We want a game where minimal changes occur, not one where wild swings are taking place all the time.

Who is 'we'?

Minor changes speak to balance, wild swings are the opposite. You get the wild swings when new stuff is released, like a stone in a lake. But after a while things settle out and we get a better sense of how cards and ships interact with plenty of space for people to introduce new ideas and tactics with a trickle up effect. Stuff that proves to be effectively out of the box, makes its way into the box, and the box changes shape. This is good.

FLGSs will always have a larger box than regionals, and regionals will be larger the nationals, etc.

I agree with your assessment of how this plays out. I might also have some sympathy for your conservative approach, but I'm not sure this is what we're going to see. It seems like FFG is happy to pump out new stuff on what seems like an accelerated schedule. No sooner will the Phantom shock come to some form of equilibrium as we will see the introduction of Rebel Aces and Wave 5.

Not sure what you mean by constructed vs absolute. I just don't know what meaning of the terms you're implying.

Sorry, I missed this. You deserve some clarification on my use of the terms.

By absolute I mean that 'objective'. As in, we have a range of ships, pilots and upgrades, as well as rules to the game. These are given and not subject to (too much) interpretation. According to an absolute/objective meta, the probability distributions inherent in the game are what drive the choices people make.

I take a different view. I think the choices people make drive the choices people make. This is what I mean by intersubjectively constructed. Obviously, the ships, pilots, upgrades and rules matter a great deal, but they are not determinative of how the meta plays out.

I'm not sure what the choices mean. Do you mean overall choices or choices of lists people think are good? Versus lists people run because they can and want to have fun with the list and be damned if they care if they win or not?

Here's a question. What do you think happens when everyone can see the results and actions of their opponent all the time? Ever tried to play magic with hands revealed against a tournament level player? Or Starcraft with the no fog of war mod?

This in a way is what happens to a stale meta game too. Or a too obvious meta.

It happens a bit with the magic meta now in that you only have to wait perhaps one day before being able to see all the results of the previous days too tourneys and the results of all the small daily events on magic online.

Imagine if vassal printed statistics for every list flown on the site? Or even better if they had a quasi competitive side and the site aggregated those results automatically and let you look at them within hours.

--

As for small changes vs big changes.... There has to be enough unexplored potential pieces for a game to continue to be innovative if there are no large changes. Also losing teams must be patient enough to actually stick through a meta that is unfavorable for them.

Ex. Protoss in brood war Starcraft only came of age within the late wars of the game. Prior that win rate for Protoss was around 30%. Excruciatingly far from a balanced 50%. This however was the old version of the game. And played in Korea.

Current Starcraft 2 was hard for Terran for a while at a rate of 45%. Yet American players fled the game in droves and complained about it in incredible numbers. Also the advent of LoL and other games has taken much of the players from Starcraft. Either way it seems much viable for the happiness and continuity of the player base to not change the game drastically to promote new tactics.

Note also the level of disparity in low win rates.

Modern gamers have access to much more information and the lower level meta tends to evolve much faster than the older meta. The power of the meta is directly related to the quality of the information and the speed of the information the general group of meta game considerers need.

This whole meta discussion. I tried to read the thread, but after 10 or so, i was thoroughly confused.

Isn't meta just everything that happens outside of the game?

Players can either try to take advantage of the meta or just just use the meta to make a more thematic list.

Meta by itself is not good or bad. Right?

Also it's probably worthwhile to note that if you care about meta., the most important meta is the one you actually face. Like the local store meta. Not the theoretical national meta.

This whole meta discussion. I tried to read the thread, but after 10 or so, i was thoroughly confused.

Isn't meta just everything that happens outside of the game?

Players can either try to take advantage of the meta or just just use the meta to make a more thematic list.

Meta by itself is not good or bad. Right?

The original idea of meta is what happened outside the game. Namely what did the players think and plan when they weren't actively playing the game.

The modern definition and what we are talking about is the consideration of what lists of ships people tend to take to tournaments or what you see locally at your own store. This is a changing identity over time with new releases.

Meta isn't good or bad but you can have opinions on how much you like the current meta.

Meta typically has no thematic impact. That's called flavor or fluff. Story thematics.

Meta is only concerned with what lists have the highest statistical advantage when played against a certain expected field while considering random fluctuation of game outcomes and random matchups.

In a tournament there can be 32 people. Bit you will only face 4 of them at most.

You could probably beat the first two opponents by sheer skill.

The other two will have better lists that statically give them a higher chance of placing high. ( or are piloted by even more skilled players, in which case you just lose still. But assuming the same skill is eh basis for meta gaming )

Make sense?

I am not sure what the average age of X-wingers would be. I am 36 with a wife and three kids and well into my career. I enjoy playing games like this not to "meta" the crap out of my opponent but to have fun. Maybe because I am set in my ways? I rarely play competitively because I much more enjoy untimed games. For this reason I still use the *gasp* Hwk-290 and Tie Advanced quite often. In untimed games the advanced is incredibly durable and well worth the points. In my opinion I am betting this fixation on the "meta" is nothing more then the fixation today's generations have on instant gratification. Why try the game out and learn when you can find a winning list online and cut and paste it into your game. I see the same thing in other game areas. I play xbox/ PC games also. I find that the games of yore were much less user friendly. You had to think and experiment and DIE a lot. And they were FUN because they were HARD. Today's games hold your hand and don't let you fail (call of duty etc). There will always be some who care only about finding the best list and stomping everyone with it. Thankfully FFG seems to have seen this and with Wave 4 they crushed the old meta and there are a lot of lists that are working quite well now. I hope the meta dies a horrible death.

This definition makes meta gaming sound like power gaming.

I've always understood it to be:

the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions.

You can't really compare a game like Brood War (or sc2, even tho less mechanically demanding) to Xwing to be honest. The metagame was pretty much set in stone with a few different builds per match up, and one standard play. You can change your builds according to what you scout. And what i think it is the point you are trying to make, yes, the meta wasn't figured out for years, but the game is quite more complex than Xwing, and way (WAAAAAAAAAAAAY) harder to execute. It is only natural that it took that longer to figure it out.

In starcraft 2, the meta gets figured out much sooner due to the more simple mechanichs, but it is still miles ahead of the requirements theorycrafting wise and in game execution than a game like Xwing requires.

Cheers anyways, it is always good to read more people talking about starcraft, so many good memories.

Back on topic.

I am right now playing what you would say an outdated build (3 amigos) if the changing meta mattered that much. You just need to learn the list and how to play it in different match ups. If your list doesn't have hard counters, you will always have a chance. So don't play stuff that is hardcountered and you still have a chance if you are experienced and comfortable enough with your list and the match ups you are facing.

*plays a 2X 2B list*

*beats a TIE swarm*

*gets beat by a2 x YT1300 list*

OMG YTS ARE OP PLZ NERF

Wow, we got a balanced game people, who'da thunk it?

I'm not sure what the choices mean. Do you mean overall choices or choices of lists people think are good? Versus lists people run because they can and want to have fun with the list and be damned if they care if they win or not?

Here's a question. What do you think happens when everyone can see the results and actions of their opponent all the time? Ever tried to play magic with hands revealed against a tournament level player? Or Starcraft with the no fog of war mod?

...

Modern gamers have access to much more information and the lower level meta tends to evolve much faster than the older meta. The power of the meta is directly related to the quality of the information and the speed of the information the general group of meta game considerers need.

I'm afraid that the Magic and Starcraft (and most other) references are lost on me. I haven't played those games.

Let me explain it by way of the current example. When Wave 4 came out the Phantom was the great unknown, because it was the greatest departure from the norm. As a result, many people jumped on it. (This is evident in MJ's Wave 4 vs. Wave 3 Regionals stats). Because many people jumped on it, other people started looking for ways to counter the Phantom. That's where we are now. The YT-lists, which doubled after Wave 4 came out (without there actually being a large Rebel ship in Wave 4).

Now, this may be because the Phantom was objectively the best ship, and the Falcon is objectively the best counter to it. However, it could also be hype vs. counterhype. I subscribe to the hype theory. YMMV.

Falcon has always been good or at least viable.

If say the current form with c3po and 3zs is even better. Especially in turtling the yt.

Phantom may be hyped but they're also darn good against mid and low ps builds. Simply see the "is the tie swarm really dead" to see how people are trying to rack their brains on making low ps lists work. They just don't really.

Try it yourself. Design a brew that you think is good against both yt and phantom. Then get someone who is literally just as good as your or better and see how it works with a few games.

If you find something let me know. I want on board. I hate having just three or four solid tier one builds.

I've been reading (and contributing to) this forum for a while now, and have lapped up the discussions on 'the meta', and MajorJuggler's reports.

However, I'm not actually experienced this Phantom vs. Falcon high that we're all supposed to be on in my local scene. In the past few months, I've played just two games in which there was a Phantom, and two games that had a Falcon (the games at home after I just got my Falcon notwithstanding). One of these games had both - so three games in total, and I was flying the Falcon in response to the Phantom because I heard that that was the thing to do. (It was; I slaughtered the Phantom.)

But, in my local scene I'm seeing a lot of Z-95s and E-Wings, and a few Defenders and Phantoms, but it's not the Phantom vs. Falcon craze that everyone is talking about.

So, do I just live in a peculiar place, or is this 'meta' that everyone speaks of just something that is salient at the highest levels?

There's a saying:

When in rome, do as the romans do.

If you are playing X-Wing with your group, play against the players, not the game. If you know that Bob likes to play swarm, then account for it. If Larry is really into playing turrets on ships, expect it. I mean you wouldn't bring a winter jacket if you went on vacation to the Amazons, why would you bring ships that act as meta for the tournament scene when you aren't playing in the tournament scene?

There's a saying:

When in rome, do as the romans do.

That's a great way of encapsulating what I'm saying. People do do as others do, rather than what might be best from an objective sense.

If you are playing X-Wing with your group, play against the players, not the game. If you know that Bob likes to play swarm, then account for it. If Larry is really into playing turrets on ships, expect it. I mean you wouldn't bring a winter jacket if you went on vacation to the Amazons, why would you bring ships that act as meta for the tournament scene when you aren't playing in the tournament scene?

Of course this doesn't mean do as the Romans do. It means, when in Rome do what beats the snot out of the Romans.

Falcon has always been good or at least viable.

Sure it has been. However, when the TIE Swarm was the dominant build, the Falcons didn't get as much play. Now that the Phantom build has replaced the swarm as the most dominant build, use of the Falcon has doubled compared to before. I don't think I'm too far out on a limb to suggest causality here.

And now you can replace the phantom for a swarm to deal with those falcons. To be honest, at top level what you would see more often than not, are lists which are solid enough to deal with a vast array of match ups decently, and players behind them comfortable with their lists. Swarms aren't trumped by phantoms btw, but mostly 4 low ps rebel, and even then, lists like 4 Bwings can make it happen. Specially if not echo (which is likely not to be if it is a big event).

Playing "the meta" is something more likely to happen in loca zones, where you know your opponents. While you can guess that a major tournament you will see many falcon builds, you can't assure that most of the match ups you will play will be falcons. Therefore you are better off trying something more balanced.

If you are playing locally, you will have an easier time to play the meta, since you know most of your opponents, what they have, what they use to play, kind of weakness, etc... hell you can even drive them to play certain lists by hardcountering the ones you don't like to play in regular matches.

If you are playing locally, you will have an easier time to play the meta, since you know most of your opponents, what they have, what they use to play, kind of weakness, etc... hell you can even drive them to play certain lists by hardcountering the ones you don't like to play in regular matches.

Yes and no. The thing is, we actually have compiled data on the higher-level stuff. I don't know how many people keep such close tabs on what is played locally. I could go back and more thoroughly analyze the matches I've had, because I've kept track of them for weeks now in DagobahDave's Unofficial X-Wing Galactic Campaign. However, I don't have much data on other people in my area's games. My understanding of the local scene is much less systematic, and I imagine that it's the same for everybody else in my scene as well.

That said, as a person who likes data, it'd be interesting to start keeping even closer tabs...

Casual play doesnt usually include meta talk.. Which is why its considered casual play.

Meta has micro and macro element to it. Yes, there is a local meta. But its the macrometa that these forums seemto discuss.

Casual play doesnt usually include meta talk.. Which is why its considered casual play.

Meta has micro and macro element to it. Yes, there is a local meta. But its the macrometa that these forums seemto discuss.

Btw. I'm not sure that I like the term 'macro' in this context. While the players at the higher level are doubtlessly much better than I am, they're not aggregate human beings. The 'macro' level should mean everything combined, not a peculiar elite subset.

Meh... I just play what I love.

I enjoy the more intelligent post by seasoned Wingers talking about what works on a particular ship, but beyond these general good game tips ;I care almost zero for what I am supposed to do based on meta-trends.

Me too. I mean come on: i just spent pages defending my "14 HP, 10 attack dice, Defender-centric" tourney list even though it cleared the entire competition without losing the Defender once.

Can I just say... I absolutely hate the term "meta"... Meta is nothing more than strategy, plain and simple. I play poker and I know Bill bluffs a lot, well my strategy against Bill will be wait until I have a strong hand, slow play him, wait until he bluffs and then drop the hammer. This is called strategy, not meta or any other "super" word people want to attach to a normal thought process.

Receiving intel, fomulating a strategy based on said intel, and then applying it is nothing new and we dont need another term for it. I think some people use the word meta to describe elite builds and such... and if they do, they are using the word incorrectly lol.

No, you are.

The metagame (literal: game about the game or game beyond the game) is the squadbuilding aspect.

In unbalanced games (Magic, Warhammer) where a lot of X-wing players come from, you can pretty much win before you start the game if you take the current top netdeck and your opponent does not, and thus huge importance is placed in it. X-wing is pretty well balanced and thus squad composition is far less dominant in determining the victor.

A "meta build" is the current netdeck/s, something that's won a few tournaments and people copy it believing it'll win for them. Given the high value of player skill in this game this is rarely the case. The "local meta" are the squads people tend to use locally. The "global meta" is the small number of squads appearing very frequently in big tournaments.

Let me explain it by way of the current example. When Wave 4 came out the Phantom was the great unknown, because it was the greatest departure from the norm. As a result, many people jumped on it. (This is evident in MJ's Wave 4 vs. Wave 3 Regionals stats). Because many people jumped on it, other people started looking for ways to counter the Phantom. That's where we are now. The YT-lists, which doubled after Wave 4 came out (without there actually being a large Rebel ship in Wave 4).

Now, this may be because the Phantom was objectively the best ship, and the Falcon is objectively the best counter to it. However, it could also be hype vs. counterhype. I subscribe to the hype theory. YMMV.

If you take your Millenium Falcon, conventional Howlrunner TIE swarm and Phantom, you've got Rock, Paper and Scissors. The Falcon will be chewed up by the TIE swarm. The TIE swarm will fall prey to the Phantom, and the Phantom can't ACD or arcdodge the Han Solo Falcon.

Prior to Wave 3, high numbers of low pilot skill generics were popular. Why? More gun kills the enemy faster, more hull means get killed slower, and most importantly pilot skill wasn't that important. If you took Rookie over Wedge you lost Wedge's ability and your place in the turn order. TIE interceptors nonwithstanding that's it. So it made sense to grab as many ships as possible: more gun and more health.

FFG no likey, in rides Shepard the Phantom, proudly waving its "Hi. I kill generics." flag. A few people jump on the phantom because they figure it'll kill the popular XXBBs and TIE swarms. A few fly it because it's crazy fun to fly.

The majority in what's called the "high level" scene predict the Rise of the Phantom and figure they can capitalise on this. Falcons are the easiest and most reliable TIE phantom counter, and the threat of the TIE phantom has scared off the main threat to the giant turret: the great firepower brought by low PS generics.

Bring in the cats to remove the mice. Bring in the dogs to remove the cats. Bring in the lions to remove the dogs, bring in the elephants to remove the lions, bring in the mice to remove the elephants.

In unbalanced games (Magic, Warhammer) where a lot of X-wing players come from, you can pretty much win before you start the game if you take the current top netdeck and your opponent does not, and thus huge importance is placed in it.

Let's try not to be quite so misleading with statements like that.

http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/deckshow.php?event_ID=19&start_date=2014-07-26&end_date=2014-07-26&state=MO&city=Kansas%20City&order_1=finish&limit=8&t_num=1&action=Show+Decks

I count seven different decks in the top 8 at the most recent event.

THERE IS NO META, ONLY ZUUL

That means WotC's doing a better job than they did back in Scars and Zendikar but my point about MTG being a game where the metagame is in many ways far more the point of competition than the game itself stands. Do you dispute the general point?

If skill wasn't the most important factor, you wouldn't see the same professionals winning multiple events. A deck is only as good as the player using it. I certainly won't pretend like I can play as well as Chapin or Finkel just because I use the same decks.

I won't dispute that Magic's history has been shaky at times, but as important as the meta is, it's not the most important aspect of the game. It's just the one people tend to focus on, much like 99% of this forum focuses on list building.

Neither warhammer about "netlists", since most people you will find in internet are horrible anyways. The problem with warhammer is that i can see a deployment and already know how the game will go, since movement matters less than anything in that game at this point.

And yes, i agree with Wonderwaaagh, the same player wins for a reason. The good old "you are using a netlist" is just a excuse for when a player gets defeated to maintain his own ego intact. The problem is that playing somebody elses list is not wrong by itself, if you are doing it to learn the game and why he made the choses he made with that list, improving yourself in the proccess. Pretty much like you by using textbooks to learn school subjects you are not being unfair to yourself, but trying improve yourself.