4 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

The game that never changes? Yeah, that's precisely the opposite of the game I'm looking for.

But it seems like it is, all the lists you have described are COMPLETELY different in almost every aspect of the game. It seems that you want a game where the meta is set for perfect balance and nothing is introduced to upset that balance. So, Chess.

3 minutes ago, tortugatron said:

Because it's a good list? Apparently he doesn't want any good lists in the game. Every list must be mediocre.

But if every list is mediocre then they're all GOOD, so they're ALL BAD AAAAAH

I'm still interested in SotL's take on why Parattani is the same as Palp/Aces.

Just now, thespaceinvader said:

Please elaborate on how Parattani is the same as Palp/aces, triple defenders, and jumpmasters.

It's different to Jumpmasters, that's actually a whole different thing. It's very similar to Commonwealth Defenders and Palp Aces though as both lists are about work compression and maximising resources at the point of impact. The maths and cost efficiency of X-Wing break down when you're able to push that too far, and the only way to answer that force is by matching it with an equal or greater level of work compression.

This problem has certainly been there in X-Wing before but it has incrementally become more and more prevalent as it gets easier and easier to stack additional action economy in one place.

Asajj/Fenn can easily reflect back a 5-for-1 action economy. 3-for-1 action economy produces some extremely strong tournament ships that were right at the sharp end of tournaments (Jake, Soontir, PTL Ryad/Vessery) and we're seeing 5-for-1 now.

4 minutes ago, tortugatron said:

Because it's a good list? Apparently he doesn't want any good lists in the game. Every list must be mediocre.

You joke, but this is exactly what I believe he, and many of us, really want. If every (and by every lets say every keeps in mind the player must be competent in list building) list was mediocre, or, in other words, correctly placed on the power curve alongside the rest of the games contents, then diversity in the game would flourish and mediocre would be good, because everything would be mediocre.

Achieving this seems to be impossible though. Well, at least for FFG, which is why this argument of "there is always going to be a best list" seems to be the overarching theme from those who are not bothered by Paratanni's new found dominance.

3 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

It's different to Jumpmasters, that's actually a whole different thing. It's very similar to Commonwealth Defenders and Palp Aces though as both lists are about work compression and maximising resources at the point of impact. The maths and cost efficiency of X-Wing break down when you're able to push that too far, and the only way to answer that force is by matching it with an equal or greater level of work compression.

This problem has certainly been there in X-Wing before but it has incrementally become more and more prevalent as it gets easier and easier to stack additional action economy in one place.

Asajj/Fenn can easily reflect back a 5-for-1 action economy. 3-for-1 action economy produces some extremely strong tournament ships that were right at the sharp end of tournaments (Jake, Soontir, PTL Ryad/Vessery) and we're seeing 5-for-1 now.

I mean... this is exactly how *every* good list in x-wing works - getting the largest number of possible actions and using them to reduce variance.

So the problem is what?

Power creep?

9 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

But if every list is mediocre then they're all GOOD, so they're ALL BAD AAAAAH

I'm still interested in SotL's take on why Parattani is the same as Palp/Aces.

Because it's a list with movements and repositioning and synergy....and interceptors...kinda...and dice! Oh don't get me started on dice! And manapalparooo! And asajj is like the inquisitor because its....got movement and stuff..lol

Come on guys how about we congratulate chum and not pissed on his win by complaining about the list he took being somehow broken or too good, I'm sure he out played his opponents, the great list helps, but it's not why he won.

14 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

I first saw it mentioned by Maciej in the comments section of my blog on Mindlink: http://stayontheleader.blogspot.com/2016/10/attani-mindlink-next-big-thing.html

I'm not sure if it had gone public before then.

I've started to test the list short before I posted it on your blog, but it's your blog made it famous. No public mention before that.

18 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

I first saw it mentioned by Maciej in the comments section of my blog on Mindlink: http://stayontheleader.blogspot.com/2016/10/attani-mindlink-next-big-thing.html

I'm not sure if it had gone public before then.

Thanks for the link. Actually Oldpara himself unveiled and named it in those comments on October 20.

I had heard it was invented by a different "Para..." commenter. Nice to have the provenance tracked down.

Edit: ninja'd by the ninja himself!!

6 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

You joke, but this is exactly what I believe he, and many of us, really want. If every (and by every lets say every keeps in mind the player must be competent in list building) list was mediocre, or, in other words, correctly placed on the power curve alongside the rest of the games contents, then diversity in the game would flourish and mediocre would be good, because everything would be mediocre.

Achieving this seems to be impossible though. Well, at least for FFG, which is why this argument of "there is always going to be a best list" seems to be the overarching theme from those who are not bothered by Paratanni's new found dominance.

It's not that I'm not bothered by Parattani's newfound dominance. It's that I'm not bothered by *any* list's newfound dominance, particularly. My answer to the best netlist of the day will always be 'I'm not going to play that, I'm going to play something I think is strong but isn't commonly run. I know that means it won't be as strong, because if it was, it WOULD be commonly run, but I don't care'.

Hence, I'm running 4-ship Mindlink right now.

E: not to mention that it's functionally impossible to achieve perfect balance without making everything identical. I mean hell, even CHESS doesn't have perfect balance, it still has first player advantage. To get the the point of perfect balance you pretty much have to go down to TIC TAC TOE (no player with a basic understanding of the rules should ever win or ever lose) or snakes and ladders (100% random).

Let alone the fact that it will ALWAYS be possible to make a bad list, so it will always be possible for your list to be better than someone else's.

Not to mention either the fact that differences between lists will ALWAYS create a metagame of the rock/paper/scissors variety, and if you happen to predict that the meta is in a rock vs paper cycle right now, and bring scissors, maybe you do better. Or if you happen to rtecognise it's in a scissors versus paper and bring Lizard or Spock...

2 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

I mean... this is exactly how *every* good list in x-wing works - getting the largest number of possible actions and using them to reduce variance.

So the problem is what?

Power creep?

Is it how every good list works though? Or, if it is, should we settle for that? Ideally, there should be a number of different ways good lists work, whether it be swarming, bombing, alpha striking, action reduction (HotCop Gunner RAC) or token stacking. The more ways to win, the merrier. The fewer ways to win, well... The fewer ways to win.

1 minute ago, thespaceinvader said:

I mean... this is exactly how *every* good list in x-wing works - getting the largest number of possible actions and using them to reduce variance.

So the problem is what?

Power creep?

Is that right? *every* list? So it's how Jumpmasters worked? And Crack Swarm? And BBBBZ? And Rebel toolbox? And quad TLT? And Chiraneau/Whisper? And Fat Han?

I'd argue that historically there have been MANY different ways of flying, and action economy was always desirable but not the sole object. Nowadays action economy is so much better than almost anything else that you don't actually have much choice. If power creep was even across game mechanics I probably wouldn't have much of a complaint. But it's not.

1 minute ago, Kdubb said:

Is it how every good list works though? Or, if it is, should we settle for that? Ideally, there should be a number of different ways good lists work, whether it be swarming, bombing, alpha striking, action reduction (HotCop Gunner RAC) or token stacking. The more ways to win, the merrier. The fewer ways to win, well... The fewer ways to win.

100% of my point.

.

that is EXACTLY how jump masters worked... You could spend a focus and through droids that focus either turned into a Target lock or another focus (IE action economy) and then further had guidance chips

Crack swarm is the same-Focus+howlrunner+Modifying opponents dice

Rebel toolbox- Poe, Corran, and denial of opponents actions through stress

Fat Han is arguably the most action efficient ship to ever see play.

Quad TLT and BBBBZ focus on Quantity over quality, 4/5 somewhat modded shots vs 2/3 fully modded shots. But still around the same total of dice mods when you look at the lists.

In the end this game is about flying to out maneuver your opponent and attack when you are strongest and he is weakest IE Basic Tactics.

I really should stop feeding this, people are always going to complain. Today its Paratanni, tomorrow its whatever beats Paratanni while still being OK against everything else.

2 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

Is it how every good list works though? Or, if it is, should we settle for that? Ideally, there should be a number of different ways good lists work, whether it be swarming, bombing, alpha striking, action reduction (HotCop Gunner RAC) or token stacking. The more ways to win, the merrier. The fewer ways to win, well... The fewer ways to win.

But all these ways are winning and showing up too. bombs have actually been the new craze everywhere, action reduction rac has won several regionals already. And alfa strike was huge and we all cried for it to go away and now it has shown up in creative ways.

I feel like you guys have tunnel vision. Hell this is a thread about the system open and yall are really taking it over and making it about poor ffg design and how the winner has a broken list...maybe he was just the best player those two days with a great list

But 2-for-1 and 3-for-1 economy likecthat is a very different beast to the work compression 4-for-1/5-for-1 I'm talking about.

its actually supporting exactly what I'm saying. I don't want to kill action economy, I want to kill too much economy in one place too easily because once that's achieved it's virtually impossible to break without mirroring it with your own focused economy.

Whoever the math guy is at Covenant had a really good post about this last year, and the toxic impact of Soontir with Palp.

Its only got worse since then.

3 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

Is it how every good list works though? Or, if it is, should we settle for that? Ideally, there should be a number of different ways good lists work, whether it be swarming, bombing, alpha striking, action reduction (HotCop Gunner RAC) or token stacking. The more ways to win, the merrier. The fewer ways to win, well... The fewer ways to win.

Yes. Reducing your opponent's actions is basically the same as taking your own, and HotCoP Gunner RAC is ALL about variance reduction - that's why you have 0 agility and 16 HP, that's why you have GUNNER, which is there to stomp high agility high variance stuff and to insure against blanking out on reds, that's why you have a FREE action-ish thing in your pilot ability, that's why you have engine upgrade, because they best way to reduce variance is to eliminate it entirely in the form of not getting shot.

Token stacking is just action stacking anyway.

Alpha striking only works if you get good enough mods - that's why JM5ks worked - because they got double or triple mods on their barely-avoidable 4-die attacks. You can alpha all you like, but for it to work, you have to be punching HARD, and that means doubling or tripling up on actions or actionless modifications, and/or surviving the incoming against you by reducing variance on your greens. That's how Jumps worked.

Swarms? You reduce variance by having 6 or 7 or 8 ships and averaging out the dice that way, and by getting free pseudo-actions with Howlrunner or Crack Shot or Juke.

BBBBZ - that's a slightly different thing, sure, but it can be argued to be basically the same idea - you reduce variance by outlasting it. You roll more red dice by virtue of having shields, rather than having mods, and in the end, rolling MORE dice should turn out just as good as rolling fewer dice, better. it's also action economy by dint of simply having 5 of them.

Bombs are about the only thing int here that aren't about traditional ways of increasing action economy - and even those are variance reducers in other ways - Conner Nets reduce enemy actions and options, and deal autodamage which is the single best variance reducer around, Cluster Mines deal autodamage, etc.

Actually the one archetype you've *not* mentioned which I do think is different to just 'stack action economy' is stress control - it's action denial, but it's also positional control, which is similarly important and tends to get overlooked a little in the discussion about stacking actions.

Similarly, blocking.

I don't think the meta is perfect right now - I find the proliferation of 5-die attacks with full mods to be very problematic - but the idea that there's a problem having a Best List just seems misguided.

1 minute ago, Stay On The Leader said:

But 2-for-1 and 3-for-1 economy likecthat is a very different beast to the work compression 4-for-1/5-for-1 I'm talking about.

its actually supporting exactly what I'm saying. I don't want to kill action economy, I want to kill too much economy in one place too easily because once that's achieved it's virtually impossible to break without mirroring it with your own focused economy.

Again: this has always been true right from the minute PTL first came out. If you were only taking one action to your opponent's two, he was beating you on action economy.

There has never not been a time when one list or list archetype is best, except for the occasional times when two are equally good (WHisper/Fat Han, say).

6 minutes ago, TheOz said:

14 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

Is it how every good list works though? Or, if it is, should we settle for that? Ideally, there should be a number of different ways good lists work, whether it be swarming, bombing, alpha striking, action reduction (HotCop Gunner RAC) or token stacking. The more ways to win, the merrier. The fewer ways to win, well... The fewer ways to win.

But all these ways are winning and showing up too. bombs have actually been the new craze everywhere, action reduction rac has won several regionals already. And alfa strike was huge and we all cried for it to go away and now it has shown up in creative ways.

I feel like you guys have tunnel vision. Hell this is a thread about the system open and yall are really taking it over and making it about poor ffg design and how the winner has a broken list...maybe he was just the best player those two days with a great list

I haven't said at any point that I think Parattani is broken and ruining the game. The only thing I mentioned close to that is that I dislike when a list gets to "netlist" status. I even mentioned that Parattani shows the capabilities left to challenge the meta with quality list building.

Note I also asked before my list of strategies, "Is it how everything wins?", indicating that my list could include strategies that are successful (or used to be) which did not depend on token stacking.

As far as derailing the topic, that was everyone's choice who replied to any comments that directed frustration at parattani's dominance, not those who vented that frustration alone.

.

That's bending it a bit, but also I've been talking pretty much explicitly about dice modification actions. It's definitely fair to comment that Whisper gets up to 3-for-1 (Focus, TL, Focus) and that Kallus can get him to 3.5 against the specific opponent.

Action economy is the hallmark of an effective ship. Too much defensive action economy is the hallmark of a ship that is very frustrating to play against. Too much defensive action economy on a ship that's also got a lot of hull shield so you need to repeatedly penetrate those action defenses, and the action economy is extremely difficult to interrupt with blocking/stress.

19 minutes ago, player346259 said:

Just for the record, Whisper's action efficiency is also around 1-for-5 or even 1-for-6: free "super barel roll" on decloak, normal action, free focus from hit, free TL, free cloak, free focus from Kallus..

Similarly, Soontir's was usually at least 4 to 1 - I mean, his defensive efficiency starts OUT with focus/focus/evade and a 4th defence die. Add Palp, you get better.

Add arc dodging and autothrusters and you go from even better to infinite depending on whether your opponent can still shoot or not once you get there.

And it's not particularly more efficient token stacking that brought him down, so much as vastly increased NUMBERS of dice - when 4 die attacks are common and 5 die attacks are the outlier, you stop really being able to rely on 4 well modified green dice when a single hit basically means you're dead in the water - because 4 dice have to roll perfectly (for a given value of perfect, here defined as 'any 2 symbols' to get 4 evades, or up to 5 if you've also got Autothrusters. Soontir used to be able to basically laugh off most attacks without even needing to have his green dice hit the table. Now, not so much.

So it's not JUST stacking huge numbers of actions that has changed the meta. It's also being able to do it unblockably, and being able to do it on top of 4 or 5 dice regularly, rather than the previous norma which was '2 dice is the low end, 3 is normal, 4 is an outlier, 5 is vanishingly rare. Now 3 is low end, 2 is almost not seen unless it brings something HUGE to the table, and 4 is common, 5 is outlier, 6 is vanishingly rare.

1 minute ago, Stay On The Leader said:

That's bending it a bit, but also I've been talking pretty much explicitly about dice modification actions. It's definitely fair to comment that Whisper gets up to 3-for-1 (Focus, TL, Focus) and that Kallus can get him to 3.5 against the specific opponent.

Action economy is the hallmark of an effective ship. Too much defensive action economy is the hallmark of a ship that is very frustrating to play against. Too much defensive action economy on a ship that's also got a lot of hull shield so you need to repeatedly penetrate those action defenses, and the action economy is extremely difficult to interrupt with blocking/stress.

Not counting cloak and decloak as dice mods is kind of missing the point. 2 greens is 6/8 of an evade token on average, more if you have focus, and decloak should frequently get you an extra red and/or an arc dodge which is the best sort of defensive action in the game - one that makes it impossible to shoot you at all.

5 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

That sounds vile, but has the fairly obvious in of nuking Jan. I'm guessing Expertise/Finn/Kanan/New Title on Rey?

Nice list either way.

Also EU on Rey then Jan has. Predator, TLT, vectored thrusters & nein numb. Think I'll do a battle report later.

On the other hand I am glad that Parattanni dominates the Meta - not being NPE, not kicking anything out of the game (like Jumps did with rebel builds), requiring some skill to fly properly. I could imagine lot worse.