I fly my favourite ships, so mainly A's, B's and Interceptors. Make a list before the game and see how we go. (Normally losing, but still it's fun)

So probably low to mid, but where I play there isn't really a meta to speak of.

The problem with the game, if any, is that there's a "meta" at all. If a handful of builds are so successful that other lists start at an inherent disadvantage, that is poor for the game's health. I like to think most of that advantage is perceived and the numbers skewed by a larger swath of less creative types that copy other players lists, so I don't really give a rat's ass about the meta. I just play what I want and do just fine. I find I have way less fun when I even think about the meta, much less hear constantly about the netlist theorycrafting that tries to poison the meta into becoming something it shouldn't become, which is stale, repetitive, and limited.

Overall, I have way more respect for people who are consistent winners with creative lists and innovative strategies like Hothie, Sable Gryphon, and Kinetic Operator than someone who rolls out the same old formulaic lists built off the "meta" rather than their own inspiration, strategy, tactics, and strengths as a player.

Everyone would be significantly better off if the analysis of the "meta" was discarded in lieu of actual discussion of tactics and strategy, but it's much easier to deconstruct than to create.

Every competitive game has a meta, without fail. There's always lists outside it, and often a truly successful one will break the meta and cause a new one to start forming, but it's always there.

And its there for a good reason, based on the success and current best combinations of ships and cards. By all means play outside it, but to say that most advantage is "perceived" is plain wrong. For top tier competitive players (hell, even for lowe tier competitive players), some things simply are mathematically better than others.

Some of this can be countered by player skill of course, but with two equally skilled players facing each other....the one flying "what he wants" is likely to lose to the one flying a carefully and painstakingly designed combination proven and refined over hundreds of games, even if they weren't HIS games.

Sorry, but it's true. You might not like it, and I might not like it, but until the game exists in which EVERY object is perfectly balanced, there will be a meta.

Tier is probably a better word for it. People who are playing the meta, means that they are playing taking into consideration likeness of what the others play, not necessarily what's popular.

IE : When worlds happened, Fat Han builds featuring gunner/luke were Tier1. Many people would either play Fat Han, and a large amount of them would either hard counter or soft counter phantom play (gunner/luke/ini bids / VI). Paul Heaver metagamed by playing a better build against gunner/luke Fat Hans, while being a bit less efficient against Phantom lists, and it paid off.That's playing the meta.

Low. I often ask my friends "what would you not like to fly against?" Mostly they don't like me flying shuttles

Kitchen Table Meta!

I personally love running Kyle Katarn/Moldy Crow/Focus machine even though he isnt that good.

Oh and I love running Darth Vader in his tie, cant wait for him to become even better!

Low, maybe lower mid meta. I don't want to run the same old thing, even if it wins a lot. I'd rather try my own way.

for what it's worth, there is probably no word thrown around more on this board than "meta". I wonder if a real meta even exists anywhere other than worlds?

Is the meta a myth for most of us? I can tell you that it is for me, and it seems to be for the folks I get to play with, for the most part at least. I'm not a top teir competitor by any stretch. I like to play, and of course i like to win.

To me, i'd almost rather play well and lose than "play cheap" and win. now that is only my opinion, and I would be the first to say, legal is legal and fly what you want to. There is one guy at the store I play at who always flies dual YT-1300s. I have never seen him fly anything else. he often wins (of course) but to me, it's sort of "flying cheap." Yes, he won, but there isn't all that much to crow about when that's how you won.

I don't get much pleasure out of winning like that, but if I can take him down, that is worth it.

i like to build my own list. i certainly learn a lot from these boards and incorporate some of those ideas in my own list, but if I win with someone else's super polished honed list it just does not feel like I am the one who won.

all of these are probably reasons that I lose more than i win, that, and I don't get ot play a lot of games.... low meta for me, that's where it is fun!

Couldn't have said it better myself! Right there with ya!

Low, mid at best.

I feel like top meta is too talked about, people are going to see a top meta list and go "oh, I know how to counter that". I'd rather wander off the beaten path and get eaten by a grue than wear the rut any deeper.

Just maybe one of these days I'll discover a waterfall or something.

The Mid Meta is sort of the proving grounds for lists to move into the Top Meta. This is where they would get refined and played again.

Meta is changing while we're talking about it.

The fact that NB don't get a free focus when clearing stress makes him low-meta.

With every release the meta has and will change. As for what Super Dash is in, I would say it is still in the Mid but moving up into the Top.

So lets just say the possible evolution of list. It may start out as a gimmick or it may start out as a competitive list. If it started in its humble roots as a non-competitive fun build but starts to win games, the build is then studied a little bit more to see what was it about that build that makes it so successful. It is then build into a competitive list which is the mid meta. If it was made to be competitive from the start it usually is the mid unless it fails to win then drops back to low. However as competitive builds succeed or fail in the mid meta they are redesigned until they finally reach a build that can win the regional tournaments thus moving to high.

• Mid Meta: These although have yet to win a regional, are still solid builds and can hold their own against other builds or those that copy Top Meta list but play them ineffectively. These are builds that you occasionally hear about such as Six Sigma, Buzzsaw or Doom Shuttle, 3 Firesprays, or the XXBB lists. They can win local tournaments and qualify for the regionals, but they don't take top spots.

XXBB has taken top spots. Ask Mr. Heaver about that.

Indeed the Rebel 4 ship Xs&Bs have taken top spots although they haven't taken the top 3. They straddle that line between Top and Mid as I said earlier the lines can be blurred a bit.

Yeah that's another thing, I also try to make up my own lists. I don't think I've ever copied a list before.

Biggest form of flattery I ever got, was a list I used a lot on vassal early this year got copied by someone on voidstate and they named it after me

Mid to Low.

I try to keep up with the High tier, just so i can have something to complain about.

I'm terrible, low at best. I enjoy tournaments but I fly things that fit my aggressive style, which don't always do well.

I'll agree with DreadStar that 'tier' is a better word for it, but the typology seems fairly apt. I also agree with Extropia that complaining about the meta is akin to complaining that cats eat mice.

I play TIE Bombers a LOT. I don't fully load them up, just Seismics, and maybe a missile/torpedo or two. Maybe an escort fresh out of the Academy. I don't go to Regionals (I presume I'd get slaughtered), but I hold my own locally.

Just speaking for myself, I just don't like to play the lists that are popular in the meta (though, the 8xAP swarm is fun), mostly because I don't play rebels, and I just don't like the Phantom (or the Defender, but it's not in the same league).

I do think that the developing meta is a fascinating thing, even if I don't participate in it. I think it's good for new players to get their feet wet with, if they're not big fans of a particular ship the way I am with my bombers.

Tier is probably a better word for it. People who are playing the meta, means that they are playing taking into consideration likeness of what the others play, not necessarily what's popular.

IE : When worlds happened, Fat Han builds featuring gunner/luke were Tier1. Many people would either play Fat Han, and a large amount of them would either hard counter or soft counter phantom play (gunner/luke/ini bids / VI). Paul Heaver metagamed by playing a better build against gunner/luke Fat Hans, while being a bit less efficient against Phantom lists, and it paid off.That's playing the meta.

I'll agree with DreadStar that 'tier' is a better word for it, but the typology seems fairly apt. I also agree with Extropia that complaining about the meta is akin to complaining that cats eat mice.

I play TIE Bombers a LOT. I don't fully load them up, just Seismics, and maybe a missile/torpedo or two. Maybe an escort fresh out of the Academy. I don't go to Regionals (I presume I'd get slaughtered), but I hold my own locally.

Just speaking for myself, I just don't like to play the lists that are popular in the meta (though, the 8xAP swarm is fun), mostly because I don't play rebels, and I just don't like the Phantom (or the Defender, but it's not in the same league).

I do think that the developing meta is a fascinating thing, even if I don't participate in it. I think it's good for new players to get their feet wet with, if they're not big fans of a particular ship the way I am with my bombers.

I did call the 3 groups of Tiers, Top Meta Mid Meta Low Meta can easily be called Top Tier Low Tier and No Tier.

Or as I mentioned Top Meta tier, Mid Meta Tier, and Low Meta Tier (if it could be called a tier at all.)

My wife asked me "What is this 'meta' the lads on the forums keep banging on about?" I told her it is when we meet hotties playing the game. For example "I met-a hottie yesterday and defeated her rebel scum list."

Oh, that's not the answer!? Oh well. We just play to have fun. 'Meta' is completely disregarded/ignored. It is not even a minor factor on our decision making process.

I know you mentioned it, but it will bring people to say "i play the meta" "i play low meta", which while adequate to the typology you used, it just irks me.

Playing the meta, is playing the game within the game, in this case, the metagame is the game of list building, where one can win or get advantadges in the xwing game beforehand. So when i read somebody saying "Fat Han is the meta", i get baffled. I know it's an adequate use of the word already because it has been used for long time for this purpose.

So... yeah... ignore me and continue.

Is bacon still meta?

An added part of the discussion should be what part of the meta is really baked into the structure of the game, and what part is the ephemera of our collective beliefs about the structure of the game.

Also, what might the Achilles heels of the meta be.

While I actually think that most of the meta is derived from the structure of the game, I do think that a lot of people play the high meta without fully understanding the nuts and bolts that undergird what makes those lists good.

So, how can that be exploited?

The current lists that see more play, while similar in regards that it features a large base turret and either a resilient arc dodger, have very different weaknesses between them. (dash/corran ; phantom/decimator ; Fat Han/Stuff).

The problem of what you are asking for, is that those weaknesses don't overlap across those lists. You can play the surprise game locally, of course, but take into account there are always little nuances on each list that will make the list stronger against some kind of lists, while giving up some capabilities on dealing against other lists.

Just as a little example (it hasn't everything, just as an example):

You can see that most of those 2 man lists can actually be built to compliment each others weaknesses pretty well, and that's what makes it harder to construct a list that has an advantadge against all of them. You can of course disagree with what i say, i am speaking from my personal experience.

I do think that you can exploit it, at your local metagame (for example, my last tournament that i won because i expected a lot of gunner Fat Hans, so i got a rebel swarm, the next tournament i brainfarted, expected more swarms after my victory, but more people came with the Fat Hans, screwing my attempt to metagame with the Phantom, close, but i lost to a match up i didn't practice, which wasn't a Fat Han btw), but i can't come up with an specific glaring weakness that could be exploited on all of the lists together.

I do not know ,we always discuss lists on a vacuum, but to be competitive you have always to take into account what is played locally, since there doesn't really exist a complete take all comers outside Fat Hans, and now DeciPhantoms and Dash Horny, and of course that's only having practiced a lot with them. It's that kind of stuff what makes Paul Heaver winning twice the worlds much more impressive for me. Not only the in game skills.

Mid to low meta.

I have to compete with top meta builds by using their mid meta counters. It works surprisingly well for me especially in the local tournament scene.

An added part of the discussion should be what part of the meta is really baked into the structure of the game, and what part is the ephemera of our collective beliefs about the structure of the game.

Also, what might the Achilles heels of the meta be.

While I actually think that most of the meta is derived from the structure of the game, I do think that a lot of people play the high meta without fully understanding the nuts and bolts that undergird what makes those lists good.

So, how can that be exploited?

The Acheles heel of the meta? Well it depends the Meta isn't that all bad. It does make tournaments somewhat predictable so when you do go to these events you are not surprised by some random chance encounter. With that information you can build lists to a certain degree of confidence of what you will be facing.

What destroys the meta, well I can think of two things and in a negative way, shifting the power to random outcomes to the point where probability controls the game. Now a little randomness is good even if it can be frustrating watching 6 blank green dice and Soonter Fel getting one shotted. But the randomness of the dice does keep the game from being overtly predictable. Sometimes you get good results and other time you cringe as blanks roll up and you can't spend the focus to change the results. But anything like roll a dice if critical hit you win the game will probably be something that will ruin the meta and the game.

The second thing is rampant power creep. I'm not talking about the slow power creep that develops after a dozen of expansions. To be honest the power creep here is rather limited with core set ships (Tie Swarm) still in the Top Meta Tier. But I'm talking about all of a sudden a power jump to where a newly released set/wave completely overpowers all earlier sets and takes over. You don't want to invalidate the older stuff just to get people to acquire the new stuff to remain competitive. As of now I see both the old and the new ships being competitive in their own way.

I say I play high-mid. I am not a huge fan on some of the top lists though I will use aspects and try to work something that fits my own playstyle