The title needs to be changed to Letting random people on the Internet influencing what I fly and how I play: killing diversity in the game since 2014 because I have to fly what others say I do and it makes me mad when they say my favorite ships aren't as good as I think they are. Rolls off the tongue very nicely!
MathWing: Killing Diversity In The Game Since 2014
The title needs to be changed to Letting random people on the Internet influencing what I fly and how I play: killing diversity in the game since 2014 because I have to fly what others say I do and it makes me mad when they say my favorite ships aren't as good as I think they are. Rolls off the tongue very nicely!
I think a more accurate title is "Nigeltastic's epic imaginary internet point farm", it rolls off the tongue nicely too.
Edited by nigeltastic
Nope I don't think I'm confusing jousting values with the larger effort, but I do feel that what did in your post I commented on was inflate what Mathwing is. Mathwing is the analysis of data collection. So don't say that Mathwing is "giving the devs accurate, relevant feedback' (the words I spoke to). Mathwing might be a tool that could be used by the devs, but the reality of Mathwing is that it's a tool players are using to make decisions on which lists they're going to use.
I understand Mathwing. I'm just not a proponent of it, and I don't like seeing it be claimed to be something it's not. Data collection is data collection. Mathwing is analysis done by players based on data collection. It's not providing feedback to the devs thats at the heart of mathwing, the heart of mathwing is choosing efficient lists to win games.
I think that you are talking about MathWing, the version-numbered model that MJ publishes results from (arguably, the more correct definition, given its position at the center of this gravity well we're all orbiting around), while I was using the generic appropriated version meaning all of the theorycrafting(*) surrounding the game, similar to what VS said earlier:
MathWing was a thing before MJ made his model public, and it would be a thing if he moved to Mongolia and took up the life of an itinerant goatherd.
Can't have a proper argument until after you've defined terms!
(*) I'm pretty sure that "theorycrafting" comes from the World of Warcraft community; what did we call this kind of activity before then?
Even given that though, you still made a bold statement in that this is all purposed towards giving the devs feedback. It's not, and people who say it is bothers me. It's an attempt to add legitimacy to Mathwing that isn't necessarily there, and perhaps assuage a sense of guilt for winning.
Call it what it is. Mathwing/Theorycrafting - whatever you call it - is primarily about looking to win this game in a competitive environment. Either way, you made a statement that isn't honest.
Jacob
Edited by jkokura
Mathematics is not plural.Surely you're all missing the point. It shouldn't be Mathwing, it should be Maths-wing. "Math" is an abbreviation of Mathematics, which is a plural. The abbreviation should also be a plural. When you abbreviate "coppers" to "cops" you don't drop the "s". Or is your mathematic singular - do you only learn how to add up and ignore multiplications, calculus, geometry and all the other mathematics?
;-)
But the correct way to say it is maths, it was maths before Merica existed it'll be maths long after you've gone mad max.
The colonials just want to be awkward.
Uh... Didn't she say that it was Math starting after the abbreviation began to appear in 1911? After that it was abbreviated to Maths. So... when did 'merica start existing?
Jacob
Mathematics is not plural.Surely you're all missing the point. It shouldn't be Mathwing, it should be Maths-wing. "Math" is an abbreviation of Mathematics, which is a plural. The abbreviation should also be a plural. When you abbreviate "coppers" to "cops" you don't drop the "s". Or is your mathematic singular - do you only learn how to add up and ignore multiplications, calculus, geometry and all the other mathematics?
;-)
But the correct way to say it is maths, it was maths before Merica existed it'll be maths long after you've gone mad max.
The colonials just want to be awkward.
Uh... Didn't she say that it was Math starting after the abbreviation began to appear in 1911? After that it was abbreviated to Maths. So... when did 'merica start existing?
Jacob
This has devolved into into the all too common scenario where two parties argue pointlessly back and forth in an effort to demonstrate to the crowd at large who is "right". Meanwhile the crowd largely doesn't care and just wants it to end.
As an uninvolved and and unbiased neutral party, I declare WonderWAAAAAGH the winner so we can all go about our day.
I'm also uninvolved and unbiased, and I think you're wrong. TIE Pilot is the real winner here, and I'll be willing to argue that point for several pages.
The proper thing to do is to start a separate but nearly identical thread and rehash the same arguments there.
X-wings kind of died off when whisper showed up, not when MJ showed up.
I predict that FFG will add a restricted list in the next FAQ. It s sole entry will by reading MathWing posts written by MajorJuggler.
Edited by Veldrinwhatever happened to fun?
It's overcosted by about 3 points
Actually, my calculations have it at 2 points overcosted. Do you have a formula so we can compare?
X-wings kind of died off when whisper showed up, not when MJ showed up.
I predict that FFG will add a restricted list in the next FAQ. It s sole entry will by reading MathWing posts written by MajorJuggler.
lol
in my personal experience, Whisper wasn't the reason Wedge died off like the Sabertooths of yore
The reason was the invasion of fatties that came in the next wave
seriously, how are you even supposed to stand up against those things without Luke or Tarn?
Even given that though, you still made a bold statement in that this is all purposed towards giving the devs feedback. It's not, and people who say it is bothers me. It's an attempt to add legitimacy to Mathwing that isn't necessarily there, and perhaps assuage a sense of guilt for winning.
Call it what it is. Mathwing/Theorycrafting - whatever you call it - is primarily about looking to win this game in a competitive environment. Either way, you made a statement that isn't honest.
Nowhere in this did I ascribe intent:
The way to address stagnant metas is to give the devs accurate, relevant feedback so that they can incorporate that when putting balance tweaks into the next wave. Some of the most relevant feedback is statistical analysis of the ships, combined with tournament results and trends.
Oh, that's MathWing.
If you're going to accuse me of dishonesty, please make sure I actually said the thing you take exception to. I'm more than happy to discuss things, but your arguments are going to need to be more rigorous. I'm not going to spend my time in a mosh pit full of straw men.
Feedback does not require 'Dear FFG, I am writing to inform you..." People who bought a core set and a TIE Advanced and nothing else are giving FFG feedback, even if the exact nature of that feedback is unclear. People who take 4x B-Wings to a tournament and make the top 8 cut are too, just like the people who take TIE Defenders and don't.
And yes, people who consume reams of tournament data, boil that down to some statistical profiles, and then publish efficiency numbers on the official FFG forums are giving FFG feedback. Why they are motivated to do so is also feedback, as is the way the community reacts to and consumes that information.
X-wings kind of died off when whisper showed up, not when MJ showed up.
I predict that FFG will add a restricted list in the next FAQ. It s sole entry will by reading MathWing posts written by MajorJuggler.
lol
in my personal experience, Whisper wasn't the reason Wedge died off like the Sabertooths of yore
The reason was the invasion of fatties that came in the next wave
seriously, how are you even supposed to stand up against those things without Luke or Tarn?
Cheap attack dice at range 1, easy.
Granted I don't play in tournaments so my time limit is "until the weaker man yields or dies" but generally my strategy of violently charging the big guy has been a successful one.
Even given that though, you still made a bold statement in that this is all purposed towards giving the devs feedback. It's not, and people who say it is bothers me. It's an attempt to add legitimacy to Mathwing that isn't necessarily there, and perhaps assuage a sense of guilt for winning.
Call it what it is. Mathwing/Theorycrafting - whatever you call it - is primarily about looking to win this game in a competitive environment. Either way, you made a statement that isn't honest.
Nowhere in this did I ascribe intent:
The way to address stagnant metas is to give the devs accurate, relevant feedback so that they can incorporate that when putting balance tweaks into the next wave. Some of the most relevant feedback is statistical analysis of the ships, combined with tournament results and trends.
Oh, that's MathWing.
If you're going to accuse me of dishonesty, please make sure I actually said the thing you take exception to. I'm more than happy to discuss things, but your arguments are going to need to be more rigorous. I'm not going to spend my time in a mosh pit full of straw men.
Feedback does not require 'Dear FFG, I am writing to inform you..." People who bought a core set and a TIE Advanced and nothing else are giving FFG feedback, even if the exact nature of that feedback is unclear. People who take 4x B-Wings to a tournament and make the top 8 cut are too, just like the people who take TIE Defenders and don't.
And yes, people who consume reams of tournament data, boil that down to some statistical profiles, and then publish efficiency numbers on the official FFG forums are giving FFG feedback. Why they are motivated to do so is also feedback, as is the way the community reacts to and consumes that information.
Except you made a specific claim. When you say "Oh, that's Mathwing" I read that you're claiming that the purpose of 'Mathwing' is a tool that is designed and provided to the game developers to take care of Meta problems. But I'm convinced that's not the purpose of Mathwing. It might be the purpose of data collection and analyzing, but that's not what 'mathwing' is designed for. Perhaps they're concurrent devices, but I don't make them out to be the same thing. Mathwing is data collection and the analysis of that information, but it is not about game balance for the designers, it is about efficient use of the tools available to win games.
The real question, and I think the answer still needs to be established is, "what is the purpose Mathwing?" In you statement, you're claiming that it's an effort to help balance out the game, that Mathwing is only purposed to giving us information to help the game's larger purpose. I'm saying that the purpose of Mathwing is about giving the players an edge during their matches. It's not Game Developers leading the charge in gaining this 'mathematical information,' it's the players, whose intent is to win games against each other. If using Math to predict the most efficient combo of ships and upgrades is going to give you an edge, of course players are going to use that information. I don't, but some do.
I just think it's a false statement to make Mathwing more than it really is. The statistical analysis done by the players is for the players, not for the game developers.
But enough of this. It's obvious you don't see your statement is wrong, and nothing I'm saying seems to be convincing you. I'm ready to move on if you are.
Jacob
Edited by jkokuraExcept you made a specific claim. When you say "Oh, that's Mathwing" I read that you're claiming that the purpose of 'Mathwing' is a tool that is designed and provided to the game developers to take care of Meta problems.
Uh, no?
The way to address stagnant metas is to give the devs accurate, relevant feedback so that they can incorporate that when putting balance tweaks into the next wave. Some of the most relevant feedback is statistical analysis of the ships, combined with tournament results and trends.
Oh, that's MathWing.
(Emphasis mine)
Antecedents are hard, I know.
Nowhere in this did I ascribe intent:
I read that you're claiming that the purpose of 'Mathwing' is a tool that is designed and provided to the game developers to take care of Meta problems.
(snip)
In you statement, you're claiming that it's an effort to help balance out the game, that Mathwing is only purposed to giving us information to help the game's larger purpose.
I don't know how to make it any more clear that your assertion about what I'm claiming is incorrect. I am not making any statements regarding the "purpose" of MathWing. The only thing that I'm stating is that it exists, and the game's designers can use the information in it as feedback about what they've created to improve balance.
Except you made a specific claim. When you say "Oh, that's Mathwing" I read that you're claiming that the purpose of 'Mathwing' is a tool that is designed and provided to the game developers to take care of Meta problems.
Uh, no?
The way to address stagnant metas is to give the devs accurate, relevant feedback so that they can incorporate that when putting balance tweaks into the next wave. Some of the most relevant feedback is statistical analysis of the ships, combined with tournament results and trends.
Oh, that's MathWing.
(Emphasis mine)
Antecedents are hard, I know.
Thanks for the condescension, it's uncalled for.
The entire statement needs to be taken as an entirety. I stand by my statement.
Again, the issue is of course - what is the purpose of Mathwing. I object to the concept that it's somehow related to giving the game developers feedback. I believe that's elevating the purpose of Mathwing beyond what it really is - player analysis designed for player use.
Jacob
Nowhere in this did I ascribe intent:
I read that you're claiming that the purpose of 'Mathwing' is a tool that is designed and provided to the game developers to take care of Meta problems.
(snip)
In you statement, you're claiming that it's an effort to help balance out the game, that Mathwing is only purposed to giving us information to help the game's larger purpose.
I don't know how to make it any more clear that your assertion about what I'm claiming is incorrect. I am not making any statements regarding the "purpose" of MathWing. The only thing that I'm stating is that it exists, and the game's designers can use the information in it as feedback about what they've created to improve balance.
Again, if that's all you see in your statement, it's obvious that we need to move on.
You made the statement 'that's mathwing.' I think that's making a statement about the purpose of mathwing. I'm not sure what you see differently.
Jacob
Edited by jkokuragenerally my strategy of violently charging the big guy has been a successful one.
AND IN THE GAME.
Thanks for the condescension, it's uncalled for.
Sure thing. These are the forums, after all.
Again, the issue is of course - what is the purpose of Mathwing. I object to the concept that it's somehow related to giving the game developers feedback. I believe that's elevating the purpose of Mathwing beyond what it really is - player analysis designed for player use.
I don't want to speak for MajorJuggler, but he has on occasion expressed that his model could have been used to augment development and playtesting:
(These are from a cursory Google search.)
Thanks for the condescension, it's uncalled for.
Sure thing. These are the forums, after all.
Again, the issue is of course - what is the purpose of Mathwing. I object to the concept that it's somehow related to giving the game developers feedback. I believe that's elevating the purpose of Mathwing beyond what it really is - player analysis designed for player use.
I don't want to speak for MajorJuggler, but he has on occasion expressed that his model could have been used to augment development and playtesting:
(These are from a cursory Google search.)
Fair enough, but could have is not the same as is. As far as we know, the game developers have been reading this thread. I'm absolutely certain that they are aware of the various 'mathwing' efforts, but to equate Mathwing as a tool designed to give developers feedback has only been developed after the effort has gone in and the data is being used by the players.
I'm not commenting on whether there has been a developer looking at the List Juggler website, or has seen the various mathematical data on jousting, or even the re-costing efforts that various players (MJ for one) have gone through for personal home/group use. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be using Math as a part of their game balancing efforts.
I do object to the 'after the fact' adjustment to the ideas of Mathwing. It's like all of the sudden people are jumping up and saying that the purpose of this data analysis was a benevolent effort. To state that it is somehow for the good of the game design is to forget that a year and a half ago everyone was looking at Tie-Swarms as the be-all-end-all of competitive lists and then some people asked the question 'why.' So people, MJ usually seems to be in the lead in who people think of, stood up and started collecting data. The first major effort in it all was the jousting calculations, and then the costing issues... All of this in an effort to build the most efficient lists so that players could be ultra-competitive. That's why Mathwing is and how it's been used. To talk about Game Developers and an effort to introduce balance into the game is to subscribe those effects after the original purpose, not before.
Jacob
Edited by jkokuraAgain, the issue is of course - what is the purpose of Mathwing.
The purpose of Mathwing is to show which ships are good and which ones cost more points then they should for what they do, and suggest what they should cost.
That said, we all know FFG does read these boards, and Alex and Frank have mentioned Mathwing before, so we know they have seen it. So to say that there is no feedback to the developers is simply untrue.
MajorJuggler put it out there for anyone involved in X-Wing, which naturally includes the Dev's.
I'm not sure anyone is trying to claim that MajorJuggler came up with Mathwing as purely something to show the Dev's where they got it wrong in his opinion.
Frankly you seem to be taking issue with something no one really ever said.
Edited by VanorDMThe purpose of Mathwing is to show which ships are good and which ones cost more points then they should for what they do, and suggest what they should cost.
I'd say it's far more a tool for comparing statlines (and actions/upgrades that affect them). Where there's a disparity between statline and cost relative to the other ships you look for what the ship has to make up for it (like turrets, gimmicks or incredible manueverability). If the ship lacks another ability to make up for its otherwise deficient statline then it's probably priced too high, or just isn't a viable statline. There are some setups that wouldn't be used even if they weren't overpriced.
Good examples of what you're saying, Tie Pilot, is the Y-Wing and the HWK-290. Stat line is ok for the Y-Wing, pretty poor for the HWK. But both can do things because of their abilities and/or upgrades. Nobody laughs at an Ion-Turret Y-wing, or a blaster turret on Kyle Katarn with a recon spec and title on the table because they're 'statistically poor.' They have good abilities/upgrades.
Jacob
Good examples of what you're saying, Tie Pilot, is the Y-Wing and the HWK-290. Stat line is ok for the Y-Wing, pretty poor for the HWK. But both can do things because of their abilities and/or upgrades. Nobody laughs at an Ion-Turret Y-wing, or a blaster turret on Kyle Katarn with a recon spec and title on the table because they're 'statistically poor.' They have good abilities/upgrades.
Jacob
Ion, btl, stress bot. deadly combo, cuz double stress
Good examples of what you're saying, Tie Pilot, is the Y-Wing and the HWK-290. Stat line is ok for the Y-Wing, pretty poor for the HWK. But both can do things because of their abilities and/or upgrades. Nobody laughs at an Ion-Turret Y-wing, or a blaster turret on Kyle Katarn with a recon spec and title on the table because they're 'statistically poor.' They have good abilities/upgrades.
Jacob
Ion, btl, stress bot. deadly combo, cuz double stress
Exactly. Which is why the Math of the stat line is not sufficient for judging the ship.
Jacob
However, in that case it's easy to see where the rest of the point cost is coming from.