I think that the data is showing the game to be fairly balanced in approach with two exceptions:

Ackbar, Rieekan, Motti, and Screed are the most common overall admirals and most common at the top by a good amount. It would be nice if the dispersal of admiral choice and effectiveness was more even.

When it comes to ships, most are showing up in 15-25% of winning fleets, which is a much more even dispersion. Demolisher Gladiators are the sole exception, as they show up in nearly half of the winning fleets. It definitely sticks out.

I think Demolisher, Motti, Screed, and Akbar are simply ease of use. They have a very straightforward effect that doesn't require much additional consideration. Rieekan's dominance for the Rebels I think has everything to do with the meta. He is hands down the best answer to the Demo rush which drove this forward into a tizzy.

For the life of me I can't understand why Mon Mothma doesn't do better. Our #5 at Martinsburg was Mon Mothma and only a single tourney point behind me before the cut. I'm actually very glad I never played him because I don't think I could have done that well against him. I designed and play my list to ram straight down the throat of enemy fleets. That works well against Imperials and Akbar, but not fleets that disperse their combat power. I see Mon Mothma (and soon to be Cracken) swarms as my natural counter.

I agree on the Admirals. They are the easiest to use and get their benefits from. I also am puzzled by why Mothma has done so poorly. I've used her to great effect and she work wonders in many cases. She isn't showing up much and when she does seems to occupy the bottom 25%. I am also surprised at the lack of Vader. I know there are varied opinions, but I really like him and find him easy to use. It is really surprising how scarce he has been.

My sense is that as far as peformance goes, Mothma at least is statistical noise. If only 5% of the overall fleets (121 in the chart currently), then we're talking 6 total fleets. We don't know how many of those are really excellent players and how many of them are outstanding. Mothma is perhaps the admiral I'd most like to get going, but I can say that when I saw Clon's Demolisher list reach prominence, that my builds really started from the standpoint of "What is my answer to a high activation, high bid demolisher?" This meant I gravitated to Rieekan. The other key answers are to outactivate it, which is at least possible with Mothma, or to outbid it (something I'm just not interested in doing). On the other hand, squadrons and Rhymer have a big part in the meta, and that's an area where I think Mothma responds well. I think to some extent it just takes the right good player toying with Mothma long enough to get some good magic out of it.

One of these things is not like the other...

One of these things is not like the other...

You know the funniest thing about this statistical representation? There are more winners with VSD's than MC30's and Assault Frigates

One of these things is not like the other...

You know the funniest thing about this statistical representation? There are more winners with VSD's than MC30's and Assault Frigates

Actually, I think it makes perfect sense. Both the MC30 and Assault Frigate are being flown by players who probably took them in lieu of something else. Both ships are easy and for lack of a better word, obvious tools.

The VSD isn't so obvious any more, so it's only being flown by players who really know how to get the most out of the VSD. So by definition, they are VSD specialists. the rest of the meta doesn't really use VSDs, so they don't appear often in the top 4 or top 8 even with many Imperial fleets. The AF2 and MC30 are in many more lists, so they show up in both simply due greater presence at events.

Yea, right now the gladiator is the work horse of imperial fleets. It is the only ship that is easy to make cost effective most of the time.

The isd suffers from being SO EXPENSIVE that it automatically becomes the Center of the list.

Vsd's are well, VSDs. Now I personally think they are underrated but even then I don't use them much, they are simply to slow to compete with most ships except in a list specifically designed for them. And obviously they are good carriers but many players/lists don't need carriers

The raider blows up if you sneeze at it. Unless your at long range where it can't shoot.

The gladiator (without demolisher) is flexible, decently survivable. Fast enough to close and flank. it hits like a truck. The access to support teams is also very valuable. And then obviously demolisher makes everything better. In addition it also pretty cheap! A naked gladiator is often better then The best Raider Outfits for a similar cost and added one to your list won't drastically change the layout.

As an imperial it is very difficult to build without gladiators, they are simply Better options in most lists

Yea, right now the gladiator is the work horse of imperial fleets. It is the only ship that is easy to make cost effective most of the time.

The isd suffers from being SO EXPENSIVE that it automatically becomes the Center of the list.

Vsd's are well, VSDs. Now I personally think they are underrated but even then I don't use them much, they are simply to slow to compete with most ships except in a list specifically designed for them. And obviously they are good carriers but many players/lists don't need carriers

The raider blows up if you sneeze at it. Unless your at long range where it can't shoot.

The gladiator (without demolisher) is flexible, decently survivable. Fast enough to close and flank. it hits like a truck. The access to support teams is also very valuable. And then obviously demolisher makes everything better. In addition it also pretty cheap! A naked gladiator is often better then The best Raider Outfits for a similar cost and added one to your list won't drastically change the layout.

As an imperial it is very difficult to build without gladiators, they are simply Better options in most lists

I fully agree with your statement. Overall the Gladiator is the best overall ship in the Empire right now. Add Demo to it and its the best ship in the game.

I personally ran 4 Glads (one Demo) and a nice fighter cap. Spacing them correctly then performing "The Pounce" = Death. Just straight up Death.

This data will all change once wave 4 comes out. Wave 3 will see some changes but the Nav Game will explode and the Large ships will be able to complete.

Naboobo2000

Another thing is that pretty much all of the Imperial titles, except demolisher, don't warrant running the ship. Like people will run Yavaris or home one because it is very beneficial to their strategy. The imperial titles are usually after thoughts and often left home. The exception is Instigator which will occasionally have lists built to have it.

Edit: Avenger is also sometimes built for

Another thing is that pretty much all of the Imperial titles, except demolisher, don't warrant running the ship. Like people will run Yavaris or home one because it is very beneficial to their strategy. The imperial titles are usually after thoughts and often left home. The exception is Instigator which will occasionally have lists built to have it.

Edit: Avenger is also sometimes built for

At least two more exceptions are Impetious and Corruptor, so I don't believe this statement is true.

Another thing is that pretty much all of the Imperial titles, except demolisher, don't warrant running the ship. Like people will run Yavaris or home one because it is very beneficial to their strategy. The imperial titles are usually after thoughts and often left home. The exception is Instigator which will occasionally have lists built to have it.

Edit: Avenger is also sometimes built for

At least two more exceptions are Impetious and Corruptor, so I don't believe this statement is true.

I also haven't seen much mention of either in the Fleet-build forum, occasionally someone puts Impetuous on something but it usually is out of convenience from what I see.

On the flip side I see people drastically modify lists because they decide they need Yavaris or independence. And occasionally Home One.

I have NEVER played a list and afterword decided I needed to Modify it so I could bring Corruptor or Even Impetuous (and I run a raider in nearly Every fleet now a days) and I haven't seen anyone elese do that either

Edit: note I also see people and have done it myself modify lists drastically to fit Demolisher. I.e. Clonisher came about after I decided Demo would do more work then the ISD I originally had in the list

One of these things is not like the other...

Am I the only one who scrolled fast and for a second thought Clon was agreeing with his own post?

The only other Imperial title I would say is almost an auto-include is Relentless . Three points for increasing your ISD's flexibility and response time? Yes, please. Then if you have an ISD/GSD/RDR list, your entire fleet runs off of two or fewer command dials.

And I think statements about the VSD were pretty spot-on. My build centered entirely around VSDs as carriers. But in every other list I toyed with, I couldn't fit in a VSD where something else wouldn't serve better. It can be a nice carrier/flank protector/secondary gunship to an ISD or a flagship carrier in a GSD/RDR list. The issues I ran into there was with the former, you sink too many points into two ships so you either have a two ship activation with a large squadron build, or you squeak in a "I need another activation but it has not other purpose" Raider and a less-effective squadron ball. And with the latter, it can serve nicely as a flagship with GSDs and RDRs running around, but you want said GSDs and RDRs spamming Nav and Concentrate Fire commands, and the VSD on its own can't push enough squadrons to be super effective.

MC80. Few people make the top 4 with this ship...

But if they do, all they do is WIN.

I think a big issue with the MC80 is a lot of people probably think, "Hey, here's my Rebel version of the ISD!" And that's just not true. It can't go toe-to-toe solo against an ISD, except under very specific terms and with a lot of upgrades. But it changes the way your fleet can operate in a way that an ISD can't. Just look at the titles. Two out of three MC80 titles change how other things in your fleet operate. All three ISD titles only affect the ISD itself. And an MC80 can greatly increase its output with upgrades (Ackbar, Enhanced Armament, Defiance ) in a way that the ISD can't (unless you take Slaved Turrets. . .but why?), but then you're sinking a lot of points into a fairly fragile ship (at least compared to the ISD).

So I would think that, like the VSD, people who are fielding them and placing in the top eight know exactly what they can get out of it, and fly them accordingly, which is why they shift into the winner's circle.

really? I haven't forgone taking another ship in favor of fitting in Impetuous or corruptor(since wave 1) so I'm surprised to here you think it happens!

I also haven't seen much mention of either in the Fleet-build forum, occasionally someone puts Impetuous on something but it usually is out of convenience from what I see.

Impetuous is a requirement for a Ruthless Strategists Raider build (RDRII, Imp, Ruthless Strategists), I believe this use fits the criteria (People run the title as an integral part of their strategy as opposed to adding the title of convenience to their list)

Corrupter is very useful for threatening turn 1 bomber strike or running more then one Rhymerball, so again I can see how it is a required include for certain strategies.

I think that the data is showing the game to be fairly balanced in approach with two exceptions:

Ackbar, Rieekan, Motti, and Screed are the most common overall admirals and most common at the top by a good amount. It would be nice if the dispersal of admiral choice and effectiveness was more even.

When it comes to ships, most are showing up in 15-25% of winning fleets, which is a much more even dispersion. Demolisher Gladiators are the sole exception, as they show up in nearly half of the winning fleets. It definitely sticks out.

I think Demolisher, Motti, Screed, and Akbar are simply ease of use. They have a very straightforward effect that doesn't require much additional consideration. Rieekan's dominance for the Rebels I think has everything to do with the meta. He is hands down the best answer to the Demo rush which drove this forward into a tizzy.

For the life of me I can't understand why Mon Mothma doesn't do better. Our #5 at Martinsburg was Mon Mothma and only a single tourney point behind me before the cut. I'm actually very glad I never played him because I don't think I could have done that well against him. I designed and play my list to ram straight down the throat of enemy fleets. That works well against Imperials and Akbar, but not fleets that disperse their combat power. I see Mon Mothma (and soon to be Cracken) swarms as my natural counter.

I agree on the Admirals. They are the easiest to use and get their benefits from. I also am puzzled by why Mothma has done so poorly. I've used her to great effect and she work wonders in many cases. She isn't showing up much and when she does seems to occupy the bottom 25%. I am also surprised at the lack of Vader. I know there are varied opinions, but I really like him and find him easy to use. It is really surprising how scarce he has been.

My sense is that as far as peformance goes, Mothma at least is statistical noise. If only 5% of the overall fleets (121 in the chart currently), then we're talking 6 total fleets. We don't know how many of those are really excellent players and how many of them are outstanding. Mothma is perhaps the admiral I'd most like to get going, but I can say that when I saw Clon's Demolisher list reach prominence, that my builds really started from the standpoint of "What is my answer to a high activation, high bid demolisher?" This meant I gravitated to Rieekan. The other key answers are to outactivate it, which is at least possible with Mothma, or to outbid it (something I'm just not interested in doing). On the other hand, squadrons and Rhymer have a big part in the meta, and that's an area where I think Mothma responds well. I think to some extent it just takes the right good player toying with Mothma long enough to get some good magic out of it.

Mothma was 2 of the top 4 fleets at the NY regionals, if it helps.

MC80. Few people make the top 4 with this ship...

But if they do, all they do is WIN.

Finally starting to understand them, after some tough regionals against them and playing Clon.

They arent for me, but I like them a hella lot more than assault frigates.

Blasph

MC80. Few people make the top 4 with this ship...

But if they do, all they do is WIN.

Finally starting to understand them, after some tough regionals against them and playing Clon.

They arent for me, but I like them a hella lot more than assault frigates.

Blasphemy sir!!! Now say a 100 hail yodas while beating yourself over your head with a green toy lightsaber!! Assault frigates are gold!!

I have top-8 lists from NC regional that happened today (19 players, 3 rounds swiss)

Winner: 2xISD1(oe,intel), 3xRDR1, Motti (Yes, Spanish Inquisition claimed another unsuspecting victim )

Second place: Dodonna CR90A (TRC, Jaina's light), MC30 Scout (OE, APT), CR90A(TRC), Yavaris. 6xYT2400, Scurrg, Nym

Third place: Rieekan AFMK2B (Gunnery, Boosted Comms), AFMK2B (XI7, Paragon), CR90A (TRC, Antilles, Tantive), CR90A (TRC), 7xAWing, HWK290

Fourth place: Rieekan MC80 Assault(Leading Shots, Intel, ECM, Defiance), CR90A(TRC, Jainas light), 2xCR90B(sw7), Dash, Tycho, YT2400, 3xAWing

I'll post all other lists later once I get back to a PC. Overall I saw a lot of unusual and interesting lists (VSD, 3xGSD, Fireball without Demo or Rhymer for example. I liked that list a lot)

Thanks for posting this!

I've added Raleigh to the Top 4 and winners pages.

And congrats on another win!

A few quick thoughts:

1. I find Demolisher unsurprising and this somewhat confirms the deforming effect it has on the meta. A lot of the options we don't see often might be because they are weak to Demolisher.
2. I wonder how much correlation vs. causation is in some of these. For example, how many winning Neb B lists are running but one Neb B, where that Neb B is Yavaris, and the list is a Rieekan Aces / Bomber build? How many winning Imperial lists include a VSD but don't include Rhymer?
3. Some of winning is match-ups, and ships that are "good in many, terrible in a few" are good for winning at Regionals because you have to win big repeatedly and not encounter a counter-list to win, typically.

Thought experiment:

If I told you a list would go 8-2 in every match with 100% probability, is this list more likely or less likely to win regionals than a list which goes 10-0 80% of the time and 0-10 20% of the time?

Edit: once again, a thank you to Shmitty for compiling all of this. Seriously dude, well done.

Some fascinating reading to be had here, and it certainly puts some math behind the back-and-forth on the forum.

It's especially good to know that, apart from that one exception, all the different ships are seeing a reasonably similar level of play and thus the choices of "what to get next" for a new player such as myself can be guided almost solely upon what ships I like, rather than what is the handful of viable options (40k, I'm looking at you!)

It's such a shame that the ship I like the LEAST is the one that is by far the strongest option for a non-filthy-rebel such as myself, but I can simply ignore it in favour of proper pizza slices.

Thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this, just thought it might be nice to know that it is of definite use and interest to even newbies

Warsaw Regionals tournament happend on Saturday with 11 players:

1St place Motti 3x VSDI with Rhymerball

2ND place Ackbar with 2 MC80 and 2Crv's

Sorry duble post

A few quick thoughts:

1. I find Demolisher unsurprising and this somewhat confirms the deforming effect it has on the meta. A lot of the options we don't see often might be because they are weak to Demolisher.
2. I wonder how much correlation vs. causation is in some of these. For example, how many winning Neb B lists are running but one Neb B, where that Neb B is Yavaris, and the list is a Rieekan Aces / Bomber build? How many winning Imperial lists include a VSD but don't include Rhymer?
3. Some of winning is match-ups, and ships that are "good in many, terrible in a few" are good for winning at Regionals because you have to win big repeatedly and not encounter a counter-list to win, typically.

Thought experiment:

If I told you a list would go 8-2 in every match with 100% probability, is this list more likely or less likely to win regionals than a list which goes 10-0 80% of the time and 0-10 20% of the time?

Edit: once again, a thank you to Shmitty for compiling all of this. Seriously dude, well done.

My thoughts on this. I believe that the lists that are "good in many, terrible in few" are good for winning in general (although "good in many, poor in few" lists are a better strategy), given that there is a counter for every list (and that's why DeMSU doesn't perform better nowadays, given that most of the lists do have a built-in counter to DeMSU of some sort).

As far as your thought experiment goes, I don't believe that it's valid (given the presence of an unknown factor that can't be assumed to be random - what kind of lists are present in the tourney). With the current tournament scene, your 8-2 list practically guarantees the spot in top-2 (with 24 points) and then you're at a mercy of the result at a top table, and your 10-0 list will put you out with 20 points roughly half of the time and give you 30 points and a first place otherwise.