I am with you MajorJuggler in that FFG's terms are unacceptable and would have done the same if I were in your shoes.

I also fully support your decision of not making your 2.0 work public. If you do, there is nothing stopping FFG from using your work. If they are indeed interested in your work, they should pay for it, not just "borrow" it later.

Having said, and as an engineer myself who has developed very complex models in my field-of-work, developing the model is the easy part. Validating/testing such model, to ensure it is accurate, is where it becomes expensive and complicated. Perhaps it is here where FFG thinks getting your data ahead of time (pre-release) is unattractive, since without validation it has diminished value. From the earlier discussion we had on these forums, I don't think you can develop a model that is purely mathematical and make it really useful, there are just too many variables, you inevitably will depend and will have to pair it with test data (validation part).

Good. My hope is 2.0 lets me fly what I love, without having to turn to statistical odds - my ability to roll low bucks them anyway.

1 hour ago, OoALEJOoO said:

I am with you MajorJuggler in that FFG's terms are unacceptable and would have done the same if I were in your shoes.

I also fully support your decision of not making your 2.0 work public. If you do, there is nothing stopping FFG from using your work. If they are indeed interested in your work, they should pay for it, not just "borrow" it later.

Having said, and as an engineer myself who has developed very complex models in my field-of-work, developing the model is the easy part. Validating/testing such model, to ensure it is accurate, is where it becomes expensive and complicated. Perhaps it is here where FFG thinks getting your data ahead of time (pre-release) is unattractive, since without validation it has diminished value. From the earlier discussion we had on these forums, I don't think you can develop a model that is purely mathematical and make it really useful, there are just too many variables, you inevitably will depend and will have to pair it with test data (validation part).

I think we have different notions of what "useful" means. I would define useful as being able to shave off a couple iterations of cost rebalancing. MathWing models don't have to be used in a safety-critical or mission-critical applications. Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

Given that >90% of the broken 1.0 content has been predicted as such by this approach (odd permutations like Dengaro notwithstanding, at least until it has been identified), we will just have to disagree on how useful the approach is. :-) It could be that there's a lot less meaningful independent variables than you notionally think there are.

[edit / ps]: The real power of fine-tuning is when combining this approach with analytical playtesting, to determine how often various effects trigger. It's beyond the scope of this discussion, but for pretty much any ship you can usually pare down the independent variables to only 1 or 2, then back into it with playtesting data to see what the target value should be. Jousters are pretty easy because they basically have 0 independent variables. You can tweak K-turn / actionless rate and that's about it.

We certainly agree on not giving away the farm for free though, not when they have spent 10+ man-years of developer salary and still aren't anywhere close to developing something like this.

2 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:

On the bright side, with no mathematical model publicly available, hopefully less players should gravitate towards the proven, statistically-efficient combos and maybe we'll see a bit less of a self-reinforcing meta in 2nd edition. More creativity and variety for all!

Good job @MajorJuggler - you keep that info right at home!

Highly doubtful IMO.

Many players are either unable or unwilling to look into the advanced math behind the game (devs too most likely, I think they said as much on their latest Scum&Villainy appearance some months back).

People will look at what's good and copy it, and that info will still be available in places like Meta-wing barring some GDPR fiasco.

2 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:

Double post.

2 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:

Triple post

1 hour ago, MajorJuggler said:

The large part of what changed is that they can actually use my inputs now, immediately, because point costs aren't printed on the card. Naturally a lot of people would prefer me to give away this info as a free service to FFG (and by extension the community) because there is a lot of value in that. Not giving FFG that info is a business decision on my part. FFG already knew that if they didn't hire me, that I wouldn't be doing any public analysis. Those were the terms of my offer. This PSA is for the community, not FFG.

I'm still not sure FFG wants to use this data, because their priorities lie elsewhere. I could be wrong of course, but I'm fairly sure they COULD have hired someone of your skills any time. Mathematical analysis is a purchasable service. I'm pretty sure they understand the benefits of it, and it's hard to think it is a budget problem. (In which case they would have likely bargained with you).

To me, it looks like you did something that FFG was never interested in, after a few years you offered them your services and when they refused, you decided you won't share your work anymore.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to make that decision. I'm saying it makes little sense.

Of course, I have nothing to lose from their potential deceitful ways, when they decide they would like to steal your work, so I get that. It's just not very likely in my opinion.

Remember, despite all your findings, which was available to them, they did publish Nym.

2 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

Many players are either unable or unwilling to look into the advanced math behind the game (devs too most likely, I think they said as much on their latest Scum&Villainy appearance some months back).

And many of us consider this to be just a game (crazy I know) that we play for fun and some laughs; and don't give two ***** about all the "advanced math behind the game."

It's plastic spaceships; not Battle Royale.

As one who only ever browsed the Math-wing stuff rarely (I tend to play thematic lists or my own spin on middle-popular meta lists) I appreciate the amount of work you put in and wish you luck. Happy hunting!

8 minutes ago, Dr Zoidberg said:

And many of us consider this to be just a game (crazy I know) that we play for fun and some laughs; and don't give two ***** about all the "advanced math behind the game."

It's plastic spaceships; not Battle Royale.

That's a totally valid way to play, obviously, as long as you don't complain about people who do.

However, the point I was trying to make had nothing to do with that: IMO most people that run meta lists do so because they saw them do well in tournaments, not because they read about the math behind them. Majorjuggler no longer publishing his math won't significantly affect that.

34 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

I'm still not sure FFG wants to use this data, because their priorities lie elsewhere. I could be wrong of course, but I'm fairly sure they COULD have hired someone of your skills any time. Mathematical analysis is a purchasable service. I'm pretty sure they understand the benefits of it, and it's hard to think it is a budget problem. (In which case they would have likely bargained with you).

I m pretty sure FFG designers, at least publicly, don't recognize the value of mathematical analysis. They said so at least once.

Also, it's debatable FFG could have hired someone with Majorjuggler's skills at any time. If you go on sites like glassdoor you'll see one of the main complaints against FFG is low salaries. Somebody with his skills (PhD and significant experience) will almost certainly not be available on that kind of salary and, if FFG is anything like the US companies I've been a part of, getting cleared to hire a guy for 2-3x the salary of his peers is a long and difficult process, if at all possible.

1 hour ago, Dr Zoidberg said:

And many of us consider this to be just a game (crazy I know) that we play for fun and some laughs; and don't give two ***** about all the "advanced math behind the game."

It's plastic spaceships; not Battle Royale.

It has been my opinion for quite awhile (no offense to MajorJuggler) that all this advanced math behind the game belonged exactly there: behind the game .

Publishing it all for all the use/abuse was removing (at least some of) the art from the process of discovery. For the end user, a game should be about trial and error; not "we've got this Wave mathematically deconstructed 3 months before release."

MJ's work is the purview of designers, not players.

3 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:

On the bright side, with no mathematical model publicly available, hopefully less players should gravitate towards the proven, statistically-efficient combos and maybe we'll see a bit less of a self-reinforcing meta in 2nd edition. More creativity and variety for all!

So, yeah, a bit of this.

3 hours ago, MajorJuggler said:

The large part of what changed is that they can actually use my inputs now, immediately, because point costs aren't printed on the card. Naturally a lot of people would prefer me to give away this info as a free service to FFG (and by extension the community) because there is a lot of value in that. Not giving FFG that info is a business decision on my part. FFG already knew that if they didn't hire me, that I wouldn't be doing any public analysis. Those were the terms of my offer. This PSA is for the community, not FFG.

As a tangent, FFG has seemed to imply that the squad builder will have the ability to have "custom game modes" with customizable (and sharable) point values.

If this implementation is real, would you consider creating a custom "jugglerwing" using the results of your math, but not share the details of why points are what they are?

22 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

It has been my opinion for quite awhile (no offense to MajorJuggler) that all this advanced math behind the game belonged exactly there: behind the game .

Publishing it all for all the use/abuse was removing (at least some of) the art from the process of discovery. For the end user, a game should be about trial and error; not "we've got this Wave mathematically deconstructed 3 months before release."

It's never going to work like this in the age of internet. If Majorjuggler isn't sharing his results, somebody else will, although they might have different methods to reach their conclusions.

Even if nobody says a thing and keep their results for the competitive advantage, you can't really hide tournament results, so everything will be out after the first 2-3 big tournaments.

Mathwing and its like really hurt this games community the first time around, glad its dead. putting the emphasis in a game on math might reveal certain effective strategies, but you learn those things more quickly and effectively by playing.

Its also a flawed concept. Not all things have qualitative value or can be computed with the numbers majorjuggler uses(like the entirety of placement). but the fact it doesn't really work isn't relevant, because mathwing as an endeavour, its very purpose, is flawed. games are meant to be played, not hacked, and doing so is inherently opposed to what games are about: fun, socialization, and friendly competition within a narrative framework.

Would you hire someone to count cards during a poker game with friends? would you only play a fighting game if you get a stronger character than your opponent? would you buy loaded dice to play a board game? would you download a script to help you aim? if you answered yes to any of these questions then you are displaying extremely poor sportsmanship AND missing the point entirely.

Mathwing is the idea that playing with toy spaceships isn't fun unless you win, and that's bull

5 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

.

Would you hire someone to count cards during a poker game with friends? would you only play a fighting game if you get a stronger character than your opponent? would you buy loaded dice to play a board game? would you download a script to help you aim? if you answered yes to any of these questions then you are displaying extremely poor sportsmanship AND missing the point entirely.

Your analogies are flawed. How on Earth is understanding how a game works equal to cheating?

37 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

Your analogies are flawed. How on Earth is understanding how a game works equal to cheating?

counting cards in poker is mathematically determining the probability. you are attempting to gain knowledge the other players lack in order to gain advantage.

The point of determining strengths or weaknesses of game components is to know which has the greatest probability of winning. that knowledge is used to select only the strongest components for play, in the case of my 2nd analogy a fighting game character. if you only played jumpmasters in their heyday because you knew that they had superior probability of winning, you were doing exactly what i described. many people used mathwing to argue that jumpmasters were op, and this contributed to their popularity.

loading dice is sometimes trying to rig the probability in your favor, what jumpmaster players were doing in the OP Toilet era. but more commonly its done in a game where players share dice. the cheaters intention is to have knowledge of probability the opponent lacks. basically what mathwing is aimed to achieve.

as to buying a script to help you aim, slightly more complex analogy but still spot on. In a first person shooter Aim is one of the defining aspects of play, and an aim-bot assists you in gaining an advantage. Basically X-wing is a game about decision making, not reflexes or timing. what to fly, where to go, when to use what. by researching what is most likely to win and allowing the research to make your decisions for you, you are essentially following a script. many posts on this very forum discuss specific lists using specific placements to maximize the probability of an opponents defeat.

when done in x-wing none of these things are exactly cheating, but they are all at odds with what the game is. if my janky squad of cutthroat raiders gets blown up by your No nonsense ace, it should be because we're having fun and you outflew me. Not because you spent 2 hours on the internet researching math

2 hours ago, MajorJuggler said:

We certainly agree on not giving away the farm for free though, not when they have spent 10+ man-years of developer salary and still aren't anywhere close to developing something like this.

Perhaps one workaround could be to release a "teaser". Work your magic on 2.0 wave 1 and publish it, perhaps also wave 2, but then stop there. Let the results talk for themselves and FFG might be willing to hire you, on better terms, for future waves.

2 hours ago, Commander Kaine said:

I'm still not sure FFG wants to use this data, because their priorities lie elsewhere. I could be wrong of course, but I'm fairly sure they COULD have hired someone of your skills any time. Mathematical analysis is a purchasable service. I'm pretty sure they understand the benefits of it, and it's hard to think it is a budget problem. (In which case they would have likely bargained with you).

You're lumping all sorts of "mathematical services" in one giant bin. You don't just need to hire a mathematician to solve an existing problem, you need a mathematics/engineering fellow that can do the original research to first derive the underlying models. Then once you have the generalized solution, you hire much cheaper mathematicians and software coders to go and implement it. But doing the original research is very expensive. Which leads into this point:

2 hours ago, LordBlades said:

Also, it's debatable FFG could have hired someone with Majorjuggler's skills at any time. If you go on sites like glassdoor you'll see one of the main complaints against FFG is low salaries. Somebody with his skills (PhD and significant experience) will almost certainly not be available on that kind of salary and, if FFG is anything like the US companies I've been a part of, getting cleared to hire a guy for 2-3x the salary of his peers is a long and difficult process, if at all possible.

... the multiplier is probably a little more than 2-3, but I have no idea what Alex, Frank, and Max make.

From what I gather, FFG is stingy when it comes to employee salaries. More $$$ for the CEO.

If I (or someone else) derives and publishes the entire approach for public consumption, then FFG can go and hire a cheaper coder to go and implement it. Said coder will require a salary 2x higher than FFG's developers, so it's still unlikely to happen.

2 hours ago, Dr Zoidberg said:

And many of us consider this to be just a game (crazy I know) that we play for fun and some laughs; and don't give two ***** about all the "advanced math behind the game."

It's plastic spaceships; not Battle Royale.

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

It has been my opinion for quite awhile (no offense to MajorJuggler) that all this advanced math behind the game belonged exactly there: behind the game .

Publishing it all for all the use/abuse was removing (at least some of) the art from the process of discovery. For the end user, a game should be about trial and error; not "we've got this Wave mathematically deconstructed 3 months before release."

MJ's work is the purview of designers, not players.

100% agree with both of these. :-)

Using a more basic set of tools to do a tactical analysis of in-game situations is comparatively much easier, and there are many people who do this and post about it.

1 hour ago, Rakaydos said:

As a tangent, FFG has seemed to imply that the squad builder will have the ability to have "custom game modes" with customizable (and sharable) point values.

If this implementation is real, would you consider creating a custom "jugglerwing" using the results of your math, but not share the details of why points are what they are?

No, because then that information would be available to FFG.

1 hour ago, Vontoothskie said:

Mathwing and its like really hurt this games community the first time around, glad its dead. putting the emphasis in a game on math might reveal certain effective strategies, but you learn those things more quickly and effectively by playing.

The particular approach I have taken for MathWing is not as a tool for players to use tactically, but rather as a design tool for the developers to get a better handle on what will be good, and why, ahead of time. A lot people have a naive opinion that if people (me) don't predict what ships will be good, the meta will be wide-open and people will try everything. It doesn't matter. Players and the internet of tournament results are a strong learning algorithm, the best ships/pilots are going to be found. Don't shoot the messenger.

2 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

when done in x-wing none of these things are exactly cheating, but they are all at odds with what the game is. if my janky squad of cutthroat raiders gets blown up by your No nonsense ace, it should be because we're having fun and you outflew me. Not because you spent 2 hours on the internet researching math

That's what the game is for you.

The very fact that, by design, the game includes squad building rules, as opposed to a fixed starting squad, like chess, or a limited amount of pre-defined starting squad choices (like the characters of a fighting game) means that, by design, the game is also about squad building.

The fact that, by design, the game includes dice (as opposed to fixed attack/defense/damage values) and ways to modify them means that, by design, the game is also about dice rolling probabilities and statistic based decision making.

Outflying your opponent is just one of the things X-wing is about.

5 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Clearly the only relevant metric, ever!

4 hours ago, MajorJuggler said:

Yeah, I am definitely not a world champion. That level of practice requires a lot of dedication. I only even went to worlds once, in 2015, and was #20/267.

Obviously. ?

24 minutes ago, OoALEJOoO said:

Perhaps one workaround could be to release a "teaser". Work your magic on 2.0 wave 1 and publish it, perhaps also wave 2, but then stop there. Let the results talk for themselves and FFG might be willing to hire you, on better terms, for future waves.

Na. FFG management won't want to spend the $$$, so it won't matter. The company was built on buying strong IP and then paying the employees low wages. Alex sees the value but he doesn't run the company so unfortunately his opinion doesn't matter in this context.

Ever just think about doing a podcast patreon thing for the folks who want your mathematical analysis? You get paid, they get maths.

Having occasionally read the MathWing articles out of sciency fascination, I can’t say my life will be affected either way. I will still try to make lists with A-Wings because A-Wings are badass.

I also don’t hold any ill will for either party. For FFG to benefit from MajorJuggler’s Maths, he would deserve to be paid and credited. For MajorJuggler’s Maths to be worth paying for, it would have to improve profits for FFG. For better or worse, FFG’s business model doesn’t require a perfect game to make profits. As long as it’s good enough on day one, the Star Wars IP is strong enough to sell it self. Then they can go back and fix the game later. In 1.0 that meant selling us “Fix Expansions” which we all loved and threw money at.

If anything, MathWing would have been much more valuable for the community at the beginning of 1.0. If they had been able to Math the correct point costs to print on the cards to begin with, 2.0 would have been much longer coming. As it is, in 2.0 if something is inappropriately priced, they can bracket the price each quarter until it’s right. They don’t need Maths for that, just enough feedback.

MajorJuggler’s Maths won’t save them money in any significant way, even cutting back the balancing cycle by a couple iterations doesn’t change the bottom line. The Devs doing the balance changes will be working anyway, the Maths would just let them faf about on more podcasts. They can only develop at the pace of production.

Would MathWing 2.0 make a better product for the tournament going consumer? Yes, it would. Would that better product incentivize the tournament going consumer to buy more? I doubt it, I can only play 200 points at a time at a tournament, and I already have more than enough plastic for that.

I have no doubt someone as smart as MajorJuggler can find a way to turn his Maths in to money. It will however be a loss to X-Wing community.