Edit: If I had the secret to life but couldn't make it accessible to others, what good is knowing it?

This is exactly my point. It's not the secret to life. It's one fallible system to evaluate a game involving toy plastic spaceships. There's no ethical obligation to explain anything.

Anyway, I'm sorry that I came off aggressively, but I really think that you've been given the tools you need to learn what you want (with work). Education takes serious work.

I'm really hoping for a cool Rogue Squadron package from FFG, but what I don't want is for the Rogues to be the ONLY X Wings that people ever use. I want generic X's to be considered valuable and powerful tools as well.

Has anyone considered that the lack of scenarios and the artificial fixation with 100 point deathmatches might be part of the problem? What if we forced competitors to ALWAYS play different factions? Would that change things? What if we upped the 'standard' game to 125 or 150 points? What if there were a range of scenarios that rewarded things OTHER than simply blowing up ships?

Yea, there's been a lot of conversation about different game modes or point levels in the past. While I think that the ideas have a lot of merit, I don't know if they do much to help the X by and large. What sort of scenario would better favor the X?

Ragging on z0m4d for dropping out of school in a way that suggests he is dumb is probably uncalled for.

However, not having the patience for finishing what one starts is at the crux of his problem here.

Noone wants to handhold you. The info is there. The community generally beleives in it. Trust the findings/or don't...or do the research yourself. Don't "drop out" of your efforts if you find the math difficult. Or if you do...fine....

Just dont expect the baker to explain to you how yeast works. Its a waste of his time when he could be making more yummy cinnamon rolls.

The main point is that there are several cells in the above where you roll more evades than hits, so going just by the averages doesn't work. Otherwise you could argue that rolling 3 unmodified defense dice vs unmodified 2 attack dice would never do any damage, and obviously that is not the case.

8.98% of the time a 2-evade ship will waste its evades against a 2-attack ship with fewer hits, correct? (No modifiers.) Regardless, it's the difference between the two that matters most, yes? I think 1-evade ships waste more (.5 no attack x .5 no attack x .375 evade = 9.375%) against 2-attack ships than 2-evade ships (8.98%).

And not every ship is 2-attack. The 2-evade ship is less likely to waste evades against 3+ attack ships.

Then the advantage between a 2-evade ship and 1-evade ship will grow if you assume both will always use focus for defense.

Even this math I can do and demonstrate for most to understand and fact check. This is much better than arcane formulas that you could make up for all I know. (I doubt you would, but it's the point that we shouldn't blindly trust.)

Ragging on z0m4d for dropping out of school in a way that suggests he is dumb is probably uncalled for.

However, not having the patience for finishing what one starts is at the crux of his problem here.

Noone wants to handhold you. The info is there. The community generally beleives in it. Trust the findings/or don't...or do the research yourself. Don't "drop out" of your efforts if you find the math difficult. Or if you do...fine....

Just dont expect the baker to explain to you how yeast works. Its a waste of his time when he could be making more yummy cinnamon rolls.

500 skeptics could spend 10 hours each learning MJ math. Or MJ could spend 1 hour dumbing it down further. You do the math.

He's not obligated. I merely asked. Blindly believe if you want. I question what I don't understand and ask for help when something's out of reach. Please don't hold that against me.

I dont blindly beleive anything. I also dont analyse MJ's math. (Its too much for me)

What I WILL do is pay attention to games and the opinions of the community. Both of which generally line up with MJ's findings.

I dont need the math explained to me to know he is on point. Thats not blind faith.

Has anyone considered that the lack of scenarios and the artificial fixation with 100 point deathmatches might be part of the problem? What if we forced competitors to ALWAYS play different factions? Would that change things? What if we upped the 'standard' game to 125 or 150 points? What if there were a range of scenarios that rewarded things OTHER than simply blowing up ships?

None of that would change the X-wing's status. The B-wing would still be a vastly superior ship for only a point more, the Z-95 only slightly inferior for several points less, and it would still hardly ever see serious play.

I also question that the fixation with 100 point deathmatches is "artificial", but that's another discussion entirely from this one.

juggler has provided layperson explanations

Where? The only posts on this subject I have seen are so dense with jargon and advanced terminology that I couldn't get through the first paragraph with any comprehension, and I went as far as calculus in college (a loooong time ago).

I, however, am perfectly willing to accept MJ's findings. The problem I have always had with them isn't the math, it was that they don't account for the maneuver dial, which I consider to be one of the most important aspects for a ship.

stuff

Interesting that all 3 of you "liked" that post.

stuff

Interesting that all 3 of you "liked" that post.

But I liked it f1rst.

Yea, there's been a lot of conversation about different game modes or point levels in the past. While I think that the ideas have a lot of merit, I don't know if they do much to help the X by and large. What sort of scenario would better favor the X?

Well, off the top of my head, a scenario that involved chasing down an enemy might favour an X Wing list, or one that involved breaking through enemy lines. These sorts of scenarios place more emphasis on the differences between the dials, with the X's able to execute more maneuvers at speed 3 and none of them causing stress. In a dogfight it's not so bad because you're often performing slower maneuvers and the barrel roll action is very useful in tight spaces when it comes to working out firing arcs, but if you were racing against other ships and trying to pull wide flanking maneuvers then maybe the differences in the dial might mean more.

I'm really hoping for a cool Rogue Squadron package from FFG, but what I don't want is for the Rogues to be the ONLY X Wings that people ever use. I want generic X's to be considered valuable and powerful tools as well.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that it isn't possible. Much as it seems it's impossible to salvage the generic Interceptors. A discounted X-wing would still be competing with the B-wing and Z-95 in most lists, and would still likely lose outside of specific situations. Focusing on the elites would give the X-wing a job to do, which it currently lacks.

I don't think the X Wing suffers from a role problem. I think it's a simple pricing issue. At two points less, I think it would see much more serious play.

Has anyone considered that the lack of scenarios and the artificial fixation with 100 point deathmatches might be part of the problem? What if we forced competitors to ALWAYS play different factions? Would that change things? What if we upped the 'standard' game to 125 or 150 points? What if there were a range of scenarios that rewarded things OTHER than simply blowing up ships?

None of that would change the X-wing's status. The B-wing would still be a vastly superior ship for only a point more, the Z-95 only slightly inferior for several points less, and it would still hardly ever see serious play.

I also question that the fixation with 100 point deathmatches is "artificial", but that's another discussion entirely from this one.

The B wing is fine when we only consider dogfighting. If we included more scenarios, that might skew the favour a bit. Encourage the ships to do things other than flying around shooting at each other, like destroying satellites or space stations, performing reconnaissance, escaping from one side of the table to the other or breaking through the enemy. Or if we simply required that players only play against a different faction at official events. Would it change things if Rebel squadrons were only ever engaging Scum and Villainy or Imperial ships? Would the differences between the X Wing and B Wing be so pronounced if they never went head-to-head? I'm new to the game so I don't really know how that would work.

Well reading this I no longer like my Xwings. I'm shelving them all until FFG releases a new product I can purchase with Xwing upgrade cards.

I just slap a free Hull Upgrade on them for casual play, and then they are fine.

Would that be the fix for the X-Wing to balance them?

[Edited]

I, however, am perfectly willing to accept MJ's findings.

I'm willing to accept them as well, even though I don't completely understand them for the following reasons.

The tournament data backs up MajorJugglers numbers.

The Developers agree that the X-Wing is a bit underpowered for the points.

My experience shows the X-Wing is a bit underpowered for the points.

When you have 4 different things, all saying the same, then it's no longer a matter of faith.

I just slap a free Hull Upgrade on them for casual play, and then they are fine.

Would that be the fix for the X-Wing to balance them?

Or as Dom Cairo suggested, a title that grants -3 cost on any upgrade instead, to allow for some more flexibility. I.e. high pilot skill pilots like Wedge might want a discounted Engine Upgrade instead.

Using those 3 points to get a Hull Upgrade would make them better jousters than the B-wing (barely), but not quite as good as the TIE. They still wouldn't have barrel roll or a system slot, so the overall flexibility wouldn't be as good as the B-wing, but at least it wouldn't be an auto-buy to go from Rookie to Blue. To be fair, a universal fix like that will not fix the relative disparity between the pilots within the ship class, so Biggs and Wedge will still be top dogs, with Luke, Wes, and Rookie probably coming in at a slightly lower tier. For my House Rules I make the title cost 1 point for Wedge and Biggs as a retroactive balancing method - which I don't expect we would ever see from FFG.

You can dig up the specific efficiency numbers in my House Rules thread (see pinned index thread), under the appropriate spoiler tab.

I, however, am perfectly willing to accept MJ's findings.

I'm willing to accept them as well, even though I don't completely understand them for the following reasons.

The tournament data backs up MajorJugglers numbers.

The Developers agree that the X-Wing is a bit underpowered for the points.

My experience shows the X-Wing is a bit underpowered for the points.

When you have 4 different things, all saying the same, then it's no longer a matter of faith.

As the author of the leading indicator I'm perfectly fine with stopping at the first one (my own numbers), but that's just me, he he he.

There's, there's **** lies and then there's statistics.

As the author of the leading indicator I'm perfectly fine with stopping at the first one (my own numbers), but that's just me, he he he.

I'm sure you are

But if someone doesn't understand the math, I can see why they'd question it. If the only thing we had to go on was your math, then it would be a bit of taking things on faith. We'd have to assume you did the math correctly, and that you actually know what you're talking about. Not that I don't think you do.

But the fact that your predictions are backed up by other things proves your numbers are accurate.

yeah this is thread is only continuing because some trollish behavior from a few people who refuse to believe reality.
The X-wing is underpowered enough (for whatever reasons) that is barely shows up in tournament play.
done.

Move on to hating the K-wing or Punisher or whatever it is you people do.

More tolerable criticism of the method would probably be more along the lines of what is being approximated in the model, which seems acknowledged in MJ's explanation post. But that is the nature of any model, and the interpreter needs to either intuitively take that into account or use a different model to make decisions.

yeah this is thread is only continuing because some trollish behavior from a few people who refuse to believe reality.

Trollish? Which posts, exactly?

There's, there's **** lies and then there's statistics.

Numbers don't lie, but they'll only answer exactly what you ask them, and that's why the question (which formulas and why) becomes important. For instance, how the X-Wing compares to the B-Wing differs depending on if you match them against a 2-attack ship or a 3-attack ship, or if they get to use a focus for defense or not. They assumptions you apply can skew the data.

Numbers don't lie to people

People lie to people

as for the x-wing, experience sets that +1 green die might as well not exist. X-wings fold just as fast to 2 die plinks, if not faster, except in that one out of 100 games

the only exception is Luke. the farmer boy just infuriates tie fighters (and Biggs at range 3, which incidentally makes excellent cover for your B-wings )

Numbers don't lie, but they'll only answer exactly what you ask them...

"You can divide infinity an infinite number of times, and the resulting pieces will still be infinitely large. But if you divide a non-infinite number an infinite number of times the resulting pieces are non-infinitely small. Since they are non-infinitely small, but there are an infinite number of them, if you add them back together, their sum is infinite. This implies any number is, in fact, infinite.”

No, numbers don't lie. Statisticians do it all the time though; it comes with the job.

Your experience is confirmation bias. You believe the extra green die doesn't matter. You believe green dice fail. You discount and forget every time they roll exceedingly well and remember and blame them for every time they fail.

as for the x-wing, experience sets that +1 green die might as well not exist. X-wings fold just as fast to 2 die plinks, if not faster, except in that one out of 100 games

Your experience is confirmation bias. You believe the extra green die doesn't matter. You believe green dice fail. You discount and forget every time they roll exceedingly well and remember and blame them for every time they fail.

...this is what I mean by "trollish"...

when you take away the bias there are still multiple ways to show that the X-wing is less used than many other ships.

but we need to keep the bias in becuase PEOPLE play the game...if PEOPLE think the X-wing is unplayable than guess what?

it doesn't get played.

move on to other threads...this issue has been beaten to death.

X-wing IS played less than other ships. X-wing would be played more if it was shown to win.

So all 3 of you that think the X-wing is fine...go win a Spring tournament or Regional with the X-wing as your tent-pole.

then you can talk the talk.

Numbers don't lie, but they'll only answer exactly what you ask them...

"You can divide infinity an infinite number of times, and the resulting pieces will still be infinitely large. But if you divide a non-infinite number an infinite number of times the resulting pieces are non-infinitely small. Since they are non-infinitely small, but there are an infinite number of them, if you add them back together, their sum is infinite. This implies any number is, in fact, infinite.”

No, numbers don't lie. Statisticians do it all the time though; it comes with the job.

Except infinity is a limit, not an actual number. Common mistake. If it was we could do things like this:

1 + Infinity = Infinity

1 + 1 + Infinity = Infinity

1 + Infinity = Infinity = 2 + Infinity

Subtract Infinity from all sides and.....

1 = 2

Yeah!!!

Oh wait. Did you hear the story of the babel fish?