I'd like to see the data of objectives played with how the second player scored.

Like, the majority of Opening Salvo holders are in the bottom 1/4. Is is the actual presence of OS that's bringing down theirs scores? or just they happen to have it but it's not being played?

4 minutes ago, homedrone said:

I'd like to see the data of objectives played with how the second player scored.

Like, the majority of Opening Salvo holders are in the bottom 1/4. Is is the actual presence of OS that's bringing down theirs scores? or just they happen to have it but it's not being played?

Me too! I actually collected that for the regional I ran in wave 3/4. It is a TON of work to collect that kind of info and tabulate it. For each round we would have to capture the specific matchups and who was the 2nd player. It is really hard to get after the fact.

As cool as it would be to have, it is unlikely we will be able to collect that level of data.

Where is Blail?

There is a rather worrying stat in there.

Precision Strike, Capture the vip, fighter ambush and superior positions are the most rewarding to the player.

Highest increase from starting perceñt to top 4 percent

46 minutes ago, shmitty said:

Me too! I actually collected that for the regional I ran in wave 3/4. It is a TON of work to collect that kind of info and tabulate it. For each round we would have to capture the specific matchups and who was the 2nd player. It is really hard to get after the fact.

As cool as it would be to have, it is unlikely we will be able to collect that level of data.

I did a quick filter based on low bid, and the numbers were pretty much the same. So, I think the differences would not be material.

I'm not overly surprised by that data. Makes a heap of sense. The red being dominated by most wanted has a,ways been true becuase it's essentially foolproof. The blues make sense too now with both popular options meaning that your opponent deploys their fleet entirely before you which is a huge advantage, the only real difference is whether you are running big ships and solar corona or full squads and superior positions.

The yellow has always been the hard one for me and I can see it's the most contentious. Fire lanes can be great if you have enough dice but it's a bit like advanced gunnery where the right opponent can turn it against you. I was running fighter ambush with a full fighter ball but felt that in my meta where squads are everywhere it was giving my opponent just as many points as me and the deployment disadvantage was too heavy. Now I'm looking at other options for that yellow. Capture the VIP seems to be pretty **** reliable for most fleets so that's something I'm looking hard at.

Before anyone gets too crazy about red objectives being nearly all point scoring, keep in mind that only Targeting Beacons doesn't net bonus points at the end of the game for certain actions.

Filtered by ≤70 squad points:

Results for all/8/4/win

Advanced gunnery was 23/37/50/50%

Sup position was 9/11/10/0%

Corona was 44/42/40/50%

Contested outpost was 34/47/50/50%

Others were largely unchanged.

20 hours ago, shmitty said:

So, it looks like there is a trend where Point Scoring Objectives show up more often at the top tables than the field.

My assumption appears to be correct.

I think red is biased since there is only 1 objective that doesn't give points which is Targetting Beacons, and that is the 3rd lowest picked objective, so you must have a higher percentage of people taking point based objectives.

3 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I think red is biased since there is only 1 objective that doesn't give points which is Targetting Beacons, and that is the 3rd lowest picked objective, so you must have a higher percentage of people taking point based objectives.

Absolutely. I'm most interested that when you look at Yellow and Blue the percentage of people using point scoring objectives is around 15% higher for the Top 4 than the field. That's an interesting trend.

6 minutes ago, shmitty said:

Absolutely. I'm most interested that when you look at Yellow and Blue the percentage of people using point scoring objectives is around 15% higher for the Top 4 than the field. That's an interesting trend.

Take precision strike and fighter ambush out and the numbers are vastly different.

You have found a coincidence not the main contributory factor.

25 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Take precision strike and fighter ambush out and the numbers are vastly different.

You have found a coincidence not the main contributory factor.

Why would I take out those two? Is there an objective I should remove from Blue? The fact that the trend exists in 3 different pools of data implies it is more than a coincidence.

I don't think it is a main contributing factor, but if my opinion is that point scoring objectives can lead to larger MoV, which can lead to scoring more points per win, then you would expect more point scoring objectives at the top tables. The data appears to support that opinion.

Because the trend is not point scoring versus not point scoring.

Its four objectives.

Precision strike, superior positions, fighter ambush and capture the vip.

When put like this there is a very different conclusion. Its one of Blails repeated points

Squadron heavy fleets are having an easy time playing the objective game.

I disagree with that being a good conclusion, however that is what the stats say.

The other significant showing.

Solar corona and hyperspace are not very prevalent.

The top fleets clearly dont need deployment advantages above those they already have.

OK, I'm dim. Precision strike and fighter ambush are also changed in low fighter fleets.

They don't show up at all, in any bracket.

14 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Because the trend is not point scoring versus not point scoring.

Its four objectives.

Precision strike, superior positions, fighter ambush and capture the vip.

When put like this there is a very different conclusion. Its one of Blails repeated points

Squadron heavy fleets are having an easy time playing the objective game.

I disagree with that being a good conclusion, however that is what the stats say.

I don't understand. It's been separated for points vs non-points. Why would you remove objectives from the pool? And looking at a subset of the data will change your conclusion because you're not looking at the big picture.

11 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Because the trend is not point scoring versus not point scoring.

Its four objectives.

Precision strike, superior positions, fighter ambush and capture the vip.

When put like this there is a very different conclusion. Its one of Blails repeated points

Squadron heavy fleets are having an easy time playing the objective game.

I disagree with that being a good conclusion, however that is what the stats say.

All of the non-point scoring objectives drop in prevalence as you go from the field to the Top 4. That's a thing.

I don't see how Capture the VIP supports a squadron heavy assumption anymore than Most Wanted which also sees a significant rise.

I do think you are on to something @Ginkapo. I think the data shows a trend in favoring point scoring objectives. What you are pointing at is a possible cause of that trend. We could probe the data a little further and compare squadron count to objective choice as an example.

If the point scoring vs non-point trend went away with only lower squadron count fleets that would be telling.

22 hours ago, shmitty said:

Actually, let's try that again...

Red	All	Bottom 1/4	Top 1/2	Top 8	Top 4	Winners
Point Scoring	88.48%	69.05%	95.96%	95.29%	93.18%	92.86%
Non-Point Scoring	10.99%	28.57%	3.03%	3.53%	4.55%	0.00%
Blue
Point Scoring	54.97%	35.71%	63.64%	65.88%	70.45%	42.86%
Non-Point Scoring	43.98%	61.90%	35.35%	32.94%	27.27%	50.00%
Yellow
Point Scoring	55.50%	40.48%	62.63%	65.88%	72.73%	57.14%
Non-Point Scoring	43.46%	54.76%	36.36%	32.94%	25.00%	35.71%

I'm confused. How did you calculate this data? Shouldn't the red winners be 100% for point scoring? Because your first table has 0% for winning Targetting Beacons, and this is the only nonscoring objective.

11 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I'm confused. How did you calculate this data? Shouldn't the red winners be 100% for point scoring? Because your first table has 0% for winning Targetting Beacons, and this is the only nonscoring objective.

Thanks for pointing that out. The counting formula was off by one. It is corrected now.

1 hour ago, Ginkapo said:

The other significant showing.

Solar corona and hyperspace are not very prevalent.

The top fleets clearly dont need deployment advantages above those they already have.

Wait but isn't Solar Corona in 43% of winning fleets?

For the Winner data, is that as second player where that objective was chosen, played and won? Or is that more that objective was owned by a winning list?

Great work by the way!

53 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

Wait but isn't Solar Corona in 43% of winning fleets?

The winner column has issues with the sample size. It's why I look more at the top 4 column. Still not a huge sample size, but it's much better.

I find the title of this post both redunadant and somewhat ironic at the same time.

Objective.

Data.

I would hope the data is objective. And would expect that out conclusions are all but

The objective discussion is interesting, but... Yeah, I'm not sure how useful it is without the associated data of which objectives were actually played. I, for example, had Most Wanted, Hyperspace Assault (ain't scared of your Lambdas...), and Solar Coroña, but that was entirely irrelevant to the data set because I never played any of them.

There are lots of possible correlated causes that could be producing this trend that wouldn't mean "points scoring objectives are better," and I'm not sure how we could run them down. It could be that bidding heavily for second with points objectives is a winning strategy. It could be that the same sorts of fleets that favor going first also favor points objectives, and that going first is a winning strategy not directly related to the points objectives.

I'm not sure where I'm going here. I probably just don't like when the data doesn't show what I think it should...

2 hours ago, shmitty said:

I do think you are on to something @Ginkapo. I think the data shows a trend in favoring point scoring objectives. What you are pointing at is a possible cause of that trend. We could probe the data a little further and compare squadron count to objective choice as an example.

If the point scoring vs non-point trend went away with only lower squadron count fleets that would be telling.

Points-scoring% low-squad fleets all/top 8 (8 chosen for sample size (19))

R: 96/100 (expected 87.5)

B: 45/58 (expected 75)

Y: 59/68 (expected 50)