The Motti Scale is also terribly amusing.

It gets points for chuckle value.

Can we use this thread in order to predict what the meta will be like as long as more Wave 2 are released ? Obviously, we don't know all the cards yet, but based on the spoilers...

Or should we start a new, more dedicated one ?

Alright, let's go crazy !

The new meta: BIGGER BETTER FASTER RAWR!!!!

I love the comedy threads...

Are you being at odds with me just for the sake of being at odds with me?

The Motti scale is simply about more+bigger=better. It is a scale that accumulates two variables: size and quantity. It says nothing about quality. It is a rough estimate of survivability that puts the CR90 in the same category as a GSD. That's fine by as long as we're comfortable with the notion that in the whole scale of the game from CR90 to ISD the difference between a CR-90 and a GSD is roughly equivalent.

So, if you're embracing the Motti scale as being predictive/explanatory of outcomes, as you do in post #47, then you're saying quality does not matter. You state the reverse in post #49. Both of these posts are written in disagreement with me, when my posts are trying to make sense of what MoffZen is saying.

Again, this may be about my misunderstanding of what 'theorycrafting' means because it is a concept that is native to gaming, when my background is in social science. But, if so, please clarify.

The scale does not scale ships together based on their size. This is why it was brought up the concept that rebels need more MS points in their build to do well against Imperials which leads to the concept that the Rebel ships are not the equivalent to Imperial (which I thought you would like)

Mind you this is just a theorycraft based on current information. The point of this is to give people an idea of what fleets are being built on in this scale.

The concept was built it seems over the information that gets placed out on here in the boards.

Oh and I do believe you can give ships too much "quality". Too many upgrades and your ships are worth too much.

Oh and bigger is not better. At 400 points a player can run 5 VSD 1's. That's a MS of 10. Which is higher than 3 ISD 1's which is a 9.

Mikael, if you are looking for someone to validate the idea that the 'motti scale' is actually pretty meaningless, I will step up for you. But it makes for an amusing read...

Theory-crafting is simply postulating about trends, tendencies, possible builds, tactics, or strategies; without testing to back up claims.

It's just a made up phrase and is not at all that complicated.

It would be cool to see more theorycrafting about tactics. There is a lot of unsubstantiated list speculation on this forum, but very little in the way of real advice to a newer player that is useful.

It would be cool to see more theorycrafting about tactics. There is a lot of unsubstantiated list speculation on this forum, but very little in the way of real advice to a newer player that is useful.

Mikael, if you are looking for someone to validate the idea that the 'motti scale' is actually pretty meaningless, I will step up for you. But it makes for an amusing read...

Well, I do like it as it is amusing. I'm just trying to see how we might get some mileage out of it.

Are you being at odds with me just for the sake of being at odds with me?

...

Again, this may be about my misunderstanding of what 'theorycrafting' means because it is a concept that is native to gaming, when my background is in social science. But, if so, please clarify.

Or you could be misinterpreting my thoughts on how I am looking at the Motti Scale.

The scale does not scale ships together based on their size. This is why it was brought up the concept that rebels need more MS points in their build to do well against Imperials which leads to the concept that the Rebel ships are not the equivalent to Imperial (which I thought you would like)

...

I'm not sure how one might look at the Motti Scale as anything other than an easy composite of measuring size and quantity of a list.

I can't fathom how it doesn't categorize ships together based on their size: All small ships are counted as 1, all medium ships as 2, and all large as 3. It then adds those numbers together. That's the very definition of the scale.

He doesn't seem to say that rebels need more Motti units, he's saying that the Rebels can fit more Motti units because - per unit - Rebels pay less and can therefore fit more into a list.

Ugh, but yeah, this is silly and not meant to be serious. I think I'm just cranky because of work. Also, I'm out of coffee and I'm substituting with bourbon, and it's not working as intended.

Bourbon? I think it is a good thing I did not come over to film ^_~

Bourbon? I think it is a good thing I did not come over to film ^_~

Well, my videos require a bit more precise articulation, and I keep screwing up my lines out of nerves. I felt a shot of bourbon would take the edge off. Instead I now have heartburn and I'm cranky.

Hey guys ! I'm glad that you guys are discussing the Motti Scale theory that I came up with But please, don't rip each other's throats about it, I never meant at as a be all end all theory

First of all, kudos to Mickael for pointing out that you can indeed play with a maximal Motti Scale for Imperials of 6. It's indeed true and having played more Rebels I didn't try to play with a 3 medium ship list for Imps when I was thinking about it.

Secondly, to quote your post :

Anyway, the first idea is one we can turn into a falsifiable hypothesis is:

• MST₁: A list with a Motti value less than 4 will be more likely to suffer a total fleet kill in any given game than a list with a Motti value of more than 4.

Is that how I am to understand the testable aspect of Motti Scale theory?

This is exactly what I meant with it and nothing more This is also the reason why I was jokingly referring to it as the Motti Scale.

To clarify for people who didn't read the thread : Each ship size is assigned an arbitrary value (Motti value for the lolz), 1 for small, 2 for medium, 3 for large ships.

I've found that running below a Motti value of 4 is putting the fleet at risk of a complete tabling.

Anecdotically, I faced an Imperial opponent just today that had a VSD, a GSD and (too many) fighters for a total Motti Value of 3 with my 2 Nebs, 2 Corvettes (for a Motti Value of 4) and I tabled him.

Today I also faced a VVG no squadron Imperial opponent (5 on the Motti Scale) with the same list, and it was a 5-5. Both are good players.

I did lose a Corvette in turn 2 in the first game due to abysmal placement without it firing a single shot, so that would be a counter argument to the theory. But the counter argument that could be made is that while he was shooting his front arc (red dice only) at my Corvette, he wasn't firing this arc or another at my remaining 3 ships.

I've always seen it more as a rule of thumb that I should never go below a Motti Scale of 4 for my fleets, and the idea behind it was to go beyond just the number of ships to determine the minimal sustainability you need in order to both avoid tabling, and have enough bodies to actually kill ships while yours are being sunk

Regarding the debate quality versus quantity, I'm definitely not an advocate of spamming ships just for the sake of it. I even said that I've found that the lists that seemed the more efficient (and once again, I'm looking to crunch the data to see whether it can be "argued" that it has some veracity) seemed to gravitate more towards the minimal of 4 over the maximal of 6-7. The simple reason is that by not going Full Motti, you have points to spend for upgrades that quite nicely enhance the performance of each ship and make it a bit more damaging than just having an extra ship.

@Mikael : I'd like you to go further and provide me with some counter examples that make the Motti Scale not work. Your 3 Glads versus 3 Glads is a bit off from the theory, because both fit under the minimal recommend Motti Scale (MRMS ). That way, we can boost the theorycraft to the next level

@People who find the Motti Scale funny : I find your lack of faith disturbing But enjoy the lolz, because it was named for that express purpose

EDIT : I also named it after hearing from the guys at Intensify Forward Firepower when they talked about a 3 Motti VSD list that will never be tabled, calling it "The Dreamcrusher List". The idea was that you might not win by much, but you're certainly not going to take a 10-0 to the face.

This gave me the idea to think about minimal survivability in the lists !

Just to be clear, I want the Motti scale to be a useful clarifying lens because it's simple and because it's funny. But when you want to use a theory, you have to try to beat up on it a bit to see if it's not just a diversion.

So, if MST₁ is an accurately-stated hypothesis of the theory, then we do need to look around for lists that have that.

Yes, my 3xGSD list was one. It wasn't the fact that my 3xGSD list got beaten by another 3xGSD list that was the critical datapoint. It was the fact that that other 3xGSD list won that tournament against lists that met the MRMS. Also, my games against those other lists were really close. My 3xGSD list narrowly lost to Wtfboar's 5MS list, and to Lyraeus' 5MS list only because he was second player and we were otherwise tied at points.

My logical question for you is: why is 4 the threshold number at 300 points? What is the reason for there being a dichotomy between <4 and >3? If the foundation is about the amount of soakable damage, why not say: more=better? It seems to me that there is a different variable at stake that makes the return on investment after 4 MS points diminish.

The Dreamcrusher list. . . Ugh. . . I can't wait till Rieekan comes to be in my hands. . . . I will make the Undying Fleet a thing!

Just to be clear, I want the Motti scale to be a useful clarifying lens because it's simple and because it's funny. But when you want to use a theory, you have to try to beat up on it a bit to see if it's not just a diversion.

So, if MST₁ is an accurately-stated hypothesis of the theory, then we do need to look around for lists that have that.

Yes, my 3xGSD list was one. It wasn't the fact that my 3xGSD list got beaten by another 3xGSD list that was the critical datapoint. It was the fact that that other 3xGSD list won that tournament against lists that met the MRMS. Also, my games against those other lists were really close. My 3xGSD list narrowly lost to Wtfboar's 5MS list, and to Lyraeus' 5MS list only because he was second player and we were otherwise tied at points.

My logical question for you is: why is 4 the threshold number at 300 points? What is the reason for there being a dichotomy between <4 and >3? If the foundation is about the amount of soakable damage, why not say: more=better? It seems to me that there is a different variable at stake that makes the return on investment after 4 MS points diminish.

My 3xGSD list narrowly lost to ... and to Lyraeus' 5MS list only because he was second player and we were otherwise tied at points.

He won because I messed up. . . It also does not help that Rebels have issues tabling opponents. . .

Well, that's a different model. Don't try to muddle the data!

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

I have a record of all my games at HNN. Lately, I've been collecting full data on all games at the tournaments that I attend. You can find them after the 'read more' jumps for those posts describing Armada battle reports.

If we wanted to really compile data, we'd want to create a database format that lists all relevant data. It would imply deciding what data is relevant, or having a comprehensive database. If we were just testing MST then it would be easy, but if we're compiling that data anyway, it would be useful to be able to test other hypotheses too.

Or, we could ad hoc it. I don't know. Being complete about it looks like a lot of work that I should not spend time on.

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.

I entirely agree that there is probably a law of diminishing returns, but it would be interesting to see how much those returns diminish. At what point do they diminish into the negative so that an extra ship is most probably less efficient than spending on upgrades. However, that implies that the Motti Scale is just one variable, and there is another variable that is responsible for that downwards pressure on the return-on-investment in more ships. Obviously that variable involves upgrades, but how do we aggregate upgrades into a single variable? I suppose we could just count up the points, and then compare that to the average points-per-Motti-unit.

I do agree with you that it is extremely complicated to make a truly effective formula. On top of that, FFG probably has one that helps them pricing the upgrades appropriately and probably wouldn't want us to reverse engineer it

EDIT : On top of that, listbuilding is only a part of the game. Throw a Formula 1 at a newbie driver, and he will probably crash it as soon as he tries to push the limit Tabletop skill (and dice rolls !) are definitely the most important part of the game

Skill. . . . That is a HUGE part of this game.

Skill. . . . That is a HUGE part of this game.

Yes...

Skill. . . . That is a HUGE part of this game.

Yes...

I do agree with you that it is extremely complicated to make a truly effective formula. On top of that, FFG probably has one that helps them pricing the upgrades appropriately and probably wouldn't want us to reverse engineer it

EDIT : On top of that, listbuilding is only a part of the game. Throw a Formula 1 at a newbie driver, and he will probably crash it as soon as he tries to push the limit Tabletop skill (and dice rolls !) are definitely the most important part of the game

That is true, but the particular dice rolls of a game (how these deviate from the expected result) and players' skill levels cannot be modeled.

I doubt they have a numerical model. I suspect that they playtest something thoroughly, debate its value, and then slap a number on it.

Skill. . . . That is a HUGE part of this game.

Yes...

I sense much meaning behind that "Yes..."

I decided I didn't want my (subsiding) crankiness to poison the well, and so instead of posting a Captain Obvious meme, I left an ellipsis.

If that ain't friendship, I don't know what is.

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?

Where we're going, we don't need skill!!!