Jump to content

Baltanok

Members
  • Content Count

    498
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Baltanok

  1. Not technically the livestream, but in the announcement articles on squads, the Republic is getting 10 squadron disks, 11 squadron cards, while the Separatists get 10 & 10. Not sure what the extra card without a disk means, (typo?) but I believe that means that each faction will get around 7-8 unique squadrons. (compared to 9 uniques for Rebel & Imperial fighters included in the 1st squadron pack) So, kind of including the Corellian Conflict aces in fighter pack 1.
  2. My brain short circuited for a second, and thought that the "Kraken" commander was based on the Kraken in Kerbal Space Program. I offer up the following (not serious) suggestion: KSP Kraken (Commander) While attacking, you may spend a number of dice showing a crit icon to destroy your target. You are also destroyed. The number of spent dice required to trigger this effect is: squadron or small based ship: 1 Medium: 2 Large: 3 (For those who don't play KSP, the Kraken is a bug that causes your rocket to suddenly break into its component parts, usually when loading a save)
  3. All Top 50% Top 25% Top 10% Winners Total Lists 752 398 214 100 42 Faction Rebels 42% 40% 37% 36% 33% Empire 58% 60% 63% 64% 67% Respectfully, I have to disagree with Rebels being more competitive. Now, we won't really have information about the impact of the Starhawk & Onager until we have a Prime season where both ships are available for the full season, and people have created counter-tactics for them. But as of the last Prime season, Imperials have a small advantage, in Prime-level tournaments. Still, as they say, rebellions are built on hope.
  4. Respectfully, I have to disagree. I can say nothing useful about X-wing, but Armada is more diverse now than it has been since we started keeping data. While max squads continues to overperform, the degree of overperformance is smaller than it's been since wave 4. Squadless is showing up & performing better than it ever has.
  5. Here's the thing. Your example is a computer game, where the developer can gather the results directly from the client, and see every detail. Also, balance adjustments can happen at a very fine level of detail. Compare Armada's balance to Warhammer and you've got a more fair comparison. Armada gets one wave released a year, roughly. Once released, game components are generally not adjusted unless they exceed some degree of imbalance, and they are only adjusted in function, not cost. Counters can be released, but then they take up valuable room in the new products being released instead of cards that introduce new dynamics. If FFG changed armada to: 1) allow adjustments to cards on a regular basis, including costs. (Annual card packs? digital apps?) 2) increased the ability to adjust cards to balance (multiply every cards cost by 10, and have a 4000 pt tournament fleet.) Then we could have a much more fine-tuned ability to balance the game. Think APT's are too powerful? Raise their cost by 5% or 10%. Skill floor/ceiling: Want a lower skill floor? Play Rebellion in the Rim, with only 1 upgrade per ship. The more interactions between upgrades, the higher the floor & ceiling become. Prime level play does need players to have a high level of skill. For Store Championships & seasonal kit tournaments, I've seen most of the regional level players show up with pretty janky fleets to avoid clubbing the baby seals while still having fun. RPS - I believe that the RPS model is much more of a player-created simplification than the actual balance dynamic. Everyone needs to plan for common fleet archetypes, without going too far into building counters for one common archetype & being very vulnerable to others. Note that when a given fleet type gets very prevalent, it tends not to get past the cut, but instead has a big pile-up in the center of the tournament scoring 6-5. Yes, you could build a fleet with tech to fight one archetype, and then you are choosing to play RPS. Or you could build up a flexible core concept that you can use to fight any fleet. Meta Age: Yes, people come up with counters mid-season & roll them out, and we're always seeing new trends that come up without any real trigger except people are now trying X. Data quality: Trust me, the people that collect the lists & enter them into the spreadsheet are very aware of the limitations of the data. If we had something like the player ranking system used in Chess, we could try to get a sense of how quickly new players train up to become contenders at the regional level. But maintaining that sort of ranking is a huge effort, needs official support, and can quickly become another barrier to entry. If we had a match-by-match record, we could evaluate a lot of things to a greater degree than we currently do. But it's hard enough to get full lists from a good percentage of the prime-level events. Trying to have people also record who played whom & what the outcome was for every match would basically require a full-time volunteer at every event.
  6. well, Max squads are outperforming. But few & no squads are performing as expected at the top 25% level, which is the level that I tend to look at to get a decent sample size. But, other fleets & upgrades are also outperforming. Jerry, Piett, MC80 Star Cruisers, Toryn, Brunson, 2-activation Imperial fleets*, and more. All are performing about 30-40% above expectations. (Less for the rebels if you compare to the overall population instead of the faction population) *remember that SSD & Strategic Advisor passes count as activations. So, this is probably an SSD, given the beating that imperial 2-ship took this year.
  7. while it does cover above primes, you are correct that the data is limited. One year, @shmitty did attempt to capture store championships, and the data was fairly substantially different. So, take the data with a grain of salt. I'd personally like to see Rebel MSU scoring a bit higher, and max-squads a bit lower, but I suspect that if I looked at the previous data, the prime season just ended was probably one of the most balanced in years. And of course, the next big shakeup will be Clone wars, which is likely to have a huge effect. Other than whoever the playtesters are, nobody has any real idea what that's going to do.
  8. Agree with Astrodar's first sentence. Everything after that, not so much. here's the data sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zLdqo9y47lqIKubfrEUKV8gX5t9Ee-XuemM4xbiB_8A/edit#gid=322361150 I think Truthiness might try to pull data out of the various vassal tournaments that have been happening during lockdown, but otherwise nothing new to tell us what the meta looks like. Personally, I'm starting up a Rebellion in the Rim campaign on Tabletop simulator with a friend, and super excited to play again. I haven't had a game since Baltasdottir started crawling, and she's 3 now...
  9. so, some quick & dirty stats: Imp/Reb 17/10 top 8: 4/4 Bottom 8: 5/3 SSD 5 of 27 fleets (#5, #11, 23, 25, 27) 2 large: 6 fleets 1 top 8, 2 bottom 8 MSU: 2 fleets both top 8 Thrawn: 6 fleets: 2 top 8, 0 bottom 8 0 squad: 8 fleets: 4 top 8, 2 bottom 8 Max sq (120+): 3 fleets, 1 top 8 Med squad (70-100): 5 fleets: 1 top 8, 2 bottom 8 small fighters (1-69): 8 fleets: 1 top, 4 bottom Go MSU!
  10. Welcome to Armada! I assume you also have the core set, which means that your fleets (without upgrades) look like: Rebel: MC80 Command Cruiser (106) Nebulon B Support (51) CR90B (39) GR75 (18) Xwing x 4 (52) Total pts: 266 Imperial Victory Star Destroyer (73) Quasar Fire (51) Raider (44) Gozanti (23) TIE Fighter x 6 (48) Total pts: 239 So, the Rebels have a 27 pt advantage on the base models. That can be compensated for with the right upgrade cards, but it does need to be taken into account when you & your opponent build fleets. Example: give the imps a VSD II instead of the VSD I, a more expensive admiral, and gunnery teams on the VSD. Ultimately, you will need to figure out what type of fleets you like flying, and buy models that enable a full fleet of that type. If you like fighters, buy fighter packs. If you like big capital ships with guns blazing, buy an Imperial Star Destroyer. If you like fast, nimble, gambler's ships, buy more raiders, hammerheads, or MC30s. Also, play the fleet size that you can support. If you can build a pair of 200 pt fleets that works around a common strategy, you'll probably enjoy flying that more than if you have two fleets that are built around the concept of "leave no upgrade behind."
  11. Accuracies need to be spent before the spend defense tokens step, so rerolling into an accuracy just saves you a damage. (Barring sw7 which don't apply to antisquad shots, IIRC)
  12. Where did you get the Godzilla? My mother-in-law has a garden gnome fixation, and that would make her very happy.
  13. OK, did a quick run through Pryce fleets- top 25% of pryce fleets vs bottom 25%, plus Non-pryce winning imps (NPWI) Successful Pryce fleets have less investment in ships (258 points) & more investment in squads (130) than unsuccessful Pryce fleets (ship 278, squad 110) or winning empire (323 ship, 69 squad) (note that ship investment points include upgrades & admirals, not just the raw durasteel tonnage) deployments not notably different, with all groups ranging from 5.8 to 6.0 deployments. Pryce is generally low activation (win 2.3, lose 2.8) vs winning imps (4.4) Also generally low flotilla, as would be expected from that activation average (0.3 vs 1.3 for NPWI) winning pryce is more likely to have medium ships (0.94 vs 0.44 NPWI), less likely to have Demo (0.2 vs 0.46 NPWI) (looks like Pryce likes quasars) Avenger is not notably different (0.5 vs 0.44) Hope that helps. I know that you asked about factors in tournaments, but making that sort of analysis is hard, without having some sort of tournament-wide metric that we could look at. (i.e. the Austin regional had average of 62 squads, while the FFG HQ regional had 75 average squad points.) Then I'd have to sort out tournaments which had pryce winning from those that pryce lost at. It's not impossible, but it would be a major undertaking, and unless we had a tournament metric that has significant variance, we'd probably end up with "minor differences between tournament fields - I got nothing useful to say."
  14. By picking evenly sized starting groups, it would be more obvious to the casual reader if high upgrades was a more successful strategy than average or low. It was a pretty standard technique in my stats classes to divide populations into quartiles or quintiles. I used the same brackets for guns vs carriers to make it easy to compare the two. reviewing the formulas, the brackets are all off by one. I used "less than" because "less than or equal to" is harder in excel, but didn't adjust when I wrote the brackets. Oops.
  15. To avoid clogging up @Truthiness's data collection thread, here's a separate thread... Based on an inquiry by @Rocmistro, I decided to look at how many points are generally spent on upgrades, and how those groups fare in competition: All Fleets <51 31 15 8 5 2 52-57 32 13 9 7 2 58-66 34 23 17 4 1 67-77 33 20 10 5 3 78+ 30 16 8 5 3 Gunboats <51 10 3 1 0 0 52-57 11 3 3 2 1 58-66 13 9 6 1 0 67-77 23 14 7 3 1 78+ 25 13 7 4 2 Carriers <51 21 12 7 5 2 52-57 21 10 6 5 1 58-66 21 14 11 3 1 67-77 10 6 3 2 2 78+ 5 3 1 1 1 So, the brackets were chosen to be roughly evenly sized. Carriers are 80+ points in squadrons & gunboat fleets have less than that. results: Not that informative. Very few fleets use less than 40 upgrade points or more than 95, with most between 52 & 77. But no particular tilt towards christmas trees or nudists in the winning brackets. Carriers tend to use fewer upgrades than gunships, but the people who brought upgrade heavy carriers or upgrade light gunboats did about as expected. I suspect that you could find some questions that might give clear results, like "do ackbar or vader fleets use few upgrades successfully?" but nothing that I feel that I could crank out in a hurry. another interesting question would be upgrade points spent on the ship with the most upgrades. (one big hitter vs two threats, etc.)
  16. I haven't run the numbers in detail this year, but I vaguely remember that 60-70 points of upgrades was reasonable. When I get home, and can use a real keyboard to look at the numbers, I'll write something up. Suggested measures? Upgrade % for top/all fleets: Carrier vs gunship fleets?
  17. Metrics that I have used in the past are: Top % - bottom % : tells me if a card is biased top/bottom Top% + bottom%: how skill dependent a card is Both of these could do with a representation weighting. The only person who brought Hera winning a regional is less significant than if 27 people brought Hera and all ended up in the top bracket. % of ship points spent on a specific ship variant:. Tells me which ships are being taken surprisingly often or rarely. Every rebel fleet taking an mc80 is more significant than every rebel fleet taking a cr90.
  18. One thing that I have done in the past is dump the file to excel and do specific analysis offline. Since I've just leveled up at work, I probably won't have time to do much of that this season, unless I get to take my work computer home. (Phrase I didn't expect to hear at work:. We just confiscated 15 horses from an illegal rodeo. Now I need to figure out the budget implications.)
  19. I misread that as "Goooooooooooal!"
  20. I probably should dig out the physical Jan card to be sure, but I don't see "unique" mentioned on palp or the faq version of Jan. For that matter, I can't see a reason that the Intel officer has to choose a defense token belonging to the defender. Just "choose a defense token."
  21. I do not want "teach the controversy" about the innocent crew killed aboard the death star, I do not want "Alderaan was an inside job" and I do not want to "both sides" Base Delta Zero. I do not know if I personally would have the courage to leave my wife a widow and my daughter without a father to fight an evil government. But I do want inspirational stories about fighting evil. And someone throwing grit in the gears of the Empire is a Rebel, just as much as someone flying an X-wing or planting a bomb. If someone wrote a character-driven story about an imperial bureaucrat issuing transit vouchers to Mon Calamari escaping to the outer rim, that would be an interesting story, but not "pro-imperial" in my book.
  22. Yes, yes we do. Wave 7 regionals: all fleets: 72 of 382 made it to top 4 (19%) All Imperial 37/155 (24%) At least 1 ISD 30/120 (25%) 2+ ISD 10/37 (27%) So, fleets with ISDs are more likely to end up in the top 4 than fleets without them. ISD's also appeared reasonably reliably in the top cuts in the tournaments covered by the overnight report. (thanks @Captain Weather) top 4 at one of (German, UK, US, Euro, NorthAm, or world champs) 10/24 have ISDs
  23. I believe he can now use his ability while a friendly ship is attacking during an enemy ship/fighters activation. Possibly combining QLT and Kallus to get a black anti-squadron die.
  24. Ms. Baltanok climbed up Mrs. Baltanok, then very deliberately pushed the power button on her computer. She is also super strong, so if Snipafist Jr needs a sparring partner in the Thunderdome...
  25. Do you want Regionals or majors? Counting the top4 lists from recent majors (worlds, Euro, Gencon, NoVa, UK, German): 11 rebel lists total, 7 with CR, 8 with Hammers. Major Imps: 9 lists, 1 with Raider, 4 with Arqs Rebels were also more likely to use multiples, with 8 lists using 2+, and 2 using 3. Imps only had 2 lists with 2 smalls (one pair of raiders at UK, and a pair of Arqs at Gencon) Regionals, wave 7: Rebel 29 top 4, 3 with CR, 3 with HH Imp 38 top 4, 6 with Raiders, 3 with Arqs Conclusions: At recent major tournaments, top rebel fleets used small combatants, to a significantly higher degree than imperial fleets. This is substantially different from regional wave 7, where relatively few top contenders used the smallest combatants.
×
×
  • Create New...