To help mitigate skill, you should use datapoints from evenly matched opponents. That is, either people who play together a lot and win as much as they lose, or sample just the top part of a tournament, like top 10-25%.

Is that a good way of collecting data, or does it exclude too much?

How are we determining a players skill level compared to others?

That's just it. You can't unless there is some sort of formal ranking, and even then, its situational and and arbitrary.

So, here we go at some ideas in regards to hypothesis and conclusion.

The biggest support for the Motti Scale Theory is going to be if it holds up under all other defined variables.

We need to define our variables.

As relative player skill has been identified, that is one of them. The Variable of the Player skill is, however, not one that can be readily defined. If the variable cannot be defined, then it simply has to be ignored for the purposes of the testing.

What are other variables? As has been suggested, you have other things - Squadrons do not fit into the Motti Scale, and as it is, can have an effect upon that reckoning. Do we define that as a variable, or not?

Then you've got the variables of the dice themselves... Specifically, the psychological variable considered when we say "his dice were hot, and mine were not."

Then there are Synergies to consider. As has been raised, there was the concept of Diminishing Returns vis-a-vis Gladiators that would have its interactions at the heart of the Motti Scale.

This is starting to remind me too much of High School Physics... >.>

Basically... The Motti Scale should itself be considered just a part of list building. There are too many undefined variable to take it beyond merely a guess - albeit, and interesting and entertaining one - or a way of gathering data itself...

Remember, a Hypothesis is an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation.

A Theory is a well substantiated explanation, based on facts that have been confirmed rigorously testing and observation.

For the Motti Scale to be somewhat of a Hypothesis, it would have to have some terms, including variables, defined as to what it is intending to relate to the wider body of players.

I like the Motti scale. I understand it's not a promise of victory, it's only a guide to gauge toughness of a fleet. Just a guideline to know how hard it will be to table an opponent IMO. Yes, the fighters don't fit in yet as it exists, but ultimately, it's only the ships you need to kill to table.

If you build a fleet below that 4-6 sweet spot, you're going to have a larger uphill climb to overcome an opponent who did based on samples I've seen demonstrated.

The larger issue is, simple records of tournaments don't really have statistical validity. That is because there is no real value given to the skill of the player, which far outweighs the importance of list choices in terms of producing victory, especially meaningful victory. I don't care how many times a '5M' wins. I care about who the regular tourney winners are and how they are winning - not with what they are winning, but how. So far, the 'motti scale' is a distraction to that end.

I like the Motti scale. I understand it's not a promise of victory, it's only a guide to gauge toughness of a fleet. Just a guideline to know how hard it will be to table an opponent IMO. Yes, the fighters don't fit in yet as it exists, but ultimately, it's only the ships you need to kill to table.

If you build a fleet below that 4-6 sweet spot, you're going to have a larger uphill climb to overcome an opponent who did based on samples I've seen demonstrated.

I think fighters will have their own scale. Each squadron adds what. . . a .0x where x=HP. . . could work. . . Aces would add in double their HP since they have tokens. . . so Look would add 0.1 to the Motti Scale. . .

So a Rebel fleet of 2 Assault Frigates with 2 B WIngs, 2 Y-Wings, an A-Wing, an X-Wing and Luke would have a Motti Scale of 4.41

EDIT: I could be a decimal back but I would not see those squadrons making the list an 8.1. . .

@Mickael :

I definitely agree with stress testing the theory, which is why I'd love to get Armada tournament reports and see where it leads to Bipolar Potter placed the tournament report of the top gun at GenCon (5M in Motti Scale) in the other thread with the following values :

Round 1 : 5M - 5M / 2 - 8

Round 2 : 5M - 4M / 10 - 0

Round 3 : 5M - 6M / 7 - 3

Round 4 : 5M - 3M / 10 - 0

Round 5 : 5M - 4M / 9 - 1

To add to my battles today

Battle 1 : 4M - 4M / 5-5

Battle 2 : 4M - 3M / 10-0

The threshold so far is hypothetical. The logic is that : the lower your Motti Scale, the easier it is for the opponent to concentrate fire on a single ship from multiple ships while making it difficult to fire effectively at multiple ships, and the lower the Motti Scale, the lower the maximum amount of damage you can tank is.

In turn, to avoid tabling, you'll spend time avoiding conflicts, thus reducing your overall killing power over 6 turns.

Like you said, there is a diminishing return on the Motti Scale (and the GenCon tournament report shows a 7-3 against a value of 6M). It's because you spend points on ships rather than making these ships more efficient. A case in point can be thrown : for 51 points, you can buy an extra Neb B Support. For 20 points, you can buy Salvation + Intel Officier + XI7. And these 20 points makes the ship a lot more effective, both in terms of individual performance but also in fleet support.

also not mentioned, but often true - a low MS fleet is likely to be at a disadvantage for ship activations vs a high MS fleet.

Regarding squadrons, I wouldn't include it as part of the Motti Scale, simply because of the rules for losing all your ships. They automatically provide the enemy with 300 points, regardless of what you've spent on squadrons.

@Drasnighta : As the proud father of the Motti Scale, I definitely agree with you that it should only be used as a tool amongst others when list building and not as the Grand Unified Theory of automatic win and of elegant list building

Regarding player skill, dice rolls and diminishing returns on ships vs upgrade cards :

1) Player skill could be modeled, but you can't ever do that before a battle, so it is going to remain the great unknown.

2) Dice rolls I think could be an interesting probabilistic model, but rather than working on averages, work on standard deviation and variance due to a low amount of dice rolled and a large amount of disparities between the results.

3) Diminishing returns could be made on a card per card basis and I think I've got an idea where to begin (thank you ISD preview for giving me the idea, but I won't ever do it because too much time).

There is one key component of gameplay and listbuilding we see in Wave 1 and that is heavily hinted at in Wave 2, that is starting to become more and more prevalent the more games are played. It's defense token mitigation, and it takes multiple forms :

- Volume of attacks coupled with strengths of attacks.

- Upgrades that prevent the use of defense tokens (Sensor Team, XI7, Heavy Turbolasers)

- Cards that force to spend or exhaust defense tokens (Intel Officer, Overload Pulse)

- Cards that inflict damage regardless of defense tokens (ACM, Ion Cannons, Dodonna's Pride)

A healthy dose of dice is also needed, to better take advantage of the defense token mitigations. But I feel removing the opponent's defense tokens while ensuring to keep yours is quite important (ECM, Advanced Projectors to force the opponent to choose between 3 types of mitigation at long range).

Back on the topic of cards, I think we could "prove" (or at least put under the spotlight) that upgrade cards are more points effective to spend the opponent's defense tokens than another ship. Example : Salvation with XI7. For 6 points, you can relatively ensure that your opponent will spend its Brace token due to not being able to redirect more than one damage. Throwing in another Neb B would mean spending 57 points instead of 13.

Add Intel Officer and you're now sure that either your opponent discard its Brace, either he lets a high amount of damage go through.

That's just it. You can't unless there is some sort of formal ranking, and even then, its situational and and arbitrary.

You can count how many tournament kit medals someone has.

I'll even let you call it the Hasselstein scale.

That's just it. You can't unless there is some sort of formal ranking, and even then, its situational and and arbitrary.

You can count how many tournament kit medals someone has.

I'll even let you call it the Hasselstein scale.

That's just it. You can't unless there is some sort of formal ranking, and even then, its situational and and arbitrary.

You can count how many tournament kit medals someone has.

I'll even let you call it the Hasselstein scale.

Doesn't count. Too many variables there.

"I solemnly swear to give the process of determining if the 'motti scale' is in fact a threory a irrational amount of attention and ensure that the discussion last at least 2 fourum pages and encompasses more text then the entire rrg."

-the agreement signed on page 3 of the thread...

No idea what the intervening pages were about, but....

The meta had better dang well die. If it doesn't get the ax, then that will mean the most beautiful symbol of Imperial Majesty isn't worth putting on the table.

What is this thread about (originally, I mean, not the theory vs hypothesis debate)? Was this just triggered by the ISD preview article, or have I missed something?

It was the ISD preview.

@mazz : We derailed the thread like pros when people started discussing my elegant Motti Scale© theory