X-wing Pilot Tier Project
Tier lists are about top-level competitive play: which pilots are easiest to use, most consistently effective when used, and most popular... and which are the opposite. This is not saying that you should ONLY use top-ranked pilots, or that you should NEVER use low-ranked pilots; rather, this is to help players be aware of the difference between pilots, when lower-ranked pilots can help them win - and know what is most likely to hit the tables near them.

While tier lists are always somewhat subjective, the goal of the X-Wing Pilot Tier Project is to be as objective as possible, starting with the usage on the List Juggler Time Series Charts , specifically looking at ships which "Made The Cut" and proceeding from there.

As time goes by and different pilots move up and down in usage, the tier list itself will change along with that usage. Ideally, at the start of a new month, the tier rankings will be recompiled with last month's data now included.

I'll start by examining each ship's pilots, opening that examination to community approval, then compiling that into a general faction tier list and moving onto the next faction. Each pilot will have listed in their ranking common upgrades, because judging pilots naked might as well not judge them at all.

In the overview a rough average percentage of use by points spent among top cut players over the last three months will be mentioned, and in each entry will mention the average percentage among pilots used for that ship . So, for example,if the Decimator uses 10% of total Imperial player points, and Rear Admiral Chiraneau is an average of 55% of those points spent, then RAC uses 5.5% of average Imperial player points spent.

For those not familiar with a tier ranking system, here's a brief explanation:

Rank SS is for pilots that are almost unbeatable, with highly specific counters that even then aren't sure things. With Rank SS pilots, a meta either uses them or uses the counter to them (if one exists), with no middle ground. If a pilot is Rank SS, then it needs to be nerfed ASAP. Whisper, prior to the TIE/Phantom nerf, is a perfect example of a Rank SS pilot. If a pilot breaks 10% of overall faction usage, it's a candidate for Rank SS.

Rank S is for pilots which are strong and consistent on their own, requiring little outside support to inflict damage and dodge it, and at an acceptable points cost. Darth Vader is a Rank S pilot; with good action economy, high PS, solid damage output (with ATC), and an EPT slot that's completely open he's always a good choice for a squadron. If a pilot falls between 5% and 10% of overall usage, it's possibly Rank S.

Rank A is for pilots that are pretty good and can function well enough on their own, but either have solid counters or well-known weaknesses. Zeta Leader is an example of a Rank A pilot; he's very strong for his points, has an entirely open EPT for anything but PTL (VI, Predator, Adaptability, Crack Shot, Wired), and his sole downside is being limited to his greens. If a pilot has between 3-5% of overall usage, it may be Rank A.

Rank B is for pilots which are average - neither good or bad - and have downsides to match their upsides, need support to function well, OR are support themselves. Omicron Group Pilot is an example of a Rank B pilot; as the cheapest carrier of Emperor Palpatine he can swing a game in the player's favor but his low durability, terrible dial, and low PS make him vulnerable if used wrong - or if he's your final ship. If a pilot has 1-3% of overall usage then it's probably Rank B.

Rank C is for pilots that a competitive would use only for funsies; they may have highly specific uses but there are just better options to take. Kath Scarlett (Imperial) is an example of a Rank C pilot; while she has an interesting ability, it's so situational that it will rarely get used and she requires so many upgrade points to use when you could get a Decimator/Whisper for just a few points more or Vader/Palpshuttle for a few points less. Anywhere between 0% and 1% of usage gets into Rank C, unless...

Rank F is for "Failure" "Fix me" or "F 'em" depending on your point of view. There is never any reason to take these guys because they're strictly worse than almost anything else. Fel's Wrath is an example of a Rank F pilot; not only is it competing against Fel himself, a non-EPT TIE/IN whose ability only kicks in AFTER it's destroyed - assuming it even has an enemy in arc?

The previous Imperial tier listings are here:
TIE Fighter
VT-49 Decimator
Firespray-31
TIE/FO
TIE Phantom
And the Rebels have been started here:
X-Wing

Now, for the tier listing!

TIE INTERCEPTOR
The TIE/IN is the TIE/LN turned up to the max - maneuverable, deadly, and fragile. It commands about 13% of usage from players that make the cut, and almost all of that is concentrated in one pilot, Soontir Fel. Using one means trying to arc-dodge most attacks, which is helped by the fact that many of its pilots can take PTL, and those can also take Royal Guard TIE title to add Autothrusters and another modification. However, the lesser pilots are all in the shadow of Baron Fel who can do what they can do but far better.

RANK S
Soontir Fel (10%)
Push the Limit, Royal Guard TIE, Autothrusters, Stealth Device (35)
Push the Limit, Royal Guard TIE, Autothrusters, Targeting Computer (34)
Soontir Fel is one of the top Imperial pilots because he is highly maneuverable, his ability turns a negative (Stress) into a positive (Focus), has Pilot Skill 9 natively, and when PTL is added to him has a total of 3 actions every turn - when paired with the great greens of the TIE/In the stress is no downside at all. When he needs to arc-dodge, Barrel+Boost can get him out of trouble; if he needs to turtle up, he can Focus+Evade+Focus and it's nearly impossible to wound him through that. That being said, his negatives are that he HAS to take PTL as his EPT and is reliant on agility and arc dodging to defend his 3 HP - which usually means bringing along Emperor Palpatine to ease dice problems. Also, he's a well-known and feared quantity, which means that anti-Soontir tech (PS8-9+VI, Darth Vader crew, Wampa+Palpatine, Connor Nets, Blount to knock off SD, Oicunn, Autoblaster Turret) are common sights at tournaments.

RANK A
Carnor Jax (2%)
Push the Limit, Royal Guard TIE, Autothrusters, Stealth Device (34)
Carnor Jax stands out from the other Interceptors because of his ability to shut down tokens. His "bubble of suck" hurts alpha strike lists dependent on Deadeye to get their first launch away, and as the threat of that rises people are finding other creative ways to include Carnor into lists.

RANK B
Turr Phenirr (.7%)
Veteran Instincts, Royal Guard TIE, Autothrusters, Targeting Computer (30)
Turr has excellent action economy, piloted well. His after-firing barrel/boost combined with VI makes him a fearsome jouster that can turn what would be a simple exchange of fire into a situation where Turr did damage, his enemy did not. With Initiative bids, this becomes even more deadly - he fires first, then rolls out of the way, denying an answering shot, though this is complicated by the fact that with init Turr also MOVED first, meaning he might be arc dodged in this miracle situation...

RANK C
Alpha Squadron Pilot (.1%)
Autothrusters (20)
You can fit 5 Alphas into a single list, which is the most you can say about the basic TIE/IN. It's pretty good when stacked up against its fellow jousters, but the game is no longer about raw jousting stats.

Kir Kanos (0%)
Kir Kanos is just on the borderline of being bad: he spends an Evade (which if he still has he probably doesn't need given his medium PS) to add a Hit result to the attack roll. But with no EPT he can't take PTL, which prevents him from adding a Focus to his offense, and although he CAN take RGT there's nothing there to really help him boost his offense either.

Royal Guard Pilot (.2%)
Push the Limit, Royal Guard TIE, Autothrusters, Hull Upgrade (30)
So these guys are usually used as Soontir-lites when they're used at all, as the highest PS generic in the game - or when someone wants a 'fluffy' list of all TIE/INs but doesn't want to suck. However, they still lose to a lot of named pilots, and once again, the Soontir problem creeps up: Why not use the best if you have him available?

RANK F

Avenger Squadron Pilot (0%)
Avenger's problem is pretty simple: if you want a generic TIE/IN, you can either spend the same amount and get an AT-equipped Alpha, or spend 2 points more and get a Royal Guard TIE with the title and an EPT. It's not good.

"Fel's Wrath" (0%)
Fel's Wrath is named as the archetypical Rank F pilot for a reason: he can only use his ability after dying, assuming he even has anyone in arc. No EPT? No RGT? NTY.

Lieutenant Lorrir (0%)
The problem with all of the named TIE/IN pilots is the same: they're not Soontir Fel, and if they're not Fel what are they bringing to the table? Lorrir gets to use the 1-bank for barrel rolls at the cost of a Stress: in a one-on-one, equal PS straight joust that'd be to Lorrir's advantage but in a real game? Not so much. The lack of EPT and being below PS6 so he can't take RGT title cements him as sub-par.

Saber Squadron Pilot (0%)
Straight obsoleted by Royal Guard Pilot. EPT, yes, but for one point more getting access to a double-modification and 2 more PS? It's a no brainer, pick the RGP every time.

Tetran Kowell (0%)
So, Tetran's ability lets him modify his dial - as long as it's a K-turn, and only in increments of 1, 3, or 5. The problem is that TIE/INs want PTL, and his ability does not mesh even slightly with PTL. On another ship (like the Defender) he'd be awesome, but a TIE/IN? Not so much.


Frankly, I feel like Tetran and Lorrir should be in Rank F too. There's literally no situation where they are any good, and their abilities are downright detrimental to them - the only reason a TIE/In should take stress is for PTL or if being shot at by a stresshog.

Really? You rank Alphas/Avengers ahead of Sabres? What the hell?

Really? You rank Alphas/Avengers ahead of Sabres? What the hell?

Because his ranking system goes of popularity. Personally in local tournaments I run RGPs all the time. Hell I took 3 RGPs and dark curse to the top 4 at 2014 regionals. They work, but as his methodology is flawed he will contiune to put ships where they don't belong. I just read the post for the laughs.

I'd put the avengers in F as well, but boost Turr up to a B as he has some interesting uses and can be paired with Fel and given VI if you want two INs at ps9 that have arc dodging and action economy. Valen is nice but their roles are very different because one's ability triggers when attacking and the other when defending.

If Fel isn't SS, then nothing is. Carnor should probably be bumped up. Turr Phenir should also be an A. Royal Guard and Alpha should probably be bumped up to B, based on some of the success they have had.

I would consider Carnor Jax and Soontir Fel to be in the same tier in effectiveness, with Carnor being slightly behind only because of PS8.

In terms of pilot ability, Fel does have triple action economy and Jax only has two. However, Jax's ability removes defensive actions, causing a negative action economy on the other side.

If Fel isn't SS, then nothing is. Carnor should probably be bumped up. Turr Phenir should also be an A. Royal Guard and Alpha should probably be bumped up to B, based on some of the success they have had.

SS is by definition broken so its normal for nothing to be SS. I think Carnor is fine where he is because he does work best as a support ship.

Really? You rank Alphas/Avengers ahead of Sabres? What the hell?

Because his ranking system goes of popularity. Personally in local tournaments I run RGPs all the time. Hell I took 3 RGPs and dark curse to the top 4 at 2014 regionals. They work, but as his methodology is flawed he will contiune to put ships where they don't belong. I just read the post for the laughs.

...And have you run them recently?

And put those results into the List Juggler?

And placed in the top cut with those ships?

Because that's the data sample I'm working from: LJ because it has data I can use instead of just going, "Uhh, well, I think this is good," and top cut stuff because anyone can bring anything they want to a tournament, but if they place with it that shows a level of skill.

If you don't put data in list juggler from your own tournaments, it's kinda difficult for me to take "Oh, I top four'ed with this list two years ago and I'm sure it'd do fine now" seriously. Anecdotal evidence is one step up from reading the future in entrails.

Really? You rank Alphas/Avengers ahead of Sabres? What the hell?

Alphas have an interesting place as a raw jousting swarm, and actually have usage (equal to other pilots like Boba Fett). Avengers are just as bad as Sabres, and I actually DID mean to put them in F... and forgot about moving the entry. Dog distraction. But Sabres are strictly worse than Royals with no benefits to their use - a point cheaper for 2 less PS?

If Fel isn't SS, then nothing is. Carnor should probably be bumped up. Turr Phenir should also be an A. Royal Guard and Alpha should probably be bumped up to B, based on some of the success they have had.

Soontir's use has been in steady, if slight, decline for months now - with the slack taken up by Vader, OmegaL, and other Aces. He actually slid a LOT in April, and once April ends the usage stats are gonna look more like Fel 6-7%/Carnor 5%, which is why he's sitting in Rank A right now.

Heck, I never use Soontir myself unless I'm helping someone test a list and they want to know how it does against PalpAces.

Keep in mind, many places may be using Tome instead of Cyrodex, since that is the official software.

I'm pretty certain 5 Alphas have done well at one Store Championship, and I think one random Alpha was used in a top squad at a Regional.

And that last sentence pretty much summarizes why I have an issue with your methodology. Just because there are more options being used, doesn't mean that the other stuff has diminished in power in anyway.

I think the phrase "If Fel is alive, there is hope" alone means Fel is SS.

From the description of SS i think there are merits of putting Fel in that class, but at the same time I wouldn't call him nearly as game breaking as pre-nerf whisper. Seems like with all the imperial diversity coming out with wave 8 it's not like fel is an auto include with every imp list anymore, so I don't think he would make SS from player usage. As far as meta shaping goes I would say it's more the arc dodger arc type rather than fel himself. Sure he is prob the best at what he does but it's not like he is the only one that does it.

Kir Kanos got away with a C?

What a lucky guy.

Sabres can equip PtL and Avengers can't, meaning they don't belong in the same category.

If you don't put data in list juggler from your own tournaments, it's kinda difficult for me to take "Oh, I top four'ed with this list two years ago and I'm sure it'd do fine now" seriously. Anecdotal evidence is one step up from reading the future in entrails.

Here cause ListJuggler at the time was just starting up. Also the list I'm using now is still themed on this list, and I still beat the "popular" lists and the like just fine. For smaller tournaments we don't take the time to report cause most of the time we just want to enjoy a good day out of X-wing. But I guess that's still anecdotal. But then again, this kinda just shows that using just one source for info doesn't give the full story. Never does.

Well that is the problem with this tiering system isn't it?

From which point in time on does it work?

There was a time when Fat Han and pre-nerf Phantom dominated tournaments. And a time where Soontir was not that popular. But the meta has changed, and if your system takes these Juggler results into account then we have Han sitting at SS and Soontir not. Despite what we see at the moment.

So these tier lists are imho moot if they consider such a long timespan. They should be done as a momentary snapshot of the meta and be updated with each release. Or they just don't represent a lot for the actual meta.

Honest question - if Fel isn't SS, then no ship in the game is. Given that, why have the category at all? Another way of saying it is, if you want 'SS' in your classification, why not also have the following? ...

'OMG - Ships in this category have accepted Ronald Reagen as their lord and saviour, and follow a strict code that allows them to only eat candle wax.'

BTW, I too try and make Sabers work all the time, but they do have trouble. Here's my latest attempt, it's been decidedly meh:

==================

Captain Oicunn (48)
VT-49 Decimator (42), Predator (3), Fleet Officer (3)

Saber Squadron Pilot (26) x 2
TIE Interceptor (21), Push the Limit (3), Autothrusters (2)

Personally I think they should be presented as what they are: popularity rankings.

Well that is the problem with this tiering system isn't it?

From which point in time on does it work?

There was a time when Fat Han and pre-nerf Phantom dominated tournaments. And a time where Soontir was not that popular. But the meta has changed, and if your system takes these Juggler results into account then we have Han sitting at SS and Soontir not. Despite what we see at the moment.

So these tier lists are imho moot if they consider such a long timespan. They should be done as a momentary snapshot of the meta and be updated with each release. Or they just don't represent a lot for the actual meta.

That is exactly why the methodology is the last three complete months, averaged across those months. April still don't count yet - April ain't over - so it isn't in there, but there has been an interesting trend towards Carnor and away from Soontir.

But a tournament from two years ago, when Scum & Villainy were still just a twinkle in the developer's eyes? That's just an inaccurate view of how the game is being played NOW, and asking for that data to be inputted...

...Well, I guess you really DIDN'T read the part of the opener that says, "In the overview a rough average percentage of use by points spent among top cut players over the last three months will be mentioned, and in each entry will mention the average percentage among pilots used for that ship ."

The part that you may need to review, Hujoe, is helpfully underlined.

Personally I think they should be presented as what they are: popularity rankings.

But the question that you keep ducking is: Why are they popular?

The top-ranked ships (Brobots, Rear Admiral Chiraneau, Darth Vader, Soontir Fel, Omega Leader, Black Squadron Pilot, Poe Dameron, Whisper, and Omicron Group Pilot with Emperor Palpatine) are popular because they are consistent, strong, and easy to use.

That's pretty much what these rankings boil down to: What's strong and easy to use. It's doubly evident when you go and look at what ships are being brought BEFORE a cut, and what ships are brought AFTER a cut - people are bringing the Rank B-C ships, but almost none of them are making cuts with it. People are bringing TIE Defenders... and losing. People are bringing TIE/FOs... and winning.

Personally, I think it's HORRIBLE for a game when out of 60-odd choices of units, 6 of them make up nearly 50% of chosen ships. That's an example of bad game balance. In a well-balanced game, 80% of the units would be in the Rank A-B range.

Chalk it up to the hyper-efficiency that competitive X-Wing requires to win, I guess.

Well that is the problem with this tiering system isn't it?

From which point in time on does it work?

There was a time when Fat Han and pre-nerf Phantom dominated tournaments. And a time where Soontir was not that popular. But the meta has changed, and if your system takes these Juggler results into account then we have Han sitting at SS and Soontir not. Despite what we see at the moment.

So these tier lists are imho moot if they consider such a long timespan. They should be done as a momentary snapshot of the meta and be updated with each release. Or they just don't represent a lot for the actual meta.

That is exactly why the methodology is the last three complete months, averaged across those months. April still don't count yet - April ain't over - so it isn't in there, but there has been an interesting trend towards Carnor and away from Soontir.

But a tournament from two years ago, when Scum & Villainy were still just a twinkle in the developer's eyes? That's just an inaccurate view of how the game is being played NOW, and asking for that data to be inputted...

...Well, I guess you really DIDN'T read the part of the opener that says, "In the overview a rough average percentage of use by points spent among top cut players over the last three months will be mentioned, and in each entry will mention the average percentage among pilots used for that ship ."

The part that you may need to review, Hujoe, is helpfully underlined.

Personally I think they should be presented as what they are: popularity rankings.

But the question that you keep ducking is: Why are they popular?

The top-ranked ships (Brobots, Rear Admiral Chiraneau, Darth Vader, Soontir Fel, Omega Leader, Black Squadron Pilot, Poe Dameron, Whisper, and Omicron Group Pilot with Emperor Palpatine) are popular because they are consistent, strong, and easy to use.

That's pretty much what these rankings boil down to: What's strong and easy to use. It's doubly evident when you go and look at what ships are being brought BEFORE a cut, and what ships are brought AFTER a cut - people are bringing the Rank B-C ships, but almost none of them are making cuts with it. People are bringing TIE Defenders... and losing. People are bringing TIE/FOs... and winning.

Personally, I think it's HORRIBLE for a game when out of 60-odd choices of units, 6 of them make up nearly 50% of chosen ships. That's an example of bad game balance. In a well-balanced game, 80% of the units would be in the Rank A-B range.

Chalk it up to the hyper-efficiency that competitive X-Wing requires to win, I guess.

This is exactly the type of reply that is causing you problems.

WAY too defensive about something that is, ultimately, flawed in methodology to begin with.

Personally I think they should be presented as what they are: popularity rankings.

But the question that you keep ducking is: Why are they popular?

The top-ranked ships (Brobots, Rear Admiral Chiraneau, Darth Vader, Soontir Fel, Omega Leader, Black Squadron Pilot, Poe Dameron, Whisper, and Omicron Group Pilot with Emperor Palpatine) are popular because they are consistent, strong, and easy to use.

That's pretty much what these rankings boil down to: What's strong and easy to use. It's doubly evident when you go and look at what ships are being brought BEFORE a cut, and what ships are brought AFTER a cut - people are bringing the Rank B-C ships, but almost none of them are making cuts with it. People are bringing TIE Defenders... and losing. People are bringing TIE/FOs... and winning.

Personally, I think it's HORRIBLE for a game when out of 60-odd choices of units, 6 of them make up nearly 50% of chosen ships. That's an example of bad game balance. In a well-balanced game, 80% of the units would be in the Rank A-B range.

Chalk it up to the hyper-efficiency that competitive X-Wing requires to win, I guess.

I do answer that. Repeatedly.

The first reason is the simple imbalance you seem to think is the only reason: some ships and pilots are better than others due to erring on the side of caution and changes in design philosophy.

The second is Skill Floor: some ships are incredibly effective in the hands of a skilled player or a player that's very familiar with them but can't be picked up by just about anyone and expect to get the same results. They have a very low skill floor and a very high skill ceiling. These won't become popular for this reason. Contrast a squad with a high skill floor and a low skill ceiling such as TLT spam: very popular because it'll get a mediocre player close or into the top eight, but it can't get to the top levels because those players can exploit is weaknesses. To summarise, ships with a low skill floor will be less popular even if they have a high skill ceiling. This is "ease of use", how well it performs in the hands of a mediocre player. That doesn't mean it'll perform even better in the hands of an excellent player.

The third is novelty: you'll see a surge in anything new because it's new: older lists may and often are still powerful but they're also old: people are bored of them. Therefore new builds are at an advantage compared to old builds and newer ships are usually overrepresented relative to a pure quality based ranking.

The fourth is feedback: a list that gets a lot of press for winning a big tournament or being new is going to be heavily played. People will assume it's good (and if it won a big tournament that means it probably isn't bad ) and copy it. A tournament where half the lists are Fat Han has a very good chance of having a Fat Han win, but it's climbed there on the wreckage of all the Fat Hans that lost. Constrast a mixed Rebel squad with a single entry and even if the squads are completely even in quality the Fat Hans have a massive advantage for one of them reaching top places. When people just look at the top rankings they see a lot of Fat Hans there, that appears to validate their previous assessment and the feedback loop goes round again.

Even if you balance a game perfectly that feedback effect will homogenise the metagame for a while.

Turr Phenirr (.7%)

Veteran Instincts, Royal Guard TIE, Autothrusters, Stealth Device (31)

Turr also has action economy - he can boost or barrel roll after being shot at. This does make him fairly evasive, as he can Focus/Evade and then try to use his ability to get out of the line of fire. The problem is Valen Rudor, the TIE/ADP pilot - yes, Turr has +1 Attack and PS on him, but Valen can use any of his actions and is cheaper too.

Just a small mistake here: he can boost or barrel roll after shooting, not after being shot at so the opposite from Rudor.

Personally I think they should be presented as what they are: popularity rankings.

But the question that you keep ducking is: Why are they popular?

The top-ranked ships (Brobots, Rear Admiral Chiraneau, Darth Vader, Soontir Fel, Omega Leader, Black Squadron Pilot, Poe Dameron, Whisper, and Omicron Group Pilot with Emperor Palpatine) are popular because they are consistent, strong, and easy to use.

That's pretty much what these rankings boil down to: What's strong and easy to use. It's doubly evident when you go and look at what ships are being brought BEFORE a cut, and what ships are brought AFTER a cut - people are bringing the Rank B-C ships, but almost none of them are making cuts with it. People are bringing TIE Defenders... and losing. People are bringing TIE/FOs... and winning.

Personally, I think it's HORRIBLE for a game when out of 60-odd choices of units, 6 of them make up nearly 50% of chosen ships. That's an example of bad game balance. In a well-balanced game, 80% of the units would be in the Rank A-B range.

Chalk it up to the hyper-efficiency that competitive X-Wing requires to win, I guess.

I do answer that. Repeatedly.

The first reason is the simple imbalance you seem to think is the only reason: some ships and pilots are better than others due to erring on the side of caution and changes in design philosophy.

The second is Skill Floor: some ships are incredibly effective in the hands of a skilled player or a player that's very familiar with them but can't be picked up by just about anyone and expect to get the same results. They have a very low skill floor and a very high skill ceiling. These won't become popular for this reason. Contrast a squad with a high skill floor and a low skill ceiling such as TLT spam: very popular because it'll get a mediocre player close or into the top eight, but it can't get to the top levels because those players can exploit is weaknesses. To summarise, ships with a low skill floor will be less popular even if they have a high skill ceiling. This is "ease of use", how well it performs in the hands of a mediocre player. That doesn't mean it'll perform even better in the hands of an excellent player.

The third is novelty: you'll see a surge in anything new because it's new: older lists may and often are still powerful but they're also old: people are bored of them. Therefore new builds are at an advantage compared to old builds and newer ships are usually overrepresented relative to a pure quality based ranking.

The fourth is feedback: a list that gets a lot of press for winning a big tournament or being new is going to be heavily played. People will assume it's good (and if it won a big tournament that means it probably isn't bad ) and copy it. A tournament where half the lists are Fat Han has a very good chance of having a Fat Han win, but it's climbed there on the wreckage of all the Fat Hans that lost. Constrast a mixed Rebel squad with a single entry and even if the squads are completely even in quality the Fat Hans have a massive advantage for one of them reaching top places. When people just look at the top rankings they see a lot of Fat Hans there, that appears to validate their previous assessment and the feedback loop goes round again.

Even if you balance a game perfectly that feedback effect will homogenise the metagame for a while.

And rankings like this which only look at volume of appearances rather than anything more nuanced only exacerbate the problem of the feedback loop.

And rankings like this which only look at volume of appearances rather than anything more nuanced only exacerbate the problem of the feedback loop.

There's no evidence to confirm or deny that but I can't see it helping, no.

And rankings like this which only look at volume of appearances rather than anything more nuanced only exacerbate the problem of the feedback loop.

There's no evidence to confirm or deny that but I can't see it helping, no.

A ranking that said "these are powerful and played a lot, these are powerful but not played because X & Y and if that changed then they might get used more, these are actually less powerful but see play sometimes because of Z" is quite constructive.

A ranking that says "these are powerful because they're played. These are rubbish because they're not played" only reinforces the hivemind, inadvertently sucking more players into it.

The part that you may need to review, Hujoe, is helpfully underlined.

No, see I read what is posted before hand. This was all in refuting the fact that you ranked the RGP so low. Period. I was just using data to back that up, but I guess if you don't want the data, who am I to judge? Go about your flawed ways, tally ho. I'll continue to get a genuine laugh from each rank post you do, so I mean at least I get something out of the exchange.