Just now, Baltanok said:

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)

Care to elaborate? Because this means nothing without an explanation.

Just now, Undeadguy said:

Care to elaborate? Because this means nothing without an explanation.

Smitty asked if the non-squad objectives were point scoring. I provided % of point scoring objectives by color for all fleets and top8 fleets where squad pts were less than 70.

Expected is the % that would be point scoring if you drew randomly.

Not making an assertion or conclusion, just providing data.

5 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Care to elaborate? Because this means nothing without an explanation.

Looks like he put a filter on to grab data for fleets with a "low" number of squads. Then looked at the percentages of point scoring objectives. the first number is the percentage for the All column and the second for Top 8. The expected is the actual ratio of objectives.

The increase is not as large, but for each category the usage of point scoring objectives increases.

The only category that is below expected is blue, and that is skewed by how common solar Corona is for low-squad fleets (44/42/40/50) (all/8/4/1)

Top half and bottom quarter are harder to filter for, so I didn't do it.

3 minutes ago, Baltanok said:

Smitty asked if the non-squad objectives were point scoring. I provided % of point scoring objectives by color for all fleets and top8 fleets where squad pts were less than 70.

Expected is the % that would be point scoring if you drew randomly.

Not making an assertion or conclusion, just providing data.

Interesting. I don't think the expected % is relevant because no where in the game do you pick objectives at random.

But it kind of suggests low squad fleets need another way of generating points. Perhaps because they cannot get small bits of points by killing squads reliably, or for dealing out the extra damage needed to kill ships.

13 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

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...

Yeah I don't know that there is much of anything predictive or conclusive without knowing 1st player and objective chosen. The only way I think that could be feasible to collect is if I was allowed to write the results sheets that were used at these tournaments.

One thing that has been nice about this data is that it rarely shows anything as being so overwhelmingly good as to shift the field. This trend in the objectives is mostly just interesting. (and likely only as it seems to confirm one of my biases) It certainly doesn't show anything close to overwhelming support for point scoring objectives, just a slight preference. As you laid out, there could be any number of reasons for that and we don't have the right data to find them.

2 minutes ago, shmitty said:

Yeah I don't know that there is much of anything predictive or conclusive without knowing 1st player and objective chosen. The only way I think that could be feasible to collect is if I was allowed to write the results sheets that were used at these tournaments.

One thing that has been nice about this data is that it rarely shows anything as being so overwhelmingly good as to shift the field. This trend in the objectives is mostly just interesting. (and likely only as it seems to confirm one of my biases) It certainly doesn't show anything close to overwhelming support for point scoring objectives, just a slight preference. As you laid out, there could be any number of reasons for that and we don't have the right data to find them.

We could start to ask people to record what objective they played and who was first player on the slips of paper to record who won and by how much. You seem to have at least 1 person at each event who is feeding you data, so they could ask the organizer to tell the players to record that info.

22 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

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...

Absolutely agree.

There were a bunch of crazy* folks from Seattle who came to our regional with huuuge bids to go second...we are talking in the 10-15 point range.

Can we propose that tourney organizers add a "first player / second player" column to the score reporting sheets? It would give us a little more data to work with...

(*crazy like a fox - because I also was bidding to go second with my list, only they blew my bid out of the water!)

7 minutes ago, Maturin said:

Absolutely agree.

There were a bunch of crazy* folks from Seattle who came to our regional with huuuge bids to go second...we are talking in the 10-15 point range.

Can we propose that tourney organizers add a "first player / second player" column to the score reporting sheets? It would give us a little more data to work with...

(*crazy like a fox - because I also was bidding to go second with my list, only they blew my bid out of the water!)

Not sure how practical that would be, or how many we could get on board. That said, as Shmitty's data collection efforts gain traction and become more widely-accepted, it may be that we could get buy-in for this. There's been a significant increase from last year to this year in terms of cooperation with the data collection effort as a whole, so it's not necessarily unreasonable to expect.

1 minute ago, Ardaedhel said:

Not sure how practical that would be, or how many we could get on board. That said, as Shmitty's data collection efforts gain traction and become more widely-accepted, it may be that we could get buy-in for this. There's been a significant increase from last year to this year in terms of cooperation with the data collection effort as a whole, so it's not necessarily unreasonable to expect.

This is so true. The first season we had data from 27 tournaments, but only full fleet lists from 8. 29.6%

This season we have data from 33 tournaments and full fleet lists from 23! A huge improvement. 69.7%!

Getting a few TOs to buy into collecting some additional data on results slips may be possible.

Correlation does not equal causation.

I think the term for most of this is statistically insignificant.

Most wanted increases from 39% to 45%. That isnt a 6% increase it is a 15% increase, which is tiny compared to those i mentioned.

1 hour ago, Ginkapo said:

Correlation does not equal causation.

I think the term for most of this is statistically insignificant.

Most wanted increases from 39% to 45%. That isnt a 6% increase it is a 15% increase, which is tiny compared to those i mentioned.

Reference? It's very hard to follow anything you say when you try to drop these "knowledge bombs" on us. Even more so to have a meaningful discussion on the data we have.

I've checked this thread top to bottom and I see no where that Most Wanted increased 6%.

I think Ginkapo is making two points, but very tersely.

First, I think he is amplifying Ard's point. Since we don't have information about which objectives were played or even if a particular objective, if played, actually contributed to victory, the most that can be said about this data is that it shows what players in each group (All, bottom 1/4, top 4, winners, etc...) PREFER as their objectives. In other words, it says which objectives are valued by the players, but it doesn't tell you whether they were actually worth using. To put it yet another way, the fact that a specific objective was chosen can't be said to be the cause of the person's win. Correlation is not causation.

Second, he's probably right about question of statistical significance of a lot of this data on objectives. How large is the "noise" in this data? Is a change of from 39% to 45% (6 is 15% of 39) significant? I'm skeptical.

The data tells us a lot, but I'm not sure this data gives us as much information as we'd like.

ps To Undeadguy: First post, revised data table. 39% of All lists chose it. 45% of Top 4 lists chose it.

Main Idea -

Can you also run a numbers check on what's taken by squadron-bomber lists? (lists with 90+ squads + at least 1 instance of BCC).

The problem is mostly that mass squad heavy lists can create a super easy 3 pack of untakeables in a squad vs ship matchup: Precision strike, Fighter ambush, superior positions. Incredibly easy to exploit for 70-100 points. You can also mix and match with these: Most Wanted, Contested outpost, Solar Corona.

This is the main problem. That's just super easy. You might feel like you did good fighting the squad fleet, but you have to do better tha good vs it. You have to beat it by usually 80-100+ points to just break even.

--

Tactically perfect objectives -

This is a fundamental principle in our area of the world. It's basically our gold standard for what objectives mean to Armada. This is the basis of our level of competitive fleets.

Fundamental 1: Your three objectives must be so perfect that none of the three are remotely even. Some so downright broken that the game is impossibly playable so that your opponent seriously considers just never engaging you for a 6-5 victory at worst, and you chase him with your squads. The 3 point objectives fall into this category.

Fundamental 2: Your three objectives should very likely be point-based so that a do nothing instance wins you the game. Ex: contested outpost in a squad fleet. Camp that sucker, bop things that get close. MSU? Just have the fighters moved with FCT to the entrance area so even if he gets last and first activaiton, you get to bop him in between the turn with squadron phase. If nothing ever happens, the points you can grab from the objective win you the game 7-4. @Ardaedhel @ginkapo (Have we talked about this? Using FCT and just creeping up while protecting the possible weak spot in a run by from a MC30. Not to mention you can also still use transports to meat-shield vs runbys)

--

More deliberation (somewhat jumbled) -

Its actually really easy for a utter mass squadron list to get objectives: the main three are literally point based for attacking with bombers: Precision strike, Fighter ambush, superior positions. Incredibly easy to exploit for 70-100 points. So, even if you do the whole break even thing in killing of their squadrons with your AA, they win.

You can vary those also, if you're the type to slow run and pound someone to death regardless if they choose not to engage you: Most Wanted (still good, just bomb taht thing to death and get x2 value), Contested outpost (camp), or Solar Corona (almost no ships).

But let's go a step further: Rocks are a BOON to mass squadron fleets, they use them for cover as they push their squadrons up. Moving slowly at speed 1 means youre unlikely to hit rocks. If you make a flower formation, youre also less likely to hit yourself and will gain heightened coverage of area during turn 3 4.

Then , if you take a look at what objectives are good in a mass-squad vs ship-based fleet battle, you'll notice a HEAVY preponderance of them either play unfavorably for ships (especially harder to maneuver large ships) or toss extra rocks in very useful areas -

Rocks: Salvage run, navigational hazards, close range intel scan, jamming barrier, minefields, dangerous territory

Great for squads, bad for ships: Solar corona,
Squad heaven(directly advantages squads): Superior Positions,

Great for ships vs squads: Advanced Gunnery, Fire Lanes, Opening Salvo, most of the RED objectives. -> a squad opponent simply wont pick these, which might be a good way to sneak in a surprisingly good one. Its the question of whether you can make the yellow and blue unpalatable, especially the blue.

The main question is what is your blue objective ship vs squads? Intel sweep? Kinda boring, but possible. Take a Strategic squad, try and kite away. Squad player can counter play by doing a heavy alpha strike on your objective ship.
Sensor net or nav hazards? Anyone tried these yet? I haven't gotten them during a game.

Other:
Contested Outpost - tends to be decent for squads, either the ships don't move and are easier to bomb, or you camp it as second.
Most Wanted - a squad player just focuses down the easiest target for x2 value.

11 hours 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.

The three "untakeables" are going at 12%/31%/19% . That is quite a bit of Superior Positions, but still, other things are being played. I actually like the fact that things have gotten worse for first player. If you wanna win with first, you best be prepared to play some nasty objectives. Especially with zero squad support (good job @Ardaedhel)

Also, if your fleet doesn't have 3 nasty objectives for 1st player to pick, you really need to go back to list building and fix that. It is essential in tournaments.

And my blue is Solar Corona - for getting caught in the flames. No points...all glory...show me where you are going to deploy.

7 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

The problem is mostly that mass squad heavy lists can create a super easy 3 pack of untakeables in a squad vs ship matchup: Precision strike, Fighter ambush, superior positions.

I disagree with PS, and slightly with SP. I've played squad heavy lists for quite a while, and taking PS is not always a good choice. Caldias and Gink have brought this up before. If you run against a list with APTs, they are going to take PS. And if you are lucky, you will break even in points. It's very hard for a bomber list to deal with MM Admo, with a Lando30 coming in too. MC30s are hard for bombers to kill. AP helps against bombers as well and you likely have only 1 round to kill it. You can take chase, but you leave your fleet exposed to the next 1 or 2 MC30s.

SP can get you in trouble if you take slow bombers like B-Wings, or run into an anti-squad list. The chances of you dropping your B-Wings behind a ship is pretty low since they are easy to engage and slow. If you play against an anti-squad list, chances are they can alpha strike your Intel and then you are stuck using bombers against fighters. And then those fighters can proceed to attack your rear. And SP heavily favors Rogue.

7 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Sensor net or nav hazards? Anyone tried these yet? I haven't gotten them during a game.

Nav Hazards favors squad lists. Since you cannot overlap squads when you move obstacles, you can block where your opponent places them. You can also slip some obstacles between engaged squads and free them up.

2 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

SP can get you in trouble ...

Yeah.. that prevalent CR90 swarm with YT2400s will take SP every time.

47 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

Yeah.. that prevalent CR90 swarm with YT2400s will take SP every time.

Yup. I have first hand experience with that with my fireball I used to run. 48 hull and 32 dice is way to much to deal with for any devoted bomber list.

Sensor net only helps squad lists insofar as the squads have a chance to engage and/or eliminate the strategic squadrons (because if you have this you better have strategic squads).

But if said (first player) squadrons are slow, or not antisquad focused (or most bomber lists) then sensor net is going to help the second player - a lot.

@Blail BlergI'm assuming that most of this conversation revolves around the assumption that people are bidding to go first? I fully expect bidding for second to become much, much more prevalent due to the availability of objectives designed to suit your fleet.