Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
jpltanis

Z-Swarm the new swarm meta?

182 posts in this topic

Not so sure howlrunner should be part of this discussion. A single pilot ability, no matter how good or OP, shouldn't be factored into what makes a better ship.

If we are doing so, wouldn't a more fair comparison be a howl swarm vs z95 assult missile swarm?

Ties are best when flown with howl.. And 95s are best when used as a cheap missile platform.

I'm certainly not saying I am right here, but I would take a 95 assault swarm vs a howl swarm any day.

I don't like the idea of needing a named pilot to make my ship effective. Yes, Tie fighters are amazing ships. But without howlrunner they are just not very scary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure howlrunner should be part of this discussion. A single pilot ability, no matter how good or OP, shouldn't be factored into what makes a better ship.

...

I don't like the idea of needing a named pilot to make my ship effective. Yes, Tie fighters are amazing ships. But without howlrunner they are just not very scary.

 

Okay, but the comparison is not the Z-95 vs. the Tie Fighter. It's the Z Swarm vs. the TIE Swarm. So, it's not what makes the better ship, the question is which ship makes the better swarm. Because Howlrunner is the heart of the TIE swarm according to the meta, then of course she should be factored into this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing to consider is that Etahn A'baht's pilot skill might even trump Howl's for swarm utility. Although you're paying so much for him naked, and potentially even more for upgrades to protect him, that maybe it doesn't. Also, you're no longer talking about a "pure" swarm at that point, since there's a non-Headhunter in the mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course once you consider Howlrunner you need to consider Blount. For example:

Blount, assault missile

Tala x6

vs.

Howlrunner

TIE fighter x6

10 points of upgrades

Now the imperial player has a difficult choice: make good use of Howlrunner's buff at the cost of having only 2 HP on all of their ships, or spread out to avoid splash damage and have trouble focusing on a single target while the ball of z-95s is free to blob up and smash its targets one at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just completed a few battles using 3-12pt Zs and 3-12pt Ties.  The Z wins pretty consistently (the higher PS is the difference).   I played the Zs and used X-wing AI application to control the Ties.

I am wondering, if others are seeing the similar results.  

I am pretty sure that the 8 Z vs 8 Tie (swarm vs swarm) will result in Z winning most of the times (due to the higher pilot skill) too.  If this is the case, I can see the naked Z-swarm being more formidable than the 8-Tie Academy swarm.   This in-turn makes the Z swarm more superior and perhaps the new swarm meta.

 

AI be damned the Z-95 Headhunters ARE the new swarm in X-WING.

:lol::D:P

VorackTheGrim likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure howlrunner should be part of this discussion. A single pilot ability, no matter how good or OP, shouldn't be factored into what makes a better ship.

...

I don't like the idea of needing a named pilot to make my ship effective. Yes, Tie fighters are amazing ships. But without howlrunner they are just not very scary.

Okay, but the comparison is not the Z-95 vs. the Tie Fighter. It's the Z Swarm vs. the TIE Swarm. So, it's not what makes the better ship, the question is which ship makes the better swarm. Because Howlrunner is the heart of the TIE swarm according to the meta, then of course she should be factored into this discussion.

That's fair enough. Like the phantom, its a difficult discussion to have. Better at what? Better how? Versus all lists? Versus each other? Ect..

There are many facets to such a simple questions.

I also feel I was wrong in using the term "best ship". That wasn't where I was headed but it was 2:30am and made a slip.

Edited by Nataris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need to be a statistician to appreciate that odds are calculable and give you a good idea as to the probability of doing a certain thing. What people are probably more upset about (which may be a strong word, but I'm not an English major) is how you are dismissing math as a factor when math is the core of how dice work. You need to trust those who have more education and experience in this matter. I've spent seven years in a university learning about math and science, and believe me when I tell you that the numbers don't agree with your assessment of the Z-95, and they aren't something you should brush aside. It shows a staggering lack of respect for the most fundamental of all the sciences, a science that has allowed the construction of enormous skyscrapers, 300-meter aircraft carriers, supersonic planes, 200mph cars, and other wonders of the modern world without needing to go with gut feelings or trial and error and possibly getting people killed in the process.

 

I know you don't care about the "maths" as you call it, but please stop disrespecting the hard work done by people to try and estimate the effectiveness of new units and find out what they're best suited for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You don't need to be a statistician to appreciate that odds are calculable and give you a good idea as to the probability of doing a certain thing. What people are probably more upset about (which may be a strong word, but I'm not an English major) is how you are dismissing math as a factor when math is the core of how dice work. You need to trust those who have more education and experience in this matter. I've spent seven years in a university learning about math and science, and believe me when I tell you that the numbers don't agree with your assessment of the Z-95, and they aren't something you should brush aside. It shows a staggering lack of respect for the most fundamental of all the sciences, a science that has allowed the construction of enormous skyscrapers, 300-meter aircraft carriers, supersonic planes, 200mph cars, and other wonders of the modern world without needing to go with gut feelings or trial and error and possibly getting people killed in the process.

 

I know you don't care about the "maths" as you call it, but please stop disrespecting the hard work done by people to try and estimate the effectiveness of new units and find out what they're best suited for.

1. I am well educated thank you. You have never met me so how can you make comments about my standard of education?

 

2. Saying I don't have much interest in the maths isn't disrespecting anybody. It says what it means, I don't like the game being reduced to statistics as I play it in a non tournament setting, that's my choice, I don't criticise those who see it differently. 

 

3. People getting killed building Skyscrapers? You are equating people dying with a game pushing pieces of plastic around? Are you serious? Really?? You weren't to know this of course but I'll be sure to mention this to my wife when I go to her resting place later. She died from a leukaemia so rare that only 400 adults in the entire country get it in a year, she was just 47, we had been married 18 months when it came, 11 months later she was called Home so you will forgive me if I don't put much faith in science, statistics and maths when it comes to dying or relate pieces of plastic to it! Trust me on this, it isn't the same.

 

4. I don't "need" to do anything, let alone trust an internet forum where people could be anybody and say anything. Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic. I will qualify that with the remark that this seems to be a forum full of decent, helpful people who give sensible opinions but nevertheless I don't "need" to follow anyone's advice or views thanks.

 

5. If people put hard work into a hobby then good for them but I didn't ask them to. I hope they got something out of it and they enjoyed it and I respect the positive use of their time, don't ask me to fall at their feet in gratitude for something I never requested though.

 

1. I never said anything about your education, but the fact that you dismiss math as a factor clearly indicated to me that you're a liberal arts major of some kind. The kind of math involved with this sort of thing is stuff that most people in the sciences learn in the first couple years of basic courses, so it shouldn't have been something you'd dismiss if you were a science major of some kind.

 

2. Having no interest in math and no interest in the work done by people to generate estimates are two different things.

 

3. *sigh* Now I *really* call your educational level in question. Have you never taken a logic or debate course? Because that's a red herring. I mentioned that to drive home my point that math is incredibly important and that you dismiss it entirely.

 

4. If you were educated enough to know the math, you wouldn't need to trust them. You'd know it from the math itself.

 

5. I'm not. I'm telling you to respect the amount of work they do and what it took to accomplish their goals.

Edited by Millennium Falsehood
Hinnyboy and Hobojebus like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1) The Z-95's dial is actually very average, slightly different from an X-Wing's, but no worse. Only three Rebel ships have a 1-hard maneuver (one of which is red, and another you're likely to pay over 42 points for), so that's not really a mark against the Z-95. Similarly, only two Rebel ships have a 5-straight. It does share a 3-K with both the A-Wing and YT. Again, the Z-95's dial is very average, but I count that as a good thing - especially since you're only paying 12 points for it.

 

I'll go out on a limb and challenge the assertion that it's no worse than an xwing' dial, and cite the 2 banks being green, over the 1 banks being green in conjunction with the 3 k turn. This makes the 95 more aggressive in range positioning out of a k turn, if you want to destress for an action. As the bank maneuvers after a k turn can be useful, but the 2 banks coupled with the shorter k put you a lot closer than you might like to be. The xwing will be further back, and have a little bit more time, using the 4k with the 1 bank for angle adjustment.

I can see there bing a counter argument based on play style perhaps, or that the z's weaker gun may merit a more aggressive positioning. Interestingly, I think the 2 banks as green, mean that the z flies better with an e wing companion....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found that 3-Ks are generally more advantageous than 4s, but that's just my personal experience. I don't think there's a hard and fast rule for which is better, 3 or 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found that 3-Ks are generally more advantageous than 4s, but that's just my personal experience. I don't think there's a hard and fast rule for which is better, 3 or 4.

 

You big green dummy!

:rolleyes: 

 

Everybody knows that a 4K is better... because TIE Defenders have a white 4K!!!

:D

VorackTheGrim likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the three vs four k, it's the addition of the 2 banks being green, if you want to change angle after the k (and destress) with a z95 you have to com back pretty much to where you started the k turn. In several on v one dogfights vs a tie, I often wished that it had a green 1 bank over the 2.

It's ok though, it makes the ship handle differently and I'm already used to it, but I definitely believe that it's a slightly worse dial for it, though it can be advantageous in pursuit of another ship. Consider a z vs an x against a phantom, the extra distance will help have a wider area of arc to catch the phantom with. So as I mentioned, it may be to situational or play style dependent to objectively declare... Hence the bit about going out on a limb... It's not a super strong argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what, I give up. If it takes this level of debate just to make a comment about a ship it's really not worth the effort as far as I'm concerned. Your attitude to this is waaaaay too serious for me. If you think I need to attend a logic and debate course or be a science major to have a valid point of view then there's really no hope for this game long term. Sorry, but I was willing to listen to alternative viewpoints on the Z95 but I've lost interest now. Enjoy your stats and your tournament builds guys, looks like I came to the wrong place.

I wish you all the very best.

I'm not sure what you thought was going to happen, considering the fact that you told us from the outset that you expected to be told that you're wrong. You're welcome to your opinions, of course, but "I'm not a tournament player" and "I think math ruins the game" are not valid reasons for disregarding factual data, whatever your experience might be.

Edited by WonderWAAAGH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of bickering over a game.

Thought this thread was a discussion about XWing..

Nope.

It quite definitley was and is. Issue being one party decided ignoring the single greatest factor in game effectiveness(so far as ships are concerned) isn't a factor. That destroys the point of reasonable discussion.

Math is a part of X-Wing. Discussions of that math and its validity therein are discussions on X-Wing.

Dieter122 and Hobojebus like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need to be a statistician to appreciate that odds are calculable and give you a good idea as to the probability of doing a certain thing. 

You can, however, elect not to make statistical calculation factor in to your chosen method… like a certain space-faring rogue we all know.

oneway, mazz0 and Hobojebus like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys,

 

I don't know if you failed to internalize what Emperor Palpatine just told us, but it's clear that he's had a major loss in his life that he disclosed to us. While that may not have any bearing on our subject matter, it does behoove us to be human beings for a moment and slow down the rhetoric.

 

 

I know you don't care about the "maths" as you call it, but please stop disrespecting the hard work done by people to try and estimate the effectiveness of new units and find out what they're best suited for.

1. I am well educated thank you. You have never met me so how can you make comments about my standard of education?

...

1. I never said anything about your education, but the fact that you dismiss math as a factor clearly indicated to me that you're a liberal arts major of some kind. The kind of math involved with this sort of thing is stuff that most people in the sciences learn in the first couple years of basic courses, so it shouldn't have been something you'd dismiss if you were a science major of some kind.

 

MF, my friend...

 

"Maths" is the British way of abbreviating 'mathematics', There's nothing wrong or uneducated about calling it that.

 

AND, flaming on the liberal arts as not being a school of disciplines that uses mathematics turns around the discussion of education on you. I teach social sciences under a 'College of Liberal Arts', and the idea that we don't use mathematics is preposterous. Statistical mathematics, our stock in trade in the social sciences, is precisely that branch of mathematics that grows out of the mathematics of probability. 

 

I've had more (and not enough) of that stuff in my long 'liberal arts' career

 

Also, check out what falls under 'Liberal Arts' for a moment. I do think I see 'mathematics' there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ive seen quite a few people here (mathhammers) say that the 95' is better per point cost than the tie.. there was an entire thread on it somewhere buried here on the forums. tie was 100% and the 95' was like 112% or 106% or something. in comparison a y wing was 88%.  

 

That's my thread here:

 

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/100360-using-lanchesters-square-law-to-predict-ships-jousting-values-and-fair-point-values-work-in-progress/?p=1111620

 

The short summary is that 2 shields + 2 hull behind 2 agility is a hair more durable than 3 hull behind 3 agility, accounting for critical hits. Since the Z-95 gets +1PS, it's effective PS1 cost is 11.5, making it more cost efficient looking at just the naked ships. Howlrunner increases 2 base dice damage output by around 35%, which increases the ship's value by ~17%. So Howlrunner TIEs are still better than Z-95's, but once Howlrunner goes down....

 

I intend to also calculate the distribution for the number of hits required to destroy each ship, which should yield almost the same results. There could be a slight bias towards ships with less HP, since any extra damage done to them above and beyond their hull value doesn't actually count towards real damage, whereas it does in my numbers above.

 

Wave 4 Regionals results so far are bearing this out. Z-95's have essentially replaced vanilla X-wings as the successful filler ship of choice, especially in YT-1300 builds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I've been hoping you'd jump in.

 

I trust that you're just calculating the 2/2/2/2 against the 2/3/3/0. I would be entirely non-plussed (pun intended) if you had also come up for a way to factor the value of the TIE's superior movement dial. Is there even a way to do that, at all?

mazz0 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I've been hoping you'd jump in.

 

I trust that you're just calculating the 2/2/2/2 against the 2/3/3/0. I would be entirely non-plussed (pun intended) if you had also come up for a way to factor the value of the TIE's superior movement dial. Is there even a way to do that, at all?

 

Yes, I am just comparing the stat line values for this discussion.

 

I do have a method of comparing dials, but it obviously doesn't affect the raw "jousting" (stat line) values. It's all in the thread that I linked, it's all explained if you want to take the time to get a handle on the underlying assumptions. In general, non stat line capabilities can still be valued pretty well when multiple ships have the same or similar functionality, because then you have a baseline and can check the results against reality. On the other extreme you have the TIE Phantom with a cloak action, which nobody is sure how to properly value yet. The dial in particular I break down into several categories of functionality:

  • tightest turn
  • shortest moves
  • longest moves
  • K-turn options
  • green stress removal
  • unique (currently only 0 move on Lambda)

Again - none of that affects the raw stat line calculations here. Just for kicks though here are the results from that thread. It needs some updating to include more info and wave 5, but is still very informative.

 

 

(boiler plate stuff, background in the "spoiler" tab below)

Thread Necromancy!

 
I have made some fairly large updates, and wanted to get the predictions "published" before wave 4 is released. The wave 4 rebel ships should be very easy to predict their value for, but the wave 4 Imperial ships... not so much.
 
Summary for the wave 4 ships:
  • Z-95: It's undeniably an excellent value, and its price point will finally give rebel lists more versatility in filling smaller point gaps. Per point cost, it has more firepower and durability than an X-wing, the mighty B-wing, and even.... a naked TIE Fighter.
  • E-wing: It doesn't look like a very good value, but it should still find its way into some elite 3 ship lists, or Etahn + swarm lists. It's a terrible jouster, so you need some inventive squad builds and flying to make this ship work.
  • TIE Defender: It has a very unique dial, so all mathematical predictions are off. What can be said: its jousting value is just as bad as the TIE Advanced, so this ship needs to repeatedly abuse its white K-turn to be worthwhile. Merely keeping your action isn't enough, you'll need to simultaneously avoid arcs with it as well.
  • TIE Phantom: Mathematical predictions at this point are not very useful, but the jousting value puts a minimum floor on its performance potential. Expect it to be potentially devastating, and meta shifting. 
  • A-wing with Refit: Almost as good of an overall value as the Z-95, and its jousting value will be about on par with the B-wing. Lots of people are dreaming about how they can cram tons EPTs onto these ships, but thats not their strength. They're an extremely good jouster with an absurdly good dial, and PS1 blocking. Once Rebels have these highly competitive 12 and 15 point ships, the meta and rebel list building is going to be blown wide open. The diversity of competitive lists and tactics that are going to appear is going to blow your mind.
 
Major changes are:
  • Scoring the dial coefficients is more regimented than before, and is broken down into various categories.
  • Wave 4 dials have been spoiled, so they are now fully included.
  • The jousting value for each ship now has a range that is meta dependent, rather than returning a singular value.
  • Everything is still relative to a 2/3/3/0 stat line, so ships' jousting efficiency "pivot" around the standard TIE Fighter for any given meta.
  • Critical Hits are now being counted and weighted, and the resulting "value" for shields is now computed mathematically. This resulted in shields being worth around 12% - 15% more than hull, depending on the defender's defense dice and the meta. Previously I had estimated 25%.
  • I'm more explicit about how much confidence the model has for each ship, as I mentioned in an earlier post.
  • Z-95 equivalent PS1 cost has been fixed to be 11.5, not 11.
Updated Limitations
The biggest drawbacks and causes for uncertainty to this approach are estimating the action economy, and in particular estimating how often the defending ship has a focus token. Right now I assume the defender has focus to spend 50% of the time. If this % is actually lower in reality, then it will make lower agility ships relatively more attractive. Conversely, if the % is higher, then it would make higher agility ships relatively more attractive. This issue is largely fixable by getting a large data set, like looking at VASSAL replays and recording the results.
 

Technical details are in the updated original post, and are quoted in the spoiler tag here.

 

Combat Effectiveness Coefficients

 

The combat effectiveness E is a unit's damage output per unit time, multiplied by that unit's durability. To apply this model to X-wing, I have broken this down into the following categories:

  1. Attack
  2. Durability
  3. Dial
  4. Actions
  5. Firing arc
  6. Upgrades

 

Each of these categories is nominally 1, and then they are all multiplied together.

Since we are using the PS1 TIE Fighter as our baseline, it has a value of 1 in each category.

 

 

Attack: 2 attack dice vs. 3 attack dice vs. 4 attack dice

In order to calculate the average damage that 3 or 4 attack dice does relative to 2 dice, the following assumptions were used:

  • attacker has focus 2/3 the time
  • defender has focus 1/2 the time
  • range bins probabilities are [15 23 9 4]/(15+23+9+4) for [R1 R2 R3 R3+asteroid]
  • defender base defense dice is meta dependent, see below

Since we are looking to get an overall aggregate score, I'll treat each of these categories as independent, assign the weighted probability to each, and then calculate the aggregate totals. The base number of defense dice was evaluated in three different "meta" environments [1 dice%,  2 dice%, 3 dice%]:

  • low defense dice meta:             [45%, 25%,  30%]
  • "standard" defense dice meta: [30%, 25%,  45%]
  • high defense dice meta:           [15%, 25%,  60%]

For a reference on what's currently popular in high level play, see this thread:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/105107-2014-regionals-results/

 

Another note while we are here: you don't always need to spend your focus for attack or for defense, so adding up the probability of having focus available for both can certainly be more than 100%. Since we only care about the overall statistical averages, and not conditional probabilities in a specific scenario, we can treat these as independent variables. That being said, please speak up if you have a better method of estimating how often the defender has focus available, since it does affect the result.

 

I used the ranges at the Worlds 2013 Finals game as a baseline: 15 @ range 1, 23 @ range 2, 9 @ range 3, and 4 @ range 3 through a rock.

 

This results in the following damage numbers, normalized to 2 attack dice:

 

                                                 defense meta

                          low defense    normal defense    high defense

1 dice:                  0.4319               0.4189               0.4022

2 dice:                      1                       1                       1

3 dice:                  1.7137              1.7590               1.817

4 dice:                  2.5129              2.6297               2.779

 

Also for reference:

2 dice + 1 reroll:      1.3436             1.355                1.3695

3 dice + 1 reroll:      2.2288             2.3125              2.4196

HLC:                        2.3935            2.4923              2.6185
Blaster w/ 1 base:    0.2765            0.2670              0.2549
Ion turret w/ 1 base: 0.7407            0.7698              0.8070
Ion turret w/ 2 base: 0.8123            0.8247              0.8406

 

 

Durability

In order to calculate the average durability that 1 or 2 base defense dice have relative to 3 dice, the following assumptions were used:

  • attacker action economy:
    • No action: 35%
    • Focus: 30%
    • Target Lock: 25%
    • Focus + Target Lock: 10%
  • defender has focus 1/2 the time
  • range bins probabilities are [15 23 9 4]/(15+23+9+4) for [R1 R2 R3 R3+asteroid]
  • attacker base dice number is meta dependent, see below
  • critical hit values specially weighted, see below.

I do not directly account for a percentage of shots that are affected by Howlrunner. However I wanted to capture some of Howlrunner's reroll ability in how it changes the hit / critical hit ratio, so I shifted some of the focus actions into Target Lock actions. I realize that normally, Target Lock will be taken far less often than focus. I also included some small percentage of shots as having both TL + F to simulate the occasional Rebel PtL, and estimating Howlrunner's reroll affect.

 

The base number of attack dice was evaluated in three different "meta" environments. I used 5% as a baseline for 4 attack dice once wave 4 comes out, and assume the Phantom will see slightly below average table time. [2 dice%, 3 dice%, 4% dice]:

  • low attack dice meta:              [67%, 32%,  1%]
  • "standard" attack dice meta:  [33%, 62%,   5%]
  • high attack dice meta:            [20%, 70%,  10%]

Critical hits are weighted specially. The are 7 Direct Hit cards, and 2 Minor Explosion cards can be directly computed. The remaining critical hits are treated as being worth an additional 1/3 of a regular hit. None of those other cards do direct damage in the strictest sense, but some of the effects can be very nasty, so I had to put some value on them. That makes the critical hit weighting:

 

Crit Weighting = 1 + 7/33 + (3/8)*2/33 + (1/3)*(33-7-2)/33 = 1.4773

 

The damage is then calculated two ways: once with critical hits weighted as above to simulate Hull durability, and again with critical hits weighted as 1 to simulate Shield durability. The results normalized to Hull Durability for 3 defense dice are:

 

 

                                     Hull Durability                                         Shield Durability

            low attack    normal attack    high attack       low attack    normal attack    high attack

1 dice:   0.5113           0.5490              0.5647            0.5737         0.6161              0.6336

2 dice:   0.7071           0.7312              0.7411            0.8030         0.8313              0.8427

3 dice:       1                    1                      1                  1.1458         1.1482              1.1490

4 dice:  1.4268            1.3876             1.3717             1.6458         1.6053              1.5886

 

These results indicate that Shields are worth about 12% to 15% more than Hull, which was far below my earlier estimate of 25%. The meta dependent durability coefficient is therefore:

 

( Shields*shield_coeffcient + Hull*hull_coefficient ) / 3

 

Dial

The dial has been broken down into various categories and each category has been given a value. The total dial coefficient is 1 + all the category scores, which are:

 

Tightest white turn

0:       1 turn

-0.03: red 1 turn

-0.03: large base ship white 1 turn

-0.04: white 2 turn

-0.05: red 1 turn, red 2 turn, white 3 turn

-0.06: red 2 turn, white 3 turn

-0.06: Large ship base white 2 turn

-0.2:   large base 3 red turn

 

slowest straight (-1 for large ship)

+0.025: 1 forward

0:          2 forward

 

fastest straight (+1 for large ship)

-0.025: 3 straight, red 4 straight

-0.01:   4 straight

0:         5 straight

 

K-turns

-0.3:    no K-turn

-0.02: 1 red K-turn

0:        2 red K-turns

+0.3:   1 white K-turn

 

 

stress clear

-0.06:    green on 2 straights

-0.05:    green on 4 straights

0:          green on 2 straights, 1 bank

+0.01:   green on 3 straights, 1 bank

+0.05:   green on 3 straights, 1 bank, 1 turn

+0.055: green on 4 straights, 1 bank, 1 turn

 

 

specialty

0:        none

+0.05: red 0

 

 

 

Actions

For actions, I sum together all the values listed as deltas relative to a TIE Fighter: positive points if the ship has the action but the TIE doesn't, and negative points if the ship does not have the action but the TIE does. The reason I add all these actions together first, rather than multiplying them together, is because there are diminishing returns on having many actions on your bar, since you can only perform one per round. This obviously excludes Push the Limit, which I am not analyzing.

 

I started by estimating how much additional damage Target Lock yields, since this is the only action that can be easily quantifiable in terms of dice rolls. I modified the damage calculator so that instead of the attacker having no action 1/3 the time, and a focus 2/3 the time, the attacker has no action 1/3 the time, focus 5/9 the time, and focus+target lock 1/9 the time. The damage increase, for both 2 and 3 attack ships, is right around 5%. So I gave Target Lock a value of 0.05, and based everything off of that.

 

Target Lock    0.05

Evade             0.015

Barrel Roll      0.035

Boost              = (attack/durabilty)/50

Cloak              0.15

 

I weighted boost as more useful for glass cannons than tanks, since glass cannons need to use boost to remain out of arc. I only used the "normal" attack/durability meta to calculate the boost coefficients.

 

So, for example, an X-wing is lacking Evade and Barrel Roll (-0.015 -0.035), but gains Target Lock (+0.5), so its net action value is 1. These values can certainly be fine-tuned, but they are an approximate starting point. Cloak is obviously a complete guess at this point, I'm just guessing that it will be very good. If we ever see (or dream up) a ship that has no focus, then we would need a weight for that as well, but so far all small and large base ships have focus. Again, these coefficients are certainly up for debate. I would love to hear people's thoughts.

 

Firing Arc

This only affects large base ships that have an innate primary firing arc that is not simply forward facing. Firing arcs help both offensively (closer shots, and more of them), and defensively (getting out of arcs while still being able to fire). I used the following coefficients:

normal arc: 1

360 degree arc: 1.75 (YT-1300)

forward + rear arc: 1.25 (Firespray)

 

It's obviously difficult to exactly quantify these numbers, with these firing arcs being unique to these ships.

 

Upgrades

All of the upgrade values are multiplied together, including having multiple crew, which currently only affects the YT-1300 (i.e. 2 crew is worth 1.075^2 not 2*1.075).

 

Turret: 1 attack ship    1.97 (Turret on 2 attack ship  * Ion1 / 1 attack)

Turret: 2 attack ship    1.1

Cannon: 3 attack ship 1.01

System Upgrade         1.05

Crew                           1.075

Droid                           1.05

Ordnance                   

 value    description

1          No ordnance

1.01     1 missile / torpedo with 3 base attack

1.02     1 missile / torpedo with 2 base attack

1.03     1 missile + 1 bomb with 3 base attack

1.04     full loadout with 2 base attack

 

Cannons are very expensive, just like missiles and torpedoes, so I consider the cannon slot to be basically self-balancing, and only give it a coefficient of 1.01. I was curious about the HLC, so I calculated the net increase in a ship's effectiveness is (2.4506/1.7401)^(1/1.92) = 1.195. That's pretty good, but the problem is that it costs a whopping 7 points, so your ship would have to cost 7/(1.195-1) = 35.8 points at PS1 to break even! When you factor in the increased durability from being able to stay at long range then it helps justify the cost, but in general I still think the high point cost of the cannons themselves make them self-balancing.

 

  • Edit: March 2, 2014: Updated Worlds 2013 meta with the 16th squad.
  • Edit: March 20, 2014: Updated to include A-wing Chardaan Refit.
  • Edit: March 22, 2014: Updated to include TIE Fighter with Howlrunner reroll, HWK-290 with blaster turret instead of Ion1 + Chewie, and permanently cloaked TIE Phantom.
  • Edit: April 14, 2014: Added the Limitations section.
  • Edit: June 6: several changes:
    • Added meta dependent attack and durability coefficients
    • critical hits explicitly being calculated now to better value shield value
    • maneuver dial broken down into major categories
    • results and ship breakdowns moved into the next post

 

 

 

 

Numerical Results

 

All costs and efficiency are based on their equivalent PS1 cost:

X-wing: 20

Y-wing: 17

A-wing: 17

A-wing + refit: 15

ORS: 27

Named YT-1300: 37

B-wing: 21

HWK-290: 15

Z-95: 11.5

E-wing: 27

TIE Fighter: 12

TIE Advanced: 20

TIE Interceptor: 18

Firespray: 31

TIE Bomber: 15

Lambda Shuttle: 20

TIE Defender: 30

TIE Phantom: 23

TIE Phantom + permanent cloaking: 27 (Advanced Cloaking Device, PS bid not included)

 

min, std. and max columns are to cover various meta environments, which changes the ship's underlying jousting value. TIE Fighters are used as the 100% reference point for all meta. 

 

Degrees of certainty refer to results in the "Total Efficiency" columns. The Jousting columns are all very high certainty.

 

Very High Degree of Certainty

 

                                         Jousting Efficiency           Total Efficiency      

Ship                            min           std.          max         min         std          max

TIE Fighter                   100.0%    100.0%   100.0%     100.0%   100.0%   100.0%
TIE Fighter + Howl        116.6%    117.1%   117.8%     116.6%    117.1%  117.8%
TIE Advanced               80.6%       80.7%      80.7%       80.9%     81.0%    81.0%
TIE Interceptor              88.3%      89.5%     91.0%         94.5%    95.8%     97.4%
TIE Interceptor + Howl  101.2%     103.2%   105.6%      106.3%   108.3%  110.9%
X-wing                           88.9%       91.8%     94.0%        94.1%     97.1%    99.4%
A-wing                          85.1%       85.1%      85.1%       89.5%      89.5%    89.5%
B-wing                           92.4%      97.2%      100.3%     100.0%   105.2%   108.5%
E-wing                           80.2%      81.4%     82.8%        89.2%     90.5%     92.1%
Z-95                             104.7%     106.6%   107.3%      108.5%   110.5%    111.2%
A-wing + Refit               96.4%       96.5%     96.5%        98.8%     98.9%      98.9%
 

High Degree of Certainty

TIE Bomber: requires ordnance to fill a useful role.

 

                                         Jousting Efficiency           Total Efficiency      

Ship                            min           std.          max         min         std          max

TIE Bomber                 95.8%      97.5%       98.2%       96.2%     97.9%     98.6%

 

 

Medium Degree of Certainty

Y-wing: turret on a 2 attack ship.

YT-1300: 360 degree primary weapon

Firespray: rear arc

 

                                         Jousting Efficiency           Total Efficiency      

Ship                            min           std.          max         min         std          max

Y-wing                         84.9%       88.1%       89.4%       86.5%     89.8%    91.1%
ORS                            60.1%       62.4%       63.3%       82.0%    85.1%    86.3%
Named YT-1300          66.5%       70.0%       72.3%       90.7%    95.4%    98.5%
Firespray                    82.3%       84.9%       87.0%       95.2%     98.2% 100.6%

 

 

Low Degree of Certainty

HWK-290: turret on a 1 attack ship.

Lambda: No K-turns and no white turns

TIE Defender: white K-turn

TIE Phantom: cloak action

 

                                         Jousting Efficiency           Total Efficiency      

Ship                            min           std.          max         min         std          max

HWK-290                     55.0%       57.2%      58.5%      38.2%     39.7%     40.7%
Lambda                       108.1%     113.8%    117.4%     83.6%    87.9%     90.7%
TIE Defender               78.8%       79.9%      81.3%       88.8%    90.0%     91.6%
TIE Phantom                84.6%       88.2%     91.4%        96.4%    100.5%  104.2%
TIE Phantom + cloak   102.3%     105.4%    110.0%      116.6%   120.1% 125.3%
Edited by MajorJuggler
z0m4d, BobbyM and gundamv like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in:

 

In the FFG battle report section, Z-swarm easily won against 3 Tie Defenders battle (1 hr. limit).

 

Hopefully in the days to come, we will begin to see the effectives of the Z-swarm bear out.

 

The weakness in the Z-swarm will probably come against Tie Bombers with proton bombs...   

VorackTheGrim likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0