Where are interceptors with rgi upgrade targeting computer and sd or other upgrades? Also why no BTL-A4 with blaster turret or auto blaster. Dutch with r5k6 blaster turret btla4 (Siberian express) and a jan / kyle moldy crow wingmen setup?

Dear MajorJuggler,

Thanks for taking the time to do this analysis. It is very helpful and useful.

I am just wondering, though, whether you could post a pdf version of this. I want to print the analysis out for further study, but because of the forums' layout, I am unable to get a good looking printout that would do the analysis justice. (I tried the "Print" option on the bottom of the page, but it gives me a similar problem).

Thanks.

Gundamv

Where are interceptors with rgi upgrade targeting computer and sd or other upgrades? Also why no BTL-A4 with blaster turret or auto blaster. Dutch with r5k6 blaster turret btla4 (Siberian express) and a jan / kyle moldy crow wingmen setup?

Probably because there is no way humanly possible for him to work out each and every combo possible.

thanks MJ. Will be thinking about it.

So your saying that if I have the choice to run 48 points of bombers or tie fighters, stick with the fighters?

One thing I'd like to see, if there's any way to quantify it, would be how a ship's value changes from the initial pass to endgame. Some examples:

1) Z-95s are clearly great early in the game when there are lots of dice being rolled on both sides and concentrated fire can happen, but get into trouble late in the game if they're your last remaining ship. Against fat Han once you're down to a single z-95 you can't even attempt to roll dice and can, at best, stall and hope to reach the time limit. Meanwhile a generic x-wing might not have the same early-game jousting value, but it can at least attempt to roll dice against fat Han. So it seems like this kind of situation should be a bonus for the x-wing's value and a penalty for the z-95's.

2) Named phantoms are pretty much an auto-win against a lower-PS opponent with weak/no maneuvering actions (and no turret to make up for it). If you're in endgame with an ACD phantom against a generic x-wing you're going to win unless you screw up very badly. So should its value get a boost to reflect the "if you can keep it alive until endgame you win". And the same kind of thing is true of other ships: Fel, Tycho/Jake, etc.

3) Boost/BR actions are relatively weak in the initial pass where it's hard to dodge arcs, but increase greatly in value as the number of ships on the table drops and maneuvering space opens up. So the glass cannon alpha gets very little value from the boost/BR actions it probably won't survive long enough to use, but if Fel manages to flank successfully those actions suddenly become almost priceless.

Thanks for the updates on the numbers.

I've always wondered about something with the E-wings. This pure jousting number has them pretty low in the scale, and that seems to correlate well with their usage in competitive play - while you occasionally see a super-Corran or even more occasionally an Etahn, you never see a Knave or Blackmoon.

So, did the designers really over-cost something like the E-wing so much? I can only assume the additional points for the E-wing go into their upgrades and what one can do with those. In particular, R2-D2 seems quite potent on an E-wing, as it has the agility to take a few hits then regenerate more easily than something like an X-wing.

So, all this leads to my question: would you be able to run the numbers on an E-wing which costs four more points (for R2-D2) but has two more shields (a rough guess on an average number of shields R2-D2 might regenerate during a fight)? Actually, it would be even more interesting, if possible, to see the relative effects of R2-D2 on the E-wing: if R2-D2 regenerates 1 shield, the jousting efficiency is X, if he regenerates 2 shields the jousting efficiency is Y, etc.

Thanks!

I've noticed some games tend to put a point "tax" on units that have lots of upgrade options, which is a terrible way to handle it. The E-wing is a victim of this to me.

PS MajorJuggler, good work as always.

Also if FFG is adamant about not banning or errata-ing powerful builds, does that not mean that our meta will simply become the only ships that can achieve a maximal cost-effective efficiency on par with your very very very high values for Falcon and ACD Phantom?

I think that means it will lead to general power creep and escalation. Otherwise, how does a new release (which they want to be well received) have any place against the cost efficiency we see already?

Second, do you really expect the developers to allow more crew that leads to Fat Decimator builds? I'm not sure I think this is even a good idea. Playing against a Fat build is really annoying and frustrating. It's also come to note that the 75 minute time frame for a tournament match has become hard enough to get to in a Falcon game that a significant number of games will go to time and a win by MOV.

They're not adamant about not banning. If new releases fail to fix builds they've said they'd look at card restrictions.

That's some nice data!

Though... I am the only one here that thinks that this becomes less and less relevant as the game evolves? Jousting efficiency would be most valuable in the case where we just put the asteroids to one side and smash our ships together, using few if any pilot abilities. With wave4/5 + Scum coming in with many abilities that cannot be factored in easily in the calculation, it's becoming impossible to sum up a ship into one number.

Gone are the days of 4 Rookies against 8 TIEs...

after watching the TC Open final, I think you might need to somehow take into account the "donut hole" of the Outrider+HLC. That match was really a worst case scenario, but it still vividly highlighted the range 1 flaw.

This is far from an end-all analysis: jousting value removes the un-assumable elements (player skill, asteroid layout, imprecise ship placement, chaos theory, die rolls, etc.) and places each ship in a specific situation and measures it accordingly. It doesn't calculate the best squad, the best ship, or anything like that- but it does give some data to suggest which ships are stronger in a specific scenario and the "required awesomeness" (the "required efficiency" column) needed to make that ship pay off better. It's great information that can inform and will benefit those who take the time to think about it. It won't answer the question of "should I fly my Y-wings with BTL-A4 or not?" but it will suggest that starting with a squad of TIE Bombers will make you work a little harder to earn a win than using a squad of Z-95s.

I'm not a fan of "make everything cheaper" approach to balance

Because that just escalates to a race to the bottom

Or a race to top tier, depending on your point of view. The thing is, the meta already operates this way anyway. Ships that aren't cost effective don't get used. Of the 16 ships, generic versions only see play consistently at the top levels for three of them. Fix the costs or capabilities, and you'll see more widespread use of less-used pilots.

Where are interceptors with rgi upgrade targeting computer and sd or other upgrades? Also why no BTL-A4 with blaster turret or auto blaster. Dutch with r5k6 blaster turret btla4 (Siberian express) and a jan / kyle moldy crow wingmen setup?

There are many different permutations - as was posted after you, I can't possibly cover them all. And most of them are not conducive to rigorous mathematical analysis. But I want to add some more HWK / Y-wing blaster turret points of reference.

Dear MajorJuggler,

Thanks for taking the time to do this analysis. It is very helpful and useful.

I am just wondering, though, whether you could post a pdf version of this. I want to print the analysis out for further study, but because of the forums' layout, I am unable to get a good looking printout that would do the analysis justice. (I tried the "Print" option on the bottom of the page, but it gives me a similar problem).

Thanks.

Gundamv

I'll add it to my backlog. I could output to a simple text file now, you just won't get the orange highlights where applicable.

So your saying that if I have the choice to run 48 points of bombers or tie fighters, stick with the fighters?

Yes, although I think people generally already knew this - unless of course you are running ordnance. It's nice to quantify it though.

One thing I'd like to see, if there's any way to quantify it, would be how a ship's value changes from the initial pass to endgame. Some examples:

1) Z-95s are clearly great early in the game when there are lots of dice being rolled on both sides and concentrated fire can happen, but get into trouble late in the game if they're your last remaining ship. Against fat Han once you're down to a single z-95 you can't even attempt to roll dice and can, at best, stall and hope to reach the time limit. Meanwhile a generic x-wing might not have the same early-game jousting value, but it can at least attempt to roll dice against fat Han. So it seems like this kind of situation should be a bonus for the x-wing's value and a penalty for the z-95's.

2) Named phantoms are pretty much an auto-win against a lower-PS opponent with weak/no maneuvering actions (and no turret to make up for it). If you're in endgame with an ACD phantom against a generic x-wing you're going to win unless you screw up very badly. So should its value get a boost to reflect the "if you can keep it alive until endgame you win". And the same kind of thing is true of other ships: Fel, Tycho/Jake, etc.

3) Boost/BR actions are relatively weak in the initial pass where it's hard to dodge arcs, but increase greatly in value as the number of ships on the table drops and maneuvering space opens up. So the glass cannon alpha gets very little value from the boost/BR actions it probably won't survive long enough to use, but if Fel manages to flank successfully those actions suddenly become almost priceless.

All of these are non-linear effects, so are difficult to directly model. You would need a different model than the differential equations + discrete ship "curve fit" that I use. The best approach, although not what you are looking for, is to look at the required efficiency numbers and work backwards from there, to see if you think you can hit the required target.

Side note: for a given amount of points, Z-95s and TIE Fighters will put slightly more damage on Han than X-wings or B-wings, assuming all ships get their shots.

That's some nice data!

Though... I am the only one here that thinks that this becomes less and less relevant as the game evolves? Jousting efficiency would be most valuable in the case where we just put the asteroids to one side and smash our ships together, using few if any pilot abilities. With wave4/5 + Scum coming in with many abilities that cannot be factored in easily in the calculation, it's becoming impossible to sum up a ship into one number.

Gone are the days of 4 Rookies against 8 TIEs...

As superdave says below, it still eventually comes down to rolling dice at some point. So the figure of merit becomes the "required efficiency": if you can do better than that target number with all your ships, then you should win. I can't tell you exactly how to get there, because every matchup is different. There are easily tens of thousands of different permutations of different squads, setups, and end games.

after watching the TC Open final, I think you might need to somehow take into account the "donut hole" of the Outrider+HLC. That match was really a worst case scenario, but it still vividly highlighted the range 1 flaw.

That's fundamentally impossible to mathematically model, because the exploitation of the donut hole is completely a tactical issue. If all of your opponents' ships get within range 1 of your HLC Outrider, then your efficiency (for that round anyway) goes to zero. Rather than try to hack together some imaginary made-up-number that's something halfway in between, I give you the optimistic best-case scenario, and leave it up to you to figure out how to tactically avoid getting trapped.

This is far from an end-all analysis: jousting value removes the un-assumable elements (player skill, asteroid layout, imprecise ship placement, chaos theory, die rolls, etc.) and places each ship in a specific situation and measures it accordingly. It doesn't calculate the best squad, the best ship, or anything like that- but it does give some data to suggest which ships are stronger in a specific scenario and the "required awesomeness" (the "required efficiency" column) needed to make that ship pay off better. It's great information that can inform and will benefit those who take the time to think about it. It won't answer the question of "should I fly my Y-wings with BTL-A4 or not?" but it will suggest that starting with a squad of TIE Bombers will make you work a little harder to earn a win than using a squad of Z-95s.

Exactly.

Where are interceptors with rgi upgrade targeting computer and sd or other upgrades? Also why no BTL-A4 with blaster turret or auto blaster. Dutch with r5k6 blaster turret btla4 (Siberian express) and a jan / kyle moldy crow wingmen setup?

Probably because there is no way humanly possible for him to work out each and every combo possible.

Ive had to do a comparison of every Destroyed and Veritech from every era of Robotech (pallidumverse) vs every Robotech Mech in BattleTech vs every Mech and Cyborg from Rifts vs every Battleoid and Valkyrie from every era in Macross and Macross 2. This includes alternate, missiles, grenades, other weapons, armored, super-packs, and strike-packs.

It would take a long time but its not impossible to write up a value for every combo let alone just the two I asked for.

It would take a long time but its not impossible to write up a value for every combo let alone just the two I asked for.

Ha, start by listing all of the possible combos in the game, and then get back to me.

Which two specifically? I count at least five. A few uses of Blaster Turret are on my to-do list.

Ha, start by listing all of the possible combos in the game, and then get back to me.

I was thinking about that. For an example consider the A-Wing. It can take 1 of 7 different missiles, 2 of 21 different EPT's and 1 of 7 different modifications.

If my math is correct (which is highly doubtful...) I figure that's about 9.5 million different possible combos, for just that one ship.

The B-Wing is worse, with 5 Systems, 3 Canons, 2x 4 Torpedos, 8 modifications one of which leads to 22 different crew, and 21 EPT's.

The B-Wing is worse, with 5 Systems, 3 Canons, 2x 4 Torpedos, 8 modifications one of which leads to 22 different crew, and 21 EPT's.

Yeah, it's much, much worse because the number of options grows exponentially with the number of slots to fill and b-wings have a lot of slots. I can't remember if it was millions or billions of options just for one pilot, but it's clearly beyond any reasonable hope of analysis.

What would actually be useful would be to pick the top few most popular options for each ship and do the math on them. Nobody cares about Ten Numb with a HLC, ion torpedo, flechette torpedo, enhanced scopes, expose, crew slot and saboteur, but a generic b-wing with AS or FCS is relevant.

Scum Firesprays and IG-2000 would be nightmares.

Wow, scum Boba is 11 points undercosted?? That's crazy! I've only played 1 game with him, and I don't feel like he's 11 points (12 with your logic) more than the imperial version. But again only 1 game.

Wow, scum Boba is 11 points undercosted?? That's crazy! I've only played 1 game with him, and I don't feel like he's 11 points (12 with your logic) more than the imperial version. But again only 1 game.

You will notice that he is being really generous with his predictions. Boba is not always going to have an enemy at Range 1.

It would take a long time but its not impossible to write up a value for every combo let alone just the two I asked for.

Ha, start by listing all of the possible combos in the game, and then get back to me.

Which two specifically? I count at least five. A few uses of Blaster Turret are on my to-do list.

Where are interceptors with rgi upgrade targeting computer and sd (1) or other upgrades? Also why no BTL-A4 with blaster turret (2) or auto blaster (3) . Dutch with r5k6 blaster turret btla4 (4) (Siberian express) and a jan / kyle moldy crow wingmen setup (5) ?

Wow, scum Boba is 11 points undercosted?? That's crazy! I've only played 1 game with him, and I don't feel like he's 11 points (12 with your logic) more than the imperial version. But again only 1 game.

You will notice that he is being really generous with his predictions. Boba is not always going to have an enemy at Range 1.

Correct. Your mileage may vary. I may redo the calculation later, but I will have to significantly alter a portion of my scripts just for him.

Yeah, Boba's effectiveness is going to vary wildly from game to game, round to round. He provides some interesting dilemmas in target choice. Go for the range 1 kill, or keep the defense reroll and try to take out someone further away.

I noticed a minor error in my PS1 point prediction formula, where I wasn't being consistent. The correct pair of equations are:

PS X cost = PS 1 cost * (1 + ( X-1 + EPT)/24) + named ability value

PS 1 equivalent cost = (base cost + upgrades - named ability value) / (1 + ( X-1 + EPT)/24)

Previously I was using this formula for PS1 equivalent cost:

PS 1 equivalent cost = (base cost + upgrades) / (1 + ( X-1 + EPT)/24) - named ability value

Who lets this stuff get by peer review, anyway?

I may revisit this later and change the calculations so that named pilot effects and other effects like Ion tokens count towards the total predicted cost but not the PS1 equivalent cost or jousting efficiency. In the meantime, it has been fixed for consistency and the values here have been updated. This update has a small effect on named pilots with a specific value called out for their pilot ability, and only affects the PS1 equivalent value and resulting jousting efficiency. It does not affect the total required efficiency or total predicted point cost, which are the more relevant figures of merit for named pilots anyway.

I have also added Blaster Turret + Recon Specialist for all Rebel HWK-290's. The expected damage output for these ships is now simply the same as a 3 attack ship. Strictly speaking this is optimistic, because if you get blocked you can't even fire your weapon.

I also reduced the arc coefficient for range 2 turreted ships (Ion Cannon Turret and Blaster Turret) from 1.5 to 1.4, to reflect the fact that a range 1-3 turret is better than a range 1-2 turret.

wow great data. and every time i hear the word "Differential equations" I get a nervous tic and start twitching uncontrollably!!! lol. I HATED that class..lol I thought about doing something along the lines of just what particular munitions are most efficient or in general how much they are over costed. Basically just wondering what would be the simple fix for munitions as I do really think they are not much bang for the buck.. perhaps some kind of load out that represents several shots for the same cost taking into account just what the actual ships normally took into combat. but don't want to drag THIS post OT so feel free to ignore..lol

I'd like to point out something about one of your claims: you write

...the low PS interceptors are paying too much for the boost action and almost never see competitive use.

Looking at the data from the " X-wing squad ranker " site, I don't think that's true. There, one can find an astonishing variety of builds that have used the alpha squadron pilot to place highly in various tournaments. Here's a build using two alphas that took 1st place in a tournament of 116 (!) players; 3 of the other top 8 squads also had an alpha (!). The "top-ranked" squad which uses alphas has placed in the top 4 of three different tournaments, one of which was the Italian nationals. Here's a squad with three alphas which has won two different tournaments . Here's a squad that was top 8 in the Spanish nationals that used an alpha (that's a post-wave-4 tournament!). There's many more examples in the second link above.

Thus, I don't think it's fair to claim alphas "almost never see competitive use". In fact, their reasonable high usage may be a good counter-example to show how a ship, even with low PS, should not be judged on jousting value alone.