Given the context of my statement, I'm quite obviously not talking about proving or disproving anything. I'd say something snide about derailing a thread over petty semantics, but it has been 5 pages already, and I'm not sure the OP was really worthy of any serious consideration anyways.

I'm good with semantic derailment.

I'm sure Armada will end up with its math wing when it comes out.

ArMATHa?

So I'm a fairly new player and I have intentionally avoided as much Meta information as possible. I know where to find it and what it might tell me but for me learning the game is a huge part of the fun for me, even if I have to take some lumps to do so. Even if I played competitively I would rather win less with my own list than win more with an unimaginative sterile list created by someone else. If I felt that I was a serious competitive player with a shot a nationals that might change. Until then I'm playing my Scum Kath Scarlett with Expose, Recon Specialist and Experimental Interface and trying to set up that rear arc range 1 6 die shot with a focus.

The question is simple: if MathWing did not exist would the Meta be more diverse? Who knows? Personally I think it would. That doesn't mean that MathWing is to blame for narrow or stagnant meta. It is the sheeple attitude and paralyzing fear that competitive winning can only come through using what's proven and supported by data that shapes the meta. I would argue that it would be better for the game as a whole if the results of regional/national tournaments were published but not the lists that were flown. Then good players would be flying what they liked and flew well and not just what matches up best vs the highest percentage of lists left in the tourney. If you aren't a player who's good enough to have a legit shot at winning regionals you're probably better of ignoring the meta completely and just having fun.

The meta will exist as long as tournaments and the Internet is around? The meta is just using top tier squads as opposed to lower tier squads. How does something get into top tier? Win tournaments consistently and win big tournaments like regional and world's. What do alot people do after they win? They post about it. What do people ask about with past tournaments? The results. If people are upset about it and it ruins there fun then there's nothing that can help them get over those problems. Play with your space ships how ever you want, there is more than just the competitive scene. But if you want to play in the competitive scene than understand that some things are better than others no matter how much player skill comes into it. Also if you want to be apart of the competitive scene please don't whine. Be proactive and adapt.

The question is simple: if MathWing did not exist would the Meta be more diverse?

The simple answer to that is everyone starts out playing mini's games because the mini's look cool. It's only when players start to concern themselves with winning do things like "meta" become an issue.

In other games, models and figures come unpainted and building and painting of those becomes a huge part of the enjoyment of the hobby. Other fringer types like to discuss and argue the mythology of the universe their game is set in. That goes pretty deep too.

If you're playing on a Saturday night with a couple of hard ciders and and bowl full of finger sized cheeze puffs Mathwing is something you might tip your hat to...hell, you might have had some rather cogent thoughts in the daytime about how you planned to run your list, but when you've got a good buzz going, you don't give 2 ****s about the numbers. You're playing something that you love and you're comfortable with.

Sure there's a ton of people running netlists. A lot of them aren't going to have instant success with them either and that's going to kill their enjoyment of it. I read a guy's post who says all he runs is Xwing lists and he kicks ass at it because he knows his ships so well. I didn't hear him complaining about how crappy the Xwing was in the current meta. He enjoys using the Xwing and that lessens his investment in wins and losses, which makes him a better player. You kinda need to use the force to escape the meta...

Just as Thomas Merton wrote:

“The Need to Win”

When an archer is shooting for nothing

He has all his skill.

If he shoots for a brass buckle

He is already nervous/

If he shoots for a prize of gold

He goes blind

Or sees two targets—

He is out of his mind !

His skill has not changed. But the prize

Divides him. He cares.

He thinks more of winning

Than of shooting—

And the need to win

Drains him of power.

The absence of MathWing would change Nothing IMO.

In every game with a competitive side people have copied winning lists/builds/strategies. Keeping such information secret in the age of Internet is an utopia.

The question is simple: if MathWing did not exist would the Meta be more diverse?

The simple answer to that is everyone starts out playing mini's games because the mini's look cool. It's only when players start to concern themselves with winning do things like "meta" become an issue.

In other games, models and figures come unpainted and building and painting of those becomes a huge part of the enjoyment of the hobby. Other fringer types like to discuss and argue the mythology of the universe their game is set in. That goes pretty deep too.

If you're playing on a Saturday night with a couple of hard ciders and and bowl full of finger sized cheeze puffs Mathwing is something you might tip your hat to...hell, you might have had some rather cogent thoughts in the daytime about how you planned to run your list, but when you've got a good buzz going, you don't give 2 ****s about the numbers. You're playing something that you love and you're comfortable with.

Sure there's a ton of people running netlists. A lot of them aren't going to have instant success with them either and that's going to kill their enjoyment of it. I read a guy's post who says all he runs is Xwing lists and he kicks ass at it because he knows his ships so well. I didn't hear him complaining about how crappy the Xwing was in the current meta. He enjoys using the Xwing and that lessens his investment in wins and losses, which makes him a better player. You kinda need to use the force to escape the meta...

Just as Thomas Merton wrote:

“The Need to Win”

When an archer is shooting for nothing

He has all his skill.

If he shoots for a brass buckle

He is already nervous/

If he shoots for a prize of gold

He goes blind

Or sees two targets—

He is out of his mind !

His skill has not changed. But the prize

Divides him. He cares.

He thinks more of winning

Than of shooting—

And the need to win

Drains him of power.

Not that there is nothing wrong with kicking back and playing X wing with some friends and beers!

Surely you're all missing the point. It shouldn't be Mathwing, it should be Maths-wing. "Math" is an abbreviation of Mathematics, which is a plural. The abbreviation should also be a plural. When you abbreviate "coppers" to "cops" you don't drop the "s". Or is your mathematic singular - do you only learn how to add up and ignore multiplications, calculus, geometry and all the other mathematics?

;-)

The question is simple: if MathWing did not exist would the Meta be more diverse?

The simple answer to that is everyone starts out playing mini's games because the mini's look cool. It's only when players start to concern themselves with winning do things like "meta" become an issue.

In other games, models and figures come unpainted and building and painting of those becomes a huge part of the enjoyment of the hobby. Other fringer types like to discuss and argue the mythology of the universe their game is set in. That goes pretty deep too.

If you're playing on a Saturday night with a couple of hard ciders and and bowl full of finger sized cheeze puffs Mathwing is something you might tip your hat to...hell, you might have had some rather cogent thoughts in the daytime about how you planned to run your list, but when you've got a good buzz going, you don't give 2 ****s about the numbers. You're playing something that you love and you're comfortable with.

Sure there's a ton of people running netlists. A lot of them aren't going to have instant success with them either and that's going to kill their enjoyment of it. I read a guy's post who says all he runs is Xwing lists and he kicks ass at it because he knows his ships so well. I didn't hear him complaining about how crappy the Xwing was in the current meta. He enjoys using the Xwing and that lessens his investment in wins and losses, which makes him a better player. You kinda need to use the force to escape the meta...

Just as Thomas Merton wrote:

“The Need to Win”

When an archer is shooting for nothing

He has all his skill.

If he shoots for a brass buckle

He is already nervous/

If he shoots for a prize of gold

He goes blind

Or sees two targets—

He is out of his mind !

His skill has not changed. But the prize

Divides him. He cares.

He thinks more of winning

Than of shooting—

And the need to win

Drains him of power.

I completely disagree with that quote about the archery. Also the guy kicking ass with just X-wings is most likely not winning regionals which most competitive minded people are looking at. Not to take away anything from the guy but in the middle of the competitive season people are now judging kicking ass by tournament wins.

Not that there is nothing wrong with kicking back and playing X wing with some friends and beers!

What about the Merton post don't you agree with? Just out of curiosity. It's a bit of Easternized Western philosophy, but I've always thought it's appropriate when it comes to competition.

Surely you're all missing the point. It shouldn't be Mathwing, it should be Maths-wing. "Math" is an abbreviation of Mathematics, which is a plural. The abbreviation should also be a plural. When you abbreviate "coppers" to "cops" you don't drop the "s". Or is your mathematic singular - do you only learn how to add up and ignore multiplications, calculus, geometry and all the other mathematics?

;-)

Mathematics is not plural.

Most of the time when I play its with people at my club, people I know but not people I "kick back and have a couple of beers" with. We're all wargamers, mostly with warhammer backgrounds and for us, and I can't stress this enough, DESIGNING AND PLAYING A COMPETITIVE LIST IS PART OF THE FUN, THAT'S WHY WE ARE WARGAMERS, WE WANT TO PIT OUR BEST AGAINST SOMEONE ELSE'S BEST, THAT IS FUN FOR US. Now this doesn't mean that we only use the most competitive units, but 100/6 is the norm, and we like it that way.

This doesn't detract from people who play another way, but people need to realize that some of us who play X Wing don't do so just to push some OT ships around, drink beer and reminisce about seeing A New Hope in 1977. I'm 23 years old, I love star wars but I never saw the OT in theaters, for me, and for many X Wing players I imagine, the nostalgia of seeing X Wings and TIE fighters on the board is outweighed by the fun we derive from playing against a skilled opponent with a tight list.

Given the context of my statement, I'm quite obviously not talking about proving or disproving anything. I'd say something snide about derailing a thread over petty semantics, but it has been 5 pages already, and I'm not sure the OP was really worthy of any serious consideration anyways.

I'm good with semantic derailment.

The statement was 'Mathwing: Killing Diversity in the Game Since 2014'.

This statement was refuted.

Nope I don't think I'm confusing jousting values with the larger effort, but I do feel that what did in your post I commented on was inflate what Mathwing is. Mathwing is the analysis of data collection. So don't say that Mathwing is "giving the devs accurate, relevant feedback' (the words I spoke to). Mathwing might be a tool that could be used by the devs, but the reality of Mathwing is that it's a tool players are using to make decisions on which lists they're going to use.

I understand Mathwing. I'm just not a proponent of it, and I don't like seeing it be claimed to be something it's not. Data collection is data collection. Mathwing is analysis done by players based on data collection. It's not providing feedback to the devs thats at the heart of mathwing, the heart of mathwing is choosing efficient lists to win games.

I think that you are talking about MathWing, the version-numbered model that MJ publishes results from (arguably, the more correct definition, given its position at the center of this gravity well we're all orbiting around), while I was using the generic appropriated version meaning all of the theorycrafting(*) surrounding the game, similar to what VS said earlier:

MathWing was a thing before MJ made his model public, and it would be a thing if he moved to Mongolia and took up the life of an itinerant goatherd.

Can't have a proper argument until after you've defined terms!

(*) I'm pretty sure that "theorycrafting" comes from the World of Warcraft community; what did we call this kind of activity before then?

whatever happened to fun?

It's overcosted by about 3 points

Nailed it.

The statement was 'Mathwing: Killing Diversity in the Game Since 2014'.

This statement was refuted.

While there is no evidence I can see that it is has, there is also no evidence that it has not.

Right, but Russels Teapot and all that. Burden of proof lies with the person making the statement etc. etc.

This is like blaming scientists for global warming.

Who discovered how to find, process and designed the technology to burn fossil fuels? Who invented aerosols? And split the atom to create nuclear power? I'll tell you who. Them pesky scientists! Blame them for everything. I accept no responsibility for my actions. I only pulled the trigger, they made the gun!!

Right, but Russels Teapot and all that. Burden of proof lies with the person making the statement etc. etc.

I don't want to quote Hitchens here, but 'what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'

So if you assert (/state/claim) that Mathwing is destroying diversity, we can DENY OR CONTRADICT that statement until you can back this up with evidence.

Surely you're all missing the point. It shouldn't be Mathwing, it should be Maths-wing. "Math" is an abbreviation of Mathematics, which is a plural. The abbreviation should also be a plural. When you abbreviate "coppers" to "cops" you don't drop the "s". Or is your mathematic singular - do you only learn how to add up and ignore multiplications, calculus, geometry and all the other mathematics?

;-)

Mathematics is not plural.

But the correct way to say it is maths, it was maths before Merica existed it'll be maths long after you've gone mad max.

The colonials just want to be awkward.

This is like blaming scientists for global warming.

Who discovered how to find, process and designed the technology to burn fossil fuels? Who invented aerosols? And split the atom to create nuclear power? I'll tell you who. Them pesky scientists! Blame them for everything. I accept no responsibility for my actions. I only pulled the trigger, they made the gun!!

I assume you're joking here, but as a scientist I find this opinion hilariously ignorant. You see it all the time in movies where the scientist is either a moustachio-twirling evil villain or a blundering idiot. Often both.

The TIE Interceptor's stat line cost efficiency is actually a hair higher than the X-wing.

And the TIE Interceptor has boost and barrel roll, so if the PS1 Interceptor isn't viable, then the PS2 X-wing certainly is not either.

So, it seems as though (inherently flawed and limited in scope) mathematical models are once again declaring ships to be entirely "not viable".

It's this kind of cynical, statistic-driven analysis that has led - over the last 12 months - to a self-fulfilling prophecy of a meta. Entire ranges of ships, pilots and upgrades are ruled out wholesale because they're considered (under the said inherently flawed and limited in scope model) to be marginally less "efficient" than their cousins.

New players pick up the game, gaze in awe at the wealth of options available, join a forum to find out more and are told "yeah, don't use that unless you want to lose."

TIE swarms became the norm because we're told they're "efficient". BBBBZ becomes the norm because we're told it's "efficient". At the expense of everything which is apparently not.

This (incredibly well designed and balanced) game is packed to the brim with an absolute wealth of options and variety, and yet the dogged pursuit for perceived optimum "efficiency" appears to be stifling those options and killing off that variety. So here's a novel approach: to hell with so-called mathematical efficiency; whatever happened to fun?

A self-fulfilling prophecy? Did it ever come to your mind that ships are not played because the guys playing them just get convinced that they don't cut it? Instead of basically stating that they are not smart enough to find out for themselves, you could accept that the game is not perfectly balanced, and the fact that we already had fixes like the A-Wing and the Advanced should probably show you that this is not only an impression we get as players but one shared by FFG

And then accusing MJ like that is really low, even for you. He just tries to give us a mathematical model to help us understand the game and its competitive edges better. It's not perfect as every mathematical model, but it goes a very long way already and its also a noble cause! It's not his fault no one can make certain ships work, it's because they are just a bit worse than other ships, period!

Maybe, we should look closer at your motives for these accusations. I don't even understand what exactly you want? I have understood that you don't want an X-Wing fix. But why?

Were you also against an Advanced fix then?

If yes, at least you would not be hypocritical. You are against fixes, and while it's not very smart to let ships that are manifestly bad just pick up dust on the shelf, but at least i could respect that.

If no, well you're just another imperial bandwagoner that does not care for game balance. You just don't want other ships to get competitive because you want your faction to dominate.

This is like blaming scientists for global warming.

Who discovered how to find, process and designed the technology to burn fossil fuels? Who invented aerosols? And split the atom to create nuclear power? I'll tell you who. Them pesky scientists! Blame them for everything. I accept no responsibility for my actions. I only pulled the trigger, they made the gun!!

I assume you're joking here, but as a scientist I find this opinion hilariously ignorant. You see it all the time in movies where the scientist is either a moustachio-twirling evil villain or a blundering idiot. Often both.

Of course I'm joking. Almost all of the time, Scientists are so wrapped up in their work they have no idea of the evil their discovery is capable of.

Luckily for us, mega-corporations and pharmaceutical companies are particularly skilled at extracting the evil out of all things on their behalf. Its win-win!

Of course I'm joking. Almost all of the time, Scientists are so wrapped up in their work they have no idea of the evil their discovery is capable of.

I'm good with semantic derailment.

I'll grant you the derailment part, but neither English nor Google seem to be your forte.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute

: to say that (something) is not true

: to deny the truth or accuracy of

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/refute

Related Words: traverse; challenge, confute, disprove, rebut; disagree (with) , dispute

Are we done here? Yeah, I think we're done here.