OH MY GOD SAVE THE X WING TIME FOR NEW WHINE THREADS PROPHRECY CONFIRMED

3 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Ok. All I can do is present the results from thousands of tournaments but you may know better.

but you're not? you are presenting these rankings on post nerf lol. So three top tier events

one with 3 lists (out of 319), one with about half of 260, and one with about 1/3 (of 358).....

once again, thanks for the effort but I would put a disclaimer on there saying that it is based on very incomplete data and not to take it too seriously.

1 minute ago, Timathius said:

but you're not? you are presenting these rankings on post nerf lol. So three top tier events

one with 3 lists (out of 319), one with about half of 260, and one with about 1/3 (of 358).....

Post-nerf, that's correct.

But Aggressors have been in terminal decline over ever expansion of the last 18 months, so it's reasonable to assume their position is correct. Or at least that if it's materially changed it's not been reflected yet in the events that have been played.

10 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Ok. All I can do is present the results from thousands of tournaments but you may know better.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the final ranking isn't based on thousands of tournaments, it's based on the 40-50 tournaments since the Great Nerfening. Which is still interesting, it's just way more susceptible to small sample size weirdness.

18 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

It is actually utterly wrong, even!

Oh well, point still stands, this shows us the meta and that by definition is what is being played, not what is good. That is what theoretical models like Mathwing are for.

Of course this coincides often, especially when a meta is 'figured out', but after not even two weeks we are not at that point.

2 minutes ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

It is actually utterly wrong, even!

Oh well, point still stands, this shows us the meta and that by definition is what is being played, not what is good. That is what theoretical models like Mathwing are for.

Of course this coincides often, especially when a meta is 'figured out', but after not even two weeks we are not at that point.

Haha, this is surely better than something as theoretical as Mathwing. This is real world performance. I mean, from what I've seen Majorjuggler say the maths behind Mathwing haven't really been updated recently, but the real world experience of how many red dice are being flung around and how well they are modified has changed hugely.

Unless you think players are deliberately avoiding playing and winning with what is good?

28 minutes ago, TasteTheRainbow said:

It's been 5 minutes.

So what? The data´s there.

As I predicted, the Emperor is pretty much useless after the nerf. Soooo... now that we have the data, even if it´s not that much, I see that many still say that it´s too early to say if Palpatine´s nerf was too much. See for yourself.

Can we NOW stop the threads asking to fix some rebel ships? And stop saying that Palpatine´s nerf was a good thing?

Thank you very much for your work in putting up those infographs.

While I don't always agree on your criteria nor on your conclusions, I really appreciate your efforts.

I have some questions: are those stats weighted on results or just show ships used? A single player bringing 3 jumps to a top cut weights more than a player bringing 3 different ships (is it "+3" for the jumps)?

Am I right to assume that USA meta is more represented in those numbers due the fact that list juggler seems to be less used in europe (or at least that was my impression, I would gladly be proved wrong)?

I love stats, so thank you again for providing them!

To those saying xwing=biggs, while it's completely true, keep in mind that wes janson had great success, alongside the ubiquitous Biggs, pre deadeye nerf

It takes months for metas to settle. The fact that data exists is not justification for changing a view. It must be viewed in context to be of any use.

1 minute ago, Pretty Green said:

So what? The data´s there.

As I predicted, the Emperor is pretty much useless after the nerf. Soooo... now that we have the data, even if it´s not that much, I see that many still say that it´s too early to say if Palpatine´s nerf was too much. See for yourself.

Can we NOW stop the threads asking to fix some rebel ships? And stop saying that Palpatine´s nerf was a good thing?

Palpshuttles may be pretty much useless, but they were on the decline anyway. I've long since been convinced that with /x7, a delta/x7 is going to contribute more than a palpmobile, and that data looked to be starting to bear me out.

Give Palp time, he'll find his feet again.

Same issue as usually always with the List Juggler data:

The entire analyse is based on TOP RESULTS DATA. Top8/16 lists in every tournament is the only what goes into consideration and populates the algorithm.

What about mediocre and low-performing results?

Lets take a look at Bwing. position 27th of 40. Mediocre to Low. Yet Blair managed to get to the final game with TWO of them! On the same tournament, we probably had 5+ defenders and equal number of jumpamsters in the finals. But there was probably about 50 defenders in the tournament, and 20-30 jumpmasters. Which ship is best among those 3 mentioned? Well clearly not Bwing, according to the data! And it probably should be, if 2 of maybe 10 Bwings being in use in the entire tournament made it to top2!

It's obviously not the fault of the list juggler's algorithm - it's all about the limited data we are getting. But it clearly shows that this data is not some Ultimate Truthsaying Tool, and that is how people seems to get this data - as a undoubtful gospel. Well, how about nope!

Just now, Voitek said:

But it clearly shows that this data is not some Ultimate Truthsaying Tool, and that is how people seems to get this data - as a undoubtful gospel.

Who is saying that?

5 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

I have some questions: are those stats weighted on results or just show ships used? A single player bringing 3 jumps to a top cut weights more than a player bringing 3 different ships (is it "+3" for the jumps)?

Am I right to assume that USA meta is more represented in those numbers due the fact that list juggler seems to be less used in europe (or at least that was my impression, I would gladly be proved wrong)?

It's a ranking for ships. 8 TIE Fighters in a swarm that does well will come up as 8 TIE Fighters did well.

I've no idea about US/Europe bias.

Just now, Stay On The Leader said:

Who is saying that?

just before the nerfhammer hit manaroo, I heard it with my own ears: "list juggle clearly says this list has 57% win ration in top games with the highest "magic" parameter for manaroo among ships - we should clearly ban XYZ in our tournament". Just read any of the 50 "NERF NERF NERF" topics on this forum (we had a flood of those in the pre-nerf era).

2 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Who is saying that?

13 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Haha, this is surely better than something as theoretical as Mathwing. This is real world performance. I mean, from what I've seen Majorjuggler say the maths behind Mathwing haven't really been updated recently, but the real world experience of how many red dice are being flung around and how well they are modified has changed hugely.

Unless you think players are deliberately avoiding playing and winning with what is good?

You are, or are at least speaking from a standpoint where you believe the standings are very accurate.

Also, this is based on 25 tournaments. Apparently with a regional in Italy adding to the premier events (with 8/70 lists). But most of these are store kits and game nights, so not competitive events. Whats more, the game nights and store kits are the tournaments with the most complete data.

To answer your inevitable question, no people are not playing what is good at store kits and game nights. I am bringing swarm leader wedge w/ bb-8 and 3 snap crack A-wings to one this saturday....

Not saying this isn't interesting. All I am trying to say is to realize that drawing conclusions of data that is this incomplete and in this short a time frame is a bit disingenuous.

3 minutes ago, Timathius said:

You are, or are at least speaking from a standpoint where you believe the standings are very accurate.

I think the standings are directionally accurate from the events seen so far. I think the main movements and changes make sense and are instructive. I don't know what else you could possibly hope to say?

Do you want my cast-iron guarantee that because Aggressors are ranked poorly in this table that they will never ever ever get better? Because I don't have that crystal ball.

1 hour ago, FlipmodeSH said:

Does 'X-wing' need to be replaced with 'Biggs' or am I just being cynical?

TAP- Inquisitor, Tie/Fo-Omega Leader, Lamda - Basic... shows where those stand.

Wow. Poor AWing. Below Star Viper and Punisher. Ouch.

Just now, Lobokai said:

Wow. Poor AWing. Below Star Viper and Punisher. Ouch.

Well only thing that it prooves is that the algorithm dont quite work in all cases.

Just now, Stay On The Leader said:

I think the standings are directionally accurate from the events seen so far. I don't know what else you could possibly hope to say?

Do you want my cast-iron guarantee that because Aggressors are ranked poorly in this table that they will never ever ever get better? Because I don't have that crystal ball.

No, I just want you to preface these by saying that they are based on incomplete data. You have a lot of sway with the X-Wing community, and with great power comes great responsibility.

I personally disagree with what the data shows here in many respects. But I don't need you to agree with me that they may lead to wrong conclusions.

44 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Ok. All I can do is present the results from thousands of tournaments but you may know better.

What I know better for sure, I dont remember a bigger manipulation on this forum than this topic.

You are posting a chart, based on very limited data, with not a single word of explanation, just a "SHIP RANKING" label. I am really not sure if that is trolling or you actually believe in this?

3 minutes ago, Voitek said:

Well only thing that it prooves is that the algorithm dont quite work in all cases.

I think there is a data error in the A-Wings most recent result. But's it's been consistently low-ranked.

Just now, Voitek said:

What I know better for sure, I dont remember a bigger manipulation on this forum than this topic.

You are posting a chart, based on very limited data, with not a single word of explanation, just a "SHIP RANKING" label. I am really not sure if that is trolling or you actually believe in this?

I believe in it, of course.

3 minutes ago, Timathius said:

No, I just want you to preface these by saying that they are based on incomplete data. You have a lot of sway with the X-Wing community, and with great power comes great responsibility.

I personally disagree with what the data shows here in many respects. But I don't need you to agree with me that they may lead to wrong conclusions.

Haha, I have no sway that I'm aware of!

1 hour ago, Sir Orrin said:

A-wing at 40 probably makes Ryan Farmer sad. Heck it makes me sad.

Wow. I knew I was handicapping myself with them but not this badly.