1 minute ago, Tokra said:

Yes. It is as well for ships and squadrons.

thanks! very interesting numbers.

1 hour ago, Baltanok said:

What does Staffeln mean?

given the layout prob safe to assume number of squadrons taken

Genau. I mean staffeln=squadrons

2 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

What he said and what I've said have nothing to do with each other logically.

Also, I have. So much that you and everyone else are SICK of it. And yet can't for the life of the whole internet come up with a Utah/Worlds counter.

No. You are being a fool.

Every single one of those top 8 at euros is a **** good player. Every single one of them had something in their list in order to reliably beat 5 activation Rieekan.

Is it out fault you cannot beat Rieekan when the tools are available and have been shown time and time again to work?

There was a Rieekan list at number 7. Its a fact, there was at least one competent Rieekan player at Euros. So all these arguments are flawed.

The best bit about the euro meta. Everyone is fantastic to play against and dont have a strop everytime they lose. Spending time with these people is always great fun. I just wish I had some way of telling the French guy I played that our match was really really fun as it was tight throughout. Sadly my french is severly lacking.

5 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

No. You are being a fool.

Every single one of those top 8 at euros is a **** good player. Every single one of them had something in their list in order to reliably beat 5 activation Rieekan.

Is it out fault you cannot beat Rieekan when the tools are available and have been shown time and time again to work?

There was a Rieekan list at number 7. Its a fact, there was at least one competent Rieekan player at Euros. So all these arguments are flawed.

The best bit about the euro meta. Everyone is fantastic to play against and dont have a strop everytime they lose. Spending time with these people is always great fun. I just wish I had some way of telling the French guy I played that our match was really really fun as it was tight throughout. Sadly my french is severly lacking.

If you read what I said previously, I'm arguing exactly the same thing you just said. Data is data, players are players.

Yes. It is as well for ships and squadrons.

23 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

If you read what I said previously, I'm arguing exactly the same thing you just said. Data is data, players are players.

Didnt you say that the only list that can beat rieekan is another rieekan? Or did i miss somerhing?

And this is where you are wrong. Nearly every list in the top 8 had the cards and concept to beat rieekan.

But in the end it is decided by the experience of the players. And i can tell you, the player skill on the top tables was really good.

Blatantly just throwing this out here but I gathered the Top 8 from Euros and Worlds.

https://intelsweep.wordpress.com/2017/06/05/keeping-score-worlds-and-euros-top-8/

While I think Euros is a good example of Rieekan not being unbeatable (stepping aside from the fact that overpowered isn't the same as unbeatable).

It is equally a great case for high activations, and to a lesser extent high Squadrons.

1 hour ago, Ginkapo said:

Every single one of those top 8 at euros is a **** good player. Every single one of them had something in their list in order to reliably beat 5 activation Rieekan.

Is it out fault you cannot beat Rieekan when the tools are available and have been shown time and time again to work?

There was a Rieekan list at number 7. Its a fact, there was at least one competent Rieekan player at Euros. So all these arguments are flawed.

The best bit about the euro meta. Everyone is fantastic to play against and dont have a strop everytime they lose. Spending time with these people is always great fun.

I was 8th with my Rieekan list not 7th; and 'competent' is a bit of a stretch for my play! That said, I made a couple of silly but crucial errors and had I actually been competent I like to think I could have made the cut.

I was genuinely surprised by the lack of Rieekan given the outcry over the Worlds. I played against one other Rieekan list (he didn't have Yavaris and my squads were too good) and looking at the German data there were at least two others.

Completely agree with your last paragraph - everyone was really friendly and accommodating; I had a blast!

It is nice to see two imperial lists in the finals. Congratulations to both players.

What I don't like it the count of Flotillas. To me this shows just that the number of activations is currently extremely important and in fact much more important than the quality of activations.

Still there was at least one IDS on the table and that is very nice. It looks so pretty :-)

58 minutes ago, Captain Weather said:

Blatantly just throwing this out here but I gathered the Top 8 from Euros and Worlds.

https://intelsweep.wordpress.com/2017/06/05/keeping-score-worlds-and-euros-top-8/

While I think Euros is a good example of Rieekan not being unbeatable (stepping aside from the fact that overpowered isn't the same as unbeatable).

It is equally a great case for high activations, and to a lesser extent high Squadrons.

No repeated commander at the top.

Love it!

1 hour ago, Captain Weather said:

Blatantly just throwing this out here but I gathered the Top 8 from Euros and Worlds.

https://intelsweep.wordpress.com/2017/06/05/keeping-score-worlds-and-euros-top-8/

While I think Euros is a good example of Rieekan not being unbeatable (stepping aside from the fact that overpowered isn't the same as unbeatable).

It is equally a great case for high activations, and to a lesser extent high Squadrons.

Good article.

As tokras data shows the, the vast majority of lists come in at 4-5 activations at euros. It should come then as no surprise that lists with 4-5 activations make up the majority of top place finishes. Hardly an argument for activations ruling the day. What it instead shows is that people for whatever reason are choosing high activation fleets right now, and that's about it. It could be that they enjoy the flexibility of flotillae, activations advantage is what they are after, they believe as do you that high activation is a necessity, etc., or some combination of all of the above.

Simply put, until you put an equal number of low activation versus high activation fleets against each other keeping all other variables constant, it's going to be quite hard to come up with concrete proof that activation advantage trumps all other factors and therefore must be addressed.

As to a fleet with 3 activation and 65 points of squads as possibly being a sort of no man's land in terms of fleet composition, I think it would be hard to argue that the following, or some slight variation thereof, would not have been competitive at either tournament.

Faction: Galactic Empire
Points: 400/400

Commander: Moff Jerjerrod

Assault Objective: Most Wanted
Defense Objective: Hyperspace Assault
Navigation Objective: Solar Corona

Imperial I-Class Star Destroyer (110 points)
- Gunnery Team ( 7 points)
- Leading Shots ( 4 points)
= 121 total ship cost

Imperial I-Class Star Destroyer (110 points)
- Gunnery Team ( 7 points)
- Leading Shots ( 4 points)
= 121 total ship cost

[ flagship ] Gladiator I-Class Star Destroyer (56 points)
- Moff Jerjerrod ( 23 points)
- Demolisher ( 10 points)
- Skilled First Officer ( 1 points)
- Ordnance Experts ( 4 points)
- Assault Proton Torpedoes ( 5 points)
= 99 total ship cost

1 "Howlrunner" ( 16 points)
1 JumpMaster 5000 ( 12 points)
1 "Mauler" Mithel ( 15 points)
2 TIE Fighter Squadrons ( 16 points)

8 hours ago, ripper998 said:

Because maybe they prefer to run imperial? Or maybe they don't have experience with the facets of that list and the style of play.

Nope, is because Rhymmer is skillfully played here.

8 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Yeah. Data is data. Players are players. Good players who do research will exist. Why Rieekan was so underrepresented requires thought. There are always qualifications.

Rieekan aces is not the hardest list to learn, but it is also not the most simplistic to learn. (Although I'm gonna argue that it is very easy to learn to copy! Pretty textbook situations for everything except the most skilled of mirrors. Ie. also, the list has no reliable counter except variations of itself. )

Rhymmer and its variations are the direct counter of that list.

As I explained in detail to @PT106 In page 3 of this thread:

8 hours ago, geek19 said:

Didn't all of Team Canada decide to show up with the same list and practiced it for a year or so?

A month or so is much more accurate.

1 hour ago, Darthain said:

A month or so is much more accurate.

My bad, i didnt remember the exact time they spent with it.

I didn't follow all the threads about the Euro stuff since there are quite a few, but after reading this thread, wouldn't it make sense that Rieekan did not place well if the top lists had a counter to Rieekan?

From the graphs, was there 54 players in the Euro event?

3 hours ago, SkyCake said:

Good article.

As tokras data shows the, the vast majority of lists come in at 4-5 activations at euros. It should come then as no surprise that lists with 4-5 activations make up the majority of top place finishes. Hardly an argument for activations ruling the day. What it instead shows is that people for whatever reason are choosing high activation fleets right now, and that's about it. It could be that they enjoy the flexibility of flotillae, activations advantage is what they are after, they believe as do you that high activation is a necessity, etc., or some combination of all of the above.

Simply put, until you put an equal number of low activation versus high activation fleets against each other keeping all other variables constant, it's going to be quite hard to come up with concrete proof that activation advantage trumps all other factors and therefore must be addressed.

As to a fleet with 3 activation and 65 points of squads as possibly being a sort of no man's land in terms of fleet composition, I think it would be hard to argue that the following, or some slight variation thereof, would not have been competitive at either tournament.

Faction: Galactic Empire
Points: 400/400

Commander: Moff Jerjerrod

Assault Objective: Most Wanted
Defense Objective: Hyperspace Assault
Navigation Objective: Solar Corona

Imperial I-Class Star Destroyer (110 points)
- Gunnery Team ( 7 points)
- Leading Shots ( 4 points)
= 121 total ship cost

Imperial I-Class Star Destroyer (110 points)
- Gunnery Team ( 7 points)
- Leading Shots ( 4 points)
= 121 total ship cost

[ flagship ] Gladiator I-Class Star Destroyer (56 points)
- Moff Jerjerrod ( 23 points)
- Demolisher ( 10 points)
- Skilled First Officer ( 1 points)
- Ordnance Experts ( 4 points)
- Assault Proton Torpedoes ( 5 points)
= 99 total ship cost

1 "Howlrunner" ( 16 points)
1 JumpMaster 5000 ( 12 points)
1 "Mauler" Mithel ( 15 points)
2 TIE Fighter Squadrons ( 16 points)

Perfect! I knew I wasn't done exploring this data, and this comment provided the PERFECT stimulus.

Simply put, I think you're wrong. Not only that, Tokra's data shows even more than mine did, that you are.

Now I apologise in advance, because this will sound pretty snarky, but it's late and frankly I don't give a ****.

I will concede that it is very hard to control for all variables, but I would like to point out as well that I didn't say that activation advantage needs to be addressed. All I said is that from the data we have if you want to be competitive in Armada, aim for more activations.

Now your response was 'well the majority of fleets were 4-5 activations! Of course the Top 8 would be as well!'. Now I would put to you that this is a flawed argument, looking at this and saying 'Well we just can't tell if 3 ship fleets aren't very good! They aren't here!' is a little facetious. To me the simplest answer there (especially when historical data shows that 3 ships were present before) is that 3 ship lists have been pushed out. Effectively they're extinct.

I would argue that's because they're bad in the current environment.

Now lets go a step further why you're wrong. 4-5 ship fleets is very different to the 5.5 average I discussed. I didn't even discuss 4 ship fleets. The reason? Because from the data we have none of them making the Top 8 of both of these tournaments.

Again 'for whatever reason they're taking high activation fleets'. Yeah here's a suggestion - it's because on average they win more than fleets with low activations.

But then you really got me thinking.

'Simply put, until you put an equal number of low activation versus high activation fleets against each other keeping all other variables constant, it's going to be quite hard to come up with concrete proof that activation advantage trumps all other factors and therefore must be addressed.'

So you're right, I can't control for all other variables, but I'm not a miracle worker so I'll do the best I can.

Tokra's data from the Euro's thread listed 54 fleets. The activation count goes like this:

2 Ships - 3 fleets total (5.5% approx of total fleets)

3 Ships - 1 fleet total (1.85% approx of total fleets)

4 Ships - 12 fleets total (22.22% approx of total fleets)

5 Ships - 26 fleets total (48.15% approx of total fleets)

6 Ships - 9 fleets total (16.67% approx of total fleets)

7 Ships - 2 fleets total. (3.7% approx of total fleets)

So straight off, without including the Top 8 data we can see that as a percentage of total fleets activations skewed towards the high end - 68% of fleets had 5 ships or more.

But lets dive deeper and factor in the Top 8 data:

2 Ships - 0 fleets in the Top 8

3 Ships - 0 fleets in the Top 8

4 Ships - 0 fleets in the Top 8

5 Ships - 3 fleets in the Top 8

6 Ships - 4 fleets in the Top 8

7 Ships - 1 fleet in the Top 8

How about that, I'll do you one better than an equal number of low activations to high - I'll give you more than 78% of the fleets being 'low' activations (5 ships or less)!

Lets unpack some of these results:

• 4 Ship lists comprised 22.2% of the field (1 in 5 players had 4 ships! And this jumps to 1 in 4 if you include 2 and 3 ship lists). They comprised exactly 0% of the Top 8 at Euros.
• 5 Ship lists comprised 48.15% of the field, they only made up 37.5% of the Top 8. That's a noticeable dip, even if the winning list was a 5 ship fleet, the data don't lie.
• 6 Ship and 7 Ship lists comprised 20.2% of the field, but made up a whopping 62.5% of the Top 8.
• Lets express that in another way. Only 11% of players fielding a 5 ship list made the Top 8. 44% of 6 ship players made Top 8, and 50% of 7 ship players made Top 8.

So basically, by your own argument - does that seem concrete enough? Because to me that's some pretty telling results.

It's not hard to argue that the 3 ship list with 65pts of squadrons wouldn't have been competitive at the high levels of play. Personally it's rather easy - but hey like I said in the article, if you want to fly it, mozel tov. Just don't expect competitive players to that's for sure.

I came 10th and didn't play Him once, I had a 5 activation fleet.

It was was fun and not dominated by one set type.

Why do we need to get so hung up on it all? Point is the overall Scene is diverse and that's good.

On ‎05‎.‎06‎.‎2017 at 4:20 PM, Thraug said:

From the graphs, was there 54 players in the Euro event?

It were 56. Two dropped early.

There were exactly 28 imperial and 28 rebel at start.

That is amazing balance @Tokra

....if X-Wing could just come close ?

You should never draw too many conclusion from data such as presented. You have no clue if 5, 4 or 6 activation fleets was actually impacting the result rather than the skilled people using them just favoring them or that they would not have placed equally well by dropping one ship from 5 to 4. If there are a tendency for the larger group to play a certain way that usually impact everyone and it is hard to know exactly what is factored in. Players tendency to use a specific tactic or their general skill at the game no matter what they choose to play with?

I do however agree that number of activation is hugely important which perhaps should be looked at when the game is updated to a newer version, as well as first and second player. We recently introduced a beta version of a "fix" but we play in a campaign so fleets are rarely even in point and sometimes the second player are choosing the missions cards as well. Nothing is fair in a campaign setting...

2 hours ago, jorgen_cab said:

You have no clue if 5, 4 or 6 activation fleets was actually impacting the result rather than the skilled people using them just favoring them or that they would not have placed equally well by dropping one ship from 5 to 4.

So I've seen this idea presented a couple of times now, that the high activation fleets doing well is because skilled players 'just favoured them' and that they would have done just as well with less activations. I have a couple of issues with it.

Firstly, if skilled players are favouring something, that's generally the best sign that its good. I cannot stress enough that competitive players building fleets for big tournaments (especially one like Euros where there is a great prize on the line) are trying to build the best fleet that they possibly can. So even saying that skilled players are favouring high activation fleets is itself very telling!

Secondly, with the number of players at Euros we can pretty comfortably surmise that there were more skilled players than just those in the Top 8. What I mean to say is that there almost certainly was skilled players flying 4 or 5 ship lists. The data suggests that those fleets just didn't perform as well.

Just now, Captain Weather said:

So I've seen this idea presented a couple of times now, that the high activation fleets doing well is because skilled players 'just favoured them' and that they would have done just as well with less activations. I have a couple of issues with it.

Firstly, if skilled players are favouring something, that's generally the best sign that its good. I cannot stress enough that competitive players building fleets for big tournaments (especially one like Euros where there is a great prize on the line) are trying to build the best fleet that they possibly can. So even saying that skilled players are favouring high activation fleets is itself very telling!

Secondly, with the number of players at Euros we can pretty comfortably surmise that there were more skilled players than just those in the Top 8. What I mean to say is that there almost certainly was skilled players flying 4 or 5 ship lists. The data suggests that those fleets just didn't perform as well.

The sample size are way too small to draw any definitive conclusions. I don't disagree with the general consensus that activation is key (up to a certain point) since I think it is an accurate one but the data is not really saying much in this case.