How is math wing 3.0 this big almighty thing that would completely bring balance to the game? You've already much gotten your answer that ffg isn't going to hire you so why talk and tease about your findings and spreadsheets if they're too powerful to be public information?

He pretty much said as much already in this thread why he won't be publishing it; He's not going to do the work for them for free, as releasing it publicly means FFG has just as much access to it as we do, which is perfectly reasonable.

He can talk about results the tool gives after FFG spoils things, but the value is in the tool itself at the design step. FFG does have its own internal metrics for what things are supposed to cost(as per Jay Little, original lead designer himself speaking at a panel at DragonCon last year), one that they've almost certainly updated and tweaked over time. Not to knock on the guys at FFG, as X-wing is for the most part pretty well balanced, their internal model has clearly made some misteps over the years(Defenders, non-Corran Es, Phantoms, the syck, etc.), but over most of that same period MJ's homebrew model has basically always predicted what community play has borne out from spoiled information. Having that tool to plug stats and the like into at the design step would still not necessarily be a guarantee of 'perfection', because it's still people making both the game and the model, but it could help to avoid having to do things like Title fixes and the like in the future, allowing more immediate, clear feedback before sending things for playtesting which won't be able to suss out the kinds of issues that having the ships in the hands of the community at large will more quickly make apparent, which in turn saves on development time and potentially allows more product to get made.

tl;dr having a more accurate tool for determining stats, dials, etc during the development process leads to potentially faster development of a more balanced game that requires less 'fixing' later...though whether that's necessarily desirable for a business model like the one employed for X-wing(MJ sort of touch on that idea earlier in this thread too...) is a cynical argument for another time.

That said, even though I understand why, and I greatly appreciate MJ's contributions to the community, including 2.0, it does get a bit tiring to see his name for the last year or so and be able to guess the post will contain some variation of "mathwing 3.0 predicts such and such, but I won't be publishing it to demonstrate what I mean." Don't get me wrong, like I said I understand the reasoning completely, I'll gladly take his word for it as he clearly knows what he's talking about. It's just a bit of a tease sometimes that this tool is out there that we keep hearing about which is basically a black box: input goes in, a prediction comes out and so far every prediction it's made has been right, but that doesn't mean we don't necessarily want to see the inside.

I'll continue to take the black box though over nothing though, for sure.

I think one of the unintended consequences of TLT is that it makes 2-agility a very undesirable place to be. I've had games against TLT lists with Boba and other 2-agility ships like all X-wing lists where I might as well have not had green dice. Which is a problem because those ships are costed such that they are assumed to get some use out of them. TLT would have been much better at two dice attacking twice for say, three points.

Even 3 agility ships that aren't Soontir or don't have ATs will fall to them fairly regularly. Especially those **** scum ones with R4. They are annoyingly accurate.

Anonymous online reports peg developers at FFG in the low to mid $30,000s. A Ph.D. can reasonably expect to be employed at somewhere between half again and four times as much, depending on the field and whether you want to work for a university or private industry.

Granted: I have only ever lived in cities which routinely rank as "most expensive in the world to live in", but low to mid US$30,000 is what you make when you're a senior in college and need a paying internship. That's... that's not a real salary.

I don't know about the Twin Cities, but in general, the Midwest is a very cheap place to live. I know as a grad student I made significantly less than that as a stipend, and was able to live pretty decently (caveats that I was single with no kids), while my cohorts on the coasts with similar incomes were were practically vagrants.

While that is true when comparing cost of living, the average salary in the TC area is around $50,000. 30k a year would be well below most professional careers that require a four year degree. Even a starting teacher salary is higher. That said, I do wonder how recent the info is and if salaries have gone up with the growth of the company, especially its most popular game.

Somebody please help a poor dumb noob out here. I've only played a few games, and one of the ships I've flown is a K-wing with a TLT. I'm not understanding how something that can only do 1, maybe 2 damage per turn can be considered by some to be borderline too powerful for the game. With the K-wing's single evade die, an Academy pilot can put that same number of hits on it every turn. I understand that the TLT gets 6 dice to get that 2 damage, but I don't understand how that makes it so much better than some of the Imperial aces that it should be outlawed?

It isn't. It doesn't. You are correct.

Stripping tokens is its main advantage, but that only looks as powerful as it is because people are addicted to the 3 ship list. If you run a 4 or 5 ship list, and then concentrate on a single ship, it has defensive tokens against only a small percentage of your shots regardless. If you run a 2 ship list, and both fire at the same target, it has defensive tokens against half of your shots at most. BBBBZ all firing at a single TLT Gold will kill it, almost every time, where the return fire from the 4 TLTs is unlikely to drop a B.

IMO people want to run high cost, powerful multi-action aces and that is exactly what TLTs are best against. So they perceive the TLT as overpowered. It's like having someone who always plays rock insist that paper is OP.

If you have a 4+ ship list, stay in tight formation and drive straight at TLTs one at a time you will win, consistently. If you have a 2 or 3 ship list and you have built for multi-shot defenses (Autothrusters, Sensor Jammer, Lone Wolf) you will win consistently. If you do none of those things, if you build a list that is less efficient than 4 x TLTs then refuse to maneuver in a way that maximizes maneuver (or whatever other advantage you paid your points for in lieu of efficiency) you will lose. Unlike PWTs of old that had PS 9 AND boost AND the extra movement of a large base, TLT carriers cannot effectively control range or isolate portions of your list.

IIRC at one point the K-Wing was pretty widely considered to be marginal at best, and flat inferior to Y-Wings as TLT carriers. The reason they are effective is not contained in math-wing, but in the rest of the much less quantifiable parts of the game such as upgrade variety, lack of a R1 vulnerability, and SLAM. This is the reason I value MJ's work so much without also considering it in any way definitive as a whole. It is a very accurate calculation of efficiency, a critical component of the game but not the only one.

Edit: Most often I see people saying they want to nerf TLT in order to limit it to only one or two per list, and yet that is exactly what actually is happening. 4 x TLT is not a good list, it is at best an adequate list with a low skill floor. It isn't winning, certainly not in any numbers, and it is losing to a very wide variety of lists not just one magic-bullet hard counter (like Phantoms used to lose to Fat Han).

Instead of nerfing the TLT directly, limit the ships that can equip it:

"PS4+ only" or something - I don't want to see the TLT itself nerfed when it can be used awesomely in pairs or with only a single ship having it: Drea, with R4-B11 makes the TLT quite the terror.

Not sure how they're going to errata TLT. It does one thing and one thing only and there's no way of changing it without effectively ruining it.

Errata is not mainly for nerfing/buffing cards as much as it is to fix wording so the card will function as intended. With the Gunner and Luke<crew> errata that was to give the option of not using those upgrades when the trigger conditions were met. For the Daredevil errata that allowed you to do the maneuver even when stressed.

In order to buff/nerf cards via pen and ink change you have to change the rule book which has far reaching implications. Examples of these would be the autoblaster buff and the large ship MOV nerf.

IMO people want to run a single, powerful multi-action ace and that is exactly what TLTs are best against.

So TLTs are good against:

all no agility ships and one agility ships

fat turrets

two agility ships that don't have AT

three agility ships without AT

Phantoms without SJ

Does that look like only a third of everything to you? The only viable counter in your eyes is swarms, and you call it balanced?

TLT carriers cannot effectively control range.

Because if they could, they would be Phantom-tier level broken. Even then K-wings can do it pretty well with SLAM. The only saving grace of TLT is that the ships that can take it are fairly stiff in their maneuvering, though Scum Y-wings have green three turns which no one else does.

The only saving grace of TLT is that the ships that can take it are fairly stiff in their maneuvering, though Scum Y-wings have green three turns which no one else does.

That's about to change. Both of the Wave 8 ships that can take it have nice dials.

The only saving grace of TLT is that the ships that can take it are fairly stiff in their maneuvering, though Scum Y-wings have green three turns which no one else does.

That's about to change. Both of the Wave 8 ships that can take it have nice dials.

What are the wave 8 ships that can take it?

The only saving grace of TLT is that the ships that can take it are fairly stiff in their maneuvering, though Scum Y-wings have green three turns which no one else does.

That's about to change. Both of the Wave 8 ships that can take it have nice dials.

What are the wave 8 ships that can take it?

VCX and attack shuttle.

The only saving grace of TLT is that the ships that can take it are fairly stiff in their maneuvering, though Scum Y-wings have green three turns which no one else does.

That's about to change. Both of the Wave 8 ships that can take it have nice dials.

What are the wave 8 ships that can take it?

VCX and attack shuttle.

I keep forgetting VCX can take TLT because I am completely consumed by large bases Autoblaster Turret and 4 dice primary attacks.

VCX with TLT will be rare due to the anti-synergy with the title and title-less VCX's will most likely be chopper+abt.

The attack shuttle w/ TLT is decent tho, but not spammable and I wouldn't say Zeb+tlt is any better or worse than a ywing.

I think main problem with TLTs is that they are just very very different than every other popular ship that is being run. It is difficult to bring a list that is good vs TLTs and aces (imp aces, rebel aces, brobots etc). BBBBZ is great vs TLT but is much weaker vs aces which are more numerous than tlt.

So, I think it really is just a meta thing. I really think that the upsurge in ordnance lists, particularly 3 torpedo scouts will be bad for TLTs.

And if TLTs still continue to be meta defining, then we could very well see and upgrade that does something along the lines of "While defending against an attack, if the attacker has previously performed an attack this round, add an evade to the defense results".

The only saving grace of TLT is that the ships that can take it are fairly stiff in their maneuvering, though Scum Y-wings have green three turns which no one else does.

That's about to change. Both of the Wave 8 ships that can take it have nice dials.

What are the wave 8 ships that can take it?

VCX and attack shuttle.

I keep forgetting VCX can take TLT because I am completely consumed by large bases Autoblaster Turret and 4 dice primary attacks.

I'm all about the autoblaster on the ghost, but I did play a game against someone who used TLT with ezra and hera crew and fcs. Made for a really accurate gun with either TLT or his primary with FCS letting him reroll and ezra letting him change a focus to a crit. That in combination with hera crew let him just completely ignore stress and do whatever maneuvers he wanted because who cares about actions if you have mini-focus and TL for attacks and no agility dice?

The Alpha Strike meta is going to drive quad-TLTs into extinction. (To the extent they aren't already. We have had one SC won by quad-TLTs here, but I dunno how many players. For the most part in the Bay Area meta, multiple TLTs have just been beaten into submission.)

Unfortunately, I'm personally fearful that the Alpha Strike meta is going to drive lots of other stuff into extinction, too.

It is all Horton's fault. If it wasn't his ability I don't think TLT would have been designed as it was. Had TLT been range 1-2 (same cost) we likely wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

It wouldn't have pushed the stresshog to it's current lofty heights, it wouldn't (obviously) have it's terribly efficient attacks at range 3, it wouldn't have marginalised all the other turret options, but it would have allowed people to play around the range better. The option between a Y-wing with title and one with out would have been a much more interesting choice. It also feels pretty strange most of the time rapid fire weapons sacrifice range for rate of fire. For the TLT it somewhat counter intuitively does the opposite.

The irony is that the synergy between Horton's ability and TLT being range 2-3 doesn't make us see him on the table any more frequently.

I'm not suggesting a a change, it is too late for that, but I do believe a range 1-2 TLT would have still been "good" and much more tolerable.

TLT's are not overpowered. I don't know why people have such issues fighting them. Maybe its my play style or lists but as soon as i see more then 1 TLT on the other side of the board i know i have a win. More then 1 ship with TLT is way to many points into ships that go down like a sack of hammers in the ocean.

I guess i just cant see what all the hoopla is about a card thats worst case scenario is to deal 2 damage.

Want to demoralize a TLT player? show up with sensor jammier auto thrusters guri and leatin. Or comm relay,juke Tie/fo's shuts them down so hard.

All that being said, at least from reading the forums i am in the minority thinking that TLT's are not very good.

It saddens me that the TLT is superior to any weapon one can mount onto a Huge ship.

It saddens me that the TLT is superior to any weapon one can mount onto a Huge ship.

I know. Those Range 5 attacks with TLT are just brutal.

Not sure how they're going to errata TLT. It does one thing and one thing only and there's no way of changing it without effectively ruining it.

I can only think of rewording the title to the limitations set by the Defender title and add a max cost to the turret you may use, thereby nerfing the stresshog by reducing its range band.

He's **** right to be hyperbolic, he's the three time World Champion.

He's not the type of guy that would say some optimism boner garbage like, "Swarms vs. a [Pre-nerf] Phantom aren't an autoloss, you just have to play better!".

He's going to just see what is best and play it.

And Advanced Sensors kind of is the best B-Wing upgrade. At least at that time in the game's history. Not sure if FCS was around in Wave 3 or not. Quad FCS B-Wings might be a little better vs. aces.

I think the stress hog least of all needs a nerf. Every squad you'll face currently has 1 or 2 indestructible, hyper action economy Acewing ships in it and the stress hog is something that can actually deal with those. Please no.

The Grandmaster himself told that a stresshog would be an auto-include in his lists. We want to avoid auto-includes.

It would be better if the stressbot would be 'Once per round...' only.

I think he might have a tendency towards hyperbole, given that he also said he would never run a B-wing without Advanced Sensors.

IMO people want to run a single, powerful multi-action ace and that is exactly what TLTs are best against.

So TLTs are good against:

all no agility ships and one agility ships

fat turrets

two agility ships that don't have AT

three agility ships without AT

Phantoms without SJ

Does that look like only a third of everything to you? The only viable counter in your eyes is swarms, and you call it balanced?

It does. Unfortunately I disagree that they are particularly good against...

- No agility ships or one agility ships, all of whom are far more vulnerable to primary attacks causing crits. Decimators take approximately forever to drop with TLTs, and unlike primary attacks you don't get to degrade the thing in the meantime. We are talking 3 consecutive turns taking fire from all 4 TLTs to drop forever. That is NOT vulnerable. You are usually better off using the primary you came with and not bother with the 6 point upgrade you paid for.

- Two agility ships? You mean the T-65, or is there some other ship you are referring to? HWKs are only useful at all because TLTs work, and they are crit-vulnerable which means primaries are better when hitting them. The K-Fighter? 5 K-Fighters vs. 4 TLTs puts the advantage square in the hands of the player with K-fighters. One on one the K-Fighter also usually beats a TLT because it is fast enough to close and maneuverable enough to stay there.

- Three agility ships without AT. You mean TIEs? They are half the cost of a TLT Y-Wing, and at 2 to 1 odds the TIEs will absolutely tear through TLTs.

- Phantoms without SJ. I assume you are referring to Echo or Whisper, which would mean you are running that high point ace I was talking about AND refusing to take steps to mitigate the vulnerability. Again, if you insist on taking the ship type they are good at dealing with while simultaneously refusing to account for them you should expect things to go badly. If on the other hand you are talking about Sigmas, they deal far more damage for their 25 points than a TLT does for 24 and do so at a higher PS.

People feel bad because they compare apples and oranges. "My TIEs can't stand up to a TLT Gold". Well yeah, your TIE is half the cost. "T-65s can't compete with TLT Golds". Well yeah, T-65s can't really compete with anything right now (though they are better than they were) AND they are 3 points cheaper.

There is a reason 4 x TLT lists don't make the top tables in any significant numbers. They aren't very good. If I could bold that period a dozen times I would. TLT spam doesn't work, it isn't good, because TLTs are not OP. The 3K "Dangerzone" list I played at worlds worked because of Tactician, the damage output from that list was abysmal and ultimately that poor damage spike saw me eliminated when I couldn't out damage a regenerating Corran Horn. They are good enough to make the turret upgrade useful, good enough to see play on workhorse ships and as a counter to the most common archetype in the game (high PS aces). But they cannot carry your list. At all. They have too many significant disadvantages (the ships they can go on are not terribly maneuverable, they cannot crit, they have a R1 blindspot, they cost 6 points to replace your primary attack) to be that dominant.

Having said all that, the TLT Stresshog is easily the best bang for your buck in the game. That is a pretty obvious conclusion for anyone playing competitively at the moment. It is OP in the truest sense of the word, in that you get far more value for your points from that ship than any other ship in the game. I doubt it is even a close contest between it and the next best. That ship alone accounts for the great majority of the TLTs I see in play, and the irony is that it doesn't even use the TLT as a turret. Its power comes from the interaction between the three upgrades (BTL-A4, R3-A2, and TLT) and in a further bit of irony the "power" of the TLT (the TLT second shot) is completely immaterial to that interaction. The fact that the ship that "abuses the TLT" doesn't use it as a turret, doesn't care that it fires twice, and doesn't particularly care if it even hits the target tells me the TLT itself is not the heart of that interaction.

It saddens me that the TLT is superior to any weapon one can mount onto a Huge ship.

I know. Those Range 5 attacks with TLT are just brutal.

KO, you are dead sexy. I mean that with all seriousness.

The phantom deck oak was changed to be more inline with how it should have been, it's not a nerf, it's a change.

There is also a prevalence of Poe and Regen X-wings, perhaps these should be changed too?

TLDR, just because you said it wasn't complaining about TLT, doesn't change the fact that that it what it is.

Give it some time and see what else comes out in the next few waves.

How is math wing 3.0 this big almighty thing that would completely bring balance to the game? You've already much gotten your answer that ffg isn't going to hire you so why talk and tease about your findings and spreadsheets if they're too powerful to be public information?

He pretty much said as much already in this thread why he won't be publishing it; He's not going to do the work for them for free, as releasing it publicly means FFG has just as much access to it as we do, which is perfectly reasonable.

He can talk about results the tool gives after FFG spoils things, but the value is in the tool itself at the design step. FFG does have its own internal metrics for what things are supposed to cost(as per Jay Little, original lead designer himself speaking at a panel at DragonCon last year), one that they've almost certainly updated and tweaked over time. Not to knock on the guys at FFG, as X-wing is for the most part pretty well balanced, their internal model has clearly made some misteps over the years(Defenders, non-Corran Es, Phantoms, the syck, etc.), but over most of that same period MJ's homebrew model has basically always predicted what community play has borne out from spoiled information. Having that tool to plug stats and the like into at the design step would still not necessarily be a guarantee of 'perfection', because it's still people making both the game and the model, but it could help to avoid having to do things like Title fixes and the like in the future, allowing more immediate, clear feedback before sending things for playtesting which won't be able to suss out the kinds of issues that having the ships in the hands of the community at large will more quickly make apparent, which in turn saves on development time and potentially allows more product to get made.

tl;dr having a more accurate tool for determining stats, dials, etc during the development process leads to potentially faster development of a more balanced game that requires less 'fixing' later...though whether that's necessarily desirable for a business model like the one employed for X-wing(MJ sort of touch on that idea earlier in this thread too...) is a cynical argument for another time.

That said, even though I understand why, and I greatly appreciate MJ's contributions to the community, including 2.0, it does get a bit tiring to see his name for the last year or so and be able to guess the post will contain some variation of "mathwing 3.0 predicts such and such, but I won't be publishing it to demonstrate what I mean." Don't get me wrong, like I said I understand the reasoning completely, I'll gladly take his word for it as he clearly knows what he's talking about. It's just a bit of a tease sometimes that this tool is out there that we keep hearing about which is basically a black box: input goes in, a prediction comes out and so far every prediction it's made has been right, but that doesn't mean we don't necessarily want to see the inside.

I'll continue to take the black box though over nothing though, for sure.

What all has it predicted exactly? If you follow the game and tournament scene it is not at all hard to predict the trends in this game. You don't need a bunch of formulas for that. Also I challenge how powerful and accurate it really is. Honestly MJ comes across as a very whiny player and I just don't see the point to all of the math wing and jousting values and all that. It's not at all going to help you win games.

To be fair, MajorJuggler's views are only one view of game design. And given his background, it is not surprising he takes a much more mathematical approach.

It essentially boils down to eurogames vs ameritrash.