12 minutes ago, gjnido said:
I'll give you the additional complexity. Nothing is more complex than an ability that can never trigger... (Hera's action bar does not contain an action that can fail, Composure doesn't do anything in that list.
No stipulation that every thing had to function was made though.)
16 minutes ago, Phelan Boots said:Sort of, it doesn’t really capture interactions between cards very well. Nor does it translate in to how combos fly on the board. I think complexity describes it pretty well.
Potential combowing is more accurate.
23 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:Which is something you are surely interested in? I know I am!
I see you've heard my rants on how pilot abilities and upgrade cards are what doomed 1.0/are the worst things about 2.0 before.
Nvm
Edited by Blail Blerg14 hours ago, WAC47 said:The only thought i have is it doesn't quite capture dial complexity (either the increasing complexity of setting multiple dials, different dials, or even complexity within a dial). But that might be a whole other issue.
Well, the number of dials is accounted for by the number of ships (minimum complexity per pilot). But a number of different dials would be worth accounting for - allowing an extra 'point' the first time each chassis type appears in your list (since one each of TIE/x1, TIE/ln, TIE/sk and TIE reaper will be harder to fly in a co-ordinated fashion than a quartet of TIE/x1).
15 hours ago, J1mBob said:Whenever a card grants you an additional action
Should a granted maneuver (as distinct from an action) not count as well? (Adaptive Ailerons)
So, a 5 x Afterburner/Planetary Sentinels squad:
First ship
Each Subsequent ship (x4)
for a total BAC of 16 (8 + 4 x 2)
Which feels right, to be honest; 5 of them doesn't actually feel ridiculously harder to fly than 1.
This is great - thank you.
One addition might be the number of different initiatives in a list as choosing ship move order does simplify complexity massively.
Different initiatives should be counted as well. Maarek,Countess,Howl,Mauler,Scourge all at i5 is easier to fly than Vader, Howl,Gideon,Iden,Academy with initatives 6,5,4,4,1 respectively.
Same as somethng like 4 khiraxazcxczcf and a hired gun Ywing all at ps2 is easier to fly than 4 Khiraxcashhaz and a ps1 Goon.
On 4/9/2019 at 3:51 PM, Kaptin Krunch said:It's a measure of how deep into Combo Wing your list is.
Feel free to unilaterally decide that BAC means Beautiful Algorithm for Combowing... it's a backronym to start with, so be creative!
On 4/10/2019 at 5:48 AM, Magnus Grendel said:Well, the number of dials is accounted for by the number of ships (minimum complexity per pilot). But a number of different dials would be worth accounting for - allowing an extra 'point' the first time each chassis type appears in your list (since one each of TIE/x1, TIE/ln, TIE/sk and TIE reaper will be harder to fly in a co-ordinated fashion than a quartet of TIE/x1).
I've altered the calculation so that the first occurrence of a ship type costs 3 points while any recurrence of the same ship type costs 1 point. This is an effort to account for the added complexity of dealing with different dials without trying to make a way to score an individual dial.
On 4/10/2019 at 8:18 AM, Dreadai said:This is great - thank you.
One addition might be the number of different initiatives in a list as choosing ship move order does simplify complexity massively.
I've added in an adjustment for initiatives as well. The first occurrence of an initiative costs 1 point. A repeat of the same initiative doesn't add any points.
20 hours ago, wurms said:Different initiatives should be counted as well. Maarek,Countess,Howl,Mauler,Scourge all at i5 is easier to fly than Vader, Howl,Gideon,Iden,Academy with initatives 6,5,4,4,1 respectively.
Same as somethng like 4 khiraxazcxczcf and a hired gun Ywing all at ps2 is easier to fly than 4 Khiraxcashhaz and a ps1 Goon.
Hopefully this has been addressed with my changes described above. But I'm interested in feedback as to whether I've weighted them correctly:
+3 for first occurrence of a ship type, +1 for each ship that is of the same type after that
+1 for first occurrence of an initiative, +0 for each ship that is of the same initiative.
Does that seem right?
16 hours ago, J1mBob said:Does that seem right ?
Makes sense. It's going to make a variable-initiative TIE salad force high complexity to fly effectively, which.....frankly feels right.
I’d also say items that have pre movement reposition is more complex. Things like advanced sensors, SNR, and BB-8 add an additional complexity bump due to how they impact maneuver selection. Things with forced repositions a step more.
Honestly Ailerons feels like an additional 3, decloak a 2, and SNR and AS a 1 on top of existing. It absolutely has a greater impact on movement selection. Now my numbers are obviously off the cuff, but Strikers are more complex than, say, Defenders to fly.
16 hours ago, millertime059 said:I’d also say items that have pre movement reposition is more complex. Things like advanced sensors, SNR, and BB-8 add an additional complexity bump due to how they impact maneuver selection. Things with forced repositions a step more.
Honestly Ailerons feels like an additional 3, decloak a 2, and SNR and AS a 1 on top of existing. It absolutely has a greater impact on movement selection. Now my numbers are obviously off the cuff, but Strikers are more complex than, say, Defenders to fly.
Interesting. I'm going to compile some text, current and proposed complexity costs of the cards you mention, and make some comparisons. The bolded words are the ones the BAC algorithm counts as +1 to complexity.
Adaptive Ailerons : Before you reveal your dial, if you are not stressed, you must execute a white [1 Left Bank], [1 Straight], or [1 Right Bank] maneuver.
Current: 3, proposed: 6
Closest analogy to Adaptive Ailerons is probably the BB Astromech:
BB Astromech: Before you execute a blue maneuver, you may spend 1 [Charge] to perform a [Barrel Roll] action.
Both allow you to do one type (boost or barrel roll) of pre-maneuver repositioning. BB Astromech also comes in at 3 points currently. I'm not yet convinced that Adaptive Ailerons (and BB Astromech) are that far off right now, but I'll think some more about it. I can see where setting your dial when you have these abilities is definitely more complex, and that factor may not be fully accounted for at this time.
Cloak/decloak: Action : Gain a cloak token. While cloaked, your agility value is increased by 2 and you are disarmed. During the System Phase, you may decloak using a 1/2 (small/med-large base) speed straight template to barrel roll or boost. ( This is my paraphrasing of what cloak/decloak would look like if it were written like an upgrade card instead of being defined in the rules reference.)
Current: 0 (actions currently don't count for any complexity), proposed: 2, if the paraphrasing is scored using the BAC algorithm: 6
The cloak/decloak mechanic definitely feels under-costed in terms of complexity at present. I'm inclined to think the 'right' complexity score for cloak/decloak is closer to 6. It has the boost/barrel roll decloak mechanic (arguably equivalent to BB Astromech or Ailerons) but also has the cloak/+2 agility/disarmed mechanic. And as a personal anecdote, one of my buddies has played quad Sigmas a few times and it leaves his brain in a sad state by the time he's done every time...
Supernatural Reflexes: Before you activate, you may spend 1 [Force Charge] to perform a [Barrel Roll] or [Boost] action. Then , if you performed an action you do not have on your action bar, suffer 1 [Hit] damage.
Current: 5, proposed: 6
As I looked into this one, I found a bug in the BAC algorithm that didn't count the "Then" in the card text. So I fixed the algorithm, and it now comes in at 6 complexity. If BB Astromech grants pre-maneuver barrel roll for 3, and Ailerons grants pre-maneuver boost for 3.... and cloak/decloak does both with some more factors (+2 agility, disarmed) sprinkled in for 6... SNR allows boost and barrel roll and then has the damage mechanic. I think it seems safe to say cloak/decloak is about the same complexity as SNR...
Advanced Sensors: After you reveal your dial, you may perform 1 action. If you do, you cannot perform another action during your activation.
Current: 4, proposed: 5
Is Advanced Sensors more or less complex than cloak/decloak or SNR? On the right ship, Advanced Sensors may allow a pre-maneuver boost, barrel roll, or one of several other actions. But it doesn't have the other effects (agility/disarmed or damage) of the other cards and actually just moves the Perform Action phase (without Advanced Sensors, picking an action happens nearly every round, so is it really adding complexity?).
Conclusions: I'm going to add +6 complexity to any card with the Cloak action. I've fixed SNR to be 6 complexity as proposed. The other ones don't feel far enough off for me to act on them at this time... but I'm listening!
Edited by J1mBobI love this tool and thank you so much for developing it!
I put some lists through it and it has definitely confirmed my suspicion that top-performing lists are not actually that complicated to fly (not to say that the players didn't earn their stripes; not complicated =\= idiot proof).
Take quad phantoms for instance. It clocks in with a BAC of 26. Compare that to Nathan Eide's runner up list at Adepticon, which clocks in at 47 - almost double the complexity.
Compare also the current meta lists of 6 Empire TIE swarms and 5 Resistance A-Wings, which are almost exactly the same complexity (that matchup btw also skews in favor of the TIE swarms).
It would also explain how I got way in over my head at a local FLGS playing Jake / Wedge / Biggs / Cassian, which clocked in at 67. The other lists I've played are all in the 20s and 30s. Welp, I know not to make that mistake again!
I appreciate the feedback I've received! I have made the following changes to the algorithm based on this feedback:
Cloak/Decloak: This particular action adds +6 to the squad's complexity the first time it occurs and +1 for every repeated occurrence.
Mixed Ship Lists: The first occurrence of a ship type (think TIE/ln, or X-wing, or Aethersprite...) adds 3 to the squad's complexity with repeats of the same ship dropping back down to 1. This is intended to represent the added complexity in "TIE Salad" or "Alphabet Soup" lists where the player needs to remember multiple different dials.
Mixed Initiative Lists: The first occurrence of a given initiative value adds 1 complexity to the squad. Additional ships at the same initiative add no additional complexity.
I've edited the first post to reflect these additions.
On 4/13/2019 at 4:55 AM, knute said:I love this tool and thank you so much for developing it!
I put some lists through it and it has definitely confirmed my suspicion that top-performing lists are not actually that complicated to fly (not to say that the players didn't earn their stripes; not complicated =\= idiot proof).
Take quad phantoms for instance. It clocks in with a BAC of 26. Compare that to Nathan Eide's runner up list at Adepticon, which clocks in at 47 - almost double the complexity.
Compare also the current meta lists of 6 Empire TIE swarms and 5 Resistance A-Wings, which are almost exactly the same complexity (that matchup btw also skews in favor of the TIE swarms).
It would also explain how I got way in over my head at a local FLGS playing Jake / Wedge / Biggs / Cassian, which clocked in at 67. The other lists I've played are all in the 20s and 30s. Welp, I know not to make that mistake again!
I was happy to read this because this is exactly how my group uses the tool. And yes, it does seem that a lot of top lists right now are fairly uncomplicated in terms of what BAC is intended to measure: triggers, extra rules to remember, etc. Right now X-wing seems to favor larger squads with fewer upgrades. I've been enjoying that a lot.
I started BAC in 1.0 (I have a 1.0 version online if anyone wants the link) and that was at a time where the meta was dominated by 2 ship lists with half a dozen upgrades each. We would grab these lists off the internet and try them out in the basement, and get frustrated trying to remember all the triggers, card interactions, etc. Then this tool helped us objectively assess why some of these lists were so difficult to fly. Being a bunch of basement casuals, we of course first assumed that we were just doing it wrong and blamed ourselves. The truth is if you're going to grab a list that has high complexity, you need to practice with it a few times (things like Fly Casual and the like are great for this) before thinking you can fly it right on the first try.