1 hour ago, Church14 said:

Can we pull data like this ourselves from warlords? I'd be really curious to pull a few trends for the heck of it. In particular, %of fleet in squads.

About every 6 months I ping Nevetz for it and he's been nice enough despite is busy schedule to send it my way.

Be warned though you'll need a decent desktop to run the calculations in excel given the amount of lines in the data provided.

23 minutes ago, PartyPotato said:

About every 6 months I ping Nevetz for it and he's been nice enough despite is busy schedule to send it my way.

Be warned though you'll need a decent desktop to run the calculations in excel given the amount of lines in the data provided.

Anyway you could post it as a Google doc? Sounds like a job for a pandas dataframe.

3 hours ago, moodswing5537 said:

I have no problem with peoples opinions. I do have a problem with people using opinions as facts. Shouldn't happen, but it does plenty on these forums. The data we have from the regionals (thanks again @shmitty ) shows facts.

@WWPDSteven , I may have missed it but how does the data look from your collection project? That data would help define some talking points as well.

I also have a problem with the "git gud" attitude some folks are having. Folks come to these forums for a sense of community, and you git gud folks are the equivalent of the high school jocks. Help others git gud, don't just call their questions stupid, or berate them for having a different opinion than yours. Opinions aren't right or wrong, their just how someone feels about something. Seriously folks, we are better than the animals, act like it. We have Thumbs!

/rant over. I should have coffee before coming into these posts.....

First correlation does not imply casuality.

Second the data is so myopic that I question the overall usefulness beyond 'that's neat'. To go as far as fact is a stretch. Too much ignored.

We'd need performance history correlation and the like to make real conclusions (attemps to quantify 'skill', if you will). And a whole lot more than just fleet composition (regionals attract a lot of casuals as well, at least here. Toronto's number 2 wave 3/4 (same season) was 2 ship imp (heavy AA squads). #4 was 6 ship no squads, both very much outliers from 'acceptable' at the time. I still concede that players are the single greatest factor in placement.

Warlords in particular is simply player preference and has no bearing on success of individual fleet designs. I'm just curious what the percentages are. I don't intend to take it to the bank with a "DYS is OP, looks at the % of all points it comprises!" I put much more value on the regionals data if I'm going to do that

55 minutes ago, Church14 said:

Warlords in particular is simply player preference and has no bearing on success of individual fleet designs. I'm just curious what the percentages are. I don't intend to take it to the bank with a "DYS is OP, looks at the % of all points it comprises!" I put much more value on the regionals data if I'm going to do that

No doubt. But alot can be seen by looking at peoples preferences when building lists. Example being people universally do not use YV-666's its the least popular squadron in the game. Now, from just looking at Warlords data i can't infer that YV-666's lack of popularity is due to it being sub par performance wise but then when you combine it with its lack of appareance in top 4 lists from regional data and then you can pretty safely come to a conclusion that maybe its not appropriately costed for what it does.

I've done about 6 write ups so far about various patterns I've looked at. A quick search should bring them up.

@draco193 I'll try and put it up on a shared google doc so people can have at it in the next couple days.

Wait. Scurrgs beat out YV-666s? I would have bet money on Scurrgs being the least popular.

15 minutes ago, Church14 said:

Wait. Scurrgs beat out YV-666s? I would have bet money on Scurrgs being the least popular.

Making me search for things... *grumble grumble*

Its dated but I'm sure it still holds.

Scurgs beat out YT-1300s even.

*edit

OH now I'm mad... stupid dropbox. Seems they've changed how sharing works.

Anyone know how to enable sharing on pictures on dropbox?

2 hours ago, PartyPotato said:

Making me search for things... *grumble grumble*

Its dated but I'm sure it still holds.

Scurgs beat out YT-1300s even.

*edit

OH now I'm mad... stupid dropbox. Seems they've changed how sharing works.

Anyone know how to enable sharing on pictures on dropbox?

Question asked, answer received. It's appreciated

2 hours ago, Church14 said:

Wait. Scurrgs beat out YV-666s? I would have bet money on Scurrgs being the least popular.

Scurrgs were on the top table at Worlds last year, whereas I'm not sure that I've ever seen a non-Bossk YV-666 on the table.

@Church14 and I want to try out a 10 YT-1300 vs 8 YV-666 at some point....Can't remember if Jan/Dengar was going to be included or not...

2 minutes ago, Card Knight said:

@Church14 and I want to try out a 10 YT-1300 vs 8 YV-666 at some point....Can't remember if Jan/Dengar was going to be included or not...

The slowest squadron fight ever!!!

It was originally Jan+8xYT1300. I think Jan/Biggs/7x1300 is even worse. Not sure who the most impressive ace to bring with YVs would be

3 minutes ago, Church14 said:

The slowest squadron fight ever!!!

It was originally Jan+8xYT1300. I think Jan/Biggs/7x1300 is even worse. Not sure who the most impressive ace to bring with YVs would be

Valen