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

Those are bad examples for the point I think you are trying to make. If you look at the numbers on both of those examples, you'll see that they have decent jousting values for ships with turrets. The Y-Wing with an Ion Turret and the BTL title ends up with a really high jousting value.

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

Those are bad examples for the point I think you are trying to make. If you look at the numbers on both of those examples, you'll see that they have decent jousting values for ships with turrets. The Y-Wing with an Ion Turret and the BTL title ends up with a really high jousting value.

Yes. With the upgrades. Ships alone though? That was all I was saying.

Jacob

Mathwing is useful because it answers 2 questions:

1) am I losing because I am bad, or because the ship is bad?

2) am I winning because my opponent is bad or because her ships are bad?

And for the record: I'm pretty sure Paul Heaver would beat me if he was running the 6 Rebel Operative build.

And for the record: I'm pretty sure Paul Heaver would beat me if he was running the 6 Rebel Operative build.

Running 6 Rebel Operatives is for chumps. 4 Rebel Operatives with EU and Gunner is what the pros run.

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

Those are bad examples for the point I think you are trying to make. If you look at the numbers on both of those examples, you'll see that they have decent jousting values for ships with turrets. The Y-Wing with an Ion Turret and the BTL title ends up with a really high jousting value.

Yes. With the upgrades. Ships alone though? That was all I was saying.

Jacob

So then you're making the wrong mathematical comparison.

A BTL Y-Wing is a different ship than a normal Y-Wing.

Just like how a Chardaan Refit A-Wing is a different ship than a stock A-Wing.

However, very few upgrades increase the jousting value of a ship. Only the various defense upgrades do so. Situational/Action Cost ones do so but at a remarkable in-game qualitative price.

Really, the thing people here need to realize is that Mathwing merely reflects reality of the numbers. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't change the numbers. What is the qualitative aspect creates the 'real world' situation as why Soontir, despite not being great Jousty, is a great ship.

However, some ships have both a bad Quantitative Value (ie, x-wings, pre-fix T/As), AND bad Qualitative value (X-Wings can't reposition, are predictable and have horrible opportunity costs, Tie/As have opportunity costs and weapons so weak for the cost). These are 'truly bad' ships that need fixing. Biggs adds a degree of Qualitative Value for example, as he has a unique ability that some people care about. But it doesn't change the fact that the X-Wing has terrible quantitative value and other qualitative weaknesses (again, positioning)

And for the record: I'm pretty sure Paul Heaver would beat me if he was running the 6 Rebel Operative build.

Running 6 Rebel Operatives is for chumps. 4 Rebel Operatives with EU and Gunner is what the pros run.

Woah woah, with Gunner and 2 dice from range 1 you might accidentally kill something.

5x Rebel Operative, 5x Flight Instructor. Only way to fly.

What you say is very true Killionaire, i was not a fan of Mathwing for a long time because it reflected pure jousting values.

But MJ made some nice progress in integrating pilot abilities and ever more factors, and his predictions are often very accurate. Not only that they also very often reflect my subjective impressions when flying a ship.

I also can't understand why anyone can say Mathwing is destroying diversity. No, bad game balancing destroys diversity.

One could rarely critique some of the interpretations and conclusions to which Mathwing leads, but not the numbers themselves of course. But one of the goals of it is to help FFG balance the game better. I don't know if any of their statistics and calculations are as exact and well-made as MJs, or if they even make such a big effort to analyse their game.

Anyway this is not only a phenomenon in X-Wing, but in any tabletop or miniatures game as well as TCGs and LCGs. It's just futile to try and oppose that someone mathematically analyses a game to find the best possible stuff and on that way also discovers balancing flaws. That's just very normal!

The only trying hard I see here is how hard you're trying to turn what was a civil conversation into a flame war.

I'm as civil as I was in the first place. Have we degenerated into name-calling yet? Threats of violence? That's uncivil. If being corrected upsets you then perhaps you should refrain from the activity yourself.

Even if it was Mathwing that is responsible for destroying list diversity, that's not Major Juggler's fault. He's just spreading the truth.

Also, it being pointed out that the X Wing is simply an inferior B Wing or that generic HWK's are bad isn't what's killing list diversity. Those types of determinations rule out a few handfuls of ships. Pre-nerf Phantom ruled out pretty much everything in the game except small bases that could get to PS 9+ and fat turrets. Did you play the game at all during wave 5? In every Store Championship top 4 it was 4 turret builds, many of which had both a 2400 and a Falcon!

Mathwing is not responsible for the 2 ship meta. Much of what makes fat ships good is the ability to always go for the best position while never having to sacrifice a shot like every other arc based ship. Mathwing is just jousting data, doesn't really account for mobility which is what all 2 ship builds must have in order to not die.

The only trying hard I see here is how hard you're trying to turn what was a civil conversation into a flame war.

I'm as civil as I was in the first place. Have we degenerated into name-calling yet? Threats of violence? That's uncivil. If being corrected upsets you then perhaps you should refrain from the activity yourself.

It's interesting how you latch onto that while ignoring the part where I linked the same website you did for the definition of refutation. Kind of exactly what you were calling out Gecko on, come to think of it.

And there I will leave it before this thread stretches onwards into infinity.

is it that MJ posted his analyses or that the game isn't 100% fair that's the real problem here?

I can only tell you that you're wrong so many different ways. Thankfully, I'm not the only one to do so.

Oh, and that link of yours? It shows 'refutation' as a synonym for 'refutation.' If you click that link, it eventually takes you right back to my previous definitions. I ignored you the first time because it was petty and irrelevant, but since you want to bring it back up so badly I'll gladly let you wear that egg on your face. Again, you are trying so very, very hard, when you should really just cop to a failed exercise in pedantry already. My internet and lexical mastery are now, and will continue to be, superior to yours. Have a nice day.

"This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by WonderWAAAGH. View it anyway?"

I generally avoid post with this message littered through it. Every once in awhile I click that "View it anyway?" and I'm punished for me curiosity.

"This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by WonderWAAAGH. View it anyway?"

I generally avoid post with this message littered through it. Every once in awhile I click that "View it anyway?" and I'm punished for me curiosity.

I find it supremely ironic that you chose to thumb your nose at me in public, for no better reason than to make a show of how high your horse is. Well, here's another one for you to ignore.

Math SPAMWing: Killing Diversity yada yada.

Fixed that for you OP.

Do you not know why we play? I mean this in the philosophical sense mind you. Bordum is to intelligence what hunger is to life forms which have digestive systems. That is that we seek out entertainment not for entertainment's sake, but to learn and grow through that entertainment. One cannot love this game unless they come to love pursuing a more effective team than their opponent. Efficiency is what this game has to teach and those who, consciously or unconsciously, seek that lesson will come to learn it. Someone who has come to this game for the correct reasons does not compete with their opponent. They compete with themselves with the end goal of improving their skill at using the rules presented them to their advantage.

Wow, now that I've made a post here that means almost every person on gabe69velasquez's ignore list has posted on this thread...

Well done, Gecko!

Man, I think I broke my "only make constructive posts" promise to myself. Time to go back to the woodshed and finish my Level 10 Star Viper Pilot training for Regionals...

Been talking to Geko about this subject and while I understand his annoyance at the meta, his initial post Read like an open attack on Mathwing and Major Juggler.

The thing is has made some pretty good arguments on his side but unfortunately he has been banned for this thread, so is unable to reply.

What surprises me the most is that enough people were so annoyed at his attack on Mathamatics based space combat, that they reported him.

tbf, I highly doubt Gecko got banned for this thread alone

Easy there with the throwing about of accusations. It seems unlikely to be banned unless one has violated the forum rules. Therefore, it seems also unlikely that people reported him for an attack on mathematics based space combat, but instead on something genuinely against the forum rules. Or, he isn't banned.

I don't think you can get banned from a single thread, and his name isn't greyed out.

The thing is has made some pretty good arguments on his side...

Did he make a third post I missed somewhere?

...but unfortunately he has been banned for this thread, so is unable to reply.

What surprises me the most is that enough people were so annoyed at his attack on Mathamatics based space combat, that they reported him.

Well I should say suspended for two weeks with the threat of a ban, he was reported for this thread though, seems harsh considering some of the stuff I see on here.

Well I should say suspended for two weeks with the threat of a ban, he was reported for this thread though, seems harsh considering some of the stuff I see on here.

The mods may have taken it as a personal attack on MJ, though that seems a stretch to me. I didn't want to say it in my initial post, but the lack of a substantive response after 5 pages made it look like the OP was something of a troll attempt, designed more to stir people up than create meaningful conversation. Maybe I wasn't the only one who thought so.

At any rate, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this thread gets locked now. It's one thing to derail it, and another thing altogether to re-focus on a particular poster, especially one unable to defend himself.

Also, things like the TIE advanced fix exist because of systems like Mathwing pointing out how inefficient the base ship is. Without it, it would be hard to understand why some ships are favored and others are not. Mathwing provides a language for understanding the mechanisms behind player choice and tournament success. What you do with that information is up to you, but it's a mistake to shoot the very-well-educated and hard-working messenger.

I'm replying to this without having caught up on the thread yet, so apologies if I repeat other posts.

How do you know that that's why the TIE Advanced fix came about? Have FFG said so? The only reference to mathwing I've heard from them is that it's interesting but not how the game is designed.

The problem with mathwing isn't simply that it's based more around winning than fun. The problem is all the thigns it doesn't consider - the dial, the options for how you can fly certain ships. Basically, it doesn't tell you how good a ship is; it tells you how good a ships is under certain conditions, which are very rarely likely to be the conditions under which you play it.

That's not a dig at the guys who came up with it, whom I think acknowledge it's limitations, but it is a reason it shouldn't be given all that much weight.