... What are you hoping to achieve here?

• MJ: MathWing shoes 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: ...

Mathwing shoes? One! One shoe! AH AH AH AH! Two! Two shoes! AH AH AH AH!

Sorry, just a little poke at what was probably autocorrect.

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.

ion generally does the trick

as I've said before, ion is to jousting what tire irons are to knees

but yes, that's a good way of looking at it. Maneuver-based abilities and abilities that aren't strictly damage related (such as control) lie outside the model of mathwing unless an approximate value is assigned to them.

Economists: Causing Recessions Since 1929.

Economists: Causing Recessions Since 1929.

would be an apt comparison if juggles had control over the flow of stat resources in X-wing

at last then I'd know who to bribe to nerf PWTs into the ground

seems like all MJ has to do is declare all ships viable and HWKS and loaded tie bombers will surely win the next mega event...oh wait... never mind.

In the end, the math just ends up as way of showing/overcomplicating what a lot of us do when evaluating a ship. I mean, there was a lot of reservation about the Defender, even before we knew the dial. But then there are other things that pop up. I mean, I don't follow the math very well, but I'm pretty certain a 40pt HWK would end up being quite bad via the math.