If we're talking tournaments here and people who want to win tournaments there's a strong chance what's popular at the top is also very good.

People bring what list they feel has the best chance of winning. Now, if they were doing that by imitation only and the 'meta'lists weren't also very strong lists, how come none of the very crafty individuals in the x-wing community hasn't figured out yet how to regularly beat them?

The fact that, despite knowing with pretty high accuracy which the lists to beat are, nobody has managed to beat them consistently is IMO proof that the 'meta'lists are indeed very strong,not just very popular.

To put it another way its popular BECAUSE it does well, not just because people like it. Where Y-Wings, Hawks, or Contracted Scouts really popular and everyone secretly loved running them? OR is it more likely that they did well, Thuglife, TLT HWK, U-Boats, and people wanted to win therefore they become the favorite, aka Popular, thing to run.

Defenders are one of the best examples of the opposite of this. People love that ship but only a few have been able to make it work and it's rarely seen despite that.

Im actually one of the people that LOVE the defender, but it got the shaft when it came to its points cost. Id argue if you flipped the points, Contracted Scouts 30, or even shave them to 27, and the base Defenders being 25 then BOTH ships would be much more appropriately costed.

It all makes sense now. JB7 is really Jar Jar.

There is some punk-kid on here that had the audacity to sing up as "Red Seven"... been here a short while now.

that just makes you the boss of him, joe

It all makes sense now. JB7 is really Jar Jar.

There is some punk-kid on here that had the audacity to sing up as "Red Seven"... been here a short while now.

that just makes you the boss of him, joe

I don't believe any of us actually exist...

No I get it. I don't agree with you but I get it. It's what that Stay on the Leader dude said, chicken or the egg.

Don't drag me into your sh*tty unclear thinking.

I didn't say it was chicken and egg, I said you could TRY and turn it into chicken and egg but if you did then it showed a critical lack of understanding of the subject.

No I get it. I don't agree with you but I get it. It's what that Stay on the Leader dude said, chicken or the egg. Are they popular because they are effective or does the higher exposure lead to more wins making them more effective than a list that doesn't get as much exposure?

Unless LITERALLY 3 quarters of every tournament field is made up of those three lists (nooooooope) then those lists MUST have more than sheer popularity going for them.

And since anybody who's even half paying attention knows that those are the three archetypes you're going to need to beat to win a big tournament and is preparing their list and practicing with those lists in mind AND YET THEY'RE STILL WINNING THREE OUT OF EVERY FOUR BIG TOURNAMENTS, if you're still trying to pretend that there's a possibility their success is just down to sheeple desperate to run the new hotness I don't even know what to tell you.

No I get it. I don't agree with you but I get it. It's what that Stay on the Leader dude said, chicken or the egg. Are they popular because they are effective or does the higher exposure lead to more wins making them more effective than a list that doesn't get as much exposure?

Not to ****ing repeat myself or anything, but more than 75% of Regional or System Open tournaments this season have been won by one of the three current meta pillar archetypes (Palp Aces, Crackswarm or U-Boats).

Unless LITERALLY 3 quarters of every tournament field is made up of those three lists (nooooooope) then those lists MUST have more than sheer popularity going for them.

And since anybody who's even half paying attention knows that those are the three archetypes you're going to need to beat to win a big tournament and is preparing their list and practicing with those lists in mind AND YET THEY'RE STILL WINNING THREE OUT OF EVERY FOUR BIG TOURNAMENTS, if you're still trying to pretend that there's a possibility their success is just down to sheeple desperate to run the new hotness I don't even know what to tell you.

It's also worth noting that people are tracking the success of a list after it makes the top cut. If it were about popularity, ships would have success close to equal their showing in the top cut, but that isn't what is happening.

The bottom line is this, there are unique lists out there that can beat the current meta lists, but anyone that thinks there's a chance that this is at all a chicken egg debate isn't paying attention to the wealth of data that people have been compiling.

The Meta -The perception of what is "good" by the majority of players.

This perception, true or not, affects how the game is payed. For example, if triple U-Boat is considered to have an "unfair" advantage, it MAY result in large numbers of people playing the list and/or tailoring lists to hard counter it. However, once a strategy viewed as the current meta, its advantage becomes diminished because of the high probability of a large number of counter-lists. If a high number of counter lists are expected to be played by the majority of players, the number of meta lists will go down, even if it is perceived to be "objectively" better in the mechanics of the game. This is the central paradox of the concept.

Quinn's Uncertainty Principle -The moment you discover the meta, it is no longer the meta.

No I get it. I don't agree with you but I get it. It's what that Stay on the Leader dude said, chicken or the egg. Are they popular because they are effective or does the higher exposure lead to more wins making them more effective than a list that doesn't get as much exposure?

Not to ****ing repeat myself or anything, but more than 75% of Regional or System Open tournaments this season have been won by one of the three current meta pillar archetypes (Palp Aces, Crackswarm or U-Boats).

Unless LITERALLY 3 quarters of every tournament field is made up of those three lists (nooooooope) then those lists MUST have more than sheer popularity going for them.

And since anybody who's even half paying attention knows that those are the three archetypes you're going to need to beat to win a big tournament and is preparing their list and practicing with those lists in mind AND YET THEY'RE STILL WINNING THREE OUT OF EVERY FOUR BIG TOURNAMENTS, if you're still trying to pretend that there's a possibility their success is just down to sheeple desperate to run the new hotness I don't even know what to tell you.

It's also worth noting that people are tracking the success of a list after it makes the top cut. If it were about popularity, ships would have success close to equal their showing in the top cut, but that isn't what is happening.

The bottom line is this, there are unique lists out there that can beat the current meta lists, but anyone that thinks there's a chance that this is at all a chicken egg debate isn't paying attention to the wealth of data that people have been compiling.

Don't drag me into your sh*tty unclear thinking.

I didn't say it was chicken and egg, I said you could TRY and turn it into chicken and egg but if you did then it showed a critical lack of understanding of the subject.

Oh now don't get your elitist panties in a bunch. These forums are for discussion of various players opinions, thoughts and strategies. It's clear some people seemed to agree with my point, and yours. Yeesh. I don't agree with your views or thinking on this matter. So what. And that's supposed to make me stupid by default?

That doesn't mean don't get it or my point is unclear, its just you disagreeing with me and getting worked up because I'm not coming around to your opinion on a word that we obviously think differently about. To me, Meta is information about information. And the math crap. It's not all this uber exaggerated convoluted thing you have come to proclaim it as. It just a list of lists that seem to be coolio. Not ALL POWERFUL! ****, man. That's all I said. If you want to be told your pretty and smart than I will say so, You're pretty and smart and everything I say doesn't make sense while you are clearly smarter and know more than I do.

There. Happy, sourpatch?

And the math crap. It's not all this uber exaggerated convoluted thing you have come to proclaim it as. It just a list of lists that seem to be coolio. Not ALL POWERFUL! ****, man. That's all I said.

So, how many tournaments have you won?

For that matter, how many have you actually played in?

No I get it. I don't agree with you but I get it. It's what that Stay on the Leader dude said, chicken or the egg. Are they popular because they are effective or does the higher exposure lead to more wins making them more effective than a list that doesn't get as much exposure?

Not to ****ing repeat myself or anything, but more than 75% of Regional or System Open tournaments this season have been won by one of the three current meta pillar archetypes (Palp Aces, Crackswarm or U-Boats).

Unless LITERALLY 3 quarters of every tournament field is made up of those three lists (nooooooope) then those lists MUST have more than sheer popularity going for them.

And since anybody who's even half paying attention knows that those are the three archetypes you're going to need to beat to win a big tournament and is preparing their list and practicing with those lists in mind AND YET THEY'RE STILL WINNING THREE OUT OF EVERY FOUR BIG TOURNAMENTS, if you're still trying to pretend that there's a possibility their success is just down to sheeple desperate to run the new hotness I don't even know what to tell you.

It's also worth noting that people are tracking the success of a list after it makes the top cut. If it were about popularity, ships would have success close to equal their showing in the top cut, but that isn't what is happening.

The bottom line is this, there are unique lists out there that can beat the current meta lists, but anyone that thinks there's a chance that this is at all a chicken egg debate isn't paying attention to the wealth of data that people have been compiling.

Don't drag me into your sh*tty unclear thinking.

I didn't say it was chicken and egg, I said you could TRY and turn it into chicken and egg but if you did then it showed a critical lack of understanding of the subject.

Oh now don't get your elitist panties in a bunch. These forums are for discussion of various players opinions, thoughts and strategies. It's clear some people seemed to agree with my point, and yours. Yeesh. I don't agree with your views or thinking on this matter. So what. And that's supposed to make me stupid by default?

That doesn't mean don't get it or my point is unclear, its just you disagreeing with me and getting worked up because I'm not coming around to your opinion on a word that we obviously think differently about. To me, Meta is information about information. And the math crap. It's not all this uber exaggerated convoluted thing you have come to proclaim it as. It just a list of lists that seem to be coolio. Not ALL POWERFUL! ****, man. That's all I said. If you want to be told your pretty and smart than I will say so, You're pretty and smart and everything I say doesn't make sense while you are clearly smarter and know more than I do.

There. Happy, sourpatch?

That doesn't mean don't get it or my point is unclear, its just you disagreeing with me and getting worked up because I'm not coming around to your opinion on a word that we obviously think differently about . To me, Meta is information about information. And the math crap. It's not all this uber exaggerated convoluted thing you have come to proclaim it as. It just a list of lists that seem to be coolio. Not ALL POWERFUL! ****, man. That's all I said. If you want to be told your pretty and smart than I will say so, You're pretty and smart and everything I say doesn't make sense while you are clearly smarter and know more than I do.

There. Happy, sourpatch?

The thing is though, language only works if words mean the same thing to everybody. Sure, you can try to redefine a word but that doesn't actually change it's meaning. You're arguing that "meta" means something different to what everyone else says it does and then getting annoyed that people disagree with you.

The "uber exaggerated convoluted thing you have come to proclaim it as" basically is what meta means. Whether you agree with that or not isn't really relevant. You might as well declare water to be "not wet".

There is no spoon?

"Meta" is what you fight when listbuilding. "Meta" skyrockets the odds of finding the same 2-3 lists all the time. But every day it passes, the actual meta becomes weaker and weaker, and peolple learn how to fight it or directly counter it with lists that are close to an auto win against them, until it shifts. In that continuous chase you find out what suits you, and if you stop just copying lists from tournaments, you get to find very interesting solutions.

I just won a 100 people regional in Spain with Kath and Boba, but I've been perfecting those two guys for months reacting to what people used. And in the end, it worked.

Meta is what you allow to endure just if you don't react

Donald Trump is a genius.

If you disagree then it doesn't mean I'm wrong, we just have different definitions of the word 'genius'. Just because your definition is in the dictionary and my definition is one I just made up on my own doesn't make you right and me wrong.

The obviously strong stuff will become the gatekeepers, the stuff you know will show up and be popular.

And that's the thing... It's not like we have some vote that takes place to decide what new hot list(s) will be. They just become the hot list because a number of people can see how 1+1=3 in some cases and given ships or combos are better than the sum of their parts.

Like the U-Boat, that didn't become popular because it's a cool ship or sets off our fond memories of the movies or anything, I'm not sure most people even like the design.

But a number of people looked at what it had to offer, what you could put on it, and how much that all cost, and realized that three of them equipped correctly would make a very formidable list. The U-Boat list if anything proves that effectiveness is the cause of popularity.

The Jumpmaster is an excellent example of how massive publicity causes popularity.

If a list sucks it's not going to make it. You've got to have a good squad to get a list to the top.

But once it gets there, there are a lot of positive feedbacks that make it very hard to dislodge. Later tournament data will have increased representation due to more Jumpmaster list being flown. It'll get talked about a lot so more people will get exposed to it. It's very hard for a newer hotness to come in and dislodge it without a new wave unless it's a hard counter to the old hotness.

I think we can say qualitatively what's good and what perhaps isn't, but we can't say anything quantitative from tournament data unless we can isolate list quality from other factors.

The Jumpmaster is an excellent example of how massive publicity causes popularity.

If a list sucks it's not going to make it. You've got to have a good squad to get a list to the top.

But once it gets there, there are a lot of positive feedbacks that make it very hard to dislodge. Later tournament data will have increased representation due to more Jumpmaster list being flown. It'll get talked about a lot so more people will get exposed to it. It's very hard for a newer hotness to come in and dislodge it without a new wave unless it's a hard counter to the old hotness.

I think we can say qualitatively what's good and what perhaps isn't, but we can't say anything quantitative from tournament data unless we can isolate list quality from other factors.

You see, this kind of attitude is coated in a sneering disrespect towards your fellow players and that's what pisses me off the most about this whole argument.

You think people are sheep. That they do whatever they get told to do. That they're incapable of making any value judgements about whether what they're being told to do is actually good for them or not.

I tend to have a little more faith in the people who are nerdy enough to have chosen to spend their time playing with little plastic spaceships. I tend to believe that they are most likely to have independently verified that what they're being told to do is actually pretty good before they decide to do it too. I tend to believe that very few of them went "well I did really well in Store Championships with Poe, but if the internet says I should play Jumpmasters now then I guess I've got no choice".

Yes there's a feedback element at play that reinforces the meta, but that feedback isn't frictionless and the best lists in the meta only get reinforced if they prove, day in day out in the FLGS and on the kitchen tables around the world, that they deserve to be reinforced. Then, and only then , do you see them come back in greater numbers in winning tournament records.

It just a list of lists that seem to be coolio. Not ALL POWERFUL!

No one is saying they are all powerful. We are saying that in the current state of the game with the available mix of pilot and upgrade cards that these lists are the most successful, most effective and most likely to be encountered in a tournament setting. You don't have to play them to be successful at a tournament, but you do have to have a plan and the tools to counter them.

The Meta -The perception of what is "good" by the majority of players.

That is not what the meta is. It's not a perception it's actually backed up by objective data. Math, tournament results, and the like.

Just because something is thought to be good doesn't mean it is, and at the higher levels of competition, like Regionals and beyond people are constantly looking for an edge. One of the best edges you can get is a list that beats the current hot lists because you can count on seeing them.

So it's not just a matter of perception, it's that those lists really are good.

I'm not coming around to your opinion on a word that we obviously think differently about.

You still don't get it. You don't get to define what the term meta means.

To me, Meta is information about information. And the math crap.

Which is exactly what the X-Wing meta is based upon. It's the information about what other people play, it's also based on the math behind X-Wing and what makes lists good.

It just a list of lists that seem to be coolio.

Wrong, it's a list of lists that have been proven effective.

The Jumpmaster is an excellent example of how massive publicity causes popularity.

The Jumpmaster is proof of how effectiveness is the most important thing. Jumpmasters were not popular until after people started to notice what you could do with the CS.

You've got to have a good squad to get a list to the top.

Yes because many of us can look at a list and get a fairly decent idea of how well it will perform before it's even in stores.

But once it gets there, there are a lot of positive feedbacks that make it very hard to dislodge.

Once a list gets on top, a lot of effort is put into coming up with ways of beating it. What keeps it on top is either a lack of counters or the fact that it keeps doing well even if there are counters out there.

That doesn't mean don't get it or my point is unclear, its just you disagreeing with me and getting worked up because I'm not coming around to your opinion on a word that we obviously think differently about . To me, Meta is information about information. And the math crap. It's not all this uber exaggerated convoluted thing you have come to proclaim it as. It just a list of lists that seem to be coolio. Not ALL POWERFUL! ****, man. That's all I said. If you want to be told your pretty and smart than I will say so, You're pretty and smart and everything I say doesn't make sense while you are clearly smarter and know more than I do.

There. Happy, sourpatch?

The thing is though, language only works if words mean the same thing to everybody. Sure, you can try to redefine a word but that doesn't actually change it's meaning. You're arguing that "meta" means something different to what everyone else says it does and then getting annoyed that people disagree with you.

The "uber exaggerated convoluted thing you have come to proclaim it as" basically is what meta means. Whether you agree with that or not isn't really relevant. You might as well declare water to be "not wet".

AKA he is being similiar to SJWs or Special Snowflakes where they want a word to mean what they think it means to justify their world. "Meta doesnt mean what 80+% of the ENTIRE gaming community thinks it means, therefore it doesnt exist".

AKA he is being similiar to SJWs or Special Snowflakes where they want a word to mean what they think it means to justify their world. "Meta doesnt mean what 80+% of the ENTIRE gaming community thinks it means, therefore it doesnt exist".

AKA he is being similiar to SJWs or Special Snowflakes where they want a word to mean what they think it means to justify their world. "Meta doesnt mean what 80+% of the ENTIRE gaming community thinks it means, therefore it doesnt exist".

Well, that came the **** out of nowhere. And it can go the **** back there, too.

Wow I simiply point out the similiar thought process and you come at me like a killed someone.

AKA he is being similiar to SJWs or Special Snowflakes where they want a word to mean what they think it means to justify their world. "Meta doesnt mean what 80+% of the ENTIRE gaming community thinks it means, therefore it doesnt exist".

Well, that came the **** out of nowhere. And it can go the **** back there, too.

Wow I simiply point out the similiar thought process and you come at me like a killed someone.

I don't think we're interested in recognising the terms 'SJW' or 'Special Snowflake'. Keep that toxic garbage out of here, please!

:-)