Jump to content
SaltMaster 5000

Carolina Krayts is the best X-Wing podcast

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, mcintma said:

The obvious counterpoint to your statement, which is pretty extreme, to go on the opposite extreme would be: blind devotion to a position while ignoring real results is just as bad.

I agree wholeheartedly.  It's a huge problem in these kinds of discussions - you can't just keep measuring until you find the result you want.  It also can't help in situations where things are so prevelant that the regress to the mean by sheer volume of play.  If 75% of the meta is X, X can't win much more than 50% of the time solely because of mirror matches.

 

Take second edition proton torpedoes for example - they were so widespread that every table had an average of >1 proton torpedo on it.  Because of that, the average performance of a list with proton torpedoes was worse than the average list without them, by some trivial amount.  Once something has reached a certain level of usage, it's impossible to tell if it's good or not based on performance.  It's why hearing things like "X only has a 55% winrate overall" from game companies is so ridiculous - of course the winrate is that low if 60% of players are using it, regardless of power level.

 

IIRC (and this is entirely from memory) the average number of proton torpedoes per table (2 players) was around 1.2 before the first points rebalance for second edition.  I don't have access to this at the moment, but can order of magnitude guess force users.  If ~22% of swiss is republic, and ~24% is empire, roughly 20% of it is force aces from republic and similar for empire.  Let's approximate that the average list in that 40% has 1.5 force using ships (inquisitors might drive it up higher than that, but arcs/broadside bring it down).  The specific amount isn't too important, I'm just interested in a rough estimate since I don't have those numbers in front of me at the moment.  Similarly, let's just assume no other faction has any force users/aces at all.  FO is effectively a rounding error anyways, so close enough.  We're ignoring things like Luke, or Infiltrators, or maul crew - whatever.  That puts us at .6 force aces per player, or 1.2 force aces per table.

 

Seems pretty familiar.  If anyone has access to those stats on hand, curious how well that lines up.  I suspect I'm underestimating a bit, but whatever.

Edited by Brunas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I agree wholeheartedly.  It's a huge problem in these kinds of discussions - you can't just keep measuring until you find the result you want.  It also can't help in situations where things are so prevelant that the regress to the mean by sheer volume of play.  If 75% of the meta is X, X can't win much more than 50% of the time solely because of mirror matches.

Yeah I kinda walked into a statistics fight with the proverbial pocket knife - was not my intent. Really only wanted to say, the Force and aces look to have very solid counters in the meta right now, I'd be against across-the-board nerfs but *for* surgical points adjustments (up & down) to the most/least efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I agree wholeheartedly.  It's a huge problem in these kinds of discussions - you can't just keep measuring until you find the result you want.  It also can't help in situations where things are so prevelant that the regress to the mean by sheer volume of play.  If 75% of the meta is X, X can't win much more than 50% of the time solely because of mirror matches.

 

Take second edition proton torpedoes for example - they were so widespread that every table had an average of >1 proton torpedo on it.  Because of that, the average performance of a list with proton torpedoes was worse than the average list without them, by some trivial amount.  Once something has reached a certain level of usage, it's impossible to tell if it's good or not based on performance.  It's why hearing things like "X only has a 55% winrate overall" from game companies is so ridiculous - of course the winrate is that low if 60% of players are using it, regardless of power level.

 

IIRC (and this is entirely from memory) the average number of proton torpedoes per table (2 players) was around 1.2 before the first points rebalance for second edition.  I don't have access to this at the moment, but can order of magnitude guess force users.  If ~22% of swiss is republic, and ~24% is empire, roughly 20% of it is force aces from republic and similar for empire.  Let's approximate that the average list in that 40% has 1.5 force using ships (inquisitors might drive it up higher than that, but arcs/broadside bring it down).  The specific amount isn't too important, I'm just interested in a rough estimate since I don't have those numbers in front of me at the moment.  Similarly, let's just assume no other faction has any force users/aces at all.  FO is effectively a rounding error anyways, so close enough.  We're ignoring things like Luke, or Infiltrators, or maul crew - whatever.  That puts us at .6 force aces per player, or 1.2 force aces per table.

 

Seems pretty familiar.  If anyone has access to those stats on hand, curious how well that lines up.  I suspect I'm underestimating a bit, but whatever.

 

A popular streamer and coach for Overwatch, Jayne, put it best "If Blizzard released an insanely overpowered hero, what would the win rate be? 50% because every team would have one"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Brunas said:

FO is effectively a rounding error anyways, so close enough.  We're ignoring things like Luke, or Infiltrators, or maul crew - whatever.  That puts us at .6 force aces per player, or 1.2 force aces per table.

At least its a cool looking rounding error. 

latest?cb=20171205064437

swz18_preview1.jpg

swx38_preview1.jpg

Regarding force...

I think its partly an issue because some of the most popular and interesting characters have access to it. 
People will always want to run these characters more often regardless of performance because they are peoples favorite characters. 
These are ships and characters that alot of players just want on the table. Luke, Vader, Obi Wan, Maul, Kylo, Mace, Rey, etc. 

Makes severe Point Cost Increases as a mechanism to balance it kinda less fun than making the mechanic itself more restrictive/engaging. 
Im in favor of rule based changes to how force works to allow these characters costs to stay reasonable and still exist in a variety of lists. 
Limit its ability to recharge further and the circumstances in which it can be spent/recharged.
Doesnt suddenly make extra built in actionless mods bad if using and recharging them requires a few more pre-reqs similar to those applied to normal actions. 
It would still feel fun to play and be incredibly powerful. New players would still find it easier than non-force ships as well. 

Or just keep increasing costs and adjusting power level. Im ok with that to, kinda. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Regarding force...

I think its partly an issue because some of the most popular and interesting characters have access to it. 
People will always want to run these characters more often regardless of performance because they are peoples favorite characters. 
These are ships and characters that alot of players just want on the table. Luke, Vader, Obi Wan, Maul, Kylo, Mace, Rey, etc. 
 

Boba Fett, Whisper, Duchess, Grand Inquisitor...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jagsba said:

SAME TEAM

S A M E T E A M

A M E T E A M

M E T E A M

E T E A M

T E A M

E A M

A M

M

 

Oh, didn't realize that was in there - neat!

Is it relatively straightforward to extend that to get the avg number of force users per list in there, instead of a binary yes/no?

 

E.g. instead of 56% of lists having a force user, every list has an average of .X force users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Brunas said:

S A M E T E A M

A M E T E A M

M E T E A M

E T E A M

T E A M

E A M

A M

M

 

Oh, didn't realize that was in there - neat!

Is it relatively straightforward to extend that to get the avg number of force users per list in there, instead of a binary yes/no?

 

E.g. instead of 56% of lists having a force user, every list has an average of .X force users.

you should ask @svelok. It's his number nomming 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's calculate the cost of Vonreg, only to be found absolutely wrong because this is by the same knucklehead who thought Ensnare Fac was going to be 68! Now go ahead and laugh at me, actual playtesters, you and your smug NDA's. I just thought it'd be fun, plus when I proxy some more with my brother and some friends, it might inform the general area of proxy-costing, instead of the usual wild variables like "this game, he's going to be costed like Fenn/Soontir/etc.".

The closest analogue is Soontir, who starts at 53 pt. The least inaccurate assumptions will be made first: health count. Similar ships don't have the difference between HP slapped in upgrade cost, as there is some discount in the upgrading (The TIE FO v TIE LN is the famous example, but another very good example is the T 65 v T 70). The sequel factions have fewer "crowd buff" pieces than the OT factions, so +1 HP + Tech Slot(!) + Dial Upgrade + Better action Bar = only around 4 ish points. Since the shield to hull ration is better on the TIE/ba, we'll treat that HP + tech +etc as a 5 pt increase. I know that the T70 gained a hardpoint slot for free, but the TIE/ba is a ship that wants a missile more often than the T70 wants a secondary weapon. We'll treat this aspect as being cancelled out by losing one of the interceptor's mod slots (yes, 2 are rather good, but how often does Soontir fill those 2?). So thus far, from basic slots, HP, dial, and action bar, we're dealing with a 58 pt Vonreg.

Now onto the ship ability. On paper, it looks to be a remarkably weak version of Autothrusters. Double reposition is offered only in Vectored Thrusters' form, and this 4 health ship has to sacrifice offense or defense in order to boost efficiency. In fact, if you are moving somewhat low on the Initiative bracket, it is strictly worse than Autothrusters, as not only do you have to worry about final positions going blind, but you are doing so with self de-buffs. But the I6 skill ceiling on the ability exceeds autothrusters. Obviously, at I6, the goal is to not get shot at in the first place. If you're outmaneuvering, the strain means nothing when you engage. If there's only an R3 2 die potshot coming at you, taking the evade at the cost of an agility is actually the correct decision in most game states. And if it looks like you're taking fire whether you like it or not, go ahead and deplete to get yourself out of dodge/composure abuse: you weren't going to spend your mods to hit anyway (and typically, your gun is pointed away in disengagement anyway). The fact that the self-debuffs last for only 1 relevant attack or until your insanely blue dial clears them escalates the value of positioning relative to gas clouds (which this ship can abuse a la Vader, unlike autos!). And then when you're not worrying about getting shot at? Holy cow, is range 1 Lock + Focus (77% of full string) way more consistent than range 1 Predator + Focus (63%) (and you have a wider selection of targets for those full mods, because sometimes Soontir's target is not the one that granted him is focus. Vonreg doesn't care). To put that in perspective, many of us Kylo players excitedly shell out 4 pt to turn Kylo's Lock + 1 Force (the other from supernatting or defending on the other builds) from a measly 68% of a full string on 3 dice to 80% by taking a focus instead of a lock. And Vonreg ends up at R1 more often than Kylo does. Consistency, obstacle/upgrade abuse, and forgiveness via perfect information all add up, and FFG has most recently been balancing points out from the top down. The higher skill ceiling on Vonreg and all the fun disgusting things that he can do are worth at least the cost of many things. I'll say 7 pt for the ship ability buff. And did I mention that these thrusters are stress-less? High action efficiency does not punish your ability to K-turn, and the strain/deplete could have very easily been removed when it is time to go back to dials. Sure, K-turning turns off the ability, but Pattern Analyzer and Afterburners are still very powerful things especially when you did hyper-efficient things that most ships require stress to do.

As for the pilot ability, I don't think you can evaluate Vonreg's or Soontir's as worth more. Soontir offers a little safety net if someone pulled a clever block, but more importantly, it's a Han Gunner effect for your double-repositioning ship in order to significantly boost efficiency and damage output on a squirrelly ship. Vonreg's ability is immensely powerful in many situations, but it's slightly harder for him to attain bullseye, and on top of that, those inflicted debuffs could be removed during the activation phase by blue maneuvers. It's a great control piece that could really mess with your opponent, but against many ships often means nothing. It certainly means something, but I don't think it's worthy any more or less than Soontir's ability unless you have a specific meta.

So all these words wasted to come up with an inevitably incorrect 65 pt base cost for Vonreg. Hopefully, it won't be long before I see how far I was off.

Edited by player3010587

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, player3010587 said:

The closest analogue is Soontir

I dont think Vonreg has that much in common with Soontir besides being i6 and having the same ship model. 
Fewer reposition options, and substantially more vulnerability to blocks.
Plays like a slightly more mobile i6 forceless inquisitor that can focus lock. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

I dont think Vonreg has that much in common with Soontir besides being i6 and having the same ship model. 
Fewer reposition options, and substantially more vulnerability to blocks.
Plays like a slightly more mobile i6 forceless inquisitor that can focus lock. 

focus evade too with composure, unless i'm reading that ship ability wrong.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...