Jump to content
MajorJuggler

PSA: no public MathWing / ship evaluation for X-wing 2.0

Recommended Posts

That entire scene must have landed a few crits on little Anakin's mind. 
Why do they need to stand so close to a burning corpse. There isn't even a fume extractor there. Did they stay all the way until the flesh melted off the bones in front of everyone? Geez.
An why does Ric Oulie, the queen's pilot, need to wear red on a frigging funeral? What an attention starved individual...
"Qui-Gon Jinn will always be with us... At least with our clothes. We are never going to remove the BBQ smell off them."

Edited by Azrapse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 11:09 PM, MajorJuggler said:

I offered FFG IP terms where they would have unlimited access to use results or mathematical processes I gave them, but to protect myself they would not be able to "own" any mathematical formulas exclusively. They would not agree to these terms.

In which case, if you weren't happy to give this away, you were perfectly justified in refusing. And thanks for the effort you have previously put in.

As you note, the app's dynamic points costs does mean that even if points aren't correct on day 1 we'll have a 'follow the bouncing ball' evolution towards a more balanced state.

As long as the game is fun I'm not too bothered - whilst I approve of a statistical analysis which is (a) thorough and (b) knows the limitations of its own assumptions (something a lot of people who do stuff on the back of a spreadsheet and post on the forum that A is better than B because C without the caveat 'in situations D, E, and....oh, not F but that never comes up....' - usually ignoring the fact that when something is provably better in a simple head on pass, no-one offers them a simple head-on pass), I'm not going to hope for or expect a game that's that balanced.

As far as I'm concerned, 'balanced' means that the variations in efficiency are less than the variations in performance due to player skill and scissors-paper-stone effects, such that you don't have to achieve some sort of micron-perfect prescient zen performance to overcome a list-based disadvantage.

11 hours ago, MajorJuggler said:

 

You are right, there are a lot of other people that have predicted problems with many of the releases. Unfortunately the playtesters and the development team are apparently not among them. I had several playtesters argue with me voraciously in favor of FFG's design decisions about OG Defenders and TLT, for example.

I would guess it's a matter of perspective (I'm not necessarily saying they were right, you understand).

A lot of playtesters are, I assume, first-rank competitive players. Hence, whilst they may not be able to produce a case involving a structured mathematical argument, they have a good experiential knowledge of first-tier competitive play (including the harder-to-directly-enumerate impact of stuff like manoeuvres, deployment, approach strategy and obstacle placement to produce many-on-one or 'preferred range' first engagements).

However.

It does mean their view of X-wing is essentially only the top tier, such that if it ain't a store championship winning list, who cares how the new thing does against it because no-one flies it anyway. Given that you can only play a finite number of test games, that's an understandable view, but if does often mean combinations get overlooked, because their view of 'balanced' is 'up to snuff on the top table'. Which is why their view is (for example) that all missiles needed to be like Harpoons, when people who don't want to play whatever combination of narratively ill-matched stuff sits at the top of the leaderboard these days.

Equally, it means that often their view is a hammer looking for nails. If you play a dozen tournaments a season, you can be forgiven for getting sick of getting knocked out by a specific ship or squad.

Which is where the desire to introduce the anti-thing-thing comes from - which is almost always a bad choice, because either it's useless against other targets (and as such becomes a choke on selecting its natural prey without actually seeing table time itself) or else it's broken as heck (because the intended target was a top tier unit, so good against that means overpowered against 'normal' units).

 

 

 

 

Edited by Magnus Grendel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Came for the MathWing and the rants, was not dissapointed. 

As an added bonus there are these two "Gems" by Boba Rick, and I am sorry I cannot resist:
 

11 hours ago, Boba Rick said:

The scientific method required being able to prove something in a closed environment - you can't do that with either Creationism or Evolutionism, hence they are BOTH faiths of one degree or another.

Experiments with Bacteria, Cells and Bannaflies have certainly been able to prove the principle behind Evolution in a closed enviroment just to mention a few types. Countless rigorous scientific experiments have been succesfully conducted within that field. I invite you to take a look at the latest scientific publications: https://www.nature.com/subjects/experimental-evolution

11 hours ago, Boba Rick said:

 

Well, there it is!  A rando on the internet declared for all humanity that there is no debate on this subject so that settles it.  Never mind the Big Bang Theory contradicts the first law of thermodynamics and evolution contradicts the second.  Obviously anyone with a different opinion than you is an idiot who "voted for Trump and married his sister."

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy (and hence mass) is preserved in a closed system as time progresses, the Big Bang Theory in no way violates any of those assumptions. I am a little uncertain to what you mean here, please ask and I will answer. 

The second law of thermodamics states that entropy (disorder) either remains or increases in a closed system as a whole as time progresses, evolution does not violate that either. Eventhough entropy is locally diminished by the process of evolution (inside the lifeform), the lifeform carrying it out need to consume energy and materials (=eating, living and breeding) and produce much more disorder to the surrounding/remaining part of the system. Oh life and sex is one of the most messy activities you can find your self in (you should try it sometime). Similarly to you refrigerator, it also locally reduces entropy (and temperature) inside, but does so by producing more far entropy (heat) to the kitchen (and the rest of the world) that it reduces. 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, guys. There is still hope for getting the thread back on rails.

toy-train-derails-then-uses-a-wall-to-go

 

I, for one, will miss MajorJugger's insights. But I believe his legacy will live on and other people will (they already do) propose metrics to measure the general or situational worth of a ship or upgrade.
I have found Boba Rick's Virtual Actions metric a pretty good way to tell the amount of tricks a ship has over some other and how that can determine how you approach playing with it. Sure it was something that was known from long ago, but I like how he put it into words.
That is just a metric like many others. MathWing jousting value just told how many extra tricks a ship had to have in order to be in equal terms with others, just by looking at the base stats. That is just one metric. It never pretended to describe the full reality of the game.

If X-wing's community survives its transition to 2.0, I have no doubt people will keep on developing metrics and even automated tools to quantize all that is quantizable. I don't think MajorJuggler's departure will mean the arrival of a dark age of X-wing in the sense of people playing ships and upgrades blind. The developers might not be convinced that they need math, but many in the community do anyway. So there is no way back.

 

Edited by Azrapse

Share this post


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

If X-wing's community survives its transition to 2.0, I have no doubt people will keep on developing metrics and even automated tools to quantize all that is quatizable

This makes me wonder how openly people will share their tools and findings at the start of 2.0.

It‘s a relatively clean slate and nobody gets a head start due to point cost being unknown, so also no preview based theorycrafting and testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support you in this. As an architect, when I perform work for a client, the client gets to use that work *once* to construct a building, but I retain all IP, copyright and trademarks, etc. My work is my work. They're paying me for it so they can use it once. In creative and analytical fields, we aren't making a *thing* that gets sold over and over, our ideas and our brains are how we make a living. Giving that out for free is a terrible business plan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2018 at 5:57 PM, MajorJuggler said:

The large part of what changed is that they can actually use my inputs now, immediately, because point costs aren't printed on the card. Naturally a lot of people would prefer me to give away this info as a free service to FFG (and by extension the community) because there is a lot of value in that. Not giving FFG that info is a business decision on my part. FFG already knew that if they didn't hire me, that I wouldn't be doing any public analysis. Those were the terms of my offer. This PSA is for the community, not FFG.

I hope that if you find something truly broken that generates a negative play experience that you would ballpark a number to cut down on the time the community has to suffer. But hopefully this never comes up.

Edit: Bob, I always enjoyed your meta breakdown. Since you are protecting your IP (understandably) perhaps you could use the concept of threat level to still talk with the community.

Also, you should serously consider Patreon.

Edited by TreebeardTheEnt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BVRCH said:

Screen-Shot-2015-11-06-at-9.02.19-PM.png

Come on in, the pyre is warm.


Hey look, it's FFG's upcoming In-Flight Report about Armada!



To @MajorJuggler: I think pretty much all of us agree with you entirely about not giving away your labor, effort, or ideas freely.  Neither FFG nor the Community writ large "deserve" your work to be freely given to them, so to that end I fully support your decision to not make your tools freely available.  Before you seriously pursued any Crowd-Funded option though, I'd recommend looking into the legalities of such.  The last thing you'd want to do is raise a bunch of funds and then get hit by some Cease & Desist from AsmodeeNA or something.  It may constitute "fair use," but I'd consult with an expert beforehand just to make sure you've crossed all the T's and dotted all the I's.  If that all pans out, another route might be to create a website or blog with "subscription" options, where subscribers got access to things like regular newsletters and the like.

Edited by AllWingsStandyingBy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm super late on this but it seems kind of hypocritical for some people to be like "Good we need less mathwingers" because it implies a certain disdain for those who play differently than they do, which is the attitude that I assume these people have an issue with Mathwingers for in the first place. 

"Why are you using that ship, don't you know how crappy it is?" - Mathwingers
"Why are you using that ship, don't you know how OP it is?" - Casuals (dunno if this is the correct term to use but it's what I thought of)

How are these any different? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's wrong to have an opinion. You are welcome to enjoy the game how you want, as long as you aren't being a jack*** about it. But when you start throwing it at people, that's the line I draw between it being okay and not okay. 

Edited by Emeraldegg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...