the primary target since it is the mass market, but it's certainly not impossible to have both gamepads and joysticks competitively viable. If you're not interested in a HOTAS though just use a gamepad and don't worry about it.
  13. You forgot the quotes around "puzzle". I personally resent the implication that there's anything non-obvious about what people are describing here For those of us who don't do it it's not because we didn't think of it; it's because we choose to play the game in the spirit in which it was intended. If the only goal is to win there's a lot of ways to do that that aren't within the spirit of the game's design and while there's certainly some grey area around "stalling", I personally think the floor rules makes the spirit of what they are intending clear, even without iron-clad objective criteria. Certainly opinions differ here and for people who think winning in X-Wing is super-important I'm probably not going to change anyone's minds. Thus my request is just that people stop thinking they are so clever for exploiting the win conditions in this way, and never try to convince anyone else that it's required to have fun and do well at X-Wing... it certainly isn't.
  14. Not to get too testy but I just want to point out for the audience that some of us do fine with both aces and swarms without planning and list building towards final salvo (or whatever other tie-breaker). If your goal is to win by any means necessary you can have that discussion with the judges of your events but there's a large space in which to play where both players go in with the intention of actually killing significantly more stuff - **** even *all* the stuff (crazy, I know) - where you can consistently make cuts and do just fine. I'm not going to go so far as "blame the players" here since clearly in an ideal world the game should not incentivize this sort of behavior on either side of the ace/swarm matchup, but I do feel it necessary to point out that you can do pretty well and have a lot of fun without meta-gaming the fun out of it for both you and your opponent entirely
  15. What? It doesn't give you an unimplemented strain token that doesn't show up anywhere in the UI? I'm truly shocked I do like you pointing out the line number where you want it to say strain + 1 though. If you feel like pointing out all the other places where it should do things if you have strain and what it should do in the form of a pull request, that would be appreciated too (Note that this should not be construed as an attempt to solicit help or anything from you :P).
  16. IIRC there's some edge cases that @Brunas just decided to ignore With reinforce the logic of how many and what tokens to spend actually gets a lot more complicated because there are sometimes/often two defense die results that both give you equivalent damage (i.e. 1 remaining hit after canceling or 2). With more reinforce tokens the number of cases that need to be searched gets even higher although there may be some opportunities for optimization. With crack shot it all goes to **** even more I believe at launch in 2.0 there was no way to get two reinforce tokens on the same ship so it seemed wisest to just dodge this whole issue. If it becomes something commonly seen we can of course reconsider...
  17. Oh no, is this the birth of Chris MAH THEME Allen?
  18. Good! But we're not done until the empty set is the most common *set* of upgrades for the majority of ships!
  19. Correct. In the case of the dice calculator they are probably going to just do a worse job anyways on paper or something. For ATC there's some additional argument to be made for saving them from data that is just going to lead them astray? Obviously there's metawing though so that's not entirely justified either. Also I've been told that the dice calculator is cheating so I can only conclude that meta stats are too.
  20. I agree that the thing to complain about here is amplifying how good moving last is even further TBH, not specifically Sun Fac (or B+ reflexes). That said, I think it's fair to complain that on the whole Wave 5 is moving in the wrong direction on that front. I also think if Sun Fac were just an "ace hunter", I wouldn't have nearly as much of an issue with him. If his ability was "instead of attacking, deal 1 damage to a tractored ship in your arc" or something, that's an actual "ace hunter". I'm sure some people would complain still (AUTODAMAGE IS THE ENEMY), but there's at least clearly ships that are way less worried about it than others. As it stands Sun Fac is basically a small base hunter. He destroys swarms just as effectively as he makes aces sad. He's somewhat less effective vs. medium and large bases especially with the rules changes, but I think most of us would like the game to continue to be primarily about small bases, with a few larger bases sprinkled in occasionally.
  21. Guys I made a thread with actual content and work, something which is perhaps rare in these parts... may I respectfully "request" that we keep the dice sharing rules discussion to another thread at this point since there's nothing more useful to be said that hasn't already been discussed?
  22. Yep, just 3d printed! I had to chop it into a zillion pieces because my 3d printer is small, but a larger 3d printer could do an entire compartment at a time. Happy to share the files as they are all pretty simple and just on TinkerCad: Full compartment: https://www.tinkercad.com/things/cMLOShcDIi1-dice-roller-compartment Compartment split into 3 parts: https://www.tinkercad.com/things/aWGpSsPeUCA-dice-roller-compartments-split Mounts for actobotics clamping hub (modify as appropriate for whatever mechanism desired): https://www.tinkercad.com/things/3652wpWv3xb-dice-roller-mounts Magnet bars for attaching the acrylic sheets (again, use whatever mechanism desired): https://www.tinkercad.com/things/6rYYpzPqxTr-dice-roller-magnet-bars There's a picture in the updated document that shows the completed roller box; should be pretty clear how it all goes together as it's not that complicated. Hope that helps!
  23. UPDATE TIME! I'll bet you guys never thought this thread was going to get necro'd, but a few minor updates to share. First, I redesigned the dice roller a bit to be more reliable (using a stepper motor primarily) and to do a better job keeping heavier dice tumbling nicely... the latter of which is so that I could test the new Gravity Dice X-Wing metal dice. Spoiler: they're fantastic and consistently fair! I also tested a pile more FFG core set dice (total of 20 of each color now). All of that is integrated into the document in various sections: FFG Red Dice Results FFG Green Dice Results Gravity Dice Results Dice Roller Version 2 stuff Slow motion video of new vs. old dice roller internal design with heavy dice I also made a graph of the official X-Wing red dice I've tested including the new Gravity Dice: Suffice it to say, I'm impressed! They're not cheap, but at least there's a high quality option now for X-Wing dice. Now we just need to get FFG to allow them in official tournaments... or better, official metal prize dice! That would actually be a *real* prize worth earning/paying for vs. the current palette-swapped-but-still-bad prize dice Anyways hope the update is interesting to folks. I'm done testing all the X-Wing stuff I can think of for now, but given that the v2 dice roller is working great I'm tempted to test some Chessex D6's now and see how the Warhammer crowd feels about whatever results
  24. For sure, but I'm not worried about margin, it's more a question of total potential profit. These card packs are something you can only sell to folks who already play/own the game rather than a way of expanding the player base significantly, so even if you have really high margins you can't sell them for a ton of money and thus the total amount you can make off of them is small. Put another way, your profit per item is likely still lower than a miniature, you only have a few different card packs and presumably there's no reason for people to buy multiples. Obviously it's FFG's business and they know best, just not sure it's the long term solution to variety that some think it is.
  25. My only worry with card packs is that they won't be able to make much money off of them. I guess we'll see what the pricing is like but sadly I can see the community getting upset if they cost much more than their impressions of how much printing cards costs, yet if we want to see this as a viable way to keep the game fresh it really needs to be reasonably profitable for them still.
×
×
  • Create New...