(Sorry to ping you here @Jeff Wilder but it appears you’re unable to receive DMs—HMU for potential trade)

12 hours ago, CoffeeMinion said:

(Sorry to ping you here @Jeff Wilder but it appears you’re unable to receive DMs—HMU for potential trade)

No problem, @CoffeeMinion , but that is really weird. Why did my Inbox disappear?

Finally listened to the episode and it still sounds like an overreaction to me. Especially when you announce that you're off competitive vassal xwing until it's fixed.

Not sure though if you still want to discuss it or not.

26 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Finally listened to the episode and it still sounds like an overreaction to me. Especially when you announce that you're off competitive vassal xwing until it's fixed.

Not sure though if you still want to discuss it or not.

Vassal is feeding the player false data on ship arcs when the range in arc check overlay isn't on. That is a big deal.

1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:

Vassal is feeding the player false data on ship arcs when the range in arc check overlay isn't on. That is a big deal.

That sums it up, yeah. (Note the title of the episode ... )

nevermind

@Mu0n729 posted a response to your questions in my Discord server, not sure if he wants to share them here or not.

Thanks, @MegaSilver . We'll cover next time we record.

Do you take contributions...?

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

Do you take contributions...?

Of ... ?

10 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Of ... ?

Dissenting opinions to read and consider at your leisure, ideally before recording

6 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Dissenting opinions to read and consider at your leisure, ideally before recording

Dissenting opinions on what?

I'm a lawyer. I find dissenting opinions very useful. So if you're talking about defending the incorrect arcs, please do feel free. I'll gladly read it, though it's pretty unlikely you can say anything new about it.

My impression is that your opinion is basically, "It's wrong, but we should appreciate having it even though it's wrong, and just ignore the problem" but maybe that's being uncharitable?

4 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Dissenting opinions on what?

I'm a lawyer. I find dissenting opinions very useful. So if you're talking about defending the incorrect arcs, please do feel free. I'll gladly read it, though it's pretty unlikely you can say anything new about it.

My impression is that your opinion is basically, "It's wrong, but we should appreciate having it even though it's wrong, and just ignore the problem" but maybe that's being uncharitable?

It's wrong, we should appreciate what we have but try to improve it as much as we feasibly can - and there was a better way to react.

By the way, where is the 87° coming from? I tried to recreate your situation. It's still off, but I couldn't reproduce one where it's as much as you had it. The visual base arc seems to sit at an 86° angle from the base diagonal . The 1-2-3-firing arc is more like 85.5° . The visual base arc is closer to 82° total .

I wanted to send you a message on discord, but apparently you left the XVT server which was our only mutual one? And your inbox here is full. I won’t go easy on you out of respect, and in the hope that you would not go easy on me either.

Let me start with our agreement. There is no doubt that vassal should have the smallest possible difference between the displayed arc and the calculated arc. We as players rely on the displayed arc. It is very frustrating to make the visually correct call and then be punished for it.

So, what bothers me about your problem?

1) You immediately went with strong language regarding your own certainty:

“VASSAL arcs […] cannot actually be judged by what’s shown on the token. I’d thought arcs had been worked out to be accurate quite a while back, but I was obviously wrong”
“It’s not a small inaccuracy”
“I’ve encountered extreme reluctance to even admit the discrepancy”
“If we can’t rely on the only thing we’re supposed to rely on, pre-measurement, then there’s a real problem”

From what I can tell, you immediately concluded that it is an error of the system. I cannot find a single sentence where you are open for the possibility that you encountered a bug. There can be discrepancies between two players. You ruled that one out when I asked, because your opponent saw the same as you. There can also be the case where the calculated position and the graphical position are not completely equal anymore. A small change some turns earlier might have been the problem, for example, and you couldn’t notice until the near-miss by the calculated arc. There is also the very common situation where something looks different based on the zoom level. Chances are high that you could restart from the log, play with zoom levels and get a more or less extreme version of your image. And you did not acknowledge the problem of pixelated graphics anywhere. Take a checkered paper and fill out squares to draw a line at 87° to the edge. Then do the same with a rotated starting position.
You could have tried to recreate the situation, or asked about a potential bug, or if anyone else had had the same before – you said you “never saw a bent arc before on VASSAL” while you played “for longer than 99% of people who use it” – or whether the problem was known to be one. To our knowledge, neither you nor anyone else previously ran into a situation where the discrepancy was that large. That alone should make you suspicious.

Instead, you chose to conclude that it is a problem, and that you can’t play competitive Vassal X-Wing as long as this problem exists. That's... surprising.

2) The game situation itself

All this was for a double modified range 3 attack on Vonreg. That is a 45% chance to deal 2-3 damage (i.e., get points as he was full). The expected damage sits at 1.36 for that shot. We both know however that you’d obviously get blanks only, or that he’d nattie 4 evades 😉 … My point is, you make a big deal on the back of a situation that is a (mis?)calculated risk in the first place. That smells like a salty overreaction to me. I believe you that it’s not the case. But all the more reason, in my opinion, to tone down language and approachas explained in 1).

3) Don’t quit a game or event over a single call

You gave us an example of what not to do in my opinion. Taken to the abstract, you experienced the equivalent of a bad judge call and decided to walk away from a game and later the event in response. I don’t think that you would normally condone this course of action. This also loops back to 2) and leaves a sour aftertaste for me.

4) Vassal is still the most precise version of X-Wing that we have

Wrong judge calls, nudges, mis-measurements, general imprecision is simply part of the game. Here we’re talking about an offset of 1 or 2 pixels, and degree changes of 0.5 to 1 degree. Compare that to the shaky on-table measurement, or TTS. Unlike all other ways to play it, Vassal offers the unique option to review the entire game.

We should take the imprecision on tables as part of the game, shrug them off, and continue. Why does the same principle not apply to the already much more precise Vassal?

8 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

It's wrong, we should appreciate what we have but try to improve it as much as we feasibly can - and there was a better way to react.

By the way, where is the 87° coming from? I tried to recreate your situation. It's still off, but I couldn't reproduce one where it's as much as you had it. The visual base arc seems to sit at an 86° angle from the base diagonal . The 1-2-3-firing arc is more like 85.5° . The visual base arc is closer to 82° total .

I wanted to send you a message on discord, but apparently you left the XVT server which was our only mutual one? And your inbox here is full. I won’t go easy on you out of respect, and in the hope that you would not go easy on me either.

Let me start with our agreement. There is no doubt that vassal should have the smallest possible difference between the displayed arc and the calculated arc. We as players rely on the displayed arc. It is very frustrating to make the visually correct call and then be punished for it.

So, what bothers me about your problem?

1) You immediately went with strong language regarding your own certainty:

“VASSAL arcs […] cannot actually be judged by what’s shown on the token. I’d thought arcs had been worked out to be accurate quite a while back, but I was obviously wrong”
“It’s not a small inaccuracy”
“I’ve encountered extreme reluctance to even admit the discrepancy”
“If we can’t rely on the only thing we’re supposed to rely on, pre-measurement, then there’s a real problem”

From what I can tell, you immediately concluded that it is an error of the system. I cannot find a single sentence where you are open for the possibility that you encountered a bug. There can be discrepancies between two players. You ruled that one out when I asked, because your opponent saw the same as you. There can also be the case where the calculated position and the graphical position are not completely equal anymore. A small change some turns earlier might have been the problem, for example, and you couldn’t notice until the near-miss by the calculated arc. There is also the very common situation where something looks different based on the zoom level. Chances are high that you could restart from the log, play with zoom levels and get a more or less extreme version of your image. And you did not acknowledge the problem of pixelated graphics anywhere. Take a checkered paper and fill out squares to draw a line at 87° to the edge. Then do the same with a rotated starting position.
You could have tried to recreate the situation, or asked about a potential bug, or if anyone else had had the same before – you said you “never saw a bent arc before on VASSAL” while you played “for longer than 99% of people who use it” – or whether the problem was known to be one. To our knowledge, neither you nor anyone else previously ran into a situation where the discrepancy was that large. That alone should make you suspicious.

Instead, you chose to conclude that it is a problem, and that you can’t play competitive Vassal X-Wing as long as this problem exists. That's... surprising.

2) The game situation itself

All this was for a double modified range 3 attack on Vonreg. That is a 45% chance to deal 2-3 damage (i.e., get points as he was full). The expected damage sits at 1.36 for that shot. We both know however that you’d obviously get blanks only, or that he’d nattie 4 evades 😉 … My point is, you make a big deal on the back of a situation that is a (mis?)calculated risk in the first place. That smells like a salty overreaction to me. I believe you that it’s not the case. But all the more reason, in my opinion, to tone down language and approachas explained in 1).

3) Don’t quit a game or event over a single call

You gave us an example of what not to do in my opinion. Taken to the abstract, you experienced the equivalent of a bad judge call and decided to walk away from a game and later the event in response. I don’t think that you would normally condone this course of action. This also loops back to 2) and leaves a sour aftertaste for me.

4) Vassal is still the most precise version of X-Wing that we have

Wrong judge calls, nudges, mis-measurements, general imprecision is simply part of the game. Here we’re talking about an offset of 1 or 2 pixels, and degree changes of 0.5 to 1 degree. Compare that to the shaky on-table measurement, or TTS. Unlike all other ways to play it, Vassal offers the unique option to review the entire game.

We should take the imprecision on tables as part of the game, shrug them off, and continue. Why does the same principle not apply to the already much more precise Vassal?

He did it. He called it in a heartbeat, etc etc.

6 hours ago, jagsba said:

He did it. He called it in a heartbeat, etc etc.

Just gotta meekly accept it I guess.

if you don't wanna ****** play X-Wing don't ****** play X-Wing, Jesus ****** Christ

No, don't do that. Jeff has my deepest admiration. That is the reason why it bothered me in the first place.

Maybe I should have tried another channel or asked for your email or something, @Jeff Wilder

edit: Ironic. I criticized your approach in a way that is also questionable.

The board shows its best side again....

9 hours ago, Managarmr said:

The board shows its best side again....

And it is the exact same ones every time.

@Hiemfire , @Managarmr :

I appreciate it, guys, but don't sweat it. It's the way of the current world, starting at the very "top" here in the US. Honestly, at this point I consider it useful: it's nice to know so quickly and easily who's not worth reading.

@GreenDragoon :

The 87 degrees was just me using a simple program -- Win10's Snip and Sketch -- to overlap a ruler on the drawn arc to show the discrepancy with the auto-arc. I matched it up as best I could, and if it's wrong, I can't see where or how.

(1) I don't really get what you mean by "strong language regarding [my] own certainty." I was certain. I still am. I haven't yet had anyone refute the actual facts of it. What exactly makes it "strong language"? Are any of the quotes you provided not factual?

The possibility that this was a bug was implicit in my halting the game to ask for a ruling, wasn't it?

I could have spent a lot of time and effort researching the boundaries and such of the problem, but, frankly, that's just not something I've got the time to do or interest in doing. Why should that be an expectation when I'm effectively just reporting an observed problem that's immediately impacting a game and tournament?

I didn't conclude that I "can't" play competitive X-Wing with the problem as it exists. I concluded that I wasn't interested in playing a "serious" competition where the visual indicators on which I'm supposed to make judgments are unreliable. Is that unreasonable? I'm still playing in my VASSAL Jank Tank League, because I'm in that for different reasons, for instance.

As far as running into a discrepancy that large, I probably have. Many of us probably have. Most simply haven't noticed, because it most cases it won't have such a huge practical impact on the game. My guess is that people have raised it in various contexts in the past, and been shouted down by their opponents or other players. (I'm tough to shout down.) I've known that arcs have been a problem in the past ... I simply thought the problem had been resolved. (It has not been, and there are no current plans to correct it, per Mu0n.)

(2) The double-modded shot on Vonreg was a biggish thing, but the important impact was that my most valuable ship was destroyed because I made an accurate judgment of the printed arc, which led me to accept damage I need not have taken ... which was a very big swing in a close game.

I was surprised by it, but I wasn't angry in the slightest. I was actually pretty amused, because the discrepancy was so noticeable. The anger didn't come later, until the problem was repeatedly -- in many cases deliberately -- misstated, misunderstood, dismissed as irrelevant, or all three.

(3) Why is there a duty for me to keep playing? If I feel a judge's judgment can't be trusted in the event of clear and factual problem in the game, why would I keep playing? I mean, you could argue. "It's just a game, Jeff," but of course, my argument is exactly that: "Why is it so important I play it out after I've demonstrated that the game state is false, and neither my opponent nor the judges really care? It's just a game."

(4) I do want to be sure that you understand that "precise" is not always a good thing. In fact, "precise and inaccurate" is a pretty bad thing, and that's the case we're talking about. VASSAL is absolutely more precise than playing on the table. Unfortunately, what that means is that VASSAL is always wrong in this situation. On the table, in the absence of deliberate cheating, imprecisions are equally likely to hurt or harm either player, or the impact can't possibly be known. In this case on VASSAL, the imprecision always hurts the player making an accurate visual judgment.

Anyway, I'll be responding to Mu0n's statement when we record this week. I'll be repeating a fair amount of the above, but there's other stuff, too.

Dude, the fix could be a translation of 1 pixel of the front 123 arc and maybe a redrawing of the in-ship arc images that's part of the conposition of a ship during spawning. So far, I guarantee you you've spent more energy in this vigorous discussion than is needed to fix that one x shaped small base arc image. Gimme a day or two and I'll provide the images so you can belt out a version that meets your needs from your keen eye.

I'm not mad at all and open to fixing this if it really turns out to be simple.

Keep pew pew up!

@Jeff Wilder I've said my piece. Just offering my genuine perspective, whatever you may take from it. I don't want to get tangled up in rhetoric tricks or semantics. And I'll anyways listen to the episode.

5 minutes ago, Mu0n729 said:

Gimme a day or two and I'll provide the images so you can belt out a version that meets your needs from your keen eye.

That's not gonna happen from me. I have no graphical ability at all. Does that disqualify me from pointing out the problem, somehow?

Quote

I'm not mad at all and open to fixing this if it really turns out to be simple.

Well, while you're here ... what about drawing no inherent arc on the ship-token, and simply extrapolating the VASSAL auto-arc visibly back onto the ship-token? Wouldn't that ensure what you see on the token matches what VASSAL believes the arc to be? Again, I'm not a coder or graphics guy, so I'm asking.

7 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I don't want to get tangled up in rhetoric tricks or semantics.

... Huh?

I'm touching the auto arc code as little as possible. It's like 4000+ lines and probably under-engineered.

5 hours ago, Mu0n729 said:

I'm touching the auto arc code as little as possible. It's like 4000+ lines and probably under-engineered.

Would having the "printed" arcs reference the auto arcs be a pain in the butt to do?