Armada is throwing a huge monkey wrench in your diagram because Wave 3 and Wave 4 are REALLY kinda the same wave, so it really messes with the data. it makes it seem like they've released two entire waves within 24 hours of each other, which we all know isn't actually true.

What is ALSO throwing off the data is X-Wing's supplemental releases. Inbetween waves we had Aces packs, Huge Ship packs, veterans packs, and lately even fluff products like dial upgrade kits and colored bases. So it keeps the game feeling more fresh when there is SOMETHING new on the shelf every other month. (more or less).

Yes, this is a big part of why Lyreaus' analysis misses the mark.

There are several challenges facing the project:

(1) Who cares if X-Wing or Armada has a faster or more dense release schedule? Why on god's green Earth does it matter?

(2) They are not commensurable (apples to oranges): what the hell are we comparing?

• Waves: this, as quoted above, makes little sense and doesn't apply to a lot of X-Wing products. Does the Gozanti/Transport "wave" count as 1 while X-Wing Wave 6 counts as 1 (even though Wave 6 featured five new ship packs plus a Scum pack which released models but included new versions of four existing ship types)?
• New products: this would mean Armada Wave 3 counts as "two" while X-Wing Wave 6 counts as "6," while it also means dial upgrade packs, dice packs, colored bases, campaign packs, star-mats, and all the rest should count. Who counts star mats? X-Wing, because the first were made before Armada existed?
• New ship models: this would mean only products that are new ship models would count, but then does not include the CR90, Neb, Vic, CorCamp, Scum & Villany, Reb Aces, Imp Aces, Imp Veterans, and Heroes of the Reistance packs
• New cards: this would mean 'repackages' of existing ships count as new releases, but then should we compare the number of new cards per set? If we did this, reprinted upgrades or upgrades featured across multiple sets wouldn't count. An X-Wing ship typically features 4-6 new and novel pilots you might use the ship as (your model can be Soontir, Phennir, Fel's Wrath, Saber Pilot, Avenger Pilot, OR Alpah Pilot), as opposed to Armada's two-variants per ship, even across re-releases. Does this matter? It's more variety and more things to test with each X-Wing ship.
• etc. etc etc ...

So the issues are really two-fold. First, it's not clear how to do a comparative analysis that is most accurate despite the non-commensurability of the two games' releases. Second, even if we could, why really bother?

That being said, I found HERO's graphical analysis, while pretty basic, to be more accurate and meaningful.

Though I too feel that the side releases should be included.

Just because the Aces packs contained "fixes" for certain craft, does not change the fact that they were still new product on the shelf that affected more than just the ships within. Add in the huge ships and the Epic Play format that were introduced at the time as well.

I am doing wave only comparisons for right now becuase Armada is lacking in other releases. I can't create a comparison when there are none and I have to use data that can be compared. I will make a point of including the supplemental as their own set of releases and will compare them when we get such. I will do the same for the Epic ships and our currently unique release the Corellian Conflict.

As I stated in one of my first posts, I did not add the X-Wing Supplementals because those were stop gap measures by the X-Wing team to fix ships that just did not work such as the TIE Advanced and Defender. A comparison of that would require that I compare our supplemental products, which he have had none yet due to everything working.

This is a faulty assumption. For instance, the Scum & Villany pack was a repackage of Z-95 and Y-Wing models, sure. But it also offered 16 new pilot cards so that the Zs, Ys, HWKs, and Firepsrays could be flown with new, novel variants of those ships in the Scum & Villany pack.

Also, for instance, the Imperial Aces set (repainted interceptors) wasn't necessarily a fix for the "defunct" Interceptors. In fact, the "fix" for the interceptor was autothrusters, a much-later released upgrade in the Star Viper set. What the Imperial Aces set did was create six new pilots and some new modification options for interceptors, but even then Soontir Fel from the basic first interceptor pack saw far more use than the new pilots, so it wasn't like they were (or were even intended to be) replacement "fixed" pilots that took over for the old pilots.

The X-Wing included in the GR75 expansion also wasn't a "fix" for the X-Wing, but rather four entirely new unique pilots with novel abilities from other already available pilots. Remember, X-Wing isn't like Armada, in that you might run six TIE Fighters in a list but they could all have entirely different pilot abilites and pilot skills because they represent different pilots of varying skill in those TIEs.

Armada is throwing a huge monkey wrench in your diagram because Wave 3 and Wave 4 are REALLY kinda the same wave, so it really messes with the data. it makes it seem like they've released two entire waves within 24 hours of each other, which we all know isn't actually true.

What is ALSO throwing off the data is X-Wing's supplemental releases. Inbetween waves we had Aces packs, Huge Ship packs, veterans packs, and lately even fluff products like dial upgrade kits and colored bases. So it keeps the game feeling more fresh when there is SOMETHING new on the shelf every other month. (more or less).

Yes, this is a big part of why Lyreaus' analysis misses the mark.

There are several challenges facing the project:

(1) Who cares if X-Wing or Armada has a faster or more dense release schedule? Why on god's green Earth does it matter?

(2) They are not commensurable (apples to oranges): what the hell are we comparing?

• Waves: this, as quoted above, makes little sense and doesn't apply to a lot of X-Wing products. Does the Gozanti/Transport "wave" count as 1 while X-Wing Wave 6 counts as 1 (even though Wave 6 featured five new ship packs plus a Scum pack which released models but included new versions of four existing ship types)?
• New products: this would mean Armada Wave 3 counts as "two" while X-Wing Wave 6 counts as "6," while it also means dial upgrade packs, dice packs, colored bases, campaign packs, star-mats, and all the rest should count. Who counts star mats? X-Wing, because the first were made before Armada existed?
• New ship models: this would mean only products that are new ship models would count, but then does not include the CR90, Neb, Vic, CorCamp, Scum & Villany, Reb Aces, Imp Aces, Imp Veterans, and Heroes of the Reistance packs
• New cards: this would mean 'repackages' of existing ships count as new releases, but then should we compare the number of new cards per set? If we did this, reprinted upgrades or upgrades featured across multiple sets wouldn't count. An X-Wing ship typically features 4-6 new and novel pilots you might use the ship as (your model can be Soontir, Phennir, Fel's Wrath, Saber Pilot, Avenger Pilot, OR Alpah Pilot), as opposed to Armada's two-variants per ship, even across re-releases. Does this matter? It's more variety and more things to test with each X-Wing ship.
• etc. etc etc ...

So the issues are really two-fold. First, it's not clear how to do a comparative analysis that is most accurate despite the non-commensurability of the two games' releases. Second, even if we could, why really bother?

That being said, I found HERO's graphical analysis, while pretty basic, to be more accurate and meaningful.

Well let's go by the numbers.

1) This is important so that people can see that Armada is getting the attention people want it to have as well as a reassurance that we are on the right track. This helps new players who want to buy in to know that they won't be abandoned.

We also get insight into how FFG is conducting this business model for the miniature lines.

2) When conducting a comparison analysis you have to have something to compare. Armada does not have a single supplemental release. Even the Corellian Conflict is not a supplemental. It is more like the Epic releases of X-Wing but still something hat has no comparison.

Sincerely there is nothing to compare the supplemental releases to, we can assume a few things.

First that Armada has far less issues with its ships since FFG has not needed to fix anything, and 2 that FFG is focused on waves, campaigns and other goodies for us. This is a good thing. Supplemental products while pretty are just a nice bandaid over a problem.

X-Wing Wave 6 was not 6 products. Not only did the F/O and T70 not get released with wave 6 they were just in response to the core set and we're supposed to be released with that core set. That is a different data point with no comparison until Armada gets their EP7+ core.

I never stated that these were for new ship models. In fact, I have stated a few times now that this is a wave to wave comparison. This means that products in those waves are compared. If we take out the Neb, CR90, VSD we also have to remove the X-Wing and TIE Fighter which means Armada still has 4 releases to 2.

Colonel Sanders is watching...

For some reason, because X-WIng had their Core and Wave 1 released at the same time the graph moved over.

X-WIng vs Armada Release Comparison

What are these?

It is pretty simple, by taking the amount of time between releases and the number or releases we can determine the rough estimate of when the next release will be and how far behind the curve, if there is one, that we may fall. It also helps us determine any visible trends, such as in the first 4 waves of Armada and X-Wing, we have the same number of wave based products.

Over all X-WIng had more products due to the Epic ships and their need to fix issues that popped up such as with the Aces pack and what not. This is both a good thing and bad thing about Armada, but it is likely that because we don't have any "broken" ships, or ships that just cant work, we are not getting these fancy products. I am personally fine with that.

Currently, if wave 4 releases next month as it should, Armada will be ahead of the curve by about 4 months. This has a drawback however. We may not see another release until the 2nd anniversary of the release of Armada. There is one more thing to consider with that though. FFG seems to be timing releases so that they don't mess up tournament schedules. This last point is a rough opinion of mine with no facts other than FFG pushing wave 4 out faster than any other wave we have seen previously. We only got the full spoilers for wave 4 earlier this month and we are getting the wave already!? This begs the question as to why.

Some will suggest that it was because FFG did not want people to feel put off because of Wave 3. That has merit but I don't thing that is the full story. I think Asmodee is behind a lot more of this than most may consider. Asmodee could very well have a bigger hand in the pot than some of us initially thought. So far it is not a bad thing.

Quite reasonable and I like how and what you've done. It reminds me sort of the macrumors mac product guide which basically lays out the products and their various update history with the average update times etc.

For watching something hyper close it is basically the way to go and shows the method to the madness. Professional product teams have development cycles, *gasp* and there's nothing to be surprised about here. Bumps and challenges along the way to be sure but again, it's a fairly predictable cycle.

Tho there are some salacious details under the surface i'm sure we'd all like to know. Like when throwing a new ship into the mix, what's the play test environment/process look like? What's the concept to in end gamer product line look like? Formulas for points.... o so many fun things that'd be great stuff to know!

Also being someone who knows how to work with data, much of HERO's and Lyraeus's works seem hampered by a lack of research questions and hypotheses. Thus far, the thing that they seem to be trying to prove is how much better than the other each of them is. To the degree that I've been following the debate, there's also some concern for Armada's health, but they are defining that radically different ways.

Lyraeus is trying to prove that FFG has not slowed down their production cycle in comparison to X-Wing (supply). HERO's main concern seems to with the strength of the Armada-playing community (demand). When HERO links to his data, he doesn't seem to have any regarding demand other than anecdotal evidence (admittedly, data on the demand side is very hard to come by), he just has a list of concepts. His supply-side graph that looks fairly similar to Lyraeus in that the Y axis is not labeled (annoyance, but I guess it's 'products per wave'). They both omit between-wave products. HERO does add a time scale to the X-axis, whereas Lyraeus takes that as assumed.

If they want to be of greater service to the community (and I know that Lyraeus does, because I know him personally, and I know that he is tremendously passionate about it), then I think they really need to set aside the axes that they're grinding. They need to be more rigorous about their research questions, their hypotheses, as well as the tests they will conduct in order to disprove their hypotheses - rather than trying to compile a heap of "data" that supports what they're saying.

@AllWingsStandyingBy

Did you see my arguments made here?
https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/225596-conflict-article/page-25#entry2327849

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/225596-conflict-article/page-17#entry2324986

I'll quote myself again to sum up:

Also being someone who knows how to work with data, much of HERO's and Lyraeus's works seem hampered by a lack of research questions and hypotheses. Thus far, the thing that they seem to be trying to prove is how much better than the other each of them is. To the degree that I've been following the debate, there's also some concern for Armada's health, but they are defining that radically different ways.

Lyraeus is trying to prove that FFG has not slowed down their production cycle in comparison to X-Wing (supply). HERO's main concern seems to with the strength of the Armada-playing community (demand). When HERO links to his data, he doesn't seem to have any regarding demand other than anecdotal evidence (admittedly, data on the demand side is very hard to come by), he just has a list of concepts. His supply-side graph that looks fairly similar to Lyraeus in that the Y axis is not labeled (annoyance, but I guess it's 'products per wave'). They both omit between-wave products. HERO does add a time scale to the X-axis, whereas Lyraeus takes that as assumed.

If they want to be of greater service to the community (and I know that Lyraeus does, because I know him personally, and I know that he is tremendously passionate about it), then I think they really need to set aside the axes that they're grinding. They need to be more rigorous about their research questions, their hypotheses, as well as the tests they will conduct in order to disprove their hypotheses - rather than trying to compile a heap of "data" that supports what they're saying.

Actually, the demand data can be found readily nation/global from:

http://lists.starwarsclubhouse.com/heatmap

Vs. the #s from your local store tournaments (for example, I pulled mine from the West Coast/East Coast areas), # of regional participants, # of FB group members for each game club, and # of attendance over time for game nights (which you can get from your local store owners). I've already explained this many times what the ratio was in most cases, and if you graph the data over time, you will see a downward trend for Armada.

Did you read the previous posts I've made on the matter Mikael? Have you compared it to your local metadata? I can only gather information based on California, Nevada, Arizona, NY, NJ, Penn, and Delaware. The data from these states represents a huge demographic of all players in the US region from a pure numerical standpoint (player density). IF West Coast vs. East Coast data display the same trends, what does that tell you about the health of the game in respects to player gain/retention?

You are absolutely right that I don't care much about the product lifecycle. For X-Wing it's more steady, for Armada currently its up and down. This will steady out hopefully and as FFG as proven themselves with X-Wing is that they can make releases steady. Or in more recent cases, increase product velocity as well to meet the ever-growing demands of the consumer. So at the end of the day, which camp would we rather be in? Yes, I clearly understand that Armada will not see the same amount of players with X-Wing, and that's because of cost of product and entry barrier. BUT, does that mean we should ignore the numbers and data trends presented to us? Of course not. We need to keep an eye on these metrics for multiple reasons, with the most important reason being this:

While supply generates interest and short bursts of player gain, it does nothing for player retention. In order for the game to thrive and receive continued support from a company, it needs to be profitable; otherwise we will see development costs lowered, the product release cycle slowed, and the support of the game slowed as well. That's just business, but more specifically, the entertainment industry. I don't know, I don't work there specifically, but I do work in the same industry

As for your comment about me not asking the right questions or doing enough research, am I really? I performed similar case studies for GW using the same methodology. If you have a better way or have been in the industry of gathering player-based metrics for miniatures companies, please do share!

@AllWingsStandyingBy

Did you see my arguments made here?

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/225596-conflict-article/page-25#entry2327849

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/225596-conflict-article/page-17#entry2324986

I'll quote myself again to sum up:

The only reason why I've been arguing with Ly is because data flies right over his head and I'm trying desperately to make him understand.

You see, at this point, you can't. Why? Because his "training" tells him there's only two metrics that matter:

>Total number of products received from Core to Wave 4 in X-Wing vs. Armada

>Total number of products received up to Wave 3 with respect to time (where Armada has actually received more product than X-Wing during the same time frame)

What he has completely ignored from me is:

>Player gain over time. (showing decline)

>Player retention over time. (showing loss)

>Player participation in events over time. (showing decline)

>Social media attention over time. (showing decline)

>Regular vs. irregular release cadence. (showing hiatus)

>Player participation with respect to franchise (same players attending X-Wing events vs. Armada)

>Release cadence and product velocity (X-Wing has a upwards trend of more product in shorter time vs. Armada which is declining recently for whatever reason)

So, if you were a business stakeholder, which metrics are more important to you? Honestly speaking.

Oh, and thanks to your comment about my makeshift 5-minute graph. The most important data trends tend to be the most simplistic. The only thing that was needed there was a trend/prediction line, but the peaks and valleys behavior from Armada would have evened out much like X-Wing.

While you pose interesting questions Hero, no one here can definitively answer them save FFG. If you're a business stakeholder you'll have a more fundamental question than anything you've posed here, that is what is the RoI on the product line and performance of each product.

The best we'll get here is anecdotes and conjecture with limited hard real data, which doesn't really advance much of anything.

Sorry you just can not measure accurately without having access to things that the average bear doesn't have. Let's not forget this is the time of the year where gaming in general declines because that's the seasonal cycle. Even the dedicated X-Wing crowd.... (and a whole bunch of other gaming communities), take a break.

@AllWingsStandyingBy

Did you see my arguments made here?

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/225596-conflict-article/page-25#entry2327849

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/225596-conflict-article/page-17#entry2324986

I'll quote myself again to sum up:

The only reason why I've been arguing with Ly is because data flies right over his head and I'm trying desperately to make him understand.

You see, at this point, you can't. Why? Because his "training" tells him there's only two metrics that matter:

>Total number of products received from Core to Wave 4 in X-Wing vs. Armada

>Total number of products received up to Wave 3 with respect to time (where Armada has actually received more product than X-Wing during the same time frame)

What he has completely ignored from me is:

>Player gain over time. (showing decline)

>Player retention over time. (showing loss)

>Player participation in events over time. (showing decline)

>Social media attention over time. (showing decline)

>Regular vs. irregular release cadence. (showing hiatus)

>Player participation with respect to franchise (same players attending X-Wing events vs. Armada)

>Release cadence and product velocity (X-Wing has a upwards trend of more product in shorter time vs. Armada which is declining recently for whatever reason)

So, if you were a business stakeholder, which metrics are more important to you? Honestly speaking.

Oh, and thanks to your comment about my makeshift 5-minute graph. The most important data trends tend to be the most simplistic. The only thing that was needed there was a trend/prediction line, but the peaks and valleys behavior from Armada would have evened out much like X-Wing.

While you pose interesting questions Hero, no one here can definitively answer them save FFG. If you're a business stakeholder you'll have a more fundamental question than anything you've posed here, that is what is the RoI on the product line and performance of each product.

The best we'll get here is anecdotes and conjecture with limited hard real data, which doesn't really advance much of anything.

Sorry you just can not measure accurately without having access to things that the average bear doesn't have. Let's not forget this is the time of the year where gaming in general declines because that's the seasonal cycle. Even the dedicated X-Wing crowd.... (and a whole bunch of other gaming communities), take a break.

I actually think my metrics does provide what the stakeholder is asking: What is the RoI of the product that I'm investing in? If you break down the question in layman's terms, you're essentially asking the business analyst or whomever is providing the metrics: How is my product doing?

Well sir, here's a giant laundry list of charts that display subpar player retention, slow player gain, and slower income gain compared to our other product, X-Wing. Of course, the data is not all-inclusive and region-specific, but those regions are the most populous regions on the continental USA.

You don't say, here is what we have released so far (which is what Ly has been presenting). You just don't do that because the stakeholder doesn't give a hoot, he only cares about if the product is making a return, and a forecast of future returns. Granted, this is the same company who's making the profits, so I'm less worried. However, let's not forget more recently Game Workshop's Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40K, or Spartan Game's Uncharted Seas vs. Firestorm Armada, or even some of FFG's own LCGs like Warhammer Conquest vs. Netrunner.

Here's a kicker, and please don't label me as conspiracy theorist or anything, I'm just genuinely curious. But take a gander at FFG's latest round of X-Wing releases in the last year (12 month time frame) vs. Armada. Product velocity increased for X-Wing and product velocity fell drastically for Armada. Could it be that developmental resources and business priorities got shifted for the product that is known to be the bigger demand? Other gaming companies do this all the time, so why not FFG? I think this says something about the product, the aims for the company and the health of the games compared.

Oh, also, one last thing: I don't have a problem with Ly, none at all. I have a problem with his data and how he presents it and holds it on a pedestal while summarily dismissing my own. I just can't stand for that kind of thing, especially when arguing data because it's supposed to be logic-based and emotion-free.

Edit: no chart, work lunch bbl

I noticed you have a product total of "7" on Armada's Wave 1.

I believe that's:

CR90, Neb, VSD, AFM, GSD, Rebel fighters, Imperial fighters.

Wow yeah somehow I had a total brainfart there. Several of you corrected me on this point, but this was the clearest and shortest way to quote it and address all of it. Ha ha I'm silly!

I did not add the X-Wing Supplementals because those were stop gap measures by the X-Wing team to fix ships that just did not work such as the TIE Advanced and Defender.

To be fair, this isn't actually true. In SOME cases it is true, but it's not always true. In many cases it was simply adding new capabilities to ships that were already well established. Rebel Aces gave plenty of new stuff to the B-Wing, which was already one of the best ships in the game. The GR-75 Huge Ship came with a ton of X-Wing fixes and X-Wings at that point were already extremely popular, having a presence in many top tier lists. In the case of Defenders and the TIE Advanced, you are correct, but while about HALF of the re-paints that came out were "needed fixes" and the other half were simply adding more... you also have the Huge Ships, which were all new ships. If we move forward in time, you also have even more special releases like "The Force Awakens" ships which had a core set, then 2 more blister packs which came out later.... ALL of those came out at different times and were new ships. FFG eventually came out and declared that they were retroactively going to be included as part of wave 7, but they all came out at different times, so the TFA stuff was really all new ships in a separate release as well.

I'd say the majority of separate releases are something new, as opposed to a fix.

I have a problem with his data and how he presents it and holds it on a pedestal while summarily dismissing my own.

Pot, the kettle is calling, he says you're black.

In other words, in the process of calling out Lyraeus ignoring your data, you are also summarily dismissing his as trivial. You can't have it both ways. Just admit that you are both using different metrics to measure the health of the game and move on. This feud has gone on for too long and has consumed too many threads already.

To Many Words to read, can you make a pie chart for me,

K thanks

WAIT, just mail me pie.

I noticed you have a product total of "7" on Armada's Wave 1.

I believe that's:

CR90, Neb, VSD, AFM, GSD, Rebel fighters, Imperial fighters.

Wow yeah somehow I had a total brainfart there. Several of you corrected me on this point, but this was the clearest and shortest way to quote it and address all of it. Ha ha I'm silly!

I did not add the X-Wing Supplementals because those were stop gap measures by the X-Wing team to fix ships that just did not work such as the TIE Advanced and Defender.

To be fair, this isn't actually true. In SOME cases it is true, but it's not always true. In many cases it was simply adding new capabilities to ships that were already well established. Rebel Aces gave plenty of new stuff to the B-Wing, which was already one of the best ships in the game. The GR-75 Huge Ship came with a ton of X-Wing fixes and X-Wings at that point were already extremely popular, having a presence in many top tier lists. In the case of Defenders and the TIE Advanced, you are correct, but while about HALF of the re-paints that came out were "needed fixes" and the other half were simply adding more... you also have the Huge Ships, which were all new ships. If we move forward in time, you also have even more special releases like "The Force Awakens" ships which had a core set, then 2 more blister packs which came out later.... ALL of those came out at different times and were new ships. FFG eventually came out and declared that they were retroactively going to be included as part of wave 7, but they all came out at different times, so the TFA stuff was really all new ships in a separate release as well.

I'd say the majority of separate releases are something new, as opposed to a fix.

That is absolutely correct. However, we don't have any comparison data for Armada. I can add those in like I have stated but we have no data to compare it to. I could use it to show that X-Wing has hose products but that's all that will be. It could go into interest level for players but you will have a host of problems.

I can show that becuase of hose releases, X-Wing waves slowed down. You can see that in waves 3 and 4. They go from 5 months to 7 months to 9 months while the supplemental products increase. On top of that, you are now flooding the Meta with new effects, new cards, and new abilities or reworks of original abilities so that the Armada team will have to push the boundaries further faster than they might have want and thus cause a game imbalance.

Actually,[...]

I really wish you all would stop starting your posts with that word.

[...]the demand data can be found readily nation/global from:

http://lists.starwarsclubhouse.com/heatmap

I absolutely love the List Juggler engine and its data. Its creator (Sozin, not MajorJuggler) is moving to our neck of the woods, and hopefully we'll be able to coerce convince him to create an engine like it for Armada.The heat map, however, doesn't give us the data over (enough) time. It's also very self-selected. And then there's the whole great unknown of how much either game is played outside of the game-store-going community, but simply on dinner tables with closed networks of families and friends.

Only FFG really knows what the fluctuations in global demand are like.

Did you read the previous posts I've made on the matter Mikael? Have you compared it to your local metadata? I can only gather information based on California, Nevada, Arizona, NY, NJ, Penn, and Delaware.

No, I haven't in their entirety. Your tone (as well as that of your opposite doppelgänger) has been entirely too obnoxious. Also, as I've tried to skim those arguments for the presentation of actual data, it's come up short. Where are the numbers and the citations? Your links simply go to earlier diatribes rather than facts and figures. Moreover, as I said in my previous post, if there is a method to your research it has not been presented in a way that I could stand to detect it.

Regarding comparisons to my local scene, I would not want to in any way shape or form generalize from that. Lyraeus and I live in gamer Mecca, and even our X-Wing and Armada scenes knows fits and starts depending on the initiatives taken by particular individuals. Lyraeus is particularly hardworking in that respect. But just for the sake of offering you another datapoint, I'd say that Armada is as healthy as it's ever been in the Portland,OR/Vancouver,WA area. We might be a bit slower on the number of tournaments right now, but that's mostly because we're (or, at least, I'm) exhausted from the Store/Regional championship scene. Still, I'm hosting a tournament on Sunday, and it will be interesting to see how many people show up. Last year, we also had a lot of tournaments with an average of four attendees.

As for your comment about me not asking the right questions or doing enough research, am I really? I performed similar case studies for GW using the same methodology. If you have a better way or have been in the industry of gathering player-based metrics for miniatures companies, please do share!

Well, my research expertise comes out of academia, where the norm is to be very up front with exactly the research questions you're asking and hypotheses you're testing, as well as the limitations of the data sources. Then, when conclusions are drawn, it's stated in such a way as '"this data suggests", rather than using worlds such as "Proof" and "Facts". Both you and Lyraeus seem to grab very imperfect data, present it in opaque ways, and then crow from the dungheap.

Oh, also, one last thing: I don't have a problem with Ly, none at all. I have a problem with his data and how he presents it and holds it on a pedestal while summarily dismissing my own. I just can't stand for that kind of thing, especially when arguing data because it's supposed to be logic-based and emotion-free.

I don't know man, from where I'm sitting it looks like you two were separated at birth.

I do think that with this thread, Lyraeus is trying to strike a different tone, and so I want to give him kudos for that. Also, if you mean what you say, I'd suggest that you try to work with him constructively.

I have a problem with his data and how he presents it and holds it on a pedestal while summarily dismissing my own.

Pot, the kettle is calling, he says you're black.

In other words, in the process of calling out Lyraeus ignoring your data, you are also summarily dismissing his as trivial. You can't have it both ways. Just admit that you are both using different metrics to measure the health of the game and move on. This feud has gone on for too long and has consumed too many threads already.

I actually don't care anymore about that. This is not a spit into the eye of HERO, this is to show everyone that we are cared about.

I would love to gather metrics on attendance and what factions people play, what ships are used and the like but I am not yet set up for that. I need to get together with shmitty and I need to find a way to get large amounts of tournament data so that I can chart how many tournaments, game nights leagues, etc that go on. I WANT to do all that but it is a huge project and I do t have the resources that X-Wing has with the listjuggler thing I keep hearing about.

I have a problem with his data and how he presents it and holds it on a pedestal while summarily dismissing my own.

Pot, the kettle is calling, he says you're black.

In other words, in the process of calling out Lyraeus ignoring your data, you are also summarily dismissing his as trivial. You can't have it both ways. Just admit that you are both using different metrics to measure the health of the game and move on. This feud has gone on for too long and has consumed too many threads already.

You're right, it has consumed too many threads, which is why this new one was created so all the ideas are gathered in one place

And no, I didn't dismiss his points. I completely acknowledge that they're there, because you know, it's simple addition. I have yet to see anything mentioned about any of the player-centric data I have put forth. If two data analysts are in the room to talk about the health of the product with a business stakeholder, the person sitting at the head of the table is going to ask: How much money am I currently making, and how much money am I going to make in 3/6/9 mo/1 year?

Therefore, you have to look at player-centric statistics, because if players decrease, the number of product sold decreases. This is economics 101, or rather, common sense 101. If no one buys your SHH, you're not making money.

I would love to gather metrics on attendance and what factions people play, what ships are used and the like but I am not yet set up for that. I need to get together with shmitty and I need to find a way to get large amounts of tournament data so that I can chart how many tournaments, game nights leagues, etc that go on. I WANT to do all that but it is a huge project and I do t have the resources that X-Wing has with the listjuggler thing I keep hearing about.

Well, once I hunt down meet Sozin, I'll try to get him to create a similar engine for Armada.

Still, while that data is certainly great for interpreting meta, I don't think it's going to provide solid data to answer the questions that you seem to be trying to answer in this thread.

I am not sure about imperfect data Mikael but if you have suggestions on what I can use or look for to construct a better picture am all ears. I know my Time Between Waves graph is lacking an actual timeline which I will have to figure out how to correct. Using Google Sheets seems to limit some functionality that normal excel provides.

So far the data I have gathered is to show that Armand X-Wing share similarities in how the waves are created and possible explanations or goals that each development team has.

So far we see that they are on a 4 wave cycle. So barring a complete drop in interest, they likely have plans for waves 5-8 and will be working 5 (likely in the clean up phase for that) and onto wave 6.

This actually matches many of FFG's other games and seems to be a developer's ideology or standard for them. Which makes sense due to them promoting from within other teams where they learn the same skills and the managers then use those skills and development timeline.

I would love to gather metrics on attendance and what factions people play, what ships are used and the like but I am not yet set up for that. I need to get together with shmitty and I need to find a way to get large amounts of tournament data so that I can chart how many tournaments, game nights leagues, etc that go on. I WANT to do all that but it is a huge project and I do t have the resources that X-Wing has with the listjuggler thing I keep hearing about.

Well, once I hunt down meet Sozin, I'll try to get him to create a similar engine for Armada.

Still, while that data is certainly great for interpreting meta, I don't think it's going to provide solid data to answer the questions that you seem to be trying to answer in this thread.

Thus why it's all about the opinions drawn from the facts. I can only say what we know and them draw conclusions from there.

I have a problem with his data and how he presents it and holds it on a pedestal while summarily dismissing my own.

Pot, the kettle is calling, he says you're black.

In other words, in the process of calling out Lyraeus ignoring your data, you are also summarily dismissing his as trivial. You can't have it both ways. Just admit that you are both using different metrics to measure the health of the game and move on. This feud has gone on for too long and has consumed too many threads already.

You're right, it has consumed too many threads, which is why this new one was created so all the ideas are gathered in one place

And no, I didn't dismiss his points. I completely acknowledge that they're there, because you know, it's simple addition. I have yet to see anything mentioned about any of the player-centric data I have put forth. If two data analysts are in the room to talk about the health of the product with a business stakeholder, the person sitting at the head of the table is going to ask: How much money am I currently making, and how much money am I going to make in 3/6/9 mo/1 year?

Therefore, you have to look at player-centric statistics, because if players decrease, the number of product sold decreases. This is economics 101, or rather, common sense 101. If no one buys your SHH, you're not making money.

While it may sound like I was calling you out specifically, HERO, it was meant for both of you. Chalk it up to me having had a very frustrating day at work, and poor word choice.

I have a problem with his data and how he presents it and holds it on a pedestal while summarily dismissing my own.

Pot, the kettle is calling, he says you're black.

In other words, in the process of calling out Lyraeus ignoring your data, you are also summarily dismissing his as trivial. You can't have it both ways. Just admit that you are both using different metrics to measure the health of the game and move on. This feud has gone on for too long and has consumed too many threads already.

I actually don't care anymore about that. This is not a spit into the eye of HERO, this is to show everyone that we are cared about.

I would love to gather metrics on attendance and what factions people play, what ships are used and the like but I am not yet set up for that. I need to get together with shmitty and I need to find a way to get large amounts of tournament data so that I can chart how many tournaments, game nights leagues, etc that go on. I WANT to do all that but it is a huge project and I do t have the resources that X-Wing has with the listjuggler thing I keep hearing about.

I honestly think this dude should unblock me and read what I'm really typing in this thread.

I think that he completely missed my post (not skimmed, but actually didn't see) before about me doing exactly what he's asking for the last 9 months. If he only knew

I wish it was possible to create a data comparison between X-Wing and Armada but it just is not. Any data gathered has two inherent issues.

The first is that they are completely different games. Now you could compare X-Wing to Star Trek Attack Wing since they are similar games with similar price structures and a similar player base in mind.

The second issue is time.. You can't compare X-Wing to Armada right now because you have 3 years of player growth in difference. This means that the ups and downs that Armada is having has stabilized for X-Wing. In fact, many developers know that a new game takes roughly 2-3 years to create a stable player base. I get these figure from both Spartan Games and Hawk Wargames. In fact I have talked to the creator of Hawk Wargames, Dave and he gave me those figures.

Take this information as you will but that is why I don't do player base comparisons. I would rather watch the player fluctuations inside of Armada than do a comparison to X-Wing in that area.