Hei all!

I just wanted to suggest that, whenever you want to post a question, you quote the (pilot/upgrade card) text that is relevant.

It's indeed a bit annoying to expect the people helping you solve your issue to go around to the wiki and check each card on their own.

Also, in a vast majority of cases, posting the text of the cards that would cause your question would force you to read them again, and I'm ready to bet that a number of questions would then be avoided

Your friendly rule lawyer who doesn't know every card by heart yet.

Amen!

4 hours ago, NilsTillander said:

It's indeed a bit annoying to expect the people helping you solve your issue to go around to the wiki and check each card on their own.

Futzing this. And then getting indignant that we don't want to Google something for you is ridiculous (more of a problem I've seen on FB than the forums, though).

It certainly makes this so much easier although when they do it is also important that they actually get it right. I'm guessing I'm not alone but if someone actually "quotes" the card text I'm assuming they have that right when answering but if they actually have something wrong or incomplete that could completely change the answer. It's also helpful because card may be scattered so many different places so it isn't even easy to look stuff up.

This note reminds me of answering RPG questions about stuff which is so much easier when someone at least includes references on where to find what they are asking about. Asking about something that is lesser used can be a real pain when you know it is "somewhere" in a collection of a dozen books and while you may have an idea where you aren't always sure.

I would also ask that people stop using acronyms for cards the first time they are referenced. Yeah, most of us know a TLT is a Twin Laser Turret. But a newer play may not and this forum is mostly new players. There have been several times where I have to go searching through cards just to figure out WHAT card is even being referenced. It is most common when people are answering a question and using some other card as an example. "Yeah, if you look at how a XZK works you can see that when it triggers it doesn't allow you to use a BLVR. So if it doesn't work there, it shouldn't work with the card the OP is asking about."

The funny thing about asking people to include the text is I bet half of them would see the answer to their question as they are typing the question if the text were right in front of them. Happens to me all the time at work if I am sending out a chunk of code I have a question on.

47 minutes ago, StevenO said:

It's also helpful because card may be scattered so many different places so it isn't even easy to look stuff up.

There are some sites that make looking up cards easier. I frequently go to http://x-wing.fabpsb.net/extensions.php?lng=en and just ctrl+f the card name to get to it quickly.

That said, I do agree that it's a great idea for the player asking the question to put in the extra effort and get the card text themselves. It shows respect for the time and energy of the people providing the answers.

55 minutes ago, EdgeOfDreams said:

There are some sites that make looking up cards easier. I frequently go to http://x-wing.fabpsb.net/extensions.php?lng=en and just ctrl+f the card name to get to it quickly.

That said, I do agree that it's a great idea for the player asking the question to put in the extra effort and get the card text themselves. It shows respect for the time and energy of the people providing the answers.

Although they aren't official and maybe aren't always right I usually use a squadron builder's library. But like I said, those aren't alway 100% accurate. If I've got to type in a name to find something I'll just highly it and google it and hope the right thing shows up.

1 hour ago, xbeaker said:

I would also ask that people stop using acronyms for cards the first time they are referenced. ...

The funny thing about asking people to include the text is I bet half of them would see the answer to their question as they are typing the question if the text were right in front of them. Happens to me all the time at work if I am sending out a chunk of code I have a question on.

I guess this applies to the other side of things and I do agree to a large degree but here you go to part of the lingo. If someone uses an acronym that a person doesn't know I don't think anyone gets upset when asked what it stands for. Depending on your medium (or not) it's much faster/shorter/easier for someone to type "TLT" than it is to spell out "Twin Laser Turret."

Just now, StevenO said:

Although they aren't official and maybe aren't always right I usually use a squadron builder's library. But like I said, those aren't alway 100% accurate. If I've got to type in a name to find something I'll just highly it and google it and hope the right thing shows up.

Fab's ( http://x-wing.fabpsb.net/ ) and YASB ( https://geordanr.github.io/xwing/ ) have always been accurate in my experience, but I understand wanting a potentially more reliable source. I find that googling "x-wing wiki" plus the card name usually takes me straight to the x-wing wiki page for that card (and is faster than opening the wiki, then searching using the wiki's native search bar).

1 hour ago, StevenO said:

I guess this applies to the other side of things and I do agree to a large degree but here you go to part of the lingo. If someone uses an acronym that a person doesn't know I don't think anyone gets upset when asked what it stands for. Depending on your medium (or not) it's much faster/shorter/easier for someone to type "TLT" than it is to spell out "Twin Laser Turret."

Yes, typing 3 letters is shorter than 17. But is it really that much more effort? Especially when contrasting it to "Well if you don't understand, add another post asking and then I'll reply with another post telling you what that acronym meant." I'm not saying you have to spell everything out every time. But the first time a card is referenced in a post, spell the whole thing out. It makes it so much more readable, and it doesn't take THAT much more time. Certainly less time than a reader having to ask what you mean, or go look it up. The whole point of this post is having some courtesy in your posts by taking a little extra time to save the people reading them a lot of time figuring out what you mean.

Depending on what you're typing on I'll say YES, it is that much more effort.

Also, asking what something stands for doesn't always get the same person replying. One person stops by and offers up a quick answer before needing to go do something else. Unknown shorthand is used which poster asks about. Someone else stops by and can usually answer what that short hand stands for. What kills me is when people start bringing in outside lingo that really has nothing to do with a given topic; in DnD 3.5 forums the term DPS never made any sense to me until someone pointed out that it is from online games and stands for damage per second which I'm not sure was even relevant.

All that said I do agree that it is nice to use the full name of things at least once in a post. I guess a possible issue can come when someone who doesn't look like a newbie but is asks questions. After all post counts don't mean they were all, or even any, in the X-Wing forum.

The X-Wing Companion Card View, for those of you who use Chrome, is awesoooooome.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/x-wing-companion-card-vie/bilhapljfgefhhepedfaanikpailghbm/related?hl=en

On 7/14/2017 at 3:39 PM, StevenO said:

in DnD 3.5 forums the term DPS never made any sense to me until someone pointed out that it is from online games and stands for damage per second which I'm not sure was even relevant.

This is an example of a term out growing its words. While DPS is technically an acronym for damage per second, the term "dps" has evovled to mean average damage or expected results. This evolution makes the term relevant to any game with variable damage results. For example, when comparing 2d6 to 1d12 your dps is 7 for both but your consistency is better with 2d6. The same can be applied to x-wing when deciding whether to take a focus or a target lock. Both result in 3 dps on 4 dice, but the focus is more consistent.

2 minutes ago, Orcdruid said:

This is an example of a term out growing its words. While DPS is technically an acronym for damage per second, the term "dps" has evovled to mean average damage or expected results. This evolution makes the term relevant to any game with variable damage results. For example, when comparing 2d6 to 1d12 your dps is 7 for both but your consistency is better with 2d6. The same can be applied to x-wing when deciding whether to take a focus or a target lock. Both result in 3 dps on 4 dice, but the focus is more consistent.

Sorry to break it to you but 2d6 and 1d12 do NOT give you the same average.

12 hours ago, StevenO said:

Sorry to break it to you but 2d6 and 1d12 do NOT give you the same average.

+1 for accuracy, -1 for not showing your work.

(Expected damage on 1d12 is 6.5, not 7.)

2 hours ago, digitalbusker said:

+1 for accuracy, -1 for not showing your work.

(Expected damage on 1d12 is 6.5, not 7.)

Sounds like HS Algebra. Given 30+ problems with two minutes left in class before lunch. I take out piece of paper, read the question, write down the answer to get done before lunch. When it's graded the next day all are right and one else in the class is even at 90%.

Besides that it was late and I was tired. Of course 6.5 will often be rounded to 7 so they kinda are the same except that because we're actually talking about averages they really aren't. You can't roll something with a .5 but if you look over time that is what the average should give you.