58 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

No, the meta is the state the game exists in. It's like the weather, it's always there. Likewise, there is always a meta to any game, it's a description of what people are playing currently. It's a tool to understand how a fame is being played. "Metagaming" doesn't mean playing a particular list, it means using the information provided by the meta as a tool to decide what list to use.

I'm pretty sure you're agreeing with me. I mean, the weather is a process too. It's always changing and has a lot of variables that affect it. To clarify I'm using the term "metagame" to mean "the current state of the metagame" which is a generally accepted colloquial use.

For me, netlisting is going on to listjuggler and copying down a list to play. And then playing it. The factual/data-driven meta, on the other hand, are what lists everyone is putting into listjuggler and their relative popularity/effectiveness as given over on http://meta-wing.com/ . The absolute meta is what everyone is playing right now, for which we have both anecdotal and factual data.

As noted upstream, net listing can influence the meta, and you get bandwaggoning effects. This can skew the data-driven meta if those lists are subsequently entered back into listjuggler by the community. I guess in theory there is room for a cyclical storm effect to occur? Crowd psychology is a thing right?

Regardless, from a strict teleological perspective the two terms are not equivalent

20 hours ago, Arschbombe said:

Netlisting is both the cause and result of the Meta. Ponder this on the tree of woe. Om.

YUP... both of these planets are in the same galaxy and thus people can connect them; identify them, as a destination.

20 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

The design team has consistently tried to provide counters to prevailing strategies and (more recently) used the FAQ to attempt to bring diversity into the competitive list building scene..

This didn't work around here, it did the opposite. Scum dug in their Boat/Protectorate madness and the Rebels went back to standard Miranda, Biggs, Miranda, Kyle, Miranda, Stresshog, Miranda. The only thing that changed was the Imperials pretty much stay in the foam.

18 hours ago, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

I feel like a broken record in typing this, but FFG has a reasonably good balance engine that they refuse to touch. Point cost. Nothing in this game is great or wretched except in relation to its cost. Folks would decry the T-65 as OP and NPE if priced at 16pts.

And people might use the T-65 if its base chassis were only 18 points - and keep the price of Biggs where he's at right now, but discount the other aces.

I just wish they'd bite the bullet and release X-Wing 2.0 already. Up the point value to 200 for more granularity, release card packs for each faction updating them, cut a lot of the dead weight upgrades (has Assault Missiles EVER made a top table?)... but the prevailing theory, that they can't release packs of Star Wars cards, is probably true. That's why Destiny is a dice game with cards, not the other way around. I'm sure they could come up with ways around it, but the will isn't there at FFG.

20 hours ago, markcsoul said:

Dude...wow...just wow.

You obviously have a personal vendetta against me to bring up myself, and only myself up in your original post.

I'm sorry you don't agree with my opinions on x-wing and star wars in general , but coming close to making a thread solely to make a personal attack against me is pretty messed up.

Forums and forumites aren't important enough for vendettas. I prefer to reserve my hatred for things that actually matter.

But in that moment, whenever it was, you really did piss me off, though it's long since faded into a wry amusement that I allowed myself to get that angry. I'm not sure when it was - may have been the threads I created a year ago about tiering pilot cards? It was a lot of work and intended to help beginners, and I did take it rather personally when anyone dismissed that work.

I deleted your name from the opening post. It wasn't really significant to my overall point anyway.

21 hours ago, Arschbombe said:

Netlisting is both the cause and result of the Meta. Ponder this on the tree of woe. Om.

The meta is an ocean, and lists are the boats we use to chart its ever-changing currents. Netlists are the boats designed by master craftsmen and tested through the roughest storms; if they can survive the Shoals of Rebel Regen and the Attani Whirlpool alike, then they deserve to be used.

The meta is fact, not opinion, and therefore can be defined through specific conditions at a specific time. Building lists to meet those conditions are exactly meta lists; and as they originate from, conform to, and can be defined by the meta, they are on average going to exceed the performance of non-meta lists for as long as the meta holds to those conditions. There are a finite number of best meta lists for a given set of meta conditions, and while the meta is fluid, it fluctuates only after a tournament season reveals a better meta build or a wave release redefines the game-scape. As new successful meta lists are identified, they are emulated en mass, spreading by word of mouth, official publication, and the internet; those lists are then net-lists regardless the medium by which the information passed.

As competitive players are always trying to gain a competitive edge, their play styles and list building inherently revolve around the meta; and whether they were the first to create a net-list, or just copy it once it's discovered, is irrelevant. They are propagating the meta and the net-listing culture by their desire to win through analyzing the current meta and playing accordingly.

Therefore, in competitive X-Wing: Net-listing equals meta play, and playing the meta leads to [and thus is inherently equivalent to] net-listing.

4 hours ago, iamfanboy said:

I just wish they'd bite the bullet and release X-Wing 2.0 already. Up the point value to 200 for more granularity, release card packs for each faction updating them, cut a lot of the dead weight upgrades (has Assault Missiles EVER made a top table?)... but the prevailing theory, that they can't release packs of Star Wars cards, is probably true. That's why Destiny is a dice game with cards, not the other way around. I'm sure they could come up with ways around it, but the will isn't there at FFG.

Privateer Press and Wyrd both did 2.0 versions for their premier systems and issued faction card decks to update players with 1.0 figures. There were folks who rage quit due to teir favorite powerhouse getting a few hits with the nerf bat, but I believe each 2.0 improved their systems and balance.

Also, each 2.0 was engineered with input from their existing player base via open playtesting with draft versions of figures' cards posted on their respective websites. I saw lots of playtesting discussions of different versions of figures and tighter games at the end of each process.

PP & Wyrd were both independant companies and not part of a larger corp like Asmodee. I would guess that such things are easier to take on without an off-shore overseer.

4 hours ago, iamfanboy said:

I just wish they'd bite the bullet and release X-Wing 2.0 already. Up the point value to 200 for more granularity, release card packs for each faction updating them, cut a lot of the dead weight upgrades (has Assault Missiles EVER made a top table?)... but the prevailing theory, that they can't release packs of Star Wars cards, is probably true. That's why Destiny is a dice game with cards, not the other way around. I'm sure they could come up with ways around it, but the will isn't there at FFG.

Star Wars LCG feels ashamed at Destinys overshadowing. I don't think there's ever been an issue with FFG producing Star Wars cards but releasing card only packs for a miniatures game. But then... Correlian Conflict? I'm sure they could do something like that but the current sales model works for them so... it'll keep going until its profitability is in question.

5 hours ago, iamfanboy said:

The meta is an ocean, and lists are the boats we use to chart its ever-changing currents. Netlists are the boats designed by master craftsmen and tested through the roughest storms; if they can survive the Shoals of Rebel Regen and the Attani Whirlpool alike, then they deserve to be used.

Netlists are algal blooms, feasting on imbalance in the ocean and swelling in size, crushing the life out of all others until there is nothing left but a red tide and a dead sea.

But they are good at what they do.

10 hours ago, iamfanboy said:

I just wish they'd bite the bullet and release X-Wing 2.0 already. Up the point value to 200 for more granularity, release card packs for each faction updating them, cut a lot of the dead weight upgrades (has Assault Missiles EVER made a top table ?)... but the prevailing theory, that they can't release packs of Star Wars cards, is probably true. That's why Destiny is a dice game with cards, not the other way around. I'm sure they could come up with ways around it, but the will isn't there at FFG.

Yeah. Assault missiles are amazing. . .in Epic. Not everything needs to perform well in 100/6 to be useful for the game. OTOH, I agree 100% that a full-on revision of the game is well overdue.

5 hours ago, Smutpedler said:

Star Wars LCG feels ashamed at Destinys overshadowing. I don't think there's ever been an issue with FFG producing Star Wars cards but releasing card only packs for a miniatures game. But then... Correlian Conflict? I'm sure they could do something like that but the current sales model works for them so... it'll keep going until its profitability is in question.

I think that will be sooner rather than later if the design MO doesn't change. The game is going to collapse under the weight of unfulfilled potential, design mistakes, and a change in design philosophy if the game is not re-examined as a whole.

On 4/29/2017 at 7:02 PM, Turbo Toker said:

Epic has no meta because it's not played competitively. And it's not played competitively because not many people play it in comparison to the base game.

If epic were to be played more, there would definitely be a meta to it.

Literally nothing but Deadeye Gamma Squadron Veterans and x7 spam and entire 300 point lists that are Mindlinked together.

It's just as vulnerable, if not more so, to power squadding than the standard game is and that's saying something.

Same could be said for Armada, but that's starting to get a Meta as well and it involves something about a Rhymer Ball and Lifeboats.

It would be nice to see some other formats just to see if the meta in those formats are any different from the meta in competitive standard. You don't hear much about Escalation because it is impossible to build a meta list with Escalation, not to mention that it doesn't have a round of 100 point standard. So that is also a thing.

But yeah meta lists are strong. Take TLT's for example, they would tear through a huge ship reinforced or not. My proposal is change TLT from 1 evade to prevent 1 damage which will stop TLT unless they get the unprotected section or us a different weapon. However the problem is also it would stop a lot of Ion damage as well.

Still it would be nice to see if a little tweaking to the competitive forma could have an effect that will give it a different meta. Here's an idea .

13 hours ago, kris40k said:

Netlists are algal blooms, feasting on imbalance in the ocean and swelling in size, crushing the life out of all others until there is nothing left but a red tide and a dead sea.

But they are good at what they do.

Netlists are more like currents within the meta ocean, because one exists from the other. People like running good lists, so copy that which wins. This means they are netlisting, and also creating a meta. However, if there is a meta, then lists which are effective at dealing with the meta will arise and be used (invented independently or not). Neither can be said to cause the other, and both are useful to the competitive player. The meta and netlists are mostly chartable, and therefore a plan can be made to deal with them.

20 hours ago, clanofwolves said:

This didn't work around here, it did the opposite. Scum dug in their Boat/Protectorate madness and the Rebels went back to standard Miranda, Biggs, Miranda, Kyle, Miranda, Stresshog, Miranda. The only thing that changed was the Imperials pretty much stay in the foam.

This is my community as well.

5 hours ago, Marinealver said:

Same could be said for Armada, but that's starting to get a Meta as well and it involves something about a Rhymer Ball and Lifeboats.

This is bound to happen to any game that's popular. Sooner or later you'll get a bunch of people going 'hey, let's math out this game and figure out what's best! It will be fun'. Having a competitive scene (aka actual rewards for figuring out what's best) only accelerates the process.

17 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

This is bound to happen to any game that's popular. Sooner or later you'll get a bunch of people going 'hey, let's math out this game and figure out what's best! It will be fun'. Having a competitive scene (aka actual rewards for figuring out what's best) only accelerates the process.

What a game needs in order to keep a metagame broad is

1) extremely well-balanced set of models (so one model isn't substantially better than the others)

2) large game sizes (so what you pay for good models and bad models comes out fairly even in the end),

3) other balancing restrictions (you have to take a bad unit in order to take a good unit), or

4) a lot of variety in the actual win conditions.

Take Malifaux for #4. Because the objectives are randomized at the start of every game and can vary from straight kills to controlling zones to dropping markers to esoteric things like giving your opponent's models conditions or trying to get one of your own models killed by his leaders, a model that's bad at killing things is usually good something else, like dropping markers. You build a list after seeing the victory conditions, so the game where you need to drop markers you leave murder machines in the foam. Each side only shares one objective, and two others are chosen and hidden from five total generated - so bluffing one and doing another is very possible. The game itself is deep thanks to that unique game generation system. It'd be a blast if there were only twenty or so models to choose from, not 300-odd.

Or take Battletech: Alpha Strike. Because the costing mechanism is actually OPEN-source - not closed, like X-Wing's - it's easy for the community to see and give feedback on where it's broken and where it works... and the devs actually listen . Stack that on top of the way they have the cards for each model online, and can change the cards to reflect gameplay balance changes, and you have a very robust mechanism to achieve #1.

In theory, what X-Wing REQUIRES is #1. A B-Wing should be the same weight as a Jumpmaster, for example. But I don't think it's possible for it to ever achieve this under the current system, because there have been at least three different phases of design philosophy trapped in X-Wing's system (Wave 1-3 conservative, Wave 4-6 experiments are hit and miss, Wave 7+ we know what we're doing).

In most games, this wouldn't be a bad thing. Early stuff is obsoleted by newer stuff, especially when designers are still learning the limits of their system. HOWEVER, X-Wing is based in a popular intellectual property, and all of the really popular ships are in the early waves . This is IMHO a crippling flaw.

It's one reason I prefer Armada. Better game balance for #1 (albeit not perfect, but no game is!), and I can use all of the ships and characters I actually LIKE if I want to.

On 4/29/2017 at 2:24 PM, iamfanboy said:

A metagame is the stuff outside the rules that affects the game itself. T-65 X-Wings other than Biggs being terrible? Metagame. Knowing your opponent never K-turns unless there's no other way to avoid going off the board? Metagame. Atanni Mindlink being busted? Metagame. 2-dice primaries not being able to penetrate current ship defenses? Metagame.

Outside the rules is a misnomer.

All metagame(s) operate entirely within the rules or the word "game" (a series of finite contests set to rules) wouldn't be added to the prefix "meta-" (theories beyond, but along with, the subject at hand).

At its core, metagame simply means "unwritten/dynamic rules beyond, but along with, the written/static* rules."

Cheating is outside the rules of any game. And cheating is not part of the metagame. However, "to cheat" is meta-, it's just not meta- "game" as the moment you cheat, you've unsubscribed to both the game(written rules) and its metagame(unwritten "rules"). ToWin is an outcome based on rules. ToCheatToWin is a meta-outcome, only valuable if no1 caught you cheating.

(* Static until changed/updated.)

On 4/29/2017 at 2:24 PM, iamfanboy said:

Just... people. Understand what to complain about. The FACT that everyone's playing the same thing? Annoying. The REASON they're playing the same thing? Because the game is designed to reward it. Complain about that, push for changes in game design, and the metagame may expand to a point where you CAN fly Wedge, Luke, and Biggs together.

No, just no. Power players will always game any ruleset, it doesn't mean the ruleset is faulty. And before we've entered a single meta-game, be they chess openings, gambits/sacrifices, "dengaroo," etc., we must account for power players doing everything within the rules to eek out a win. The way you phrased "outside the rules," is akin to lumping Net-Deckers in with DIAL CHEATERS and that's unfair.

6 minutes ago, lazycomet said:

Outside the rules is a misnomer.

All metagame(s) operate entirely within the rules or the word "game" (a series of finite contests set to rules) wouldn't be added to the prefix "meta-" (theories beyond, but along with, the subject at hand).

At its core, metagame simply means "unwritten/dynamic rules beyond, but along with, the written/static* rules."

Cheating is outside the rules of any game. And cheating is not part of the metagame. However, "to cheat" is meta-, it's just not meta- "game" as the moment you cheat, you've unsubscribed to both the game(written rules) and its metagame(unwritten "rules"). ToWin is an outcome based on rules. ToCheatToWin is a meta-outcome, only valuable if no1 caught you cheating.

(* Static until changed/updated.)

No, just no. Power players will always game any ruleset, it doesn't mean the ruleset is faulty. And before we've entered a single meta-game, be they chess openings, gambits/sacrifices, "dengaroo," etc., we must account for power players doing everything within the rules to eek out a win. The way you phrased "outside the rules," is akin to lumping Net-Deckers in with DIAL CHEATERS and that's unfair.

No, you're reasoning from a flawed premise: that metagaming = cheating.

It does not.

Metagaming is awareness of everything around the game and the rules; cheating is breaking the rules. If I use a Fool's Mate to checkmate a friend's king, it is NOT the same as saying, "Look over there!" and stealing his king when he looks.

You're saying it is the same, and that's wrong.

3 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

No, you're reasoning from a flawed premise: that metagaming = cheating.

It does not.

Metagaming is awareness of everything around the game and the rules; cheating is breaking the rules. If I use a Fool's Mate to checkmate a friend's king, it is NOT the same as saying, "Look over there!" and stealing his king when he looks.

You're saying it is the same, and that's wrong.

Apologies if my bad english failed us.

I'm not saying metagame is cheating, did you respond to the wrong person?

2 minutes ago, lazycomet said:

Apologies if my bad english failed us.

I'm not saying metagame is cheating, did you respond to the wrong person?

It was how I read that first time, but on second read-through that wasn't your intention - it just seemed that way. I apologize for misinterpreting you. I have to go to town so I can't do a longer reply right now, but I wanted to say sorry before leaving.

1 minute ago, iamfanboy said:

It was how I read that first time, but on second read-through that wasn't your intention - it just seemed that way. I apologize for misinterpreting you. I have to go to town so I can't do a longer reply right now, but I wanted to say sorry before leaving.

English is my second language, no offense taken. I think it's important to remember that meta- means a lot of things to a lot of people. Then there's things like meta-discussion (tactics like ad hominem attacks or strawman(s)) in relation to the meta-game discussion.

My point is to stop saying "Metagame means outside the rules." Without [the rules], there is no game, meta- or otherwise.

16 hours ago, Marinealver said:

Same could be said for Armada, but that's starting to get a Meta as well

Every game and format that is actually played has a meta; epic, armada, whatever, there IS a meta for those games it just may or may not be known.

If the players communicate with each other about how they are playing that game's meta becomes known.

If players use that information when deciding how they themselves will play, that is metagaming.

In settlers of catan, if one of my opponents knows that I like to go for ore harbors and so builds a road to block my access to the ore harbor, that is metagaming.

In a wargame like x-wing, the easiest form of metagaming is netlisting.

9 hours ago, lazycomet said:

English is my second language, no offense taken. I think it's important to remember that meta- means a lot of things to a lot of people. Then there's things like meta-discussion (tactics like ad hominem attacks or strawman(s)) in relation to the meta-game discussion.

My point is to stop saying "Metagame means outside the rules." Without [the rules], there is no game, meta- or otherwise.

The game itself is only the rules. The stats on the cards? Rules. Placing templates? Rules. Using a token to turn eyeballs into crits? Rules.

A metagame is knowledge about the game , what you have to take into account before you step up to the table. Knowing that Jumpmasters are a fantastic bargain (nerfed three times, still top ship used!), that TIE Fighters can't deal enough damage to do any good these days, how many green maneuvers are on a TIE Defender's dial, or that most Rebel squads tend to lean on bombing Miranda these days is all metagaming.

For a lot of people, metagaming is a dirty word - it's just knowledge. Net lists are usually constructed and tested by the ones with the most knowledge of the metagame and desire to solve it.

What new releases should do is shake up the metagame, make it a puzzle again, but that threefold problem I mentioned in my original post rears its ugly head.

This kinda bugs me as a new player. I spend hours on Aurora trying to figure out an awesome synergistic list, only to have my group tell me it's some dudes list? WTF? I guess nothing is new under the sun, but I hate spending time on making a list then being told it's meta or some garbage. Why bother spending the time to make lists if everything that looks good has already be done. Or worse "It looks just like XXX list, except that one card". Fortunately I like building lists and if they have been done before so be it.

33 minutes ago, ShawnRBrown said:

This kinda bugs me as a new player. I spend hours on Aurora trying to figure out an awesome synergistic list, only to have my group tell me it's some dudes list? WTF? I guess nothing is new under the sun, but I hate spending time on making a list then being told it's meta or some garbage. Why bother spending the time to make lists if everything that looks good has already be done. Or worse "It looks just like XXX list, except that one card". Fortunately I like building lists and if they have been done before so be it.

That's pretty much it. If there are only a few possible solutions, the odds go up increasingly that smart players will find it independently and then get called a dirty net-lister.

Back in my Magic the Gathering days, when (another) new set circa 2003 released I IMMEDIATELY spotted a degenerate synergy in a new mechanic that allowed turn two wins. I bought the key card for it the day before the first major tournament, when they sold for $2 apiece, and the day after I look and find out that 1) the deck literally SWEPT the tournament unstopped, and 2) the card had gone from $2 to $28 overnight.

I think I took my Arcbound Ravager deck to a tournament once, then sold the Ravagers because the writing was on the wall and they were going to be banned - and WERE banned a month afterwards.

In more current terms, some of my first posts about Wave 8 were the degenerate possibilities of Atanni Mindlink. Fast forward a year and a half later, and what's ruling the roost? If I played Scum, I'd be much happier about it.