Jump to content

punkUser

Members
  • Content Count

    305
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    punkUser got a reaction from Npmartian in EA’s Star Wars Squadrons   
    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.
     
  2. Like
    punkUser got a reaction from Memorare in I tested my dice...   
    Check out the results:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1alv05cXh0WhNaFPoq3LNzxmv6veurf6utV1kMQAYDQw/edit?usp=sharing

    2019-09-10: Updates in the document and comments here: 
    .
  3. Thanks
    punkUser reacted to Destraint in Dice Probabilities   
    There's an online dice calculator which will do for pretty much anything you want to calculate: http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/
  4. Thanks
    punkUser got a reaction from Archangelspiv in I tested my dice...   
    Do you really find this semantic distinction you're trying to make a stimulating conversation here? People are politely pointing out that it's a really poor argument about the intentions of the tournament regulations when weighed against its presence in the regulations in the first place, but if you want that spelled out there you go
     
    Respectfully you've said your bit on this now and anyone who was going to be convinced has been. Can we all perhaps take the "tournament RAW" discussion to another thread at this point to leave this one open for actual discussions of the article and impacts here? I'm fine with continuing to discuss whether dice sharing itself makes sense as that is one of the recommendations in the article, but I don't think arguing semantics of the current tournament rules is appropriate.
  5. Like
    punkUser got a reaction from nitrobenz in What's an "average" roll on 3 attack dice?   
    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.
  6. Thanks
    punkUser got a reaction from nitrobenz in What's an "average" roll on 3 attack dice?   
    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
  7. Thanks
    punkUser got a reaction from Husum in I tested my dice...   
    Check out the results:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1alv05cXh0WhNaFPoq3LNzxmv6veurf6utV1kMQAYDQw/edit?usp=sharing

    2019-09-10: Updates in the document and comments here: 
    .
  8. Like
    punkUser got a reaction from Mattman7306 in I tested my dice...   
    Check out the results:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1alv05cXh0WhNaFPoq3LNzxmv6veurf6utV1kMQAYDQw/edit?usp=sharing

    2019-09-10: Updates in the document and comments here: 
    .
  9. Haha
    punkUser got a reaction from PaulRuddSays in What's an "average" roll on 3 attack dice?   
    How much money? Asking for a friend.
  10. Haha
    punkUser got a reaction from Aiwarikiar in What's an "average" roll on 3 attack dice?   
    How much money? Asking for a friend.
  11. Like
    punkUser got a reaction from Antipodean Ork in I tested my dice...   
    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?
  12. Like
    punkUser got a reaction from theBitterFig in What's an "average" roll on 3 attack dice?   
    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" 
  13. Haha
    punkUser got a reaction from theBitterFig in What's an "average" roll on 3 attack dice?   
    How much money? Asking for a friend.
  14. Thanks
    punkUser reacted to Jeff Wilder in What's an "average" roll on 3 attack dice?   
    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.
  15. Like
    punkUser reacted to theBitterFig in What's an "average" roll on 3 attack dice?   
    No, it was a physical experiment.  A machine (well, a few different machines) to roll dice lots and lots and lots of times.
    OK, so magic?
    Small sample size, so my results in any turn, in any game, won't match the theoretical averages.  But that doesn't mean that the theoretical likelyhoods of the different outcomes are somehow inaccurate.
    That's just small sample size.
    I thought you said variance and not median.  Those are very different things.
  16. Thanks
    punkUser reacted to Brunas in What's an "average" roll on 3 attack dice?   
    If only someone had done a rigorous testing and modeling of xwing dice and dice of other types, to see how effectively random xwing dice are
  17. Like
    punkUser got a reaction from jagsba in What's an "average" roll on 3 attack dice?   
    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) 
  18. Like
    punkUser got a reaction from jagsba in What's an "average" roll on 3 attack dice?   
    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.
  19. Thanks
    punkUser got a reaction from jagsba in What's an "average" roll on 3 attack dice?   
    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
  20. Like
    punkUser got a reaction from 5050Saint in What's an "average" roll on 3 attack dice?   
    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.
  21. Like
    punkUser got a reaction from theBitterFig in What's an "average" roll on 3 attack dice?   
    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.
  22. Like
    punkUser reacted to GreenDragoon in What's an "average" roll on 3 attack dice?   
    Going a little bit down the path anyway shows to me how arbitrary it gets. The assumption that not spending a token is better than spending one seems fair. Using that to further separate the results creates 7 buckets, sorted by decreasing likelihood:
    Most frequent result is then 3 hits with a spent focus (29.6%, CCF, CHF, CFF, HHF, HFF, FFF). All of these should be treated equally because it does not matter if you spend a focus for 1 or 2 or 3 eyes (corner cases excluded, Padme...) Followed by 2 hits with a spent focus (23%, CFB,HFB, FFB). Next is 2 hits without a spent focus. That is usually more desirable as per the assumption (18.75%, CCB, CHB,HHB). Then 3 hits without a spent focus. Clearly the most desirable (12.5%, CCC, CCH, CHH, HHH) Note that these 4 add up to the 84% from my previous post and make up the two modes of HH and HHH. Here I just separated them based on focus spending.
    Now it gets even weirder. If I continue the pattern, I have to treat 1 hit with and without spent focus differently to stay consistent.
    1 hit without spent focus is next most frequent (9.4%, CBB, HBB) 1 hit with spent focus (4.7%, FBB) And finally 0 hits (1.6%, BBB) These buckets are really arbitrary though, they have no meaning because I mix focus spending and not-spending.
  23. Thanks
    punkUser got a reaction from GreenDragoon in What's an "average" roll on 3 attack dice?   
    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.
  24. Like
    punkUser reacted to Jeff Wilder in What's an "average" roll on 3 attack dice?   
    @punkUser - Personally speaking, I'd like you to advertise whatever calculator you're talking about more explicitly.
    This is good stuff.
  25. Like
    punkUser reacted to theBitterFig in What's an "average" roll on 3 attack dice?   
    If we're treating Crits and Hits identically... So much nicer for fast math...
    HHF = 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.25 * 3 = 0.1875
    HHB = 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.25 * 3 = 0.1875
    HFB = 0.5 * 0.25 * 0.25 * 6 = 0.1875
    All equally likely outcomes.
    Indeed.  I'm loading up stuff on the calculator ( http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi_preset/ ) all the time, since that's really the most accurate way to evaluate stuff.*
    I still think Advanced Optics is kind of a special case of the HFB mental trap.  With something like Predator or Howlrunner, someone mired in HFB will think "Oh, I'll reroll the blank, and can still spend my focus," and while their process will be entirely wrong, their final destination won't be as far distant.
     
    * I only wish it could model the Autoblasters effect...
×
×
  • Create New...