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.

No, love, just pointing out as politely as I can that this isn't the time or place for your random injection of ****y politics.

From what I know you are not a mod on this forum, so try to focus on topic, instead of pointing out what one should post.

This is a very interesting thread; thanks "wagonburner 5000"! Although, I have to admit, the topic of the existence/relevance of the "Meta of X-Wing" seems to be almost a satirical joke. I mean, the very debate on how the game has been played and what has occurred in its history not only declares the meta exists, but it shows its power and influence on the game. But hey, we're all using Meta (history, mathematics, and probability) whether we realize it or not.

We all know our beloved game uses dice as a randomizing method to finalize the effectiveness of a ship's actions after the pilot skill has placed said ship on the star-field with heading and intent. Although the dice are random and pilot skill is quite varied, both of these seemingly arbitrary details can be recorded, tracked, and simple accounting can produce percentages of potential outcomes fairly easily. The ship cards and modification cards have hard numbers and results that can be the easiest to dovetail into the calculation denoted above. As "Stay on the Leader" has probably more eloquently summarized, these mathematical analysis combined with actual results of games is what the community unofficially declares the Meta (what it is and what it does). Therefore, it exists; no debate I can see.

Since Meta clearly exists, do we really utilize such a thing in X-wing? Well, I am fairly new to this game, but I'm no idiot (well, at least I tell myself that, haha). I will go out on a stout limb here and assume that, whether they are cognizant of it or no, players calculate probabilities and build strategies to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of the ships and modifications they select so they can win the game against their opponent. While math skills aren’t necessary to play (beyond counting to 100), players inevitably learn, as they win or lose, what ships, mods, details and flying groups have the highest probability to work best mathematically. In these permutations, we find the player utilizing some X-Wing problem-solving and planning skills as they play, quickly developing their own Meta even if they stay clear of gaming stores, tournaments and on-line Forums like this one. Inevitably however, as they start to pay attention to other players patterns, they recognize details that effects their Meta and they make the necessary alterations be they small or large. Eventually, with enough careful addiction, they begin to search out the better players squads and results to gain an even better understanding of the game and how best they might win the next game. So the Meta exists whether we admit it or not and effects the game from the novice recognizing personal patterns, to the experts who fine-tune their squads to out-perform the historical and mathematically probable squads they will face.

This is a very interesting thread; thanks "wagonburner 5000"! Although, I have to admit, the topic of the existence/relevance of the "Meta of X-Wing" seems to be almost a satirical joke. I mean, the very debate on how the game has been played and what has occurred in its history not only declares the meta exists, but it shows its power and influence on the game. But hey, we're all using Meta (history, mathematics, and probability) whether we realize it or not.

We all know our beloved game uses dice as a randomizing method to finalize the effectiveness of a ship's actions after the pilot skill has placed said ship on the star-field with heading and intent. Although the dice are random and pilot skill is quite varied, both of these seemingly arbitrary details can be recorded, tracked, and simple accounting can produce percentages of potential outcomes fairly easily. The ship cards and modification cards have hard numbers and results that can be the easiest to dovetail into the calculation denoted above. As "Stay on the Leader" has probably more eloquently summarized, these mathematical analysis combined with actual results of games is what the community unofficially declares the Meta (what it is and what it does). Therefore, it exists; no debate I can see.

Since Meta clearly exists, do we really utilize such a thing in X-wing? Well, I am fairly new to this game, but I'm no idiot (well, at least I tell myself that, haha). I will go out on a stout limb here and assume that, whether they are cognizant of it or no, players calculate probabilities and build strategies to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of the ships and modifications they select so they can win the game against their opponent. While math skills aren’t necessary to play (beyond counting to 100), players inevitably learn, as they win or lose, what ships, mods, details and flying groups have the highest probability to work best mathematically. In these permutations, we find the player utilizing some X-Wing problem-solving and planning skills as they play, quickly developing their own Meta even if they stay clear of gaming stores, tournaments and on-line Forums like this one. Inevitably however, as they start to pay attention to other players patterns, they recognize details that effects their Meta and they make the necessary alterations be they small or large. Eventually, with enough careful addiction, they begin to search out the better players squads and results to gain an even better understanding of the game and how best they might win the next game. So the Meta exists whether we admit it or not and effects the game from the novice recognizing personal patterns, to the experts who fine-tune their squads to out-perform the historical and mathematically probable squads they will face.

The problem with the the OPs statement/header is it is misleading. It seems that it really isn't about a meta existing, just that he believes it is driven by popularity and not ship/list efficiency. However, their is a distinct lack of evidence that that is the case.

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.

You're very antigonistic to someone who doesn't agree with you. I say it's just a popularity funnel. You say it's something blah blah blah.

You just seem to like coming off like the smart dude who is never wrong and anyone who says different is donald trump, a creationist, or just stupid. How high minded and enlightened you must be.

I say it's just a popularity funnel.

And that is why so many people are up in arms against you. While there are elemets that can be considered popularity based, the tournament statistics show that certian list types make it to the cut far more often than their innitial tournament proportion, and which list types do this have changed over time.

* talking about the opinion that Jumpmasters are flown only because of popularity *

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.

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 that they deserve to be reinforced.

You are right, the meta feedback loop is not 'frictionless' and it is a good way to say it.

That being said, people are not sheep, but they are 90.25% sheep. We are sheeple. I am a sheeple. 90.25% of the time we do what we're told & we're incapable of making correct value judgements.

90.25% you ask

lets do #science#

monkeys = 95.00% sheep (because of DNA & Darwin n'stuff)

humans = 95.00% monkey

: therefore

humans = 90.25% sheep

I tried to resist posting this, but I be a sheeple.

We believe money has value, therefore it has value.

We believe 'the meta' exists, therefore it exists.

The Meta is in fact a popularity funnel. However, in order for a list or a type of list to become popular, it has to be able to perform well. As it performs, more people choose to use it until an effective counter develops. As a result of X-wing being a game which continues to offer expansions (new options) on a fairly regular basis, we tend to look for counters and opportunities in new products, resulting in new items often surfacing as the next popular trend.

The point? Sure, the Meta is a popularity funnel. But, no matter how many words we use to describe or how closely we analyze where it comes from, it is still there. People have found U-boats, TLTs, and Palp-Aces to be effective, they've grown popular, and therefore they show up and place well at tournaments.

They are the current Meta; that is, the game outside the game. The game itself is what is written in the rules manual, and involves moving components around the table and rolling dice. The Metagame consists of analyzing and studying trends within the game and designing lists for maximum efficiency of points. List building in a competitive environment IS the Metagame. Every time you build a list, you most likely consider what has been most effective in your player pool, and then try to either capitalize on it or counter it.

10% of lists in a tournament might be of a certain type.

If two thirds of these lists then make it to the top 8, this is much more than a 'popularity funnel': Because those lists beat the living daylights out of everyone elses lists to get there.

This makes it a meta list, whether they get heard about or not.

Last store champs, I walked in with a list I'd made myself without doing any research at all; merely combining the cards I had on hand. Fully half the players recognised it on sight as one of the second-tier 'meta' lists (Triple aces are always fun). Does this make it a 'popularity funnel'? Hardly. It means I build solid lists, even without outside influence... but so do a whole lot of other people.

The good lists filter to the top quickly enough, and once they do, your lists need to plan for them. This is what a 'meta list' means.