3 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

I suspect it's being played for the same reason you're playing something not Ghost-Fenn. It's pretty good, and tolerable to play.

exactly this.

But we don't pretend it's "as good" as better things.

9 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

exactly this.

But we don't pretend it's "as good" as better things.

I don't know. I think there's something to be said for what Zack said about playing better with ships that you enjoy.

There's certainly a strong argument that one ship played by a perfect X-wing robot is better than another ship played by that same robot. However, if you enjoy playing the suboptimal ship more, you may practice more and you might be more mentally engaged to notice things you wouldn't otherwise. On top of that, you're playing something that squads are not teched to beat, and opponents have spent less time practicing against.

All of these factors aren't really enough to bring a garbage ship into the limelight, but they can let a pretty good ship perform better than very good ships.

6 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

I don't know. I think there's something to be said for what Zack said about playing better with ships that you enjoy.

That's always been my opinion. If you're going to commit to a full day (or multi-day) tournament, then you better enjoy playing the ships you're taking. If you've some fun abilities and interactions and a bit of variety to your list, it can help keep you interested even if things go south.

I remember seeing a guy running Commonwealth Defenders in a Hangar Bay event and fortressing in the corner for 75 minutes as his opponent tried to draw him out. Neither engaged, and the Defender player won in Final Salvo. It was clear this was a strategy he'd been employing over the whole weekend, but neither player looked as though they were having fun (and it clearly hadn't paid off as he was doing it in a side event!).

Of course, that said I've never won any event above a Store Championship and lost countless games by not knowing when to disengage (or wanting to, for that matter), so what do I know?

20 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

I don't know. I think there's something to be said for what Zack said about playing better with ships that you enjoy.

There's certainly a strong argument that one ship played by a perfect X-wing robot is better than another ship played by that same robot. However, if you enjoy playing the suboptimal ship more, you may practice more and you might be more mentally engaged to notice things you wouldn't otherwise. On top of that, you're playing something that squads are not teched to beat, and opponents have spent less time practicing against.

All of these factors aren't really enough to bring a garbage ship into the limelight, but they can let a pretty good ship perform better than very good ships.

I think that is also why there is so much frustration around when one build is OP or at least dominates.

I believe we generally mind less if we like the ship. Like someone making Defenders work before the titles might still acknowledge that they are very good, but he will probably mind less than another person who just honestly loves flying fat turrets.

That person in return might be more ok with aces being pushed out, and so on.

Most of us have an affinity towards certain ships or list types. For me that‘s swarms and easymode (=high ps) arcdodgers. Bombs and turrets bore me out of my mind. Thus I am better playing something I like for the reasons you mentioned as I will have maybe better results but definitely more fun compared to switching types. Or so I believe at least.

Edit: to come back to the frustration: to me, ‚good balance‘ means that every type of play has an option that can win him tournaments at a high level, independent of faction or ship. Ideally each faction or even each ship would have one, but at least each type should. That has not always been the case, but I believe we‘re closer again. That is btw part of what I mean when I say ‚diverse meta‘. And currently we see Palpaces, Jousters, fat turrets, and bombs. That‘s pretty good

2 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

Of course, that said I've never won any event above a Store Championship and lost countless games by not knowing when to disengage (or wanting to, for that matter), so what do I know?

If you're still having fun, and that is your victory condition, you're not doing it wrong. I've generally had as much fun being at the bottom tables as I have at the top - with a few exceptions where it was clear I was beaten before I put ships on the board.

1 minute ago, FTS Gecko said:

Of course, that said I've never won any event above a Store Championship and lost countless games by not knowing when to disengage (or wanting to, for that matter), so what do I know?

You know your own success criteria, success likely being defined more by fun had than winning achieved.

Rasta Maice said he took BB-8 instead of R2-D2 in that UK regional because it was more fun. Simple as that. He still had a plan and an approach. He didn't purposefully handicap himself, as many would contend.

That's my approach to the game. Sometimes I lose sight of that approach, then find myself not having fun. I don't see the point in not having fun.

Honest question...do you guys differentiate between "fun" vs "interesting"? Travis uses the word "interesting" a lot, and reserves "fun" a bit more for specific ships like Jake. He clearly called Jake "fun" while things like gunboats are "interesting".

It's nuanced, but important I think. Often, "fun" lists may get you slaughtered, while "interesting" may be engaging enough to not make you hate yourself while still giving you a chance to compete. Where do you draw the line between those descriptions?

1 minute ago, LagJanson said:

If you're still having fun, and that is your victory condition, you're not doing it wrong. I've generally had as much fun being at the bottom tables as I have at the top - with a few exceptions where it was clear I was beaten before I put ships on the board.

I've had fun in probably 99% of the X-Wing games I've played, whether at the top tables or down at the bottom. Even the games where I've been hammered.

I had that feeling of "no chance I'm ever going to win this" at deployment playing WH40K and WHFB, but I can't remember ever really feeling that way playing X-Wing. I've definitely played lists that I've been wary about or have felt like an uphill battle, and I've been caught off guard by various combinations of ships and abilities over the years, but I've also been in games that have literally turned on a dime, where I could identify one critical decision which swung things in my or my opponents favour.

1 minute ago, viedit said:

Honest question...do you guys differentiate between "fun" vs "interesting"? Travis uses the word "interesting" a lot, and reserves "fun" a bit more for specific ships like Jake. He clearly called Jake "fun" while things like gunboats are "interesting".

It's nuanced, but important I think. Often, "fun" lists may get you slaughtered, while "interesting" may be engaging enough to not make you hate yourself while still giving you a chance to compete. Where do you draw the line between those descriptions?

I didn't realize I was doing that, but... yeah, that's a pretty apt way of thinking about it (or a good description of how I've been thinking about it)

3 minutes ago, viedit said:

Honest question...do you guys differentiate between "fun" vs "interesting"? Travis uses the word "interesting" a lot, and reserves "fun" a bit more for specific ships like Jake. He clearly called Jake "fun" while things like gunboats are "interesting".

It's nuanced, but important I think. Often, "fun" lists may get you slaughtered, while "interesting" may be engaging enough to not make you hate yourself while still giving you a chance to compete. Where do you draw the line between those descriptions?

I think something starts out "interesting" for me, then either evolves into "fun" or "not fun". It has to be "fun" for me to continue playing it, whether or not it's good.

1 hour ago, Biophysical said:

I don't know. I think there's something to be said for what Zack said about playing better with ships that you enjoy.

There's certainly a strong argument that one ship played by a perfect X-wing robot is better than another ship played by that same robot. However, if you enjoy playing the suboptimal ship more, you may practice more and you might be more mentally engaged to notice things you wouldn't otherwise. On top of that, you're playing something that squads are not teched to beat, and opponents have spent less time practicing against.

All of these factors aren't really enough to bring a garbage ship into the limelight, but they can let a pretty good ship perform better than very good ships.

Thats always been a part of deciding what list I bring to a tournament.

If I don't enjoy it I won't pay attention for 2 full days of games and I definitely won't care enough to do well, let alone put in the reps needed which is honestly the most important part.

That preference for fun though is always balanced with a completely robotic review of the meta. In my book Bad = Sub-Optimal. The words are interchangeable. There is absolutely no point in being nice about whats good when your trying to figure out what to prepare to play against. Not talking about what list I choose to fly...thats a completely different story, though the options are unavoidably molded and constrained by the preparation. Its more about evaluating the Meta so I can force as many bad or frustrating matchups to be more fun.

When I go through the check list of questions leading up to a tournament it usually looks something like this:

1. Do I enjoy the list?
2. Can it beat Boss Battle #1: Miranda/Low?
3. Can it beat Boss Battle #2: Ghosts?
4. Can it beat Boss Battle #3: Timewalk Assaj?
5. Can it beat Boss Battle #4: Nym?
6. Can it beat Boss Battle #5: ...?
7. Do I still want to go to the tournament?

The rest barely registers during preparation since I could bring lots of average lists and have a 50/50 game against the remaining "bad/sub-optimal" things.

27 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

I didn't realize I was doing that, but... yeah, that's a pretty apt way of thinking about it (or a good description of how I've been thinking about it)

And then taking that a step further is "interesting" just a defense mechanism we've constructed in our minds to convince ourselves we are trying to have fun? Or is it a legitimate intellectual engagement that we still feel like we have choices and consequences? And does that matter?

As I've moved into the more competitive side of things it's something I've struggled with. Grabbing and running a high performing netlist just doesn't trigger that "engagement" receptor in my brain. And most of them would not be classified as "fun". So I go out and build lists that are "interesting" where I've got clear decisions I have to make to be successful but balance it with some elements that are considered lazy (turrets).

Maybe the competitive side has just nuked our ability to have fun but still able to keep us "interested". It's only 11:15am. I want a yard of beer.

17 minutes ago, viedit said:

And then taking that a step further is "interesting" just a defense mechanism we've constructed in our minds to convince ourselves we are trying to have fun? Or is it a legitimate intellectual engagement that we still feel like we have choices and consequences? And does that matter?

As I've moved into the more competitive side of things it's something I've struggled with. Grabbing and running a high performing netlist just doesn't trigger that "engagement" receptor in my brain. And most of them would not be classified as "fun". So I go out and build lists that are "interesting" where I've got clear decisions I have to make to be successful but balance it with some elements that are considered lazy (turrets).

Maybe the competitive side has just nuked our ability to have fun but still able to keep us "interested". It's only 11:15am. I want a yard of beer.

so, "interesting" and "fun" are somewhat intertwined - something needs to be interesting to be fun (for me), but something can be interesting and not be fun.

Like, I found triple scouts interesting, but was done with it after 1 major tournament (it lost it's interest).

This is limited to 13 tournaments (instead of 33) where the entries were complete or just 1 missing. That still gives 1971 ships in 711 lists.

And here is the corresponding win percentage for each pilot, limited to swiss results. Interesting to note the close relation of QD and Nu squadron.

46 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

This is limited to 13 tournaments (instead of 33) where the entries were complete or just 1 missing. That still gives 1971 ships in 711 lists.

And here is the corresponding win percentage for each pilot, limited to swiss results. Interesting to note the close relation of QD and Nu squadron.

Zeb Attack Shuttle is a monster! He and Rebel fenn should pair up - it'd be great!

1 minute ago, Tlfj200 said:

Zeb Attack Shuttle is a monster! He and Rebel fenn should pair up - it'd be great!

Now if only there was some kind of platform that would make it easier to haul poor Zeb around.

@GreenDragoon These are very cool. Thank you! Any chance you have these for past regionals? I'd love to look at them historically and see what was popular over the years and scatterplot looked in older metas.

6 minutes ago, viedit said:

@GreenDragoon These are very cool. Thank you! Any chance you have these for past regionals? I'd love to look at them historically and see what was popular over the years and scatterplot looked in older metas.

The problem is that I need enough data. A single regional does not suffice, and checking+downloading the data takes some time. I did not automate that part yet, even though R has packages for JSON interaction.

I can offer the one for the vassal league where I did it the first time:

See the whole album here: https://imgur.com/a/xh1Ty

PANIC

17 minutes ago, Brunas said:

PANIC

What have you done?!

I agree

From the Dear FFG thread:

On 3/2/2018 at 6:46 PM, DarkArk said:

No, I'm not on board with any of these changes. I don't think the meta has fully settled yet, and I'd hope that people start working around what they have in an attempt to counter the meta rather than demand whack a mole nerfs every couple of months. And I mean what I preach, I took my own Imperial list to the Seattle regional and ended up 1st in Swiss, beating both the things you are calling for nerfs on.

If anything needs a look at it's probably the PS11 boost from Fenn, and that only because of how low PS the Ghost is in general. If you want that make them take Ahsoka.

Miranda can't be a problem, the meta hasn't settled! Its not like shes been a major threat in literally every meta shes been apart of! It was unknowable!

Can anyone help me make a website that specializes in denial of service attacks against predictive market sites? I think I have a name picked out .

Launch5forward.tlt/generator

4 hours ago, Mattman7306 said:

From the Dear FFG thread:

Miranda can't be a problem, the meta hasn't settled! Its not like shes been a major threat in literally every meta shes been apart of! It was unknowable!

I love people that are like "People shouldn't just be like 'Nerf this' Get gud! I got gud!" In a fashion where they don't understand that sometimes getting good it not possible. for example, arcdodging is a thing, but with ghost/fenn it isn't, and regen is a problem when you have 3+ shields.

3 hours ago, Velvetelvis said:

Can anyone help me make a website that specializes in denial of service attacks against predictive market sites? I think I have a name picked out .

Launch5forward.tlt/generator

don't forget harpoon!