# DISCOVERED! Official formula for ship stat pricing.

## Recommended Posts

From 2 attack dice to 3 attack dice is not 100% more offense

##### Share on other sites

... The tricky part is that going from 2 -> 3 attack dice is priced as DOUBLING its offensive value. ...

Erm... how is going from 2 to 3 a "doubling" or "100% more"...

By my reckoning, it's 50% more:

+1 die on a base of two;

Going from statistically 1 hit/crit to 1.5 hit/crit.

...

TIE-Interceptor has 100% more offense (3ATK) than a TIE-Fighter (2ATK), therefor it would see a 50% increase in cost ...

I haven't read into your formula, but wouldn't that correlate better? (TIE Int = 50% increase in Offense therefore 50% increase in cost)

- - - -

In my own opinion, whilst there may be some formula for generating the ball park starting point, I would expect the final cost would be fine-tuned after play-testing and considering additional factors.

##### Share on other sites

You have a nice approximation that doesn't take into account dials, upgrades, or actions. But it's not "it".

I, too, have my own formula. It, too, comes close almost all the time (and I do attempt to account for dials, upgrades, and actions). But I sincerely doubt it's "it" either.

##### Share on other sites

Well, the fact of the matter is, while FFG probably has their own spreadsheet which has some similar amalgamation of maths to rough out a pricing, I suspect they don't use solid, cold hard numbers to price all things, and instead have a non-maths discussion on how they feel the cost should integrate into games, and what they mean with some upgrades, etc. Like how based on the numbers, the Striker generic EPT should be 19 points, but clearly FFG does not want you to run that play, so you have 20 instead.

This formulation is interesting though, I'd like to see more

##### Share on other sites

Erm... how is going from 2 to 3 a "doubling" or "100% more"...

By my reckoning, it's 50% more:

+1 die on a base of two;

Going from statistically 1 hit/crit to 1.5 hit/crit.

I'm going to quote myself here: " The tricky part is that going from 2 -> 3 attack dice is priced as DOUBLING its offensive value."

Everyone should know that double of 2 is 4.  We're all on the same page?  Good.  What I'm saying is that the very rough skeleton formula for determining ship cost (before factoring in dials, actions, and whatnot) VALUES going from 2 red dice to 3 red dice as a lot bigger of a jump than merely a 50% statistical increase in damage.  It's mathematically 50% extra dice, but they determined that this jump is WORTH more than the numbers imply.  My guess is because they already factored in green dice into the equation and that in practice 2 red dice is more like 1 hit on average and 3 dice is more like 2 hits on average.  They're reasoning that one 3 red dice shot is worth two 2 red dice shots.

ABXY, on 28 Dec 2016 - 5:36 PM, said:
In my own opinion, whilst there may be some formula for generating the ball park starting point, I would expect the final cost would be fine-tuned after play-testing and considering additional factors.

That's exactly what this is... the starting point.  I claim no more.

Edited by f0rbiddenc00kie

##### Share on other sites

You have a nice approximation that doesn't take into account dials, upgrades, or actions. But it's not "it".

I, too, have my own formula. It, too, comes close almost all the time (and I do attempt to account for dials, upgrades, and actions). But I sincerely doubt it's "it" either.

Of course not.  My formula is for base ship stats (red/green/hull/shields), nothing more.  You need to use your judgement for the rest.  I'm just laying the ground work.

Edited by f0rbiddenc00kie

##### Share on other sites

From 2 attack dice to 3 attack dice is not 100% more offense

oh god they dont teach reading comprehension anymore do they

he didn't say it was 100% more offense. He said that FFG treats it as 100% more offense.

##### Share on other sites

I don't know what do with this information....

##### Share on other sites

This reads more as you having a theory and then creating the facts to fit it.

This only works if a) you don't take dials into account, b) you apply upgrades developed later as a justification for ship costs years older.

##### Share on other sites

From 2 attack dice to 3 attack dice is not 100% more offense

oh god they dont teach reading comprehension anymore do they

he didn't say it was 100% more offense. He said that FFG treats it as 100% more offense.

Which he only thinks they do because it fits his model.

##### Share on other sites

From 2 attack dice to 3 attack dice is not 100% more offense

oh god they dont teach reading comprehension anymore do they

he didn't say it was 100% more offense. He said that FFG treats it as 100% more offense.

Which he only thinks they do because it fits his model.

And probably because it makes sense as soon as you consider green dice. Assume the targeted ship rolls one evade every defensive roll (not unreasonable).

With TL+Focus attacker

3 atk will have an expeccted damage of roughly 1,8

2 atk comes in at roughly 0,9

##### Share on other sites

From 2 attack dice to 3 attack dice is not 100% more offense

oh god they dont teach reading comprehension anymore do they

he didn't say it was 100% more offense. He said that FFG treats it as 100% more offense.

Which he only thinks they do because it fits his model.

And probably because it makes sense as soon as you consider green dice. Assume the targeted ship rolls one evade every defensive roll (not unreasonable).

With TL+Focus attacker

3 atk will have an expeccted damage of roughly 1,8

2 atk comes in at roughly 0,9

You can't figure out a base price for a ship without considering the whole ship, including the dial and upgrade slots.

If you do that, it's too simple to say that FFG considers 3 attack 100% increase over 2.

##### Share on other sites

I came into this thread expecting to see an amusing GIF about roulette, blindfold darts or gypsy palmistry.

I am disappointed.

##### Share on other sites

FFG's "pricing formula" is picking a number of out the air that feels right and tweaking it up and down based on playtesting.

##### Share on other sites

You can't figure out a base price for a ship without considering the whole ship, including the dial and upgrade slots.

If you do that, it's too simple to say that FFG considers 3 attack 100% increase over 2.

And I did. The beauty of the TIE-Fighter and the Z-95 is that not only are they the cheapest, they are also meant to be efficient meaning that they are free of clutter bringing up their costs.  All you have to do is assume that the Z-95 and TIE-Fighter dials/actions are considered "relatively normal" and modify prices up (white K-turn) or down (Lambda Shuttle) from there.  That's it.

It's simple, elegant, and I didn't even have to modify my formula ever.  In fact, I was mathing out the values in my original post on the spot.  I just noticed patterns in the pricing beforehand but never bothered to apply it to as many ships as I could.  Turns out just about everything was spot on, save the Kihraxz Fighter estimate which surprised me quite a bit.

EDIT: In fact, I should go back to my original post to clear this up about the whole dial and actions bar bit.

Edited by f0rbiddenc00kie

##### Share on other sites

From 2 attack dice to 3 attack dice is not 100% more offense

oh god they dont teach reading comprehension anymore do they

he didn't say it was 100% more offense. He said that FFG treats it as 100% more offense.

Which he only thinks they do because it fits his model.

And probably because it makes sense as soon as you consider green dice. Assume the targeted ship rolls one evade every defensive roll (not unreasonable).

With TL+Focus attacker

3 atk will have an expeccted damage of roughly 1,8

2 atk comes in at roughly 0,9

You can't figure out a base price for a ship without considering the whole ship, including the dial and upgrade slots.

If you do that, it's too simple to say that FFG considers 3 attack 100% increase over 2.

Well, given how most of the forum's playerbase considers 3 the only acceptable level of attack without augmentations, I think that treatment is correct.

##### Share on other sites

The problems I see with the theory are 1) X-Wing development has changed hands at least once, and likely the ship design process has also changed, and 2) the X-Wing and Y-Wing predate the Z-95 and B-Wing and so cannot be priced based upon their attributes.

##### Share on other sites

If I spend about 30 minutes thinking about this, I am certain I can come up with a formula, completely different from yours, whose by-product will end with the same results as yours.

The point is that I can take all of the existing relevant data and make it fit many, many different formulas.  Further, I can tweak it if I want it to include or not include various parts of the puzzle, such as dials, bases, etc.

While it is possible when this game was first in the development stages there may have been some form of "formula" considered, anything currently being developed would have to take into consideration the play testing involved to make sure it is reasonably balanced against the whole.

Due to the nature and pieces of this game, I highly doubt any fixed formula is used anymore.

Having said that, if you enjoy this type of hypothesis/puzzle solving, more power to you.  Just another way to gain enjoyment from the game.

Edited by any2cards

##### Share on other sites

[2] X-Wing w/Integrated: 100% offense increase, 50% defense increase = 22.5 {official 22+}

That would explain the success of a few 4XZ squads in the 2016 regionals season. Unfortunately now is just generally a bad time to be a low PS jousty ship, so this fix didn't really do much for the poor X-Wing.

##### Share on other sites

FFG doesn't have a program that spits out the answer because there are too many factors to consider for a one size fits all equation to work. You can absolutely do the analysis, but it requires a variety of techniques for modeling the different aspects of the game. (Search for "MathWing")

FFG starts with an estimate and then play tests a lot. I don't know how much more they crunch numbers now than in the past. I'd guess at least a bit more, but the are diminishing returns to this.

##### Share on other sites

FFG doesn't have a program that spits out the answer because there are too many factors to consider for a one size fits all equation to work. You can absolutely do the analysis, but it requires a variety of techniques for modeling the different aspects of the game. (Search for "MathWing")

FFG starts with an estimate and then play tests a lot. I don't know how much more they crunch numbers now than in the past. I'd guess at least a bit more, but the are diminishing returns to this.

And what factors might those be?

Your post is confusing because you say "FFG starts with an estimate and then play tests a lot."  This ENTIRE THING is about determining how "FFG starts with an estimate."  There, you said it yourself.  The OP is giving you the starting estimate.  That's it.  Nothing more.

Edited by f0rbiddenc00kie

##### Share on other sites

The Mysteries of the Universe seem to be so clear now!

##### Share on other sites

Out-friggin-standing, Cookie!  Don't pay any heed to some of these doubters and negative Nancy's!  You stated from the beginning that this wasn't an end-all be-all formula, but you were only trying to sort out why FFG has done the things they've done.  I thoroughly enjoyed reading through your post, and I challenge some of the naysayers to come up with their own formula to discredit yours.

Whether FFG uses a formula or not is beyond my realm of concern, but at least with your formula you used a constant to help evaluate each ship.  Some results were in line with common community opinion, some weren't.  But I'm sure we can all agree that your formula was at least close to explaining the rationale behind their pricing "model".  And even on the ships your formula "failed" on (Punisher) we can at least agree it still falls in line with perceived value and meta usage.  Thakns for putting in the leg work.

##### Share on other sites

Your post is confusing because you say "FFG starts with an estimate and then play tests a lot."  This ENTIRE THING is about determining how "FFG starts with an estimate."  There, you said it yourself.  The OP is giving you the starting estimate.  That's it.  Nothing more.

Wouldn't be surprised if they pluck it out of the air.

Also, you are the OP. Why are you talking about yourself in third person?

## 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...