TasteTheRainbow, didn't you run something very similar to those top Rebel control lists from Göttingen in Tulsa? I seem to recall your list from the report.
(And in the name of all that is holy, why did you change your avatar?! You know nothing, John Snow.)
I think that German winner is the only other top 8 Corran 2Y in all of the regionals beside me. Glad someone else took it, but that fragile Corran build is braver than I am.
lol, ninja'd
TasteTheRainbow, didn't you run something very similar to those top Rebel control lists from Göttingen in Tulsa? I seem to recall your list from the report.
(And in the name of all that is holy, why did you change your avatar?! You know nothing, John Snow.)
Wait for s5e10. I know something. Honestly I'll probably change it back.
My Corran was the opposite of that Corran build. Sensors instead of FCS. Ptl instead of VI. I do like the flechettes on his Y's though. My new version of my own list replaces the second Y with an FCS blue with flechettes.
Honestly I have to wonder how often he actually managed to fire the flechettes from the stresshog. My 5-17 stress tokens usually prevents such a thing.
A dual defender list, a 3 ship Rebel with Luke and an A-Wing, an asymmetric A/B brobot, and a dedicated TIE swarm but you don't think there is any diversity there?
Also, you skipped right over the part where I noted that about half of the total tournament entries were fat turrets in the first place, which means that all of these builds were competitive vs. the "easy mode", "OP", (or whatever other pejorative term you want to use) turret lists. The perception of fat turrets being both easier and more powerful is perpetuated by comments such as yours, but the objective data coming in as the Regionals season progresses disagrees.
^This. I couldn't hit like enough times to satisfy how much I agree with KO's statement here.
50% of the lists being same old, same old? That's still not enough diversity to satisfy me.
I did skip over the part about how many fat turrets there were b/c I didn't think it was relevant. I haven't been saying that turrets are "easy mode". My chief complain for months has been about diversity (or lack thereof). I do think turrets have some sort of advantage over other lists or else we wouldn't see as many of them taken by the best players.
The number of entries is the only thing relevant when talking about the relative strength of a list. If 2/3 of the entries were turrets, but only half of the top 8 were turrets, it would suggest they are less capable than the rest of the field. If 1/3 of the field was turrets, but half of the top 8 were, it would suggest they are more capable. If they were half of the entries and half of the top 8, it suggests they are pretty balanced against the field.
On the other hand, the total number of entries in the field is pretty purely a function of perception. People bring what they believe will give them the best chance of success. Right now, with the constant harping online and the way most tournaments only report the top 8, we see a feedback mechanism where lots of turrets are reported and lots of people play them because they are reported. But the top players I know have moved on, with fat turrets as part of their repertoire but no longer their main go-to list. They have not been nerfed to insignificance, but neither are they a dominant force on the table anymore.
If anything, the only ship I see gaining powerhouse status over the course of the season is Corran Horn. He is everywhere in the Top 8, in numbers far out of proportion to his total entries. If we are going to complain rationally, we should be complaining about E-Wings.
I don't know about you, but having E-Wings be the #1 target of my concern is a welcome change of pace. :-)
I hate to point this out, but there is a large error in your thinking because you in no way account for player skill with this method.
If I pit the top 8 from Worlds last year without turreted ships against 92 chimpanzees with Decimators, your metrics would show that Decimators perform very poorly. They represent 92% of the field, but none of the top 8.
In order to properly look at this, you must take skill into the equation somehow to weed out false data points. Look at the top 32 finishers and see how many of a ship made the top 8. Look at the top 8s and see how many times that ship won. You must first somehow down select to players of roughly equivalent skill and then see how the ship compares to others. There is a lot of noise in an open entry field.
The number of entries is the only thing relevant when talking about the relative strength of a list. If 2/3 of the entries were turrets, but only half of the top 8 were turrets, it would suggest they are less capable than the rest of the field. If 1/3 of the field was turrets, but half of the top 8 were, it would suggest they are more capable. If they were half of the entries and half of the top 8, it suggests they are pretty balanced against the field.
On the other hand, the total number of entries in the field is pretty purely a function of perception. People bring what they believe will give them the best chance of success. Right now, with the constant harping online and the way most tournaments only report the top 8, we see a feedback mechanism where lots of turrets are reported and lots of people play them because they are reported. But the top players I know have moved on, with fat turrets as part of their repertoire but no longer their main go-to list. They have not been nerfed to insignificance, but neither are they a dominant force on the table anymore.
If anything, the only ship I see gaining powerhouse status over the course of the season is Corran Horn. He is everywhere in the Top 8, in numbers far out of proportion to his total entries. If we are going to complain rationally, we should be complaining about E-Wings.
I don't know about you, but having E-Wings be the #1 target of my concern is a welcome change of pace. :-)
To be honest, I just need to look at what's winning the events. Just seeing fat turret after fat turret win these things is disheartening. The % of fat turrets that didn't make it doesn't hold as much relevancy for me.
The number of entries is the only thing relevant when talking about the relative strength of a list. If 2/3 of the entries were turrets, but only half of the top 8 were turrets, it would suggest they are less capable than the rest of the field. If 1/3 of the field was turrets, but half of the top 8 were, it would suggest they are more capable. If they were half of the entries and half of the top 8, it suggests they are pretty balanced against the field.
On the other hand, the total number of entries in the field is pretty purely a function of perception. People bring what they believe will give them the best chance of success. Right now, with the constant harping online and the way most tournaments only report the top 8, we see a feedback mechanism where lots of turrets are reported and lots of people play them because they are reported. But the top players I know have moved on, with fat turrets as part of their repertoire but no longer their main go-to list. They have not been nerfed to insignificance, but neither are they a dominant force on the table anymore.
If anything, the only ship I see gaining powerhouse status over the course of the season is Corran Horn. He is everywhere in the Top 8, in numbers far out of proportion to his total entries. If we are going to complain rationally, we should be complaining about E-Wings.
I don't know about you, but having E-Wings be the #1 target of my concern is a welcome change of pace. :-)
To be honest, I just need to look at what's winning the events. Just seeing fat turret after fat turret win these things is disheartening. The % of fat turrets that didn't make it doesn't hold as much relevancy for me.
A dual defender list, a 3 ship Rebel with Luke and an A-Wing, an asymmetric A/B brobot, and a dedicated TIE swarm but you don't think there is any diversity there?
Also, you skipped right over the part where I noted that about half of the total tournament entries were fat turrets in the first place, which means that all of these builds were competitive vs. the "easy mode", "OP", (or whatever other pejorative term you want to use) turret lists. The perception of fat turrets being both easier and more powerful is perpetuated by comments such as yours, but the objective data coming in as the Regionals season progresses disagrees.
^This. I couldn't hit like enough times to satisfy how much I agree with KO's statement here.
50% of the lists being same old, same old? That's still not enough diversity to satisfy me.
I did skip over the part about how many fat turrets there were b/c I didn't think it was relevant. I haven't been saying that turrets are "easy mode". My chief complain for months has been about diversity (or lack thereof). I do think turrets have some sort of advantage over other lists or else we wouldn't see as many of them taken by the best players.
The number of entries is the only thing relevant when talking about the relative strength of a list. If 2/3 of the entries were turrets, but only half of the top 8 were turrets, it would suggest they are less capable than the rest of the field. If 1/3 of the field was turrets, but half of the top 8 were, it would suggest they are more capable. If they were half of the entries and half of the top 8, it suggests they are pretty balanced against the field.
On the other hand, the total number of entries in the field is pretty purely a function of perception. People bring what they believe will give them the best chance of success. Right now, with the constant harping online and the way most tournaments only report the top 8, we see a feedback mechanism where lots of turrets are reported and lots of people play them because they are reported. But the top players I know have moved on, with fat turrets as part of their repertoire but no longer their main go-to list. They have not been nerfed to insignificance, but neither are they a dominant force on the table anymore.
If anything, the only ship I see gaining powerhouse status over the course of the season is Corran Horn. He is everywhere in the Top 8, in numbers far out of proportion to his total entries. If we are going to complain rationally, we should be complaining about E-Wings.
I don't know about you, but having E-Wings be the #1 target of my concern is a welcome change of pace. :-)
I hate to point this out, but there is a large error in your thinking because you in no way account for player skill with this method.
If I pit the top 8 from Worlds last year without turreted ships against 92 chimpanzees with Decimators, your metrics would show that Decimators perform very poorly. They represent 92% of the field, but none of the top 8.
In order to properly look at this, you must take skill into the equation somehow to weed out false data points. Look at the top 32 finishers and see how many of a ship made the top 8. Look at the top 8s and see how many times that ship won. You must first somehow down select to players of roughly equivalent skill and then see how the ship compares to others. There is a lot of noise in an open entry field.
I disagree. Player skill is something that is generally irrelevant when examining large numbers, but when it is relevant it tends to exaggerate the number of top finishes for a particular powerful list archetype.
For example, if your tournament of 80 has 8 top players, you would expect those players to have a disproportionate number of "top lists" for the simple reason that the best players are the most capable of determining what the "best" lists are. If fat turrets were the most powerful archetype, and the field had 50% turrets, you would expect more than 4 of the top tier players to recognize this and run them. You will see a field with 50% fat turret entries but >50% of the top 8 will be fat turrets. This would be both because of simple numbers in the large scale (where an inherently better list will achieve better results) but also because a disproportionate number of top players relative to the field ran that list archetype in the first place.
If you see roughly equal percentages, it suggests that the top players do not perceive the list to be inherently more capable of winning. It also suggests that top players are not able to "get more" out of their fat lists (because some top players inevitably have off days, and the fat turret lists are neither pushing them up nor down in the standings).
The existence of "top players" exacerbates the effect of unbalanced ships/lists, it does not mitigate it.
Edited by KineticOperatorAnyone know what the attendance was at the KC Regional that Kinetic Operator won? I heard 67 but wanted to confirm.
And more importantly, does anyone know if the TO has plans to put the results up on List Juggler?
Independence is in Missouri. At least the one with the Regional.
Thanks, skimming state abbreviation fail!
It's all just flyover country to you east coasters, right?
I have actually been in Kansas City, I presented at a conference there several years back!
The Top 8 in KC was awesome. Four turrets (Han, Dash, 2xChewie), three with Corran and one with Talas. Three Corran, including two of the turrets, but the third had Luke (Luke!) and an A-Wing of all things. A pure TIE swarm with Howlrunner with a nice twist to her build. One asymmetrical Brobot list using A and B. A twin Defender list!
With so many turret entries, the top 8 representation showed them to be on par in effectiveness, not superior. They were successful in roughly the same percentage as their entries, and the only ones to make the cut were the ones flown by the most skilled players (giving lie to the easy-mode theorists).
All in all, an excellent example of a meta that appears to be regaining its diversity. :-)
I look at diversity with 2 aspects: first "fatness", and then the uniqueness of the builds themselves. So here's my metrics:
* Asymmetric IG88's are everywhere, this list is a snowflake but it's not distinct from the meta. The only meaningful difference is the inclusion of 88 A , which is arguably still sub-optimal to 88C or D, but its level of competitiveness and archetype is extremely similar to all the other IG88 lists that we have seen in Top 8. The only dual IG88 list that I would even potentially consider treating as somewhat unique is Hothie's Dual IG88 with Sensor Jammer on B, but even that still falls into the broad but well-defined BroBot category. It also did not make Top 8, nor has any other BroBot list with Sensor Jammer.
** Not Fat, but a 48 point regenerating Corran Horn makes it "moderately Obese".
Turret lists: 3/8.
Unique lists: 3/8.
Fat Lists: 6/8
Turrets.
KC had 3 turret lists vs 48% worldwide, so there was 1 less turret in the Top 8 than worldwide averages.
Uniqueness
If we look at worldwide Top 8 for "unique" lists, and we exclude anything that is:
... then the remaining lists make up 30% of the Top 8 (again, as of last week).
KC was 3/8 = 37.5% "unique" or "non meta". It's technically more unique than average, but average would be 2.4 unique lists, and you can only have integer amounts of lists, so 2 and 3 are both within the window of being average levels of unique. You really can't declare a tournament "anti-meta" unless it has 4+ unique lists in Top 8.
Also, the unique lists in KC only won 1 game out of 4 played in elimination, which is actually slightly worse than the conditional effectiveness of worldwide results.
Fatness
There are even more "Fat" lists in KC than are seen on average worldwide. As of last week:
worldwide average for Top 8
Fat lists: 62%
Fat or Moderately obese lists: 73%
2-ship lists: 52%
KC Top 8
Fat lists: 75% (20% increase in fat, 35% reduction in non-fat)
Fat or Moderately obese lists: 87% (20% increase in fat, 54% reduction in non-fat)
2-ship lists: 62% (20% increase in 2-ship, 21% reduction in non-2 ship)
TL;DR: Kansas City has found a slightly unique and marginally non-turreted way of still being 20% overweight compared to the rest of the world.
(insert fat american joke here
***
)
*** This is in no way implying that the players at KC are actually physically fat.
Edit: P.S. Congrats KO on your victory! After this weekend's Regional I am re-thinking my dual IG88 list for sure.
Edited by MajorJugglerI'm fat. :-) I also agree that brobots are a fairly common archetype, though I believe something is lost when they are all lumped into a single bin. They can play quite differently depending on load out and specific IG88s chosen. For example, (AdSens + PtL + IG88C) vs. (AdSens + Predator + IG88D) play extraordinarily differently from one another.
Also, while I see what you are doing I believe some of your definitions are so broad as to be misleading. If you define "Fat" as any list that includes a ship with a lot of upgrades (like the Dual Defender list) whether on large base or small you are going to include pretty much every list in the game.
The complaints have been about large base turret ships, using engine upgrade and a variety of damage mitigation sources to "lock" a very large number of points up in a target that is difficult to remove within the time limits of a typical game. The particular combination of 360 degree shooting, damage mitigation, and disproportionate speed (boost plus large base) creates a distinct play style that many people including myself are sick to death of seeing.
Your analyses are very mathematically based, and very useful, but IMO list archetypes are truly defined by how they play. The mechanisms they exploit are far more important than the specific upgrades. I could lock 50 points up in a B-Wing if I really wanted to, but it would play so differently from a 50 point 3p0 Chewie that the two are incomparable despite having similar point totals.
JMO, but I think that a very large portion of the discontent at this point is nothing more than people reading negatives into results where they really don't exist. Even your list of things to exclude for "uniqueness" is long enough to provide an interesting meta. Add that to the fact that even pre-Wave 5 "unique" lists generally only placed at most one list in a top 8 (relative to the meta of the time) and we are seeing results that have a solid number of left field lists capable of competing on a relatively equal footing.
Edited by KineticOperatorMJ... I'd be interested in know your strict definition of 'fat' because I think that's an important definer in your above post.
Jacob
Hey all. I will be posting the results for the KC regional to Juggler as soon as I have recovered from the weekend. Between running the event and then doing an all day Roller Derby Car Wash fundraiser on Sunday I'm pretty much dead. Should hope to have the results soon.
It really should. If you ignore entry representation then top 8 representation doesn't really tell you anything.
The number of entries is the only thing relevant when talking about the relative strength of a list. If 2/3 of the entries were turrets, but only half of the top 8 were turrets, it would suggest they are less capable than the rest of the field. If 1/3 of the field was turrets, but half of the top 8 were, it would suggest they are more capable. If they were half of the entries and half of the top 8, it suggests they are pretty balanced against the field.
On the other hand, the total number of entries in the field is pretty purely a function of perception. People bring what they believe will give them the best chance of success. Right now, with the constant harping online and the way most tournaments only report the top 8, we see a feedback mechanism where lots of turrets are reported and lots of people play them because they are reported. But the top players I know have moved on, with fat turrets as part of their repertoire but no longer their main go-to list. They have not been nerfed to insignificance, but neither are they a dominant force on the table anymore.
If anything, the only ship I see gaining powerhouse status over the course of the season is Corran Horn. He is everywhere in the Top 8, in numbers far out of proportion to his total entries. If we are going to complain rationally, we should be complaining about E-Wings.
I don't know about you, but having E-Wings be the #1 target of my concern is a welcome change of pace. :-)
To be honest, I just need to look at what's winning the events. Just seeing fat turret after fat turret win these things is disheartening. The % of fat turrets that didn't make it doesn't hold as much relevancy for me.
I don't see how it's relevant.
Once again, I'm not saying fat turrets are OP and don't require skill. Because if I were, what you are saying makes sense. You are saying that there are large numbers of fat turrets that didn't make it in the top....which disproves the fact that fat turrets don't require skill. I'm not saying that, though.
I am saying that there are a large percentage of good players taking fat turrets. I think that's boring.
MJ... I'd be interested in know your strict definition of 'fat' because I think that's an important definer in your above post.
Jacob
Also, while I see what you are doing I believe some of your definitions are so broad as to be misleading. If you define "Fat" as any list that includes a ship with a lot of upgrades (like the Dual Defender list) whether on large base or small you are going to include pretty much every list in the game.
I define any 2-ship list as automatically fat. By definition, the MoV advantages directly translate to the per-game victory condition if it goes to time, and the Swiss ranking tiebreakers. You don't need to have a regenerating or C-3P0 ship for this to be true. Specifically in regards to the victory condition, going to time still happens occasionally in 75 minute rounds, and even if it doesn't go to time it still gives significant tactical advantages to the fatter list.
On a side note, at our MA Regionals I know of one player that missed making the cut (4-2) because his opponent ran away and won at time with a 1HP fattie when time was called. Said player took several minutes to place his dial, which forced it to be the last round. We could digress on the issue of lack of partial points and slow-play, but the point is that having a Fat Fortress or 2 ship list can frequently end in this scenario. In this scenario the "less fat" list automatically loses if the game goes to time.
In my case, I only went 4-2, but I didn't lose a ship during any of my victories (2HP IG88B for the win!), so my MoV was good enough by 21 points to walk home with Shield tokens. My round 5 loss was to the tournament winner, and was easily the worst luck I have had in 50+ games with BroBots, so overall I don't feel too bad about the day, being my first ever Regional.
KC had five 2-ship lists and a Fat Han, so there were certainly 6 Fat Lists.
"Marginally obese" is its own sub-category that can include things like a 48 point regenerating Corran Horn or a 40 point Xizor that should be the last ship to go down. Again, all but one KC list fits this category which is still significantly higher than the worldwide averages if you judge everyone using the same metrics.
For reference, here's my working definition copied directly from the 3rd post on this thread.
For future tracking - definition of " Fat " vs " Moderately Obese " list
Fat :
Moderately Obese :
* This configuration has not made Top 8 yet.
Re: "this would include pretty much any list in the game"
This might be somewhat surprising (especially since we are in the US meta which is very fat), but 27% of the worldwide Top 8 are not fat at all, not even "moderately obese" by my standards or basically as you just described. It is still a minority of lists, but on average there are 2 such lists in Top 8, whereas KC only had 1.
Edited by MajorJugglerThat's pretty awesome about the dual defender list!
I think KO and Aman both have great ways of evaluating this. I would agree that obese Ba or defenders do not count as fat. They are not large based. Do not have boost and extra damage mitigation. Also defenders are so far from norm it makes no subjective sense.
IGs are the low end of intent to be durable. But can be considered so with large base boost and 3 green dice on 8 health. Plus with auto thrusters they tend to completely mitigate damage from far range as plays to their run in run out snipe style.
If you try to apply a subjective definition of fat it's going to be different for everybody. No matter how MJ adds them up people are going to use them to complain, so I don't really think that's avoidable with specific one-offs for defenders or whatnot.
A dual defender list, a 3 ship Rebel with Luke and an A-Wing, an asymmetric A/B brobot, and a dedicated TIE swarm but you don't think there is any diversity there?
Also, you skipped right over the part where I noted that about half of the total tournament entries were fat turrets in the first place, which means that all of these builds were competitive vs. the "easy mode", "OP", (or whatever other pejorative term you want to use) turret lists. The perception of fat turrets being both easier and more powerful is perpetuated by comments such as yours, but the objective data coming in as the Regionals season progresses disagrees.
^This. I couldn't hit like enough times to satisfy how much I agree with KO's statement here.
50% of the lists being same old, same old? That's still not enough diversity to satisfy me.
I did skip over the part about how many fat turrets there were b/c I didn't think it was relevant. I haven't been saying that turrets are "easy mode". My chief complain for months has been about diversity (or lack thereof). I do think turrets have some sort of advantage over other lists or else we wouldn't see as many of them taken by the best players.
The number of entries is the only thing relevant when talking about the relative strength of a list. If 2/3 of the entries were turrets, but only half of the top 8 were turrets, it would suggest they are less capable than the rest of the field. If 1/3 of the field was turrets, but half of the top 8 were, it would suggest they are more capable. If they were half of the entries and half of the top 8, it suggests they are pretty balanced against the field.
On the other hand, the total number of entries in the field is pretty purely a function of perception. People bring what they believe will give them the best chance of success. Right now, with the constant harping online and the way most tournaments only report the top 8, we see a feedback mechanism where lots of turrets are reported and lots of people play them because they are reported. But the top players I know have moved on, with fat turrets as part of their repertoire but no longer their main go-to list. They have not been nerfed to insignificance, but neither are they a dominant force on the table anymore.
If anything, the only ship I see gaining powerhouse status over the course of the season is Corran Horn. He is everywhere in the Top 8, in numbers far out of proportion to his total entries. If we are going to complain rationally, we should be complaining about E-Wings.
I don't know about you, but having E-Wings be the #1 target of my concern is a welcome change of pace. :-)
I hate to point this out, but there is a large error in your thinking because you in no way account for player skill with this method.
If I pit the top 8 from Worlds last year without turreted ships against 92 chimpanzees with Decimators, your metrics would show that Decimators perform very poorly. They represent 92% of the field, but none of the top 8.
In order to properly look at this, you must take skill into the equation somehow to weed out false data points. Look at the top 32 finishers and see how many of a ship made the top 8. Look at the top 8s and see how many times that ship won. You must first somehow down select to players of roughly equivalent skill and then see how the ship compares to others. There is a lot of noise in an open entry field.
I disagree. Player skill is something that is generally irrelevant when examining large numbers, but when it is relevant it tends to exaggerate the number of top finishes for a particular powerful list archetype.
For example, if your tournament of 80 has 8 top players, you would expect those players to have a disproportionate number of "top lists" for the simple reason that the best players are the most capable of determining what the "best" lists are. If fat turrets were the most powerful archetype, and the field had 50% turrets, you would expect more than 4 of the top tier players to recognize this and run them. You will see a field with 50% fat turret entries but >50% of the top 8 will be fat turrets. This would be both because of simple numbers in the large scale (where an inherently better list will achieve better results) but also because a disproportionate number of top players relative to the field ran that list archetype in the first place.
If you see roughly equal percentages, it suggests that the top players do not perceive the list to be inherently more capable of winning. It also suggests that top players are not able to "get more" out of their fat lists (because some top players inevitably have off days, and the fat turret lists are neither pushing them up nor down in the standings).
The existence of "top players" exacerbates the effect of unbalanced ships/lists, it does not mitigate it.
We may just have to agree to disagree, or at least agree that it is complex and unlikely to be resolved in a forum dispute. While I entirely see your point that if a broken combination exists, top players are likely to exaggerate the issue by taking advantage of this, you are assuming perfect actors (who always make rational decisions based entirely upon what factors best suit them winning), and there are numerous counterpoints that may not be quantifiable. Do more "bad" players netlist and therefore take perceived top lists, skewing the numbers on the "low" end as well? How does this bump measure against the effect of top players? Do some top players actively attempt to play counter-meta in an attempt to beat the meta? And, if so, how often are they successful in doing so compared to how successful they would have been if they had played "meta" lists? Do top players always try to win every event they enter, or are some for training/testing/fun? (Paul Heaver as much said he was running a rebel control list because he had spent nearly 2 years running turrets). Were there lots of top players at a particular event, or very few?
With all these unknown and un-quantified factors in the mix, it is hard to argue that comparing entrants vs. top 8s on a pure percentage basis tells us much of anything about the quality of the ship. I'm a believer in math and statistics, but there are too many external factors at play here to draw conclusions.
Also FYI.
Massachusetts results are up on List Juggler, but not the lists.
http://lists.starwarsclubhouse.com/get_tourney_details?tourney_id=473
The runner-up went 6-0 and had a perfect 1200 MoV. I think that is a first in the 2015 Regionals season. He won his Top 8 100-0, finally lost RAC in Top 4 but won on time 75-64, and then lost in the finals. From what I gather his Fel whiffed on 5 green dice, RAC took down 1 PS8 BroBot but the other hunted him down.
it could also be considered
Also FYI.
Massachusetts results are up on List Juggler, but not the lists.
http://lists.starwarsclubhouse.com/get_tourney_details?tourney_id=473
The runner-up went 6-0 and had a perfect 1200 MoV. I think that is a first in the 2015 Regionals season. He won his Top 8 100-0, finally lost RAC in Top 4 but won on time 75-64, and then lost in the finals. From what I gather his Fel whiffed on 5 green dice, RAC took down 1 PS8 BroBot but the other hunted him down.
yup, that's his account of it (mangler IG - 88 obstructed shot against Stealth Device Fel)
he's part of the same local group as me
he said he thought of me when he saw that roll
it could also be considered
Also FYI.
Massachusetts results are up on List Juggler, but not the lists.
http://lists.starwarsclubhouse.com/get_tourney_details?tourney_id=473
The runner-up went 6-0 and had a perfect 1200 MoV. I think that is a first in the 2015 Regionals season. He won his Top 8 100-0, finally lost RAC in Top 4 but won on time 75-64, and then lost in the finals. From what I gather his Fel whiffed on 5 green dice, RAC took down 1 PS8 BroBot but the other hunted him down.
yup, he's from my area
he said he thought of me when he whiffed that roll
NYC? Bunch of ringers beating up on us locals...
MJ... I'd be interested in know your strict definition of 'fat' because I think that's an important definer in your above post.
Jacob
Also, while I see what you are doing I believe some of your definitions are so broad as to be misleading. If you define "Fat" as any list that includes a ship with a lot of upgrades (like the Dual Defender list) whether on large base or small you are going to include pretty much every list in the game.
I define any 2-ship list as automatically fat. By definition, the MoV advantages directly translate to the per-game victory condition if it goes to time, and the Swiss ranking tiebreakers. You don't need to have a regenerating or C-3P0 ship for this to be true. Specifically in regards to the victory condition, going to time still happens occasionally in 75 minute rounds, and even if it doesn't go to time it still gives significant tactical advantages to the fatter list.
...
For reference, here's my working definition copied directly from the 3rd post on this thread.
For future tracking - definition of " Fat " vs " Moderately Obese " list
Fat :
- Any 2-ship list
- Any 60+ point VT-49 in a 3+ ship list*
- Any named YT-1300 with at least 2 out of 3 of: Millennium Falcon, C-3P0, and R2-D2 crew
- Dash + HLC/Mangler + Outrider + Crew (generally 54-58 points with Kyle+EU)
Moderately Obese :
- Named YT-1300 with no more than 1 of: Millennium Falcon, C-3P0, and R2-D2 crew
- Any <60 point VT-49 in a 3+ ship list*
- 40+ point Corran Horn with R2-D2
- 40+ point Whisper
- Loaded up Xizor surrounded by bodyguards
- 40+ point Firespray (Scum or Imperial)
* This configuration has not made Top 8 yet.
Well, with such a broad definition, I can understand where the math seems so dire. That definition of Fat seems like it's too encompassing. I'd like to know why you say that 'any 2 ship list = fat'. I don't agree with that myself.
I'd be curious about the math results if you narrowed your definition to something a little more focused. I agreed much more with your definitions after the line 'any 2 ship list' If you focus on the Decimator/YT/Firespray/Whisper/Corran/Xixor with specific upgrades and didn't automatically declare a 2 ship list as fat, would the results be the same?
I don't think a 2 ship defender list is fat. Nor are some Chewbo lists, or the Dual Agressors. I think Fat is less broad than you're suggesting, and unfortunately because you're in 'charge' of the information gathering and proficient at interpreting the data, much of the information that you're providing is slanted towards your definition of fat.
Jacob
Well, with such a broad definition, I can understand where the math seems so dire. That definition of Fat seems like it's too encompassing. I'd like to know why you say that 'any 2 ship list = fat'. I don't agree with that myself.
Already explained in the same post.
Snipped:
I define any 2-ship list as automatically fat. By definition, the MoV advantages directly translate to the per-game victory condition if it goes to time, and the Swiss ranking tiebreakers. You don't need to have a regenerating or C-3P0 ship for this to be true. Specifically in regards to the victory condition, going to time still happens occasionally in 75 minute rounds, and even if it doesn't go to time it still gives significant tactical advantages to the fatter list.
On a side note, at our MA Regionals I know of one player that missed making the cut (4-2) because his opponent ran away and won at time with a 1HP fattie when time was called. Said player took several minutes to place his dial, which forced it to be the last round. We could digress on the issue of lack of partial points and slow-play, but the point is that having a Fat Fortress or 2 ship list can frequently end in this scenario. In this scenario the "less fat" list automatically loses if the game goes to time.
In my case, I only went 4-2, but I didn't lose a ship during any of my victories (2HP IG88B for the win!), so my MoV was good enough by 21 points to walk home with Shield tokens. My round 5 loss was to the tournament winner, and was easily the worst luck I have had in 50+ games with BroBots, so overall I don't feel too bad about the day, being my first ever Regional.
2 ship lists are fat, and the scoring system is broken without partial points. That's why so many players are taking 2 ships. It won't change until the scoring system changes, or some cheaper ship becomes so heinously overpowered that it starts to dislodge everything else.
adding to juggler's definition (though his model is built on his definition, so you'd have to accept it anyway if you wanted to analyze it), just because any ship can be fat doesn't mean it's any good at being fat
Compare: PTL + r2-d2 + FCS "moderately obese" corran VERSUS PTL + double Advanced Proton Torpedo Rhymer
Both pack on a lot of
pounds
points, but one of them definitely holds on to them better
So really, it's not just that any 2-ship build can be effectively fat, just that they're all fat and the ones we're seeing in large numbers happen to be quite effective at denying your m.o.v
Edited by ficklegreendiceI don't think a 2 ship defender list is fat. Nor are some Chewbo lists, or the Dual Agressors. I think Fat is less broad than you're suggesting, and unfortunately because you're in 'charge' of the information gathering and proficient at interpreting the data, much of the information that you're providing is slanted towards your definition of fat.
Jacob
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I can see arguing that a dual defender list is not fat, but Chewbo? You mean those guys who ignore crits and shed damage like crazy? They might be near the epitome of Fat. And dual aggressors? With 3 evades and autothrusters at 50 points a pop?
I think Fat is less broad than you're suggesting, and unfortunately because you're in 'charge' of the information gathering and proficient at interpreting the data, much of the information that you're providing is slanted towards your definition of fat.
Eventually we'll get as many results as we can into List Juggler, and I'll get my scripts running directly from the SQL database which will let me easily test any hypothesis on the dataset. Until then, the data is all public, so feel free to recompile it yourself. :-) stmack has his own site, as an example.