This is a thought that recently popped (or pooped?) up in my head. Coming from a background in natural sciences (NOT biology though, so I am on very shaky grounds) it dawned on me that there MIGHT be similarities in play here, with the added flavor of "selective breeding", "gene modification", "confounder bias", genetic drift" and other stuff since X-Wing meta (contrary to how Natures selection works) is partly controlled or steered by individuals wills and purposes.

This might have "been done before" but I need to get it off my chest and I am interested in your thoughts:

Anyway, the parallels that I see is that in between Waves the meta develops in different paces in different locations/areas/countries/continents. This is driven/determined by the number of players (the total gene pool), the amount of games (or "matings"?), squad modifications (mutations) and number of competitions and level of competitive play (culling the herd). So in areas with a small number of players the evolution might quickly grind to a hold due to "inbreeding" and nothing to push the mutation processes onwards, while in a large areas the constant flow of new ideas and new things to counter and counter with will speed up the process. Of course in both environments a spontaneous "frameshift mutation" or less severe new squad idea/concept might cause a sudden dramatic change that will either die out or become "the new s**t" to beat.

And then comes "The Creationists" aka FFG (btw, I am NOT an creationist myself) with first previews and then new releases and FAQ's which bot can have ground breaking impacts in the meta all over the Earth similar to huge meteor impacts. But even the most massive impact might not be able to kill the cockroaches of X-Wing builds; "The Swam", it might be changed a bit but it'll most likely always persevere for eternity in some shape or form.

With each new Wave out comes also the "environmentalists" and/or "Doom Day Preachers"; they will start shouting "The sky is falling!!", "Everything is broken!!" or "Don't play with the genes!" and similar stuff. In some cases they have a point and proves to be correct, but mostly it ends up with the meta just taking a new an unexpected twist/turn but still going on.

That was it for now, and as I started out by saying; this is not a theory that will hold up to much (any??) scrutiny, it is purely my own musings put down in writing. There are many more similarities the way I see it, but let me know what you think of it an the topic.

Fly Casual

That's interesting and would make an awesome game theory thesis.

what?

after rereading it a few times i see what you are saying. cool thoughts

I like it!

I do think that a complex adaptive system approach would be necessary to explain the development of the meta. However, I think it is a serious factor that there are fora like these where the agents get to share build ideas from outside of their mating habitat. Likewise, there are a lot of out-of-local matings (Vassal, people visiting, and regional/national tournaments).

Furthermore, given how hackneyed people can get with this game, I'm not sure that people are not approaching optimal builds, given the genetic material at their fingertips. While the introduction of an invasive mutation (the Phantom) does seem to have created less of a survivable niche for the Swarm, it has given new life to the HSF and turret builds.

But the problem is that the Creators are themselves adaptive agents; just agents of a higher order. Doubtlessly the Creators are very wise, but probably not omniscient. They too see the meta as it evolves, and think of new things to mess with the meta - but not too much. However, with every new mutation that they introduce, a increasingly large number of newer combinations becomes possible, and at some point the Creators are going to wish that they were wiser than they are.

For the time being, however, we mere agents of a lower order must have faith in the higher order. We must continue to assume that the Creators are benevolent.

A major thing is that we are not (completely) rational beings, and since it IS just a game there is (luckily) still lot's of room for the silly mutations that are just plain fun ;-) This can be frustrating for the purpose driven genetic modifiers

A major thing is that we are not (completely) rational beings, and since it IS just a game there is (luckily) still lot's of room for the silly mutations that are just plain fun ;-) This can be frustrating for the purpose driven genetic modifiers

I guess it depends on what degree of rationality were talking about. I think it's fair enough to say that the preference for winning over losing is widespread enough to take it for granted. However, the rationality is bounded in that we don't have the capacity for calculating the precise utility of all possible combinations of ships and upgrades.

Furthermore, if there is a rock<paper<scissors<rock structure to the most optimal builds, then even a homo economicus would be stymied in making the optimal choice.

A major thing is that we are not (completely) rational beings, and since it IS just a game there is (luckily) still lot's of room for the silly mutations that are just plain fun ;-) This can be frustrating for the purpose driven genetic modifiers

I guess it depends on what degree of rationality were talking about. I think it's fair enough to say that the preference for winning over losing is widespread enough to take it for granted. However, the rationality is bounded in that we don't have the capacity for calculating the precise utility of all possible combinations of ships and upgrades.

Furthermore, if there is a rock<paper<scissors<rock structure to the most optimal builds, then even a homo economicus would be stymied in making the optimal choice.

Sure thing. I thing that spurred me into writing/posting this was the recent UK Nationals where the 4 Lambda list made it to the final and ALMOST won! In the eyes of most people I know this "shouldn't be possible" but I find it both refreshing and wonderful that it can happen. It requires quite some guts and skills to do it, but it can be such a surprise (or new species) that it most likely shocked of baffled many opponents (in combination with skillful flying). It is the same thing that happens when a new species is dropped in a new environment; even though 4 sluggish Lambdas "on paper" shouldn't have any survivability it can mess up the finely tuned meta in some cases.

And let's not forget the joker of the whole thing: The Wonderful/Horrible Dice

I'm guessing that even a herd of extraterrestrial bovine do not survive UK Nationals on dice alone.

Yes, it makes me happy too. I'm guessing that these sweet cows took the wolves at unawares. There is a cultural component to survival strategies, precisely because rationality is bounded. Agents identify patterns. Being outside of the pattern (the meta) offers the pale space cattle a niche.

I think it's fair enough to say that the preference for winning over losing is widespread enough to take it for granted.

But it clearly isn't that widespread, as demonstrated by the large number of people playing "fun" lists that they enjoy even if they aren't perfectly optimized. And that can have a huge effect on the metagame. Let's say that a few people in a local metagame really enjoy TIE swarms and will stubbornly keep playing them even though it's now a second-tier list (though far from a bad list obviously). In that metagame the purely-rational players will pick the best list, but that best list will be heavily influenced by its ability to beat swarms. In a different metagame the best list might emphasize ability beat dual Falcons, or 3-ship rebel lists, or whatever else might be popular.

Now, this isn't going to be true if the fluff/fun/etc players pick truly awful lists that you can just ignore, but IMO X-Wing is a game where there are top-tier lists and a lot of second-tier lists that aren't quite as good but can still compete.

I think it's fair enough to say that the preference for winning over losing is widespread enough to take it for granted.

But it clearly isn't that widespread, as demonstrated by the large number of people playing "fun" lists that they enjoy even if they aren't perfectly optimized. And that can have a huge effect on the metagame. Let's say that a few people in a local metagame really enjoy TIE swarms and will stubbornly keep playing them even though it's now a second-tier list (though far from a bad list obviously). In that metagame the purely-rational players will pick the best list, but that best list will be heavily influenced by its ability to beat swarms. In a different metagame the best list might emphasize ability beat dual Falcons, or 3-ship rebel lists, or whatever else might be popular.Now, this isn't going to be true if the fluff/fun/etc players pick truly awful lists that you can just ignore, but IMO X-Wing is a game where there are top-tier lists and a lot of second-tier lists that aren't quite as good but can still compete.

And that is one more thing that reminds me of evolution; a species that "rationally" shouldn't have been able to survive will sometimes still persevere since it fits in a niche or serves a purpose that makes it viable and successful. Successful purely meaning "able to survive" or in nature "to have offspring"

I've often been guilty of "dismissing" a certain build idea on the basis of "it has way too few Green Dice" or "those dials are horrible" which is partly influenced by my experience with the current meta or my own preferred play style, but with more and more games and the recent inflow of new "species"/players with a novel take on "how this list should be played" I have re opened my eyes and mind to the new stuff again.

Anyways, happy to see that others find the concept/idea at least a bit interesting.

Take care and enjoy the summer

Yes, there is that. I like to fly bombers a lot, and I want nothing to do with Phantoms and Defenders.

But I also don't believe that the optimal lists are so optimal that they always outclass lesser builds. Dice, skill, and local familiarity matter, just as you say.

I don't know how to consider it but a possible restraint on evolution is how the rules are followed. If one needs to have a copy of every upgrade they would use that development can be stunted. Conversely a place that allows proxies for anything, including unreleased material, can grow much fasters.

When one looks at a local group size what influence does outside contact have? A player may be able to adjust squads more quickly and efficiently with access to a larger pool of influence but that doesn't always have a major impact on the local growth.

I don't know how to consider it but a possible restraint on evolution is how the rules are followed. If one needs to have a copy of every upgrade they would use that development can be stunted. Conversely a place that allows proxies for anything, including unreleased material, can grow much fasters.

I suppose you're right. I don't know how much variation there is in different playing cliques. I imagine that the more permissive cliques are going to move closer to optimality, but at the same time, they'll probably be more insular.

When one looks at a local group size what influence does outside contact have? A player may be able to adjust squads more quickly and efficiently with access to a larger pool of influence but that doesn't always have a major impact on the local growth.

That's a great question! There's probably a lot of variation of group sizes and the network shapes of cliques. This has become a question for network analysis. I am guessing that the best predictor of what the meta scene looks like is urbanization. Beyond that, I imagine that it's a function of social capital (the degree to which people in a society interact with one another outside of their minimal connections of family and co-workers).

This would be a question for a better sociologist than myself (I'm more of a political science/international studies sort of fellow, who hasn't had enough sociology).

The Rebel Aces are coming!!! We're doomed!!! Doomed I tell ya!!!

The Rebel Aces are coming!!! We're doomed!!! Doomed I tell ya!!!

Alrighty then...

The Rebel Aces are coming!!! We're doomed!!! Doomed I tell ya!!!

Alrighty then...

Sorry, I felt like taking the Doomday Preacher's mantle....

Carry on...

One interesting I'd like to add to OPs statement is that a curious inversion seems to take place. Whereas in small, isolated ecologies evolution takes place very rapidly, leading to vast differences in physical and behavioral traits, a small isolated community in x-wing is not likely to change very much without outside influence (like a new player or players joining with very different play styles).

The Rebel Aces are coming!!! We're doomed!!! Doomed I tell ya!!!

Noooooooooooo

Rebel Aces is the chosen one, the one to bring balance to the game, and stop rebel players from playing falcon lists due to the phantom every frikkin game i play.

One interesting I'd like to add to OPs statement is that a curious inversion seems to take place. Whereas in small, isolated ecologies evolution takes place very rapidly, leading to vast differences in physical and behavioral traits, a small isolated community in x-wing is not likely to change very much without outside influence (like a new player or players joining with very different play styles).

Hm, could you elaborate on the reason for the former (rapid evolution in isolated ecologies)?

Also, is it true that isolated X-Wing communities don't have rapid evolution?

It would seem to me that in bigger populations of players, where there might be a greater tournament scene, people would be more likely to pay safe & recognized lists (Swarms, HSF, XXBB, Biggs Walks the Dogs, etc.), rather than playful let's-try-this! lists.

It would seem to me that in bigger populations of players, where there might be a greater tournament scene, people would be more likely to pay safe & recognized lists (Swarms, HSF, XXBB, Biggs Walks the Dogs, etc.), rather than playful let's-try-this! lists.

This difference is more between a Casual-player group and Tournament-player group. The casual player play for fun and don't care about losing, he'll experiment a lot; the tournament player will play it more safe and try to optimize his lists as much as he can.

When you are in a small group and always play against the same players, you are more likely to enter a certain comfort zone since you know more what to expect and what each player favors. There is also a shared community perception of the game about what is good and what not. If the Tie swarm is not strong in your area, you are less likely to adapt against it and when you'll face a good Swarm opponent, you will lose badly. In a big group, you are more likely to see more different list.

It would seem to me that in bigger populations of players, where there might be a greater tournament scene, people would be more likely to pay safe & recognized lists (Swarms, HSF, XXBB, Biggs Walks the Dogs, etc.), rather than playful let's-try-this! lists.

This difference is more between a Casual-player group and Tournament-player group. The casual player play for fun and don't care about losing, he'll experiment a lot; the tournament player will play it more safe and try to optimize his lists as much as he can.

When you are in a small group and always play against the same players, you are more likely to enter a certain comfort zone since you know more what to expect and what each player favors. There is also a shared community perception of the game about what is good and what not. If the Tie swarm is not strong in your area, you are less likely to adapt against it and when you'll face a good Swarm opponent, you will lose badly. In a big group, you are more likely to see more different list.

Yes, that is the point I was driving at. I made the assumption that in larger XMG communities, people are more likely to break out of their casual groups and interact more with a wider group of people, and be more likely to play in tournaments.

So, I agree with this, but I'm not sure these support That One Guy's thesis.

The smaller communities in which casual gameplay is less cut-throat than tournament play, the natural selection element of evolution is less likely to take place. At the same time, genetic drift will be more of a factor. I guess we're debating the level of natural mutation.

So where does that leave migration?

This difference is more between a Casual-player group and Tournament-player group. The casual player play for fun and don't care about losing, he'll experiment a lot; the tournament player will play it more safe and try to optimize his lists as much as he can.

IMO it's the exact opposite: the casual players will tend to find what they enjoy playing and keep playing it regardless of if it's the best list for winning or not, while the tournament players know that experimenting and list optimization are important and will keep trying new variations in their "fun" games to figure out the ideal tournament list for when it counts. The casual player will keep showing up with their Wedge/Luke/Biggs list that they love, while the tournament player won't hesitate drop their XXBB list and try that exciting new list that just won a major tournament.

So, IMO, the difference isn't in willingness to experiment, it's in the reasons for experimenting. The tournament players will experiment if and only if there's an idea that seems to have potential, while some casual player might experiment just for the sake of experimenting, even if it's pretty obvious that the experimental list is a bad one.

This difference is more between a Casual-player group and Tournament-player group. The casual player play for fun and don't care about losing, he'll experiment a lot; the tournament player will play it more safe and try to optimize his lists as much as he can.

IMO it's the exact opposite: the casual players will tend to find what they enjoy playing and keep playing it regardless of if it's the best list for winning or not, while the tournament players know that experimenting and list optimization are important and will keep trying new variations in their "fun" games to figure out the ideal tournament list for when it counts. The casual player will keep showing up with their Wedge/Luke/Biggs list that they love, while the tournament player won't hesitate drop their XXBB list and try that exciting new list that just won a major tournament.

So, IMO, the difference isn't in willingness to experiment, it's in the reasons for experimenting. The tournament players will experiment if and only if there's an idea that seems to have potential, while some casual player might experiment just for the sake of experimenting, even if it's pretty obvious that the experimental list is a bad one.

Depends on the type of casual player. Sure, some players like to always play the same thing. But for others, it's better to play with new toys every games. Of course, it's not even experimentation, so I chose the wrong word earlier, it's just trying something new just for the fun of trying it, not to gain an edge over their opponents.

But yeah, you are right. The tournament player will experiment a lot. It's not the casual player that will push the meta, it's the tournament player; the one that want to make the best list possible and keep looking for the better combo.

This difference is more between a Casual-player group and Tournament-player group. The casual player play for fun and don't care about losing, he'll experiment a lot; the tournament player will play it more safe and try to optimize his lists as much as he can.

IMO it's the exact opposite: the casual players will tend to find what they enjoy playing and keep playing it regardless of if it's the best list for winning or not, while the tournament players know that experimenting and list optimization are important and will keep trying new variations in their "fun" games to figure out the ideal tournament list for when it counts. The casual player will keep showing up with their Wedge/Luke/Biggs list that they love, while the tournament player won't hesitate drop their XXBB list and try that exciting new list that just won a major tournament.

So, IMO, the difference isn't in willingness to experiment, it's in the reasons for experimenting. The tournament players will experiment if and only if there's an idea that seems to have potential, while some casual player might experiment just for the sake of experimenting, even if it's pretty obvious that the experimental list is a bad one.

Depends on the type of casual player. Sure, some players like to always play the same thing. But for others, it's better to play with new toys every games. Of course, it's not even experimentation, so I chose the wrong word earlier, it's just trying something new just for the fun of trying it, not to gain an edge over their opponents.

But yeah, you are right. The tournament player will experiment a lot. It's not the casual player that will push the meta, it's the tournament player; the one that want to make the best list possible and keep looking for the better combo.

Not sure if I agree on the last point. Of course in general I would suspect it is the analytical musings of the tournament players that carry the major force of moving the meta, but just like in in nature there will be some rare flukes or leaps (mutations) that could be caused by a "happy to lucky" casual player. It could be an entirely new build, a new outfitting of a less used pilot or a novel play style on a well known build. A parallel to the scientific world would be how penicillin was discovered.

Not sure if I agree on the last point. Of course in general I would suspect it is the analytical musings of the tournament players that carry the major force of moving the meta, but just like in in nature there will be some rare flukes or leaps (mutations) that could be caused by a "happy to lucky" casual player. It could be an entirely new build, a new outfitting of a less used pilot or a novel play style on a well known build. A parallel to the scientific world would be how penicillin was discovered.

Well sure, there is an exception to everything and a casual player could make a build that push the game forward but, I don't think a casual player would come up with a new build strong enough to shake the entire metagame. Highly competitive and unorthodox, I have no doubt. But seeing how the community scrutinize every new cards coming and try to exploit them in every way possible, I would be very surprise if a build that would change the meta came from a casual player without the tournament community knowing about it.

I just don't think the casual player care about the meta. I remember when I started playing and had no idea what to try next and what was good and not. I didn't try or care to create the ultimate team, I was just using the ships I felt like flying. No min/maxing, no statistic about what is better between a TL or a Focus, or one more attack die or a Focus. Just going with the moment.

So yeah, technically, a casual player could come up with an unsuspected build and create a new template, but so could my girlfriend or anybody.