There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those that understand this statement, and those that don't.

TIE Defender would be overcosted by the same percentage as the TIE Advanced, but it does have a white K-turn. Will that make up for it being overcosted by 5 points otherwise? Highly unlikely. Unless the evade token mechanism turns out to be really good, or one of its pilots has a really good ability, it'll almost certainly fall into the bottom tier of competitive ships.

…I just don't see how you get that it's overcosted by 5 points… I'll take an X-wing for example…Add a Stealth Device (which is obviously not as good as +1 perm. agility) and a Shield upgrade and you get the same baseline stats for 28 points. Drop to 27 for PS, but it's at least 1 more point for the permanent agility, and at least 1 point for barrel roll…which comes to 29 points.

I can see that it's overcosted (in theory), but 5 points is WAYYYY too much. 4 Defenders would trash pretty much anything. Definitely the XXBB lists so prevalent in the current meta. 2 or 3 points max? (overcosted) that i could see. But i still am not sure that FFG made such a glaring mistake in costing the ship so late in the game (wave 4), especially if they play-tested it extensively.

It's like I've said from the start of all this math wing crap.. no one knows the formula, if they use one... so it's all just pissin in the wind.. play the game... enjoy it... leave math out of it, cause it doesn't help... and is typically wrong... and useless lol

And most of all.. steals the fun from everything...

TIE Defender would be overcosted by the same percentage as the TIE Advanced, but it does have a white K-turn. Will that make up for it being overcosted by 5 points otherwise? Highly unlikely. Unless the evade token mechanism turns out to be really good, or one of its pilots has a really good ability, it'll almost certainly fall into the bottom tier of competitive ships.

…I just don't see how you get that it's overcosted by 5 points… I'll take an X-wing for example…Add a Stealth Device (which is obviously not as good as +1 perm. agility) and a Shield upgrade and you get the same baseline stats for 28 points. Drop to 27 for PS, but it's at least 1 more point for the permanent agility, and at least 1 point for barrel roll…which comes to 29 points.

I can see that it's overcosted (in theory), but 5 points is WAYYYY too much. 4 Defenders would trash pretty much anything. Definitely the XXBB lists so prevalent in the current meta. 2 or 3 points max? (overcosted) that i could see. But i still am not sure that FFG made such a glaring mistake in costing the ship so late in the game (wave 4), especially if they play-tested it extensively.

See my Lanchester's thread. The exact math is:

12*(1.74*(1.25*3 + 3)/3)^0.52 = 24.4

That's just the jousting value. Then you have to factor in the dial, actions, Missile Slot, and Cannon Slot. The latter two shouldn't significantly affect cost on a 3 attack ship, but available actions do, and the dial certainly does.

For reference the TIE Advanced jousting math would be:

12*(1.00*(1.25*2 + 3)/3)^0.52 = 16.4 (PS1)

It's like I've said from the start of all this math wing crap.. no one knows the formula, if they use one... so it's all just pissin in the wind.. play the game... enjoy it... leave math out of it, cause it doesn't help... and is typically wrong... and useless lol

And most of all.. steals the fun from everything...

Whether or not FFG uses a formula to set costs doesn't matter. However if there is a formula that can predict ship fair point values reasonably well, and if it also happens to line up with tournament results, and if it has also been proven to predict meta trends before ships have even been released... well personally I think that's useful. Nobody is making you read MathWing threads or posts though.

Whether or not FFG uses a formula to set costs doesn't matter. However if there is a formula that can predict ship fair point values reasonably well, and if it also happens to line up with tournament results, and if it has also been proven to predict meta trends before ships have even been released... well personally I think that's useful. Nobody is making you read MathWing threads or posts though.

They do when they keep posting inconsistent models to every thread as if it was gospel. I don't believe this thread started as a mathwing thread...

Trust me.. I pass them by... on occasions, when I see the math infiltrate a thread.. I'm amused.. the math cant even tell what a die roll will be, and you want to use it to figure out how the game works... haha.. highly amused...

Whether or not FFG uses a formula to set costs doesn't matter. However if there is a formula that can predict ship fair point values reasonably well, and if it also happens to line up with tournament results, and if it has also been proven to predict meta trends before ships have even been released... well personally I think that's useful. Nobody is making you read MathWing threads or posts though.

And from my tournament experience, the only reason this holds true is because people have the tendency to run straight at the opposing forces and not use maneuvering and asteroid placement for their advantage (reason why I don't fear TIE swarms). When people do this, yes your model works, because it follows the EXACT requirements to make it work. Reason I can win (or make the top 4 every tournament I've been to) with 2 interceptors (glass cannons are an addiction for me) is due to using the ship models to their fullest. Each ship is worth the points the PLAYER actually utilizes it for and if they fail to utilize the ship for the point cost it has, yeah it isn't worth it. Basically the ship is worth the cost if the ship fits the players style.

It's like I've said from the start of all this math wing crap.. no one knows the formula, if they use one... so it's all just pissin in the wind.. play the game... enjoy it... leave math out of it, cause it doesn't help... and is typically wrong... and useless lol

And most of all.. steals the fun from everything...

Whether or not FFG uses a formula to set costs doesn't matter. However if there is a formula that can predict ship fair point values reasonably well, and if it also happens to line up with tournament results, and if it has also been proven to predict meta trends before ships have even been released... well personally I think that's useful. Nobody is making you read MathWing threads or posts though.

@oneway: There's a fairly substantial record of MJ and I disagreeing about things, but the idea that math isn't relevant to the game is... I don't mean to be condescending, but it's silly. This is a fundamentally mathematical game--in fact, most games are. There are things about the game that aren't easily predictable (because it's an extraordinarily complex and nonlinear system), but fundamentally it's a game about mathematical entities interacting with other mathematical entities through an iteration of stochastic and geometric processes. It's math all the way down.

So the fact that we can use math to both describe and investigate it shouldn't be a surprise. And while it might "[steal] the fun from everything" for you, it adds extra fun for some of us.

[EDIT:

the math cant even tell what a die roll will be, and you want to use it to figure out how the game works... haha.. highly amused...

Of course the math can tell what a die roll will be. Each die has just eight faces, with just four symbols distributed across them; we can clearly define the space those dice generate, and we can walk around inside it and talk about how it interacts with other things.

That's the "stochastic process" bit above. There are lots of phenomena in the universe that behave probabilistically, and we have specific and precise tools for dealing with them.]

@MajorJuggler: I still think--or, perhaps more accurately, hope--the Defender is going to be much closer to cost than you're predicting. At the heart of things is the action economy. Suppose there's a Defender Prime that's exactly identical, but has a typical red K-turn instead of the fancy new white one. When the Defender Prime uses a K-turn, it loses an action, but the Defender doesn't--or, to turn that round, with respect to the Defender Prime, our Defender stands to gain multiple actions over the course of a match.

FFG's pricing and my experience say that the ability to gain extra actions is worth 3-4 points (Push the Limit, Advanced Sensors, arguably Vader's pilot ability). The Defender doesn't do it at will, but there's also no cost, so perhaps 3 points is a good estimate--and 3 points makes up most a substantial portion of the deficit you've hypothesized. I think the rest could be made up by the fact that the jousting model (IMO) continues to undervalue expensive ships (upon further reflection, I think the estimate would improve if the exponent dropped toward 1.5). That's the "hope" bit.

The "worry" bit is that those last 1-2 points could also be made up by conservatism on FFG's part, since the white Koiogran is brand-new. After all, if you have to make room for error, better to have a ship that's not quite good enough than one that's too good. (Even though FFG has firmly demonstrated that they're willing to consider tweaks post-release, better to make have a ship that isn't wrecking the metagame while your fix percolates through the development, printing, and shipping process.)

Maybe Vorpal, maybe.. I still find it useless.. mainly because if he had the right formula, then I could take it seriously.. but it's obvious no one has the right one.. and until then, I say it is ineffective.

@MajorJuggler: I still think--or, perhaps more accurately, hope--the Defender is going to be much closer to cost than you're predicting. At the heart of things is the action economy. Suppose there's a Defender Prime that's exactly identical, but has a typical red K-turn instead of the fancy new white one. When the Defender Prime uses a K-turn, it loses an action, but the Defender doesn't--or, to turn that round, with respect to the Defender Prime, our Defender stands to gain multiple actions over the course of a match.

FFG's pricing and my experience say that the ability to gain extra actions is worth 3-4 points (Push the Limit, Advanced Sensors, arguably Vader's pilot ability). The Defender doesn't do it at will, but there's also no cost, so perhaps 3 points is a good estimate--and 3 points makes up most a substantial portion of the deficit you've hypothesized. I think the rest could be made up by the fact that the jousting model (IMO) continues to undervalue expensive ships (upon further reflection, I think the estimate would improve if the exponent dropped toward 1.5). That's the "hope" bit.

Yes, a lot will depend on the rest of the dial. If it has a white/green 2 turn, then the white K-turn will be a very powerful addition with relatively little drawback. It can't go slow, but it can scissors back and forth endlessly, so its almost like a poor man's Advanced Sensors, being able to keep its action. In my estimation, that's worth something more than 1 point, but less than 3. What I'm really still wondering about is the evade token in the pack. I'm guessing that its related to an EPT, but if it's something unique to the Defender only... well that could also be game changing.

I agree, that FFG is generally conservative with cost when adding new dynamics. It's better to err on the side of caution rather than add constant power creep though, that's for sure.

I know it will happen anyways, but isn't calling it over costed just a little premature ? Until seeing the whole picture and how it will size up with what it comes with and what all can be taken with it at the time it comes out. It may take a bit before once it is out we discover exactly how strong/weak it is. As well, it may possess ability to, even if lightly over costed, function very well with certain builds ?

There is more then one way to view things. If it is good or bad or over or under costed will come to light in how it ends up. That said, there will be a long bit of time for this to be hashed out over and over as the long wait for wave 4 is still upon us. Especially with the first Aces out and already in very short supply on initial release. Which leads me to believe it'll be a bit later then announced before wave 4 drops.

Math is a strong force. And MajorJuggler is mastering it for us - and FFG - if they are not blind!

Compare his figures with the winning ships of the Stare Championships and you see the truth.

Yes there may be situational aspects which can't be calculated, so there will ever be flucuations.

But for average results and common situations, MajorJuggler is absolutely right.

Don't you see this? Just open your eyes! You dont even have to belive in math!

While Juggler's math is correct and can be useful, I do agree with All Shields Forward that it can be somewhat jarring when threads get hijacked by walls of calculations. Bringing any speculative conversation about something not yet released towards a math viewpoint usually tends to look pretty defeatist and fun-sucking. Analyze the ships once they've been released and you also try them out, until then, let's just see what happens.

Math analysis trumph speculations. You see MajorJuggler is using all information that is known for his analysis.

I think his work and his affords are very valuable ... and I hope that FFG will consider to use the formulas for further developments. I don't say that MajorJugglers analysis is perfect - but i think its the best possible approximation to evaluate the ships in game. At the end its a combination of math and playtesting that should result in the most sophisticated results possible.

Math does have it's place in this game. But there are elements in this game that I don't think you can accurately show.

Quite honestly, the "tier list" going on in the store championship results thread is inherently flawed. They are examining WINNING squads. And only taking into consideration percentage of points that show up. That is going to unfairly punish some ships, like the Lambda and HWK, because you are likely to only see one per squad. What I see when I look at the results, is that every ship has a competitive option. Sure, not every version of a ship is competitive. But, the sheer variety and the fact that EVERY ship has a representative showing up in winnings squads points to a variety and balance I've really never seen before in a game. But nope, because a ship doesn't show up as much, or as a higher percentage of a squad, it totally validates all your assumptions about the game and what a ship should cost. Look at last year, when the double Falcon was pretty clearly dominating. We aren't seeing anywhere near that this year. Analyzing a metagame is so much more than merely adding up points of ships in winning squads.

Honestly, how the Defender is going to play will depend on what speed the white K-turn is going to be. 5, then a Heavy Laser Cannon would be pretty painful. Smaller, than the Ion Cannon will be amazing in getting behind for a devastating range 1 shot at their blind side. Plus, there are 3 more pilots to see.

Quite honestly, the "tier list" going on in the store championship results thread is inherently flawed. They are examining WINNING squads. And only taking into consideration percentage of points that show up. That is going to unfairly punish some ships, like the Lambda and HWK, because you are likely to only see one per squad.

I agree in part, although I do think the analysis still has some value--as a lagging indicator of what you're likely to face in a competitive setting, if not a leading indicator of what's useful.

I think a bigger flaw is that they're looking at only the winning list, rather than Top 2 or Top 4. Unfortunately, it's not an issues that's really feasible to correct, but it's an important one: since there's so often such a narrow margin between the top players, even in a local tournament, I think a list of top lists rather than winning lists would be more valuable for the purposes to which it's being put.

The other big issue with it is that it risks positive feedback (in the technical sense--like the feedback you get in a microphone, not the feedback you get from a teacher that really likes you). The ships that people like get played more often, so they win more often, so they get mentioned in a thread about the top ships, so people play them more often...

One of the things I think a purely mathematical look at ships has to offer is that it doesn't have to take into account what people like to play. For a while after the Wave 3 release it was common wisdom that the Lambda was the worst ship in the game, and now it's having a renaissance because some innovators and early supporters (like Kelvan, who wrote the FFG article) are finally getting some traction with the community.

What I see when I look at the results, is that every ship has a competitive option... the sheer variety and the fact that EVERY ship has a representative showing up in winnings squads points to a variety and balance I've really never seen before in a game.

And this is a really good point, as well. In a game with very poor balance, youjust don't see this kind of diversity in winning lists.

Honestly, how the Defender is going to play will depend on what speed the white K-turn is going to be. 5, then a Heavy Laser Cannon would be pretty painful. Smaller, than the Ion Cannon will be amazing in getting behind for a devastating range 1 shot at their blind side. Plus, there are 3 more pilots to see.

I have concerns about the Defender, but they're not the same as MJ's concerns. I think it's actually going to be a bit of an Interceptor-style glass cannon, successful when your green dice are good and weak when they aren't, and I think it might not quite be competitive enough when compared to a Firespray. The small base helps, and better named pilots might make all the difference. We'll see.

(accidental double-post)

I note that using points percentage also rather buffs the cheap filler ships in the showings. It also weights named versions of ships the same as the base ones. Should we really be comparing Jan Ors and Rebel Operative the same? What about Academy Pilot and Howlrunner? I also note that the system isn't including upgrade points against the ship using the upgrade.

There are some valid concerns about the Defender. Even without the math, something felt off when they first showed it. The white K-turn is helpful, but I think we really need the cost of the PS 3 pilot, and to know if it has an Elite Talent. I think a 32 pt Defender with an Elite Talent will really make the ship decent. It could also be why it doesn't have the Evade action.

Thats right. The PS3 Pilot needs an EPT slot.

Thats right. The PS3 Pilot needs an EPT slot.

Thats true. And your point now is?

Thats true. And your point now is?

My point is that you shouldn't get your hopes up.

I'll bet anyone $10 cash that the E-wing and Defender's PS 3 ships have EPT. This is just one of those things that have to be. They wouldn't make such an elite ship - without giving them elite pilots.