MJ, I'm still half suprised you don't just offer your services to FFG as an 'analytical consultant', and lowball your pricetag so they can afford to take your advice

I know you've turned down playtesting, because their standard NDA would mean you probably couldn't publish your MathWing to the public etc, but a nominal consultancy service which retains the rights to analytic tools and results might slip past the lawyers more easily.

And mean that you only get brought in to proof the 'final version', to help guard against Scyk-level mis-maths... if not part of the iterative design process up to that point, which is the more traditional purveyance of playtesters.

Am I dreaming? Of course. Does it sound good in my head? Also of course.

Oh, just in passing - did you ever actually do the final numbers for the Scyk and IG-88? The front page wasn't updated, so I'm curious.

Likewise, Glitterstim has been spoiled and for once is actually easier than your base case - it's a Focus on every attack and defense, even if only for a single round. I'm curious just what it does to the effective 'jousting values' for various ships accordingly.

MJ, I'm still half suprised you don't just offer your services to FFG as an 'analytical consultant', and lowball your pricetag so they can afford to take your advice

I know you've turned down playtesting, because their standard NDA would mean you probably couldn't publish your MathWing to the public etc, but a nominal consultancy service which retains the rights to analytic tools and results might slip past the lawyers more easily.

And mean that you only get brought in to proof the 'final version', to help guard against Scyk-level mis-maths... if not part of the iterative design process up to that point, which is the more traditional purveyance of playtesters.

Am I dreaming? Of course. Does it sound good in my head? Also of course.

It is not just an issue of consulting fees, it is the same non-compete issue that I had with the playtester form - they would need to make a new NDA/non-compete form unique for me so that I could retain 100% original IP rights on any and all MathWing that I provide to them privately, or publicly like this thread. If they change their mind they know where to find me.

Oh, just in passing - did you ever actually do the final numbers for the Scyk and IG-88? The front page wasn't updated, so I'm curious.

Likewise, Glitterstim has been spoiled and for once is actually easier than your base case - it's a Focus on every attack and defense, even if only for a single round. I'm curious just what it does to the effective 'jousting values' for various ships accordingly.

It's a one-off so doesn't fall into the standard jousting category. It will be really really good for ships with 3+ attack and 3AGI though, especially when they bump to lose their action. I will have to think about this some.

I'd actually be happy to see 'conditional' mathwing - for instance, you had to make the assumption for Boba Fett that he'd have 1 ship in Range 1 each round when calculating his 'assumed' value; this is needed to try and provide an authoritative value, but it can be worthwhile to provide, to continue the example, what he'd be 'worth' at 0, 2, and 3 opponents. This provides a way of mathematically looking at the relative power of an ability, in the context of how to use it - Boba's ability is only worthwhile when he's getting his rerolls, so you can then judge for yourself whether he's worth the points based on how often you expect to see them.

I singled Scum Boba for this particular example, because he's a great example of a ship where his value varies drastically on how he's employed on a given round, but there's plenty of other examples too. You've hovered near it in the past, eg with Moldy Crow assuming that everything is focused always, and some of the other examples could be equally valuable.

Welp, sorry for asking yet again. Another probably stupid question. Does the predicted value column include your estimated pilot skill value in the tables?

I'd actually be happy to see 'conditional' mathwing - for instance, you had to make the assumption for Boba Fett that he'd have 1 ship in Range 1 each round when calculating his 'assumed' value; this is needed to try and provide an authoritative value, but it can be worthwhile to provide, to continue the example, what he'd be 'worth' at 0, 2, and 3 opponents. This provides a way of mathematically looking at the relative power of an ability, in the context of how to use it - Boba's ability is only worthwhile when he's getting his rerolls, so you can then judge for yourself whether he's worth the points based on how often you expect to see them.

I singled Scum Boba for this particular example, because he's a great example of a ship where his value varies drastically on how he's employed on a given round, but there's plenty of other examples too. You've hovered near it in the past, eg with Moldy Crow assuming that everything is focused always, and some of the other examples could be equally valuable.

Short answer: yup. It is labor intensive because for unique pilot abilities I frequently need to write a couple new functions just for that pilot.

Welp, sorry for asking yet again. Another probably stupid question. Does the predicted value column include your estimated pilot skill value in the tables?

Yup. All the gory details on how you the math works is in the first page.

Anxiously awaiting feedback on wave 7. Have heard some of the commentary on Nova Squadron Radio and was wondering if there is another source for some of the mathwing numbers. Not meaning to harass Dr. Juggler just wondering if the numbers are found elsewhere or just wait for this thread sees an update?

So far it's just me. There is one other person a few pages back that recreated certain non-trivial sections of the math (namely ship durability based on actual shots to kill), but nobody that I am aware of is recreating the entire list. This is especially true since I make a lot of special-case analysis for many of the named pilots. I'm also overdue on some wave 6 stuff, and looking at getting better numbers on some of the named pilots (i.e. Corran Horn and Han Solo). I have quite a bit planned, it's just when I can get to finishing it off and updating everything here.

Question on the net dial coefficients considering the greens. Since all ships have a green 2 straight shouldn't that be the starting point, and that maneuvers that are further away from 2 straight get higher coefficients? I'm looking at the 2 banks and noticed that 2 bank greens have a higher coefficient than a 1 bank green. I would figure that 1 bank green would be more valuable than a 2 bank green because it is further from the 2 straight position giving you more room for clearing stress and making the ship harder to block. So I guess my argument is that 1 bank greens would be more valuable than 2 bank greens in terms of dial coefficients.

Everything is based around the PS1 Academy TIE Fighter Pilot, which is why its dial and action coefficients should be exactly 1.0.

I do agree that green on 1 bank is probably marginally better than green on 2 banks (looking at you, Z-95). I'm going to update this thread after Worlds sometime, and plan on tweaking the dial coefficients -- particularly for ships that have 2 green hard turns. I'm going to tweak those coefficients so they are more applicable to low PS "generic" ships without an EPT like the PS1 TIE/FO. Then I can look at the individual cases of PtL A-wings and TIE Interceptors on their own.

The PS derating for jousting might get another look at -- some of the assumed value for bidding to high PS is the ability to change your position via boost or barrel roll. Something like a PS8 Lambda Shuttle or even PS9 X-wing doesn't see that benefit. It's position is locked in place.

It is not just an issue of consulting fees, it is the same non-compete issue that I had with the playtester form - they would need to make a new NDA/non-compete form unique for me so that I could retain 100% original IP rights on any and all MathWing that I provide to them privately, or publicly like this thread. If they change their mind they know where to find me.

A bit off-topic, but my understanding is that it's perfectly legal to line-item-edit a contract, initial the changes you've made (probably just strikeouts, in this case), and submit that back instead of the version they sent you.

If they accept it, congrats, you've now got an NDA that you're happy with that should stand up in court. If not, well, you're out the time it took to bother with paperwork.

The reason I suggest this is that it's unlikely that FFG will spend the billable hours to come up with a custom NDA, but it should be pretty cheap for you to cross out a couple of sections. My guess is that they'll just accept it, because the people processing playtesting applications probably aren't the legal team, and don't really care what CYA provisions legal stuffed into the NDA.

It is not just an issue of consulting fees, it is the same non-compete issue that I had with the playtester form - they would need to make a new NDA/non-compete form unique for me so that I could retain 100% original IP rights on any and all MathWing that I provide to them privately, or publicly like this thread. If they change their mind they know where to find me.

A bit off-topic, but my understanding is that it's perfectly legal to line-item-edit a contract, initial the changes you've made (probably just strikeouts, in this case), and submit that back instead of the version they sent you.

I am not a lawyer, but that is also my understanding. I still have a copy of the marked up NDA that I sent them (which involved slightly more than just crossouts) that they did not accept. In a nutshell, it was (in my opinion) very generous as it would still allow them complete freedom to use anything I submit to them, so long as I retain original rights so I can use my own formulas in the future for non FFG related pursuits. Unfortunately I was informed that their legal department does not have the bandwidth to handle case by case modifications for something like this, so they do not accept modifications to the NDA of any kind. I then considered joining playtesting anyway, if FFG legal could, in writing, clarify some of the specifics of the triggering clauses and how it would interact with previously publicly posted information (such as this thread), or posting future analysis of publicly announced products that I playtested. They declined to provide any clarification, so I declined play testing altogether. I could have signed the NDA, but I have no reason to sign over my IP.

Alex lobbied my case, but it was out of his hands. I do look forward to meeting him at Worlds.

Going forward, I do not plan on joining the playtesting group pro bono as a regular playtester even if they allowed for the modified NDA. If they are interested in my services then they can make me an offer, but I do not anticipate this happening.

Anxiously awaiting feedback on wave 7. Have heard some of the commentary on Nova Squadron Radio and was wondering if there is another source for some of the mathwing numbers. Not meaning to harass Dr. Juggler just wondering if the numbers are found elsewhere or just wait for this thread sees an update?

I was hoping for that too! Wave 7 that is.

It is not just an issue of consulting fees, it is the same non-compete issue that I had with the playtester form - they would need to make a new NDA/non-compete form unique for me so that I could retain 100% original IP rights on any and all MathWing that I provide to them privately, or publicly like this thread. If they change their mind they know where to find me.

A bit off-topic, but my understanding is that it's perfectly legal to line-item-edit a contract, initial the changes you've made (probably just strikeouts, in this case), and submit that back instead of the version they sent you.

I am not a lawyer, but that is also my understanding. I still have a copy of the marked up NDA that I sent them (which involved slightly more than just crossouts) that they did not accept. In a nutshell, it was (in my opinion) very generous as it would still allow them complete freedom to use anything I submit to them, so long as I retain original rights so I can use my own formulas in the future for non FFG related pursuits. Unfortunately I was informed that their legal department does not have the bandwidth to handle case by case modifications for something like this, so they do not accept modifications to the NDA of any kind. I then considered joining playtesting anyway, if FFG legal could, in writing, clarify some of the specifics of the triggering clauses and how it would interact with previously publicly posted information (such as this thread), or posting future analysis of publicly announced products that I playtested. They declined to provide any clarification, so I declined play testing altogether. I could have signed the NDA, but I have no reason to sign over my IP.

Alex lobbied my case, but it was out of his hands. I do look forward to meeting him at Worlds.

Going forward, I do not plan on joining the playtesting group pro bono as a regular playtester even if they allowed for the modified NDA. If they are interested in my services then they can make me an offer, but I do not anticipate this happening.

I have a bunch of updates in the queue for here, including wave 7 and 8 analysis, but ETA is after Worlds.

And pretty graphs. There are far too many numbers on the first page without intuitive graphs.

But Mr. Juggler, your words are pretty. To sully their purity with mere pictures would be a crime against nature and humanity both.

I have a bunch of updates in the queue for here, including wave 7 and 8 analysis, but ETA is after Worlds.

And pretty graphs. There are far too many numbers on the first page without intuitive graphs.

If you need help with the squad lists, maybe I can suggest some new ones. Just let me know.

Awesome job!!! Do you have this written out in a pdf, would be great to be able to read it in that format!!! if it is here somewhere in the thread I must have missed it.

Looking forward to the Kihraxz Fighter. No rush, just wanted to check it and realized it isn't out yet... mostly I look at the analysis and my eyes glaze over... so I'll trust you on the raw numbers. Give me a good command line interface and I'll figure it out... but formulas... [sigh]

Awesome job!!! Do you have this written out in a pdf, would be great to be able to read it in that format!!! if it is here somewhere in the thread I must have missed it.

Negative, there is no PDF. Keep your eyes peeled for MathWing 3.0 though. (Disclaimer: there is no ETA). General updates in v3.0 include:

• charts comparing all the pilots' absolute jousting values vs pilot skill
• per-wave meta breakdown
• better modeling of many pilot abilities
• stat line dependent action economy
• effects of autothrusters and TLT incorporated
• regeneration
• more fundamental research and behind the scenes updates to make all of the above (and more) work.

The MathWing 2.0 process in this thread is completely "open source" in that the methodology is 100% documented, and the numbers can be exactly recreated. For IP reasons, I will not be revealing the specific inner workings of MathWing 3.0, although I will still keep the 2.0 methodology archived here.

Looking forward to the Kihraxz Fighter. No rush, just wanted to check it and realized it isn't out yet...

I had some numbers in an earlier post from Dec 14... I'll just re-post and add a couple more *cough* TIE Defender *cough* that should raise some eyebrows. Occasional color commentary included.

These are absolute jousting efficiencies from in-progress MathWing 3.0. PS greater than 1 (when applicable) is not factored in.

Disclaimer: these are all still using legacy meta assumptions. They will change once I model a wave 7/8 TLT-heavy environment. (i.e. Fel is way better than these numbers show)

TIE-Defender/x7: 102.0% would still be solid w/o white-K

Z-95: 100.0% (reference)

TIE Fighter: 99.3%

Vessery/x7 97.7% worth his points at PS1 w/o a white-K

X-wing + I.A -1pt: 95.6% (3/2/2/4 @ 21) should have been this

B-wing + FCS: 95.3%

Y-wing + TLT + BTL: 94.2%

X-wing + free hull: 94.0% (3/2/4/2 @ 21) my suggestion >1yr ago

TIE Adv + ACC: > 93.9% final number pending

A-wing + Refit: 93.1%

B-wing: 92.5%

X-wing + I.A: 92.3% (3/2/1/5 @ 22)

Whisper + VI/ACD/FCS 92.0% assuming shoots first

TIE-Defender/D + Ion 91.8% nothing to see here, move along...

X-wing + I.A: 91.3% (3/2/2/4 @ 22)

Vader + ATC: 90.4%

Kihraxz: 89.7% better than garbage but still DOA

X-wing: 86.3%

Y-wing + TLT: 85.7% assumes always has a shot

Whisper + VI/ACD 85.6% assuming shoots first

Fel + PtL + SD + AT: >85.5% pending wave 7 TLT meta analysis

Corran + FCS/R2-D2: 83.2% (R2-D2 = +3S) final number pending

E-wing: 78.8% less efficient than Corran, and only PS1

TIE Defender: 77.2% FFG valued 4K about same as a full turret

... mostly I look at the analysis and my eyes glaze over... so I'll trust you on the raw numbers. Give me a good command line interface and I'll figure it out... but formulas... [sigh]

Yup. Programming is easy. Implementing formulas that have already been laid out is slightly more difficult. But starting with an open-ended problem and deducing accurate formulas describing the system -- that's on an entirely different level.

Or as Han would say:

Well, that's the real trick, isn't it? And it's gonna cost you something extra.

Disclaimer: these are all still using legacy meta assumptions. They will change once I model a wave 7/8 TLT-heavy environment. (i.e. Fel is way better than these numbers show)

TIE-Defender/x7: 102.0% would still be solid w/o white-K

Vessery/x7 97.7% worth his points at PS1 w/o a white-K

TIE-Defender/D + Ion 91.8% nothing to see here, move along...

TIE Defender: 77.2% FFG valued 4K about same as a full turret

One more for your never-ending list of requests, how does Vessery/D work out?

EDIT: Should be specific, let's say the best case of Vessery, Ion Cannon/D that has a friendly target lock on his target 100% of the time

Mathwing isn't like dusting crops boy. If the calculations are incorrect you could find yourself flying a prefix Defender or Knave Squadron pilot and that would end your trip real quick.

but formulas... [sigh]

I imagine this is what Bob Dr. Bob sounds like often, getting misty-eyed whilst running numbers.

• effects of autothrusters and TLT incorporated

TLT Incorporated sounds like an evil mega-corporation out to ruin the fun of everyone who plays with little plastic ships.

Hello Maj Juggler,

Can you explain why Soontir Fel's numbers will improve once you have added TLTs as opponents? Is it because he exploits their doughnut holes (which don't really exist with TLT spam)? My math (not as good as yours) says that the first TLT shot has about a 8% chance (assuming AT, stealth and focus) of doing some damage but once the stealth device is gone you are around 16% (if Soontir still has tokens) and then 40% with just AT. For me the problem is low hit points on soontir and high number of shots (that can often see soontir) from the TLTs.

Doesn't the undervaluing of Soontir show how important maneuver is in X-Wing and why (as you mention up front) you can't just consider these numbers in isolation, unless every one was a turret. As the jousting portion does not last for an entire game (as assumed by your lanchaster law (I think)) but rather just turns 2 to 3ish (unless you have a white k, baby!).

Disclaimer: these are all still using legacy meta assumptions. They will change once I model a wave 7/8 TLT-heavy environment. (i.e. Fel is way better than these numbers show)

TIE-Defender/x7: 102.0% would still be solid w/o white-K

Vessery/x7 97.7% worth his points at PS1 w/o a white-K

TIE-Defender/D + Ion 91.8% nothing to see here, move along...

TIE Defender: 77.2% FFG valued 4K about same as a full turret

One more for your never-ending list of requests, how does Vessery/D work out?

I see an absence of rexler Brath.

I believe the math for Rexler would be identical to the generic /x7 or /D, since crits = hits for these values.

On hull, you can naively say that crits are ~1.234 damage from direct hit and minor/major explosion (shamelessly stolen from whoever hosts xwingdice.com), but that doesn't take into account any of the other crit effects which are hard to model the effect of.