WHOA THERE!

I invented autothrusters and i did not use maths in any way shape or form, i deeply resent your trying to re-write history here.

I used common sense to come up with them not your devil inspired numbers!

wut

A lucky but talented noob. As the stakes increase so does the pressure.

The player that joins the game late and uses net lists is depriving himself of a lot of earned knowledge. I started in February of this year and bought a ton of stuff. I learned of this forum maybe two months ago and seldom fly the same squad more than twice. These experiences have begun to show me what works, what doesn't and why.

Enough of this rant. It's late, I'm beat and I apologize.

Good Night.

Strange, I said this exact thing to a fellow player in my LGS a few days ago.

I don't blame the math as much as I do players for netdecking.

However, I don't think Juggler's psuedo science counts. It's cleverly veiled assumptions hidden behind differential equations from a long dead military model (that isn't used for modern warfare), making them sufficiently complex that enough people don't understand and take at face value. People believe these numbers, take this to tournaments more, then those win more, people see it's winning, so they take it to tournaments more. The cycle continues until either a) new numbers are posted, b) new ships are released, thereby (a) is done, or c) someone wins a major event with something different that everyone copies.

Proof that the numbers are baseless is in a) the rising popularity of arc dodgers which were previously rated low and b) the change to MoV has made TIE (swarms) completely vanish from tournament play.

differential equations from a long dead military model (that isn't used for modern warfare)

Such equations are not used anymore by militaries because they don't face each other across a discrete field of battle. Militaries moved away from the equations because modern warfare could no longer be modeled like....A GAME. For a game with limited rules and limited actions on a discrete and constrained space, equations are absolutely still a relevant tool to give specific information.

If you look at the nationals results thread it would seem that list diversity at the UK nationals was very limited, with the top 16 filled with 2 ship pancakes or brobots. but at the bottom end I can tell you from experience things were very different. I flew kavil, ndru and the scyks, and faced 6 completely different lists including a shuttle, named rebel PS6 pilots, interceptors, firesprays, a TIE swarm, a headhunter mini swarm and a phantom.

The maths doesn't necessarily affect what people choose to fly, but it affects what is going to do well. If you want to compete and are going into a high level tournament with an inefficient list you are hamstringing yourself. I can say this from experience after my quirky list managed to get me 3 tournament points total from all 6 games. I didn't feel I was seriously outplayed in all but one of those games, but lost because in the joust I just couldn't do enough damage to make up for the hits I was taking. In one game the dice hindered me slightly less than my opponent and I earned a 2 point win, but in the others my ships died before I'd killed all of theirs despite similar ratios of turns where we got to exchange fire.

Someone won using duel defenders recently so where's your maths now?

While an accomplishment, it was just once though.

Someone won using duel defenders recently so where's your maths now?

While an accomplishment, it was just once though.

So far but it's been said defenders will never do well in competitive play.

Trying to have a sentiment that goes against the hardcore mentality is like trying to stop a wave from hitting the shore. As much as I love Armada, and shifted to it for this exact reason; I know it will ultimately happen there too. You don't really have choice, sadly.

I don't understand why some people take such a negative attitude towards the work that MJ and others are doing.

"Mathwing" didn't tell anyone that they can't fly whatever they want or that they aren't allowed to have fun. My suspicion is that people take the data that says the ship(s) they love are at a disadvantage against other ships due to attribute X and then lash out because they don't want it to be true.

There is also frequently a context issue at play. Many forum posters do not play competitively at all. Many others not only play competitively but the non-competition games they play are in preparation for a tournament. Often times that's a different type of fun for each of those groups. They are both having fun but the game can be very different within each scenario.

Mathwing can offer some fascinating information whether you like it or not. Ultimately though you still get to determine how you have fun so if you want to run 5 Scum HWK's with Blaster Turrets and no way to modify dice and Mathwing says it's not a good idea (I actually have no clue what Mathwing says about that list - it's the first thing that popped in my mind) then do what you want and have fun playing your HWK's! Or X-Wings or A-Wings or Defenders or Eaden Vrill or Winged Gundark or a Knave Squadron E-Wing or whatever.

Have fun. Have fun however you like to have fun. And if you hate Mathwing and believe that Mathwing took all the fun out of the game that's an issue that you simply need to find a way of overcoming on your end. Mathwing isn't ever going away. It's not the end all be all of what's good and it never told you what is fun and what isn't. If a person on here told you your list is junk because Mathwing said so it's still not Mathwings fault. Just ignore that person and enjoy playing what you want.

That only works if you aren't netlisted into oblivion at the "casual" game night. It killed off a lot of the player base at my LGS. I played with my own people, but even we got bored.

That only works if you aren't netlisted into oblivion at the "casual" game night. It killed off a lot of the player base at my LGS. I played with my own people, but even we got bored.

That can be an easy fix. If you have issues with those dastardly netlisters then shake up the format. If the local scene is suffering talk to the store owner or the person running the X-Wing night and schedule nights with rules variants. Go higher or lower with points, limit to all non-uniques, limit to only 1 of each ship type per list, run a team format, get creative!

Once you can work out a schedule with "fun" nights and "normal 100 point" nights post it in the store so that players know in advance. Try compiling an email list of players to distribute a schedule for the entire upcoming month. A Facebook group would work well too.

A game shop has a vested interest in players coming in regularly and having a good time. If you have that many people unhappy an organizer should be open to listening to ideas.

Great job guys, of all the threads you chose to resurrect, it was this one. Lets not forget people got banned because of this thread.

Give MJ a break!

Someone won using duel defenders recently so where's your maths now?

Defenders

And that's my beef with it. No matter what the Math says about the Defender, it is a lot stronger than that efficiency. MJ even admits having only a medium degree of certainty about it.

All this talk of 'netlisting' is exaggerated. Squadron lists in X-Wing are really not that complicated. People like to stroke themselves and pretend that they have unique ideas that no other player could conceive until the read about it on the internet. The reality of this game is that Han Solo with C-3PO, Predator, and Engine Upgrade is a very simple conclusion to arrive at.

I don't doubt that some people read about a list and then try it, but the idea that those same people could not eventually arrive at that list while independently optimizing their squadron is hard to believe.

Or you could play the other mathematically-competitive but locally uncommon lists. Too many Pancakes? Bring Corran. Too much Corran? Bring Buzzsaw Whisper and a doom shuttle. Too much Whisper? Unlikely.There are all kinds of ways to fight a local, stale meta that don't lead to boring games.

All this talk of 'netlisting' is exaggerated. Squadron lists in X-Wing are really not that complicated. People like to stroke themselves and pretend that they have unique ideas that no other player could conceive until the read about it on the internet. The reality of this game is that Han Solo with C-3PO, Predator, and Engine Upgrade is a very simple conclusion to arrive at.

I don't doubt that some people read about a list and then try it, but the idea that those same people could not eventually arrive at that list while independently optimizing their squadron is hard to believe.

This.

I remember fretting over a particular tournament, and coming up with a build that I thought would work, and found that another competitive player had brought a near mirror build (we were off by one upgrade), and he smiled at me in a fraternal way and said something like, "ah, you've been following the meta as well - good to see!" or something like that. But I hadn't been, and I sort of resented the implication. The fact was I spent a week thinking about what to fly, and this is what I came up with.

Not everyone playing brobots, for example, has read about it online - frankly, everything about IG-88 screams, "you should fly this ship in pairs!" - but in order to stay alive, you'll need to stay out of arc - which means PTL etc. You don't have to be a brilliant strategist to come up with most of the popular builds - they present themselves readily enough to anyone who spends a little time thinking about it.

MJ even admits having only a medium degree of certainty about it.

Also MJ never said that a ship can't win or even do well, just that it's not as efficient as another ship.

I could give someone who's never played the game a Fat Han w/Corran and take a squad of generic Advanced and Defenders and still beat him, which would do nothing to disprove mathwing.

Defenders

And that's my beef with it. No matter what the Math says about the Defender, it is a lot stronger than that efficiency. MJ even admits having only a medium degree of certainty about it.

I think what you really need to do is take a step back and reconsider why you are choosing to "have a beef" with Mathwing.

Mathwing doesn't have feelings. Mathwing doesn't have an agenda. Mathwing is data. Mathwing has never been billed as the end all be all of X-Wing.

People sometimes make points or arguments based upon that data. Sometimes they are good arguments and sometimes they are flawed.

Mathwing never said anything mean. Mathwing didn't hurt other people's feelings. Mathwing is data.

Does Mathwing have an emotion chip? That could change things I suppose....

Defenders

And that's my beef with it. No matter what the Math says about the Defender, it is a lot stronger than that efficiency. MJ even admits having only a medium degree of certainty about it.

I think what you really need to do is take a step back and reconsider why you are choosing to "have a beef" with Mathwing.

Mathwing doesn't have feelings. Mathwing doesn't have an agenda. Mathwing is data. Mathwing has never been billed as the end all be all of X-Wing.

People sometimes make points or arguments based upon that data. Sometimes they are good arguments and sometimes they are flawed.

Mathwing never said anything mean. Mathwing didn't hurt other people's feelings. Mathwing is data.

Mathwing ate my lunch and kicked my dog...or was it the other way around?

Defenders

And that's my beef with it. No matter what the Math says about the Defender, it is a lot stronger than that efficiency. MJ even admits having only a medium degree of certainty about it.

I think what you really need to do is take a step back and reconsider why you are choosing to "have a beef" with Mathwing.

Mathwing doesn't have feelings. Mathwing doesn't have an agenda. Mathwing is data. Mathwing has never been billed as the end all be all of X-Wing.

People sometimes make points or arguments based upon that data. Sometimes they are good arguments and sometimes they are flawed.

Mathwing never said anything mean. Mathwing didn't hurt other people's feelings. Mathwing is data.

Mathwing ate my lunch and kicked my dog...or was it the other way around?

Really i thought it was just me, also maths did unspeakable things to my cousins barbie doll.

Also MJ never said that a ship can't win or even do well, just that it's not as efficient as another ship.

Very first post in the thread, VDM:

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.

The PS1 interceptor is "not viable". PS2 X-Wing is "not viable". And of course, the classic "The Delta Squadron Pilot is less efficient than two TIE Academy Pilots and costs more".

Now those statements may very well be factually correct (so far as MathWing goes, at least), however when you have someone who is clearly as intelligent and well respected as MJ is around here effectively writing off large percentages of the game by publically declaring them "not viable", "inefficient" or "simply not worth taking", then quite a lot of people (especially those looking for some kind of competitive advantage) will take note and listen. It influences their play style, their tournament lists.. which then influences the tournament results, which then skews the statistics even further...

It's the difference between blindly following dogma and enjoying a well-rounded education.

As you're probably well aware of by now, I have little time for MathWing. I can appreciate the sheer volume of effort that's gone into it, but I find it more than a little irritating when it is used (not necessarily MJ, but certainly quite a lot of people on this forum) as a be-all, end-all argument to effectively write off large proportions of the game as competitively worthless, when the experience gained form using them, trying them and finding out yourself is certainly anything but.

Lots of talk going on about a double Defender list doing very well recently. What are the odds that happened in part because not only did the person flying them know exactly what they were doing through personal experience and practice, but because (some of) their opponents simply weren't prepared for what to expect having never faced them before in a competitive environment?

Given the reputation the TIE Defenders have been given - mainly due to the advanced mathematics on this forum - I can easily imagine some of his opponents on the day scoffing internally as he deployed his list. "Defenders, huh. LOL. This should be fun.".