When people look at his work, they use it to build lists, and therefore are not taking the Defender to tournaments.

Seeing how many people play in Store Championships, and how relatively few people visit these forums, saying that the reason people don't bring defenders to tournament is due to MJ's work is a pretty faulty assumption.

"Mathwing" does not tell you what ships are best.

Welllll....it kinda does. It predicts performance in a competitive setting. It has some clear recommendations:

Every competitive game goes through this cycle.

It isn't MathWing that "kills diversity," it is the internet, or specifically our ability to consume huge amounts of valuable data quickly.

MathWing is a significantly lower threat to game diversity than ListJuggler or SquadRanker or the Regionals Results thread.

There are only two reasons why you could be mad at MathWing:

1) It is wrong and has artificially defined the meta

2) It is right and makes it too easy for people to know the best ships to fly and you don't like playing against the best ships.

In the first case, just play the actual "best ships" and the meta will change, and in the second case it seems like you need to find other people to fly against that share your "the best lists are boring" philosophy (or you just want to beat up on underinformed people).

Lmao are people honestly even entertaining the thought that MJ is influencing the meta? Honestly if some person told me that they don't fly a ship because a stranger on the Internet put out some numbers then I'd just shrug and say ok. 1. Who cares what they do. 2. More often than not people like that aren't going to be any threat at a competitive level.

Plenty of people netdeck and lose.

When people look at his work, they use it to build lists, and therefore are not taking the Defender to tournaments.

Seeing how many people play in Store Championships, and how relatively few people visit these forums, saying that the reason people don't bring defenders to tournament is due to MJ's work is a pretty faulty assumption.

Because they are all stuck-up half-witted nerf-herders who don't know the true power of the Defender. SMH

I did not say the PS1 Interceptor is not viable, and I did not say that the PS2 X-wing is not viable. Take note of the (emphasized) logical conditional wording.

So let's get this straight - would you say that the Alpha Squadron Pilot, the Rookie Pilot and (why not) the Delta Squadron Pilot ARE competitively viable?

Would you field them in a major competition over the other available options at this time? Have you fielded them over the other options in a major competition?

I did not say the PS1 Interceptor is not viable, and I did not say that the PS2 X-wing is not viable. Take note of the (emphasized) logical conditional wording.

So let's get this straight - are you saying that the Alpha Squadron Pilot, the Rookie Pilot and (why not) the Delta Squadron Pilot are competitively viable, then?

Would you field them in a major competition over the other available optuions at this time? Have you fielded them over the other options in a major competition?

in the quote, he's saying nothing about their actual viability

he's presenting the condition that if the Alpha squadron is not viable then , given that it's similarly efficient to the rookie pilot and is far more maneuverable to the point where it's not forced to joust all the **** time, the rookie pilot is not viable

Please ficklegreendice, I'm sure MJ is perfdtly capable of answering for himself.

Please ficklegreendice, I'm sure MJ is perfdtly capable of answering for himself.

he is, but you seem incapable of reading his answers

it's a page back in huge bolded letters

Please ficklegreendice, I'm sure MJ is perfdtly capable of answering for himself.

he is, but you seem incapable of reading his answers

it's a page back in huge bolded letters

Stop it; I'm going to run out of likes.

but we havn't hit critical mass yet

but we havn't hit critical mass yet

We canne dooit capin, we've ne gut the pooooooah.

I really don't pay much attention to mathwing at all. Part of my fun is learning the ships how well they play or maybe more accurately how well I play them. The problem with keeping formulas secret (while completely MJ right) is that your parameters, criteria and math itself is not then subject to review. Unless of course MJ is suggesting that his formulas and math are infallible? There are too many things which are highly difficult to assess such as skill of the player, play style, obstacle placement, asteroids vs debris, ships relative effectiveness and how that changes given any one of myriad upgrades, time limit, etc..which change the effectiveness of given ships and pilots.

Math is not THE math in this situation. It isn't merely an issue of plugging numbers into a formula. You must have a formula which can successfully predict and value ships taking into account all variables. If you can do that you should also be able to articulate specifically why one ship might be successful or not just generally infer it. All that said it doesn't discount the effort that MJ has put into Mathwing or establish the merits (or lack thereof) of his attempt to evaluate the ships. I think it would be fascinating to sit down with MJ and ask him about the ships where he could offer more insight and detail. I'd be equally as curious to know how X Wing would change without the influence of MathWing. I will watch and ask specific questions about MJ thoughts on specific ships in the upcoming next wave.

So, If we purposely play the game in a way to match the assumptions of MJ...

So, If we purposely play the game in a way to match the assumptions of MJ...

oh yes,

I know I roll my green dice to match the expectations of mathwing, and they never ever deviate from what I want them to roll

So, If we purposely play the game in a way to match the assumptions of MJ...

oh yes,

I know I roll my green dice to match the expectations of mathwing, and they never ever deviate from what I want them to roll

Actually having these numbers in your head can be very important when determining actions in a game. I know I have decided if a boost or lock was better based on what ship I was using and what ship I would be attacking. It helps a great deal along the lines of in game-play

I really don't pay much attention to mathwing at all. Part of my fun is learning the ships how well they play or maybe more accurately how well I play them. The problem with keeping formulas secret (while completely MJ right) is that your parameters, criteria and math itself is not then subject to review. Unless of course MJ is suggesting that his formulas and math are infallible? There are too many things which are highly difficult to assess such as skill of the player, play style, obstacle placement, asteroids vs debris, ships relative effectiveness and how that changes given any one of myriad upgrades, time limit, etc..which change the effectiveness of given ships and pilots.

Math is not THE math in this situation. It isn't merely an issue of plugging numbers into a formula. You must have a formula which can successfully predict and value ships taking into account all variables. If you can do that you should also be able to articulate specifically why one ship might be successful or not just generally infer it. All that said it doesn't discount the effort that MJ has put into Mathwing or establish the merits (or lack thereof) of his attempt to evaluate the ships. I think it would be fascinating to sit down with MJ and ask him about the ships where he could offer more insight and detail. I'd be equally as curious to know how X Wing would change without the influence of MathWing. I will watch and ask specific questions about MJ thoughts on specific ships in the upcoming next wave.

But the version that we are talking about is completely available. The version he has under his hat he hasn't talked about at all, including results.

I feel as if complaining about diversity being killed by mathwing is counterintuitive. If you are so worried about designing your own lists, mathwing makes you MORE prepared to plan for your meta, as the total number of archetypes you have to plan for is fewer.

So, If we purposely play the game in a way to match the assumptions of MJ...

oh yes,

I know I roll my green dice to match the expectations of mathwing, and they never ever deviate from what I want them to roll

Actually having these numbers in your head can be very important when determining actions in a game. I know I have decided if a boost or lock was better based on what ship I was using and what ship I would be attacking. It helps a great deal along the lines of in game-play

oh interesting

I just assume the worst every time

wonder why

I meant as in forcing a joust - and opting to trade shots more often than give them up for position. MJ's values kinda depend on that. They fall apart quickly when shots are not being traded.

I did not say the PS1 Interceptor is not viable, and I did not say that the PS2 X-wing is not viable. Take note of the (emphasized) logical conditional wording.

So let's get this straight - would you say that the Alpha Squadron Pilot, the Rookie Pilot and (why not) the Delta Squadron Pilot ARE competitively viable?

Would you field them in a major competition over the other available options at this time? Have you fielded them over the other options in a major competition?

... What are you hoping to achieve here?

• MJ: MathWing shows that, if the PS1 TIE Interceptor isn't viable, then the PS2 X-Wing isn't viable either.
• FTS: I hate that MJ uses MathWing to declare ships as being "not viable".
• MJ: I never said that...
• FTS: Ok then... DO you think the PS1 TIE Interceptor and PS2 X-Wing are competitively viable?
• MJ: No, I don't think they're viable.
• FTS: Ha! I knew it!
• MJ: ...

Edit: Shows. Not shoes.

I meant as in forcing a joust - and opting to trade shots more often than give them up for position. MJ's values kinda depend on that. They fall apart quickly when shots are not being traded.

The nice thing that I like them for is that they tell you how much you have to get out of other aspects of the ship's abilities to make up for its raw stats.