33 minutes ago, jorgen_cab said:

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.

I can see your point, but personally I'd trust it.

There was a lot of statements to the effect that Worlds was basically the 'Minnesota Regional' and I wouldn't be surprised if some viewed the Euros in a similar UK-centric light.

From experience this is not the case, you have lots of the best players in the world travelling to these events.

Looking at Euros for example, off the top of my head the UK, German, French, Italian, and Spanish National Champions were all in attendance, and Worlds is similar but at a US level (regional champions, Canadian champions and so on).

That is a lot of the top echelons of smaller metas intermingling at one event. So for mind, the results of these events are showing the best of smaller metas interacting, and seeing what comes out on top.

Again I understand from a purely data perspective this isn't a great argument, a better way to examine these trends would be through more tournaments of a similar size, and I don't blame you if you don't feel comfortable trusting it.

I'm just saying that personally, I would.

In terms of player skill. It was interesting to note that for most of the weekend the top tables were 90% vassal players.

I put that down to those players simply getting more experience in. I haven't played on Vassal because I find the system incredibly laborious to deal with, but I know if I had actually found a flight for less than the price of both my kidneys and one of my lungs, my games at Euros would have been the first I'd played in months. I'm not sure what it's like elsewhere, but as much as I love this game, finding more than one opponent and actually organising a game can be tough. Vassal means you could reliably find an opponent to play from the comfort of your own chair every night of the week.

It sounds blatantly obvious, but if someone can get more game time in a week than I can in a few months, no matter how good/lucky I am on the day, I'll never come out the better end of that. I do wish I could get into Vassal for that reason, but there's also no real competitive scene here, so it's not really pressing.

1 hour ago, Ginkapo said:

In terms of player skill. It was interesting to note that for most of the weekend the top tables were 90% vassal players.

Perhaps not so surprising.

- Vassal gives you an opportunity for experimentation

I've gotten a lot of inspiration from my opponents' lists and been able to test a lot of my own ideas (many of them not so good).

- You can find all skill levels on Vassal, but if you want you can play against some really skilled opponents

That's a problem for me, getting good local opposition. I can get games in, but I literally always win, without too much trouble. That doesn't advance my game. And it's not so funny for the local group.

- You can hone you positional skills

That's probably what Vassal does best. Helps you learn good ways to set up and maneuver. You can easily rewind and replay with different maneuvers and other parameters, which really helps you learn.

But it's not really a good substitute for table time. Playing around a table feels a bit different. It's the same distances and angles, but judging those when looking down at the table is different from the screen. There is also a lot more psychological aspects when playing face to face. And fatigue of course. A real tourney lasts many hours, with at least 3 games. A vassal game is just 1 game, in the comfort of your own home, with no real rush or pressure.

My poi t being: Vassal is a immensely useful tool, but you gotta get those real games in too, because they are not the same.

1 hour ago, Green Knight said:

Perhaps not so surprising.

- Vassal gives you an opportunity for experimentation

I've gotten a lot of inspiration from my opponents' lists and been able to test a lot of my own ideas (many of them not so good).

- You can find all skill levels on Vassal, but if you want you can play against some really skilled opponents

That's a problem for me, getting good local opposition. I can get games in, but I literally always win, without too much trouble. That doesn't advance my game. And it's not so funny for the local group.

- You can hone you positional skills

That's probably what Vassal does best. Helps you learn good ways to set up and maneuver. You can easily rewind and replay with different maneuvers and other parameters, which really helps you learn.

But it's not really a good substitute for table time. Playing around a table feels a bit different. It's the same distances and angles, but judging those when looking down at the table is different from the screen. There is also a lot more psychological aspects when playing face to face. And fatigue of course. A real tourney lasts many hours, with at least 3 games. A vassal game is just 1 game, in the comfort of your own home, with no real rush or pressure.

My poi t being: Vassal is a immensely useful tool, but you gotta get those real games in too, because they are not the same.

I think another big thing there is exposure to different lists outside the local (sorry for using this word) meta. I showed up with something which locally was very unique and no one had an answer to. I wouldn't say I'm leaps and bounds ahead of the guys we've got here in terms of skill, just that my list was giving me a strong advantage.

Showed up to Euros and at least 2 people had come up with very similar lists completely independently and a lot of what I was seeing set up opposite me recognised what I was doing and had an idea of what to do about it. Put me on the back foot as I was used to a fair degree of freedom to play the game my way, and suddenly I'm finding that outside the local scene people were ahead of that curve.

Need to break out the local bubble and get myself active on Vassal!

2 minutes ago, Akhrin said:

I think another big thing there is exposure to different lists outside the local (sorry for using this word) meta. I showed up with something which locally was very unique and no one had an answer to. I wouldn't say I'm leaps and bounds ahead of the guys we've got here in terms of skill, just that my list was giving me a strong advantage.

Showed up to Euros and at least 2 people had come up with very similar lists completely independently and a lot of what I was seeing set up opposite me recognised what I was doing and had an idea of what to do about it. Put me on the back foot as I was used to a fair degree of freedom to play the game my way, and suddenly I'm finding that outside the local scene people were ahead of that curve.

Need to break out the local bubble and get myself active on Vassal!

Very good point!

I would suggest that people take a look at the lists and/or matches of our Vassal tournaments, even if they aren't playing. There is a lot of stuff to be gleaned from them.

Kind of my point. Not to be harsh, but the assumption that there was equal skill across the tournament may not be true when there is a clear group at the top.

Not sayings its black and white, but there are many reasons as you have explained why vassal players may have better honed skills.

Personaly i consider myself a mediocre/average player. In my area armada is dead(this is a description not a rant) with just 5-6 other players that almost NEVER play (zero stores in the country supporting the game; judging from hearsay, less than 10 armada players in a ten million country) and so are not mediocre like me but bad. Like, one is "ok i guess", two are super inexperienced and three have less than 10 total games and cant really do much. My point being, if so many communities are like this, its impossible to progress your skill without vassal.

On 5 June 2017 at 4:25 AM, Blail Blerg said:

Reminder, they didn't "show up" in higher percentage. They WON with higher percentage. Note the difference. They aren't statistically winning equal to their take percentage.

It can also be explained in that "Reeking" became a fashion amoung the best players in the US/Canada. If the greatest indicator for winning is skill ( I think it is) then the fashion/group think of the best US/Canadian players drove Reeker to the top, not this list itself . This fashion clearly is not prevalent in the best European players, who played optimised versions of their favorite lists.

Its one area that people tend to overlook, when looking at the raw statistics of wins....... a metas will become self a fulfilling prophecy if taken up by the best players in any number.

On 6/7/2017 at 7:45 AM, Ginkapo said:

In terms of player skill. It was interesting to note that for most of the weekend the top tables were 90% vassal players.

I agree it's not surprising. Armada truly is game of skill and those who practise more will generally have better results. Well, I guess that works for most games, besides rally random ones.

On 6/7/2017 at 9:15 AM, Green Knight said:

Perhaps not so surprising.

- Vassal gives you an opportunity for experimentation

I've gotten a lot of inspiration from my opponents' lists and been able to test a lot of my own ideas (many of them not so good).

- You can find all skill levels on Vassal, but if you want you can play against some really skilled opponents

That's a problem for me, getting good local opposition. I can get games in, but I literally always win, without too much trouble. That doesn't advance my game. And it's not so funny for the local group.

- You can hone you positional skills

That's probably what Vassal does best. Helps you learn good ways to set up and maneuver. You can easily rewind and replay with different maneuvers and other parameters, which really helps you learn.

But it's not really a good substitute for table time. Playing around a table feels a bit different. It's the same distances and angles, but judging those when looking down at the table is different from the screen. There is also a lot more psychological aspects when playing face to face. And fatigue of course. A real tourney lasts many hours, with at least 3 games. A vassal game is just 1 game, in the comfort of your own home, with no real rush or pressure.

My poi t being: Vassal is a immensely useful tool, but you gotta get those real games in too, because they are not the same.

From what I see from this discussion both Vassal and strong, competitive local community are important for player who wants to get best results. I guess the problem is to find a time for all these things: tracking a forum, playing Vassal and playing real games. But that's all right and personally I think it's great when you can feel that the time you've invested in sth pays back.

BTW, does anyone now if Ben, the Euro Champion is Vassal player?

2 hours ago, noggin said:

BTW, does anyone now if Ben, the Euro Champion is Vassal player?

He is not. Tokra Aresius and Alex are.

I just find it hilarious that this whole Rieekan unbeatable meme is still around.

Look, a week or so before Euros me and @Aresius played a game on vassal to check if we were the ones not able to see the light or this while Rieekan thing was just mass hysteria: I was playing the worst Rieekan aces I could put together, while he played his euros list, and I felt I never had a chance. He would simply tie up my squads with A wings while I was in the middle of the process of moving them, and proceeded to last first things with his pimped liberty. Yeah, my ships survived until the end of the round, but an Ace ball is no good if it's forced to desperately trying to disengage from counter 2 enemies, and those ships aren't exactly deadly.

Rieekan is good, that's obvious. Are there no counters to it? NOOOOPE, the real concept to beat is, and has always been since wave 1, high activations + high deployment + initiative/ a good set of objectives and an idea on how to manage them.

21 minutes ago, miedomeda said:

I just find it hilarious that this whole Rieekan unbeatable meme is still around.

Look, a week or so before Euros me and @Aresius played a game on vassal to check if we were the ones not able to see the light or this while Rieekan thing was just mass hysteria: I was playing the worst Rieekan aces I could put together, while he played his euros list, and I felt I never had a chance. He would simply tie up my squads with A wings while I was in the middle of the process of moving them, and proceeded to last first things with his pimped liberty. Yeah, my ships survived until the end of the round, but an Ace ball is no good if it's forced to desperately trying to disengage from counter 2 enemies, and those ships aren't exactly deadly.

Rieekan is good, that's obvious. Are there no counters to it? NOOOOPE, the real concept to beat is, and has always been since wave 1, high activations + high deployment + initiative/ a good set of objectives and an idea on how to manage them.

So you built the worst Rieekan list you could make and use that as proof Rieekan is bad? Are you serious? Check the Worlds top 8. Then play against someone who has experience with Rieekan aces.

Your evidence is biased and thus, rejected.

32 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

So you built the worst Rieekan list you could make and use that as proof Rieekan is bad? Are you serious? Check the Worlds top 8. Then play against someone who has experience with Rieekan aces.

Your evidence is biased and thus, rejected.

I believe he meant worst as in "most offensive".

28 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

So you built the worst Rieekan list you could make and use that as proof Rieekan is bad? Are you serious? Check the Worlds top 8. Then play against someone who has experience with Rieekan aces.

Your evidence is biased and thus, rejected.

I assumed he meant "worst" as in "worst for the other guy to face."

I'm torn in that I've found Rieekan Aces to be tough but not invincible; there's really not a lot of room for that perspective amongst the "Rieekan is so broken he's ruining the game" crowd versus the "lulz u guys must suck against Rieekan" crowd.

5 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

I assumed he meant "worst" as in "worst for the other guy to face."

I'm torn in that I've found Rieekan Aces to be tough but not invincible; there's really not a lot of room for that perspective amongst the "Rieekan is so broken he's ruining the game" crowd versus the "lulz u guys must suck against Rieekan" crowd.

Yeah, I'm with you on that middle ground, but the louder voices usually tend towards those other 2 camps.

6 hours ago, Snipafist said:

I assumed he meant "worst" as in "worst for the other guy to face."

I'm torn in that I've found Rieekan Aces to be tough but not invincible; there's really not a lot of room for that perspective amongst the "Rieekan is so broken he's ruining the game" crowd versus the "lulz u guys must suck against Rieekan" crowd.

I'd argue that rieekan isn't hardly beatable... but easily winnable.

and for the record I think rieekan aces flown correctly has a 60-65% chance of winning vs all comers. ... as opposed to a 80-100% winrate vs everything. There is a tilting point. But it's usually about 100 pts in tournament scoring for the rieekan player based on overwhelming squadrons (lost) and points scored on objectives and losing very little per ship lost and not usuAlly getting tabled due to flotillas.

Sound similar to you @Undeadguy?

17 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

So you built the worst Rieekan list you could make and use that as proof Rieekan is bad? Are you serious? Check the Worlds top 8. Then play against someone who has experience with Rieekan aces.

Your evidence is biased and thus, rejected.

As others have pointed out, by "worst" i actually meant best, or more cancerous, if you will.

And yes, I'm serious, as this was not the first time I play Rieekan, I've been around since wave 1 and have seen my fair share of game, enough to say that, while of course it's true that Rieekan has a few nasty perks in that the opponent can't just kill the menace right away, dead stuff gets in the way while trying to escape, aces pack quite the punch, and all that, the list definitely have counters as it can't field more than 5 ships effectively, and 6 activations list will still get to act after all your ships are done, thus denying part of the advantage.

By the way, you don't have to trust me: just look at euros! From a logical standpoint, one can only a) claim that in the whole Europe there isn't a single good Rieekan player: that, if you ask me, seems highly unlikely. b) admit that counters to Rieekan can in fact exist, and looking at euro top 8 the best way to counter it seems to be:

17 hours ago, miedomeda said:

high activations + high deployment + initiative/ a good set of objectives and an idea on how to manage them.

as our lord and saviour @clontroper5 taught us long ago.

5 hours ago, miedomeda said:

As others have pointed out, by "worst" i actually meant best, or more cancerous, if you will.

And yes, I'm serious, as this was not the first time I play Rieekan, I've been around since wave 1 and have seen my fair share of game, enough to say that, while of course it's true that Rieekan has a few nasty perks in that the opponent can't just kill the menace right away, dead stuff gets in the way while trying to escape, aces pack quite the punch, and all that, the list definitely have counters as it can't field more than 5 ships effectively, and 6 activations list will still get to act after all your ships are done, thus denying part of the advantage.

By the way, you don't have to trust me: just look at euros! From a logical standpoint, one can only a) claim that in the whole Europe there isn't a single good Rieekan player: that, if you ask me, seems highly unlikely. b) admit that counters to Rieekan can in fact exist, and looking at euro top 8 the best way to counter it seems to be:

When someone says they are making the "worst fleet possible" it reads like you are building a an awful fleet that has not chance of winning. Like taking Biggs but no other Escorts, grabbing Green Squad because it's unique and has bomber, etc. I thought you were building the most un-optimal fleet possible to prove Rieekan was unstoppable and skill and fleet build did not matter.

In regards to Euros, I've already acknowledged (in a different thread) that there were counters to Rieekan aces which is likely why it did not place very high. Euros had a chance to see the outcome of Worlds and prepare accordingly. It could also be Rieekan aces flew against their counter early on and got crushed which meant they couldn't bounce back. Hard to make any claim without all the lists and match ups. I'd be hard pressed to say the top 8 fleets from Euros is the counter to Rieekan aces. They may be effective against it, but there are too many variables to account for.

Also, I think there were 5 Rieekan fleets that showed up to the tournament?