I wonder how great the impact on initiative bidding would be if initiative was determined randomly every turn and having the lowest cost list only slightly improved your chances of winning the roll-off.

(eg. Both roll 1 red die;

Crit beats Hit, Hit beats Eye, Eye beats Blank;

Best symbol has initiative;

If both roll same symbol, lower cost list has initiative, if equal cost re-roll...

... now of course, that means it's difficult for a player that doesn't want initiative to bid towards that goal - can't spend more than 100, only less - so if 'winning' the roll could give you the choice take or surrender initiative it would increase the utility of having a bid, thus will continue to encourage a bidding war.

However, under a scheme such as this, having a superior bid does not guarantee you get your initiative choice for the whole game, merely almost doubles your chances of getting to choose any given round.*)

Would "improving the likelihood" rather than "guarantee you choose" be valued as highly?

- - -

* =

With equal cost lists, each player has a 36% chance of winning the roll, leaving an 18% chance of a draw. With a bid, that player has 64% chance to win vs opponent's 36% (a ratio of 1.8:1)

I wonder how great the impact on initiative bidding would be if initiative was determined randomly every turn and having the lowest cost list only slightly improved your chances of winning the roll-off.

(eg. Both roll 1 red die;

Crit beats Hit, Hit beats Eye, Eye beats Blank;

Best symbol has initiative;

If both roll same symbol, lower cost list has initiative, if equal cost re-roll...

... now of course, that means it's difficult for a player that doesn't want initiative to bid towards that goal - can't spend more than 100, only less - so if 'winning' the roll could give you the choice take or surrender initiative it would increase the utility of having a bid, thus will continue to encourage a bidding war.

However, under a scheme such as this, having a superior bid does not guarantee you get your initiative choice for the whole game, merely almost doubles your chances of getting to choose any given round.*)

- - -

* =

With equal cost lists, each player has a 36% chance of winning the roll, leaving an 18% chance of a draw. With a bid, that player has 64% chance to win vs opponent's 36%.

Given how much some builds (arc dodgers and U-boats) depend on initiative, thus idea would make the outcome of some games depend way more on luck than they do currently. What's the upside of that?

it's but an indication of arcdodge and PS Race being too strong.

What's the upside of that?

The measure of a tactician is how they adapt to a fluid situation...

... not if they're fortunate enough to have skimped 1pt extra off their list than their opponent.

True, another measure is achieving more with less resources, but I don't feel that the 1pt margin you sacrifice for getting to have your choice apply to the whole game is fair indication.

(I know some sacrifice more than 1pt to ensure they win the bid, but on almost identical lists, a 1pt margin is all you need)

.

Someone else mentioned this the other day in that the classic 8 Academy TIES came in at 97 points and had a strong chance against everything due weight of fire power and being 97 is a clear indicator that they are unbalanced as they can take on lists that are 100 points.

However, this was disproved when a 94 point list:

Gamma Vet w/Ruthlessness, Assault Missiles, Guidance Chips

Gamma Vet w/Ruthlessness, Assault Missiles, Guidance Chips

Jonus with title, System and Fleet Officer

Academy Pilot

Wiped them out in a single engagement. Academy blocked four of them, they then lost five ships out of eight in the first exchange of fire. Academy spun round, everyone kinda bumped and then took out another one. Game conceded. (Vassal)

However that 94 point list then went on to beat a 97 point triple jump list but lost to everything else (Aces, Phantom + Mini Swarm, Triple Defenders, 4 ship Rebel with Biggs, double Lothel Rebels, Dash and Jan Ors. . )

Just because you have points left over, doesn't mean you gain an advantage. You still roll dice like everyone else, it mainly influences who moves first, which can be a huge factor.

If you're looking at a homogeneous squadron then you'll always have an initiative bid. Three ships at 33 each is only 99 points.

Usually - but not always. 4 25 pt ships, or 5 20 pt ships, or 2 50 pt Large ships, can be homogenous yet not have a bid.

Someone else mentioned this the other day in that the classic 8 Academy TIES came in at 97 points and had a strong chance against everything due weight of fire power and being 97 is a clear indicator that they are unbalanced as they can take on lists that are 100 points.

However, this was disproved when a 94 point list:

Gamma Vet w/Ruthlessness, Assault Missiles, Guidance Chips

Gamma Vet w/Ruthlessness, Assault Missiles, Guidance Chips

Jonus with title, System and Fleet Officer

Academy Pilot

Wiped them out in a single engagement. Academy blocked four of them, they then lost five ships out of eight in the first exchange of fire. Academy spun round, everyone kinda bumped and then took out another one. Game conceded. (Vassal)

However that 94 point list then went on to beat a 97 point triple jump list but lost to everything else (Aces, Phantom + Mini Swarm, Triple Defenders, 4 ship Rebel with Biggs, double Lothel Rebels, Dash and Jan Ors. . )

Just because you have points left over, doesn't mean you gain an advantage. You still roll dice like everyone else, it mainly influences who moves first, which can be a huge factor.

The OP starts with specific examples from the 4th line and tries to put those examples as a pattern somehow. If one tries to form a pattern with specifics, i can refute it so.

Also one shouldn't just get away with saying this "may be an indicator". One can't just take one of the meta defining lists, see some players are playing with a bigger initiative bid and apply that thinking to the whole meta.

We had 4+ years of x-wing and we can see that once a list goes down too many points, it will be weaker. That's almost by definition true.

evidence.

That is the point. "Once a list goes down too many points, it will be weaker". If it goes down many points and is weaker, yet still beats the field, isn't that an indication that it was too strong for its points to begin with?

But trying to use just this as trying to point out lists as undercosted is wrong without trying to remove other variables.

You sir/ma'm haven't shown us any "proof" for your hypothesis except for anectodal evidence.

I'll try to remember to gather some more before I seek to publish in Nature. For the record, a hypothesis requires no proof. Even anecdotal evidence, weak as it is, is more than is required.

That is the point. "Once a list goes down too many points, it will be weaker". If it goes down many points and is weaker, yet still beats the field, isn't that an indication that it was too strong for its points to begin with?

The problem lies within defining 'many points' IMO. There are several ships/lists where a few points one way or the other bring no significant gain/loss in effectiveness. These ships can bid without worry not because they are too strong, but because they don't lose much. U-boats are an example of this. I honestly don't think a 32 points U-Boat with overclocked and plasma is universally weaker than a 34 points U-Boat with agromech and proton.

....

If you're looking at a homogeneous squadron then you'll always have an initiative bid. Three ships at 33 each is only 99 points.

Usually - but not always. 4 25 pt ships, or 5 20 pt ships, or 2 50 pt Large ships, can be homogenous yet not have a bid.

This is true although you also don't often see those squadrons taking initiative bids as they would give up too much to stay homogenous.

What does "ship imbalances" mean? I doubt I'll be eloquent here, but I hope you can follow along.

My point is that synergy is something we have to keep in mind. Synergy, as I'm using it, means that you get more out of a combination of ships/upgrades than you would expect if you just looked at each part in isolation. How do you balance that when it comes to points?

Let's say we've got ships A and B and upgrades Y and Z. Maybe if you put Y on A and Z on B, both ships get better. But what if Z on A is light years better than Y on B or Z on either of the other two ships. How do you cost that? If you cost it such that Z on A is fairly expensive, you've pretty much designed players into a corner where you only take ship A if it has upgrade Z, but you never take upgrade Z on anything except A. If you cost it such that Z is viable on other ships, the meta gets swamped with AZ anyway since it's such a steal for the points you're paying.

These complex interactions make costing things very difficult. So when we see low initiative bids, is that an indicator of a ship or upgrade being undercosted? Or are we seeing the effects of synergistic interactions?