Funny. I brought 7 Bug Zappers yesterday. Not a single Phantom. Most everyone had Bs and/or Y builds. Besides my poor dice, I still would have done bad. Going from PS2 to PS1 against those tanks huuurts a lot. The Bug Zappers are not end-all, be-all (even though I would have loved them to be for me). I was the only one out of eight with Scum. Sounds like I'm going back to Tarnation for a while longer. Though Soontier is going to be a problem for me....

I don't get why people think 7 bug zapper are that great. Yeah in theory it would be nice if people flew they're nice expensive phantoms and interceptors into range 1 of all of your zapper but who will do that? It's not that hard to keep away from those range 1 bubbles.

i played in a store champ a few weeks a go and tried to guess the Meta...figured people would be flying scum so I built a stress heavy build (truthfully it was a bad build altogether...). The SC had a large number of fat Han and some superdash. looking back on it it makes sense...people wanted to do well and so played builds they were comfortable with.

I suspect the spring tournaments will have a wider variety of builds and maybe some new top tier builds.

TL:DR: losing because your list can't handle the crowd is frustrating. back to the drawing board

I can't think of one single, constructive, UN snide thing to say to a post with this attitude, so I'm just going to link this here.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw

That thing is pretty much "if you don't abuse bugs and exploits you're scum". It's a shame it's online because otherwise I could ram a kitchen knife into that ********'s "bible". By that philosophy every single thing you won't get caught for you are duty bound to do.

But sure, if you want to "play to win" by that definition then by all means, I'll concede every match before it starts. There. Enjoy your "victory."

Me? I play to play.

I think you should read it again, or maybe just read it. You don't seem to have gotten the message. What it means is don't limit yourself. I play to win, and I play for fun, they are not mutually exclusive. If I win I want to know the other guy played their best, if I lose I want to learn from what beat me. It's not about cheating subtally, it's about learning the game and playing your best.

I've read it multiple times and it oozes victory over all else. Anything that claims it's your duty to exploit bugs to the detriment of the game's design is an attitude I have no patience for.

I think fly casual can be mixed with competitive play.
If you see your opponent make a huge mistake or miss an important move do you let him know? I am pretty mellow about call backs as I can play less than perfect myself. During "high level" games you do less of that but it should still be an aspect of your play...play for fun not to beat a person at any cost. I though last years world champion games were awesome with that one exception where the guy would stall and then take out a ship in the last turn or 2. (And truthfully that's legal and you have to expect it and adapt)

but back to the OP...I understand your frustration but just toss it aside and look at some new builds. play the game and have fun.

I can't think of one single, constructive, UN snide thing to say to a post with this attitude, so I'm just going to link this here.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw

I can't think of one single, constructive, UN snide thing to say to a post with this attitude, so I'm just going to link this here.http://www.sirlin.net/ptw

I didn't really think we were going to see anything worse in this thread than the op and the "learn to fly" commentary. Then there's this link and here we are.

What's wrong with the link? The book and articles are great, they really show a good mindset into a competitive player. Someone who wants to play at the highest level.

I can't think of one single, constructive, UN snide thing to say to a post with this attitude, so I'm just going to link this here.http://www.sirlin.net/ptw

I didn't really think we were going to see anything worse in this thread than the op and the "learn to fly" commentary. Then there's this link and here we are.

What's wrong with the link? The book and articles are great, they really show a good mindset into a competitive player. Someone who wants to play at the highest level.

If you're buying how-to books on winning, you'll never be.

I can't think of one single, constructive, UN snide thing to say to a post with this attitude, so I'm just going to link this here.http://www.sirlin.net/ptw

I didn't really think we were going to see anything worse in this thread than the op and the "learn to fly" commentary. Then there's this link and here we are.

What's wrong with the link? The book and articles are great, they really show a good mindset into a competitive player. Someone who wants to play at the highest level.

A book telling you "how to play at the highest level" is exactly one sentence long and says "Consistent, tight play."

If you're buying how-to books on winning, you'll never be.

The book isn't a how to on how to win. It's about the mindset of a competitive gamer vs someone who is a scrub, someone imposing limitations on themselves. Very good and interesting read. If all you do is just play casually then yeah it wont interest you in the slightest.

"a competitive gamer vs someone who is a scrub"

And there's a difference?

You dont have to take fat han, decimator, phantom, super dash, or a swarm to win. I will add warthogs and double aggressors so the list too. You do need to have a plan to deal with those ships and lists though. If you can't figure out how to beat a given ship or list have a friend fly that list against you and play it until you can beat it. Have them tell you what they would have done that would have beaten them. Or upgrades that would have done better against their ships. If you don't have a plan to beat ships you know you are going to see then you won't be able to win regardless of what you are flying.

I've read it multiple times and it oozes victory over all else. Anything that claims it's your duty to exploit bugs to the detriment of the game's design is an attitude I have no patience for.

Your first sentence contradicts your second, where, anywhere does the book or any of the articles tell you to cheat?

The closest they come is in recognizing some difficult to enact abilities which were not ruled exploits by the judges at the event. That isn't a bug exploit.

However, it also does not apply to this game.the part that applies here is the competitive mindset, refuse to limit yoursel by describing valid play as "cheap".

The second really handy part there is to fully explore and learn the game, because only then can you really play to win.

Your attitude, it just confuses me. It's like you read "I'm trying to do the best possible" as "I'm a jerk and will cheat to win".

The articles are very clear on not cheating, so if you see something they say as cheating you must be using a broader, invalid, definition of that word.

I think you're overreacting a bit. It's easy to get frustrated by people constantly running the same general lists over and over again but your response to it is a bit extreme. If you want to fly a list that you enjoy then I'd encourage it but you've gotta be willing to switch up your lists somewhat based on your local meta and that is not a list that will excel against Deci/Phantom.

Here's a slight tweak to your list that I think will stand a better chance, I'd go

Col. Vessery w/ HLC, Omicron Group Pilot w/ Vader, Soontir Fel with Targeting Computer and Autothrusters.

Try to get Fel matched up on Whisper, at the very least he can occupy him while your shuttle and Vessery do work on the Decimator, at the most he can outmaneuver Whisper leaving him de-cloaked for either Fel or another ship to get a shot on him.

I think fly casual can be mixed with competitive play.

If you see your opponent make a huge mistake or miss an important move do you let him know? I am pretty mellow about call backs as I can play less than perfect myself. During "high level" games you do less of that but it should still be an aspect of your play...play for fun not to beat a person at any cost. I though last years world champion games were awesome with that one exception where the guy would stall and then take out a ship in the last turn or 2. (And truthfully that's legal and you have to expect it and adapt)

but back to the OP...I understand your frustration but just toss it aside and look at some new builds. play the game and have fun.

Yeah I remember Alex talking about him in an interview. Legal but.... He made it clear it was too rare to change anything but if people started doing this more, changes would be made.

Besides that guy whatever his name is always has to live with that stigma/reputation. I am not sure if many if anybody could respect that player/play style in a high level game.

OMG THE SKIES FALLING BECAUSE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE BROUGHT A BALANCED LIST, BUT I THINK IT'S OP SO I DIDN'T EVEN TRY AND TOOK IT OUT ON SOME NEWB!!!!!

Lay off the caps lock bro.

Look, OP, everyone has taken a trip down to the salt mines before. Try to assess the game after you've put the shovel down and taken a breather; getting frustrated is a reflex that can only be sort-of controlled, but it doesn't help to stew in the juices.

Takes notes while you play: it'll give you something to focus on aside from what's happening on the table and is a good way to improve your turn to turn decision making for future games. If I can presume that it's more important to you to become a better / more respected player than it is to win one given game, your focus shouldn't be on whether or not you were tabled. What were the critical turns in the game? How did you set up? Did you like how the game flowed from your set-up? How many modified dice were you able to throw vs how many your opponent threw? How often were you in an arc? You often were you able to get an arc?

Your list is also going to matter, and the match-up is going to matter, but the you won't have the tools to do that kind of tailoring if your approach to the game is, "I won / lost before we sat down to play. Stupid Phantoms."

All the feedback arrays in the world won't help you a bit if this is what you do (and we both know exactly what will happen: your list, built only as a hard counter for Phantoms, will run into Super Dash or Fat Han or BBBZ or TIE Swarm or God knows what else, because Phantoms probably aren't as prevalent as your frustrated mind thinks they are, and you'll be right back in salt mines again with a new series of complaints and probably another silver bullet list that radically over-compensates for whatever you perceive to be the monster that haunts you).

Although I must admit, that would be an interesting list to run.......

I can't think of one single, constructive, UN snide thing to say to a post with this attitude, so I'm just going to link this here.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw

That thing is pretty much "if you don't abuse bugs and exploits you're scum". It's a shame it's online because otherwise I could ram a kitchen knife into that ********'s "bible". By that philosophy every single thing you won't get caught for you are duty bound to do.

But sure, if you want to "play to win" by that definition then by all means, I'll concede every match before it starts. There. Enjoy your "victory."

Me? I play to play.

I think you should read it again, or maybe just read it. You don't seem to have gotten the message. What it means is don't limit yourself. I play to win, and I play for fun, they are not mutually exclusive. If I win I want to know the other guy played their best, if I lose I want to learn from what beat me. It's not about cheating subtally, it's about learning the game and playing your best.

i would just say this:

Sirlin's articles have a mean-spirited tone and are clearly intended to antagonize readers, Sirlin has never put his money where his mouth is and actually won - or even finished top 8 - at EVO, there are much better articles written by people who have actually proven themselves at tournaments (for X-Wing, read Paul Heaver's articles. For SF, read Justin Wong's articles. For SC 2, watch Day9's series, etc) and the fact that some players get frustrated at certain elements of a game does not entitle anyone to render judgement about their character. Maybe that part of the game does need revisiting, or maybe not, but it's no more helpful to label players 'scrubs' and thumb you oh-so-much-more-talented nose at them than it is to whine about the game.

You took two Defenders and an Interceptor, with an Ion cannon mind you, and lost? It's not something all-powerful, but it's definitely a competent list that an equally competent player could pull out a win with.

i would just say this:

Sirlin's articles have a mean-spirited tone and are clearly intended to antagonize readers, Sirlin has never put his money where his mouth is and actually won - or even finished top 8 - at EVO, there are much better articles written by people who have actually proven themselves at tournaments (for X-Wing, read Paul Heaver's articles. For SF, read Justin Wong's articles. For SC 2, watch Day9's series, etc) and the fact that some players get frustrated at certain elements of a game does not entitle anyone to render judgement about their character. Maybe that part of the game does need revisiting, or maybe not, but it's no more helpful to label players 'scrubs' and thumb you oh-so-much-more-talented nose at them than it is to whine about the game.

Sirlin is provocative, I will ceed that, however I don't see the article as antoginistic in the least. I've read many of Paul's articles, will likely get to the rest sooner or later. I have yet to see anything in Paul's writing which challenges my own preconceptions, or self identity. Sirlin, does that from the start. Looking back on my past competitive play I can actually remember calling things cheap and that attitude held me back, not just in games either.

However far he got, I think we can agree he played competitively, not being the best does not render his advice bad, it just shows that skill counts for a lot, no matter how good your mindset, or that he was bad at taking his own advice I suppose.

The idea of self imposed limits is powerful, if reading that gets someone upset, I think they may be engaging in auto-protective behavior. Personally, I can't stand it when I do that and I work to challenge it out of myself. I'm interested in being the best me I can achieve.

I think other people would be happier being their best too, so I tend to challenge others when they seem to be self defeating, and there isn't always a gentle way to do that, sometimes, often, those messages have to be delivered bluntly, or they are ignored.

I have yet to see anything in Paul's writing which challenges my own preconceptions, or self identity. Sirlin, does that from the start

Yes, because Paul is only sharing his thoughts & advice on how to play X Wing competitively - he is not pretending to be your tough love Internet psychiatrist, and you should be skeptical of anyone who is.

The idea may sound powerful, but it's pop-psychology at best: Sirlin has no idea if that is actually what happens to players who then go on to complain about a given game mechanic, and he's plainly painting with too broad a stroke. He has neither the expertise nor the qualifications nor the data to be diagnosing player behaviors - he just writes what sounds compelling and/or abusive and/or provocative enough to get a reaction from the reader.

He's someone who should by all means have no credibility, but he quite masterfully used the language of self-help gurus and compelled himself a little following despite his 'playing to win' values apparently not posting a lot of wins. There is no silver bullet to mastery, and that includes having a good or 'tough' attitude; there are plenty of examples of people in different vocations with absolutely terrible - even defeatist - attitudes who reached the upper echelons of achievement in their field regardless.

I have yet to see anything in Paul's writing which challenges my own preconceptions, or self identity. Sirlin, does that from the start[/background][/font][/color]

Yes, because Paul is only sharing his thoughts & advice on how to play X Wing competitively - he is not pretending to be your tough love Internet psychiatrist, and you should be skeptical of anyone who is.

Do you realize that skepticism should also be applied to you, and that you are implying I am unskeptical with, at best, insuficient evidence?

The idea may sound powerful, but it's pop-psychology at best: Sirlin has no idea if that is actually what happens to players who then go on to complain about a given game mechanic, and he's plainly painting with too broad a stroke. He has neither the expertise nor the qualifications nor the data to be diagnosing player behaviors - he just writes what sounds compelling and/or abusive and/or provocative enough to get a reaction from the reader. [/background][/font][/color]

He's someone who should by all means have no credibility, but he quite masterfully used the language of self-help gurus and compelled himself a little following despite his 'playing to win' values apparently not posting a lot of wins. There is no silver bullet to mastery, and that includes having a good or 'tough' attitude; there are plenty of examples of people in different vocations with absolutely terrible - even defeatist - attitudes who reached the upper echelons of achievement in their field regardless.

No, the idea is powerfull. Maybey you missed the part where I said I took it to heart, realized I was holding myself back and improved my play. I don't need the person I read to have a doctorate, or published study for me to consider their ideas. You'd be pretty SOL if I did since you have offered neither.

I get that you don't like Sirlin, I'm not really sure why, since your main beef with him seems to be he hasn't won enough. You are rejecting his premise out of hand and it seems to be because his thesis doesn't apply to every single case of competitive play. I would find it pretty wild if it did. Systems are genrally more complex than any one single explination can account for. That doesn't mean the places where they do work stop being useful.

Also, "Sirlin has no idea if that is actually what happens to players who then go on to complain about a given game mechanic".

Are you a mind reader? Have you read Sirlin's mind? I mean, you are arguing for skepticism and telling me what some other person knows... Are you Sirlin and in disguise and hate your published works?

So lets talk about complaining about a given game mechanic. What benifit does it serve? I suspect it could be good for stress relief, and possibly as a means of bonding with other folks who also don't like it. If a proper case can be made that the mechanic is abusive, then the game can even be bettered, if the complainer goes and gets the data and proves the case, though none of those last things are complaining about a game mechanic.

Now what is the advantage of not complaining about the mechanic, but instead, seeking to understand, and conquer the obstacle? Well better play right?

Which of the two behaviors is better if the goal is to get better at playing a game?

Is there a third behavior that is even more better at achieving the goal?

Why are you defending people who complain about rules?

Do you realize that skepticism should also be applied to you, and that you are implying I am unskeptical with, at best, insuficient evidence?

Quite - but I'm not offering you advice. And yes, if you are taking Sirlin's advice to heart - to use your words - I would say you are not being skeptical enough of his claims.

Except, again, I'm not offering advice here or pretending to know the mindset of the 'scrub'.

I get that you don't like Sirlin, I'm not really sure why, since your main beef with him seems to be he hasn't won enough. You are rejecting his premise out of hand and it seems to be because his thesis doesn't apply to every single case of competitive play. I would find it pretty wild if it did. Systems are genrally more complex than any one single explination can account for. That doesn't mean the places where they do work stop being useful.

I explained why I dislike his work: it is mean spirited in tone, it professes a level of expertise the author does not have and the language absolutely reeks of self help guru. His lack of tournament results only speaks to his credibility; it's not the sole reason I feel the body of writing should be dismissed.

I'm also not rejecting the premise out of hand - I'm saying he has not presented a compelling case for it, and no empirical evidence to back it up. Not even a rudimentary home baked experiment. "There are 'scrubs' and scrubs behave like 'this' and as long as I keep my tone condescending enough, people will chin me and slap me on the back for 'telling it how it is',"

This is every guru and matchstick man ever.

Also, "Sirlin has no idea if that is actually what happens to players who then go on to complain about a given game mechanic".

Are you a mind reader? Have you read Sirlin's mind? I mean, you are arguing for skepticism and telling me what some other person knows... Are you Sirlin and in disguise and hate your published works?

No, I've simply read his work, and that's what it states right up front. That's the main premise: 'scrubs' play by an artificial set of rules that limit their success, they become frustrated when they perceive an opponent as having violated their self-imposed rules set and they hit an arbitrary skill ceiling because they refuse to go outside the boundaries of the imaginary rules they set for themselves.

This is explained with all of the aggressive confidence of a Hold 'Em player going all in on a 2-7.

There's no substance. Sirlin doesn't cite so much as a single interview with one of his 'scrubs', doesn't explain the origins of his theory, doesn't explain exactly how players create these artificial frameworks for themselves or how said frameworks impart an exclusively negative influence on the player, etc. At best it's projection of Sirlin's own experiences onto others, and it just sounds appealing.

So lets talk about complaining about a given game mechanic. What benifit does it serve? I suspect it could be good for stress relief, and possibly as a means of bonding with other folks who also don't like it. If a proper case can be made that the mechanic is abusive, then the game can even be bettered, if the complainer goes and gets the data and proves the case, though none of those last things are complaining about a game mechanic.

Improvements on game mechanics start with complaints. That's one of the first things you do with a blind playtest group, for example: you note their complaints (whether it has to do with components, art direction, social insensitivity or the gameplay itself) and go back with your team (if you have one) to address the complaints (this doesn't necessarily mean capitulating on every single point, which is usually unfeasible because different people will have different opinions - but it does mean that you get new insight to work with and perspectives you may not have even considered before while you were in the design space bubble).

Now what is the advantage of not complaining about the mechanic, but instead, seeking to understand, and conquer the obstacle? Well better play right?

Which of the two behaviors is better if the goal is to get better at playing a game?

Complaints and understanding are not mutually exclusive things. I think you may be conflating 'complaint' with 'obnoxious whining' (although the latter isn't mutually exclusive to understanding the game at a deep level either). I would say that I see no obvious advantages at all to refusing to complain about things you dislike in a game.

Is there a third behavior that is even more better at achieving the goal?

You've created a false dichotomy. There are many ways to get better at playing a game (or doing much of anything, really). I would guess that study & practice are the most effective means for most people, but again, that's not my field of expertise.

Why are you defending people who complain about rules?

There is nothing wrong with complaining about rules (though here I'm more interested in criticizing than Sirlin than defending the people he wishes to ostracize, if I'm honest). Complaints about things you find to be unfair in game will not doom you to an eternity in scrubdom anymore than the number 13 will doom you to misfortune (though whining will certainly catch you a lot of flak), and are probably value neutral in terms of impacting your long term performance (again, not my field of expertise, but that would be my guess / assumption until proven otherwise).

I went to an event today, I brought a solid B list. 35 point soontir, a delta Defender with ion cannon, and a Delta Defender with flechette cannon. Everyone except me and 2-3 others brought Phantom Decimator. Neat, autolost right from the get go. Probably about 10 people overall.

First match faced Phantom Deci. Lost. Probably could have played a bit better and killed the phantom earlier, but eh.

So I pummeled a new guy that was handed a Phantom Decimator list, he also forgot actions incessantly so that helped. 100 - 0.

Last match was phantom deci. Lost.

So yep, nothing but feedback array awarm it is. Made the assumption that I wouldn't be facing all A+ lists, so I autolost in the listbuilding phase. Decimator with Gunner and Predator and the Rear Adirmal is always getting at least 3 hits. That combined with the Phantom means I have Soontir, and then 2 ships that are about as easy to kill as a TIE Fighter.

April 15th please dear god. If anything it's worse now because everyone is trying Phantom before the nerf.

I feel your pain. I played with a x2 Tie Defender list yesterday and I got obliterated so badly it wasn't too much fun. Fortunately, at least FFG has listened and they are tweaking the Tie Phantom so that shouldn't be an issue. Good luck with the Z's!