59 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Ok

I get the argument. It can be a really good ship for the points, but still not be a ship that can be expected to carry the day. Duchess is in a pretty similar points and ability range and is a good ship, but Duchess is that 3rd ship in a list that gets stuff done because the list is dealing with your other stuff, she doesn't carry on her own. I think Sabine is a super solid 3rd ship, but not needs another core ship alongside Luke.

Here's my thoughts on Rebs and Wedge:

--Rebs are the Alpha/aggro faction.

High HP ships with many ordinance slots and pilot abilities that generally "PASS" advantages.

People have been playing 3ish ship Rebel combos (often with skinny Wedge) with a 1.0 mentality of having the best long-dogfighting options and SOMETHING on the table that Initiative tackle the Fenns and Bobas and whatever, when the strength of this faction isn't built for those long games.

As soon as most of the best pilot abilities in the faction start flaming out, the strength of synergy Rebel lists fall apart.

In other words, if you've lost one or two ships before gaining a distinct advantage in points, you're probably in trouble.

Hence all these "independent" pieces like Luke and Sabine shuttle and nonsense.

Summary:

there are DOZENS of limited pilot 4-ship combos in Rebels, and some decent HP and/or Torp spamming to boot, but we're still often seeing the "must be a perfectly well-rounded list" 1.0 mentality in Rebel squads.

And in the meantime, Wedge with Jan are tearing it up at Nordic Nationals..

So maybe getting data from more than 3 tournaments before making conclusions is a good thing?

8 minutes ago, baranidlo said:

And in the meantime, Wedge with Jan are tearing it up at Nordic Nationals..

So maybe getting data from more than 3 tournaments before making conclusions is a good thing?

Sure, that's the conclusion you should come to, given wedge is 2/16, with different style lists.

Yep, zero conclusions from the last 3, but this 4th one magically is the number.

Just now, Tlfj200 said:

Sure, that's the conclusion you should come to, given wedge is 2/16, with different style lists.

Yep, zero conclusions from the last 3, but this 4th one magically is the number.

Nope, you completely missed the point.

Which was that 3 (or 4) is such a low number, that the results can still radically change with any additional data unit.

And therefore any conclusions are premature.

But it seems that arguing with you is pretty pointless. Didn't expect that you will turn full troll on the forums..

Just now, baranidlo said:

Nope, you completely missed the point.

Which was that 3 (or 4) is such a low number, that the results can still radically change with any additional data unit.

And therefore any conclusions are premature.

But it seems that arguing with you is pretty pointless. Didn't expect that you will turn full troll on the forums..

Actually, I'm not missing the point.

The point is that EVERY. SINGLE. SEASON. has limited data and results.

EVERY. SINGLE. SEASON. we must extrapolate and attempt to identify trends with limited data, which will, inevitably, make projections incorrect. If anything, you're trying to be the LEAST incorrect, not the MOST correct.

All of that out of the way - to act as if there is nothing that can be learned, at any point, is naive at best, and actively counterproductive at worst.


So, what exactly was your point? And who is the troll, exactly?

Just now, Tlfj200 said:

Actually, I'm not missing the point.

The point is that EVERY. SINGLE. SEASON. has limited data and results.

EVERY. SINGLE. SEASON. we must extrapolate and attempt to identify trends with limited data, which will, inevitably, make projections incorrect. If anything, you're trying to be the LEAST incorrect, not the MOST correct.

Bingo!

Which shows up the core flaw of all these "statistical" approaches in X-Wing, including Metawing.

You will never have enough data to make it scientific.

You can cook and guess any numbers you want, but your results will not be "higher quality" than any other subjective analysis.

And the numbers should definitely not presented as some kind of "truth".

Just now, baranidlo said:

Bingo!

Which shows up the core flaw of all these "statistical" approaches in X-Wing, including Metawing.

You will never have enough data to make it scientific.

You can cook and guess any numbers you want, but your results will not be "higher quality" than any other subjective analysis.

And the numbers should definitely not presented as some kind of "truth".

Yep.

Totally useless. U Rite.

Data won't ever be scientific, but between that and being completly useless there are many steps. So far it mostly just show what people seem to like to play

Also tlfj200 tends to becomes incredibly salty and trollish as soon someone try to point the flaws of his own narrative, but at this point you kinda get used to it and just appreciate what he says when he's reasonable

4 hours ago, Biophysical said:

I get the argument. It can be a really good ship for the points, but still not be a ship that can be expected to carry the day. Duchess is in a pretty similar points and ability range and is a good ship, but Duchess is that 3rd ship in a list that gets stuff done because the list is dealing with your other stuff, she doesn't carry on her own. I think Sabine is a super solid 3rd ship, but not needs another core ship alongside Luke.

I'm not sure about that, I still feel Sabine as 3rd ship is a trap: she too often just shot once and even if she soaks 1 or 2 turns of attacks unless you get particulary lucky you are usually not gaining enough in return.

Sabine is a solid 4th ship imo.

43 minutes ago, baranidlo said:

You will never have enough data to make it scientific.

Oh if only you knew...

Just now, Sunitsa said:

Data won't ever be scientific, but between that and being completly useless there are many steps. So far it mostly just show what people seem to like to play

Also tlfj200 tends to becomes incredibly salty and trollish as soon someone try to point the flaws of his own narrative, but at this point you kinda get used to it and just appreciate what he says when he's reasonable

I'm not sure about that, I still feel Sabine as 3rd ship is a trap: she too often just shot once and even if she soaks 1 or 2 turns of attacks unless you get particulary lucky you are usually not gaining enough in return.

Sabine is a solid 4th ship imo.

Or he gets tired of the weird "We can't know anything" narrative.

Just now, Tlfj200 said:

Or he gets tired of the weird "We can't know anything" narrative.

also true

Wedge Trolls...

3 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

Data won't ever be scientific, but between that and being completly useless there are many steps. So far it mostly just show what people seem to like to plaY

I don’t understand this argument. You have data, you can form a hypothesis, and that hypothesis is testable. It may have a high rate of error, but so do other types of science (eg paleotology). What’s different here?

Is faction blindness a skill?

I feel like being a one or even two faction player is a huge self imposed handicap.

1 minute ago, PaulRuddSays said:

I don’t understand this argument. You have data, you can form a hypothesis, and that hypothesis is testable. It may have a high rate of error, but so do other types of science (eg paleotology). What’s different here?

Basically, nothing.

The analysis employed here is akin to economics and finance: we have a limited data set we can't ever re-run or for which we control the variables, so we know our answers are "fuzzier" than usual.

We have mathematical techniques that serve to find trends in data (trends are generally "less fuzzy" than specific predictions), while also trying to gauge how "fuzzy" our answers are.


It's the same Scientific Method, but with less ability to control all variables.

1 minute ago, Boom Owl said:

Is faction blindness a skill?

I feel like being a one or even two faction player is a huge self imposed handicap.

It sort of is, but it has it's own appeal/fun aspect to it: the "team" aspect.

L5R has it, now x-wing has [more] of it. Seems okay.

2 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Is faction blindness a skill?

I feel like being a one or even two faction player is a huge self imposed handicap.

My three different faction lists ready to go agree.

Though, is faction blindness really overcome if trying the same list in three different ways anyway?

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

My three different faction lists ready to go agree.

Though, is faction blindness really overcome if trying the same list in three different ways anyway?

Sorta? Better than preferring a specific play style AND being faction-locked.

Just now, PaulRuddSays said:

I don’t understand this argument. You have data, you can form a hypothesis, and that hypothesis is testable. It may have a high rate of error, but so do other types of science (eg paleotology). What’s different here?

Yeah scientific was the wrong adjective. You can totally use scientific method there, it would mostly have very arguably returns when you are just analyzing 2 and a half baked tournaments of data.

I should point out I love to see analysis of tournaments data, I've started posting here exactly because I found out the Krayts were the best ones doing and publicizing theirs. I'm just hesitant to take them as the bible. But I'm not saying anything particularly new, I'm pretty confident that's the same stance of basically anyone here.

I just happen to disagree often with some of the conclusions and assumptions that are being made, and often Brunas and tlfj disagree with mine

Just now, Sunitsa said:

Yeah scientific was the wrong adjective. You can totally use scientific method there, it would mostly have very arguably returns when you are just analyzing 2 and a half baked tournaments of data.

I should point out I love to see analysis of tournaments data, I've started posting here exactly because I found out the Krayts were the best ones doing and publicizing theirs. I'm just hesitant to take them as the bible. But I'm not saying anything particularly new, I'm pretty confident that's the same stance of basically anyone here.

I just happen to disagree often with some of the conclusions and assumptions that are being made, and often Brunas and tlfj disagree with mine

I mean, I caveat that you actually SHOULDN'T take our data/word as the bible, precisely because we're, at best, doing pretty broad trend analysis.

Also, by the time we publish our data, the season is concluded, and is mostly a way to "re-cap" what happened. So far, every worlds, the meta was solved by worlds. There are usually some other neat nuggets buried in their, but not so much for "man, I wonder what the meta of worlds will be like?"

Also, it's worth noting that we are still formulating and posing questions, and frankly, without a listjuggler export, we're not completely parsing all upgrades and stuff, so the analysis is broader than usual.


Lastly, while an initial picture is being formed (limited data), we can know stuff, but it suffers from the "does the past predict the future?" issue, and since we're at the beginning, there's always a chance the initial data was basically "on a different bell curve" than what ends up being the average/trend.

Maybe the first few tournaments are super different and weird (actually possible, in particular because we all really don't know what we're doing), or also possible the core nugget of a trend is there too.

But I suspect anyone with a major tournament coming up is looking at the last (now 4) tournaments and trying their damnedest to figure out what to expect.

I think the data is bi or even trimodal.

In the past I've said that we are all near the skill floor/entry point.

Via the TF2 comparison i've given before, we are a bunch of Iron and Steel players beating up on the Gibuses. Maybe Paul and Justin are Silver. And just like in Tf2, items (ships/cards) can have drastically different amounts of effectiveness at different skill levels. See: Supernatural and the pre-nerf BASE jumper. (Not very useful, if at all, at low understanding, but at high level, potentially busted)

If the average player was good at the game, I wouldn't do well.

5 if Belgian Nationals also posts their lists somewhere, so far I only got the final table lists (Soontir Deathrain Redline vs Boba 4Lom Quad)

We are starting to have data!

Just now, Sunitsa said:

5 if Belgian Nationals also posts their lists somewhere, so far I only got the final table lists (Soontir Deathrain Redline vs Boba 4Lom Quad)

We are starting to have data!

Wait, Belgian nationals happened already?

Does anyone have the European Nationals Schedule? (US, UK, and Canada already happened).