Is it me or will a solid build and good flying typically outperform the meta majority of the time? Every build has pros and cons. Instead of riding the meta why not fly the same ships regularly until you become proficient at it?

Because that's even more boring than playing the meta?

I thought flying the same ships over and over was how meta was created

I thought flying the same ships over and over was how meta was created

Only if doing so easily wins against other builds with a certain level of consistency.

Because that's even more boring than playing the meta?

????

Ya, you can do that. But what happens when a player of equal or better skill runs a meta list against you which they have practiced with just as much as you have practiced with yours? Well, if the meta does what it intends to, and actually provides the best lists available to the game, chances are high he wins.

Hence, the reasoning for a meta.

Because that's even more boring than playing the meta?

????

He probably means flying the same list over and over and over again can get boring...which I agree. There is 25+ ships in the game, why limit yourself to always flying the same one.

I'm also of the opinion that while always flying the same ship can make you better with them, knowing how all of them fly is more important than just the one you fly. You will then know how to counter them.

Like Sun Tzu said: ''If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succomb in every battle.''

I think a lot of newer and/or inexperienced players just pick up the popular build because it gives a false hope that it's a winning build, whereas of course a more seasoned pro will typically triumph.

I think people get overly focused on trying to figure out which factor is going to influence the outcome of their games the most. The real answer is that no one factor trumps the others.

Imagine if you got rated from 0 to 10 on the following factors:

• How good your squad is (including in the context of the current meta)
• How well you fly it
• How lucky your dice are today

(You could break it down more, or argue over the scale or how much each should be weighted, but let's keep it simple for this discussion.)

If you add up your score in all the factors, you can compare your score to another player and get a good idea of who is more likely to win a game between the two of you. E.g. your scores are 5, 8, and 5, (total 18) while your opponent's are 10, 6, and 5 (total 21), you're probably going to lose, even though you're technically the better flier.

Along with that, the further up the levels of competitive play you go, the more you encounter players who are already very skilled, so the difference in that rating is lower. At your local weekly store games, maybe the players range from 0 (the guy who just bought the core set today) up to 6 or 7 (that guy everyone struggles to beat), but unless you've got an actual regional champion hanging out at your store, that's about as high as it goes. By comparison, the players who make it to the elimination rounds of Nationals and Worlds play are ALL solid 9s and 10s. When the gap in pilot skill between you and your opponent is that small, the differences in other factors (building to the meta and luck of the dice) are magnified incredibly.

I think people get overly focused on trying to figure out which factor is going to influence the outcome of their games the most. The real answer is that no one factor trumps the others.

Imagine if you got rated from 0 to 10 on the following factors:

• How good your squad is (including in the context of the current meta)
• How well you fly it
• How lucky your dice are today

(You could break it down more, or argue over the scale or how much each should be weighted, but let's keep it simple for this discussion.)

If you add up your score in all the factors, you can compare your score to another player and get a good idea of who is more likely to win a game between the two of you. E.g. your scores are 5, 8, and 5, (total 18) while your opponent's are 10, 6, and 5 (total 21), you're probably going to lose, even though you're technically the better flier.

Along with that, the further up the levels of competitive play you go, the more you encounter players who are already very skilled, so the difference in that rating is lower. At your local weekly store games, maybe the players range from 0 (the guy who just bought the core set today) up to 6 or 7 (that guy everyone struggles to beat), but unless you've got an actual regional champion hanging out at your store, that's about as high as it goes. By comparison, the players who make it to the elimination rounds of Nationals and Worlds play are ALL solid 9s and 10s. When the gap in pilot skill between you and your opponent is that small, the differences in other factors (building to the meta and luck of the dice) are magnified incredibly.

In its simplest form, you basically confirmed my theory, taking the unpredictability of the dice out of the equation, a solid build which a large portion of weekend warrior local store players can employ, that solid flying will typically win against a popular build. I mean it's not a perfect system but experience is worth it's weight in miniature plastic ships.

You have to be careful with throwing that kind of theory around and trying to use it to justify your decisions and wins and losses, however, because most people are really really bad at evaluating their own skill level accurately. If you show up to a big tournament thinking you've got a pilot skill of 8-out-of-10 and a squad that's 6-out-of-10, but the real numbers are more like 4 and 4, you're in for a series of painful defeats.

In its simplest form, you basically confirmed my theory, taking the unpredictability of the dice out of the equation, a solid build which a large portion of weekend warrior local store players can employ, that solid flying will typically win against a popular build. I mean it's not a perfect system but experience is worth it's weight in miniature plastic ships.

You have to be careful with throwing that kind of theory around and trying to use it to justify your decisions and wins and losses, however, because most people are really really bad at evaluating their own skill level accurately. If you show up to a big tournament thinking you've got a pilot skill of 8-out-of-10 and a squad that's 6-out-of-10, but the real numbers are more like 4 and 4, you're in for a series of painful defeats.

Also, OP seems to essentially be arguing that a good list, flown flawlessly, can often win against a great list, flown poorly. I'm not sure why this should be surprising to anyone, unless there are still some out there that believe in lists that provide "auto-wins." I mean, if your opponent is constantly landing on rocks and never gets to shoot, it doesn't really matter what either of you is flying, right?

So yes, you always have a chance to beat (insert whatever list you think the state of the meta tells us is the "best" list today) by flying your homebrew list better.

In its simplest form, you basically confirmed my theory, taking the unpredictability of the dice out of the equation, a solid build which a large portion of weekend warrior local store players can employ, that solid flying will typically win against a popular build. I mean it's not a perfect system but experience is worth it's weight in miniature plastic ships.

You have to be careful with throwing that kind of theory around and trying to use it to justify your decisions and wins and losses, however, because most people are really really bad at evaluating their own skill level accurately. If you show up to a big tournament thinking you've got a pilot skill of 8-out-of-10 and a squad that's 6-out-of-10, but the real numbers are more like 4 and 4, you're in for a series of painful defeats.

Of course I'm not talking Worlds, Nationals, Regionals....just casual local store play, 6-12 of the same people. I kept jumping my builds around and am just starting to come to the conclusion that I *should* just stay with a competitive build for a while and focus on mastering a few ships.

How to beat the meta without playing the meta:

1. Don't land on Roids.

2. Control your opponent by use of Ionization, Stress, Blocking, Outflanking.

3. Force trades that are in your favor (low value ship of yours for a high value ship of theirs). Note: If you can't afford to lose a ship, you might be playing the meta.

4. Don't get frustrated if the dice **** you. If this happens, play for the late game and wait for the dice to **** your opponent.

Remember, the meta is the meta because most players find it easier to win with, but it's not necessarily the best thing for everyone to use.

Because that's even more boring than playing the meta?

????

He probably means flying the same list over and over and over again can get boring...which I agree. There is 25+ ships in the game, why limit yourself to always flying the same one.

I'm also of the opinion that while always flying the same ship can make you better with them, knowing how all of them fly is more important than just the one you fly. You will then know how to counter them.

Like Sun Tzu said: ''If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succomb in every battle.''

This.

Also, as most of my games are played against non-competitive players with non-competitive list, playing the meta is usually an auto win.

Auto wins are not fun and neither are they good practice for comp games

Cant it be both???

I am sure some people out there have been tat han varients since release

will a solid build and good flying typically outperform the meta majority of the time?

This is too general of a statement to definitively answer.

For some states of the metagame, the advantages provided by a typical meta list are going to be too large to generally overcome with only practice. You'd need either a player skill gap, dice luck, etc. in order to win the otherwise uphill battle.

For other metagames, the power difference between an average list and the meta lists is small enough that familiarity and practice might more than offset the drop in efficiency from using a snowflake list.

Right now feels more like the second, to me.

Aside: Personally, I hate the use of the word "meta" to mean "a few select squads." It's called "meta" because it means "metagame." As in, there is a game outside the game. For example, C-3PO on Han is super popular. You anticipate seeing a few of those at the upcoming tournament. You decide to bring ships with Outmaneuver and Autothrusters with the idea that if you can stay out of arc, you can get better defense from Autothrusters and the ability to turn C-3PO off with Outmaneuver. You've just played the "metagame" by building a squad against what you expect to see rather than building something just because you think it's strong. Most of all, if you play some net-list, you're not playing the meta because you're not playing the metagame, you're just flying popular things.

On topic: How you fly is really important. Efficiency is important. But never underestimate lady luck; she can make you the hero or the zero no matter what you do.

...a solid build which a large portion of weekend warrior local store players can employ...

Do you mean...Captain Weekend?

(seriously, watch the video with Closed Caption enabled. It is HILARIOUS! "Captain Weekend" makes his debut at 1 minute 3 seconds)

you will see a disproportionate amount of talk online about list building because it's very easy to talk about. Good flying is much harder to talk about.

I kinda want to start a thread on flying to counter particular lists.

Is it me or will a solid build and good flying typically outperform the meta majority of the time? Every build has pros and cons. Instead of riding the meta why not fly the same ships regularly until you become proficient at it?

I'm not really sure what this means. The meta doesn't eliminate the need for good flying (that would be a poor game indeed) The meta is, essentially, the list building portion of the game. The meta is what it means to have a "solid build" as far as the community is aware.

you will see a disproportionate amount of talk online about list building because it's very easy to talk about. Good flying is much harder to talk about.

I kinda want to start a thread on flying to counter particular lists.

That's very hard to do. There are so many variables to account for. I'm not talking about builds but positioning. Changes in formation will have a huge effect on how you approach. The same with asteroids and debris clouds. I think that's something that's learned through experience. The same applies to timing of attacks if you have a flanker. Or your opponent does. Like chess, the best you can do is try and show what to look for.

That's very hard to do. There are so many variables to account for.

Joking aside, there is a huge degree of variability to the dice in this game which the best flying in the world cannot overcome. I have been behind and out of arc of targets - with a perfect shot (TL/F/Both) and still caused no damage. This kind of thing happens more often than I think is good for my enjoyment of the game. Even with good action efficiency, you cant mitigate bad rolls entirely. Entire games can revolve around 1 or 2 rolls of the dice, especially close flown games, where you may only have a few limited opportunities to get damage in (often in less than perfect positions). If your dice roll cold and your opponents dont, you can lose the game by this luck alone. Thats not skill - unless theres something to rolling dice I have missed over many years.

Much as I love this game, it is perhaps the most frustrating part of an otherwise almost perfectly weighted, fun game.

Is it me or will a solid build and good flying typically outperform the meta majority of the time? Every build has pros and cons. Instead of riding the meta why not fly the same ships regularly until you become proficient at it?

YEAH... that is how things work for real. You got it EXACTLY RIGHT.

Practice Makes Perfect (kinda).

The thing is that popular meta lists are popular because they are broadly effective against a wide variety of lists. That doesn't mean they are effective against the best variety of lists. You can make squads that are strong in different ways, but that leverage their strengths differently than typical meta squads. Both the 2014 and 2015 US nationals squads were just about unheard of when they entered those tournaments, but copious player skill and creative list building gave them the edge. Now, these squads had very popular meta elements, but they were paired with either "bad" ships or upgrades that just so happened to make them strong in all the right ways.

The 2014 squad had Soontir Fel, Whisper, and Yorr. The first two were powerhouses, but a shuttle was considered to be largely dead weight. However, it shored up weaknesses in the list and allowed the first two elements to succeed.

The 2015 squad traded out the common Engine Upgrade and Kyle Katarn or Recon Specialist crew on Dash Rendar for anti-pursuit lasers and R2D2 crew. The changes made Dash less reactive (often the mark of a meta popular ship), but cheaper, and stronger against its worst matchups.

Both of these were non standard lists used by players with great skill and familiarity with their lists.