...or "How I stopped worrying and learned to love the Han."

Fat Han has obviously put the community into something of a tizzy. It seems we can't go a day without a new thread popping up attacking the build, defending the build, or looking for ways to kill the build. Inevitably we see a breakdown in the debate between "casual players" and "competitive players", between Mathwingers and those who "fly casual" --even though these groups often overlap and rarely breakdown as clearly as we try to paint. This is not another one of those threads.

Defining Skill

I'm interested instead in a related debate that often gets dragged into the Han debate, "What does it mean to fly skillfully?" In a number of recent threads (Leftenant Lorrir, Slot Machine vs Chess, etc...) I've seen the idea advanced that skillful flying is arc-dodging. If you can't be shot, you have outflown your opponent. This is obviously true to a degree, but it is not the whole truth. For example, it is more skillful to be able to shoot the enemy than to merely be out of arc.

I realize that this is self-evident and hardly needs a post, but let's continue with this thought for a moment: What are the major elements of player skill? (I am, for the moment, ignoring list building. This will be addressed later). It seems to me that player skill covers (but is not limited to): arc-dodging, setting up shots, choosing actions, blocking/bumping, maneuvering around asteroids, taking cover behind asteroids, knowing when to spend tokens, knowing when to stay at R3 and when to move to R1, and so forth. Broadly, a reasonable definition of player skill might be: The ability to maximize the damage one deals, while minimizing the damage one receives.

I'm not entirely sold on this definition as it's so broad as to be almost unhelpful, but it does help us by focusing back on the core of the game. The game is not necessarily about arc-dodging (fun as it is); arc-dodging is one piece of skill that helps minimize return fire. A skillful arc-dodger displays this technique, but there are other ways to minimize damage that are not negated by turrets and a skilled pilot should be able to do all of them.

Minimizing damage, however, is not the same as entirely avoiding damage. A skilled player needs to know when to take some hits in order to maximize his own damage dealt. This is something that (I think) we should be able to, roughly, begin to quantify.

The Experiment

Before I start with this briefly mathy section, I want to be clear that I think most of this data can be determined by MajorJuggler's jousting formula and other equations. I'm not doing anything brilliant or original here, I haven't really used math for anything but my budget in eight years. This is just a different way of looking at things that will (hopefully) prove useful.

The Philosophy

The rough definition of skillful flying is "The ability to maximize the damage one deals, while minimizing the damage one receives." But how do we know where to trade off? How minimal do we need to be and when is it worth it to switch from defense to offense?

The first step might be to identify what a ship has to do to justify its points. Let's take a naked Turr Phennir, for example. What does he have to do to justify his 25 point price tag? It seems that the easiest way to answer this is to say that he needs to do damage >= 25% of the opposing forces HP. For example, against a Han + 3Z build with 25 total HP Phennir needs to at least 6.25 damage to earn his keep. Anything after that is gravy. [Note: I am aware that C-3P0 and Chewie can add effective HP to this build. That's a separate issue for later.]

So how long does Phennir need to last to deal 6.25 damage? Well, it kind of depends:

The Numbers

[all numbers shamelessly stolen from the X-Wing Battle Computer app]
3 red vs 1 green (no focus) 3 red vs 1 green (both focus)
R1: 1.61 = 4 rounds R1: 2.32 = 3 rounds
R2: 1.18 = 6 rounds R2: 1.56 = 4 rounds
R3: .86 = 8 rounds R3: 1.06 = 6 rounds

3 red vs 1 green (red focus) 3 red vs 1 green (red focus; green evade)
R1: 2.64 = 3 rounds R1: 1.67 = 4 rounds
R2: 1.84 = 4 rounds R2: 1.01 = 6 rounds
R3: 1.5 = 4-5 rounds R3: 0.71 = 9 rounds

To earn back his points then, it seems that Phennir needs to last long enough to get in 4-6 rounds of shooting (at the Falcon; discounting crits). How likely does he seem to be able to do that?

3 red vs 3 green (no focus) 3 red vs 3 green (both focus)
R1: 1.05 = 3 rounds R1: 1.22 = 3 rounds
R2: 0.60 = 4 rounds R2: 0.65 = 5 rounds
R3: 0.48 = 7 rounds R3: 0.32 = 10 rounds

3 red vs 3 green (red focus) 3 red vs 3 green (red focus, green evade)
R1: 1.89 = 2 rounds R1: 1.04 = 3 rounds
R2: 1.20 = 3 rounds R2: 0.47 = 7 rounds
R3: .96 = 3(4) rounds R3: 0.39 = 8 rounds

Early Conclusions

This is obviously not an exhaustive rundown of possibilities (what about Gunner and Han? Where are the Z's?!) and it is little more than a watered down version of MajorJuggler's excellent jousting values, but I think we can learn something here:

1.) The skillful Interceptor pilot doesn't sit at R1 without a focus. This is obvious, but what's less obvious is that it might not be a terrible thing to sit at R1 with a focus. You should be able to last three rounds and have a good chance of dealing that 6.25 damage (especially if you use the Focus for D in rounds one and two then shoot first with Focus in round 3 [or are Fel's Wrath].

2.) The skillful pilot engages at R2 with an evade token. This seems maximize longevity without sacrificing too much damage. Similarly, the skillful pilot engages at R3 with a focus that can be spent as needed until the R1 strike is ready.


3.) The skillful interceptor pilot never uses an Evade at R3.

etc...

To put this in its most general terms, we might say that, "In order to maximize damage dealt while minimizing damage received, Phennir should stay at R2 or R3. While at these ranges, he is generally expected to earn his points back in 4-6 rounds and to live for 5-7 rounds." The player then adjusts as need be based on the Falcon's PS. use of tokens, and the rest.

So What?

I'm not really interested in drawing these maxims at the moment (though they seem useful), but rather in judging this method. Is this a way to help determine skillful play? It is obviously not exhaustive--focusing a Falcon is far more important early game than its Z escort--but, ideally, this is a method that can help us figure out what, exactly, a ship should aim to do. If we can agree on general aims, we can then begin to apply them to a "flight school" style guide which teaches the aims of individual ships. Once that is established, the rest becomes individual play. How well can we set up our future moves, how unexpected are our maneuvers, and how do we outplay the enemy?

Thank you for your time. I apologize if this was too long or wandering, but I'm hopped up on caffeine after teaching my morning classes and need to do something about it.

EDIT: I added some headings, fixed some typos, and tried to improve the format for ease of reading.

While I appreciate the effort, flying skill is more art (qualitative) than science (quantitative). I don't think there can be reliable statistics or measures that encompass skill because it is extremely circumstantial. There are so many variables at play, relative to ship-specific (flying an Interceptor skillfully is much different than flying a Lambda, for example), relative to your opponent, relative to the rest of your squad, relative to the position of obstacles, relative to the situation of the game, relative to the objectives/tactics of the players, and so on. A good interceptor pilot may be able to dodge arcs reliably, but a great one might know when to sacrifice that interceptor to bait the enemy into vulnerable situations for the rest of the list. Is that bad flying by the Interceptor or good flying by the player who achieves his objective (winning) at the price of a ship along the way? All those variables to me mean that you can only judge skill observationally. Even ranking players by their success in tournaments is suggestive of skill, but not proof, particularly in a game where luck plays a factor. But I can tell within a few minutes of play, probably even just in initial set-up, the approximate skill of my opponent and I don't generally need numbers to back that up.

Ingame skill is spatial awareness, the ability to preempt your opponent's moves and thinking ahead. You can use that to arc-dodge, block, optimise your shots while worsening theirs, all are applications.

Building skill is knowing how to build a squad that works well and can deal with a variety of opponents.

Flying well takes into account your dice odds aswell. You can't have good decission making if you don't. The problem with the example is that interceptors very often just explode. Being at range 1, while on average you may last 3 turns, there are times where you just go down on the first round (happened this last weekend to me... RIP Turr Phenirr). With a focus + evade it is somewhat safer to be more reliable, because i wouldn't really trust averages against gunner just with a focus.

A good interceptor pilot may be able to dodge arcs reliably, but a great one might know when to sacrifice that interceptor to bait the enemy into vulnerable situations for the rest of the list. Is that bad flying by the Interceptor or good flying by the player who achieves his objective (winning) at the price of a ship along the way?

This. I think it is a valiant effort at a start by the OP, but some things are impossible to quantify. If my opponent spends most of the game chasing Turr while my other ships take open shots, has Turr not earned his keep? He maybe didn't do his full damage, but how do I quantify the extra damage my other ships may have caused while going unmolested? Or if Turr arc-dodges leaving my opponent no shot while being chased, surely we can credit him for saving me some HP on another ship that might have received shots if not for Turr's presence? What about the value of passed actions or pilot abilities such as Biggs? How do we place value on something such as making use of those abilities?

That's some deep thinking. I wish this game didn't involve so much thought. Sure, get better but you guys spend a lot of energy and free time overthinking the game. Just have fun.

That's some deep thinking. I wish this game didn't involve so much thought. Sure, get better but you guys spend a lot of energy and free time overthinking the game. Just have fun.

Some people actually have fun "overthinking" the game.

While I appreciate the effort, flying skill is more art (qualitative) than science (quantitative). I don't think there can be reliable statistics or measures that encompass skill because it is extremely circumstantial. There are so many variables at play, relative to ship-specific (flying an Interceptor skillfully is much different than flying a Lambda, for example), relative to your opponent, relative to the rest of your squad, relative to the position of obstacles, relative to the situation of the game, relative to the objectives/tactics of the players, and so on. A good interceptor pilot may be able to dodge arcs reliably, but a great one might know when to sacrifice that interceptor to bait the enemy into vulnerable situations for the rest of the list. Is that bad flying by the Interceptor or good flying by the player who achieves his objective (winning) at the price of a ship along the way? All those variables to me mean that you can only judge skill observationally. Even ranking players by their success in tournaments is suggestive of skill, but not proof, particularly in a game where luck plays a factor. But I can tell within a few minutes of play, probably even just in initial set-up, the approximate skill of my opponent and I don't generally need numbers to back that up.

A good interceptor pilot may be able to dodge arcs reliably, but a great one might know when to sacrifice that interceptor to bait the enemy into vulnerable situations for the rest of the list. Is that bad flying by the Interceptor or good flying by the player who achieves his objective (winning) at the price of a ship along the way?

This. I think it is a valiant effort at a start by the OP, but some things are impossible to quantify. If my opponent spends most of the game chasing Turr while my other ships take open shots, has Turr not earned his keep? He maybe didn't do his full damage, but how do I quantify the extra damage my other ships may have caused while going unmolested? Or if Turr arc-dodges leaving my opponent no shot while being chased, surely we can credit him for saving me some HP on another ship that might have received shots if not for Turr's presence? What about the value of passed actions or pilot abilities such as Biggs? How do we place value on something such as making use of those abilities?

Do either of you follow baseball at all and the emerging Sabremetrics movement? One of the big questions there is, "How do we quantify a player's defense?" The answer, for now, is "I don't know," but that doesn't mean that it will always be so vague. I hope I made it clear above that I value knowing when to sacrifice Phennir; he is useful not only for arc-dodging, but for a variety of things. I think there may be ways to value how many rounds Phennir lives and gets shot at; if he survives 4 rounds at R1 he's doing a service to the rest of the squad.

Ideally, maybe the way that we quantify it is similar to baseball's WAR. Assume a standard enemy force (replacement level enemy) and how long your squad should last against it/how quickly they should be able to do damage to it. Anything Phennir does to add to your longevity (minimize damage against) or increase your speed (maximize damage dealt) is valuable. Passing tokens should be easier to quantify, though I'll leave it to a real mathematician. All of this to say that I agree with your points entirely, but I'd like to try to pin them down a bit more concretely. When is dodging valuable? How do we determine the right choice?

That's some deep thinking. I wish this game didn't involve so much thought. Sure, get better but you guys spend a lot of energy and free time overthinking the game. Just have fun.

I have fun thinking. It's a failing of mine, I admit.

Flying well takes into account your dice odds aswell. You can't have good decission making if you don't. The problem with the example is that interceptors very often just explode. Being at range 1, while on average you may last 3 turns, there are times where you just go down on the first round (happened this last weekend to me... RIP Turr Phenirr). With a focus + evade it is somewhat safer to be more reliable, because i wouldn't really trust averages against gunner just with a focus.

Sure. That's why you play the game. The averages don't tell the whole story, but a skilled player has to play to them and use them to his or her advantage. A skillful can't be judged on the results of their maneuver, but only on the process. If their choice was right, it doesn't matter if it worked or didn't.

That's some deep thinking. I wish this game didn't involve so much thought. Sure, get better but you guys spend a lot of energy and free time overthinking the game. Just have fun.

Some people actually have fun "overthinking" the game.

I am guilty as charged!

I believe the word that BaronFel is looking for is "Duty Cycle". You want to maximize your firing duty cycle, while minimizing your opponent's duty cycle. This increases your combat effectiveness, without increasing your squad cost or stat line.

So squad "A" that has a very low jousting value can still outperform a squad "B" that has a high jousting value, if the firing duty cycle is sufficiently in favor of squad A.

You can work backwards from the jousting values to derive what the duty cycle ratios need to be to have a "fair" fight on both sides. All good players understand this intuitively to some level, but quantifying it is slightly more difficult. The jousting values I have are also meta-wide averages, so squads will perform differently from the average when paired up against a very specific stat line. For example 2 attack ships provide worse value shooting at high agility targets, compared to shooting at agility 1/0 targets.

Edit: That all being said, if this were like the NFL, then we would absolutely have stats for each player like "Paul Heaver has an average Duty Cycle of 85% vs. his opponents 75%", and even breaking down the range bins.

Edit edit: or more simply, "shot percentage".

Would be really nice if someone else with good math could look at these. And at least let us know if the choices for the ranges and focus or evade is mathematically sound. I think it sounds about right.

also... Kir Kanos anyone? =D

The problem with evade is that it usually goes unused, unless it is a straight up 1v1 situation or you know it is a high priority target. So if you evade instead of focusing, you might do better on that one ship, but the rest of your squad loses attack power, which generally more than offsets any marginal gain on your one defender.

Or if just some of the ships evade, then the attacker can select a different target, that does not have evade.

I understand the fly casual attitude and love it. I like to laugh and goof off with my opponent, as they are usually a good friend. I am also the kind of guy to remind my opponent when he forgets to do an action, and generally goes off my opponents opinion of whether something is in my arc to shoot at, or if I'm overlapping. If they say yes, then there isn't room for contention.

However, what I love so much about this game is the depth you can go into it. Much like Chess, which seems rather innocuous at first appearance but can become a very deep and thought provoking game. I like to think about it and plan and prepare and then start again. I like the move, counter move, or as one of character may say, the game of "cat and also cat".

While I appreciate the effort, flying skill is more art (qualitative) than science (quantitative). I don't think there can be reliable statistics or measures that encompass skill because it is extremely circumstantial. There are so many variables at play, relative to ship-specific (flying an Interceptor skillfully is much different than flying a Lambda, for example), relative to your opponent, relative to the rest of your squad, relative to the position of obstacles, relative to the situation of the game, relative to the objectives/tactics of the players, and so on. A good interceptor pilot may be able to dodge arcs reliably, but a great one might know when to sacrifice that interceptor to bait the enemy into vulnerable situations for the rest of the list. Is that bad flying by the Interceptor or good flying by the player who achieves his objective (winning) at the price of a ship along the way? All those variables to me mean that you can only judge skill observationally. Even ranking players by their success in tournaments is suggestive of skill, but not proof, particularly in a game where luck plays a factor. But I can tell within a few minutes of play, probably even just in initial set-up, the approximate skill of my opponent and I don't generally need numbers to back that up.

Do either of you follow baseball at all and the emerging Sabremetrics movement? One of the big questions there is, "How do we quantify a player's defense?" The answer, for now, is "I don't know," but that doesn't mean that it will always be so vague. I hope I made it clear above that I value knowing when to sacrifice Phennir; he is useful not only for arc-dodging, but for a variety of things. I think there may be ways to value how many rounds Phennir lives and gets shot at; if he survives 4 rounds at R1 he's doing a service to the rest of the squad.

Ideally, maybe the way that we quantify it is similar to baseball's WAR. Assume a standard enemy force (replacement level enemy) and how long your squad should last against it/how quickly they should be able to do damage to it. Anything Phennir does to add to your longevity (minimize damage against) or increase your speed (maximize damage dealt) is valuable. Passing tokens should be easier to quantify, though I'll leave it to a real mathematician. All of this to say that I agree with your points entirely, but I'd like to try to pin them down a bit more concretely. When is dodging valuable? How do we determine the right choice?

I not only follow baseball, but have designed a tabletop baseball game based upon sabermetric principles and have written articles for Baseball America covering the Northwest League back in my freelancing days. I get the direction of your attempt and think the comparison is valid, but that the variables in the game are going to be extremely challenging to quantify to yield reliable data. Further, WAR, VORP, etc. are attempts to quantify player VALUE (which I think statistics like MajorJuggler's jousting values go towards) and geared more towards general manager type assessments of organizations. Absolutely, you can quantify a ship's talents similarly to baseball, in a netural usage environment.

However, quantifying the nebulous "skill" used to manipulate and maximize the ship is perhaps more akin to trying to rate MANAGERS in baseball, not players. Even sabermetricians have yet to really analyze that well, aside from pointing out the diminished returns of tactics such as bunting and stealing. As such, similar to what I said, the manager is largely tasked with getting the most of his available tools, and therefore any skill measurement would have to be towards how well they maximize the potential of their list, rather than specific ship by ship, move by move analysis.

That being said, I think there are TONS of untapped ways to analyze ship abilities, ranging from base dial movement, pilot skill, action-based movement, defense, attack, action/token usage, relative weights of EPTs and pilot talents, and so forth, all relative to point cost. MJ has done great work on the jousting value as an efficiency measurement, but there is more yet than can be done. If you're intent is more to explore those avenues, then absolutely. Go to it.

I wish I could "like" the OP 10 times. Target selection and what sorts of units to trade for enemy units under certain circumstances is a part of the game that is sort of intuitive to me, probably from 15 years of playing 40k (where that is the #1 most important skill you need to win), and it's not as frequently discussed in X-wing because it's secondary to movement. I think the really interesting complete analysis of this topic would be a three dimensional table, with the X and Y dimensions every ship's jousting value as a ratio compared to every other ship's jousting value. The Z would be at different ranges/obstruction conditions. This would tell you which ships are optimized against certain other ships, indicating when you sell out for attacks and when you defend, with what ships. A good player has a good sense of this from experience, but the analysis probably tells you some non-intuitive things.

My attempt to provide an obvious example to clarify that garbled mess of English above:

Fat Han + 3 Zs vs 4 TIE Fighters and a Defender-

The Imperial side needs to take out Fat Han as quickly as possible, and to do so, closes to range 1 with TIE fighters, because the Range 1 vs Range 2 advantage for TIE fighters is a huge difference. Importantly, the Z-95s are pretty bad overall vs the Defender (particularly at Range >1) due to the AGI 3, so the TIE Fighters can sell out to get shots vs. Han, because they're not as important late game vs. The Zs, and rely on the Defender to clean them up after Han is dead.

Now, the simplistic (and correct) form of this is "kill Fat Han early, you can't get him late game", but this doesn't take into account protecting the Defender early, which I think is important to get the most out of the Imperial side of the matchup.

I like with what the OP is saying. I have lots of thoughts on this, and maybe will share later.