Jump to content

Scopes

Members
  • Content Count

    792
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Scopes


  1. 2 hours ago, LostFleet said:

    I really hope they don't change the mechanics of Armada,

    as a lot of people have said it is more mature compared to X-Wing. I don't mind a side app that automatically updates cards but I still prefer a lot of things on board physically available. Apart from card updates I think gameplay is great, as for improving the game, I think new objectives, new point systems ( for larger fleets and squadrons such as 600 point games) or time limitations per turns ( for tournaments) would benefit the game and would be enough. 

    What pissed me of yesterday was FFGs lack of transparency, if they didn't have new expansions for Armada why did they tease us?

    From the size of the forums ( 1.158.894 Xwing post vs 334.188 Armada posts) I can assume we area almost a quarter of X-Wing community ( or they have more time for chitchat) but compared to all other games FFG have Armada is in the second so they should pay attention to PR.

    I've been playing Armada for a month, and as of now, there is nothing about Armada I dislike. It's a much different (and in many ways better) game than XWM. I've been playing XWM since 2014, and I am not happy about 2.0. Not sure I'll keep going with that one. 

     

    I got into XWM because of the "Chessy" feel of the game at the time. Armada has much like what I loved and miss most about XWM: the rewards of good positioning and having good tactics. 


  2. 2 hours ago, LostFleet said:

    I really hope they don't change the mechanics of Armada,

    as a lot of people have said it is more mature compared to X-Wing. I don't mind a side app that automatically updates cards but I still prefer a lot of things on board physically available. Apart from card updates I think gameplay is great, as for improving the game, I think new objectives, new point systems ( for larger fleets and squadrons such as 600 point games) or time limitations per turns ( for tournaments) would benefit the game and would be enough. 

    What pissed me of yesterday was FFGs lack of transparency, if they didn't have new expansions for Armada why did they tease us?

    From the size of the forums ( 1.158.894 Xwing post vs 334.188 Armada posts) I can assume we area almost a quarter of X-Wing community ( or they have more time for chitchat) but compared to all other games FFG have Armada is in the second so they should pay attention to PR.

    I moved to Armada in part because the Armada Forum is just a better place. Fewer stupid clickbait threads and threads created for the sake of creating them. 


  3. You do this in jest, but just wait. Someone, somewhere, will cry for it to be done.  Somebody will create an OP combo with RO and then the cacophony will reach a fevered pitch. 

     

     


  4. I find it interesting that some on the left insist that the small donations from, say, the NRA (just as an example...) are enough to totally buy the loyalty of Republicans, yet deny that the maximum possible donation from their supporters (COO of Facebook, anyone?) are enough to buy them. Why do they imagine everyone is corruptible but themselves? I find it more likely that they are judging others by their own standards.


  5. 2 hours ago, elbmc1969 said:

    Yes and yes. Being in contact does nothing, and with squadrons you sometimes want to do it. (This is not X-Wing, ignore what you know from there.)

    It's almost impossible for two ships to end in contact, because you jump back to the last pre-overlap notch on the maneuver tool. You don't move as far as possible along the segment. (Again, forget other games.)

    Yes...my son and I had been playing that wrong until we re-read the RRG. Still, we had one last evening and decided to go ahead and attack. We guessed right.

     

    And man, you guys are right about XWM vs. Armada. I really like Armada more that XWM, and I like XWM quite a bit. Armada is a much different game and way more strategic and tactical. 


  6. 21 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

    At the same time 

     

    that comes under the “dial and token@ resolution if a command

    Okay, thanks. I also should specify that I interpret that to mean that if my printed squadron value is 2 (on the ship card),  the token + the command (which just activates the ability) makes it possible for me to activate up to 3 squadrons. Is that correct?


  7. Played my first two games (ever) of Armada yesterday...what  a great game!

    However, I have a question: 

    How many sets of 3 fighters do I  place for each squadron card? I flew Rebels both times last night.

    As you veterans know, the core set comes with only two Alliance squadron cards. Luke, and generic. Is it a "2 for 1" deal? I thought each ship stand of 3 fighters was itself a squadron.

     


  8. 22 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

     

    Note sure how you're computing that convolution, but it has to be wrong since the sum is equal to 2, not 1!

     

    Convolving 4 red dice with focus as blanks, with 4 red dice with focus as hits:

    conv([0.0039    0.0469    0.2109    0.4219    0.3164], [0.0625    0.2500    0.3750    0.2500    0.0625]) =

     [0.0002    0.0039    0.0264    0.0977    0.2163    0.2930    0.2373    0.1055    0.0198]

     

    What you really want to do is convolve your 4 red dice with the PDF of green dice. The trick is to realize that the first index on a 1-green-die PDF represents a successful evade roll, which counters a successful hit roll. That way when you convolve red dice and green dice, the rightmost indexes represent hits that get through. For example:

    1 unmodified green die = [0.3750    0.6250]

    3 unmodified green dice = [0.0527    0.2637    0.4395    0.2441]

    4 unmodified red dice = [0.0625    0.2500    0.3750    0.2500    0.0625]

     

    conv(4 unmodified red dice, 3 unmodified green dice) = 

    (0.0033    0.0297    0.1132    0.2372    0.2950    0.2179    0.0885    0.0153)

     

    The first three indexes represent negative net hits,. Lumping them into the 4th index (representing  0 hits):

    [0.3833    0.2950    0.2179    0.0885    0.0153]

     

    By inspection, the last index (4 hits) must be equal to (4/8)^4 * (5/8)^3 =  0.0153, which it is.

    So I <ahem> edited my post to reflect the knowledge gained and correct the error.

     

      


  9. 2 hours ago, MajorJuggler said:

     

    Yeah, still can't get at the link.

     

    The first five distributions for any paint are:

    1 dice: [0.2500    0.7500]

    2 dice: [0.0625    0.3750    0.5625]

    3 dice: [0.0156    0.1406    0.4219    0.4219]

    4 dice: [0.0039    0.0469    0.2109    0.4219    0.3164]

    5 dice: [0.0010    0.0146    0.0879    0.2637    0.3955    0.2373]

     

    None of these are symmetrical. You'll only get a symmetrical binomial distribution if you have a 50-50 chance for one result. You can proof this to yourself by deriving the general case binomial distribution from repeated convolution of the same dice result:

     

    1 dice: [1-x    x]

    2 dice: [(1-x)^2    2x*(1-x)    x^2]

    3 dice: [(1-x)^3    3x*(1-x)^2    3x^2*(1-x)   x^3]

     

     

    Oh, duh. Of course...yeesh.  We've been using the formula (nCr)(p^r)(1-p)^(n-r), which is the same as what you have above, but only doing it on a "term by term" basis, if that make sense (vs. your expansions). 

    Interesting side note: We generated Pascal's Triangle yesterday. My students  spent a few minutes looking (and finding!) some of the patterns hidden within the array. It was a neat review. 

    Your values are exactly the same as mine for the paints vs. non paints experiment. If I combine the two experiments, the distribution is symmetrical:

    4 dice: [0.0039    0.0469    0.2109    0.4219    0.3164    0.3164   0.4219   0.2109   0.0469   0.0039]

    My classes do the hits vs. misses experiment tomorrow as that's the binomial experiment, but I've enjoyed working on the other numbers. It's been a good review of the maths invovled. Thanks for your help!


  10.  

    14 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

     

    Site says I don't have access to download the PDF.

     

    If each die has a 50% chance of occurrence, then the binomial distribution is always going to be symmetric, it is just a question of how many data points there are. With an odd number of dice the binomial distribution has an even numbered length; with an even number of dice the binomial distribution has an odd numbered length.

     

    Specifically, the first 5 distributions are:

    1 dice: [0.5000    0.5000]

    2 dice: [0.2500    0.5000    0.2500]

    3 dice: [0.1250    0.3750    0.3750    0.1250] 

    4 dice: [0.0625    0.2500    0.3750    0.2500    0.0625]

    5 dice: [0.0313    0.1563    0.3125    0.3125    0.1563    0.0313]

     

    All are symmetric.

    Right, but my work (sorry if it isn't clear) is for 4 dice, paints vs. not paints. I'll try to upload the file again. Not sure why you got that message. 

    Binomial Distributions- 4 XWM Dice.pdf


  11. So...I was doing a little prep and thought I'd share. I found this work interesting. It's work done for an experiment looking at paints vs. no paints on 4 dice. 

    Obviously, the two sets display similar results, although the two graphs display data for different experiments. So, that brings me to my question: 3 dice (comparing hits to misses where a focus counts as a miss; see OP) can create a symmetric distribution (again, see the OP and his work for 3 dice, ignoring the stuff after it as that horse is dead), but 4 do not? I found that curious. Anyone have any observations/thoughts? I am certain I am missing something, but I don't see it. Sorry for the file quality. 

     


  12. 12 minutes ago, jbrandmeyer said:

    On a Command-2 ship, yes exactly.  If you have any software engineering background, the "command stack" is a misnomer.  It is actually more like a "command queue", with the write end being the physical bottom of the stack of dials, and the read end is the physical top of the stack of dials.  SFO pops off the read end of the queue.  Officer Leia Organa allows you to replace the element on the read end of the command queue, and so on.

    At the end of the Command Phase, every ship's command queue should be completely filled to that ship's command value.

    Ha ha! I teach computer science, and I was referring to it myself (in my head) as a queue rather than a stack!


  13. On 12/29/2017 at 5:05 PM, drjkel said:

    Step 1: get your kids to play x-wing 

    Step 2: reap the learnings that come from unlimited time and youthful obsession

    Step 3: profit! 

    And I'm barely joking here. My 8 year old is one of the best sparring partner I can think of. He doesn't stick to preconceived notions and he's always there, begging to play one more game. 

    I spent a whole summer thinking I wasn't getting any better 2 years ago, because our matches kept being more or less even. Then we went to a kit tournament (his first) and finished 2nd and 3rd (he was 2nd, at 6 years old). That's when I realised that we were both honing each other's skills very finely. So, I agree that you need a team, whatever form that takes. 

    Listener 4 gave me the kick I needed to teach him about probabilities, just to make it rational instead of feeling based. Why just this afternoon he found our expose token and asked what it was, he got excited when I told him, then I had him run the probabilities of expose vs a simple focus token. A few minutes later (with the help of an excel file for binomial distribution stuff) he goes "expose sucks, the only thing it's better at is the 6% chance of 4 hits!"

    Thanks Krayts :D

    My son is 12 now, and I have had a similar experience. Especially with the part I bolded. 

×
×
  • Create New...