I just reverse-engineered a Mean of all of the Wave 1-3 dials, meaning I took the most common amounts of the different bearings, assigned the distances most likely to happen in those amounts, and assigned the color most common to those maneuvers.

There was a clear winner in commonality in everything but the number of koiograns (a 5/5 split between 1 Koiogran or 2. Rebels had a 3/2 split here, and Imps had a 2/3).
so, I worked out two working versions: a Rebel and an Imperial version.

However, it turns out that I don't need to print off my theoretical sheets, as the two dials already exist.

Our theoretical Rebel ship has:

1 Banks (Green)
1 Forward (Green)
2 Turns (White)
2 Banks (White)
2 Forward (Green)

3 Turns (White)

3 Banks (White)

3 Forward (White)

4 Forward (White)
4 Koiogran (Red)

Our theoretical Imperial ship has the same, but adds a 3 Koiogran (Red) to the mix.

The savvy among you may note that these are, in fact, X-Wing and Firespray-31 dials, and they make great baselines for determining mobility

So you're saying the X-wing has exactly average manouvrability?

I'll buy into that.

It's very much the 'yardstick' fighter in the game - just agile enough, just tought enough, well armed and with the best spread of pilot skill levels and abilities of any fighter. Which is, I guess, inevitable, given that the **** game is named after it.

I would argue on the Imperial dial - yes, I'm sure you're perfectly correct about it being the average of all the imperial ships, but all imperial ships are not equal, in a way that rebels aren't; TIE fighters and Interceptors turn up mob-handed, whilst the Firespray and the massively unwieldy Lambda tend to be solo; hence whilst the Firespray's dial may be 'average', I would suggest that a 'representative' imperial dial is something closer to the TIE fighter (averaging the dials of the Interceptor with those of heavier ships).

The problem, Magnus, is that the Imperials are sharply divided.

• The Tie Fighter, Interceptor, and Advanced have a 5 Forward maneuver, while the Bomber, Firespray, and Lambda have 1 Forward. The tie-break went to the Rebel grouping.
• The Tie Fighter, Interceptor, and Bomber's 2 Bank is green, and the others are White. The tie-break went to the Rebel grouping.
• The Fighter and Interceptor do not have 1 Banks, but the other 4 do.
• The Fighter and Interceptor are the only Imperials with a 1 Turn.

Taking all that into account, you could make the argument that a ship with 2-5 forwards, a green 2 bank, but still a 1 Bank rather than a 1 Turn, could easily be the Imperial yardstick. That dial does not yet exist in-game.

The Tie-Advanced is the closest, lacking only the green tint of the 2 bank and the option for a 3 Koiogran.

This isn't "trivia fact" - trivia would be something true about the game like "it takes 8 hours for the factory to make each mini" or something along those lines. This is just an observation about the game, and not really fact - just an estimate about "average" dials that you came up with.

This isn't "trivia fact" - trivia would be something true about the game like "it takes 8 hours for the factory to make each mini" or something along those lines. This is just an observation about the game, and not really fact - just an estimate about "average" dials that you came up with.

Not really, no. The method of math/observation he used is logically sound. The X-wing dial is the rebel average. It probably means that most dial alterations start at the X-wing and are tweaked from there to best fit the ship.

Not really, no. The method of math/observation he used is logically sound. The X-wing dial is the rebel average. It probably means that most dial alterations start at the X-wing and are tweaked from there to best fit the ship.

It's more debatable than you seem to think. His chosen method is not the only method for determining an "average dial".

Not really, no. The method of math/observation he used is logically sound. The X-wing dial is the rebel average. It probably means that most dial alterations start at the X-wing and are tweaked from there to best fit the ship.

It's more debatable than you seem to think. His chosen method is not the only method for determining an "average dial".

Not really, no. The method of math/observation he used is logically sound. The X-wing dial is the rebel average. It probably means that most dial alterations start at the X-wing and are tweaked from there to best fit the ship.

It's more debatable than you seem to think. His chosen method is not the only method for determining an "average dial".

And how would you determine it?

What he did is look at each possible maneuver, and for each one choose the color which is most likely to occur. If you look at a 3 turn maneuver, you get the following:

With his method, you would also consider the "average ship" as having it as a white maneuver.

But, wait a second, no ships have it as green. And 4 ships can't even do a 3 turn. It seems to me this should average out to a white maneuver, no?

You could therefore propose the following method :

• Consider a red maneuver as worth 1 point, a white as 2, a green 3 and an impossibility as worth 0.
• For each maneuver consider it's average "maneuver value" for all ships
• Round the average to closest color

This gives us the following dial :

This method also has it's disadvantages, namely:

• What value do you give each maneuver color? Should a green be worth 4 points instead?
• The whole rounding part distorts results. Both the 2 bank and 4 straight are white maneuvers, even though the former is close to being red and the latter is close to being green.

Which is the better method?

Hell if I know, they're both valid results.

So I'd agree with Cptnhalfbeard, this is just an observation about the game, and not really fact.

I'm going to go with "Thanks DP for showing us a creative way to look at the movement dials using statistical analysis!!!"

Not really, no. The method of math/observation he used is logically sound. The X-wing dial is the rebel average. It probably means that most dial alterations start at the X-wing and are tweaked from there to best fit the ship.

It's more debatable than you seem to think. His chosen method is not the only method for determining an "average dial".

And how would you determine it?

What he did is look at each possible maneuver, and for each one choose the color which is most likely to occur. If you look at a 3 turn maneuver, you get the following:

• 4 ships can't do it
• 1 ships have it as red
• 7 ships have it as white
• 0 ships have it as green

With his method, you would also consider the "average ship" as having it as a white maneuver.

But, wait a second, no ships have it as green. And 4 ships can't even do a 3 turn. It seems to me this should average out to a white maneuver, no?

You could therefore propose the following method :

• Consider a red maneuver as worth 1 point, a white as 2, a green 3 and an impossibility as worth 0.
• For each maneuver consider it's average "maneuver value" for all ships
• Round the average to closest color

This gives us the following dial :

This method also has it's disadvantages, namely:

• What value do you give each maneuver color? Should a green be worth 4 points instead?
• The whole rounding part distorts results. Both the 2 bank and 4 straight are white maneuvers, even though the former is close to being red and the latter is close to being green.

Which is the better method?

Hell if I know, they're both valid results.

So I'd agree with Cptnhalfbeard, this is just an observation about the game, and not really fact.

Thing is though, this isn't FACT. Its a observation. I think that is the biggest issue with this thread. Like the math-winger threads, it is something some one found interesting and are trying to plot, but doesn't really reflect anything concrete and is all non-objective, seeing as they are all based on systems they believe best represent their feelings on FFGs model.

Thing is though, this isn't FACT. Its a observation. I think that is the biggest issue with this thread. Like the math-winger threads, it is something some one found interesting and are trying to plot, but doesn't really reflect anything concrete and is all non-objective, seeing as they are all based on systems they believe best represent their feelings on FFGs model.

That's a silly argument. He went through detailing his steps, and explaining how he came to his conclusions. Anything anybody posts that isn't pure statistics is their opinion. He's detailed the reasons behind his opinion better than most, yet somehow that invalidates it? You're asking too much of the man. Beyond that if you asked someone what the average dial for the game was they'd almos assuredly say the X-wing anyway. And the Firespray is literally an X-wing with a 3 K-turn in addition.

Thanks, DPT

I think some of you are confused about the meanings of the words objective and fact. If an observation reflects an aspect of reality, it is a fact. Shorter true observations are facts. Objective means a measuring standard can apply, or that the thing the adjective is applied to is what it is regardless of perception.

This fact represents an accurate summation of an objective measure of the dials, and it is pretty cool.

For contrast me calling it cool is subjective and opinion.

I think some of you are confused about the meanings of the words objective and fact. If an observation reflects an aspect of reality, it is a fact. Shorter true observations are facts. Objective means a measuring standard can apply, or that the thing the adjective is applied to is what it is regardless of perception.

This fact represents an accurate summation of an objective measure of the dials, and it is pretty cool.

For contrast me calling it cool is subjective and opinion.

I think it is more along the lines of not understanding the principals of Discrete mathematics.

That's a silly argument. He went through detailing his steps, and explaining how he came to his conclusions. Anything anybody posts that isn't pure statistics is their opinion. He's detailed the reasons behind his opinion better than most, yet somehow that invalidates it? You're asking too much of the man. Beyond that if you asked someone what the average dial for the game was they'd almos assuredly say the X-wing anyway. And the Firespray is literally an X-wing with a 3 K-turn in addition.

I was just demonstrating that there are other ways of coming up with an average dial. I might've been a bit overzealous but I was curious to see what results I'd end up with.

That's a silly argument. He went through detailing his steps, and explaining how he came to his conclusions. Anything anybody posts that isn't pure statistics is their opinion. He's detailed the reasons behind his opinion better than most, yet somehow that invalidates it? You're asking too much of the man. Beyond that if you asked someone what the average dial for the game was they'd almos assuredly say the X-wing anyway. And the Firespray is literally an X-wing with a 3 K-turn in addition.

No one said his results are invalid. It's quite an interesting little bit info actually.

I was just demonstrating that there are other ways of coming up with an average dial. I might've been a bit overzealous but I was curious to see what results I'd end up with.

There seems to be a lot of dismissal of game study on this board, as if understanding the game is bad. I just try to fight that battel, because understanding the game is something I really enjoy, and defending those that do analyze it is easier than analyzing it myself(given that my non probability based math is just not good. I work social services and write in my spare time. Who's got the time for math that isn't about relativistic physics in space travel?) No hard feelings either way.

So weighting the numbers differently changes the results, but his weights have a valid reason, whereas yours just follow a linear progression. His reflect the values better, and come up with results that make more sense. The X-wing dial being average makes perfect sense, as it's supposed to be the average ship. I mean, your result gives the average dial every manuever but a 0 and gives a red 5 forward, something that doesn't exist in the game. That might suggest a flaw in your system.

The only reason I proposed a new method was to demonstrate a point. Neither result is more or less valid.

And, technically, the difference between the 2 isn't a question of weighing numbers differently. He just took the mode of the distribution, whereas I took a weighed arithmetic mean.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(statistics )

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_arithmetic_mean

Again, my Math is bad. I can work out most relativity junk by virtue of twisting my brain into knots writing a book that will almost certainly never get published, but from what I can gather, Mode makes more sense in sample size of 6 per faction. There aren't enough data points for a mean to ever be statistically significant.(Or a mode, but his option makes more sense. At least he didn't do Median.

I personally hate mathwinger threads, but it isn't for me to say what people enjoy. If people enjoy dissecting the game and trying to figure out the mechanics the designers choose that is just dandy. I was stating what people are having an issue with is having him saying that his ideas are fact, when they can't be verified because we aren't going to have a game designer here in the forums say,"Yep that's it exactly". My comment on non-objective still stands, he chose only one way to prove a point with out trying out others (at least he hasn't stated that he might of) so it can be said he has a bias towards this specific way of thought.

So to reiterate my thought, if you wanna break the game down, go crazy it doesn't effect me, but don't call it fact till you have credible verification which he does not have.

I personally hate mathwinger threads, but it isn't for me to say what people enjoy. If people enjoy dissecting the game and trying to figure out the mechanics the designers choose that is just dandy. I was stating what people are having an issue with is having him saying that his ideas are fact, when they can't be verified because we aren't going to have a game designer here in the forums say,"Yep that's it exactly". My comment on non-objective still stands, he chose only one way to prove a point with out trying out others (at least he hasn't stated that he might of) so it can be said he has a bias towards this specific way of thought.

So to reiterate my thought, if you wanna break the game down, go crazy it doesn't effect me, but don't call it fact till you have credible verification which he does not have.

Technically, as far as fact or fiction is concerned, mine is a fact.

I never said that FFG created this rubric, but even if I had, that would still be a fact. A false one, but a fact nonetheless.

Had I stated that X-Wings and Firesprays that had been painted red will go faster, that would also be a fact. Most likely a false one, again, unless WonderWAAAAUGH was involved.

These statements are all objective, even if their logic, sanity, or origin are flawed, and are therefore Facts.

Now, if I said the X-Wing or Firespray had GOOD dials, that would not be a fact.

'Good' is always subjective, regardless of how many people agree on the subject. As such, it shall always be an Opinion.

You may disagree with my logic if you wish, but please don't attempt to bring a semantics argument to bear. It isn't sporting to fight an unarmed opponent.

Hujoe I do not at all understand your claim that his numbers are not a fact. He described an objective process and presented the results of math. That is about as factual as you can get. It may not be intentional by FFG but that does not change the results, or the objectivity of their numerical splendor.

I think you are reacting to something you are reading into the post and not what was actually stated.

Thing is, I am not disagreeing with your logic. It is sound and I have had conversations about the average dial in this game with my gaming group about this too and we came to the same conclusion. I am not trying to insult your intelligence so I see no reason why you would insult mine.

All I am stating is that it was a poor choice of words and that some people are getting hung up on that, which is happening now and I was just stating my opinion. Your post is an observation of game items and could change with the new ships, thus invalidating your fact. Even if it is true at this time.

How do you define the word fact? I would have said, thing which is true or verifiable aspect of reality. The analysis passes both. You seem to be saying thing which is true now and will not ever change.

It comes down to this, I see trivia facts, as something that is small and concrete. Yes, this is a fact, because it exists, but I am saying it has the possibility to change, thus causing it to no longer be a fact but rather an theoretic explanation on the state of the game at this current time, which is a discussion for else where. It still would indeed be a fact, but for the most part people will see the word fact and be hung up on it, as has been proven by a few people already. Again, all I was saying it that it wasn't the best use of words.

I think I have made myself clear enough for the purpose of what I was trying to get across so I wont derail this thread any more then I have, and I apologize for that.