(forked from 2015 regionals thread)

I'm going to work on a feature in List Juggler that shows, for the various list archtypes, how they are being represented in the tournament scene over time. Ostensibly this will let us take a data-driven approach to questions like "How healthy is our meta right now?"

Classifying things is a historical favorite past-time; from Egyptian wall paintings to Aristotle, and Carl Linnaeus to Charles Darwin, the " world's oldest profession " tickles some part of our evolved brains to their core. Hurray for science! Let's do the same thing for X-Wing lists!

What I'd like to do in this thread is 5 things:

1) Use the first part of this thread to throw out a whole bunch of potential classifications.

2) Then try to agree into one (or more) classification scheme(s) that resonate

3) Encode those scheme(s) into software and compile the 4,000+ lists submitted into List Juggler into those schemes.

4) ...

5) Profit!

I'll start. Here is the scheme that Major Juggler has been using to kick things off. It's a two level deep classification.

Major Juggler's Taxonomy
Dual Turret:
   - Dual VT-49
   - YT-3700 (YT130+YT2400)
   - YT-1300 + Outrider
   - Dual Falcon
Turret + Support:
   - YT-1300 + Corran
   - YT-1300 + 1 named + 0-1 fillers 
   - YT-1300 + 2-4 generics
   - HLC Outrider + Corran	
   - HLC Outrider + Keyan	
   - HLC Dash + 2-3 filler	
   - Mangler Dash + Corran	
   - Mangler Dash + 2-3 filler	
   - VT-49 + Fel	
   - VT-49 + Phantom	
   - VT-49 + Misc
Dual IG88
4 Ship Control
   - Rebel Control
   - Scum Control
Swarm / Mini Swarm
   - 4BZ	
   - BXXZZZ, 
   - XXXZZZ	
   - 8Z	
   - Bugzapper (Scum Zs + Feedback Array)
   -Misc. Rebel Swarm	
   - Scum Anchor + Miniswarm	
   - Fel + TIE Swarm	
   - 7-8 TIE Swarm	
   - Whisper + Mini-Swarm
   - Prince Xizor + mini swarm
Other:
   -4 Rebel	
   - 4 Scum	
   -2 Aces + Shuttle	
   - Triple Aces	
   - Dual Phantom	
   - Firespray + IG88	
   - Dual Firespray	
   - Other

Swarm / Mini Swarm should have Prince Xizor and mini swarm.

YT-1300 + YT-2400 w/ cannon (no outrider)

This build is still a dual turret build & it is also already listed above as YT-3700.

updated schema, thanks guys

Bug Zapper? That's the Z's with Feedback Array.

That list, and the Xizor + Z's, both already fall under the Swarm lists. Not sure if every possible list needs to be listed...

I think we just have to list enough illustrative examples to enable me to code up a classifier. let the software do the brute force work of listing every hit under a given genus/species.

I like it a lot! I think there are a lot of different options, but it will filter the lists beautifully.

The only grey area I noticed was with 4 ship lists and control lists overlapping. What constitutes a control list over a 4 ship list? 3 instances of stress/ion? BTL Y wing counts as 2, soon to be 3 with the TLT. That is just one ship. Does each ship need to have some level of control, like Tactican/Ion Cannon B wings?

The only grey area I noticed was with 4 ship lists and control lists overlapping. What constitutes a control list over a 4 ship list? 3 instances of stress/ion? BTL Y wing counts as 2, soon to be 3 with the TLT. That is just one ship. Does each ship need to have some level of control, like Tactican/Ion Cannon B wings?

The notion I had in mind, was at least 3 out of the 4 ships need to have an element of control. So you could run modified Panic Attack like Paul earlier this year: [biggs + stressbot + 2 B's with Tactician] and I would still consider it a control list.

There have been 3-4 Ten Numb + Z's in top 8's right? I've played it and it is disgustingly effective in this meta. Maybe code it for anything with 4+ of the same ship.

I'm not convinced that turret + support is a meaningful category. Han/Corran is not like Han ZZZ is not like chirpy/Fel is not like VaderChirp/Whisper.

Those are all very different lists with very different styles of play and very different counters. I guess you have to draw the lie somewhere but it seems enormous as is.

pheaver suggested a similar taxonomy in one of his articles , but his points were focused more on ships , and not on lists

I currently classify most ships into three “pillars”, as I call them:

• Turrets: Turret ships tend to be durable and can always keep fire on a target. They also tend to be expensive compared to other ships that have the same number of attack dice. They prey on arc-dodgers. Han Solo , Dash Rendar , and the VT-49 Decimator pilots are popular.

• Jousters: Joust ships all sport the best durability-to-cost or attack-to-cost ratios in the game. Almost always, they are flown by non-unique pilots that you point at the opposing side and fire. They don’t have many tricks, but it’s hard to beat them point-for-point for health, agility, or red dice. They tend to beat turrets. This pillar is dominated by TIE fighters, Z-95 Headhunters, and B-wings.
• Arc-dodgers: Arc-dodgers cost more than the jousters, and will crumble under focused fire. However, they excel at avoid jousting ships’ firing arcs and can chew up most jousters over a number of turns. They almost always have some sort of nonstandard movement available to them, such as decloak, boost, or barrel rolls. The TIE phantom is this pillar’s current ruler.

It is possible to mash these things into a 3-level taxonomy, but going from 2 to 3 levels deep is the sort of thing that gets you killed a 17th century London coffee shop! :-)

IE:

- Turrets

- Dual Turret

- YT-3400

- YT-4800

- etc

- Turret + Support

- Han + 3Z

- etc

There have been 3-4 Ten Numb + Z's in top 8's right? I've played it and it is disgustingly effective in this meta. Maybe code it for anything with 4+ of the same ship.

I'm not convinced that turret + support is a meaningful category. Han/Corran is not like Han ZZZ is not like chirpy/Fel is not like VaderChirp/Whisper.

Those are all very different lists with very different styles of play and very different counters. I guess you have to draw the lie somewhere but it seems enormous as is.

Right, this is why the taxonomy might be something like "Turret + Jouster" (Han ZZZ) and "Turret + Arc Dodger" (Chirafel)

I'm not convinced that turret + support is a meaningful category. Han/Corran is not like Han ZZZ is not like chirpy/Fel is not like VaderChirp/Whisper.

Those are all very different lists with very different styles of play and very different counters. I guess you have to draw the lie somewhere but it seems enormous as is.

You can break down "Turret + Support" into:

• Fat Falcon
• Fat Outrider
• Fat Decimator

Each of these would have specifics species underneath.

Edit: or this:

P.S.: although, certain ships might not be arc dodgers. Corran and Keyan come to mind.

There have been 3-4 Ten Numb + Z's in top 8's right? I've played it and it is disgustingly effective in this meta. Maybe code it for anything with 4+ of the same ship.

I'm not convinced that turret + support is a meaningful category. Han/Corran is not like Han ZZZ is not like chirpy/Fel is not like VaderChirp/Whisper.

Those are all very different lists with very different styles of play and very different counters. I guess you have to draw the lie somewhere but it seems enormous as is.

Right, this is why the taxonomy might be something like "Turret + Jouster" (Han ZZZ) and "Turret + Arc Dodger" (Chirafel)

Han + Corran: Turret + Arcdodger or Turret + Jouster?

This is an important question because it calls into question whether or not the pilot + upgrade combo determines if a ship/pilot is an arcdodger or a jouster.

Corran without an engine and with PTL? Probably a jouster. Corran with an engine and VI? Probably an arcdodger?

That list, and the Xizor + Z's, both already fall under the Swarm lists. Not sure if every possible list needs to be listed...

Agreed. Xizor and mini swarm should just be SCUM ANCHOR AND MINI SWARM.

Han + Corran: Turret + Arcdodger or Turret + Jouster?

This is an important question because it calls into question whether or not the pilot + upgrade combo determines if a ship/pilot is an arcdodger or a jouster.

Corran without an engine and with PTL? Probably a jouster. Corran with an engine and VI? Probably an arcdodger?

VI and fcs don't necessarily mean jouster but they certainly don't suggest arc-dodging. I don't think you need to go this deep into most pilots. Corran is unique.

Han + Corran: Turret + Arcdodger or Turret + Jouster?

This is an important question because it calls into question whether or not the pilot + upgrade combo determines if a ship/pilot is an arcdodger or a jouster.

Corran without an engine and with PTL? Probably a jouster. Corran with an engine and VI? Probably an arcdodger?

I'm not sure Corran fits into Paul's three categories for the reasons mentioned. Maybe a third option?

Turret + Jouster; Turret + Arc Dodger; Turret + Dilettante (jack of all trades, master of none)

...though Corran may be the only ship that fits that description at this time...

Why not skip 'arc dodger' vs 'jouster' and instead have 'Ace' vs 'Jousters'?

Corran is an Ace; so's Soontir Fel. Keyan is too.

The hard part would be defining 'ace'. What about a generic Defender? A Royal Guard Pilot? Does Biggs count?

Still a better bet than trying to sort arc-dodgers from jousters, though. The easily-quantifiable Aces are frequently either arc-dodgers to start with, or end up perfectly capable of being upgraded to making them one.

Why not skip 'arc dodger' vs 'jouster' and instead have 'Ace' vs 'Jousters'?

Corran is an Ace; so's Soontir Fel. Keyan is too.

The hard part would be defining 'ace'. What about a generic Defender? A Royal Guard Pilot? Does Biggs count?

Still a better bet than trying to sort arc-dodgers from jousters, though. The easily-quantifiable Aces are frequently either arc-dodgers to start with, or end up perfectly capable of being upgraded to making them one.

I like this. You can also further modify the ace with jouster or arc dodger subtext. I think the idea is creating general ideas of styles of lists. So turret +ace gives us good idea of what kind of list it is already.

I do wonder if it would be useful to break down the point differential between the two ships in a two ship list. 65 chirpy with 35 fel vs say 42 or 45 points of whisper. It would also differentiate the fat han/sad corran lists.

Trouble is, arc-dodger vs jouster... where does a HWK ace fit in? Or Corran, as previously noted? Is Vader a Jouster until you put EU on him?

Best left as 'ace', I think. And as you note, you end up with very precise distinctions based on just a few points - which is probably too fine a detail for a simple classification system. If Xizor counts as 'anchor + miniswarm', then Han+Corran is "Fat Han + Ace", and the details within start risking classifications depending on single, individual cards. That's probably too much overhead.

Sidethought: Perhaps we want to remove the term 'jousters' entirely, so as to not give the wrong idea.

Fat Turret + Ace is easily enough defined.

Perhaps its counterpart is Fat Turret + Support, which may be anything from a miniswarm of 3-4 swarmers to a pair of B-wings. Their fundamental puropse is the same: To fly around shooting the crap out of anyone that ignores them to chase the turret, so perhaps that's all the distinction it needs. It tends to be filled best by using jousting ships, to be sure, but it should help cut down on confusion in the edge cases regardless. Who knows, someone might actually rank while flying a Decimator and a pair of Alpha Squadrons, or something.

Note: I did say 'might'.

I think what we really need to do is not fit a list into a single category, but have applicable keywards. For example, Chiraneau and Fel would be [turret] and [ace], whereas Fel plus a mini swarm would be [ace] and [swarm], and so forth. With a single categorization, it seems to place onherent bias on whichever you claim is the main component. It becomes "Look at all those turrets!" when perhaps it should be "Look at all that Fel!"

That's not a silly idea, all told.

That said, you tend to define a list based on the most expensive single component - hence Turret + Ace being educational. "Look at all that Fel!" should appear from the other analytical metrics - appearances per squad, and the like.

People do tend to define lists that way, but they probably shouldn't. It leads to people looking at a meta where the Fel is the most common pilot in winning lists and nobody even noticed.

Great ideas and conversation so far, thank you everyone for contributing!

A few quick thoughts:

• DekoPuma's ideas of using attribute (or keyword) tagging is a good one. It can be used both distinctly from and in conjunction with classical taxonomies. (Think: the difference between using folders to store your email and using keyword tagging search instead.)
• 'Aces' vs 'Generic' is an important distinction.
• Re: Jousters vs Arc-Dodgers: the distinction between the two seems to be a function of pilot skill (since Arc Dodgers can act last), ship type (ships with build in engine upgrades and barrel roll are naturally better at arc dodging), and upgrade selection (ie low pilot skill X-Wings and Z95's are pure jousters, whereas engine + VI upgrades can turn Wedge or Luke into decent arc-dodgers).
• The 'Turret' taxonomical concept is similarly flexible. Turrets can be big ships or small ships; a ship can become a turret via an upgrade; a pilot can turn a ship into a turret (Nera Dantels).
• The number of ships (cardinality) in a squadron keeps showing up. Terms like dual, mini-swarm, four ship, and swarm are examples of squadron cardinality.

Putting all this together, a squadron taxonomy can be expressed as a tokenizable set of cardinalities and attributes. For example:

Dual Turret + Ace: cardinality two, attributes Turret and Ace.

4 Ship Control: cardinality four, attributes Control (defined as roughly as some stress/ion thing).

Ace + Mini Swarm: attribute Ace plus cardinality four or five generic.