In another thread, Ichyo1821 made the comment, "At the risk of sounding arrogant, sometimes its not a game flaw that is in question but rather the player's ability to overcome a build. If all else fails even after superior play, then and only then can something be deemed broken or close to enough for the powers that be to remedy the problem. Not before."

This addressed a question that had been bouncing around in my head the last few days after seeing so many "fix" threads, "how can these people test everything to such an extent to know that it is need of a "fix?" Especially, when new stuff is coming out every few months, and an almost limitless combinations of builds, it is almost impossible to say so much is in need of a "fix!"

Comments...

if 1 or 2 people argue that it is overpowered/underpowered/imbalanced, chances are it isnt. We've had examples of these before, eg. problems with wave 2 falcons, PTL Soontir etc. These complains usually go away very quickly once other forum users show them more about the particular issue.

now, if a majority of people argue that it is imba, chances are that it really is imba, as seen with TIEadv, C3P0 and ACD.

I'd also point out that a ship that isn't worth the points, is most likely still not worth the points with upgrades added to it.

So you can't really point at 8-10 points worth of upgrades and say "see if you add these then the ship is fine."

That said, I do agree a lot of the "Ship X needs to be fixed" comments can come from people who just don't understand how to make best use of it. Or else have found something beats them often, so that needs to be fixed, rather than figuring out why they get beat by it.

It's a common sentiment in MMO's. "Class X beat me in PvP/DPS/Healing it needs to be nerfed"

Well, I think it stems from a few things. First people lose with their favorite ship and they want it to be as awesome as Fat Han. Then, they get frustrated they can't make it work so they feel it's broken. The opposite side is they feel the thing that beat them is so obviously overpowered, they are blind to their mistakes. Lastly, their concerns are often confirmed by "jousting" values; as if that metric is somehow relevant.

So yes, it's mostly in players' heads.

By the way, the only ship in the game that needed a real fix was the TIE Advanced. Everything else is competitive.

In another thread, Ichyo1821 made the comment, "At the risk of sounding arrogant, sometimes its not a game flaw that is in question but rather the player's ability to overcome a build. If all else fails even after superior play, then and only then can something be deemed broken or close to enough for the powers that be to remedy the problem. Not before."

This addressed a question that had been bouncing around in my head the last few days after seeing so many "fix" threads, "how can these people test everything to such an extent to know that it is need of a "fix?" Especially, when new stuff is coming out every few months, and an almost limitless combinations of builds, it is almost impossible to say so much is in need of a "fix!"

Comments...

So much like.

"Lastly, their concerns are often confirmed by "jousting" values; as if that metric is somehow relevant."

Well said.

Did someone say " fix players"?

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=7nWhVJ7NKsesU8vBgLAL&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DsidGTHRkx9A&ved=0CB0QuAIwAA&usg=AFQjCNFxWiLgmamkktQvp8_IGUH2eBkICQ&sig2=Apb9jtMGEVFMAebs7j6B2Q

Has anyone noticed how broken Paul Heavers are? They're dominating the meta. I recommend an upgrade: Title: The Chosen One: "When player X is playing against Paul Heaver then player X may add 50 points of ships to their list." Cost: -25. That should fix everyone's imbalance. I think even X-wings might be useable...

Maybe that upgrade is too situational. Should it read: "When player X is playing against a player who previously beat them, then player X may add 50 points of ships to their list in order to make up for all the inherent weaknesses of any ship that is not immediately, self-evidently powerful (or that requires a semblance of tactical nuance/skill to fly)?"

Yeah...that's better.

"Lastly, their concerns are often confirmed by "jousting" values; as if that metric is somehow relevant."

Well said.

Seconded.

Has anyone noticed how broken Paul Heavers are? They're dominating the meta.

You win for funniest comment OF THE YEAR.

Lastly, their concerns are often confirmed by "jousting" values; as if that metric is somehow relevant.

No one, not even MajorJuggler are claiming that his numbers tell the whole story.

But his numbers have quite accurately predicted what we see in the meta. So if the mathwing and 10+ major tournaments all seem to be saying the same thing, then yes the jousting values are in fact relevant.

Myself I don't completely agree with his numbers, but there's little question that the tournament players lists seem to back up his numbers pretty accurately.

"Lastly, their concerns are often confirmed by "jousting" values; as if that metric is somehow relevant."

Well said.

Seconded.

Those values are very relevant. Knowing the jousting value of a ship gives you an indication of how much extra value you need to be able to bring to that ship through it's dial, action bar, and things like pilot abilities. I believe that results have shown that while jousting numbers aren't an absolute predictor of a ship's performance they do a pretty good job of identifying competitve ships.

IMO the only ships that did not have a role to play were the Tie Adavanced and the A-Wing. Both have received the attention they deserved and now I have the freedom to choose any ship and know it can perform in a way that gives me a decent chance for victory. I don't see any other ships that have the glaring weaknesses that those two ships did and I think the game is in a very good spot right now.

Those values are very relevant. Knowing the jousting value of a ship gives you an indication of how much extra value you need to be able to bring to that ship through it's dial, action bar, and things like pilot abilities. I believe that results have shown that while jousting numbers aren't an absolute predictor of a ship's performance they do a pretty good job of identifying competitve ships.

"Knowing the jousting value of a ship gives you an indication..." Much like how a chess knight and bishop are worth only 3 points, and a rook is worth 5. It's a great tool to learn approximate values in a vacuum, but their real value varies greatly depending on position and use on the board.

No one, not even MajorJuggler are claiming that his numbers tell the whole story.

But his numbers have quite accurately predicted what we see in the meta. So if the mathwing and 10+ major tournaments all seem to be saying the same thing, then yes the jousting values are in fact relevant.

Myself I don't completely agree with his numbers, but there's little question that the tournament players lists seem to back up his numbers pretty accurately.

I'm not ashamed to say I put little stock in the jousting stats. It simply doesn't tally with my own personal experience of playing the game, or from what I've seen from the results of tournament scene.

The "current" meta (if you can call it such) was wholly predictable with or without statistics. The arrival of the Phantom changed the game drastically, and we knew this from the moment we saw the preview articles. A swing towards turreted ships followed, and was furthered by Wave 5. TIE fighter swarms are effective; big, tanky ship lists are effective. None of this is not rocket science, and it doesn't need rocket science to explain it. It's self evident.

I believe that results have shown that while jousting numbers aren't an absolute predictor of a ship's performance they do a pretty good job of identifying competitve ships.

Common sense does a "pretty good job" of identifying competitive ships. If I'm devoting that much time, effort and an entire branch of mathematics to the analysis, I'd expect it to deliver an "extremely good job" of identifying competitive ships.

but their real value varies greatly depending on position and use on the board.

Yes, but no one is really claiming otherwise. It's not like anyone is saying "Ship X has a jousting value of 87.4% therefore you should never, ever use it." Because the jousting value doesn't tell the whole story.

But that does not make it's value worthless to know.

Has anyone noticed how broken Paul Heavers are? They're dominating the meta. I recommend an upgrade: Title: The Chosen One: "When player X is playing against Paul Heaver then player X may add 50 points of ships to their list." Cost: -25. That should fix everyone's imbalance. I think even X-wings might be useable...

Maybe that upgrade is too situational. Should it read: "When player X is playing against a player who previously beat them, then player X may add 50 points of ships to their list in order to make up for all the inherent weaknesses of any ship that is not immediately, self-evidently powerful (or that requires a semblance of tactical nuance/skill to fly)?"

Yeah...that's better.

I think it's important to look at what a guy like Paul does when flying at tournaments like Worlds. He does everything he can do with his list to make sure that the predicted results are going to usually end up in his favor and then uses his skill to keep from losing that advantage. He tries to minimize the number of matches where he has to play from a weaker position and overcome the odds. He doesn't latch on to ships that he likes and try to compensate for their shortcomings by just being better at the game than his opponent. He assumes that he's going to have opponents at least as skilled as he is and builds a list on that assumption.

Consistent winning requires a good eye for the shifting meta and an appreciation of the math that at the core of this game.

Has anyone noticed how broken Paul Heavers are? They're dominating the meta. I recommend an upgrade: Title: The Chosen One: "When player X is playing against Paul Heaver then player X may add 50 points of ships to their list." Cost: -25. That should fix everyone's imbalance. I think even X-wings might be useable...

Maybe that upgrade is too situational. Should it read: "When player X is playing against a player who previously beat them, then player X may add 50 points of ships to their list in order to make up for all the inherent weaknesses of any ship that is not immediately, self-evidently powerful (or that requires a semblance of tactical nuance/skill to fly)?"

Yeah...that's better.

On a serious note that gives me a interesting idea for casual league/store play. Try to do some kind of handicap system like golf or bowling. It wouldn't be as easy to implement obviously, but if there is clearly some better players than others, give the best 100 points, and the worst, i don't know, 120 or something, and everyone else in between. Then like bowling/golf, it comes down to playing to the best of your ability to win, not just having to be better than the other person.

Jousting value is an index, but it's not one that has had it's predictive power really put to the test. As FTS Gecko said, you didn't really need to know the bananas vs dumptrucks value of the Phantom to know it was going to be a disruptive force in the metagame. Likewise you don't need to know what the Mousepad Corn index of a Tie Advanced is to know it's really bad to pay a ton of points for a 2 dice ship.

I doubt the game will ever get complicated enough to present a player of a given faction with enough extensive options within a given 1-2 point value range that jousting values will be useful for predicting success. You don't need it to know you should take a Blue over a Rookie if you can, you don't need it to know Accuracy Corrector was bad (and subsequently that a 0-point one on a ship that gets 100% of it's dice modified by the Corrector is worth looking at)

It's information rigorously obtained and nobody doubts the work but post-hoc assessments aren't very useful as by the time they're out they are typically telling us what we already know. Predictive power is the true test of any theory and in an environment where the developers will literally invent cards that make other cards free it's hard to claim that MJ will be able to use his index to guess anything ahead of time that we could actually plumb for practical use.

"Lastly, their concerns are often confirmed by "jousting" values; as if that metric is somehow relevant."

Well said.

Seconded.

Those values are very relevant. Knowing the jousting value of a ship gives you an indication of how much extra value you need to be able to bring to that ship through it's dial, action bar, and things like pilot abilities. I believe that results have shown that while jousting numbers aren't an absolute predictor of a ship's performance they do a pretty good job of identifying competitve ships.

What they have shown, and the point I made, is his analysis is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People feel something is weak, see his numbers and feel vindicated, so they do not use the ship(s) because they feel it is weak, which leads to them reconfirming something else is less weak because they did better with it.

I don't think the converse is true. I think people flock to something that wins, bot because it's good or the numbers say it's good, rhey just want to win and after it wins a major tournament, that is all the confirmation they need.

Predictive power is the true test of any theory and in an environment where the developers will literally invent cards that make other cards free it's hard to claim that MJ will be able to use his index to guess anything ahead of time that we could actually plumb for practical use.

To be fair, MJ did predict that Defenders and E-wings were overcosted and that Z-95 headhunters were a good value, when announced. The subsequent tournament results have shown that to be fairly accurate. He has also made predictions about scum ships that have not come out yet.

To be fair, MJ did predict that Defenders and E-wings were overcosted and that Z-95 headhunters were a good value, when announced. The subsequent tournament results have shown that to be fairly accurate. He has also made predictions about scum ships that have not come out yet.

Wait - hold everything folks - you're saying that MJ accurately predicted that a ship which tied (pun intended) the TIE Fighter as the cheapest in the game but was much less susceptible to one hit kills would be good value? **** son, that man's a genius. Sign him up for a Nobel Bloody Prize.

As for the Defender, well, me and MJ have never seen eye to eye on that particular ship, and probably never will. He has his complex mathematical equations which don't and can't account for the white K-turn, and I have my first hand experience. I'll stick with the latter, thank y'very much.

Can we either get back to the original topic, or else change the subject to "Lets attack MajorJuggler!!"

We are more on topic by discussing the effectiveness of indices of ship usefulness in a thread discussing build efficiency vs player skill than you are by asking us to stop proxy-hurting your friend's feelings.

To be fair, MJ did predict that Defenders and E-wings were overcosted and that Z-95 headhunters were a good value, when announced. The subsequent tournament results have shown that to be fairly accurate. He has also made predictions about scum ships that have not come out yet.

Wait - hold everything folks - you're saying that MJ accurately predicted that a ship which tied (pun intended) the TIE Fighter as the cheapest in the game but was much less susceptible to one hit kills would be good value? **** son, that man's a genius. Sign him up for a Nobel Bloody Prize.

As for the Defender, well, me and MJ have never seen eye to eye on that particular ship, and probably never will. He has his complex mathematical equations which don't and can't account for the white K-turn, and I have my first hand experience. I'll stick with the latter, thank y'very much.

For my taste the generic Defender Pilots are overcosted by about 2 points, named by 1 point, Onyx are lacking EPT.

They are not useless like the Advanced was but its hard to win with a duo or a trio of Defenders.

You won't ever see Paul Heaver winning worlds with 3 Defenders, even if he would try so.

Maybe we will see succesful 3-4 Tie Advanced squads next year. But I doubt there will be Tie Defenders.

So how exactly are you going to "fix" the players?