1 minute ago, Boom Owl said:

Random questions...

How many Tournament Quality practice games do you play per month? ( i.e. Against other Major Tournament Regulars )

How many total games do you target with a list you plan to bring to a tournament?

Realistically? 1? Maybe 0?

I like to put a list on the table once or twice before going out just so I can see how the list plays together, not so much for strategizing tactics vs key opponent lists. If I really like the list and it seems strong enough I'll continue playing it.

2 minutes ago, Crit Happens said:

Normal games against any opponents (even good ones) rarely does me as much good as practicing against myself at home. I can stop, restart, rewind a couple of turns. I always plan "my" maneuvers first, then let the squad I'm practicing against operate as if they predicted my maneuvers. Leads into discovering winning game states, major mistakes to avoid, etc.

Thats only good up to a point though.

I'm interested in # of practice games against a real Tournament Cut level player.

10 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Random questions...

How many Tournament Quality practice games do you play per month? ( i.e. Against other Major Tournament Regulars )

How many total games do you target with a list you plan to bring to a tournament?

I know if I have a large event coming up, I'll usually try to stay with a list for around 3-4 weeks, make tweaks to the list as I feel necessary. My average weekly play is 3 games a week. The average of Major Tournament Regulars is 1 a week since some weeks I'll get matched up with them and some I don't. I'm just looking for repetition because of that.

Just now, Boom Owl said:

Thats only good up to a point though.

I'm interested in # of practice games against a real Tournament Cut level player.

I guess my answer was misleading, as it's "on average".

I try and have 5+ games before a regionals+ event, though that has not always happened.

2 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Thats only good up to a point though.

I'm interested in # of practice games against a real Tournament Cut level player.

Did you mean actual focused practice, or just playing a game? Because those are very different things. I'd argue that most people don't actually learn much from playing a single game.

If we're talking about a real tournament practice game, where you and your opponent actively discuss tactics/strategy, and try to help each other: It's easily less than 1 per month (averaged out).

5 minutes ago, Crit Happens said:

Did you mean actual focused practice, or just playing a game? Because those are very different things. I'd argue that most people don't actually learn much from playing a single game.

 If we're talking about a real tournament practice game, where you and your opponent actively discuss tactics/strategy, and try to help each other: It's easily less than 1 per month (averaged out).

Actual focused practice specifically.

Intentional prep against an opponent that pushes you using lists that you expect to be meta ish.

1 minute ago, Boom Owl said:

Actual focused practice specifically.

Intentional prep against an opponent that pushes you.

Well.....that's a lot less. Probably similar what @Crit Happens said, maybe once a month. Most of my guys just want to get games in. We've rarely sat down to play and actively "practiced" with reversing turns/decisions and ending a game early to restart again based on an early engagement.

...I need more of that...I guess time to get back on Vassal more...

Our community runs focused practice days in the run up to big events that we are attending en masse. These tend to be days where we mash meta lists into each other and rerack after first engage to try different openings.

I think that the guys who hit top cut get a lot more out of them than us 3-3 and 4-2 scrubs in terms of actually getting prepared for the tournament. What I get out of them is an opportunity to see and understand how top tier players think about engagements and strategies, and how that differs from my own approach.

2 minutes ago, RStan said:

 ...I need more of that...I guess time to get back on Vassal more...

I am always down for some vassal lab practice. Its helpful.

Only issue though is that it doesnt translate to the table all the time.

Its just not the same skill set outside of helping with general decision making/list choices.

15 minutes ago, miguelj said:

I'm pretty sure if your Boba Fett is eating a torpedo from Redline, even if Redline is moving last, you done messed up some where along the way.

If that's the one goal then I agree but it also makes Boba fairly predictable and either waste actions boosting or bump while also eating a couple bombs instead of that torp.

Boba > Redline, I'm not arguing otherwise. He also costs a lot more and has to actively deal with Redline. Redline always dies, it's just all about how much damage/distraction he can provide before he does and I'm not convinced that Boba specifically really lessens that by a significant margin

21 minutes ago, Brunas said:

With that being said, reinforce two agility and rerolls is a good strategy so he'll still probably only take one damage...

I'd say it's usually either the reinforce or the boost to get in R1 for the reroll(s) not both

Just now, Makaze said:

I'd say it's usually either the reinforce or the boost to get in R1 for the reroll(s) not both

Lando is there to give you the reinforce, then do a blue, then either boost or focus.

7 minutes ago, Dreadai said:

I think that the guys who hit top cut get a lot more out of them than us 3-3 and 4-2 scrubs in terms of actually getting prepared for the tournament.

Id argue that they get a similar # of games of practice in but that the games they play are against other Tournament Focused players on average.

Heh... I only average 2 games a week, so I've yet to play a game that would qualify as "practice" by the common definition. I try to learn a few lessons from things, do crazy things to see 'what happens if' scenarios, but we've not gotten to the point of post-game analysis to really get much more than one or two mistakes deep.

So @Boom Owl - count as NEVER practicing.

I terms of actual games played ... they get the same number. In terms of value they get out of the practice sessions and the 3 turns and re-rack approach, they get a lot more.

11 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Random questions...

How many Tournament Quality practice games do you play per month? ( i.e. Against other Major Tournament Regulars )

How many total games do you target with a list you plan to bring to a tournament?

I try to play a kit tourney at least once a month - depending on who shows up the competition can be fierce. I try to get a few game nights in as well, but I usually just bring something I want to try out.

For a major tournament (System Open and up), I try and practice a new list against other people, but most of my actual practice comes in solo practice (figuring out my opening moves, how do I want to tackle each list).

3 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

But more interesting than such details is how people stay in their comfort zones and (apparently?) stick to 3ship squads and upgrades. That was my main takeaway.

I'm curious if this will shift now that the possibility space for X-Wing has changed in 2.0. In 1.0 the swarm players got slowly forced out/worn down as the reality of the game moved away from that playstyle. We were basically down to just Blair Bunke being stubborn. The question is whether players can be driven back towards that playstyle if it performs well in a big event, whether new players will join the game and pursue that style, etc. Or are attitudes too set in stone from 1.0 and even though those builds are an option, they will remain on the fringe due to player preferences?

I probably play around 10-12 actual tournament games in any given month, on average.
With a handful of tournament-quality practice around that with friends.

I had roughly 25 tournament-level reps with Fenn, Teroch, Palob (or small variations of) before Coruscant.

4 hours ago, Tlfj200 said:

It's still everyone's own tastes, but man, there were not actually that significant differences between the continents, and the one time there was, it wasn't even that big (jumpmasters vs palp aces, almost 3 years ago at this point).

Europe was on attanni before us. That might be the biggest metal difference, and that was just timing not lists.

3 hours ago, Tlfj200 said:

And confirming just how many people find torpedoes inescapable had me questioning why I try so hard.

I've been sitting here thinking about area control through bombs and tugboats when I could have just been mindlessly throwing torpedoes.

3 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

the only takeaway I have from Coruscant is that regardless of power level the vast majority of players will avoid taking 5+ ship lists at all costs.

No, it's still power level. Swarms haven't really been proven effective in 2e and there are obvious counters.

Either cost out a couple of key things (e.g. bombs, Boba pilot, super) out of the meta, or have someone win big with one and I guarantee people will bring swarms. Why should we be the one to figure out if/what swarms are when I can just copy someone else's winning list?

5 minutes ago, jagsba said:

No, it's still power level. Swarms haven't really been proven effective in 2e and there are obvious counters.

While were analyzing Coruscant....(why am i doing this....)

There weren't many 5+ lists there but there was actually a genuinely decent % of them in the Cut.

You can just boss 3 ship swiss with a swarmish list.

I think non-formation swarms with more than 2 dice attacks are actually pretty **** effective.

I don't believe the narrative that Trajectory Sim is forcing them out.

I think player preference just leaves them on the fringes.

Why do people take winning lists? Winning lists so frequently seem sub-optimal with all the optimal stuff in the lower brackets of the cut.

42 minutes ago, jesper_h said:

I probably play around 10-12 actual tournament games in any given month, on average.
With a handful of tournament-quality practice around that with friends.

I had roughly 25 tournament-level reps with Fenn, Teroch, Palob (or small variations of) before Coruscant.

This is what I try to target but so so rarely what I am able to achieve.

I can say that the one time I got 25+ tournament quality reps with my list I promptly went 6-0 in Swiss.

It makes such a huge difference to not be learning **** about your list or developing muscle memory on the day.

Practice really does help, though I know there are a number of players who show up after using their list only a few times and do consistently very well.

Wonder if that will be less common in 2.0 now that lists carry people a little less.

1 minute ago, Boom Owl said:

This is what I try to target but so so rarely what I am able to achieve.

I can say that the one time I got 25+ tournament quality reps with my list I promptly went 6-0 in Swiss.

It makes such a huge difference to not be learning **** about your list or developing muscle memory on the day.

Practice really does help, though I know there are a number of players who show up after using their list only a few times and do consistently very well.

Wonder if that will be less common in 2.0 now that lists carry people a little less.

High trigger lists are something you need practice with. Lost opportunities will get you.

3 minutes ago, viedit said:

High trigger lists are something you need practice with. Lost opportunities will get you.

The biggest thing for me is "feel".

@Biophysical has talked about how certain ships move together. Learning that takes practice.

6 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

While were analyzing Coruscant....(why am i doing this....)

There weren't many 5+ lists there but there was actually a genuinely decent % of them in the Cut.

You can just boss 3 ship swiss with a swarmish list.

Super dependent on what three ships and what swarm. Did you see the Eide v Tippet match? Tough for a swarm to deal with 2 super aces and a slamming k wing.

Quote

I think non-formation swarms with more than 2 dice attacks are actually pretty **** effective.

I don't disagree, and Coruscant showed that a lot of them can do pretty well.

Quote

I don't believe the narrative that Trajectory Sim is forcing them out.

I don't either. Tragedy scares formation swarms in particular and everything in general. You can't just remove tragedy and make swarms magically good. How do you deal with boba fett who gets more rerolls because of all your ships? How do you deal with luke or vader refusing to engage? Or even just Fenn or Soontir? If you're running 3 die swarms how do you deal with High I ordnance deleting 20% of your list before you shoot?

Quote

I think player preference just leaves them on the fringes.

I think so too, but I think its because swarms are just okay against the meta, not because there's a conspiracy against swarms. If you look at matchups, more often than not the burden of execution is on the swarm player not their opponent.

Quote

Why do people take winning lists?

People take winning lists because they won? Results based logic is a thing and it's easier to just pick what won than search through the cut to see what didn't.

41 minutes ago, jesper_h said:

I probably play around 10-12 actual tournament games in any given month, on average.
With a handful of tournament-quality practice around that with friends.

I had roughly 25 tournament-level reps with Fenn, Teroch, Palob (or small variations of) before Coruscant.

And this is one of the reason UK meta is on top right now: the sheer amount of quality games you can get there in uncomparable to any other place.

While Jesper is probably an outlier even by UK standard, an average UK player get to play more and at higher level than most top players from other countries

7 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

You can just boss 3 ship swiss with a swarmish list.

that's a pretty bold statement

7 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

I think non-formation swarms with more than 2 dice attacks are actually pretty **** effective.

I don't believe the narrative that Trajectory Sim is forcing them out.

I think player preference just leaves them on the fringes.

I agree: players are usually scared to fly more than 4 ships or don't even own enough models to play a swarm of any kind. Trajectory Sim might influence the lack of swarms, but it's not the main reason

7 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Why do people take winning lists? Winning lists so frequently seem sub-optimal with all the optimal stuff in the lower brackets of the cut.

Then why the optimal stuff ain't winning? I'm not sure I understood what you meant here

For Coruscant? I got precisely 0 real life games in with Rebel Good Stuff before playing it there. I played it a handful of times on Vassal, against strong players. The reason was all the prizes for Coruscant (except the trophy, which I have enough of) can be had just by showing up on day 1 and doing reasonably well on the side event day 2.

For something like Worlds, I do all this analysis and get lots of games in, if possible. You can't do that all the time, or you'll burn out. At least, *I* can't do that all the time.