Just now, SabineKey said:

Okay. But Rebels should do the same. Old R2-D2 has been a "must have" since the beginning. He's harming diversity of Astromech choices and should be nerfed for diversity.

Partly. What I took from this was a big dive in the Lambda, but what I also took was how consistently it had ranked highly before that. Suggests to me that Palp had been due to take a back seat for a while.

3 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Okay. But Rebels should do the same. Old R2-D2 has been a "must have" since the beginning. He's harming diversity of Astromech choices and should be nerfed for diversity.

Probably not. There are only a few builds that use R2-D2. I'd love to see a graph of astromech selection. I bet R5-P9, R3-A2, R2-D6, R2, M9-G8, R7, and the odd targeting astromech are really the only used ones these days.

7 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

What conclusions did I present?

Besides the title of the post and the chart with no explanation?

So you being from the UK I assume that you are familiar with the Daily Mail. What you have done here is very similar to them posting an article with the title "Ronaldo to United confirmed!" and then when you dig into it finding that it was only based on hearsay and uncorroborated reports.

double post

nothing to see here

Move Along

3 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

What this tells me is that the best way to shake up the meta is ban the JM5K. Clearly that ship has been broken from the get go and still is OP despite 2-3 nerfings.

I hate that flying ugly toilet seat. Is it a coincidence that Dengar has toilet paper on his head? I think not.

13 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Then the answer is that I don't know and I'm taking it at face value and assuming other people who are smarter than me have done their pieces correctly.

Ive posted this chart in numerous places and almost everywhere I've said "assuming what meta-wing does with listjuggler data is valid". Now I know you've seen that because you've attacked me on Facebook as well as here.

It is what it is, it's not claiming to be anything else, it's making no effort to lead the reader, its drawing ZERO conclusions.

I found it interesting. It told me things I didn't know or expect to find out. My mistake was assuming other people would find it interesting instead of insulting.

lol, attacked. You really need to work on your reading-fu, and distinguish a critique of a chart/model/whatever from personal attacks.

I'm criticizing the chart because in my opinion it is drawing untrue conclussion, that's just it. If you post stuff on the internet, you have to be ready to accept that people wont like, will disagree with it.

1 minute ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Partly. What I took from this was a big dive in the Lambda, but what I also took was how consistently it had ranked highly before that. Suggests to me that Palp had been due to take a back seat for a while.

I disagree that is means Palp needed to be seen to for a while. I think he was working as intended, which is backed up by him being untouched until now. He was hit because FFG was trying to rebalance the game and shake things up.

My post was aimed at seeing what Blodvargarna will do with it. Will he stay true to his arguement of diversity, or will he abandon it when things he likes get targeted? I'm interested to see how he responds.

It's a fairly basic chart with a very clear statement about where the data came from and SotL has been very open with answering questions about his methodology. If you don't like the dataset then tough, it's the best we have available. If you don't like the methodology then suggest a better one. But quibbling about the semantic difference between "ranking" vs. "popularity in top 8 cuts" and demanding massive and nuanced disclaimers is just ridiculous.

I also get annoyed when people use shoddy methods like forum polls to back up spurious claims. But that's not what happened here at all, he didn't proceed to go on a rant about the J5K or demand change to the game based on it. Rather he just said here's some data that I've summarized, sorted, and colored for your reading convenience. Which by the way I found very helpful and informative (thank you for that) even if it's not 100% ironclad statistically accurate and published in a tier 1 peer reviewed journal.

4 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

Probably not. There are only a few builds that use R2-D2. I'd love to see a graph of astromech selection. I bet R5-P9, R3-A2, R2-D6, R2, M9-G8, R7, and the odd targeting astromech are really the only used ones these days.

Tell that to Norra builds that have been popping up that some have claimed would be dead in the water without R2-D2. How about the Corran who made second at the system open recently?

I also added a bit about Biggs.

2 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

I disagree that is means Palp needed to be seen to for a while. I think he was working as intended, which is backed up by him being untouched until now. He was hit because FFG was trying to rebalance the game and shake things up.

My post was aimed at seeing what Blodvargarna will do with it. Will he stay true to his arguement of diversity, or will he abandon it when things he likes get targeted? I'm interested to see how he responds.

I think Miranda is bad for diversity, as is Biggs. R2-D2 is not. I don't think it is taken more than say R5-P9, or BB8 for that matter.

Just now, BlodVargarna said:

I think Miranda is bad for diversity, as is Biggs. R2-D2 is not. I don't think it is taken more than say R5-P9, or BB8 for that matter.

Your meta with Astromech must be different then what I've seen both in my area and on this forum. Though I am glad to see you are applying the diversity argument equally.

Just now, BlodVargarna said:

The fact that it is no longer the go-to for Imperial lists IS a good thing. Like, diversify your meta duuuude.

Diversify how? The only thing I've seen the Palp nerf do is remove an archetype from the top tier competitive metagame. Instead of Palp Aces/Defenders, Triple Defenders, and the occasional Triple Aces, tournament results show that all that's left is Triple Defenders and Triple Aces. Part of the issue with Imperials is that they have far fewer options to diversify compared to Rebel and Scum. Far fewer unique upgrades, fewer upgrade slots per ship, etc. The faction was built on uniformity (just like it is in-universe).

Just now, SabineKey said:

Tell that to Norra builds that have been popping up that some have claimed would be dead in the water without R2-D2. How about the Corran who made second at the system open recently?

I also added a bit about Biggs.

Like I said, I'd like to see some data about astromech choices - really all upgrades. It could be illuminating. Right now we're kinda making stuff up. But If R2-D2 was the only astromech being taken (which it isn't) Then yes, FFG should shake things up.

20 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

The fact that it is no longer the go-to for Imperial lists IS a good thing. Like, diversify your meta duuuude.

I agree with you BUT look where the other imperial ships were before and after the FAQ. Palp and X7 were the only competitive option. If they gave us alternatives they could have made wathever they wanted with Palp/X7, i think most players would have been more than happy to see something else played. Seing only 4.6% Imperial in the top 8 of all Opens after the nerf is depressing. And please no more "give it time", like if no player at all would figure out they are sill competitive... They were still played, just not able to compete.

1 minute ago, SabineKey said:

Tell that to Norra builds that have been popping up that some have claimed would be dead in the water without R2-D2. How about the Corran who made second at the system open recently?

I also added a bit about Biggs.

R2-D2 is certainly good but only defines that particular Norra or Coran build, not the majority of lists for an entire faction like Palp did. If R2-D2 disappeared tomorrow then both ships could easily be replaced by another Rebel regener with similar points cost.

Biggs though... yeah

Hi all I built meta-wing.

45 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

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

It's a problem in the ranking algorithm indeed, stemming from incomplete data. I've answered this on Reddit and will just paste my answer from there over here:

Quote

I'm working on that issue. The trouble stems from after-cut ranks, where I look at the number of squads that have an after-the-cut rank and then calculate the percentile based on that. If you now look at this tournament:

http://lists.starwarsclubhouse.com/get_tourney_details?tourney_id=2726

...then there's exactly one entered post-cut squadron, and the one squadron in there is thus "8th out of 1" for the way the analysis currently works.

Obviously, that doesn't make sense, and I need to sanitize that data further than I currently do. It'll almost certainly come together with me bringing back win-loss-analysis values, after fixing those; they had a similar but much more pronounced problem and thus I removed them altogether for the time being.

It's possible that I have to overhaul the entire post-cut calculation; I'm open for suggestions, but will ignore trolling. I know trolling, I often do it myself.

I'm picking a question or two from this thread:

9 minutes ago, Voitek said:

Yet my reading-fu is better than yours, because answers to those questions is not on this page. Also no need to be mean and sarcastic- unless you really want to proove something in the argument over plastic spaceships on the internet?

There is only this one sentence: "For this, I calculate the percentile of each squadron's result in each tournament, already when importing the Lists Juggler data" which suggests all lists, but no information if this includes all tournaments, or only some of them?

Yes and no.

It's all the entered tournaments on Lists Juggler, and all the entered squadrons from all of those tournaments.

But not all tournaments are entered on Lists Juggler, and only very few of them actually have all squadrons entered.

So yes, the data is incomplete. It's the best we have though.

1 hour ago, Rodafowa said:

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.

There's "to" and "from" date selectors. If you set "from" to something really early, all the 2221 tournaments entered on Lists Juggler will actually be used for the analysis. I agree that the data since the Great Nerfening is a relatively small sample though. I'll need to add a tournament counter for the selected date and tournament level range. In fact, I plan to add explanatory texts everywhere.

And something fundamental: Yes, of course I try to rank ships in terms of competitiveness on meta-wing, but this actually encompasses two main variables and a few others:

• How often is a ship / combo / upgrade used?
• How well does it do when it's used?

Something that does really really well in the one or two instances where it's used shouldn't really be counted as "good". Something that only does well at small events and not large ones is less competitive than something that does better at large tournaments. And something that only does well at small tournaments but not large ones isn't as competitive as the inverse. I'll make a second post with the exact math I'm using a bit later. It's almost certainly not perfect, and indeed it's skewed towards what people are actually winning with and not by necessity towards what's better in a vacuum, because the analysis uses actual winning lists and not a vacuum.

Just now, Thormind said:

I agree with you BUT look where the other imperial ships were before and after the FAQ. Palp and X7 were the only competitive option. If they gave us alternatives they could have made wathever they wanted with Palp/X7, i think most player would have been more than happy to see something else played. Seing only 4.6% Imperial in the top 8 of all Opens after the nerf is depressive.

I think the imperials will be just fine. If the only viable imperial lists were because Palpatine, that's depressive. I also think people aren't taking Palp as much because they were lazy and now are bing forced to make hard decisions before dice are rolled rather than after.

2 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

Like I said, I'd like to see some data about astromech choices - really all upgrades. It could be illuminating. Right now we're kinda making stuff up. But If R2-D2 was the only astromech being taken (which it isn't) Then yes, FFG should shake things up.

Thank you. You have remained consistent with your views and I respect that.

1 minute ago, Makaze said:

R2-D2 is certainly good but only defines that particular Norra or Coran build, not the majority of lists for an entire faction like Palp did. If R2-D2 disappeared tomorrow then both ships could easily be replaced by another Rebel regener with similar points cost.

Biggs though... yeah

And Corran did finish 2nd at the last World. That was pre nerf, when rebels were supposed to be in such a bad position

13 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

Probably not. There are only a few builds that use R2-D2. I'd love to see a graph of astromech selection. I bet R5-P9, R3-A2, R2-D6, R2, M9-G8, R7, and the odd targeting astromech are really the only used ones these days.

Such a filter would be a good idea. What you can do: Go to http://meta-wing.com/upgrades and in the top right search box, type "astromech droid". That'll give you a bit of an overview. Tables aren't arbitrarily sortable yet and thus you can't sort by number of times it was used yet, sorry.

5 minutes ago, haslo said:

Hi all I built meta-wing.

It's a problem in the ranking algorithm indeed, stemming from incomplete data. I've answered this on Reddit and will just paste my answer from there over here:

It's possible that I have to overhaul the entire post-cut calculation; I'm open for suggestions, but will ignore trolling. I know trolling, I often do it myself.

I'm picking a question or two from this thread:

Yes and no.

It's all the entered tournaments on Lists Juggler, and all the entered squadrons from all of those tournaments.

But not all tournaments are entered on Lists Juggler, and only very few of them actually have all squadrons entered.

So yes, the data is incomplete. It's the best we have though.

There's "to" and "from" date selectors. If you set "from" to something really early, all the 2221 tournaments entered on Lists Juggler will actually be used for the analysis. I agree that the data since the Great Nerfening is a relatively small sample though. I'll need to add a tournament counter for the selected date and tournament level range. In fact, I plan to add explanatory texts everywhere.

And something fundamental: Yes, of course I try to rank ships in terms of competitiveness on meta-wing, but this actually encompasses two main variables and a few others:

• How often is a ship / combo / upgrade used?
• How well does it do when it's used?

Something that does really really well in the one or two instances where it's used shouldn't really be counted as "good". Something that only does well at small events and not large ones is less competitive than something that does better at large tournaments. And something that only does well at small tournaments but not large ones isn't as competitive as the inverse. I'll make a second post with the exact math I'm using a bit later. It's almost certainly not perfect, and indeed it's skewed towards what people are actually winning with and not by necessity towards what's better in a vacuum, because the analysis uses actual winning lists and not a vacuum.

Thank you for writing this out. The only issue I had was the way it was presented with no real reference to the actual data used.

I would also recommend maybe talking to sozin about a way for your data to take into account casual vs competitive events. For example, a tie swarm coming in last place at an 8 person game night tourney should not outweigh them making the cut at an open etc.

1 minute ago, BlodVargarna said:

I think the imperials will be just fine. If the only viable imperial lists were because Palpatine, that's depressive. I also think people aren't taking Palp as much because they were lazy and now are bing forced to make hard decisions before dice are rolled rather than after.

And also, even in the pre-nerf phase, we did see some crazy builds doing extremely good.

Lothal Open anyone? final game, DtF Quickdraw, Tomax Bren, Carnor with Adaptability? No palpa, no x7, not even a Tie/D defender, yet the list made it to the Final game. On a 270 people, higly cometitive tournament! What else do you need as a proof that both Interceptors and Tie Bombers are still competitive?

3 minutes ago, Timathius said:

I would also recommend maybe talking to sozin about a way for your data to take into account casual vs comeptitive events. For example, a tie swarm coming in last place at an 8 person game night tourney should not outweigh them making the cut at an open etc.

I do talk with sozin he's a great guy, showed me the way to the JSON API of Lists Juggler for example, which made importing much easier

The way this is currently done: The percentile is multiplied with the logarithm of the number of players in the tournament for the "magic" value. This way, larger tournaments will have a much larger impact. You can configure that away with the dropdown box that says "Large tournaments = more Magic" if you want to see the difference.