My hope is one day people give up on Meta and become free thinkers and develop there own list and earn the name "Master Builder"

...except....if you develop a good list that is original....then your local opponents will develop the "meta" of your new list and try to figure out something that will beat it. You can't get rid of meta. It's always around. There is meta when you play the Missions. It's just trying to beat a known list type out there. If you play Mission 1, you know the Rebels will take Biggs. That's meta.

Netlisting is what you are thinking about. Taking someone's list online and using it. That's pretty annoying. Or Groupthink that Rebels are bad and you must take either U-boats or Imp Aces.

Your right it is Netlisting that is the bigger problem and a lot of people do it in response to Meta. Netlisting also creates Meta I think. I've fallen into the trap before of building to address the Meta lists only to show up and no one was flying the Meta lists. if this happened more often then then there would be no real Meta to build to. then Netlisting could become a thing of the past

I know I sound like a dreamer.

I also love the Group thinking of this Faction is no good. Not only because it makes me laugh but it makes me want to fly it more discover tricks and tactics no one will see coming. this works very well for me. I just wish my dice would work as good as my list. 5 dice into Corran 1 hit spend TL still 1 hit. have not worked out a way to fix that yet

META is real and it is fine. you do need to know what these ships can do.

However what ain't fine is the base-dumbass-meta-think.

The guys that talk about .5 points, and a ship being useless based on mathematical projections.

That is the stuff that causes arguments and hurt feelings and other human stupidity to flare up. That meta is fake, and the white noise many of us have learned to ignore utterly on these forums.

Your right it is Netlisting that is the bigger problem and a lot of people do it in response to Meta. Netlisting also creates Meta I think. I've fallen into the trap before of building to address the Meta lists only to show up and no one was flying the Meta lists. if this happened more often then then there would be no real Meta to build to. then Netlisting could become a thing of the past

Which is to say: I'm pretty sure you're not thinking this through.

Now it would be nice to see some formats that break up the meta, that is why I like Epic, there is no real clear meta other than 4 Brobots or dozens of TIE Fighters, yet still those that play Epic will want to play the big centerpiece huge ships otherwise it would just feel like standard with a relaxed point limit.

Even without Huge ships it is not standard with a relaxed point limit. Arc Dodgers for example are an Epic Fail (pun intended) since it is much harder to be out of arc when there are multiple bogies.

If you have 10 players that bring the same list and only 1 of them normally makes the cut, the 9 other guys that brought the same list that had a 50% day with it didn't make it any more likely that the guy who won with the list was going to win.

Of course not.

However, we haven't been measuring the success of a list by a single entrant. We've been measuring it by the Top 8. When you're looking at "does a U-Boat make the cut" rather than "does this U-Boat make the cut" more U-Boats means a greater chance of a Top 8 U-Boat.

One way to deal with this would be to look at the distribution of U-Boats throughout the tournament: if player skill follows a normal distribution then the skew tells us about the list's power against the competition. However, we don't have full tournament data as more often than not we only know the Cut.

I 'm

S o

M eta

E ven

T his

A cronym

I love this quote. Thanks for bringing it up.

Ahh, another anti-competitive/anti-mathwing thread. All dressed up in confusion.

A metagame will always exist. Psychology is just as much a factor as game balance.

Yeesh, man. Ease up on the Meta Championing a bit. No need to get all swelled up in this idea that I'm a creationist or someone who disputes reality just because I said it doesn't actually exist in reality. All you really described to me is a really long winded way of saying, the peeps who know and follow the game tourney lists and are experienced will have a better time.

You say I am not allowed to do this whole, Egg or Chicken argument or I'm a strawman, all untrue but that doesn't make what I'm saying untrue either. Would it help if I just said you're smarter than me and everyone here? You're smarter than me and everyone here.

Moving on. I said people who have hot lists will take them to the tourneys and that specific list will be shown as this uber list when really it just has the most exposure. That much is true. Everyone seems to agree with this statement.

What I am saying, using the words actual defintion, is that mathematically, the Meta lists aren't actually superior until someone says "No, guy. Heres a link to the thing that says you're wrong." The idea that Meta lists are superior is just stupid and doesn't really amount to anything other than them being super popular. If anything instead of attacking the Meta, I am saying just do your own thing and bring whatever you want to tounaments. To me the idea of the Meta just divides the "casual" and "competitive" from an imaginary line when we should be just saying, yeah. Some guys experience might trump yours. So the eff what. There isn't a mini god on his shoulder enabling him to win just because he's doing a meta list.

That's all I am saying. I am saying the Meta as it's Defined (not some word i made up) is related to math and I wanted it to see it done. Otherwise it's just a list of popular lists amongst experienced players or just word of mouth.

The Meta isnt about the math of list effectiveness.

The Meta is about the math of what you are up against.

If a list is popular, it is part of the meta, simply by being popular. You can go, "That list is popular, so I'll probably face one at some point" and you are using the meta to help you.

List Jugger says 10% of all S&V ships posted to juggler were Contracted scouts. Inquisitor was 4.5%, Soonteer was 3.8% and Whisper was 3.5%

This game has elements of rock paper scizors to it, but if your rock cant beat a contraced scout or an arcdogeing, token stacking imperial ace, you have a blanket 22% chance of losing any given match. So either build to beat them... or join them.

THAT is metagaming.

Your right it is Netlisting that is the bigger problem and a lot of people do it in response to Meta. Netlisting also creates Meta I think. I've fallen into the trap before of building to address the Meta lists only to show up and no one was flying the Meta lists. if this happened more often then then there would be no real Meta to build to. then Netlisting could become a thing of the past

Ok everyone! Stop discussing which ships or lists are any good! This guy reckons that'll improve the game!

Which is to say: I'm pretty sure you're not thinking this through.

Sorry i did not explain it better i had kids jumping on me this morning as i was typing

Im all for posting list i do it all the time i have even said which shipe are bad and good. Its the instance that this is what you have to fly to win, oh no one fly that you shouldn't either or that list will never beat (insert meta list). This is the atatuide problem many people have and pass on to new players unfortunately.

Post list share ideas its all good but 1 idea or opinion is not the be all or end all

I guess this thread forces us to admit that we all have different interpretations of what metagame actually means.

So I'll throw my hat in the ring, too.

Metagaming is making value judgments about how you will play the game.

Thus you cannot help but metagame. You may not capitalize on it as deliberately as others. But you metagame.

When's the last time you put Squad Leader on a Green Squadron Pilot?

Moving on. I said people who have hot lists will take them to the tourneys and that specific list will be shown as this uber list when really it just has the most exposure. That much is true. Everyone seems to agree with this statement.

I don't think "most people" agree with that at all.

The "meta pillar" lists are popular because they're strong. Look at the Regional winners. We've got results for 69 Regional tournaments or System Opens since Wave 8 was released (not counting the Brazilian Regionals where Wave 8 apparently isn't available). 53 of those tournaments were won by either a Palp Aces list, a U-Boat list or a Crackswarm. Only 16 were won by anything else. Unless you believe that "meta" lists comprise literally 75% of the field in big tournaments (spoiler warning: they really don't) that's a data-point which suggests that those archetypes are stronger than most, and that their success is due to more than "just having the most exposure".

Are they the very strongest tippy-top lists that are available to build given the current cards we have available? I don't know? Maybe? It's not like there aren't other good lists out there, and X-Wing is a game of long-term skill and short-term luck so it's entirely possible to win a tournament with an objectively not-as-strong list by the grace of matchups and variance. But, y'know. That's generally not the way to bet. It's a pretty big stretch to go from "look, these three archetypes are popular and powerful, so if you're interested in going deep in a tournament you've got a strong incentive to try and find a creative list that's got game against them" to "the idea that Meta lists are superior is just stupid and doesn't really amount to anything other than them being super popular."

What I am saying, using the words actual defintion, is that mathematically, the Meta lists aren't actually superior until someone says "No, guy. Heres a link to the thing that says you're wrong."

What you're really trying (and failing) to say that the current meta hotness isn't always superior to other lists. Which may be true, but typically isn't. Everyone isn't playing U-Boats because they're the current hotness... They're the current hotness because they perform very well.

But we do have plenty of evidence that the current hot lists do in fact perform very well. We have mathwing and we have tournament data.

The guys that talk about .5 points, and a ship being useless based on mathematical projections.

At the highest level of competition .5 does actually make a difference. I do however agree that a ship like that shouldn't be simply written off, or called worthless.

There's nothing wrong with saying it's a tier 1.5 or tier 2 ship for example so people know there's better options out there in terms of pure efficiency. That way people will know what they're getting. For example if I decide to take a T-65 in a list I'm better off knowing it won't perform as well as some other ships will.

That meta is fake

No it really isn't, it can't be because the term meta means the game outside the game, and the high level competitive meta very much exists.

There's nothing wrong with saying it's a tier 1.5 or tier 2 ship for example so people know there's better options out there in terms of pure efficiency.

I'd disagree, for three reasons.

• MathWing 2.0 (3.0 has not been revealed to us) gives us efficiencies of statlines: it tells us how the ship performs before maneuvering is taken into account. This means that MathWing is only useful for quality comparison for ships that are similiar in the unquantifiable respects. Otherwise it merely tells you how much slack the unquantifiables must pick up. It also (as far as I know) makes assumptions about the ships you're likely to face based on the current metagame and therefore its numbers vary when updated to a changing metagame. Point costs do not.
• Tournament data isn't a useful tool for confirmation of predictions for the reasons I've previously gone into: mainly that without knowing all lists entered you can't account for multiples of the same squad. Furthermore, if there are very few or one of a list then player skill cannot be assumed to average out.
• How can you tier the ships themselves when this is a game fought between lists? Take PalpAces. If we call every ship in it a Tier 1 ship then would that not suggest that Lambda Spam would also be viable? If the Lambda is not a Tier 1 ship then that'd suggest that dropping the Palp from Palp Aces in favour of another ace would be advantageous. If anything is to be tiered, it'd be lists. Some ships underperform for their cost but can you really create an accurate ranking without accounting for synergy?

That meta is fake

No it really isn't, it can't be because the term meta means the game outside the game, and the high level competitive meta very much exists.

It's absolutely not fake. In a meta where there are PWTs everywhere, the two points for Autothrusters instead of taking Integrated Astromech for free is an easy choice to make. In a meta dominated by low agility ships, Tempest Squads with Accuracy Correctors and Cluster Missiles are great but when they run into mostly high agility ships they aren't so hot.

Even getting outside of the standard dogfight tournaments, meta decisions clearly come into play. In epic play, ships like Jonus, Roark, Jendon, and Serissu can easily be worth their points, just through their support abilities, Palpatine becomes less valuable when you are defending against a dozen attack rolls every round instead of two or three. Spending a lot of points on a ship like Soontir or Corran isn't going to be as effective as spreading those points around to get more ships (or slightly better generics). In a multiplayer format where everyone brings a single ship, the meta shapes what you bring. Lone Wolf is a great EPT because it always triggers, bringing an obviously strong 1v1 closer is likely to get you teamed up on and eliminated early.

Hear me out. I don't discount the lists that are super effective to a multitude of lists, (4 TLTS, PalpAces, 3 Uboats, Etc.) But until someone makes a game breaking mathematical graph of ships, their abilities, pilots, cards, upgrades etc and 4TLTS and PalpAces are at the top, then I will eat my shoe. It's mostly leather so it should work.

The reason I say this is because when everyone talks about "the Meta" everyone kinda clues in like word-of-mouth myths from the Arcades of Old and says, "Yeah. I agree. This is the best list. Because I saw one guy use it and it destroyed that other guy!" or "I don't really know too much about the game, but it sure is fun, maybe I'll give these awesome lists a chance because people won't stop talking about them."

I have seen on these forum something akin to a herd mentality. Or, more appropriately, 18th century court fashion followers. To me, it's simply nonsense. I've used all of the lists above in my weekly match ups multiple times and to be completely honest with you, the results definitely vary. Sometimes I win. Sometimes a bunny rips my throat out. The reason I'm on this soap box is because, everyone gets their jimmies rustled when they say certain ship builds ruin the game, because "They're too powerful!" To that I'll use a saying my daughter uses. That is bullspit.

The game is so flipping varied you can come up with a multitude of lists to combat others. Hell, Paul Heaver does it every freaking year! His method is much like my own, Just do your own thing, trying everything, don't listen to anyone else but yourself, and above all, HAVE FUN FOR HECK'S SAKE!

Because the Meta doesn't exist.

(Unless it does than I'll eat my shoe and post pictures of it boiling in my pot and call it "Shoe Stew."

Popularity Funnel = Meta. Meta refers to over or above or outside. So the Metagame means the game outside the game or above it. This is knowing what is good, what is strong, what works the majority of the time, what will likely be played. Knowing these things results in lots of people playng the same things, aka it becomes Polular. Do you REALLY think U-Boats are popular cause people love their look and fluff OR because they do so well. Is Palp Ace really that fluffy or fun or is it that it works? Meta EXISTS, Ive been playing games for almost 20 years at this point and I can say without a doubt that the Meta is not made up or imagined, it is an actual thing.

What I am saying, using the words actual defintion, is that mathematically, the Meta lists aren't actually superior until someone says "No, guy. Heres a link to the thing that says you're wrong." The idea that Meta lists are superior is just stupid and doesn't really amount to anything other than them being super popular.

How do you suppose those lists got to be popular in the first place?

Palp Aces has been around since wave 7. At first most people thought the Emperor was overcosted. 8 points to modify one lousy die? Practically useless. Then they began to see how it could work with high-value aces and the first Palp Aces list was born. But it didn't light the world on fire. Why? There were other popular lists that kept them from dominating.

Those lists were Rebels with stress, control and/or regeneration. World's featured two rebel lists in the final. Paul Heaver won and said "everyone should have a stresshog." And they did and there was much rejoicing.

Wave 8 comes out and immediately people can see that three contracted scouts can be kitted out to be very powerful. It has great alpha-strike potential and practically overnight it pushes Rebels from the top of the food chain. People start to complain. They're OP, a huge mistake by FFG. People start to focus on how to counter them. And while no one's looking Palp Aces start winning events. It's mutated now; Vader is gone. The Inquisitor or Carnor take his place. Wampa is seen along with Omega Leader. Paul Heaver starts running them too. Suddenly he's no longer defining the meta, he's chasing it.

None of this happens because people suddenly decide collectively that they really, really like the shuttle that's been around since wave 3.

I'd disagree, for three reasons.

I don't think you understand my point. I'm saying that instead of calling a ship worthless we could say it's a tier 2 ship. I mean is there any question that prior to IA the X-Wing underperformed for it's points or the Tie Advanced before the X-1 or A-Wings before the Refit?

Calling something worthless or bad is going to naturally cause negative reaction, but pointing out that it's less efficient than other ships in competitive events typically won't.

Obvious troll is becoming obvious.

Obvious troll is becoming obvious.

Who's trolling? I think everyone commenting has pretty good points to make.

Obvious troll is becoming obvious.

Who's trolling? I think everyone commenting has pretty good points to make.

Are you planning on putting the video of your shoe eating on you tube? Have you decided what shoe you are going to munch?

A metagame is keeping track of what wins consistently enough so you can either play it or plan for it.

Y'know, a long time ago, I was playing Magic semi-professionally. A new set came out and I immediately latched onto one card as being really, really broken. Built my deck around it. My friends called me crazy until they had to play against it, then they tried to figure out some way to counter it - no go. Took it to a tournament with 70+ people and swept everything aside - it wasn't even a challenge. The next day, a major Worlds tournament (Okinawa, if I remember rightly) happened and it too was won by the exact same deck as mine. Oh, there were minor differences (I had 3 of a card, he had 4, so on), but the core of it was the same.
Arcbound Ravager, the core card of the deck, was banned a month later after going from $2 to $55. I was in front of the metagame curve that set, and it's a great memory.

A metagame all about what the top-level options are, what the best players are required to plan for in order to compete - or what the best players will be bringing regardless.

That's why I disagree with,

• Tournament data isn't a useful tool for confirmation of predictions for the reasons I've previously gone into: mainly that without knowing all lists entered you can't account for multiples of the same squad. Furthermore, if there are very few or one of a list then player skill cannot be assumed to average out.

Anyone can bring what they want to a tournament. It doesn't define a metagame if a scrub's playing a jank deck or running Luke Skywalker and Kyle Katarn, or if a scrub is bringing a top-level list (Legacy Goblins, PalpAces) but doesn't have the skill to back it up.

It's what the top players win with consistently that defines a metagame - thankfully we have an easy means of determining that in the top cut mechanic done by FFG's tournament system and catalogued in the list juggler.

Using that as a determining factor also neatly clips point #3 on your list - how do you compare a mirror match? Well, by whoever wins. If multiples of a ship makes the top cut, then it's a good list! The actual winner of a tournament isn't as important as the aggregated numbers of who ended up being the best players at ALL the tournaments.

That's a metagame: What wins consistently enough that you either have to plan for it or play it. A bad metagame has one king. A good metagame has four or five possible kings with matchups depending on skill.

As for point #1 on your list... well, of course raw numbers don't tell the whole story. But man, if the numbers on a ship are bad, it had better have a LOT of other factors in play. Palob, you're so fun.

The problem is that some people treat the metagame like it's Jesus or something; "META IS THE ONLY TRUTH, PLAY PALPACES OR LUSE" when it's just what you should be ready for.

Obvious troll is becoming obvious.

Who's trolling? I think everyone commenting has pretty good points to make.

.

Are you planning on putting the video of your shoe eating on you tube? Have you decided what shoe you are going to munch?

Funny enough. I was actually planning on it because I was bored and I thought it'd be kinda zany and funny because who the hell eats a shoe!? But, all I have gotten from most of the comments is "You realise that 'popularity funnel' would be a good description of 'metagame', right? Mer Mer" (Unsurprisingly but I guess surprisingly, that was the reason why I had said it was just a popularity funnel in the first place.)

And there were many other things just reinforcing what I had already said without giving me what I was looking for. Mostly just hem's and ha's about how saying Metagame is somehow different than player experience and knowledge of the game itself coalesced into a few lists that everyone plays, played or talks about. The meta is a popularity thing, not a mathematical graph of the most effective lists out there like I once thought it was.

So sadly, I won't be eating my shoe.

I'd disagree, for three reasons.

I don't think you understand my point. I'm saying that instead of calling a ship worthless we could say it's a tier 2 ship. I mean is there any question that prior to IA the X-Wing underperformed for it's points or the Tie Advanced before the X-1 or A-Wings before the Refit?

Calling something worthless or bad is going to naturally cause negative reaction, but pointing out that it's less efficient than other ships in competitive events typically won't.

And I don't think we should because it ignores the fact that a list is usually greater than the sum of its parts.Some ships need to be paired with the right wingmen to work.

It's what the top players win with consistently that defines a metagame - thankfully we have an easy means of determining that in the top cut mechanic done by FFG's tournament system and catalogued in the list juggler.

Are those top players static?

A tournament where all the lists and players are equal will still have a Top 8. You can only cut to the Top Eight if the Bottom Total Players Minus Eight is irrelevant. It isn't.

To treat the Top 8 as the tournament pool then the players beneath them would need to have next to no chance of making the cut. You can only cut out the players that couldn't make Top 8 at the start of the tournament.

If multiples of a ship makes the top cut, then it's a good list!

A tournament in which all players run Lone Z-95 will have eight Lone Z-95s in the Top Cut.

If you have more of a list in the entire player pool then its chances of one appearing in the Top Cut are increased: linearly for equally skilled players. A list that is overrepresented in the total tournament pool is likely to be overrepresented in the Top 8. I have a longer post with graphs on this further back.

To account for this, you need to see which lists entered, and that's not data we have. This undermines the attempt to use tournament Top Cut data for list comparision because the popularity of a list does increase the chance of at least one of those scoring highly. It's only useful for player comparison.

How do you suppose those lists got to be popular in the first place?

A good player wins a tournament with them. A list needs merit to get to the top, once it's there duplication will keep it there.

At first most people thought the Emperor was overcosted. 8 points to modify one lousy die? Practically useless.

You maybe. Fairly sure most people saw its potential early on, even if they didn't foresee PalpAces becoming as popular as it is now.

Ahh, another anti-competitive/anti-mathwing thread. All dressed up in confusion.

A metagame will always exist. Psychology is just as much a factor as game balance.

I say we just nod our heads and use people that hold the same opinion as the OP for free wins.

The meta doesn't exist, you're completely right OP. Fly whatever you want, go ahead. *fake smile*