One problem in the drops are the new Wave releases. People get excited about Ghost, Jumpmasters, etc. and start flying those because they just sunk money into them. Rebel players could have gone scum or imperial with the new Wave because Ghost was the only new release for rebels and didnt excite some with its pure tankiness. They want new ships to fly, so they buy a couple Scouts or TAPs and get to work. If Poe was released same time as Scouts and TAPs, his use would be just as high. People want to play with their new toys to see what they can do. Numbers are on their side.

When rebels fly Ghost, Poe naturally takes a hit because of his cost meanwhile support ships like Biggs and generic Awings increase. Im no tourney champ or anything, and mostly play casual, but Ive been flying Ghost strictly since it came out, and I havent touched Poe, but see myself running Falcon, Dash, Corran more as two ship builds, or Biggs and a Awing blocker, etc. I dont think it has much to do with Poe being ineffective, I think its new toys and what complements the new toys. If people dont fly new ships like Inquisitor in SCs and Regionals, how will they know if he is more effective than Soontir or Vader? Its a popularity contest. We could see Soontir fall when Imp Vets gets released, that doesnt mean he is less effective, its just means he is less popular. Defenders are expensive, and to take advantage of Tractor Beam, a PS9 35pt ship wont fit as well as say PS8 at 26pts or 31pts in lists.

This ranking works in a "Whats Popular Now" system, but I dont think it is a good ranking for "What is best". Its still a valuable ranking system because you can build lists around what is popular.

Just my 2 cents

If 20 players fly Scouts, 8 fly Palp Aces, and 2 fly Poe lists, the chances are that Scouts and Palps is going to advance just on numbers alone. If out of 20 scouts, only 5 made top 8, only 2 Palps made top 8, and 1 Poe made top 8. This does not mean Poe is less effective. If the tourney had 10 Scouts, 10 Palps, 10 Poes, then this ranking would be more accurate.

There needs to be an algorithm/system to average played lists. Like NBA has per 48 minute stats for players. One player plays 36minutes and avg 19pt/game, but another plays 21 minutes and avgs 12pts/game. Who is more effective scorer? Mr. 36minutes is more popular, but per 48 minutes, he is only avg 25.3pts/gm while Mr. 21 minutes is avg 27.4pts/gm per 48 minutes. Now, that doesnt mean Mr. 36minutes is worse, cause there is ALOT more that goes into like Defense, ability to spread the floor, height, speed, etc. etc.

So if we want a top list per 50 list tourney ranking:

something like: lists with scouts in top 8 = 5 / 20 total lists with scouts = .25 * 50 lists = 12.5 lists per 50 in top 8.

lists with Poe: top 8 = 1 / 2 total lists = .5 * 50 lists = 25 lists per 50.

list with Palps: top 8 = 2 / 8 lists = .25 * 50 lists = 12.5 lists per 50.

So, now who is more effective? Who is more popular?

If you have only 1 person flying Blue Ace in ten different tourneys, and they make top 8 in 3 of them.

1 / 1 = 1 * 50 = 50 * 3 = 150 lists per 500, or divide by 10, to get 15 per 50.

If you have 20 people flying scouts in ten tourneys, and 5 make top 8 everytime

5 / 20 = .25 * 50 = 7.5 * 10 = 125 lists per 500, or 12.5 per 50 (same as above).

Again, Blue ace, only being flown in one list, and making top 8 in 3 of ten tourneys, is more effective than scouts on a per 50 list tourney ranking. Obviously, this doesnt mean a whole. To get down to the nitty gritty, we would need to start keeping stats on everything like hits landed, hits taken, blocks, evades, actions taken, stress dealt, stress received, kturns attempted, t-rolls attempted, etc. etc. etc.

Ranking is bad for the game we already have a toxic group think, this will just re-enforce it.

On top of that ships are good in combinations with other ships, ranking ships in a vacuum is beyond stupid.

Anyways it does not matter what I think people will keep putting values on the viability of ships regardless of my opinion I just felt I had to voice it.

Ranking is bad for the game we already have a toxic group think, this will just re-enforce it.

On top of that ships are good in combinations with other ships, ranking ships in a vacuum is beyond stupid.

Anyways it does not matter what I think people will keep putting values on the viability of ships regardless of my opinion I just felt I had to voice it.

Once again. This is exactly what people said about MathWing.

If anyone's only contribution to these topics is going to be something about groupthink or netlisting, consider not posting.

One problem in the drops are the new Wave releases. People get excited about Ghost, Jumpmasters, etc. and start flying those because they just sunk money into them. Rebel players could have gone scum or imperial with the new Wave because Ghost was the only new release for rebels and didnt excite some with its pure tankiness. They want new ships to fly, so they buy a couple Scouts or TAPs and get to work. If Poe was released same time as Scouts and TAPs, his use would be just as high. People want to play with their new toys to see what they can do. Numbers are on their side.

When rebels fly Ghost, Poe naturally takes a hit because of his cost meanwhile support ships like Biggs and generic Awings increase. Im no tourney champ or anything, and mostly play casual, but Ive been flying Ghost strictly since it came out, and I havent touched Poe, but see myself running Falcon, Dash, Corran more as two ship builds, or Biggs and a Awing blocker, etc. I dont think it has much to do with Poe being ineffective, I think its new toys and what complements the new toys. If people dont fly new ships like Inquisitor in SCs and Regionals, how will they know if he is more effective than Soontir or Vader? Its a popularity contest. We could see Soontir fall when Imp Vets gets released, that doesnt mean he is less effective, its just means he is less popular. Defenders are expensive, and to take advantage of Tractor Beam, a PS9 35pt ship wont fit as well as say PS8 at 26pts or 31pts in lists.

This ranking works in a "Whats Popular Now" system, but I dont think it is a good ranking for "What is best". Its still a valuable ranking system because you can build lists around what is popular.

Just my 2 cents

If 20 players fly Scouts, 8 fly Palp Aces, and 2 fly Poe lists, the chances are that Scouts and Palps is going to advance just on numbers alone. If out of 20 scouts, only 5 made top 8, only 2 Palps made top 8, and 1 Poe made top 8. This does not mean Poe is less effective. If the tourney had 10 Scouts, 10 Palps, 10 Poes, then this ranking would be more accurate.

There needs to be an algorithm/system to average played lists. Like NBA has per 48 minute stats for players. One player plays 36minutes and avg 19pt/game, but another plays 21 minutes and avgs 12pts/game. Who is more effective scorer? Mr. 36minutes is more popular, but per 48 minutes, he is only avg 25.3pts/gm while Mr. 21 minutes is avg 27.4pts/gm per 48 minutes. Now, that doesnt mean Mr. 36minutes is worse, cause there is ALOT more that goes into like Defense, ability to spread the floor, height, speed, etc. etc.

So if we want a top list per 50 list tourney ranking:

something like: lists with scouts in top 8 = 5 / 20 total lists with scouts = .25 * 50 lists = 12.5 lists per 50 in top 8.

lists with Poe: top 8 = 1 / 2 total lists = .5 * 50 lists = 25 lists per 50.

list with Palps: top 8 = 2 / 8 lists = .25 * 50 lists = 12.5 lists per 50.

So, now who is more effective? Who is more popular?

If you have only 1 person flying Blue Ace in ten different tourneys, and they make top 8 in 3 of them.

1 / 1 = 1 * 50 = 50 * 3 = 150 lists per 500, or divide by 10, to get 15 per 50.

If you have 20 people flying scouts in ten tourneys, and 5 make top 8 everytime

5 / 20 = .25 * 50 = 7.5 * 10 = 125 lists per 500, or 12.5 per 50 (same as above).

Again, Blue ace, only being flown in one list, and making top 8 in 3 of ten tourneys, is more effective than scouts on a per 50 list tourney ranking. Obviously, this doesnt mean a whole. To get down to the nitty gritty, we would need to start keeping stats on everything like hits landed, hits taken, blocks, evades, actions taken, stress dealt, stress received, kturns attempted, t-rolls attempted, etc. etc. etc.

Please read the posts i've already made before posting. This has already been discussed. We average universal play AND cut percentage. If lots of people play it, AND it makes the cut a lot, it's probably a good pilot.

Ranking is bad for the game we already have a toxic group think, this will just re-enforce it.

On top of that ships are good in combinations with other ships, ranking ships in a vacuum is beyond stupid.

Anyways it does not matter what I think people will keep putting values on the viability of ships regardless of my opinion I just felt I had to voice it.

Once again. This is exactly what people said about MathWing.

If anyone's only contribution to these topics is going to be something about groupthink or netlisting, consider not posting.

Except i think that about mathwing, i think mathwing is a awful for this game and cant stand when anyone posts about jousting efficiency and what not.

So yes i think this will be bad for the game just like mathwing is bad for the game.

Ranking is bad for the game we already have a toxic group think, this will just re-enforce it.

On top of that ships are good in combinations with other ships, ranking ships in a vacuum is beyond stupid.

Anyways it does not matter what I think people will keep putting values on the viability of ships regardless of my opinion I just felt I had to voice it.

Once again. This is exactly what people said about MathWing.

If anyone's only contribution to these topics is going to be something about groupthink or netlisting, consider not posting.

Except i think that about mathwing, i think mathwing is a awful for this game and cant stand when anyone posts about jousting efficiency and what not.

So yes i think this will be bad for the game just like mathwing is bad for the game.

You don't seem to understand the core principle behind either, so i'm going to suck in my impatience really quick and explain this to you:

MathWing and the X-Wing Tier List Project didn't CREATE the statistics they work on. They REPORT on them.

The Tier List Project only works because people already have an idea of what pilots are good and what aren't. This may surprise you, but most people can look at a pilot, see their ability, the ship they're on, their pilot skill and how much they cost and obtain an idea of their usefulness against the meta. All on their own! Without a tier list and MathWing! They then fly those pilots in tournaments, and if the pilots AND the players are especially good, then they make the cut. This occurs before i create these tiers. I am only using the data that has already existed, so reporting on those statistics reasonably can't change anything because people are already flying those good pilots. The only thing this can do is get a new player up to speed on what works in the meta and what doesn't.

The meta is it's own doing. People will play what is good. If everyone, overnight, silently agreed to only play F Tier pilots and drop all S and A tier pilots, then the F Tier pilots would become S Tier. This tier list only works because a lot of people already have an idea of what's good and what isn't.

The beauty about MathWing and the Tier List Project is that you can choose to ignore them. You can't blame MathWing or the Tier List for everyone seeing a list that did well and copying it, because neither has anything to do with that.

Don't post your new list; People will copy it and that's netlisting. Don't discuss revolutionary ideas to run a pilot; Everyone will do it and that's groupthink. Don't ever discuss the meta; It's acknowledging that people have similar ideas and that's bad for the game. Jousting efficiency informs players about the math behind the game, which is clearly powergaming, which is bad.

The tier list already existed before i wrote it down: With the data from ListJuggler, which everyone has access to. I did nothing special, i just organized the data in a convenient form.

While I appreciate reading about rankings based on stats performance from an overall performance setting. The point about, Z S&V, Y Imp, X Reb, lists making the cutoff does skew things as an across-the-board comparison in depicting rankings.

Yes, whole factions have not yet been completely ranked yet, which is where the end result of the Rankings are supposed to lead. IF I was brand new to the game or the forums the most useful Ranking Data for my use would be isolated to what I own.

For example, for the T-70, we have Ello Atsy, Red Ace, and RSV all at rank C.

If compared to only against T-70s Red Ace would probably be Rank A, due to how 'Tanky' he can be with the right Upgrades.

RSV could move up to Rank B on similar standing as BSN. One there because of cost and the other because of increased upgrade Flexibility.

Atsy would stay Rank C since a RSV can do nearly the exact same job for cheaper. Some areas outside would be PS and that odd moment where a White T-Roll + Boost/EPT/Droid Action would result in a Matchmaking Move.

My point is cross board Rankings should be saved for once all the individual Rankings have been documented.

A Rank S Z-95 (Blount) when compared to a Rank S T-70 (Poe) is clearly inferior when you're looking at list Options.

But if I'm building the strongest list I own, knowing that Both Poe and Blount are Rank S I know I'm Fielding the best I have based on information researched.

Basing it on overall usage is less valuable since all that shows is Flavors of the Month and what builds/lists are Trending. Fluid Rankings are nice to see but they will need to be updated constantly. A more static Ranking within ship type would more beneficial to initial readers.

Knowing Fel's Wrath, Lt. Lorrir, and Kir Kanos, are poor choices of Interceptor knowing Fel's Wrath is a Double F vs Lorrir's F or Kir's E has immediate benefits even if in the grand scheme of things they all are Rank F compared across the board.

---

Anyways, thanks for the efforts I look forward to seeing how it all stacks up once Every ship has caught up with the Wavepoint and documented.

Ranking is bad for the game we already have a toxic group think, this will just re-enforce it.

On top of that ships are good in combinations with other ships, ranking ships in a vacuum is beyond stupid.

Anyways it does not matter what I think people will keep putting values on the viability of ships regardless of my opinion I just felt I had to voice it.

Once again. This is exactly what people said about MathWing.

If anyone's only contribution to these topics is going to be something about groupthink or netlisting, consider not posting.

Except i think that about mathwing, i think mathwing is a awful for this game and cant stand when anyone posts about jousting efficiency and what not.

So yes i think this will be bad for the game just like mathwing is bad for the game.

You don't seem to understand the core principle behind either, so i'm going to suck in my impatience really quick and explain this to you:

MathWing and the X-Wing Tier List Project didn't CREATE the statistics they work on. They REPORT on them.

The Tier List Project only works because people already have an idea of what pilots are good and what aren't. This may surprise you, but most people can look at a pilot, see their ability, the ship they're on, their pilot skill and how much they cost and obtain an idea of their usefulness against the meta. All on their own! Without a tier list and MathWing! They then fly those pilots in tournaments, and if the pilots AND the players are especially good, then they make the cut. This occurs before i create these tiers. I am only using the data that has already existed, so reporting on those statistics reasonably can't change anything because people are already flying those good pilots. The only thing this can do is get a new player up to speed on what works in the meta and what doesn't.

The meta is it's own doing. People will play what is good. If everyone, overnight, silently agreed to only play F Tier pilots and drop all S and A tier pilots, then the F Tier pilots would become S Tier. This tier list only works because a lot of people already have an idea of what's good and what isn't.

The beauty about MathWing and the Tier List Project is that you can choose to ignore them. You can't blame MathWing or the Tier List for everyone seeing a list that did well and copying it, because neither has anything to do with that.

Don't post your new list; People will copy it and that's netlisting. Don't discuss revolutionary ideas to run a pilot; Everyone will do it and that's groupthink. Don't ever discuss the meta; It's acknowledging that people have similar ideas and that's bad for the game. Jousting efficiency informs players about the math behind the game, which is clearly powergaming, which is bad.

The tier list already existed before i wrote it down: With the data from ListJuggler, which everyone has access to. I did nothing special, i just organized the data in a convenient form.

I agree they work off statistics, what i don't agree with is using those statistics to form a list of what is "viable" as each ship is better in different circumstances that may not be reflected by the raw numbers.

I see thread after thread, post after post, of "Ship X is good, and ship Y is not viable in competitive x-wing" and its pure hog wash because not only do ships preform differently within different lists, they preform differently in different metas (areas) and with different individual play styles.

So here is what i am trying to say, there is nothing inherently in-accurate about your lists or mathwings. What i personally don't like and find detrimental is that the data from these projects pushes a narrative of black and white quality of each ship when in reality there are many shades of grey when defining what is good for you personally. A new player comes to the forums and reads the M3A is trash for example and may not give it the fare shot it deserves to see if it fits with there list building and playstyle (either consciously and subconsciously). This also has a cumulative effect where for example ship A is considered to be crappy by the community and then is not played but since it is not played people don't learn to use it and don't ever realize its not crappy, on top of that it does not show up in tournament lists thus perpetuating that it is crappy even if its not really that bad.

I do ignore mathwing, and lists like this thread because i find them unbelievably inaccurate for my personal uses. Anyways i cant stop you, i just wanted to get my opinion on the subject out there.

A small anecdote from a tournament i was in today. Someone came up to me while setting up at the top table and said "you got that far with that list, i could crush that" well guess what i got that far and he didn't he just saw my M3A and drew a conclusion that my list was trash. It makes me wonder how many people don't use certain ships because of what they hear and read without realizing in the right conditions most ships are quite good.

With that i will leave you to your project.

I just think it's flawed to equate popularity to power and furthermore to linearise power in a game that lacks such. Trying to create generally accepted tiers is just going to make netlisting and the groupthink worse, not better.

What we need are good guides for building balanced squads, not further encouragement for people to copy each other to the point until we have the same two lists going at it like we did in Wave 3.

You know, people said the exact same thing, word for word, about MathWing. And it never happened.

MathWing 2.0's heyday was Waves 4-6, which was the TIE phantom and then 2-ship. You can hardly call that a varied metagame. That's not to say MathWing was responsible, the MoV rules were, but it's hard to see one way or the other what effect it had.

Besides, what I believe was said about MathWing was that it was self-fufilling: people read its assessments of ships and that affected their flying choices. The high use of ships MathWing favoured and low use of ships it did not then appeared to validate MathWing. That's not to say MathWing is wrong (it's not) but that the feedback loop cast doubt on how accurate it was.

Wouldn't be surprised if that had a bit to do with why MathWing 3.0 isn't public.

I just think it's flawed to equate popularity to power and furthermore to linearise power in a game that lacks such. Trying to create generally accepted tiers is just going to make netlisting and the groupthink worse, not better.

What we need are good guides for building balanced squads, not further encouragement for people to copy each other to the point until we have the same two lists going at it like we did in Wave 3.

You know, people said the exact same thing, word for word, about MathWing. And it never happened.

MathWing 2.0's heyday was Waves 4-6, which was the TIE phantom and then 2-ship. You can hardly call that a varied metagame. That's not to say MathWing was responsible, the MoV rules were, but it's hard to see one way or the other what effect it had.

Besides, what I believe was said about MathWing was that it was self-fufilling: people read its assessments of ships and that affected their flying choices. The high use of ships MathWing favoured and low use of ships it did not then appeared to validate MathWing. That's not to say MathWing is wrong (it's not) but that the feedback loop cast doubt on how accurate it was.

Wouldn't be surprised if that had a bit to do with why MathWing 3.0 isn't public.

Yeah, as much as I do like Juggler, I'm ALWAYS suspicious when someone saunters casually into a discussion and says, "Oh, I have the answer. What? Give it to you? Are you nuts? Nope, I'll just stand over here with my answer and watch you guys squirm."

And does that again.

And again.

And again...

Personally, I don't think X-Wing IS mathematically solvable, not in the same way that Warhammer 40k is. Half or more of the game depends solely on player skill and judgement, and while some ships HAVE statistically better dials than others the player factor is so much higher that it can't possibly be accounted for.

What this is meant to do is:

1) Inform players (especially new players!) what's being used and how it's most commonly upgraded

2) Inform veteran players what's not being used and let them decide whether to go with what's common or what's unexpected (I'm planning on bringing an ordnance Imp Firespray to my next tournament!)

3) Inform the devs about not only what's NOT being used, but why, in the opinions of veteran players.