Recommended Posts

Additionally, the significance of getting stressed is pretty dependent on the ship taking stress. We're about to get a big crop of ships that will not care about stress very much.

Share on other sites

Double post.

Edited by Biophysical

Share on other sites

This was a great episode! Props all around!

Bob said that double stressing something at range 2-3 is worth about 10 points, and he did a good job explaining how he got to that number and I agree with it, the geometry and cumulative effect of stress is obvious, but then he said that the stresshog is getting those 10 points of utility for just a 2 point upgrade, ie the stresshog is undercosted by ~8 points,which would explain its ubiquity. But is that taking into account the 6 point cost of the TLT and its reduced utility from the title? Nobody is doing well with BTL+TLT Ys without the stressbot which tells me the title alone makes the TLT less efficient, so the stressbot is making up for a loss of utility via synergy.

Meaning wouldn't it be more accurate to say the stresshog is getting 10-12 points of utility, depending on context, from 8 points of upgrades (TLT+R3A2+BTL) and therefore only ~2-4 points undercosted? 8 points under seems pretty busted, although we are definitely reaching a saturation point.

As I hear it (2:03:00 into the podcast) Bob broke it down like this;

The baseline for how effective a ship is at dealing stress is a B-wing with Tactician or a Y-wing with R3-A2 + Ion turret. Both of which clock in at 25 squad points or 1.5 units of utility. Utility in this case being a made-up unit of measurement to compare how effective a ship is at dealing stress with other ships that deal stress.

A ship being able to deal stress in a;
Range 2 band with single stress = 1.5 Utility (B-wing or Y-wing mentioned above)
Range 2 band with double stress = 4.5 Utility (K-wing w/ Tactician + TLT)
Range 2-3 band with double stress = 10-10.5 Utility (Stressbot)

This does not say that 10 points of Utility = 10 points (out of a 100) in a squad build. It does say that the 26pt. Stresshog is much much more efficient at dealing stress than the 25pt. Y-wing w/ R3-A2 + Ion Turret or even a K-wing.

Note: Utility is only meant as a measurement of stress dealing efficiency and it does not take into account anything outside of that parameter (such as K-wing's ability to fire out of arc at all ranges, SLAM etc).

I believe Bob may have slightly misspoke when he mentioned the R3-A2 increasing the Y-wing's Utility and meant the impact TLTs have in increasing the Utility of the Stresshog for only 1 squad point more over the Ion Turret.  (Disclaimer: This is just an inference)

Share on other sites

This was a great episode! Props all around!

Bob said that double stressing something at range 2-3 is worth about 10 points, and he did a good job explaining how he got to that number and I agree with it, the geometry and cumulative effect of stress is obvious, but then he said that the stresshog is getting those 10 points of utility for just a 2 point upgrade, ie the stresshog is undercosted by ~8 points,which would explain its ubiquity. But is that taking into account the 6 point cost of the TLT and its reduced utility from the title? Nobody is doing well with BTL+TLT Ys without the stressbot which tells me the title alone makes the TLT less efficient, so the stressbot is making up for a loss of utility via synergy.

Meaning wouldn't it be more accurate to say the stresshog is getting 10-12 points of utility, depending on context, from 8 points of upgrades (TLT+R3A2+BTL) and therefore only ~2-4 points undercosted? 8 points under seems pretty busted, although we are definitely reaching a saturation point.

As I hear it (2:03:00 into the podcast) Bob broke it down like this;

The baseline for how effective a ship is at dealing stress is a B-wing with Tactician or a Y-wing with R3-A2 + Ion turret. Both of which clock in at 25 squad points or 1.5 units of utility. Utility in this case being a made-up unit of measurement to compare how effective a ship is at dealing stress with other ships that deal stress.

A ship being able to deal stress in a;

Range 2 band with single stress = 1.5 Utility (B-wing or Y-wing mentioned above)

Range 2 band with double stress = 4.5 Utility (K-wing w/ Tactician + TLT)

Range 2-3 band with double stress = 10-10.5 Utility (Stressbot)

This does not say that 10 points of Utility = 10 points (out of a 100) in a squad build. It does say that the 26pt. Stresshog is much much more efficient at dealing stress than the 25pt. Y-wing w/ R3-A2 + Ion Turret or even a K-wing.

Note: Utility is only meant as a measurement of stress dealing efficiency and it does not take into account anything outside of that parameter (such as K-wing's ability to fire out of arc at all ranges, SLAM etc).

I believe Bob may have slightly misspoke when he mentioned the R3-A2 increasing the Y-wing's Utility and meant the impact TLTs have in increasing the Utility of the Stresshog for only 1 squad point more over the Ion Turret.  (Disclaimer: This is just an inference)

I haven't finished the episode yet, so I may be misunderstanding. It seems that a Trandoshan Slaver, with Tactician and Gunner (and Bossk?) would get about 9.5+ Utility then? It's a Range 2 band with double stress, but the band covers a little more than double other ships' Range 2 bands.

Share on other sites

So the cryptic blurb at the end of the news section, where can I find out what that's all about?

EDIT: Nevermind, found.

Edited by mamajamma21

Share on other sites

This was a great episode! Props all around!

Bob said that double stressing something at range 2-3 is worth about 10 points, and he did a good job explaining how he got to that number and I agree with it, the geometry and cumulative effect of stress is obvious, but then he said that the stresshog is getting those 10 points of utility for just a 2 point upgrade, ie the stresshog is undercosted by ~8 points,which would explain its ubiquity. But is that taking into account the 6 point cost of the TLT and its reduced utility from the title? Nobody is doing well with BTL+TLT Ys without the stressbot which tells me the title alone makes the TLT less efficient, so the stressbot is making up for a loss of utility via synergy.

Meaning wouldn't it be more accurate to say the stresshog is getting 10-12 points of utility, depending on context, from 8 points of upgrades (TLT+R3A2+BTL) and therefore only ~2-4 points undercosted? 8 points under seems pretty busted, although we are definitely reaching a saturation point.

As I hear it (2:03:00 into the podcast) Bob broke it down like this;

The baseline for how effective a ship is at dealing stress is a B-wing with Tactician or a Y-wing with R3-A2 + Ion turret. Both of which clock in at 25 squad points or 1.5 units of utility. Utility in this case being a made-up unit of measurement to compare how effective a ship is at dealing stress with other ships that deal stress.

A ship being able to deal stress in a;

Range 2 band with single stress = 1.5 Utility (B-wing or Y-wing mentioned above)

Range 2 band with double stress = 4.5 Utility (K-wing w/ Tactician + TLT)

Range 2-3 band with double stress = 10-10.5 Utility (Stressbot)

This does not say that 10 points of Utility = 10 points (out of a 100) in a squad build. It does say that the 26pt. Stresshog is much much more efficient at dealing stress than the 25pt. Y-wing w/ R3-A2 + Ion Turret or even a K-wing.

Note: Utility is only meant as a measurement of stress dealing efficiency and it does not take into account anything outside of that parameter (such as K-wing's ability to fire out of arc at all ranges, SLAM etc).

I believe Bob may have slightly misspoke when he mentioned the R3-A2 increasing the Y-wing's Utility and meant the impact TLTs have in increasing the Utility of the Stresshog for only 1 squad point more over the Ion Turret.  (Disclaimer: This is just an inference)

Exactly.

A very good way of breaking it down.

I think that the point that Bob makes about the geometry of the Range Band 3 making the TLT BTL-A4 and Stress Bot a clear winner on a pure dealing of stress in the initial engagement, I like the K-Wing in this case as it can let the initial engagement pass it by and still take part in the game and not only be efficient with regards to damage output but can still take actions.

This obviously comes with the increased Squad Cost of 5 points on the Stresshog and ultimately comes down to not only taste but your overall squad composition.

Realistically when Paul Heaver says that he can't make a Rebel list without the Stresshog at the moment you know it must be good, so who am to question

I would also mention that if you are going for pure control that the extra area of stress utility offered by the TLT BTL-A4 hog is nice, the Ion effect from hitting with the Ion turret is not to be overlooked.  It ensures an extra round of Stress due to the lack of an option to do a green move and ensures that you know where that ship will be next round.

Does that make up for the difference in area covered by range 1-2 instead of range 2-3 or the extra point of damage you could put out with the TLT?

Kris

Edited by KrisSherriff

Share on other sites

Thanks for the show. Maybe FFG will come out with another article now that you have just made another episode like they usually do.

Edited by Chief Hugh

Share on other sites

I would expect nothing less!  LOL.  I need to get 'that marketing guy' on the show sometime...lol

Share on other sites

This was a great episode! Props all around!

Bob said that double stressing something at range 2-3 is worth about 10 points, and he did a good job explaining how he got to that number and I agree with it, the geometry and cumulative effect of stress is obvious, but then he said that the stresshog is getting those 10 points of utility for just a 2 point upgrade, ie the stresshog is undercosted by ~8 points,which would explain its ubiquity. But is that taking into account the 6 point cost of the TLT and its reduced utility from the title? Nobody is doing well with BTL+TLT Ys without the stressbot which tells me the title alone makes the TLT less efficient, so the stressbot is making up for a loss of utility via synergy.

Meaning wouldn't it be more accurate to say the stresshog is getting 10-12 points of utility, depending on context, from 8 points of upgrades (TLT+R3A2+BTL) and therefore only ~2-4 points undercosted? 8 points under seems pretty busted, although we are definitely reaching a saturation point.

As I hear it (2:03:00 into the podcast) Bob broke it down like this;

The baseline for how effective a ship is at dealing stress is a B-wing with Tactician or a Y-wing with R3-A2 + Ion turret. Both of which clock in at 25 squad points or 1.5 units of utility. Utility in this case being a made-up unit of measurement to compare how effective a ship is at dealing stress with other ships that deal stress.

A ship being able to deal stress in a;

Range 2 band with single stress = 1.5 Utility (B-wing or Y-wing mentioned above)

Range 2 band with double stress = 4.5 Utility (K-wing w/ Tactician + TLT)

Range 2-3 band with double stress = 10-10.5 Utility (Stressbot)

This does not say that 10 points of Utility = 10 points (out of a 100) in a squad build. It does say that the 26pt. Stresshog is much much more efficient at dealing stress than the 25pt. Y-wing w/ R3-A2 + Ion Turret or even a K-wing.

Note: Utility is only meant as a measurement of stress dealing efficiency and it does not take into account anything outside of that parameter (such as K-wing's ability to fire out of arc at all ranges, SLAM etc).

I believe Bob may have slightly misspoke when he mentioned the R3-A2 increasing the Y-wing's Utility and meant the impact TLTs have in increasing the Utility of the Stresshog for only 1 squad point more over the Ion Turret.  (Disclaimer: This is just an inference)

Thanks man!  Happy to be back to our standard high level of podcasting!

Share on other sites

The "points" Bob is talking about are squad points, that is how utility and efficiency are measured in this game, that is the "currency" we are using.

Here is a recap of what he said: stressing something at range 2 in arc is worth around 1.5 points, which is why Tactician costs 2 points. Because having 2 stress on one ship at the same time is so much better than two stress spread across 2 ships, ie stress synergizes with itself, double stress at range 2 is worth 3 times the points rather two times the points. So TLT on the K-wing turns a 2 point crew upgrade with normally only 1.5 points of utility into 4.5 points of utility, vastly increasing its efficiency to the point that the overcosted K-wing actually becomes competitive.

Now we do the same thing to R3-A2. Now that we extend the range of our stress out to range 3, we have almost quadrupled our geometric area of effectiveness thanks to the extra width of the arc at range 3, thus giving us about 3.5 points of utility when taking the self-stress into account as a detriment. Then because we are getting double stress with the title, you multiply that but 3 and get 10.5 points of utility from the 2 point Droid. However, to get that double-stress, you had to gimp the effectiveness of your TLT by locking it forward, thus reducing its utility. The question is how many points is a front arc only TLT that includes a 2-dice primary attack worth?

Share on other sites

The "points" Bob is talking about are squad points, that is how utility and efficiency are measured in this game, that is the "currency" we are using.

Here is a recap of what he said: stressing something at range 2 in arc is worth around 1.5 points, which is why Tactician costs 2 points. Because having 2 stress on one ship at the same time is so much better than two stress spread across 2 ships, ie stress synergizes with itself, double stress at range 2 is worth 3 times the points rather two times the points. So TLT on the K-wing turns a 2 point crew upgrade with normally only 1.5 points of utility into 4.5 points of utility, vastly increasing its efficiency to the point that the overcosted K-wing actually becomes competitive.

Now we do the same thing to R3-A2. Now that we extend the range of our stress out to range 3, we have almost quadrupled our geometric area of effectiveness thanks to the extra width of the arc at range 3, thus giving us about 3.5 points of utility when taking the self-stress into account as a detriment. Then because we are getting double stress with the title, you multiply that but 3 and get 10.5 points of utility from the 2 point Droid. However, to get that double-stress, you had to gimp the effectiveness of your TLT by locking it forward, thus reducing its utility. The question is how many points is a front arc only TLT that includes a 2-dice primary attack worth?

I would argue that a BTLed TLT is still worth ~4points easily (same as Mango cannon). It turns the Ywing into quite a good jouster (amazing against low agility targets even).

Share on other sites

Bob said that double stressing something at range 2-3 is worth about 10 points, and he did a good job explaining how he got to that number and I agree with it, the geometry and cumulative effect of stress is obvious, but then he said that the stresshog is getting those 10 points of utility for just a 2 point upgrade, ie the stresshog is undercosted by ~8 points,which would explain its ubiquity. But is that taking into account the 6 point cost of the TLT and its reduced utility from the title? Nobody is doing well with BTL+TLT Ys without the stressbot which tells me the title alone makes the TLT less efficient, so the stressbot is making up for a loss of utility via synergy.

Meaning wouldn't it be more accurate to say the stresshog is getting 10-12 points of utility, depending on context, from 8 points of upgrades (TLT+R3A2+BTL) and therefore only ~2-4 points undercosted? 8 points under seems pretty busted, although we are definitely reaching a saturation point.

OK, slightly longer explanation off the air.

First the baselines. You can make an argument for changing either of these numbers (up or down) and re-running the resulting values accordingly.

• 1.5 points of "utility" for having single stress in a small base range 2 arc, on a ship with the durability of a B-wing is a baseline.
• Likewise, being able to double-stress the same target being worth a factor of 3x that of single stress is another baseline.

Now geometry.

The area covered by the arc is the area in the plane directly in front of the ship, plus the area covered by the off-axis angle. Assuming an arc width of 80 degrees, the area for a small base ship with arc radius r, in general, is:

A = 4cm * r +   pi * r2 * 2*800/3600

So:

R1     r = 10cm: A1   =  179cm2

R1-2, r = 20cm: A1-2 = 638cm2

R1-3, r = 20cm: A1-3 = 1376cm2

and:

R2 = R1-2 - R1       = 458cm2

R3 = R1-3 - R1-2    = 738cm2

R2-3 = R1-3 - R1-2  = 1197cm2

So, the utility of the tactician B-wing is:

R2*1.5*(Durability_3_1_3_5/Durability_3_1_3_5)/R2 = 1.5

(our baseline)

Likewise the utility of the R3-A2 bot when on a TLT Y-wing with BTL-A4 is:

(3*R2-3 + 1*R1)*1.5*Durability_TLT_BTL_R3A2_1_5_3/Durability_3_1_3_5/R2

= (3*R2-3 + 1*R1)*1.5*1.29 / 1.43 / R2

= 11.1

The numbers I quoted on the show I just realized were actually using a baseline value for stress at range 2 of 1.43 (the B-wing's normalized durability) rather than 1.5, which yields 10.6 points of value - this is pretty close to, but not exactly, the 10 - 10.5 points that I quoted off the top of my head.

You can twiddle with the numbers a little, but the basic point is that the utility value offered by R3-A2 on the BTL-A4 TLT platform is immense. It is almost certainly the single most cost-efficient upgrade in the game. At least it's unique.

Now, you have to add the caveat here, of what the plain vanilla BTL-A4 Y-wing + TLT is worth to begin with. It's a straight-up jouster with an efficiency halfway between a naked B-wing, and a B-wing + FCS. That's OK but in a world of super cost efficient TLT turrets it won't pull its own weight. It's probably worth about 21.5 points, but costs 24 points.

However, when you add the R3-A2, you do two things:

1. reduce the jousting efficiency because it only gets a focus on the very first turn
2. add the stress utility value just calculated above

The resulting "fair point cost" is probably around 29.5 points (using the 10.6 number). The ship costs 26 points, so R3-A2 on the TLT BTL-A4 Y-wing is essentially undercosted by 3.5 points. This doesn't even yet consider the list-building effect, where you NEED to counter Aces. As a result the Stressbot is essentially auto-include in almost every rebel build.

Related, the 24 point Y-wing + TLT (no title) is worth about 20 points in dice, with an absolute efficiency around 84% and a corresponding "required efficiency" of about 137%. If it were an arced ship with these numbers it would be relegated to a dusty corner of everyone's closet, but since it has a turret it can pretty reliably hit that 137% target.

I haven't finished the episode yet, so I may be misunderstanding. It seems that a Trandoshan Slaver, with Tactician and Gunner (and Bossk?) would get about 9.5+ Utility then? It's a Range 2 band with double stress, but the band covers a little more than double other ships' Range 2 bands.

That would be an interesting case to cover. The range band is indeed massive, but you have less than 100% chance of triggering gunner to get the 2nd TLT attack. that said, I love that combo, unfortunately the Trandoshan Slaver is simply too points inefficient even with its arc/dial to be a reliable workhorse.

Edited by MajorJuggler

Share on other sites

However, when you add the R3-A2, you do two things:

1. reduce the jousting efficiency because it only gets a focus on the very first turn
2. add the stress utility value just calculated above

I agree, but I'd also add that you severely reduce the Y-wings maneuverability as well.  You cut off its highest speed turns, and its K-turn, and the latter reduces its jousting efficiency by more than just the loss of a Focus, although clever bumping can keep it pointed at the enemy longer than it seems like it should be.

Share on other sites

TLT is the new noob tube. The new Fat Han if you will.

Simple to fly and effective even used by relatively new players. More effective than most other lists anyway.

Good gateway list as mentioned in the podcast, high floor, not so high ceiling.

Right now the Meta has (over-)reacted (similar to old Phantom), either you bring a TLT counter or you stay home.

Share on other sites

TLT is the new noob tube. The new Fat Han if you will.

Simple to fly and effective even used by relatively new players. More effective than most other lists anyway.

Good gateway list as mentioned in the podcast, high floor, not so high ceiling.

Right now the Meta has (over-)reacted (similar to old Phantom), either you bring a TLT counter or you stay home.

It's not just new players using TLT though. The data from Worlds 2015 Top 32 is very clear: with the exception of two players (Dallas with his 7 TIE Swarm and Ron with 4BZ), almost all the generic pilots were completely replaced by generics with TLT, CrackShot, or carrying Palpatine, with TLT taking the lion's share.

We are in the Era Of The Y-wing. It is the most popular top-tier ship in the game, in the entire history of the game. I give the current Y-wing the nod over TIE Fighters from wave 1-3 (even though their overall usage in Top 32 was about the same), because the separation between the Y-wing and the #2 and #3 ships is much more than the difference between the 2013 TIE Fighter and #2 and #3 ships.

Share on other sites

You can twiddle with the numbers a little, but the basic point is that the utility value offered by R3-A2 on the BTL-A4 TLT platform is immense. It is almost certainly the single most cost-efficient upgrade in the game. At least it's unique.

Now, you have to add the caveat here, of what the plain vanilla BTL-A4 Y-wing + TLT is worth to begin with. It's a straight-up jouster with an efficiency halfway between a naked B-wing, and a B-wing + FCS. That's OK but in a world of super cost efficient TLT turrets it won't pull its own weight. It's probably worth about 21.5 points, but costs 24 points.

However, when you add the R3-A2, you do two things:

• reduce the jousting efficiency because it only gets a focus on the very first turn
• add the stress utility value just calculated above
The resulting "fair point cost" is probably around 29.5 points (using the 10.6 number). The ship costs 26 points, so R3-A2 on the TLT BTL-A4 Y-wing is essentially undercosted by 3.5 points. This doesn't even yet consider the list-building effect, where you NEED to counter Aces. As a result the Stressbot is essentially auto-include in almost every rebel build.

Related, the 24 point Y-wing + TLT (no title) is worth about 20 points in dice, with an absolute efficiency around 84% and a corresponding "required efficiency" of about 137%. If it were an arced ship with these numbers it would be relegated to a dusty corner of everyone's closet, but since it has a turret it can pretty reliably hit that 137% target.

This is what I was getting at, how much the title and stress reduce the efficiency of the ship against the insane value of double stressing anything in arc at range 2-3. Thank you for explaining MJ, knowing that it's only about 4 points under costed matches my intuitive feelings about the ship's efficiency.

Share on other sites

I'm not going to argue that the stresshog isn't a good value, but it's obvious without the math. What I don't like is how these mathematical models make a lot of assumptions about abstract concepts and then uses math and numbers to make these appear to be hard calculations, but aren't. For instance, examining the above model:

1) Areas of firing arcs - hard numbers (although implies a ship will be targeted in equal proportions to the firing arc areas, which may not be the case)

2) Utility point cost of a B-wing w/tactician is 1.5 points- Abstract and actual value varies target to target

3) Double-stressing is 3 times better than a single stress - Abstract and actual value varies target to target

4) The point cost of the Stresshog - a mix of hard numbers and abstracted values

5) Final result = 10.6 utility points or a ship that is undercosted by 3.5 points - tada gets touted as hard numbers

If I tweak a few of those arbitrary numbers - say I find a B-wing with tactician is worth 1 utility point instead of 1.5 and decide double-stressing is worth 2.5 times a single stress, we get..........

5a) A utility cost of about 7 points and a ship that is overcosted by about 0.1 point.

Edited by Gather

Share on other sites

(I know I'm a bit behind) Really enjoyed your part on K-Wings and bombs. Last weekend I flew 3 K-Wings with seismics, Conners, extra munitions and advanced slam at a local tournament and went 4-0. K-Wings with bombs can totally work.

Share on other sites

(I know I'm a bit behind) Really enjoyed your part on K-Wings and bombs. Last weekend I flew 3 K-Wings with seismics, Conners, extra munitions and advanced slam at a local tournament and went 4-0. K-Wings with bombs can totally work.

Good to hear it, and thanks for sharing!

I love Nets and advanced slam

Share on other sites

I love how Bob is STILL getting guff about math wing. Gets me every time.

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.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×

×

• Activity

×
• Create New...