Blimey, didn't notice the number of pages when I posted - though I only had a couple to catch up on, not 9 more pages!

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

I know what you mean by this, but in terms of lore a BTL Y-wing is a Y-wing, like a T-65 is an X-wing. What you're comparing is a BTL-A4 (turret locked forward and firelinked) and a BTL-S3 (has a gunner seat for the turret).

My 2¢ it is what it is.... If you want to play for fun then you have an unlimited supply of all the tools necessary to build whatever squad that appeals to you regardless if it will win any games or not, you are playing for fun so it doesn't

matter.

Then you have competitive play, where you have your mathwingers and squads that use the most optimal ships and upgrade combinations to do nothing else but have the most edge in a competitive environment, may be less fun depending on personal taste of the person. Yes many shadow list builds that do well in games the most. Its almost an instinct to seek out what is the best tool for the task. You can't fault that about human nature.

But even with the right tools for the task you still need skill to use said tools. Either way it is not the easy button to this game by no means.

Myself personally, I'm more of the casual player. I want to build squads that I want to fly because of the ships I want to play the most. Not because someone said it is the best ship so use it to win.....I don't care about any of that...I play the game the way I enjoy. And this game is played however we want to play it because look X-Wing is a game where it has something for everyone.

You want casual? You got casual, you want scenario play? You got scenario play. You want epic size games, yep got that too... And if you want to get down and dirty and play in a competitive environment well by all means this game has that too.

This game is versatile. You don't have to play this game in a role you don't want to play because a majority on the forums likes playing this game in a certain role.

Play the game you want. Make your own adventure.

You don't have to follow what everyone else is doing in X-Wing to have fun with it.

Fly casual or fly competitive who cares...

HAVE FUN

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.

But even there, it's super useful. For instance:

The Tie Interceptor is a lousy jouster. BUT! The dial has a lot of green and 2 reposition actions. That's why you know PTL is a great card on it.

PTL isn't quite doing enough? Why? Oh, turrets nullify its primary strengths. Ok: Autothrusters.

All of that information flows out of MathWing. MathWing tells you how good a ship is in a joust, and helps you find the non-jousting strengths of a ship. If a ship is not a good jouster, and has no other strengths, that's really good to know.

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.

You seem to misunderstand the point.

With no mathematical analysis as part of game balance (be it internal or otherwise to the developers), people who 'play to win' will all do the same **** things, the game become degenerate and dies a horrible death.

With perfect balance, all choices are viable and equally likely to win given equally skilled players.

Mathematically balancing a game makes this possible. There is no downside at all to a balanced game. Not to casual players, not to competitive players. Arguing otherwise is pure ignorance at the expense of people who enjoy the game, including yourself without knowing it.

The TIE Interceptor's stat line cost efficiency is actually a hair higher than the X-wing.

And the TIE Interceptor has boost and barrel roll, so if the PS1 Interceptor isn't viable, then the PS2 X-wing certainly is not either.

So, it seems as though (inherently flawed and limited in scope) mathematical models are once again declaring ships to be entirely "not viable".

It's this kind of cynical, statistic-driven analysis that has led - over the last 12 months - to a self-fulfilling prophecy of a meta. Entire ranges of ships, pilots and upgrades are ruled out wholesale because they're considered (under the said inherently flawed and limited in scope model) to be marginally less "efficient" than their cousins.

New players pick up the game, gaze in awe at the wealth of options available, join a forum to find out more and are told "yeah, don't use that unless you want to lose."

TIE swarms became the norm because we're told they're "efficient". BBBBZ becomes the norm because we're told it's "efficient". At the expense of everything which is apparently not.

This (incredibly well designed and balanced) game is packed to the brim with an absolute wealth of options and variety, and yet the dogged pursuit for perceived optimum "efficiency" appears to be stifling those options and killing off that variety. So here's a novel approach: to hell with so-called mathematical efficiency; whatever happened to fun?

You're totally wrong about the efficiency being the only metric. Lists now are actually eschewing efficiency more than ever and getting into some of the intangibles. Dials and maneuverability count for more now than ever (ironic given the amount of turrets around).

What has skewed the metagame has been the first tiebreaker being MoV. The move to MoV means what you do in the game matters inversely to your actual performance (not just whether you win or lose). Blame FFG's organized play for making a short sighted move which has skewed the competitive game into something not fun by feeding the ultra-defensive ships to the forefront.

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.

I actually didn't say mathwing was specifically used to balance the game, rather that these kinds of mathematical analyses are crucial for understanding why some ships are popular and others aren't, why some seem to be more successful than others, etc. Without knowing these things, you can't begin to balance a game. I don't know if FFG rely on Mathwing, or if they have their own in-house system, but I'd be shocked if they weren't running statistical analyses to balance the game.

Maybe they just use the Force.

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.

I actually didn't say mathwing was specifically used to balance the game, rather that these kinds of mathematical analyses are crucial for understanding why some ships are popular and others aren't, why some seem to be more successful than others, etc. Without knowing these things, you can't begin to balance a game. I don't know if FFG rely on Mathwing, or if they have their own in-house system, but I'd be shocked if they weren't running statistical analyses to balance the game.

They don't use formulae. They did in the earlier waves, especially with EPTs and pilot skill, but since Wave 3 that's gone out the window. Most of the stuff you can gauge "by eye" fairly easily, and from there it's done by extensive playtesting.

They don't use formulae. They did in the earlier waves, especially with EPTs and pilot skill, but since Wave 3 that's gone out the window. Most of the stuff you can gauge "by eye" fairly easily, and from there it's done by extensive playtesting.

It's inevitable, so I might as well do it... What's your source on that?

They don't use formulae. They did in the earlier waves, especially with EPTs and pilot skill, but since Wave 3 that's gone out the window. Most of the stuff you can gauge "by eye" fairly easily, and from there it's done by extensive playtesting.

It's inevitable, so I might as well do it... What's your source on that?

I believe it was mentioned in the interview with Alex and Frank a couple months ago? But I don't recall exactly.

Math is important. And I acknowledge that MajorJuggler has done a lot of work and has some useful conclusions.

But the math is not the end all, be all of the game. You cannot mathematically predict which ship/squad works best with my playstyle. Not every ship works the same for everyone.

Nobody is saying that a quantitative comparison of ships is the whole game.

What is said however, is that no matter what your playstyle is, if we have a Tie/Advanced, and a Tie/LessAdvanced (same dial, same upgrades, etc, only 2 AGI instead), then obviously the Tie/LessAdvanced has no use whatsoever, and will never have a 'playstyle advantage'. This is what math tells us. Even if it was 1 point cheaper, it'd be the same situation.

Math is important. And I acknowledge that MajorJuggler has done a lot of work and has some useful conclusions.

But the math is not the end all, be all of the game. You cannot mathematically predict which ship/squad works best with my playstyle. Not every ship works the same for everyone.

Oh sure! That's why I take B-Wings and not Squints- I'm a tank sort of guy. But MathWing helps me understand why I'm not getting as much out of the Tie Defender as I would like to.

It's not the be all, end all. It's the starting point. I see far too many posts that are complaining about the conversation.

The TIE Interceptor's stat line cost efficiency is actually a hair higher than the X-wing.

And the TIE Interceptor has boost and barrel roll, so if the PS1 Interceptor isn't viable, then the PS2 X-wing certainly is not either.

So, it seems as though (inherently flawed and limited in scope) mathematical models are once again declaring ships to be entirely "not viable".

It's this kind of cynical, statistic-driven analysis that has led - over the last 12 months - to a self-fulfilling prophecy of a meta. Entire ranges of ships, pilots and upgrades are ruled out wholesale because they're considered (under the said inherently flawed and limited in scope model) to be marginally less "efficient" than their cousins.

New players pick up the game, gaze in awe at the wealth of options available, join a forum to find out more and are told "yeah, don't use that unless you want to lose."

TIE swarms became the norm because we're told they're "efficient". BBBBZ becomes the norm because we're told it's "efficient". At the expense of everything which is apparently not.

This (incredibly well designed and balanced) game is packed to the brim with an absolute wealth of options and variety, and yet the dogged pursuit for perceived optimum "efficiency" appears to be stifling those options and killing off that variety. So here's a novel approach: to hell with so-called mathematical efficiency; whatever happened to fun?

You're totally wrong about the efficiency being the only metric. Lists now are actually eschewing efficiency more than ever and getting into some of the intangibles. Dials and maneuverability count for more now than ever (ironic given the amount of turrets around).

What has skewed the metagame has been the first tiebreaker being MoV. The move to MoV means what you do in the game matters inversely to your actual performance (not just whether you win or lose). Blame FFG's organized play for making a short sighted move which has skewed the competitive game into something not fun by feeding the ultra-defensive ships to the forefront.

MoV is a **** sight better than Strength of Schedule was.

They don't use formulae. They did in the earlier waves, especially with EPTs and pilot skill, but since Wave 3 that's gone out the window. Most of the stuff you can gauge "by eye" fairly easily, and from there it's done by extensive playtesting.

It's inevitable, so I might as well do it... What's your source on that?

I believe it was mentioned in the interview with Alex and Frank a couple months ago? But I don't recall exactly.

Nobody is saying that a quantitative comparison of ships is the whole game.

What is said however, is that no matter what your playstyle is, if we have a Tie/Advanced, and a Tie/LessAdvanced (same dial, same upgrades, etc, only 2 AGI instead), then obviously the Tie/LessAdvanced has no use whatsoever, and will never have a 'playstyle advantage'. This is what math tells us. Even if it was 1 point cheaper, it'd be the same situation.

That's true, but how many ships are identical other than their stats? Very few, but one does hear an awful lot of "mathematically that ship is over costed". Not necessarily by the people who come up with the figures, but by people miss-using them.

My math is simple, get as many red dice on the table with as much shield and hull as I can get.

Mathematically balancing a game makes this possible. There is no downside at all to a balanced game. Not to casual players, not to competitive players. Arguing otherwise is pure ignorance at the expense of people who enjoy the game, including yourself without knowing it.

I didn't say there was a downside to having a balanced game, mathematically or otherwise, but there is a downside to people (and I'm not talking about you or anyone specifically) thinking that "mathematically balanced according to certain quantifiable metrics" is the same as "balanced".

My math is simple, get as many red dice on the table with as much shield and hull as I can get.

My math is "try to never ever be in somebody's arc".

My math is simple, get as many red dice on the table with as much shield and hull as I can get.

My math is "try to never ever be in somebody's arc".

Well yeah. Zero enemy attack dice is better than 'not zero' enemy attack dice

Anyway. Ships may not generally be identical, but some sure as hell can be comparable.

Z-95 is both comparable to X-Wings and TIEs without much imagination.

Sycks and TIEs are practically brothers.

X-Wings and E-Wings are quite comparable in raw statline (then you derive qualitative value from the Sensors slot)

The new Kirakxz is looking by all measures to be directly comparable to the X-Wing.

etc, etc.

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.

But even there, it's super useful. For instance:

The Tie Interceptor is a lousy jouster. BUT! The dial has a lot of green and 2 reposition actions. That's why you know PTL is a great card on it.

PTL isn't quite doing enough? Why? Oh, turrets nullify its primary strengths. Ok: Autothrusters.

All of that information flows out of MathWing. MathWing tells you how good a ship is in a joust, and helps you find the non-jousting strengths of a ship. If a ship is not a good jouster, and has no other strengths, that's really good to know.

WHOA THERE!

I invented autothrusters and i did not use maths in any way shape or form, i deeply resent your trying to re-write history here.

I used common sense to come up with them not your devil inspired numbers!

My math is simple, get as many red dice on the table with as much shield and hull as I can get.

My math is "try to never ever be in somebody's arc".

Well yeah. Zero enemy attack dice is better than 'not zero' enemy attack dice

Anyway. Ships may not generally be identical, but some sure as hell can be comparable.

Z-95 is both comparable to X-Wings and TIEs without much imagination.

Sycks and TIEs are practically brothers.

X-Wings and E-Wings are quite comparable in raw statline (then you derive qualitative value from the Sensors slot)

The new Kirakxz is looking by all measures to be directly comparable to the X-Wing.

etc, etc.

I love Sycks I wish they were not so squishy but I'm determined to find a way to be just as great in a swarm list like TIEs are.

Stop blaming MJ for tournament results... That was my bad to start thinking that free, fast, and easy access to information was a good thing.

MJ has taken to the next level and if you can't find a way to use the information he has compiled then you're either not trying or are flat out choosing ignorance. It does an excellent job of doing exactly what he says it does. If you have a better model, please share it.

Keep up the good work math wingers. Keep proving yourself and improving your Maths.

What about the Merton post don't you agree with? Just out of curiosity. It's a bit of Easternized Western philosophy, but I've always thought it's appropriate when it comes to competition.

First, it's an awful bit of doggerel.

Second, as a philosophy it doesn't stand up to experience. I've met a chess grandmaster, a couple of Olympians, and a few extraordinarily talented martial artists--and none of them, I think, would agree with Merton. Competition can be part of an unhealthy worldview, but in itself it doesn't weaken or blind competitors.

I think the Merton quote was re-phrased some years later to describe the difference between a golfer and a PGA pro. Basically it said the pro has the ability to approach a 3' putt worth 100k with the same calmness that the duffer who shoots for a beer. The Merton quote may be more applicable to the final rounds at Worlds between, say Paul Heaver and