Jump to content

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Orkimedes said:

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

You seem to take criticism as a personal affront. Why?

Share this post


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

Furthermore, Alex isn’t speaking of literal data, 

What is your evidence of that?  Prove it. It sure sounds to me like he’s thinking of literal data.  You don’t think FFG keeps track of any data from their events? Sure, why would the game developers keep track of any data.  They probably can’t do that as easily as you can. Smh.  

Anyway, you get to pick between impotent rage or righteous indignation because listening to Alex - who’s actually in charge of the game - it sounds like he’s seen enough evidence that FFG is going to make some adjustment to the T-47.  Good luck.  I’m sure your evidence will win the world championship since you are the only rational person examining the game and every one else just relies on baseless opinions.

Tag my name when you win worlds.

Edited by BigBadAndy

Share this post


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

What is your evidence of that?  Prove it. It sure sounds to me like he’s thinking of literal data.  You don’t think FFG keeps track of any data from their events? Sure, why would the game developers keep track of any data.  They probably can’t do that as easily as you can. Smh.  

Anyway, you get to pick between impotent rage or righteous indignation because listening to Alex - whose actually in charge of the game - it sounds like he’s seen enough evidence that FFG is going to make some adjustment to the T-47.  Good luck.  I’m sure your evidence will win the world championship since you are the only rational person examining the game and very one else just relies on baseless opinions.

Tag my name when you win worlds.

I listened to the discussion. That’s the evidence.

Did you have a thing explaining what data, if any, FFG captures? I’m not talking about assumptions, but an actual statement from FFG? Given that the LVO and Adepticon information is only fragmentary, and entirely from 3rd party sources, it seems almost certain the answer is: No; but I’d be happy if you have some lost cache of data to draw from, because that would be something useful.

This was recorded at the time of the Adepticon games (obviously) and the attitude sounds very much like: ‘We wish these units were used more in tournaments; and we look forward to seeing how the new pilots alter the meta.’  Did you disagree with that read? If so, why?

Winning a game (of any kind) doesn’t indicate rationality, obviously. I kind of assumed everyone already knew that.

Share this post


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

What is your evidence of that?  Prove it. It sure sounds to me like he’s thinking of literal data.  You don’t think FFG keeps track of any data from their events? Sure, why would the game developers keep track of any data.  They probably can’t do that as easily as you can. Smh.

 

Hey Andy,

I couldn't help but enjoy watching your transition - you started off engaging with D in a positive and genuine way, lamenting the hostile attitude he is copping.

Then you actually tried to communicate with him and slowly degraded more and more and realisation crept in that you are not talking to rational scientific thinker you thought you were.

It's kind of beautiful to see you come to understand the nature of the beast, though at the cost of your own frustration.

I'm sorry for you and greatly amused at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours 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. 

You sure have the time but I doubt you have any ability to do a productive thing with it (at least Legion related)

Maybe a humbler opinion will help your case.

Edited by Senjius

Share this post


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

It's kind of beautiful to see you come to understand the nature of the beast, though at the cost of your own frustration.

Yeah, I kind of got what I deserved for thinking we were trying to have a discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of the T-47. Instead it’s just the usual spectrum disorder egomaniac who is going to critique everyone else’s mental process as inferior because they rely on sources of information that are not him, and therefore fatally flawed.

@Derrault as I said, tag me again when you win something.  Not because I think winning something demonstrates that you’re rational, but if your analysis of the units is so superior to everyone else’s, and you have the time to run all these test games then you should be running away with it.  After all, the point of unit analysis is not to create some abstract value it’s to figure out how to win games.  And unlike in the fighting games I play, legion doesn’t require any dexterity or physical skill.  About the only barrier to “intentionality” (meaning getting what you concieve in your head onto the play space) is judging distances accurately. Since the entire Legion community has wrongly reached the irrational conclusion that the T-47 is not viable (a point which you forget, I actually have some sympathy for) then a truly great thinker like yourself, examining the game rationally should cut through them like a hot knife through butter.

The only conceivable evidence that your analysis is correct would be to put it into practice and have success. If you can’t win games with the T-47 then it seems to me the evidence would be contrary to your assertions. As I said before, you have your opportunity.   Let me know how it goes.

Edited by BigBadAndy

Share this post


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

 

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

Neither would I. That's why I say Legion has no expert to defer to. And I'd agree there's no really useful data for us to use, just Data Flavored Instant Beverage. So what's left? So if you think the T-47 is fine, I don't see a basis for arguing with that. Course I also don't see any basis for a counter-argument.

Share this post


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

Neither would I. That's why I say Legion has no expert to defer to. And I'd agree there's no really useful data for us to use, just Data Flavored Instant Beverage. So what's left? So if you think the T-47 is fine, I don't see a basis for arguing with that. Course I also don't see any basis for a counter-argument.

Well, now, that’s the thing; the thread posits a problem. The origins were that I asked for the basis for the claims it was not fine.

The responses ranged from:

1) Mathematically falsifiable assertions like, too fragile for the points. 

2) That the absence at top 8/winner podium of tournaments = Clear evidence units are bad. (Obviously this discounts the fact that you can’t get a unit into top8/winner podium if nobody actually submits a list with them. List composition is only evidence of player expectations/preference.)

3) Someone else that a poster trusts implicitly said so. Also, why don’t I trust that person who they claim is a “good” player? (Well, because trusting someone purely on the basis of them being supposedly “good” wouldn’t be on an evidentiary basis now would it? 🤔)

Now, after saying why those aren’t acceptable as answers (because of a variety of flaws), but also how to achieve useful data... it’s just pure unmitigated bile from the likes of @Senjius, @BigBadAndy, @colki. Who apparently get super hostile when their answers prove insufficient. How charming. 🙄

 

And that’s the thing, @TauntaunScout even though I’m simply agnostic about the T-47; I don’t want to see an over correction by AD & Luke leading to nothing but 47 dominated meta. (Which, if it’s actually already balanced, likely would be the outcome).

 

 

Share this post


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

Well, now, that’s the thing; the thread posits a problem. The origins were that I asked for the basis for the claims it was not fine.

Just curious, are you watching Chernobyl?  Are you familiar with the event?

In case you're not, an RBMK nuclear reactor exploded in 1986.  Aside from the usual problem with Soviet bureaucracy in that period, the initial main problem in getting things evacuated, cleaned up, fixed, etc was the no one could explain why or how that kind of reactor would explode.  People looked at pieces of graphite from the core littering the ground and refused to believe that it was what they were seeing, because an RBMK couldn't explode so stop saying it exploded until you have a detailed explanation as to why.   

Everyone else....including the designer of the game...is telling you that there is graphite on the ground and you're refusing to see what is in front of your own eyes.  I don't know if that's because you get off on trolling or because you're incapable of changing your opinions...even though I've done this a few times with you I can't reject either hypothesis.  Maybe I just want to believe you're not being a jerk to be a jerk. 

There is sufficient information at least to reject the null hypothesis that the T-47 is fine as is and needs no changes.  Whether the changes need to be in speed, keywords, cost, or armament or something else is yet to be seen but something in the formula is not working.  There is graphite on the ground.  We don't know how the explosion happened, but we can clearly see that the explosion did, in fact, happen.  So lets stop saying it didn't, okay?  I can promise that if you meet people on that then no one is going to look down on you and no one is going to assume that your acceptance means you personally support any particular change.  And no one wants over-correction.  We just want correction.  

(now in Chernobyl many people couldn't accept that the graphite was on the ground because doing so meant they were accepting that they [or thousands of other people] were going to die very soon from radiation sickness, or they were responsible for the accident and they were going to get a bullet in the back of the head.....but the psychological need to be right, or to defend positions that you're previously taken is also very powerful.  We're all subject to it...I know I certainly am.  But trust me, backing off or accepting an opinion you didn't initially hold isn't a threat to you or your identity.)

Edited by Zrob314

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

Just curious, are you watching Chernobly?  Are you familiar with the event?

In case you're not, an RBMK nuclear reactor exploded in 1986.  Aside from the usual problem with Soviet bureaucracy in that period, the initial main problem in getting things evacuated, cleaned up, fixed, etc was the no one could explain why or how that kind of reactor would explode.  People looked at pieces of graphite from the core littering the ground and refused to believe that it was what they were seeing, because an RBMK couldn't explode so stop saying it exploded until you have a detailed explanation as to why.   

Everyone else....including the designer of the game...is telling you that there is graphite on the ground and you're refusing to see what is in front of your own eyes.  I don't know if that's because you get off on trolling or because you're incapable of changing your opinions...even though I've done this a few times with you I can't reject either hypothesis.  Maybe I just want to believe you're not being a jerk to be a jerk. 

There is sufficient information at least to reject the null hypothesis that the T-47 is fine as is and needs no changes.  Whether the changes need to be in speed, keywords, cost, or armament or something else is yet to be seen but something in the formula is not working.  There is graphite on the ground.  We don't know how the explosion happened, but we can clearly see that the explosion did, in fact, happen.  So lets stop saying it didn't, okay?  I can promise that if you meet people on that then no one is going to look down on you and no one is going to assume that youre acceptane means you personaly support any particular change.  And no one wants over-correction.  We just want correction.  

I mean, it’s not life and death.

And, I do agree that there’s sufficient information that makes the hypothesis that players either reject the 47 or have preference for other units that exceed it, reasonable.

That probably could be resolved through a sufficiently worded survey covering every unit, not just the 47. (Bearing in mind that this would solely be capturing user perceptions; not statistical use reality).

sample questions might include (language needs to be adjusted to avoid imposing bias): 

On a scale of 1-10 tank how threatening you feel unit X is when fielded by an opponent.

ditto, how threatening is unit x when you field it.

How likely are you to include unit x in your lists?

Rank order your overall perceptions of how unit effectiveness; by faction.

 

Back to the Chernobyl thing, this is not so urgent that nobody can be bothered to gather data, it’s already being done to some extent in most cases. The only problem is that it’s done in an ad hoc manner, almost like an afterthought.

Here’s a structured way to examine a tournament: Record the entry lists, not just the ones that reached round 2-3; and code for the OCDs on each matchup. That way you actually have an understanding of which lists (and players) prevailed against which other lists, broken out by conditions. 

Right now, with only 1/3 of the data, you don’t know what the end lists won against, and what they maybe struggled against. And this isn’t just about one unit either, without that data you have no way to show which lists are, in general, stronger against sniper lists and in which scenarios.

To build upon fixing that weakness of the current data set, we have no reason to expect the top 8 or whatever to deviate significantly from the proportions of the starting population. So if there are zero or near zero lists with an archtype, we can safely expect zero or near zero to end up in the top 8s.

If the seed lists are 80-90% sniper lists every tournament, then it’s perfectly safe to assume the winners will be the same regardless of player quality.

Edit: And no, I’ll get around to watching it eventually, probably. Although I tend not to bother with semi-historical stuff.

Edited by Derrault

Share this post


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

If the seed lists are 80-90% sniper lists every tournament, then it’s perfectly safe to assume the winners will be the same regardless of player quality.

The implicit suggestion here is that these players just showed up with what they thought was popular, rather than testing and practicing with a variety of builds in their prep games before showing up.

Speaking for myself, I love the theme of the T-47 and gave it a lot of table time (and paint time).  I haven’t brought it to any tournaments, and it’s not because I just read some blog or listened to some podcast that said it’s bad.  If I thought the T-47 could help me win, I would have brought it.

I also happen to personally know all 7 of the other worlds qualifiers (since you reference top 8, presumably Adepticon), and I know they have exhaustive prep and practice processes that involve playing with a variety of builds and units.

Look at Lupo.  Nobody was talking up sabs before Adepticon, but he found them to be excellent in his own testing and practice.  He showed up and earned a spot with them, because it turns out they are actually pretty good in the hands of a skilled player.

I am definitely not saying folks should just copy tourney lists or that tournament results are everything.  But they shouldn’t just be dismissed, either.

Edited by Orkimedes

Share this post


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

The implicit suggestion here is that these players just showed up with what they thought was popular, rather than testing and practicing with a variety of builds in their prep games before showing up.

Speaking for myself, I love the theme of the T-47 and gave it a lot of table time (and paint time).  I haven’t brought it to any tournaments, and it’s not because I just read some blog or listened to some podcast that said it’s bad.  If I thought the T-47 could help me win, I would have brought it.

I also happen to personally know all 7 of the other worlds qualifiers (since you reference top 8, presumably Adepticon), and I know they have exhaustive prep and practice processes that involve playing with a variety of builds and units.

Look at Lupo.  Nobody was talking up sabs before Adepticon, but he found them to be excellent in his own testing and practice.  He showed up and earned a spot with them, because it turns out they are actually pretty good in the hands of a skilled player.

I am definitely not saying folks should just copy tourney lists or that tournament results are everything.  But they shouldn’t just be dismissed, either.

No, the suggestion is literally what it is on face value. That it doesn’t matter why a player is playing a list; if a very large proportion of lists are the same then it’s very likely that the winners of those tournaments are going to reflect that initial make up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis The Wise?

I thought not.

It's not a story the Jedi would tell you. It's a Sith legend. Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise he could use the Force to influence the midichlorians to create life…

He had such a knowledge of the dark side that he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying. The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural.

He became so powerful… the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his apprentice everything he knew, then his apprentice killed him in his sleep. Ironic. He could save others from death, but not himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they could release a new armament upgrade that overrides the T-47’s main cannons? It could have the blast keyword and have a restriction that says it modifies the stats of the main cannon. It could also have a negative point value which would reduce the overall cost of the T-47 without errata

Share this post


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

Maybe they could release a new armament upgrade that overrides the T-47’s main cannons? It could have the blast keyword and have a restriction that says it modifies the stats of the main cannon. It could also have a negative point value which would reduce the overall cost of the T-47 without errata

The way the cannons are built means they could have alternative guns, though this could annoy people who already have a couple of them.  

I was thinking suppressive  might be a good keyword- In a lot of games I've played air power is used to pin enemy units down.  It won't kill a whole lot more, but it would have a greater tactical effect.  I'm not sure I'd lower the cost in this case though- as an anti-tank weapon the T-47 is pretty good, it simply lacks viable targets in most games because vehicles are fairly rare.  Swapping its main armament to antipersonnel could create something fairly horrific. 

We probably need more data to determine this. 😉

Also, dropping minelets/thermal detonators out the back would be pretty cool as an alternative for a rear gun.  Make it a range 1 weapon or drop mines like a saboteur.  That said, too many mines being dropped could make a very twisted 'meta' so a simple range 1 weapon may be best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I would rather just see a straight points rebalance than negative cost upgrades.  Just errata the base cost down to 140-145 and we can go from there on everything else.

Edited by Orkimedes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cleto0 said:

Well if AT-STs can win RPQs, People need to give the T-47 a chance. If I ever betray the Empire, I will run a T-47

 

By all means, go ahead and try it. However don't insinuate that people haven't tried using it extensively, because they have. Every Rebel player at the start of the game's life bought one or two and were excited to play with them, and tried to make it work. So far, no one has been able to perform well, and was able to provide details, with it in anything beyond teaching a beginner how to play.

Share this post


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

Maybe people aren't using enough terrain that slows movement and doesn't grant cover. A few pieces of that on a table could make a huge difference for the T-47.

Do u mean something that could slow down the T-47 but not grant cover to troopers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, lunitic501 said:

Do u mean something that could slow down the T-47 but not grant cover to troopers?

I think he means swaths of area terrain that are difficult for non-repulsor vehicles.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, lunitic501 said:

Do u mean something that could slow down the T-47 but not grant cover to troopers?

No. I mean something the T-47 gets to completely ignore in all ways at all times, but which penalizes infantry in some ways and helps them in none.

Share this post


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

No. I mean something the T-47 gets to completely ignore in all ways at all times, but which penalizes infantry in some ways and helps them in none.

Ahhh ok that makes sense, based off the RR you want more water terain then.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...