There are too many factors that the math cannot predict. Which is why there is playtesting. And why Attack Wing is having severe issues with their way too simple formula and Wizkids "playtesting".

I will say, you really should stop laying claims on what theoretical stat lines should cost. Anyone with a lick of experience in actually playing the game could tell you a 3/3/3/3 TIE Fighter at 24 pts would break the game.

As for the X-wing, I think the answer is fairly obvious. The B-wing fills a very similar role. X-wing are moving more toward the uniques, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing or a sign of them being inefficient.

I'm still not seeing the problem with dial, gamewise or lorewise. Lorewise, it is fast. So fast, that going slow might be a bit more difficult for it. Gamewise, it is able to go slower than the Fighter or Interceptor, which is pretty big. Sure, you have to snake a bit with the 1 banks, but it is better for going slow than the 2 straight.

Reminds me of the Me262... too fast for his time.

Why tail a ship when you can strafe it, turn back on a dime and do it again?

Because, unlike WW2, you don't have an unlimited portion of the sky to strafe wherever you like, turn at your leisure, and come back when you desire. Because, unlike WW2, target speed doesn't affect accuracy and reaction times from enemy gunners.

From a game-wise point of view, the red 2 turn makes the ship equal or less maneuverable at that speed than other ships considered 'sluggish', like the Y-wing, the Bomber, or even the Lambda Shuttle.

Those ships were given those dials and maneuvers precisely to represent in-game their lore sluggyness. And no one complained. But I suspect that in the community, many felt offended to find that sudden and unexpected inability to turn in what have should been a superiority space fighter.

Second, the ship not only has unexpected inability to turn, It also has inability to adjust aim with green maneuvers, making it extra-susceptible to stress. Not only it generates stress if it tries to dogfight... It will also have a hard time removing it.

And regarding its speed, well, it's not the fastest ship around there to begin with... Certainly not more than the humble TIE fighter. The lack of built-in boost only increases its already high cost if you try to push its real speed or compensate the lack of maneuverability, which BTW, they feel like deliberate and bruteforced weaknesses to discourage people to take other modifications over EU.

That's why I believe people are so upset with the dial... Many drawbacks to pay for an experimental advantage. Many ships have 360º firing arc, which IMO, is better in practice than a white K-turn... And their dials, costs, and action bars aren't as much simultaneously compromised as the Defender's ones.

And by definition, an advantage should be something that puts you over something else. It's like saying: "Here, we'll give you an extra pair of arms, but in exchange, we'll cut your legs." Then, there's no advantage at all... you'll end up with the same number of appendages as everyone else... only you move awkwardly. Something similar can be said from the Defender's dial. Yes, it has an advantage no one else has... but so many other disadvantages, than in the end, it has no advantage at all... It only moves awkwardly.

It's like the game was designed and play-tested or something...

A-Wings and Tie Advanceds beg to disagree.

And by definition, an advantage should be something that puts you over something else. It's like saying: "Here, we'll give you an extra pair of arms, but in exchange, we'll cut your legs." Then, there's no advantage at all... you'll end up with the same number of appendages as everyone else... only you move awkwardly. Something similar can be said from the Defender's dial. Yes, it has an advantage no one else has... but so many other disadvantages, than in the end, it has no advantage at all... It only moves awkwardly.

LOL, this is hilarious. I do like the analogy.

I will say, you really should stop laying claims on what theoretical stat lines should cost.

The formulas have been nearly dead-on with every ship released so far that it has a high degree of certainty for. (Ie. common functionality). So no, I have no reason to stop laying claims other than to appease your personal satisfaction because you dislike the method. Conversely: you should really stop laying claims that the formula is broken, without providing a single shred of concrete evidence as to why.

No, just that you seem to be placing your math over practical experience.

In the end, I don't expect the Defender to be praised as a great ship, but my little experience has shown me enough that I really want to play it more. It is pretty obvious I won't convince anyone that the Defender isn't nearly as bad as many are claiming.

No, just that you seem to be placing your math over practical experience.

In the end, I don't expect the Defender to be praised as a great ship, but my little experience has shown me enough that I really want to play it more. It is pretty obvious I won't convince anyone that the Defender isn't nearly as bad as many are claiming.

The two are not mutually exclusive. The practical experience has been validating the model.

Edit: In the case of the TIE Defender I have been very up-front about not knowing how to value the white K-turn. I think that Tournament results are the best empirical test of ship efficiency. We still have a couple weeks of Regionals, and then Nationals after that, followed by Worlds.

I'm not missing the point, I'm saying that the mathematical model might be a little off if a 3/3/3/3 ship should cost 24 pts or a 4/4/3/3 ship cost 35pts. I get that there is other factor in his equation and that he's bright enough to figure them out and take them into account. But coming into a discussion and just saying low prices for the stats without painting the bigger picture, or just omitting informations for the sake of being right, is wrong.

He's very clear about the limitations of the model. I fail to see where he has omitted information in order to appear "right". Mathematical models help us to understand phenomena and make predictions about how stuff works. That's exactly what his model does. It's there as a tool so we have some way to compare ship stats.

He said what his model predicted about the cost of the Defenders base stat line, and he made a prediction about how FFG valued the 4 kturn based on that. His prediction is that they may have overestimated its value. That's it and that's all.

What do you get for this 35 pts? Are you just able to move to a 3 straight? Can you turn? What is your possible actions? Can you clear stress easily or is all your maneuver is red? Big Base or Small Base? What are the possible upgrades that could erase an initial flaw?

Value of the ship is not just their stats but what they can bring to the table and the potential for abuse. With his equation, the X-Wing is overprice by one. Fair enough. but I'm not sure I would like to see a 5 X-Wing team in a 100pts game. The 1 point is there to prevent that. And in all the game I played, and from all the opponent I had, nobody ever said that the X-Wing is overprice or got the feeling of being cheated when they bring one to the table.

I still don't think you get the point. He already mentioned the limitations of his model and you're complaining about the limitations. Developing a mathematical model to predict cost based on every single component of the game would be a bear to develop. Models in math and science help us to make sense of phenomena. There are always caveats and models are never perfect. They never will be. But they're useful tools, provided you understand their limitations.

Saying that, since we don't see the ship in tournament play, the formula must be good don't take into account that maybe there is just a better ship to fill his role, like when the B-Wing came out. Now the Z-95 took his place as filler but, when the Chardaan A-Wing come out for 15pts, will the Z-95 suddenly be overcost just because we don't see it as much on the table?

Actually, if the model is used to predict that a low cost efficiency ship won't get much use and the opposite occurs, it suggests that the ship brought something else to the table that made its cost worth it despite its primary stats. Major actually detailed the ships in which he has less certainty about the assigned value because he understands that stats aren't everything. In the case of the Defender, he does not think that the ship brings enough to the table to compensate for the amount it costs relative to the predicted cost for its base stat line.

Major actually detailed the ships in which he has less certainty about the assigned value because he understands that stats aren't everything. In the case of the Defender, he does not think that the ship brings enough to the table** to compensate for the amount it costs relative to the predicted cost for its base stat line.

** yes, but the dial coefficient for the white K-turn is essentially plucked out of thin air and is not meaningful since no other ship has a white K-turn. But I do still believe from Regionals results, intuition, and experience, (in that order) that the Defender is overcosted by a couple points. If you gave it a 4th shield (3/3/3/4 stat line = 26 points), and/or changed the dial, then it would probably be a very good ship.

Yea considering it had 3 agility and twice the hit points of a tie interceptor/fighter, it does seem to die rather quickly.

Taking a look at all the ships 6 hit points tend to be more like the middle road instead of the high end considering the X-wing has 5 and the Y-wing has 7. It might be a lot for a small ship but it doesn't have the most hit points even for small ships and throw in the big ships the defender now looks like a wimp. So the defender is about median average for number of hits it takes to go down.

How about engine upgrade for some actual 90 degree turns? Its statline is mostly awesome, just some more maneuverability?

That and/or an adrenalin rush. But I watch some pretty high skill player play the defender, 2 of them with echo to be exact. But when ever he plays defender he just looks for a clear lane and just move them back and forth like a red turtle-shelled koopa-troopa just stopping before they fall off the edge.

How about engine upgrade for some actual 90 degree turns? Its statline is mostly awesome, just some more maneuverability?

That and/or an adrenalin rush. But I watch some pretty high skill player play the defender, 2 of them with echo to be exact. But when ever he plays defender he just looks for a clear lane and just move them back and forth like a red turtle-shelled koopa-troopa just stopping before they fall off the edge.

This is how I fly them. The engine upgrade just isn't worth it. I've never been in a position where it would be an optimal move over a target lock or focus. If the ship had better ways to clear stress, I'd probably try engine upgrade with PTL. Kturn followed by boost and barrel roll sounds fun.

Four 3/3/3/3 ships with four points of upgrades to spend only on modifications doesn't actually sounds horrific. They're PS 1, can't take the more powerful EPTs or System upgrades, and lack the additional maneuvers of boost or the white K-Turn. They'd be pretty nasty in a jousting, but of course they would be. That's what the numbers tell us.

B-Wings, Z swarms, and Howl swarms could still go head to head with them. For Interceptors to compete you would need to really a use PTL and just outfly these imagined ships.

The Defender is not meant to fly like that. It's a strafer and a flanker. Yes it can take a beating, but you're better off picking your moments.

We don't even have a 4/4/3/3 ship, so it impossible to use that as an empirical claim that the formula is broken. You are just waving your hands in the air.... your Jedi Mind tricks will not work on me!

**** mathematicians! They are worst than the Hutts......

But even at 16 point for the basic 3/3/3/0 and the Alpha being cost at 18, that's still 8 points for 3 shields. That's actually (here's a math I can do!) 2.67 pts per shield, less than the cost of a Hull upgrade. That is still 38 pts for a 3/3/3/3 PtL Sountir Fel. An X-Wing compared to a Tie is what, 20 pts? so 4 points short of the 3/3/3/3. Would an upgrade Giving 1 agility and 1 shield for 4 points be okay?

The more a stat raise, the more value it gets. 1 Shield, if it's your first, it should not be worth more than 3, but the second one? The third? Same goes for Agility. For Attack. And the Impact it can have on the overall game. By raising the stats of one, you are lowering the value of another. Being a 2 attack ship is not that bad in the current game, because 4 agility is rare. But if you bring more, or raise the bar, not only should your 4 agility be worth more, but the 2 attack ship is worth less. An example is the Stealth Device. Give it to a 3 agility ship, it has some value; give it to a 1 agility and it's a waste of points.

So, regardless of point value, I think there is a line you should not cross regarding stats, or you start making some other units obsolete.

The Tie Phantom, that you say is a very good value, as a big drawback to his 4/4/2/2. Yes, it's always 4 attack, but the agility is tied to another action that can bring a drawback in itself. On a high PS, with ACD, you'll have 4/4 pretty much against anyone except the high PS, especially if you took VI. But once you drop to the lowest PS, it start to change, suddenly you are either a 4/2/2/2 or a 0/4/2/2, you can bring it up with ACD but it will work only on lower PS than yourself. And there is a tax to it. Your 25 pts ship is now 29 pts and still a 4/2/2/2 to PS4+. And it has 2 Hull, 2 Shield. It can go down by just one Proton Bomb. Surely the point value between 2 and 3 Hull is higher than 3 to 4.

2/3/3/0 is worth exactly 12 points at PS1.

3/3/3/3 is worth about 24 points at PS1.

4/4/3/3 is worth about 35 points at PS1. (since it was brought up as an example)

We don't even have a 4/4/3/3 ship, so it impossible to use that as an empirical claim that the formula is broken. You are just waving your hands in the air.... your Jedi Mind tricks will not work on me!

**** mathematicians! They are worst than the Hutts......

But even at 16 point for the basic 3/3/3/0 and the Alpha being cost at 18, that's still 8 points for 3 shields. That's actually (here's a math I can do!) 2.67 pts per shield, less than the cost of a Hull upgrade. That is still 38 pts for a 3/3/3/3 PtL Sountir Fel. An X-Wing compared to a Tie is what, 20 pts? so 4 points short of the 3/3/3/3. Would an upgrade Giving 1 agility and 1 shield for 4 points be okay?

The more a stat raise, the more value it gets.

So, regardless of point value, I think there is a line you should not cross regarding stats, or you start making some other units obsolete.

You are not understanding how it works. To really comprehend it you'll need to read up on Lanchester's Square Law and differential equations, but the basic conclusion is that a ship's value is proportional to the square root of (attack power * durability). So using fixed point costs for hull and shields and scaling linearly does not result in the correct cost.

Edit: the point being, your premise that the more a stat is raised the more value it gets is (in at least the case of hull and shields) exactly backwards. Additional hull and shields have a very diminishing return. At some point you are far better off just getting another ship. Actually, Hull and Shield Upgrades are expensive enough that you are generally always better off just getting another ship anyway.

A PS1 Super-Interceptor at 3/3/3/3 with the same jousting efficiency as the normal interceptor would cost about 27 points at PS1. Soontir Fel costs an additional 9 points, so that brings you up to 36 points. But that's giving a very steep discount to the PS cost on the super Interceptor, since Soontir pays 9/27 = 1/3 of his cost just for PS/ability. A proportional cost on the Super-Interceptor would be an additional 13.5 points, so a more balanced cost for Soontir on the Super-Interceptor would be at least +11, for a total of 38 points. Then add PtL, and you're at 41 points. Alternatively, you could just take 27 point Soontir, add PtL + Shield Upgrade + Hull Upgrade, and be at 3/3/4/1 for 37 points. It's a viable option but not one that you see very often in high level tournament play. This suggests that 36-38 points for the hypothetical SuperInterceptor Soontir would be around the right price.

The main danger with using stats, is using them without knowing how they fundamentally work.

He's very clear about the limitations of the model. I fail to see where he has omitted information in order to appear "right".

With this quote:

2/3/3/0 is worth exactly 12 points at PS1.

3/3/3/3 is worth about 24 points at PS1.

4/4/3/3 is worth about 35 points at PS1. (since it was brought up as an example)

So... the information that I omitted in order to appear "right", is what, exactly?

He's very clear about the limitations of the model. I fail to see where he has omitted information in order to appear "right".

With this quote:

2/3/3/0 is worth exactly 12 points at PS1.

3/3/3/3 is worth about 24 points at PS1.

4/4/3/3 is worth about 35 points at PS1. (since it was brought up as an example)

So... the information that I omitted in order to appear "right", is what, exactly?

What came with those stats. Dial, actions, possible upgrades. They were talking about the Super Defender from the EU, not just a standard ship with nothing else. I probably misunderstood the intervention.

Regarding stats, I can't agree with the decreasing value of shield, except maybe past a certain point. The likelyhood of cancelling a crit with your shield is higher with the more you have. I think we can at least agree that concerning attack and agility, the value should increase.

What came with those stats. Dial, actions, possible upgrades. They were talking about the Super Defender from the EU, not just a standard ship with nothing else. I probably misunderstood the intervention.

Regarding stats, I can't agree with the decreasing value of shield, except maybe past a certain point. The likelyhood of cancelling a crit with your shield is higher with the more you have. I think we can at least agree that concerning attack and agility, the value should increase.

Those are stat line values relative to a PS1 TIE Fighter, as has been said several times. So the dial / actions / etc are the TIE Fighter upgrades.

Agree / disagree / whatever, the method is laid out, derived, and explained in the thread I linked. If you understand and can solve differential equations then you will understand why the square root is the only valid solution. There is a small adjustment to the exponent due to it being a discrete time system rather than continuous, but that is discussed as well.

This game is tied to the story. Ships are modeled to spec to match what they look like in the lore.

Their stats also reflect how they should perform in the lore.

The Defender does not do that.

Now that I've trolled this thread with grumpy cat, let me say something in support of MajorJuggler.

I'm in absolute awe of his achievement. While his critics have leveled the most sophisticated assaults on his construct, I have to say: it works. I'm that FFG uses something similar to this in addition to the playtesting. As a result, this is one of the best-balanced games out there.

MajorJuggler, did you have a link to a page where I can fill in stats in order to derive a point cost for custom-made ships? I think your calculus provides a wonderful method in order to keep fan-made material from being too outlandish.

Thanks!

Who am I to invoke the wrath of Grumpy Cat...

Now that I've trolled this thread with grumpy cat, let me say something in support of MajorJuggler.

I'm in absolute awe of his achievement. While his critics have leveled the most sophisticated assaults on his construct, I have to say: it works. I'm that FFG uses something similar to this in addition to the playtesting. As a result, this is one of the best-balanced games out there.

MajorJuggler, did you have a link to a page where I can fill in stats in order to derive a point cost for custom-made ships? I think your calculus provides a wonderful method in order to keep fan-made material from being too outlandish.

Thanks!

Short answer: if you go to the thread, there is a link to download a google doc. It's not super newbie friendly, but if you are literate at Excel then you can figure out what cells need to be filled in. I have some minor updates in it that I haven't uploaded, I'll get the newer version uploaded sometime this weekend, I'll try and make it easier to use.

The ideal solution would be to make a web UI for it and make it idiot-proof, but I'm not that ambitious yet.

Short answer: if you go to the thread, there is a link to download a google doc. It's not super newbie friendly, but if you are literate at Excel then you can figure out what cells need to be filled in. I have some minor updates in it that I haven't uploaded, I'll get the newer version uploaded sometime this weekend, I'll try and make it easier to use.

The ideal solution would be to make a web UI for it and make it idiot-proof, but I'm not that ambitious yet.

Okay, excellent. I was just wondering prospectively. I don't have any immediate plans for homebrew ships. Also, were I to make some, they'd probably be 'huge'. I imagine your equation is not set up to handle those.

Unless you know what you're doing, making idiot proof stuff on the web is pretty hard. I'm building a campaign engine that appears to not be particularly idiot proof. (ie. I don't know what I'm doing. I'm just playing around.) The code makes my head hurt.

Forgive me if I misunderstand, but I think that Major Juggler and Red Castle aren't actually talking about the same thing, and to me they both seem somewhat correct. Red Castle makes the point that values are context dependent, and I agree fully with this point. In a world of 1 AGI ships, 2 POW ships are excellent. In a world of 3 AGI ships, 2 POW ships leave a lot to be desired. I think this can't be argued against because the true offensive power of a unit is based on the difference between it's POW and the AGI of it's target, not on it's printed stat. I imagine the good Major's calculations take this into account, but as the result is a single number, it must average the efficiency of a given POW vs various AGI values. I may be wrong, I sincerely need to take a look at the doc, but I haven't had a chance yet.

I don't see how some people are saying that the tech specs of the Defender don't match their expectations, when it is technically the most advanced small fighter. All threes. Why is this bad? How is this "a disappointment"?

Because the game it is from has some very specific comparisons it doesn't match. For instance better shields than the B wing.(I don't see this as too big a deal, but I'm more gae less fluff oriented.)

Yeah I know the game it came from. It was a Pillar Of My Childhood. And I still don't see why all the hurt. The dial keeps it from being "just the interceptor but sorta not the interceptor". It's tremendously maneuverable, but just in a different way. And who cares about lore specific specs anyway? I don't give a rat's arse what it's shield gigawatts or whatever are. It's a fake ship in a fake universe that is super cool but still fake. For christ's sake they bank like WWII fighters. Who needs to adhere to any realism at this point? It's a sexy looking beast, it's fun and different to fly than any other ship in the game, it can take a beating (or dodge it completely) and deal it out, and its Unique Pilots are some of the most brutal and interestingly synergistic on the Imperial side so far. I mean, come on. I once dealt FOUR CRITS to a Lambda shuttle. How awesome is that? Who else can do that? Put Vessery in the same squad as Whisper and with the right loadout, the two ships can get a focus, target lock, target lock, focus, target lock and focus for the action economy of two focus. Even Garvin and Dutch are hard pressed to match that.