Jump to content

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Derrault said:

No reasonable determination that can be made about the quality of 2 lists out of 96, let alone out of 100+, based on only the WL data other than: need more samples.

Ideally we'd get several tens of thousands of games run through some kind of computer simulator with assorted lists.

45 minutes ago, Derrault said:

Incidentally @BigBadAndy, people who make statements and claims that rely on the reputation of others, rather than the veracity of the information itself are incoming an appeal to authority. Ie a thing is true only because respected source X said so, and a thing is false because source Y said so. It’s a very bad fallacy to get caught up in if you are in risk assessment. Falling prey to it means you can make serious mistakes very easily.

Yes but. I've seen that turn into pure anti-intellectualism. Ie, I know a lot of people who think if a PhD says it, it MUST be wrong, BECAUSE a PhD said it.

Share this post


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

Ideally we'd get several tens of thousands of games run through some kind of computer simulator with assorted lists.

Yes but. I've seen that turn into pure anti-intellectualism. Ie, I know a lot of people who think if a PhD says it, it MUST be wrong, BECAUSE a PhD said it.

Yes I wouldn’t want that kind of reactionary attitude; rather it’s more of: I want to see your sources. Sure anyone can assert something is or isn’t, but they needs must b prepared to back that claim up with something: Research, data, supporting documentation, etcetera. That burden shouldn’t be diminished because of the status of the claimant.

 

9 minutes ago, Irokenics said:

How about when the developer for Legion admitted on the Adepticon High Command livestream that the T-47 was designed poorly?

Weird, I watched the livestream and don’t recall this. What was the time stamp, and can you quote it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Derrault said:

Incidentally @BigBadAndy, people who make statements and claims that rely on the reputation of others, rather than the veracity of the information itself are incoming an appeal to authority. Ie a thing is true only because respected source X said so, and a thing is false because source Y said so. It’s a very bad fallacy to get caught up in if you are in risk assessment. Falling prey to it means you can make serious mistakes very easily.

People have to make decisions. Full stop.  They need to go with the information they have. Full stop.  You keep saying the opinion of people on the internet is no evidence.  That includes your opinion. And it’s also demonstrably untrue that the people on this forum are random.  They aren’t random at all.  They are people who care enough about Legion to be posting and reading on the forums.  Their opinions do have value (even though many of them are wrong about many things).

Accounting for expert opinion is not an appeal to authority fallacy.  I don’t expect you to appreciate the difference but there is a difference.  This is why you are better off doing what your doctor tells you in regards to your health (even though doctors are sometimes wrong) and taking legal advice from your lawyer rather than representing yourself (even though lawyers are sometimes wrong).  For some fun reading: https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-part-6-appealing-to-authority-vs-deferring-to-experts/

Its interesting that you want to make sure that FFG doesn’t make any unneeded changes to the game. I guess your random internet opinion is more informed than the game designers.  But I suspect if FFG is going to be making design choices they aren’t going to be worrying especially much about your 50 replies in this thread.  It will entirely depend on whether they view the lack of presence of T-47 in tournaments as a problem.  Note that this is a different problem than whether the T-47 is truly a “viable” unit.  They may still want more people to use it.  Or not.

 

I arrived in the thread very open to the idea that the T-47 is more useful than generally believed.  But I don’t think you realize how useless your objections are.  “We have no evidence” is the opposite of helpful.  What evidence can we find then? Because remember, we still have to make a decision.  

You compared the T-47 to Luke before, but that was a pretty selective comparison.  The T-47 doesn’t come with command cards that enhance its abilities.  It also can’t take or hold objectives, and generally doesn’t take advantage of LoS or cover for defense beyond its built in cover.  It also must move each turn, which greatly limits your ability to keep it where you want it. This leads to something that I think people don’t talk about enough, which is action economy.  Sometimes you can’t make good use of your powerful weapons because you have to spend a turn flying straight across the board and another turn flying around.

Other criticisms of the unit include that it is fragile.  I tend to agree with you that it is not as fragile as people claim, but it is generally a big target and people want to shoot it down.  They don’t like it’s guns and it’s a big target.  But this is an underrated feature.  In a game where most tournament matches end before the 6th turn, the speeder absorbs a lot of opponents actions.  This is balanced by the fact that it generally replaces 3 or even 4 of your units due to cost.  So is it worth it?  Probably we don’t have any evidence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was the games designer I'd just drop the cost in an errata of the main card, probably drop it to 140pts.

I'd probably drop the cost of the ground buzzer to 15pts due to its difficulty of use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigBadAndy said:

 People have to make decisions. Full stop.  They need to go with the information they have. Full stop.  You keep saying the opinion of people on the internet is no evidence.  That includes your opinion. And it’s also demonstrably untrue that the people on this forum are random.  They aren’t random at all.  They are people who care enough about Legion to be posting and reading on the forums.  Their opinions do have value (even though many of them are wrong about many things).

Accounting for expert opinion is not an appeal to authority fallacy.  I don’t expect you to appreciate the difference but there is a difference.  This is why you are better off doing what your doctor tells you in regards to your health (even though doctors are sometimes wrong) and taking legal advice from your lawyer rather than representing yourself (even though lawyers are sometimes wrong).  For some fun reading: https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-part-6-appealing-to-authority-vs-deferring-to-experts/

Its interesting that you want to make sure that FFG doesn’t make any unneeded changes to the game. I guess your random internet opinion is more informed than the game designers.  But I suspect if FFG is going to be making design choices they aren’t going to be worrying especially much about your 50 replies in this thread.  It will entirely depend on whether they view the lack of presence of T-47 in tournaments as a problem.  Note that this is a different problem than whether the T-47 is truly a “viable” unit.  They may still want more people to use it.  Or not.

 

I arrived in the thread very open to the idea that the T-47 is more useful than generally believed.  But I don’t think you realize how useless your objections are.  “We have no evidence” is the opposite of helpful.  What evidence can we find then? Because remember, we still have to make a decision.  

You compared the T-47 to Luke before, but that was a pretty selective comparison.  The T-47 doesn’t come with command cards that enhance its abilities.  It also can’t take or hold objectives, and generally doesn’t take advantage of LoS or cover for defense beyond its built in cover.  It also must move each turn, which greatly limits your ability to keep it where you want it. This leads to something that I think people don’t talk about enough, which is action economy.  Sometimes you can’t make good use of your powerful weapons because you have to spend a turn flying straight across the board and another turn flying around.

Other criticisms of the unit include that it is fragile.  I tend to agree with you that it is not as fragile as people claim, but it is generally a big target and people want to shoot it down.  They don’t like it’s guns and it’s a big target.  But this is an underrated feature.  In a game where most tournament matches end before the 6th turn, the speeder absorbs a lot of opponents actions.  This is balanced by the fact that it generally replaces 3 or even 4 of your units due to cost.  So is it worth it?  Probably we don’t have any evidence.

 

1) For you and anyone else who doesn’t know what the appeal to authority fallacy consists of: It is when you make the claim that something is true by virtue of the person saying it being an authority, and for no other reason.

Not surprisingly, reality does not change simply because the speaker is considered an authority, which is exactly why it’s a fallacy.

2) Yeah, I like the way the game is balanced and don’t want to see a glut of heavies from those band wagoners who don’t recognize something useful but are probably happy to exploit something being seriously underpriced.

3) Yes, Luke is a good single unit comparison, because the objection referenced was how expensive it was. Command cards are fine and dandy, but there are other heroes whose command cards are arguably better. So, ignoring that, you have a unit that’s faster, deals more damage, and absorbs more overall damage. Sure, you could pick another unit type for some kind of cost benefit analysis; but first you’d need to create a list and then compare it to whatever was actually forgone.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Derrault said:

1) For you and anyone else who doesn’t know what the appeal to authority fallacy consists of: It is when you make the claim that something is true by virtue of the person saying it being an authority, and for no other reason.

Not surprisingly, reality does not change simply because the speaker is considered an authority, which is exactly why it’s a fallacy.

This is where Obi Wan would interrupt you and say "partially"

 

argumentum ad verecundiam

(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority.

Logical Form:

According to person 1, who is an expert on the issue of Y, Y is true.

Therefore, Y is true.

Example #1:

Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps the foremost expert in the field, says that evolution is true. Therefore, it's true.

Explanation: Richard Dawkins certainly knows about evolution, and he can confidently tell us that it is true, but that doesn't make it true. What makes it true is the preponderance of evidence for the theory.

Example #2:

How do I know the adult film industry is the third largest industry in the United States? Derek Shlongmiester, the adult film star of over 50 years, said it was. That's how I know.

Explanation: Shlongmiester may be an industry expert, as well as have a huge talent, but a claim such as the one made would require supporting evidence. For the record, the adult film industry may be large, but on a scale from 0 to 12 inches, it's only about a fraction of an inch.

Exception: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).

The appeal to authority is more about claims that require evidence than about facts. For example, if your tour guide told you that Vatican City was founded February 11, 1929, and you accept that information as true, you are not committing a fallacy (because it is not in the context of argumentation) nor are you being unreasonable.

Tip: Question authority -- or become the authority that people look to for answers.

References:

 

Hume, D. (2004). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Courier Corporation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zrob314
I appreciate the examples.

With the above, it wasn't being portrayed as "provisionally true", but instead simply 'true'.

I would dispute the notion that someone winning a tournament only accessible to a tiny fraction of a player base, makes them more of an authority able to speak, even provisionally, on the relative quality of units in the game than say...anyone else who plays the game.

In any case, there's no reason we can't refer to the objectively verifiable attributes of the units, rather than resorting to opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Derrault said:

Weird, I watched the livestream and don’t recall this. What was the time stamp, and can you quote it?

At 08:07:00

He says it before this stream as well at the LCQ stream which I have no time stamp for. The commentators also mention that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Irokenics said:

At 08:07:00

He says it before this stream as well at the LCQ stream which I have no time stamp for. The commentators also mention that.

Cognitive dissonance in 3.....2.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

Cognitive dissonance in 3.....2.......

So, when I wrote my concerns about how the designers directly might be listening to the loudest mouthpiece there is and @BigBadAndy laughed it off...what you’re saying I was completely right and justified to have those concerns?

And that’s cognitive dissonance, how exactly?

Thank you for verifying my concerns, @Irokenics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Derrault said:

So, when I wrote my concerns about how the designers directly might be listening to the loudest mouthpiece there is and @BigBadAndy laughed it off...what you’re saying I was completely right and justified to have those concerns?

And that’s cognitive dissonance, how exactly?

Thank you for verifying my concerns, @Irokenics.

I mean you're going to do everything you can to ignore what Alex D said about the cost of T-47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

I mean you're going to do everything you can to ignore what Alex D said about the cost of T-47

I had to relisten several times, but he doesn’t say anything about the cost of the 47?

To paraphrase the audio, the host prompts him with a leading (I won’t ask...but I’m asking) question about if there are any units required cards Alex would change.

Alex replies with, yeah there are always swings or misses; 

Host notes chat says the 47, Alex goes ‘I know..’ and the host admits he badgered Alex (his words) about that previously. (I guess on the prior stream?)

Alex tries to transition to talk about upcoming units (Krennic and DTs, Sabine and Bossk) and the host then tries to connect back to something about possible point adjustments from an event, to which Alex says sure, it’s always a possibility.

What did I miss?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Derrault said:

What did I miss?

AD: (on the subject of cards he doesn't like or wants to change) There's always a few swings and misses, especially when

Host: (interrupting) Somebody wrote T-47

AD: (laughing) Well yeah, you're not...you're not wrong. (8:07:35) (in a jocular tone) Uh, listen, I know....

Host: Look, I don't want to badger him (AD) about this, but we talked about it at length yesterday. 

AD: It's just a facet of designing a new game.  Early content tends to be a bit lopsided before you really understand things better.  But yeah, Luke and I have learned a lot since uh, since the days before release.  

Host: And Luke said this too, as much as you guys and any playtesters that you have have gone through every iteration of things you can think of, I think the community still finds lists and combinations that maybe weren't as apparent during playtesting and I just think there's a lot of things you're not going to see when designing sometimes.

AD: Well, it's exponentially more games being played

Host: Yeah

AD: And it's a matter of hundreds of games vs. thousands and thousands of games.   So, uh, it's always fun and also a little nerve wracking when we release something because we usually have a pretty good idea of where it is, especially in later waves when we've got a better lock on what's effective and what isn't in the game.  But it's always like a mystery, ya know.  We'll see how Krennic and Death Troopers effect things.  We'll see how Sabine and Bossk impact things.  It's going to be very interesting.  

(He and the host then talk briefly about that they can change point cost and that it has been received well in X-wing and it's "always on (our) minds" before moving on to the next topic)

So what did you miss?  Just everything that directly refutes what you've been saying.  But hey, I bet you still think OG Key Positions was balanced.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

AD: (on the subject of cards he doesn't like or wants to change) There's always a few swings and misses, especially when

Host: (interrupting) Somebody wrote T-47

AD: (laughing) Well yeah, you're not...you're not wrong. (8:07:35) (in a jocular tone) Uh, listen, I know....

Host: Look, I don't want to badger him (AD) about this, but we talked about it at length yesterday. 

AD: It's just a facet of designing a new game.  Early content tends to be a bit lopsided before you really understand things better.  But yeah, Luke and I have learned a lot since uh, since the days before release.  

Host: And Luke said this too, as much as you guys and any playtesters that you have have gone through every iteration of things you can think of, I think the community still finds lists and combinations that maybe weren't as apparent during playtesting and I just think there's a lot of things you're not going to see when designing sometimes.

AD: Well, it's exponentially more games being played

Host: Yeah

AD: And it's a matter of hundreds of games vs. thousands and thousands of games.   So, uh, it's always fun and also a little nerve wracking when we release something because we usually have a pretty good idea of where it is, especially in later waves when we've got a better lock on what's effective and what isn't in the game.  But it's always like a mystery, ya know.  We'll see how Krennic and Death Troopers effect things.  We'll see how Sabine and Bossk impact things.  It's going to be very interesting.  

(He and the host then talk briefly about that they can change point cost and that it has been received well in X-wing and it's "always on (our) minds" before moving on to the next topic)

So what did you miss?  Just everything that directly refutes what you've been saying.  But hey, I bet you still think OG Key Positions was balanced.  

Do not worry, it is not you, it is him :wacko:

You can point out the millisecond in which Alex Davy said it and it will not matter a bit.

Keep calm and let this post die, kill it if you have to 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

AD: (on the subject of cards he doesn't like or wants to change) There's always a few swings and misses, especially when

Host: (interrupting) Somebody wrote T-47

AD: (laughing) Well yeah, you're not...you're not wrong. (8:07:35) (in a jocular tone) Uh, listen, I know....

Host: Look, I don't want to badger him (AD) about this, but we talked about it at length yesterday. 

AD: It's just a facet of designing a new game.  Early content tends to be a bit lopsided before you really understand things better.  But yeah, Luke and I have learned a lot since uh, since the days before release.  

Host: And Luke said this too, as much as you guys and any playtesters that you have have gone through every iteration of things you can think of, I think the community still finds lists and combinations that maybe weren't as apparent during playtesting and I just think there's a lot of things you're not going to see when designing sometimes.

AD: Well, it's exponentially more games being played

Host: Yeah

AD: And it's a matter of hundreds of games vs. thousands and thousands of games.   So, uh, it's always fun and also a little nerve wracking when we release something because we usually have a pretty good idea of where it is, especially in later waves when we've got a better lock on what's effective and what isn't in the game.  But it's always like a mystery, ya know.  We'll see how Krennic and Death Troopers effect things.  We'll see how Sabine and Bossk impact things.  It's going to be very interesting.  

(He and the host then talk briefly about that they can change point cost and that it has been received well in X-wing and it's "always on (our) minds" before moving on to the next topic)

So what did you miss?  Just everything that directly refutes what you've been saying.  But hey, I bet you still think OG Key Positions was balanced.  

You do realize he’s not talking like there’s literal data right? (Bolder portion)

And the rest of that is him not answering any questions, deflecting to talk about new units. You know, things FFG hopes to sell the listener on.

You didn’t realize what he was doing there? 🤔

31 minutes ago, Senjius said:

Do not worry, it is not you, it is him :wacko:

You can point out the millisecond in which Alex Davy said it and it will not matter a bit.

Keep calm and let this post die, kill it if you have to 🤣

Without Alex referencing data, as opposed to his opinion, it isn’t evidence, beyond showing his preference.

If I gave it weight, solely on the basis it being Alex’s opinion, with no corroborating information. I’d be committing the exact error in reasoning you just did. 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Senjius said:

Do not worry, it is not you, it is him :wacko:

You can point out the millisecond in which Alex Davy said it and it will not matter a bit.

Keep calm and let this post die, kill it if you have to 🤣

Oh, I know, this is not my first go around with him (hence my reference to OG KP).

But my dog died last night and seeing someone so drunk on their own confirmation bias is currently an okay and non self destructive distraction from that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Derrault said:

If I gave it weight, solely on the basis it being Alex’s opinion, with no corroborating information. I’d be committing the exact error in reasoning you just did. 🙄

Nope.

As has pointed out to you twice - considering the expert judgment of someone who is truly an expert of relevance on the subject at hand is not an error in reasoning.  This is just an ego trip for you, as you refuse to admit anyone’s opinion other than yours might matter.

Alex is in fact referring to data.  The data is observations from the thousands of games that have been played of legion as compared to the hundreds that were played during play testing. He isn’t presenting the data in the interview but you can be darn sure he has it.  And for the record, the subject of the conversation is whether there are units not performing as intended by the developers.  To suggest that the developers opinions on that are not valid without presenting supporting data is an error of reasoning.

Edited by BigBadAndy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zrob314 said:

Oh, I know, this is not my first go around with him (hence my reference to OG KP).

But my dog died last night and seeing someone so drunk on their own confirmation bias is currently an okay and non self destructive distraction from that.  

Condolences on the dog. 

1 hour ago, BigBadAndy said:

Nope.

As has pointed out to you twice - considering the expert judgment of someone who is truly an expert of relevance on the subject at hand is not an error in reasoning.  This is just an ego trip for you, as you refuse to admit anyone’s opinion other than yours might matter.

Alex is in fact referring to data.  The data is observations from the thousands of games that have been played of legion as compared to the hundreds that were played during play testing. He isn’t presenting the data in the interview but you can be darn sure he has it.  And for the record, the subject of the conversation is whether there are units not performing as intended by the developers.  To suggest that the developers opinions on that are not valid without presenting supporting data is an error of reasoning.

No, the exception is when you accept someone you consider an experts word provisionally until you can ascertain the truth; not as a substitute for supporting evidence. Please stop misusing it.

Furthermore, Alex isn’t speaking of literal data, he’s making a comparison between how a unit may perform during internal testing (hundreds of games) and how the general user base receives it (presumably from thousands of games total, although each set of players only sees a fraction).

And to be clear, still with zero supporting evidence, why should I accept your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Derrault said:

 

No, the exception is when you accept someone you consider an experts word provisionally until you can ascertain the truth; not as a substitute for supporting evidence. Please stop misusing it.

Given how high a bar I set for the concept of "expertise", I don't actually think SW:L has any experts to defer to.

Due to time and other constraints I cannot ascertain the truth from data, by myself, on a huge variety of subjects. I either defer to expert opinion, or flail about at random.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

Given how high a bar I set for the concept of "expertise", I don't actually think SW:L has any experts to defer to.

Due to time and other constraints I cannot ascertain the truth from data, by myself, on a huge variety of subjects. I either defer to expert opinion, or flail about at random.

See, I actually have the time and ability to do so, so I don’t need to reference “experts” on simple war games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Derrault said:

See, I actually have the time and ability to do so, so I don’t need to reference “experts” on simple war games. 

Yeah but I still don’t have time to replicate studies for most things in life.  

And like I said I don’t think Legion even has experts. Tournament winners are not the same as certified doctors and published historians and other experts. 

Edited by TauntaunScout

Share this post


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

Yeah but I still don’t have time to replicate studies for most things in life.  

And like I said I don’t think Legion even has experts. Tournament winners are not the same as certified doctors and published historians and other experts. 

You don’t need to replicate the study to read and parse it.

I wouldn’t exactly compare degrees requiring certification and years of schooling to playing a few games and happening to be the winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Derrault said:

I had to relisten several times, but he doesn’t say anything about the cost of the 47?

To paraphrase the audio, the host prompts him with a leading (I won’t ask...but I’m asking) question about if there are any units required cards Alex would change.

Alex replies with, yeah there are always swings or misses; 

Host notes chat says the 47, Alex goes ‘I know..’ and the host admits he badgered Alex (his words) about that previously. (I guess on the prior stream?)

Alex tries to transition to talk about upcoming units (Krennic and DTs, Sabine and Bossk) and the host then tries to connect back to something about possible point adjustments from an event, to which Alex says sure, it’s always a possibility.

What did I miss?

Man, who is asking these questions.  What a bunch of ninnies.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...