instead, FFg seems to be trying to release ships that operate outside the realms of jousting values and towards more directly influencing gameplay. The punisher and K acomplish this ala lovely, lovely mines.

I hope this is the case.

Why do you think FFG continues to produce over costed ships?

They either lack the desire and / or technical expertise to use advanced mathematics to balance the game.

I think you don't know what overcost means if you think the T-70 is more overcosted than the original X-Wing.

The T-70 X-wing is actually less efficient from a stat line efficiency perspective (jousting value).

But is jousting all that we are concerned about.

Also, the approach in linked thread is just one mathematical tool of many. There are other tools and approaches that I have not published. Generally when someone says says "the math isn't everything", or "it can't predict XYZ", they are not a math person, and are unware that there are actually several other developed theories that can quantitatively explain what they consider impossible.

Well I'm glad it isn't always just about the naked ship. I actually like, as you said, that the X-Wing with and R2 and IA is about as efficient as the B-Wing. Do you think this will calm everyone's fears or will many want something that "screams fix" as we've already read.

By that, i mean, if the T-70 isn't meant to be flown like a T-65, or a B-Wing, does it's base jousting efficiency matter as much?

Cost is the great equalizer, so stat line efficiency always matters. The question is if the "intangibles" can make up the deficit. Sometimes they can, and sometimes they can't. In the case of the T-70, we have strong evidence that it will not.

Again, I don't know what variables you consider but I don't think X-Wing is solely facing each other in a line, squeezing the trigger, and counting the dead. We call it joust because (and I don't know for sure) we calculate based on this. But in real life it is called merge because after the initial pass with the enemy you now have to maneuver, lock, get in arc, etc... The "intangibles" such as the combinations of upgrades, the dial and even the ability of a ship to support another hopefully goes into the points consideration at Fantasy Flight. In my limited knowledge and opinion I do feel that a ship's points should not only show how well it survives your "joust" math but how well it helps their team mates survive or how well it helps them engage. Passing target locks to another is an awesome ability for example but doesn't help in a head-on one on one "joust".

I don't know how your work is done. I will say that it seems to be impressive work and the time you've giving the game is also impressive. I do agree that the stat line is one measure and perhaps you consider this and more of the "intangibles" I don't know. But I do feel that X-Wing should not be measured on a firing squad's efficiency but on a ships over all ability contribution to the match. Hence some ships, regardless of "jousting" points, may be better at other things or other types of games (Epic for example) than others. And that matters too.

Just my 2 cents. I do like your X-Wing comments.

I don't have much I can add here, except for a few short notes.

First, math explains a lot about the game. Looking at the value of a ship's stat line as compared to its cost doesn't tell you everything it can do--but it tells you how good everything aside from the stat line has to be in order for the ship to be worth its price.

My models are built on a slightly different basis than MJ's, and with slightly different assumptions--and they're also a lot less sophisticated. But in the broad strokes, they say the same thing: the Blue Squadron Novice is overpriced by a bit more than the Rookie Pilot.

Second, Integrated Astromech is designed as a patch for the X-wing's durability issue, and has the same effect on the T-70. It has access to an unprecedented maneuver, as well as the boost action; those aren't accounted for in its stat line. It also has a PS4 generic with an EPT.

It remains to be seen exactly how far that combination of factors will go in making up for the ship's raw, stat-line-based inefficiency--but the most reasonable prediction is that it'll look like a number of other ships where the high-PS pilots with unique abilities are a much better use of points than the generic pilots.

What do you most often fly?

DEFEEEEEEEEEEEENDERS FTW.

but it tells you how good everything aside from the stat line has to be in order for the ship to be worth its price.

This is IMO the biggest thing people miss. Tells you a lot but doesn't tell the whole story. It does not take into account things like boost or barrel roll, it can not take into account individual skill, a knack for a given ship, or how tired me or the other guy is.

A bad player who builds a 100% effective list per Mathwing but is bad at the game is still not going to win Worlds.

I give MJ a lot of credit for the work he's done on it, and his predictions have proven true far too many time to be discounted. But not even he claims that mathwing is the end of the story.

What I enjoy about this game is when meta shifts, such as right now. The 2 ship meta is being greatly reduced right now. TLT's are the list everyone is building against. Those that are able to look into the bin of ships that have been discarded by the meta will find good ships that can find new places in the new meta. One example is Laetin or Graz the Hunter vs. TLT lists. They were quickly dismissed, but can be used in the new meta and be effective.

I also respect people like Bio who have used ships like his double defender list and done very well with them. I've used Xizor to great effect in the old meta and others have done better than I have at regionals. People buck the trend of the meta to fly ships that work for them.

but it tells you how good everything aside from the stat line has to be in order for the ship to be worth its price.

This is IMO the biggest thing people miss. Tells you a lot but doesn't tell the whole story. It does not take into account things like boost or barrel roll, it can not take into account individual skill, a knack for a given ship, or how tired me or the other guy is.A bad player who builds a 100% effective list per Mathwing but is bad at the game is still not going to win Worlds.I give MJ a lot of credit for the work he's done on it, and his predictions have proven true far too many time to be discounted. But not even he claims that mathwing is the end of the story.

I will admit mathwing is not currently able to account for everything, but the baseline values it provides are a telling perspective. I have been flying "Blue Ace" lately and have been able to pull off some interesting things. But I have had to point squeeze efficiency out of the rest of my list to remain competitive.

I think one of the hard things about "mathwing" is that people feel like it's telling them not to fly something, this is not the case. It, as others previously stated, simply gives an understanding of the ships statline, with included variables to account for it's dial and action bar; and compares that with it's point cost. We have enough data across the numerous ships to give values to most tangibles as we seem to dub them. Skill and luck do come into play as well, even planning ahead is important. Good players have plans of attack for facing off against different lists. But the other data is telling too. The data of the competitive highly skilled players choosing the efficient options. RAC-Fel, Fat Han, bbbbz are all points efficient. If efficiency was everything we would see more bbbbz, tie swarm, and z-swarm wins, very efficient. But if it was nothing we would see more knaves and deltas.

Efficiency is "something" in the game which makes it worth talking about. It's not the only thing to discuss but it does make interesting predictions. Really allot of those predictions that turn out true would still occur without "mathwing" because it simply gives perspective to certain underlying truths. X-wings didn't lose favor because mathwing said so, they lost favor because of under performance in relation to similarly costed units. Mathwing helped us put words to some reasons why.

I started this thread with the purpose of discussing why new ships continue to be priced higher than the games general power curve. Not to proclaim mathwing is king of all.

Actually, Fat Han by the numbers is one of the most inefficient ships in the game. It wins because it is very, very, very good at all the "other things", like controlling range. Just saying.

Actually, Fat Han by the numbers is one of the most inefficient ships in the game. It wins because it is very, very, very good at all the "other things", like controlling range. Just saying.

I was thinking his point sink status make the r2 and 3po cards more efficient? Plus the z's are efficient, boost becomes efficient on the large base high pilot skill ship, and he has great action economy.

There is more to the story, but you've constantly got people looking for a single truth that they can throw at others and say, "No, THIS is right!".

No, you have people with a bizarre hatred of mathematics and an incessant need to believe in magic and the power of the unseen.

These people see numbers, numbers that are explained quite clearly and verifiable by all, and inexplicably refuse to believe what they are seeing. They then allege that the numbers are actually a misguided trick meant to represent an all-encompassing scalar value for all ships in the game where higher-order ships necessarily defeat lower-order ships in any and all circumstances.

It's maddening to read over and over again.

In fairness, there have been many who did the exact opposite and assumed every ship was exactly as good or bad as their efficiency according to Mathwing. MJ has often tried to remind people that there's additional factors to consider, but some people only check in long enough to see that something rated 2% worse and dismiss that ship as underpowered.

So basically instead of being excessively skeptical of the math they put too much trust in it, and then wonder why they were losing to Defenders and other ships that have deceptively poor values.

I'm not thinking of any particular person here. I'm really not, I don't pay much attention to who's saying what in any given thread.

Actually, Fat Han by the numbers is one of the most inefficient ships in the game. It wins because it is very, very, very good at all the "other things", like controlling range. Just saying.

Naked Han is still really good for a turret though (numbers not updated in my thread), so you have a very solid base to build off of. And C-3P0 is undercosted by a few points, so that helps efficiency even further. Engine, yeah, got to pay for that though!

Fat Han also had the great non-jousting benefit of being a points fortress (he was very difficult to get points out of). That's gone, but he's still a "firepower fortress" in that his firepower is not degraded as he takes damage. It starts low for 60 points, but if 60 points of small ships start taking damage, they start losing offensive ability. Han pretty much has 100% punchiness until he blows up. I think MJ has taken that into account in his model, but I guess I don't know for sure.

Actually, Fat Han by the numbers is one of the most inefficient ships in the game. It wins because it is very, very, very good at all the "other things", like controlling range. Just saying.

Naked Han is still really good for a turret though (numbers not updated in my thread), so you have a very solid base to build off of. And C-3P0 is undercosted by a few points, so that helps efficiency even further. Engine, yeah, got to pay for that though!

The defensive upgrades are for the other turrets and the arcs you can't dodge. There's a reason the action independent ones tend to be chosen for that reason.

Looking at many of the last posts even as good as the math is there is more than the math may show. A deficiency can be over come by a build with squad mates or the right upgrade. An efficient ship can be made more efficient with the right upgrade or boost from a squad mate. For me at least it isn't the 2% difference in efficiency, it the constant call for fixes on ships that may be only marginally inefficient which may be awesome in other builds or game types.

Looking at many of the last posts even as good as the math is there is more than the math may show. A deficiency can be over come by a build with squad mates or the right upgrade. An efficient ship can be made more efficient with the right upgrade or boost from a squad mate. For me at least it isn't the 2% difference in efficiency, it the constant call for fixes on ships that may be only marginally inefficient which may be awesome in other builds or game types.

The constant calls for fixes aren't really driven by mathwing, though. According to me, the only current small ships left that have stat lines egregiously out of line with their cost are the TIE Defender and the E-wing. The TIE Punisher isn't very efficient at all, but it's not typically relying on its primary attack for damage. The generic StarViper is only about as far off as the X-wing was, but it needs more of a nudge than a TIE-Advanced-style patch.

If you extend that to Large ships, the Firespray could potentially use some help, as well.

I think the broader problem is that the pilot skill element of the game isn't working very well, and that makes several upgrades and even actions hard to price accurately. But that's not something that FFG can easily fix (nor do I have any hint that they would even want to do so).

Looking at many of the last posts even as good as the math is there is more than the math may show. A deficiency can be over come by a build with squad mates or the right upgrade. An efficient ship can be made more efficient with the right upgrade or boost from a squad mate. For me at least it isn't the 2% difference in efficiency, it the constant call for fixes on ships that may be only marginally inefficient which may be awesome in other builds or game types.

The constant calls for fixes aren't really driven by mathwing, though. According to me, the only current small ships left that have stat lines egregiously out of line with their cost are the TIE Defender and the E-wing. The TIE Punisher isn't very efficient at all, but it's not typically relying on its primary attack for damage. The generic StarViper is only about as far off as the X-wing was, but it needs more of a nudge than a TIE-Advanced-style patch.

If you extend that to Large ships, the Firespray could potentially use some help, as well.

I think the broader problem is that the pilot skill element of the game isn't working very well, and that makes several upgrades and even actions hard to price accurately. But that's not something that FFG can easily fix (nor do I have any hint that they would even want to do so).

Also that helped (you and some fine other folks) in the other thread narrowing down the ships that already had fixes and what they should be. Including the TIE Defender and E-Wing we're probably less than a dozen ships. So it's good to hear that only a few remain.

Nothing is perfect especially attributing hard values to upgrades and combination that are optional. I do hope that we're not falling into a reductionist mind set and berate Fantasy Flight. I like the idea of a Punisher being more that the sum of it's stat line and hope to see ships that fill roles. Heck I'd even buy a freighter miniature from Fantasy Flight what wasn't even armed, or a boarding ships if it came with a halfway decent mission. As I see it and I may be wrong a few percentage points one way or the other shouldn't really matter.

I do find it funny, though, that dual Tie Defender has done well in the hands of a few individuals.

I do find it funny, though, that dual Tie Defender has done well in the hands of a few individuals.

Too small of a sample size to be statistically significant.

I do find it funny, though, that dual Tie Defender has done well in the hands of a few individuals.

Too small of a sample size to be statistically significant.

Considering the sample size of all major tournaments since the Defender was released, it looks like the sample size is large enough to pretty definitively call this an outlier.

Yes, but I sometimes have to wonder if people don't take Tie Defenders due to their reputation and not enough people have given them a chance. That's the frustrating part that I wonder about. I get the numbers, but I like to look past them for reasons. I guess that's why I was a liberal arts major.

Yes, but I sometimes have to wonder if people don't take Tie Defenders due to their reputation and not enough people have given them a chance. That's the frustrating part that I wonder about. I get the numbers, but I like to look past them for reasons. I guess that's why I was a liberal arts major.

I don't like ascribing the meta to "groupthink" because there are pretty good reasons for the meta to be what it is. I run a non-meta list, such as that is, but I still think the meta-ships are chosen and not chosen for some pretty good reasons.

This strikes me as an accusation without much substance. A more interesting post, to me, would be something talking about what makes the Defender good over other options. We could have a real debate and opinions on the matter.

I do find it funny, though, that dual Tie Defender has done well in the hands of a few individuals.

Too small of a sample size to be statistically significant.

Considering the sample size of all major tournaments since the Defender was released, it looks like the sample size is large enough to pretty definitively call this an outlier.

To add: the named TIE Defender pilots are considerably better off (especially Vessery) than the generics. And you don't even see generic Defenders in outlier results.

A more interesting post, to me, would be something talking about what makes the Defender good over other options. We could have a real debate and opinions on the matter.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/182240-a-few-thoughts-on-why-i-think-tie-defenders-are-good-ships/

I think the broader problem is that the pilot skill element of the game isn't working very well, and that makes several upgrades and even actions hard to price accurately. But that's not something that FFG can easily fix (nor do I have any hint that they would even want to do so).

I just want to add that I agree, especially from a costing perspective. You don't always get what you pay for in terms of PS, especially in the middle ranges where PS can be just as easily valuable as wasted points, so ships (especially uniques) in those ranges are almost exclusively being purchased for their abilities.

I also think that we've run into problems where they seem to have a certain range they like for costing the ships between the lowest and highest PS (usually PS difference +1pt for the ability) For example, Corran Horn seems pretty well costed, but his cost seems to have raised the price of the other EWings to maintain that same formula. For them to avoid fixes I think they need to move on from PS=1 pt formula they've been using, but it's probably too late for that.

I do find it funny, though, that dual Tie Defender has done well in the hands of a few individuals.

Too small of a sample size to be statistically significant.

Considering the sample size of all major tournaments since the Defender was released, it looks like the sample size is large enough to pretty definitively call this an outlier.

To add: the named TIE Defender pilots are considerably better off (especially Vessery) than the generics. And you don't even see generic Defenders in outlier results.

I agree with this assessment, but I'm curious how your jousting formulas predict this. PS is prorated to 0, if I understand things correctly, and so the only difference is Pilot Ability and access to EPT. Vessery has a very dramatic ability that I understand it being able to shift his overall jousting efficiency to middle-tier levels, but how is EPT access to enough to make Rexler Brath "considerably better off". His ability is crazy when it goes off, but can't really be relied upon.

My own assessment of the overall strength of the Defenders (not based on mathematical models) is that higher PS helps them a lot because they typically have some pretty great offense, and high PS helps turn that offense into defense by killing stuff before it shoots. The occasional Barrel Roll to dodge arcs is nice too, but they're no Interceptor, but as I said before, my understanding was that PS wasn't really factored into jousting values.

I derate the cost according to how high of a PS the ship is, and count an EPT slot as +1PS. The PS derating isn't perfect, because positional ships/pilots benefit more from higher PS than, say, a named Lambda Shuttle, but in general it works significantly better than FFG fixed cost approach. The basic idea is that the PS bid should cost a percentage of your total squad cost, and not be a fixed +1PS for +1 cost. FFG's approach overcosts the PS bid for many low/mid range pilots, and drastically undercosts it for expensive ships.

The scale follows the same as the PS1/3 TIE Fighter or PS2/4 Z-95 progression, which empirically seems to be a fair cost. (1/12th more cost for +2PS).

Rexler's ability isn't directly computed but rather given a placeholder value of 0.5 points (as low as I go for named pilot abilities), which currently does factor into the jousting value. (at least until I update the thread again) In Rexler's case, his equivalent PS1 cost without including his pilot ability is therefore: 37 / (1 + 8/24) = 27.75, which is actually less than the Delta's 30 points.

I also work out the absolute required efficiency to break even with a bunch of PS1 TIEs, which doesn't care about PS, EPT slots, or named abilities (unless it directly affects stat line efficiency like in Vessery's case). That number is probably the most informative and realistic one for determining comparative on-table performance. The jousting number is easier to understand, so it gets tossed around more. Next update will include some nice scatterplot graphs for both, to hopefully make it easier to comprehend and digest.