Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ayleron

Inefficiencies in new ships

Recommended Posts

Maybe the X-Wing T70 is overcosted on purpose.

 

Deliberately breaking a ship so you can sell fixes later? I've a higher opinion of FFG than that.

But effectively it would not be different than what happened to the A-Wing and TIE Adv., sorry I mean TIE Advanced. Selling the fix for the Advanced with a very expensive ship was already indicative of shall we say a certain business model intended to maximise sales.

And an inefficient T-70 is different from a broken T-70. I don't think even from the perspective of Mathwing that we should call the T-70 broken. Its generics probably won't see a lot of tournament play, that's all. Given that the named pilots are/could be very good, this is not disastrous, and would fit with what we have seen from previous ships.

Finally, selling ships with room for improvement is one way to avoid power creep. Every disadvantage haves' its advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But effectively it would not be different than what happened to the A-Wing and TIE Adv

 

The TIE advanced and the A-wing were not deliberately designed to be overpriced. They didn't set the stats of the TIE/x1 in Wave 1 thinking they could sell more Raiders in three years time. Given Imperial Aces was the testbed they probably didn't even know they were making a Rebel Aces when they designed the A-wing.

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.

 

 

By the way, for all those interested in how much difference the "intangibles" can make, comparing the performance of the Phantom pre and post-nerf is a useful example.   The Phantom has the exact same statline and thus Mathwing predictions pre and post-nerf (for those new to the game, the Phantom nerf only changed when it's decloak happens).  So, Mathwing alone (at least, the public model we know of) predicts that the Phantom would perform just as well before and after this change.

 

Of course, that's not what we've seen in tournament results and usage - the Phantom has dropped off substantially in popularity and winning tournaments since it's nerf.  Thus, this is a prime example of how much factors outside the pure jousting efficiency of a ship can make a difference to a ship's real-world performance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the designers have a lot of goals when they design a ship. They want it to be different from what has preceeded it. They want it to be modestly competitive, and they want it to not invalidate similar preceeding ships. Introduction of new mechanics or combinations of mechanics can make it hard to balance these different goals, I think.

I would say it's possible that FFG lacks a model for balancing jousting values, but I think it's more likely that their error comes from over- or under-costing the extra abilities and dials. That is not as easily predictable from play testing or theoretical models.

Apparent inefficies may also be mitigated by match ups. MJ's mathwing basically gauges a ship against an averaged field of ships. Specific match ups trump general match ups, however. VS swarm attacks, the B's 1 AGI let's a large part of the damage through, whereas an X-wing's AGI 2 (of equivalent jousting value with Integrated Astromech) resists their attacks more capably. There's all sorts of little differences between ships that you can use to strengthen a squad against particular targets, in particular situations, and these differences matter more than raw efficiency against the average field of ships.

All that being said, efficiency matters, and it's an important starting place to figure out what you want a ship to do, and how you want to engage opposing squads.

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.

 

By the way, for all those interested in how much difference the "intangibles" can make, comparing the performance of the Phantom pre and post-nerf is a useful example.   The Phantom has the exact same statline and thus Mathwing predictions pre and post-nerf (for those new to the game, the Phantom nerf only changed when it's decloak happens).  So, Mathwing alone (at least, the public model we know of) predicts that the Phantom would perform just as well before and after this change.

 

Of course, that's not what we've seen in tournament results and usage - the Phantom has dropped off substantially in popularity and winning tournaments since it's nerf.  Thus, this is a prime example of how much factors outside the pure jousting efficiency of a ship can make a difference to a ship's real-world performance.

I'm still surprised by this, because Whisper's jousting value is pretty dang solid even without her remaining intangibles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind, going from 75% in Imperial squads to around 33% is a substantial drop off. She is still very solid. It's just as diversity increases, you will see certain ships be less common. It isn't saying that she isn't good, it's just that there are other options available. Which is only a good thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point about "intangibles" is important

This is why PWTs are such as piece of ****, and why the Xwing (which has NOTHING else going for it) kind of sucks

The t-70 gets boost and troll. By themselves, they're not very impressive for the drop in efficiency

Bb8 poe with thrusters though ? Now we're talking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind, going from 75% in Imperial squads to around 33% is a substantial drop off. She is still very solid. It's just as diversity increases, you will see certain ships be less common. It isn't saying that she isn't good, it's just that there are other options available. Which is only a good thing. 

I mean a Whisper got second place at NOVA open, so it's about in the right place.

 

I also think it's good that the T-70 is not as jousting efficient as the T-65.  It means that it has a different role- I will say that high quality fighters tend to have their generics overpriced, and end up "paying for slots" from E-wings to StarVipers- these ships benefit a lot from high PS but gain less benefit.  It's why you never see generic interceptors- PS1 and no Push the Limit neuters a lot of their advantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how long FFG had to develop the new set - I'd imagine the shorter the time available, the more difficult the challenge of really getting the point balance spot on would be.

The T-70 may have a lower efficiency by statline - but the Tallon Roll - oh - the Tallon Roll.   Between a wee bit of positional fun , it's got both greater (and less) a benefit than the Sloop -  because you have to guess which way it Tallon Rolled. Slooping changes the firing arc direction - but the distance covered left/right on the Tallon roll is higher, which allows for a mixup. It sets up future turns in a different way to the K-turn. Boost also gives it arc dodging or blocking potential, and then the extra shield is much like IA already - so I think it has the tools to make up for that jousting efficiency lost - as it's not as locked into the jousting attack line that the x-wing tends to be locked into.   The T-70 can make for a meaner / faster flanker than the t-65,  and It can also be a slipperier target in a tight fur ball. 

 

I think the real challenge is to figure out what the intangibles are - and learn how to leverage them.  Coming from a fighting game background - I see the Tallon Roll as a 50.50 mixup , which can be pretty strong.



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathwing is useful, but I have to agree that a lot of people forget that just slamming the most efficient things they could find on the table isn't enough. Dials are very difficult to properly value, since the same maneuver on two different dials isn't equally useful--would you care all that much if your Headhunter got green sharp turns? Would you care if your Interceptor had white turns at all speeds? Since stress-shedding isn't equally useful to every ship, and different actions are better/worse depending on base stats, Mathwing can give misleading results. That's before we factor in pilots like Corran, who are weak when taken as they are but get scary as hell with the right upgrades. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

...How?

The T-70 pays fewer points per HP (24/6 < 21/5), and it's got the same offensive stats.

Stat line efficiency only cares about 5 variables: cost, attack, agility, hull, shields. The T-70 gains 1 shield but it costs 3 more points.

3/2/3/2 is worth just under 18 points. T-65 jousting efficiency is therefore about:

18 * (1 + 1/24) / 21 = 89.3%

3/2/3/3 is worth about 20 points. T-70 jousting efficiency is therefore about:

20 * (1 + 1/24) / 24 = 86.8%

Boost on the T-70 is nice, but will not be enough to make the PS2 viable. This is easy to predict because the PS1 TIE Interceptor also has boost, and has a better jousting efficiency of ~90%, but is basically extinct now.

Poe is another story. I haven't done the math on him yet.

Does this mean the shield upgrade is actually over costed. If I take a T65 X-Wing and add shield upgrade for 4 points I actually pay too much, ignoring the free engin upgrade for now. Edited by OpticFusion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathwing is useful, but I have to agree that a lot of people forget that just slamming the most efficient things they could find on the table isn't enough. Dials are very difficult to properly value, since the same maneuver on two different dials isn't equally useful--would you care all that much if your Headhunter got green sharp turns? Would you care if your Interceptor had white turns at all speeds? Since stress-shedding isn't equally useful to every ship, and different actions are better/worse depending on base stats, Mathwing can give misleading results. That's before we factor in pilots like Corran, who are weak when taken as they are but get scary as hell with the right upgrades. 

 

There are some ships with action bars, dials, and statlines that are made to go straight at something and shoot it out- that's your TIE fighter, Z-95, T-65 X-wing, B-wing and BTL Y-wing.  In this type of ship, jousting is very important to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

...How?

The T-70 pays fewer points per HP (24/6 < 21/5), and it's got the same offensive stats.

Stat line efficiency only cares about 5 variables: cost, attack, agility, hull, shields. The T-70 gains 1 shield but it costs 3 more points.

3/2/3/2 is worth just under 18 points. T-65 jousting efficiency is therefore about:

18 * (1 + 1/24) / 21 = 89.3%

3/2/3/3 is worth about 20 points. T-70 jousting efficiency is therefore about:

20 * (1 + 1/24) / 24 = 86.8%

Boost on the T-70 is nice, but will not be enough to make the PS2 viable. This is easy to predict because the PS1 TIE Interceptor also has boost, and has a better jousting efficiency of ~90%, but is basically extinct now.

Poe is another story. I haven't done the math on him yet.

Does this mean the shield upgrade is actually over costed. If I take a T65 X-Wing and add shield upgrade for 4 points I actually pay too much, ignoring the free engin upgrade for now.

It's over costed by design otherwise it'd be auto include to extend the life of every ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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

...How?

The T-70 pays fewer points per HP (24/6 < 21/5), and it's got the same offensive stats.

Stat line efficiency only cares about 5 variables: cost, attack, agility, hull, shields. The T-70 gains 1 shield but it costs 3 more points.

3/2/3/2 is worth just under 18 points. T-65 jousting efficiency is therefore about:

18 * (1 + 1/24) / 21 = 89.3%

3/2/3/3 is worth about 20 points. T-70 jousting efficiency is therefore about:

20 * (1 + 1/24) / 24 = 86.8%

Boost on the T-70 is nice, but will not be enough to make the PS2 viable. This is easy to predict because the PS1 TIE Interceptor also has boost, and has a better jousting efficiency of ~90%, but is basically extinct now.

Poe is another story. I haven't done the math on him yet.

Does this mean the shield upgrade is actually over costed. If I take a T65 X-Wing and add shield upgrade for 4 points I actually pay too much, ignoring the free engin upgrade for now.

 

Shield upgrade is almost always overcosted. The only ships that really benefit from it are high PS Interceptors that want to live a little longer, but you're better off with steath drive and autothrusters anyways. 4 points for 1 shield is a very inefficient upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you most often fly?

Honestly? An HWK, Kyle almost all the time, with a good escort. I haven't gotten a ton of chances to play in the time I've had it, but the HWK has been the single most effective/efficient ship in my arsenal for quite some time.

Truly a beast to be feared.

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.

Because it is the gospel truth.

All it says is that in a joust amongst equally skilled players, certain ships are more points efficient and likely to come out on top. People that don't like this like to pretend that all ships are balanced equally and you just, 'need to fly ship X right, it doesn't suck'.

Also, the Alpha Squadron Pilot with Autothrusters slapped on it for 20 points is a good deal. 5 of them at once is a decent squad. The issue is that not a lot of people have 5 individual Interceptor packs to run it, and that Imperial Aces doesn't include Alpha and Avenger Squadron Pilots. The other issue is that squads of generics either get blown away by stuff like Corran, or they're perceived to (and rightly so).

I don't think MJ ever proclaimed that it can account for fat turrets having hypermobility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SithBorg - huh? You have multiple ambiguous pronoun references there. Are you trying to say that the generic X-wing is OK?

 

No. The issue with the generic X-wing and B-wing is fairly obvious by this point. But, that hasn't stopped people from making a good amount of the unique X-wings work. And apparently even the generics. A freaking Red Squadron (not even the rookie) made the cut at Nova Open. So, I fail to see why people won't be able to make the T-70 work. Especially in a TLT heavy enviroment and access to Autothrusters. 

 

Because it is the gospel truth.

All it says is that in a joust amongst equally skilled players, certain ships are more points efficient and likely to come out on top. People that don't like this like to pretend that all ships are balanced equally and you just, 'need to fly ship X right, it doesn't suck'.

Also, the Alpha Squadron Pilot with Autothrusters slapped on it for 20 points is a good deal. 5 of them at once is a decent squad. The issue is that not a lot of people have 5 individual Interceptor packs to run it, and that Imperial Aces doesn't include Alpha and Avenger Squadron Pilots. The other issue is that squads of generics either get blown away by stuff like Corran, or they're perceived to (and rightly so).

I don't think MJ ever proclaimed that it can account for fat turrets having hypermobility.

 

 

shrug

 

The math is an important facet. But, I still maintain that it isn't the full story of the game. I look at some of the weird squads that have done well (Europeans remain really crazy in their builds, from what I've seen), and I can't help but think there is more to the story. 

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...