TLT Question? Couldn't figure it out with the website.

So How many store championships and how many 4 TLT, scum and rebel, have finished in the top 8 and how many have won?

How do i get this using the website?

I don't know how you do it via the website, but if you ask sozin nicely you can get the SQL data directly. However I don't think it stores repeated ships (am I reading the schema wrong, sozin?), so I have to look at the pretty text to determine which lists have 4 TLTs.

For the 159 tournaments entered so far, we have

• Store Championship lists entered this year: 3961
• Lists we actually have ship data for: 2412
• With 4xTLT: 49
• That made top 8 elimination: 19
• Top 4: 18
• Top 2: 10
• Won: 6

...That doesn't seem right. I can't believe fewer than 50 quad TLTs have been flown in total -- it seems like it should be an order of magnitude off, but at least here in the SF Bay Area that does seem to be the case (4xTLT is a rarity). Someone else please check my numbers.

I doubt it's an order of magnitude off (that'd put it at 500 quad TLTs. I relaly doubt 20% of all lists have been that one). I wouldn't be entirely surprised if 49 was right. I haven't seen any here, you said there aren't many in the SF bay area. 1-2 TLTs I'm sure show up in a ton of lists (I had 2 in my SC list), but 4 is a lot more rare.

Yeah, quad TLTs are rare in SoCal also. I think I was the last person to fly them and that was at the Store Champs in San Diego...mostly because I was gone when the TLT first came out and that was my first opportunity to fly the list...and the last time I flew it. (went to top 8 but needed a shower afterwards)

It's an almost unspoken agreement that the list is no fun for either player so no one wants to be TFG that brings them.

It would be like bringing 3 Wampa's and a Palpmobile...Crit, cancel, damage. Crit, cancel, damage. Miss, Palp for a crit, cancel, and he's dead. Yep, that's a lot of fun and skill (sarc).

Now, if we can only shame the double/triple regen flyers to stop using that abomination...

We didn't so much shame TLT-spammers as crush them into submission. The best players here in the Bay Area learned to beat them reliably very quickly.

(Of course, then a couple of the same good players actually played them to SC wins. Them we shamed.)

TLT spam is also so boring that it can't even be qualified as a sin (it's more a test of endurance)

hard to get people to play them; even the 4th place at my last SC (3 thugs unhinged, 1 palob tlt) dropped right after making the cut

I don't know how you do it via the website, but if you ask sozin nicely you can get the SQL data directly. However I don't think it stores repeated ships (am I reading the schema wrong, sozin?), so I have to look at the pretty text to determine which lists have 4 TLTs.

For the 159 tournaments entered so far, we have

• Store Championship lists entered this year: 3961
• Lists we actually have ship data for: 2412
• With 4xTLT: 49
• That made top 8 elimination: 19
• Top 4: 18
• Top 2: 10
• Won: 6

...That doesn't seem right. I can't believe fewer than 50 quad TLTs have been flown in total -- it seems like it should be an order of magnitude off, but at least here in the SF Bay Area that does seem to be the case (4xTLT is a rarity). Someone else please check my numbers.

With those numbers quad TLT made top 4s 36% of the time. That's pretty good.

I don't know how you do it via the website, but if you ask sozin nicely you can get the SQL data directly. However I don't think it stores repeated ships (am I reading the schema wrong, sozin?), so I have to look at the pretty text to determine which lists have 4 TLTs.

For the 159 tournaments entered so far, we have

• Store Championship lists entered this year: 3961
• Lists we actually have ship data for: 2412
• With 4xTLT: 49
• That made top 8 elimination: 19
• Top 4: 18
• Top 2: 10
• Won: 6

...That doesn't seem right. I can't believe fewer than 50 quad TLTs have been flown in total -- it seems like it should be an order of magnitude off, but at least here in the SF Bay Area that does seem to be the case (4xTLT is a rarity). Someone else please check my numbers.

With those numbers quad TLT made top 4s 36% of the time. That's pretty good.

How is 18 top 4 appearances out of 159 tournaments anywhere close to 36%. I think based solely off the data presented it is still 11.3 %, which is still pretty darn high for one list type, but probably lower than Brobots or Palp+Aces.

I don't know how you do it via the website, but if you ask sozin nicely you can get the SQL data directly. However I don't think it stores repeated ships (am I reading the schema wrong, sozin?), so I have to look at the pretty text to determine which lists have 4 TLTs.

For the 159 tournaments entered so far, we have

• Store Championship lists entered this year: 3961
• Lists we actually have ship data for: 2412
• With 4xTLT: 49
• That made top 8 elimination: 19
• Top 4: 18
• Top 2: 10
• Won: 6

...That doesn't seem right. I can't believe fewer than 50 quad TLTs have been flown in total -- it seems like it should be an order of magnitude off, but at least here in the SF Bay Area that does seem to be the case (4xTLT is a rarity). Someone else please check my numbers.

With those numbers quad TLT made top 4s 36% of the time. That's pretty good.

How is 18 top 4 appearances out of 159 tournaments anywhere close to 36%. I think based solely off the data presented it is still 11.3 %, which is still pretty darn high for one list type, but probably lower than Brobots or Palp+Aces.

4xTLT was not run in all 159 tournaments. There was a total of 49 4xTLT lists that ran in Store Champs this year. It's 18 top 4 appearances out of 49 total appearances which gives you 37%. That is really impressive.

That is quite possibly the worst mat I've ever seen. If I got to the table and found that thing sitting there I'd flip it over and play on the backside.

More basic math:

3961 lists (players) / 159 tournaments = 24.9 players per tournament. Therefore the average list picked at random has a chance of 159/3961 = 4% chance of winning.

Of the 49 times quad TLT was taken (that we know of), it won 6 times. That's 12.25%, or three times higher than the average rate for a list. Granted, I'm sure there were other instances of the list being taken and NOT showing up. If we use the "known lists" to get a statistical baseline, then 12.25% is still almost twice as high as 159/2421 = 6.6%.

we can't really get a "Random list" as a standard until we see the % of other lists that diverge from the apparent norm

Honestly, the really bad lists -- and "bad" is a too-harsh judgment call, because very often people are just flying fun lists, well knowing they aren't competitive -- is astonishingly high at SCs.

TLT-Spam is simple, relatively inexpensive, and a decent list. It's what a decently skilled semi-newbie could reasonably be expected to bring.

So three times the "expected win rate" compared to random lists seems pretty reasonable to me.

And that's leaving aside people like Bernie L., in our local meta, who places high in nearly every SC, with nearly any list, yet who nevertheless chose to fly TLT-Spam to a SC victory.

In any event, it doesn't matter much. The Alpha Strike meta has already killed TLT-Spam, and the AS(S) meta hasn't even dropped yet.

Honestly, the really bad lists -- and "bad" is a too-harsh judgment call, because very often people are just flying fun lists, well knowing they aren't competitive -- is astonishingly high at SCs.

TLT-Spam is simple, relatively inexpensive, and a decent list. It's what a decently skilled semi-newbie could reasonably be expected to bring.

So three times the "expected win rate" compared to random lists seems pretty reasonable to me.

And that's leaving aside people like Bernie L., in our local meta, who places high in nearly every SC, with nearly any list, yet who nevertheless chose to fly TLT-Spam to a SC victory.

In any event, it doesn't matter much. The Alpha Strike meta has already killed TLT-Spam, and the AS(S) meta hasn't even dropped yet.

Other list types could be checked by that method as well to see if TLT is an outlier.

More basic math:

3961 lists (players) / 159 tournaments = 24.9 players per tournament. Therefore the average list picked at random has a chance of 159/3961 = 4% chance of winning.

Of the 49 times quad TLT was taken (that we know of), it won 6 times. That's 12.25%, or three times higher than the average rate for a list. Granted, I'm sure there were other instances of the list being taken and NOT showing up. If we use the "known lists" to get a statistical baseline, then 12.25% is still almost twice as high as 159/2421 = 6.6%.

The data paints a very misleading picture when used in that way. If you look at the data the missing lists are more weighted toward the bottom. If a list is present in the data it has a much higher probability of being a "top tables" list. You are also weighting a "tournament win" equally across all tournaments, meaning winning a 3 game tournament counts the same as a 5-8 game tournament. That skews probability toward noob-stomper lists like TLT spam.

Here's some examples of the "noob-stomper" theory. I've only gone through part of the lists, but found 5 SCs (of the 6?) where 4 TLTs won. Only one of them breaks the 24.9 player average:

http://lists.starwarsclubhouse.com/get_tourney_details?tourney_id=1293

http://lists.starwarsclubhouse.com/get_tourney_details?tourney_id=1291

http://lists.starwarsclubhouse.com/get_tourney_details?tourney_id=1257

http://lists.starwarsclubhouse.com/get_tourney_details?tourney_id=1251

http://lists.starwarsclubhouse.com/get_tourney_details?tourney_id=1218

Also note the lack of non-top-table lists of the last 2. This is a pretty regular occurrence across the lists.

More basic math:

3961 lists (players) / 159 tournaments = 24.9 players per tournament. Therefore the average list picked at random has a chance of 159/3961 = 4% chance of winning.

Of the 49 times quad TLT was taken (that we know of), it won 6 times. That's 12.25%, or three times higher than the average rate for a list. Granted, I'm sure there were other instances of the list being taken and NOT showing up. If we use the "known lists" to get a statistical baseline, then 12.25% is still almost twice as high as 159/2421 = 6.6%.

The data paints a very misleading picture when used in that way. If you look at the data the missing lists are more weighted toward the bottom. If a list is present in the data it has a much higher probability of being a "top tables" list. You are also weighting a "tournament win" equally across all tournaments, meaning winning a 3 game tournament counts the same as a 5-8 game tournament. That skews probability toward noob-stomper lists like TLT spam.

I don't really read too much into Store Championships, for a few of the reasons you just listed there, plus the player skill differences can be significant. It's not until you start seeing the cuts at Regionals, or equivalent sized events that you can really have confidence in the meta data.

More basic math:

3961 lists (players) / 159 tournaments = 24.9 players per tournament. Therefore the average list picked at random has a chance of 159/3961 = 4% chance of winning.

Of the 49 times quad TLT was taken (that we know of), it won 6 times. That's 12.25%, or three times higher than the average rate for a list. Granted, I'm sure there were other instances of the list being taken and NOT showing up. If we use the "known lists" to get a statistical baseline, then 12.25% is still almost twice as high as 159/2421 = 6.6%.

The data paints a very misleading picture when used in that way. If you look at the data the missing lists are more weighted toward the bottom. If a list is present in the data it has a much higher probability of being a "top tables" list. You are also weighting a "tournament win" equally across all tournaments, meaning winning a 3 game tournament counts the same as a 5-8 game tournament. That skews probability toward noob-stomper lists like TLT spam.

I don't really read too much into Store Championships, for a few of the reasons you just listed there, plus the player skill differences can be significant. It's not until you start seeing the cuts at Regionals, or equivalent sized events that you can really have confidence in the meta data.

As you climb up the "ladder" of championships, winning lists become more about countering other effective lists, which may contain effective ships, but also tends to leave out other effective ships.

Proud to say I knocked 4x TLT out of our top 4 of 32 players. 1st was a 3x TIE/x1 with Accuracy Correctors and Vader, 2nd was Poe/Corran/A-Wing I lost to, and I had Vader/Chiraneau. My first ever tournament, too. Syracuse NY, store named Play the Game. 4th was something with Hound's Tooth and Guri, not quite sure.

More basic math:

3961 lists (players) / 159 tournaments = 24.9 players per tournament. Therefore the average list picked at random has a chance of 159/3961 = 4% chance of winning.

Of the 49 times quad TLT was taken (that we know of), it won 6 times. That's 12.25%, or three times higher than the average rate for a list. Granted, I'm sure there were other instances of the list being taken and NOT showing up. If we use the "known lists" to get a statistical baseline, then 12.25% is still almost twice as high as 159/2421 = 6.6%.

Thanks bob.

So how does that compare to the Phantom before the nerf? in last years sc's?

I went to a Store Championship on 3/5 at Epic Loot Games in Dayton, OH.

25 players

5 rounds of swiss with cut to top 4

The swiss field was one of the most competitive I've played in. Lot of skilled players. Ultimately I went 4-1 in swiss to place 3rd for top 4. I ended up playing Jeff Berling in top 4, the guy who won Nationals last year at GenCon, and I lost. I took out his WSF, but Dash with R2-D2 crew just would not die. I probably put a total of 12-13 hits on Dash, but I could never get more than 1 at a time, which meant he recovered a shield and I made no progress. At the end of the game he took out my last Y-Wing with 4 hull left on Dash. He went on to win the finals too. (Really fun guy to play, by the way. I love that the players who are really successful in this game tend to be the nicest people to play against as well.) Here are the lists:

1st place - Jeff Berling (US Nationals 2015 Winner)

• Dash w/ Lone Wolf, Outrider, HLC, R2-D2, Anti-Pursuit Lasers
• Wild Space Fringer w/ HLC, Chewbacca, Anti-Pursuit Lasers

2nd place - Brandon Watts

• 7 Academy Pilots
• Dark Curse

3rd/4th Place - Myself

• Trandoshan Slaver w/ Gunner, Tactician, Bossk
• Syndicate Thug w/ TLT, R4 Agromech
• Syndicate Thug w/ TLT
• Binayre Pirate

3rd/4th Place - Ben Franzen

• Poe Dameron w/ VI, R5-P9, Autothrusters
• Jake Farrell w/ Proton Rockets, Wired, Autothrusters, A-Wing Test Pilot, PTL
• Kyle Katarn w/ Moldy Crow title, TLT

Statistically SC data is a better measure of ships' effectiveness. There is a lot larger sample, larger variety of players, and variety of lists. The data just needs to be cleaned up if you want a good picture.

As you climb up the "ladder" of championships, winning lists become more about countering other effective lists, which may contain effective ships, but also tends to leave out other effective ships.

Well, you're consistent, I'll give you that. It seems that just about anytime I post anything relating to math or statistics, you find a way to disagree with me. I'm pretty sure that I could re-post what you said, in slightly different words, and you would still argue with me.

More basic math:

3961 lists (players) / 159 tournaments = 24.9 players per tournament. Therefore the average list picked at random has a chance of 159/3961 = 4% chance of winning.

Of the 49 times quad TLT was taken (that we know of), it won 6 times. That's 12.25%, or three times higher than the average rate for a list. Granted, I'm sure there were other instances of the list being taken and NOT showing up. If we use the "known lists" to get a statistical baseline, then 12.25% is still almost twice as high as 159/2421 = 6.6%.

Thanks bob.

So how does that compare to the Phantom before the nerf? in last years sc's?

Good question. I may have some old spreadsheets for Regionals last year. I should make it a project for someone to upload all the 2014 Regionals data that we have into List Juggler. Unfortunately I was not capturing 100% of the lists, more like the top 1/3, or just the elimination cut.

The Phantom (Whisper in particular) was a slightly different animal, in that it had a very HARD counter: PS10+, at which point Whisper becomes a very expensive Z-95. Whisper could also have a hard time against PS9 Han with gunner and Engine Upgrade. TLT, by contrast, doesn't have any obvious weaknesses to that extent. It can be exploited, but you can't just reduce its effectiveness by half during the list building phase.

Do we have an educated guess of what % of Store Championships are going unreported?

That is quite possibly the worst mat I've ever seen. If I got to the table and found that thing sitting there I'd flip it over and play on the backside.

miniwargaming.com uses it for their X-Wing videos. It's terrible.

Do we have an educated guess of what % of Store Championships are going unreported?

Not an educated guess, more a data point : in France most Store Championships are not reported.

Yeah, I bought that mat (and its slightly less hideous brother). I have a long history of buying terrible mats because of not thinking things through.

(1) GF9 reddish space field - This one's fine to play on, but it scratches and it's just thin vinyl. Not ideal.

(2) GF9 space station - This one is horrible. All the same problems, plus shadows and a headache-inducing design. Terrible mat.

(3) Yoga mats - Awesome. Second-best playing surface ever, but beaded, so not really acceptable for tournaments.

(4) The mat above's brother - Terrible. The idea of using mouse-pad material is awful, given that the entire purpose of a mouse-pad is low-friction (i.e., slippery). Playing on the reverse side is great, though!

(5) The mat above - Same as #4, but visuals as bad or worse than the space station.

(6) Wooden boards with PlastiDipped 3x3 areas - Works surprisingly well. Not as good a surface as the yoga or GripMat, but not bad, and very fast to set up.

(7) GripMat - The winner! Awesome, awesome, awesome mat. I got a remainder mat for cheap, and will likely buy a simple starfield one, as well.

We actually do play on the backside of that mat. It looks better and has really good grip.