Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ayleron

Inefficiencies in new ships

Recommended Posts

It just bothers me that the statement "it's true the generics won't see any play" can be attached to so many ships, and especially that people are nonchalant ok with that. I also feel like they are afraid to have 2 different generics in the same faction have the same cost. If you look at the rebels we have 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24. I actually think it would be ok to have ships clock in at the same cost. Like how now when you have 22 open points you don't auto think B-wing. Yay eventual t65 bump.

Also yes hosting isn't the only part of the equation, but it is a significant portion. You may nit want to have the math be able to predict the usefulness of a ship, but if it's taking up a third of the points I am allowed to spend I REALLY need that ship to perform up to those points. The fact is that both elites and generics have places in the game but generics pool of efficient enough to be worth it and cheap enough to fit in is still pretty stagnant.

Edited by Ayleron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know all I need to know bout dat math... prolly why I have one of the largest FFG X-Wing Miniatures Collections in this community.

:)

 

There is WAYyyy more to being a great X-Winger than knowing the math.

;)

 

The nice thing about MathWing is that when used correctly by the developers, it is invisible to the end users. You simply end up with a balanced game that everyone can enjoy!

 

the T-70's beauty lies not in it's jousting efficiency, but a lot of the things MathWing doesn't calculate. 

 

I don't know, I can imagine calculate quite a bit.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, i respect MathWing a whole ton and i use it as a handy reference, but on this particular case i feel like all it can accurately represent is naked generics. The T-70 clearly isn't meant to be flown naked, much like an E-Wing in this case just more points efficient.

 

If you listen to most of Alex Davy's interviews, it is clear that it is never intended that any ship is dead on arrival. The math directly predicted that the generic E-wings were overcosted, it was recognized shortly after by the community and tournaments at large, and was eventually acknowledged by the designers as a mistake. The generic T-70's will suffer the same general problem, but not quite to the same extent.

 

I have some pretty accurate numbers for most of the named pilots, not just the generics. Some of them, like Corran Horn, have not been updated yet in my MathWing thread. Spoiler alert: Corran Horn with FCS and R2-D2 has a very good jousting value.

 

Also, the approach in linked thread is just one mathematical tool of many. There are other tools and approaches that I have not published. Generally when someone says says "the math isn't everything", or "it can't predict XYZ", they are not a math person, and are unware that there are actually several other developed theories that can quantitatively explain what they consider impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know all I need to know bout dat math...

Math is the language we use to describe the universe. There is no one in the world who knows enough math, because there's an infinite amount to know.

 

 

Knowing math and exploring what that knowing affords are different adventures.

;)

 

Also knowing how is not the same thing as knowing why...

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know all I need to know bout dat math... prolly why I have one of the largest FFG X-Wing Miniatures Collections in this community.

:)

 

There is WAYyyy more to being a great X-Winger than knowing the math.

;)

 

The nice thing about MathWing is that when used correctly by the developers, it is invisible to the end users. You simply end up with a balanced game that everyone can enjoy!

 

the T-70's beauty lies not in it's jousting efficiency, but a lot of the things MathWing doesn't calculate. 

 

I don't know, I can imagine calculate quite a bit.

 

 

^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also, the approach in linked thread is just one mathematical tool of many. There are other tools and approaches that I have not published. Generally when someone says says "the math isn't everything", or "it can't predict XYZ", they are not a math person, and are unware that there are actually several other developed theories that can quantitatively explain what they consider impossible.

 

 

In my case, it's mainly because I recognize there is a bit of a psychological element to the game. I am pretty certain that your formulas cannot predict what squad is best for me to fly.

 

Maybe it's just my Netrunner and Star Wars LCG background, but I just have an issue with math predicting how a squad will play in different player's hands. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know all I need to know bout dat math... prolly why I have one of the largest FFG X-Wing Miniatures Collections in this community.

:)

 

There is WAYyyy more to being a great X-Winger than knowing the math.

;)

 

The nice thing about MathWing is that when used correctly by the developers, it is invisible to the end users. You simply end up with a balanced game that everyone can enjoy!

 

the T-70's beauty lies not in it's jousting efficiency, but a lot of the things MathWing doesn't calculate. 

 

I don't know, I can imagine calculate quite a bit.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, i respect MathWing a whole ton and i use it as a handy reference, but on this particular case i feel like all it can accurately represent is naked generics. The T-70 clearly isn't meant to be flown naked, much like an E-Wing in this case just more points efficient.

 

If you listen to most of Alex Davy's interviews, it is clear that it is never intended that any ship is dead on arrival. The math directly predicted that the generic E-wings were overcosted, it was recognized shortly after by the community and tournaments at large, and was eventually acknowledged by the designers as a mistake. The generic T-70's will suffer the same general problem, but not quite to the same extent.

 

I have some pretty accurate numbers for most of the named pilots, not just the generics. Some of them, like Corran Horn, have not been updated yet in my MathWing thread. Spoiler alert: Corran Horn with FCS and R2-D2 has a very good jousting value.

 

Also, the approach in linked thread is just one mathematical tool of many. There are other tools and approaches that I have not published. Generally when someone says says "the math isn't everything", or "it can't predict XYZ", they are not a math person, and are unware that there are actually several other developed theories that can quantitatively explain what they consider impossible.

 

@ the last bit:

 

Of course! Math is a very powerful tool, and it CAN predict the general efficiencies of these ships in a lot of ways. For the public though, who only have access to the old tables of pure jousting efficiencies, all we're seeing is their naked performance. You, being of course the developer of MathWing, generally are going to have a much better defined view regarding such mathematics than someone like me will. When you say that the T-70 isn't very efficient, i'm not doubting you, i'm merely posing the question of whether or not you think that it's jousting efficiency applies as much to it given it's tactical use than a T-65. By that, i mean, if the T-70 isn't meant to be flown like a T-65, or a B-Wing, does it's base jousting efficiency matter as much? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Also, the approach in linked thread is just one mathematical tool of many. There are other tools and approaches that I have not published. Generally when someone says says "the math isn't everything", or "it can't predict XYZ", they are not a math person, and are unware that there are actually several other developed theories that can quantitatively explain what they consider impossible.

 

 

In my case, it's mainly because I recognize there is a bit of a psychological element to the game. I am pretty certain that your formulas cannot predict what squad is best for me to fly.

 

Maybe it's just my Netrunner and Star Wars LCG background, but I just have an issue with math predicting how a squad will play in different player's hands. 

 

But that's not what MathWing does.

 

MathWing doesn't tell you what's the best stuff to fly. If you think so, you really didn't look deep into it's purpose. It's a mathematical prediction of basic jousting efficiency across a baseline of TIE Fighters. It often does not cover upgrade cards except in special circumstances. If all you want is to joust, THATS when MathWing can PREDICT what the best squad is to run. But most of us don't like to just joust, and even if we do, we can agree that sometimes it's smarter to change out one of those academy pilots for howlrunner, another for mauler mithel, etc. MathWing just gives you the basic numbers to be able to make the decision for what will lead to a successful squad. Only you know what your tactics are, so it's up to you to be able to know what ship is right for you.

 

But especially what it does is give you a way to objectively measure up an enemy squad against your own, and know exactly how well you need to perform to be able to win the battle. 

Edited by Razgriz25thinf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Also, the approach in linked thread is just one mathematical tool of many. There are other tools and approaches that I have not published. Generally when someone says says "the math isn't everything", or "it can't predict XYZ", they are not a math person, and are unware that there are actually several other developed theories that can quantitatively explain what they consider impossible.

 

 

In my case, it's mainly because I recognize there is a bit of a psychological element to the game. I am pretty certain that your formulas cannot predict what squad is best for me to fly.

 

Maybe it's just my Netrunner and Star Wars LCG background, but I just have an issue with math predicting how a squad will play in different player's hands. 

 

But that's not what MathWing does.

 

MathWing doesn't tell you what's the best stuff to fly. If you think so, you really didn't look deep into it's purpose. It's a mathematical prediction of basic jousting efficiency across a baseline of TIE Fighters. It often does not cover upgrade cards except in special circumstances. If all you want is to joust, THATS when MathWing can PREDICT what the best squad is to run. But most of us don't like to just joust, and even if we do, we can agree that sometimes it's smarter to change out one of those academy pilots for howlrunner, another for mauler mithel, etc. MathWing just gives you the basic numbers to be able to make the decision for what will lead to a successful squad. Only you know what your tactics are, so it's up to you to be able to know what ship is right for you.

 

But especially what it does is give you a way to objectively measure up an enemy squad against your own, and know exactly how well you need to perform to be able to win the battle. 

 

 

That is not how a lot of people treat it, though. Too many treat it as the gospel truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that, i mean, if the T-70 isn't meant to be flown like a T-65, or a B-Wing, does it's base jousting efficiency matter as much? 

 

Cost is the great equalizer, so stat line efficiency always matters. The question is if the "intangibles" can make up the deficit. Sometimes they can, and sometimes they can't. In the case of the T-70, we have strong evidence that it will not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just my Netrunner and Star Wars LCG background, but I just have an issue with math predicting how a squad will play in different player's hands. 

 

But that's not what MathWing does.

 

MathWing doesn't tell you what's the best stuff to fly. If you think so, you really didn't look deep into it's purpose. It's a mathematical prediction of basic jousting efficiency across a baseline of TIE Fighters. It often does not cover upgrade cards except in special circumstances. If all you want is to joust, THATS when MathWing can PREDICT what the best squad is to run. But most of us don't like to just joust, and even if we do, we can agree that sometimes it's smarter to change out one of those academy pilots for howlrunner, another for mauler mithel, etc. MathWing just gives you the basic numbers to be able to make the decision for what will lead to a successful squad. Only you know what your tactics are, so it's up to you to be able to know what ship is right for you.

 

But especially what it does is give you a way to objectively measure up an enemy squad against your own, and know exactly how well you need to perform to be able to win the battle. 

 

 

True to a point but for we EPIC-Wingers things are a little different. Sure two or three poor TIE Interceptors trying to get a few good shots off while being sneaky is kinda rough.

 

In EPIC when you are running say ten TIE Interceptors in groups of three and four you are able to really get that hammer falling from the backs and sides, while your ten TIE Fighters make a nuisance of themselves up front.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By that, i mean, if the T-70 isn't meant to be flown like a T-65, or a B-Wing, does it's base jousting efficiency matter as much? 

 

Cost is the great equalizer, so stat line efficiency always matters. The question is if the "intangibles" can make up the deficit. Sometimes they can, and sometimes they can't. In the case of the T-70, we have strong evidence that it will not.

 

 

They have been doing it for the X-wing. I fail to see why they wouldn't be able to do it with the T-70. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By that, i mean, if the T-70 isn't meant to be flown like a T-65, or a B-Wing, does it's base jousting efficiency matter as much? 

 

Cost is the great equalizer, so stat line efficiency always matters. The question is if the "intangibles" can make up the deficit. Sometimes they can, and sometimes they can't. In the case of the T-70, we have strong evidence that it will not.

 

I dont personally see how that's the case. We have a lot of great upgrades now, and even more on the way. If the E-Wing can be upgraded to a high efficiency, i dont see why something cheaper with a higher overall efficiency and more HP than an E-Wing can't do the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that, i mean, if the T-70 isn't meant to be flown like a T-65, or a B-Wing, does it's base jousting efficiency matter as much?

 

Cost is the great equalizer, so stat line efficiency always matters. The question is if the "intangibles" can make up the deficit. Sometimes they can, and sometimes they can't. In the case of the T-70, we have strong evidence that it will not.

I dont personally see how that's the case. We have a lot of great upgrades now, and even more on the way. If the E-Wing can be upgraded to a high efficiency, i dont see why something cheaper with a higher overall efficiency and more HP than an E-Wing can't do the same thing.

If a ship isn't worth it's points, spending more points will only make that worse. That's why you don't see e-wings besides Corran Horn. They aren't worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why do you think FFG continues to produce over costed ships?

 

They either lack the desire and / or technical expertise to use advanced mathematics to balance the game.

 

I think you don't know what overcost means if you think the T-70 is more overcosted than the original X-Wing.

 

The T-70 X-wing is actually less efficient from a stat line efficiency perspective (jousting value).

 

 

Oh yeah, more of this. I'm so glad you took a diffeq class...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

By that, i mean, if the T-70 isn't meant to be flown like a T-65, or a B-Wing, does it's base jousting efficiency matter as much?

 

Cost is the great equalizer, so stat line efficiency always matters. The question is if the "intangibles" can make up the deficit. Sometimes they can, and sometimes they can't. In the case of the T-70, we have strong evidence that it will not.

I dont personally see how that's the case. We have a lot of great upgrades now, and even more on the way. If the E-Wing can be upgraded to a high efficiency, i dont see why something cheaper with a higher overall efficiency and more HP than an E-Wing can't do the same thing.

If a ship isn't worth it's points, spending more points will only make that worse. That's why you don't see e-wings besides Corran Horn. They aren't worth it.

 

That's a very wide margin and subjective basis for what is and isn't worth it's points. And it also doesn't make any sense. The entire point of upgrades is to make that ship better. A naked Corran Horn isn't worth his points. You need to put upgrades on him to make him viable. Now he is worth his points.

 

You're thinking way too inside the box here. While far from competitively viable, Etahn A'Baht and attacks against everything he sees gets a free hit to crit. And it's an E-Wing. E-Wings may be overcosted, but by no means are they a bad ship. You put Etahn A'Baht with PTL and an R2 with 2 BSPs with HLCs and Merc Copilots and suddenly 2 B wings are doing crits with their HLCs, with an E-Wing with a huge amount of green running interference. Recipe for success against, say a squad of 4 TIE Advanceds.

 

Everything has a tactical viable use. MathWing is very useful, but you are using it to restrict your thinking. There's not a single ship in this game that doesn't have at least a single moment where, tactically, it is superior to all others. 

Edited by Razgriz25thinf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See they couldn't actually make the new fighters better without alienating the existing players who would quite rightly be very angry if the four x-wing's they own suddenly become worthless.

There are no fans of the new movies yet it'd be monumentally stupid to anger your existing base of customers to please a theoretical future player base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think FFG continues to produce over costed ships?

 

They either lack the desire and / or technical expertise to use advanced mathematics to balance the game.

 

.

There are other reasons beyond the math that may be the case, some mentioned (easier to fix overcosting), but one that hasn't and that may be that, thematically, they want to named pilots to be better choices than generics out of the box. Named pilots certainly have seen more play recently, though TLTs may hurt that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not really wanting them to be MORE effeicient than the b-wing, but rather close to as efficient. If things were more level field in eficiency I feel it would lead to even more variety.

I don't think so - I think it would lead towards homogeneity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe what you will about "mathwing," but the ships that are overpriced by mathmatical theory are not used as often. They are harder to fit in a list, and ignored for the few ships that are properly priced. The new x-wing appears to be even more in-efficient than it's often maligned predecessor. Why do you think FFG continues to produce over costed ships?

 

MathWing assesses statline efficiency: the four numbers on the side of the card, the point cost and the combat actions. It's fairly sophisticated maths, but it's still hamstrung as a direct measure of ship quality by the inability to quantify the dial.

What MathWing measures is jousting efficiency: you remove maneuvering from the equation by assuming all ships are equal, then you average how good they are in the dice war over all the situations that are likely to come up.

 

MathWing also doesn't account for the different forms of defence in the game: Once per round (OPR) and Once per attack (OPA). Health and Agility are good examples, health is similar to an OPR defence and Agility is OPA. OPA is stronger against lots of attacks, whereas OPR will probably serve you better against fewer, larger strikes. MathWing only gives you a single efficiency number, it doesn't tell you which targets a ship is best against.

 

Jousting Efficiency doesn't tell you how good a ship is, it tells you how much you've got to get out of the ship's unquantifiables (dial, the more complex pilot abilities and the reposition actions) to match or exceed a more statline efficient ship. Turrets have awful statline efficiency, but they're not overpriced: they get a lot more favourable shots than a flat jouster like a Headhunter would. The TIE interceptor is another example of a ship which is lacking in the statline efficiency department but very effective because it can dictate an engagement to its advantage, usually by getting shots with no return fire.

MathWing only detects overcost when you have two ships with comparable unquantifiables and wildly different statline efficiencies.

Edited by Blue Five

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the X-Wing T70 is overcosted on purpose.

They are still saying the X-Wing fix is on its way and that Integrated Astromech is only part of the solution. So what the fix gets released it can be used on both the T65 and T70, with out needing to specify T65 only. The one annoyance of Intergrated astromech is that you only recieve one card per pack but I need 4 minimum for all my X-Wing T65s.

Edited by OpticFusion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...