On 12/22/2018 at 11:20 AM, Boom Owl said:

• Prox Mine Bombers, PA Nien, and Fanatical Scorch are solid
• Should Lulo have continued straight to try and control Kylos flanking? Was Lulos hard turn in QD/Scorchs direction correct?
• Should Kylo Have Followed closer to QD/Scorch for better shots on Nien?
• Was Nien to aggressive early? Mid Game Nien was able to get behind QD and clear stress after a Talon Roll for a double mod shot.

prox mine > Protons ?

12 minutes ago, Wiredin said:

prox mine > Protons ?

I dont know. Both?

1 auto damage + 2 rolls and persistence of mines is cool.

20 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

I dont know. Both?

1 auto damage + 2 rolls and persistence of mines is cool.

I really like the BSF/A/X archetype. but optimizing has been real interesting. I'm going to try prox mines.

59 minutes ago, Musical Xeno said:

Shoot me an email to Goldsquadronpodcast@gmail.com and We can work something out!

Sent

1 hour ago, Wiredin said:

prox mine > Protons ?

prox are a lot more effective if your goal is "don't land behind me, soontir" or whatever

Since Trajectory Simulator is good at beating bad players, I don't understand why anyone would make an MG-100 without it and Protons/Seismic (Probably both)

Am I wrong? I'm seeing a lot of FCS Veteran Turret Gunner MG's locally.

9 minutes ago, Alyx'sDog said:

Since Trajectory Simulator is good at beating bad players, I don't understand why anyone would make an MG-100 without it and Protons/Seismic (Probably both)

Am I wrong?

No - bring both.

MAYBE prox in some squads (edon).

9 minutes ago, Alyx'sDog said:

I'm seeing a lot of FCS Veteran Turret Gunner MG's locally.

No - this is super wrong.

On 12/22/2018 at 5:37 PM, pheaver said:

I call the sides of the board outside of where rocks can be placed "the gutters".

The best battle reports I can imagine would be logs or videos sped up through the boring stuff, and you stop at 3-4 key points in the game to say "here was a big decision round" or "here's where a big mistake was made."

Yes, 1000 times this.

Run the video 5x speed for maneuvers, pause for a second to overlay engagement engagement results (don't actually show dice rolls), skip planning, show any relevant system phase activity with single frame and damage result if applicable, repeat. ~30-45 seconds per round with brief discussion with extra discussion for especially interesting/important moves.

I would patreon the **** out of this if someone did it.

I come from a 40k background, so i’m used to make pic heavy batreps of my games. I’m just not a top tier player, and usually play funky lists, but I tried to do the same style batreps for X-Wing. You can see some here, any feedback is welcome (I just realised it’s been some time since I did one of them).

I just don’t think this kind of batreps are what people prefer seeing

2 hours ago, RoockieBoy said:

I come from a 40k background, so i’m used to make pic heavy batreps of my games. I’m just not a top tier player, and usually play funky lists, but I tried to do the same style batreps for X-Wing. You can see some here, any feedback is welcome (I just realised it’s been some time since I did one of them).

I just don’t think this kind of batreps are what people prefer seeing

Looks good to me, Id rather see this than a 75minute video.

The main issue though is that it's hard to visualize movements with just static images.

When I watch games with bad or no commentary, I fast forward everything but movement. Die rolls and planning are pointless to watch. Activation phase is where all the learning takes place.

If there’s good commentary (like when the Krayts can elbow into someone’s stream or the old Stele Open games) I usually watch the whole thing.

8 hours ago, RoockieBoy said:

I come from a 40k background, so i’m used to make pic heavy batreps of my games. I’m just not a top tier player, and usually play funky lists, but I tried to do the same style batreps for X-Wing. You can see some here, any feedback is welcome (I just realised it’s been some time since I did one of them).

I just don’t think this kind of batreps are what people prefer seeing

I am a big fan of this style of batreps.

14 hours ago, Tlfj200 said:

No - this is super wrong.

Like using VTG is wrong or not using bombs at all is wrong? VTG seems like a solid upgrade on an Starfortress.

9 minutes ago, Scott Pilgrim2 said:

Like using VTG is wrong or not using bombs at all is wrong? VTG seems like a solid upgrade on an Starfortress.

Not using bombs is wrong.

Also, VTG is expensive for a maybe shot that is very likely unmodified on an already expensive carrier with 1 agility, but that’s on the strategy and player.

But no bombs seems massively wrong at the moment, since they’re the only hyperspace ship of carrying trajectory simulator (and neat shields at 1 agility means they die if looked at, and you could find a cheaper 3 die primary if that’s why you’re bringing them).

On ‎12‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 10:44 PM, Kaptin Krunch said:

I've noticed the community seems to be bad at statistics. So I made a puzzle for you all.

Prizes for the first person to solve it.

Revolver Ocelot takes 3 colt single action revolvers, and loads a single bullet into one of them and spins the cylinder (all 3 were unloaded prior). He then begins juggling the three guns, until he has lost track of which one is which.

Revolver will pull 6 triggers at random from the three guns.

What are the odds that the bullet is fired? What are the odds that the bullet is fired on exactly the 6th trigger pull?

For those in bongland/don't know how guns work, the gun in question holds 6 bullets, and rotates through the chambers sequentially.

Assuming I understand the scenario (each gun has a random chance of being fired, i.e. he could pull one gun's trigger 6 times), I believe the answer would be 1/(17/18*16/17*15/16*14/15*13/14*12/13) since you just take the inverse probability of every shot not having a bullet. On it being the last bullet, you do a lot of the same work as before, except you don't take the inverse and the last fraction is 1/13 instead of 12/13.

I believe that is the correct way to evaluate the scenario. To find the odds of something happening at least once, you just get the inverse of the odds of it never happening.

Honestly, I think the bigger math leak is in evaluating risk. In a past life, I played a lot of poker both cash and tournaments. One of the biggest adjustments you make in going from cash to tournaments is knowing when to take risks or press edges. People think that doing something that has a 20% chance of success is a calculated risk (which it is), but ignore that an action with a 75% chance of success is also a calculated risk. In a poker tournament, putting in all of your chips in early with AK is a mistake even when it is obviously a great move later on when the blinds are much bigger. That is also true of an X-Wing tournament - even if you math out that you have a slight jousting edge (like 55-45), you are probably better off not actually jousting unless you feel like your other options are worse. The opposite is also true - you may find that you are losing a bit on the joust, but you know that it is such a bad matchup that it is your best shot.

8 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Not using bombs is wrong.

Also, VTG is expensive for a maybe shot that is very likely unmodified on an already expensive carrier with 1 agility, but that’s on the strategy and player.

But no bombs seems massively wrong at the moment, since they’re the only hyperspace ship of carrying trajectory simulator (and neat shields at 1 agility means they die if looked at, and you could find a cheaper 3 die primary if that’s why you’re bringing them).

I agree with that. I think that VTG is a solid upgrade when you are looking for ways to spend points and you don't care about the bid. While the shot is unmodified, the ship it is shooting at is likely unmodded as well since it has probably already taken a few shots already before VTG triggers.

4 minutes ago, Scott Pilgrim2 said:

Honestly, I think the bigger math leak is in evaluating risk. In a past life, I played a lot of poker both cash and tournaments. One of the biggest adjustments you make in going from cash to tournaments is knowing when to take risks or press edges. People think that doing something that has a 20% chance of success is a calculated risk (which it is), but ignore that an action with a 75% chance of success is also a calculated risk. In a poker tournament, putting in all of your chips in early with AK is a mistake even when it is obviously a great move later on when the blinds are much bigger. That is also true of an X-Wing tournament - even if you math out that you have a slight jousting edge (like 55-45), you are probably better off not actually jousting unless you feel like your other options are worse. The opposite is also true - you may find that you are losing a bit on the joust, but you know that it is such a bad matchup that it is your best shot.

This.

1 minute ago, Scott Pilgrim2 said:

I agree with that. I think that VTG is a solid upgrade when you are looking for ways to spend points and you don't care about the bid. While the shot is unmodified, the ship it is shooting at is likely unmodded as well since it has probably already taken a few shots already before VTG triggers.

I just suspect you can find better upgrades elsewhere in your list that helps better than a sometimes shot that is almost always unmoddified.

As you noted on risk assessment, this fits super well, not just because people vastly mis-gauge odds, but also are terrible at risk analysis.

Just now, Tlfj200 said:

I just suspect you can find better upgrades elsewhere in your list that helps better than a sometimes shot that is almost always unmoddified.

But when you get Cat to trigger on both shots to roll 5+4 dice... feelsgoodman.

The lists where I am adding it are two ships lists, especially double bombers. No idea if it is good since I usually place Ace-Wing like most people.

Just now, Scott Pilgrim2 said:

But when you get Cat to trigger on both shots to roll 5+4 dice... feelsgoodman.

The lists where I am adding it are two ships lists, especially double bombers. No idea if it is good since I usually place Ace-Wing like most people.

I stand corrected if you’re on a two ship list - you probably have almost infinite points to spend.

do what you want, man.

2 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

As you noted on risk assessment, this fits super well, not just because people vastly mis-gauge odds, but also are terrible at risk analysis.

******' A.

1 minute ago, Tlfj200 said:

I stand corrected if you’re on a two ship list - you probably have almost infinite points to spend.

do what you want, man.

That's what league nights are for - ******* around with lists that may be good that you just want to put on the table in a relaxed competitive format. I'm still on the Rebel Han train for Hyperspace tournaments.

4 hours ago, Scott Pilgrim2 said:

Assuming I understand the scenario (each gun has a random chance of being fired, i.e. he could pull one gun's trigger 6 times), I believe the answer would be 1/(17/18*16/17*15/16*14/15*13/14*12/13) since you just take the inverse probability of every shot not having a bullet. On it being the last bullet, you do a lot of the same work as before, except you don't take the inverse and the last fraction is 1/13 instead of 12/13.

I believe that is the correct way to evaluate the scenario. To find the odds of something happening at least once, you just get the inverse of the odds of it never happening.

This is close, but you have the odds of a single gun with 18 chambers.

He could theoretically pull 100 triggers and get no bullets.

The first shot has a 1/18 chance to fire.

Given the first shot missed, the second shot has a 4/67 chance to fire.

(2/3 chance of having a no-bullets gun pulled, 1/3 chance of having the odds in the gun that had the bullet increase to 1/5.)

23 minutes ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

This is close, but you have the odds of a single gun with 18 chambers.

He could theoretically pull 100 triggers and get no bullets.

The first shot has a 1/18 chance to fire.

Given the first shot missed, the second shot has a 4/67 chance to fire.

(2/3 chance of having a no-bullets gun pulled, 1/3 chance of having the odds in the gun that had the bullet increase to 1/5.)

But what is the difference? This comes down to conceptual misunderstanding on my part then, not a mathematical error. Let me break down my thinking and you can correct me.

You have a pool of three guns with six chambers each. You have a random chance of grabbing one and pulling the trigger. From your comment, I think we are agreed that there is 1/18 chance of any one chamber being activated (since they were spun beforehand and the order is random).

For the next iteration, we still have a pool of six guns and 17 active chambers. 17 because due to the way chambers work, you can't activate the same chamber twice so the next one will be on the remaining 17 chambers. So assuming you didn't activate the bullet the first shot, you have a 16/17 chance of the next shot being from an empty chamber. So on and so forth to find the probability of firing 6 empty chambers.

On the next shot, you have three guns, one with one already shot. But I am not connecting the line on how that would actually change the odds because you are throwing three guns up in the air and firing one at random. So this is where I am getting lost because I don't see why pulling the gun that would had already been fired would change the math.

EDIT: My caveat is that I don't have any advanced probability or mathematical training. I took some game theory in college and statistics and only got up to linear math (which I was 'okay' at). So there is a real chance I am just applying my knowledge incorrectly.

EDIT2: I was a PoliSci major, so applying math wrong is almost a requirement for the field.

1 minute ago, Scott Pilgrim2 said:

But what is the difference? This comes down to conceptual misunderstanding on my part then, not a mathematical error. Let me break down my thinking and you can correct me.

You have a pool of three guns with six chambers each. You have a random chance of grabbing one and pulling the trigger. From your comment, I think we are agreed that there is 1/18 chance of any one chamber being activated (since they were spun beforehand and the order is random).

For the next iteration, we still have a pool of six guns and 17 active chambers. 17 because due to the way chambers work, you can't activate the same chamber twice so the next one will be on the remaining 17 chambers. So assuming you didn't activate the bullet the first shot, you have a 16/17 chance of the next shot being from an empty chamber. So on and so forth to find the probability of firing 6 empty chambers.

On the next shot, you have three guns, one with one already shot. But I am not connecting the line on how that would actually change the odds because you are throwing three guns up in the air and firing one at random. So this is where I am getting lost because I don't see why pulling the gun that would had already been fired would change the math.

say the bullet is in gun A, and after the first trigger pull, there are 3 different outcomes depending on what happened on the first pull.

- Gun A was pulled, if gun A is pulled again (1/3) it has a 1/5 chance to fire

- Gun B was pulled, if gun A is pulled(1/3), it has a 1/6 chance to fire.

- Gun C was pulled, if gun A is pulled(1/3), it has a 1/6 chance to fire.

This is a 1/3 chance of 1/15, and 2 instances of a 1/3 chance of 1/18. Taking the average of the three results in 4/67. This is basically the same, but sllightly different.

because the odds of firing only increase one third of the time (but increase more than 1/18 when they do so) the odds differ slightly.

Merry Christmas everyone. Hope you enjoy doing some not X-Wing things today!