So, I was wondering how many 2.0 games are going to completion. Not sure if this data is being tracked anywhere.

I went through Gen Con 1a today and looked at each round played in listfortress. I did a search for "200" to get a rough idea how many games were finished. I didn't go through them by hand to see if there were any 200-200 final salvo games. Also, there's no way to track for concessions. Also, I'm sure there were games where someone reached 200 points after time was called.

Anyway, the numbers:

54% match completion over the day. interesting that round 1 had the lowest number by far. Not sure if people were rushed in round 1 or if that's just a natural effect of people shaking out the nerved in round 1. If we remove round 1, we get 57% match completion, which still seems very low.

Bring back Harpoon Missiles and TLTs!

16 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

So, I was wondering how many 2.0 games are going to completion. Not sure if this data is being tracked anywhere.

I went through Gen Con 1a today and looked at each round played in listfortress. I did a search for "200" to get a rough idea how many games were finished. I didn't go through them by hand to see if there were any 200-200 final salvo games. Also, there's no way to track for concessions. Also, I'm sure there were games where someone reached 200 points after time was called.

Anyway, the numbers:

54% match completion over the day. interesting that round 1 had the lowest number by far. Not sure if people were rushed in round 1 or if that's just a natural effect of people shaking out the nerved in round 1. If we remove round 1, we get 57% match completion, which still seems very low.

Bring back Harpoon Missiles and TLTs!

n=1, but none of my 7 games went to time.

2 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

n=1, but none of my 7 games went to time.

untrue!

you played 7 games and 46% of games went to time, therefore 3.22 of your games actually went to time without you knowing.

Absolute destruction of an opponents forces =\ only path to victory...

2 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Absolute destruction of an opponents forces =\ only path to victory...

8 hours ago, skotothalamos said:

Bring back Harpoon Missiles and TLTs!

No.

To expand upon this conundrum, I don’t think introducing busted toys is going to solve anything. (I actually think it will make it worse)

It’s quite possible that less table wipes by time are meant to be an indication of a healthy meta, as neither list has one clear victory condition over the others in all instances.

Half point regen thresholds should be addressed, but that’s about it.

The last thing we need is a round counter like Armada/legion, because if you do that your liable to just turn the game into plain old boring rule of 11 “joust me bro!” K-turn fest. (I’m okay with this, Defenders and B-wings all day, but I think some of you want to fly Tie interceptors and A-wings every once and awhile).

13 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

No.

To expand upon this conundrum, I don’t think introducing busted toys is going to solve anything. (I actually think it will make it worse)

It’s quite possible that less table wipes by time are meant to be an indication of a healthy meta, as neither list has one clear victory condition over the others in all instances.

Half point regen thresholds should be addressed, but that’s about it.

The last thing we need is a round counter like Armada/legion, because if you do that your liable to just turn the game into plain old boring rule of 11 “joust me bro!” K-turn fest. (I’m okay with this, Defenders and B-wings all day, but I think some of you want to fly Tie interceptors and A-wings every once and awhile).

Food for though, a round counter benefits the ships that run, not the ones that duke it out...just saying.

3 hours ago, MasterShake2 said:

Food for though, a round counter benefits the ships that run, not the ones that duke it out...just saying.

Depends on who's up on points

24 minutes ago, jagsba said:

Depends on who's up on points

Really doesn't. How many turns does it take you to get points off of an arc dodging ace that you have to set up elaborate kill zones for vs points off a generic that's just going to run at you and try to do damage?

Turn counters always favor things that it's hard to get points off of.

http://starfightermafia.blogspot.com/2019/08/article-12-dispersed-jousting.html?m=1

21 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

The last thing we need is a round counter like Armada/legion,

Agreed. Round counters just lead to a different kind of slow play. No Legion Worlds stream games got past turn 4.

2 hours ago, Biophysical said:

http://starfightermafia.blogspot.com/2019/08/article-12-dispersed-jousting.html?m=1

Thank you for writing this. This is the polite version of the rant I have in my head every time I see players using box formations when they don't have a strong reason to.

4 hours ago, Biophysical said:

http://starfightermafia.blogspot.com/2019/08/article-12-dispersed-jousting.html?m=1

So, my thoughts on this are semi-lengthy and kind of complex:

The post basically assumes both sides are equal or close to equal. This is not really the case in the overwhelming majority of matches. You rarely see two forces of unbuffed generics going at each other. In such a case, sure go with a dispersed joust. The problem is that most generics only see real play when run in groups and with buffs, but those buffs usually have a range limit, so it puts a finite buff on dispersal. Aces obviously always goes dispersed because they rely on their initiative and reposition options and running directly at the enemy allows the use of neither.

-

The other problem is that, in the example, the box squad is in open waters i.e. nothing protecting any flanks. I almost never see high tier players do this, they always have a table edge or take advantage of obstacle placement to shield and limit options. In this regard, this is basically a tier 2 strat i.e. good against tier 1 players who aren't really thinking about the game, roughly neutral against other tier 2's and losing value dramatically against tier 3's where they're likely to take advantage of your dispersion in conjunction with limiting factors like board edge and obstacles to get free damage or cheap damage in where they can damage or outright remove ships while your shots are unfocused or even some of your ships out of range. In this regards it's easy to say "what are you doing?!" to someone box jousting, but if they can't critically analyze the situation enough to know when to box or dispersed joust on their own, they likely got heavily punished for a poorly executed dispersed jousting strategy and went with box jousting to at least make sure all of the ships were arriving at the same time. Or to put it simply, someone who this article may help, is also likely to lack the critical analysis of board state/list composition to actually use it.

-

I've alluded at this earlier, but pretty much all of this article is open water maneuvering. That's great for at least generalities, but obstacles don't affect box jousting to the same extent as dispersed jousting. Having to maneuver around obstacles can dramatically alter a joust to where you can no longer focus fire or the act of focus firing is suboptimal (A simple range 2 for one ship is a range 3 obstructed for another, etc). You can certainly turn 0 to give yourself these lanes, but again, I feel like that's just out of reach of the intended audience. The person who this might help will struggle to understand what a good turn 0 for dispersed jousting looks like (and will also struggle to understand when their opponent is baiting them to a suboptimal dispersed joust)

-

I guess for me, the article is just kind of the uncanny valley. The players who have all the supporting skills to understand and use this already know it and the average players simply don't have a sufficiently developed skill set to use this knowledge correctly. Someone tried to dispersed joust my Scavenger Swarm and all it did was give me a ship for free because I could read his maneuvering profile far better than he could read mine and I gave him no opening to get under the formation. I feel like, at a minimum, the issue of trying to do a dispersed joust against a squad that's just flying on the side of the board is kind of a necessary feature because that's super common even in just casual play and is far hard to disperse against effectively. A layout of what is a good v bad dispersed jousting 0 would also help to get the player thinking about "Oh, turn 0 is super important in this strat". Even if they aren't correct all the time, at least getting them thinking about it will help them recognize potential mistakes in execution when they try it vs now where there's no real context to how important turn 0 is for this strat (both where to deploy obstacles and ships). As it stands, this is just a "here's some advantages to things you may or may not know how to do" article and I feel like this is meant to be more instructional than that.

-

Just some food for thought, it's not poorly written or organized, but it's like explaining the key differences in rifle cartridges to someone who's just started shooting. Even if they understand the knowledge, their ability to apply it will be very limited without a good bit of follow on information.

I don't think the core idea here is beyond an average player - even two block formations working together gives you more flexibility than one block formation.

This is my usual approach to a basic setup when running ships that deploy first - two elements set up with enough spacing to give flexibility and board control but close enough that the two elements are able to support each-other:

If my opponent deploys across from me, I can opt into a joust with a pincer effect that blocks the two main escape routes for my opponent the following turn:

If they deploy in the far corner I can move to control the center of the board and dictate the location of the engagement:

Would CIS see more play if Vultures didn’t suck at banking? I’m pretty sure it’s usually not the right answer because it screws up formations.

Vulture boxes are fun.

If FO uses old imperial tech like the Raider in addition to crafting high tech developments, I want:

Rivas in an X1.

Malarus in an interceptor.

TN 3465 in a decimator.

Static in anything with a lock and a mod so his composure afterburners will be the best.

As funny as Thannison in a reaper is, the other FO ships are cool where they are. It's just that the tricks surrounding some of the TIE FO's look much better on other chassis or if newer cards came out. (Sure, Tina is great if you fly her with cluster zeta's, but only if your opponent lets the dream happen. Targeting sync Rivas is nowhere near as good as proper targeting sync people, even if his timing does line up with Thannison. Static has a fun filler ability, but kitting him out to use it or spending a coordinate on him for it is excessive).

FO has a fleet of great filler, but some of the filler is just 'meh'. ATM, this is a problem shared with its brother faction of Resistance to some degree and raises it's own set of questions, but I'm sure @gennataos could tackle that. As an outsider, I think 49 pt is excessive for Jaycriss, but that ability on a cheap A wing would be dope. Kare Kun would be fantastic on something that took a token when linking a boost. Think of any great bomber ability, but on a y wing, so you keep that effect, but have more pt in a meta unfavorable to a hefty 12 hp 1 agility lumbering bomb ship sans reinforce outside of silly tricks.

21 minutes ago, PaulRuddSays said:

Would CIS see more play if Vultures didn’t suck at banking? I’m pretty sure it’s usually not the right answer because it screws up formations.

Vulture boxes are fun.

In my experience, the dial issues went out the window when struts got cut to 1 point - the dial shortcomings don't super matter when rocks are your friend.

1 hour ago, MasterShake2 said:

So, my thoughts on this are semi-lengthy and kind of complex:

The post basically assumes both sides are equal or close to equal. This is not really the case in the overwhelming majority of matches. You rarely see two forces of unbuffed generics going at each other. In such a case, sure go with a dispersed joust. The problem is that most generics only see real play when run in groups and with buffs, but those buffs usually have a range limit, so it puts a finite buff on dispersal. Aces obviously always goes dispersed because they rely on their initiative and reposition options and running directly at the enemy allows the use of neither.

-

The other problem is that, in the example, the box squad is in open waters i.e. nothing protecting any flanks. I almost never see high tier players do this, they always have a table edge or take advantage of obstacle placement to shield and limit options. In this regard, this is basically a tier 2 strat i.e. good against tier 1 players who aren't really thinking about the game, roughly neutral against other tier 2's and losing value dramatically against tier 3's where they're likely to take advantage of your dispersion in conjunction with limiting factors like board edge and obstacles to get free damage or cheap damage in where they can damage or outright remove ships while your shots are unfocused or even some of your ships out of range. In this regards it's easy to say "what are you doing?!" to someone box jousting, but if they can't critically analyze the situation enough to know when to box or dispersed joust on their own, they likely got heavily punished for a poorly executed dispersed jousting strategy and went with box jousting to at least make sure all of the ships were arriving at the same time. Or to put it simply, someone who this article may help, is also likely to lack the critical analysis of board state/list composition to actually use it.

-

I've alluded at this earlier, but pretty much all of this article is open water maneuvering. That's great for at least generalities, but obstacles don't affect box jousting to the same extent as dispersed jousting. Having to maneuver around obstacles can dramatically alter a joust to where you can no longer focus fire or the act of focus firing is suboptimal (A simple range 2 for one ship is a range 3 obstructed for another, etc). You can certainly turn 0 to give yourself these lanes, but again, I feel like that's just out of reach of the intended audience. The person who this might help will struggle to understand what a good turn 0 for dispersed jousting looks like (and will also struggle to understand when their opponent is baiting them to a suboptimal dispersed joust)

-

I guess for me, the article is just kind of the uncanny valley. The players who have all the supporting skills to understand and use this already know it and the average players simply don't have a sufficiently developed skill set to use this knowledge correctly. Someone tried to dispersed joust my Scavenger Swarm and all it did was give me a ship for free because I could read his maneuvering profile far better than he could read mine and I gave him no opening to get under the formation. I feel like, at a minimum, the issue of trying to do a dispersed joust against a squad that's just flying on the side of the board is kind of a necessary feature because that's super common even in just casual play and is far hard to disperse against effectively. A layout of what is a good v bad dispersed jousting 0 would also help to get the player thinking about "Oh, turn 0 is super important in this strat". Even if they aren't correct all the time, at least getting them thinking about it will help them recognize potential mistakes in execution when they try it vs now where there's no real context to how important turn 0 is for this strat (both where to deploy obstacles and ships). As it stands, this is just a "here's some advantages to things you may or may not know how to do" article and I feel like this is meant to be more instructional than that.

-

Just some food for thought, it's not poorly written or organized, but it's like explaining the key differences in rifle cartridges to someone who's just started shooting. Even if they understand the knowledge, their ability to apply it will be very limited without a good bit of follow on information.

I intentionally left terrain and other effects out because I was trying to focus only on the effects of movement and not add in complications of obstacles or extra abilities. The principals are still applicable in more complex situations. The goal of the article wasn't to lay out a roadmap, but to show that there are lots of options to explore. A roadmap would be less useful, I think, because an actual plan is so context specific.

I agree that obstacles are massively important, but I my experience suggests that it heavily favors dispersed squads, so I left them put to show that the formation alone has effects just from position, not only from obstacle effects.

Plenty of my previous articles have covered approach angles and decision making, so I didn't feel the need to cover those aspects in this article as well. Maybe I should link to them in the current article.

Honestly, I'd like to think that this tactic was in the tool box of all intermediate players, but I definitely have not seen it very often. Players will instinctively do it with highly maneuverable aces, but it's not something jousting capable lists do very often, in my experience. Maybe your experiences are different. I guess probably because the lists that make the most of dispersed listing tend to not be all that popular. They're not reliant on high initiative aces and they don't have the maximum brawn of a high end jousting list. They're sort of tweener squads that don't appeal to a lot of people. Maybe you have a bunch of fans of this sort of squad in your area.

3 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

I intentionally left terrain and other effects out because I was trying to focus only on the effects of movement and not add in complications of obstacles or extra abilities. The principals are still applicable in more complex situations. The goal of the article wasn't to lay out a roadmap, but to show that there are lots of options to explore. A roadmap would be less useful, I think, because an actual plan is so context specific.

I agree that obstacles are massively important, but I my experience suggests that it heavily favors dispersed squads, so I left them put to show that the formation alone has effects just from position, not only from obstacle effects.

Plenty of my previous articles have covered approach angles and decision making, so I didn't feel the need to cover those aspects in this article as well. Maybe I should link to them in the current article.

Honestly, I'd like to think that this tactic was in the tool box of all intermediate players, but I definitely have not seen it very often. Players will instinctively do it with highly maneuverable aces, but it's not something jousting capable lists do very often, in my experience. Maybe your experiences are different. I guess probably because the lists that make the most of dispersed listing tend to not be all that popular. They're not reliant on high initiative aces and they don't have the maximum brawn of a high end jousting list. They're sort of tweener squads that don't appeal to a lot of people. Maybe you have a bunch of fans of this sort of squad in your area. 

Well, it's not usually that, it's more that people tend to default to box joust on edge and turn in. If the other person is box jousting on board edge, you just beat each other's brains in, if there are aces, it's hard to duck under the hard turn arcs because of the board edge limiting options (it cuts a basically 180 degree approach into a sub 90 degree one). While a super maneuverable ace can sometimes get under the formation anyways, the mid range generics struggle to really get dispersal correct and usually just end up being in everyone's arcs anyways, so that's probably where at least some of the problem lies. Basically, I suspect dispersed joust from moderately maneuverable generics just weren't offering people enough of an advantage over the easier to execute box joust and every now and then I'll run into someone trying it and outside of the best players in the area, most of them fair very poorly. It's part a timing thing and also a "skill level of opponent" thing since good opponents frequently recognize when you're dispersed joust isn't quite set and will try to jump you a turn to early to basically get 2 full jousts to your 1 and a half.

In terms of obstacles, a box joust only needs 1 lane, but a dispersed joust needs multiple and it will depend on the relative flexibility of dials and repo options. Again, just more complexity in obstacle placement to get it right v. just create a lane that 2 ships can fly through side by side.

A box joust is basically a First Order Optimal Strategy. It's easy to execute and works really well to a point. Breaking a FOOS habit is hard unless it's not working or you have a good understanding of what you're breaking the habit for, both in terms of benefits and executions. Recognizing when something is a FOOS is important if you're trying to present an alternative, especially if that alternative has higher risk and complexity, even if it also has a higher payoff.

21 minutes ago, player3010587 said:

FO has a fleet of great filler, but some of the filler is just 'meh'. ATM, this is a problem shared with its brother faction of Resistance to some degree and raises it's own set of questions, but I'm sure @gennataos could tackle that.

Wait, is this a non-sequitur transition to a new topic? If not, I'm not sure from where the conversation originated. I'm not sure what the definition of "filler" is. I can say the addition of the Transport and Pod opened up myriad 4-ship Resistance possibilities.

Specifically about those pilots you mentioned, I can now see value in Tubbs as an escort for a transport, but he still probably costs a bit too much. Kare Kune is actually pretty friggin' cool if someone can coordinate a boost to her before she moves, which the Transport can now more easily provide. But, if I don't already have Snap in the squad, I don't see why I wouldn't find two more points for him over Kare.

17 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

A box joust is basically a First Order Optimal Strategy. It's easy to execute and works really well to a point. Breaking a FOOS habit is hard unless it's not working or you have a good understanding of what you're breaking the habit for, both in terms of benefits and executions. Recognizing when something is a FOOS is important if you're trying to present an alternative, especially if that alternative has higher risk and complexity, even if it also has a higher payoff.

Regarding this thought, the whole point of the article (and the entire blog) is to look beyond first order strategies and card combos.

Regarding all the other stuff, I guess we'll have to say that our experiences are different.

8 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

Regarding this thought, the whole point of the article (and the entire blog) is to look beyond first order strategies and card combos.

Regarding all the other stuff, I guess we'll have to say that our experiences are different.

I give your response a mere 5/10 🧐's.

1 hour ago, player3010587 said:

If FO uses old imperial tech like the Raider in addition to crafting high tech developments, I want:

Rivas in an X1.

Malarus in an interceptor.

TN 3465 in a decimator.

Static in anything with a lock and a mod so his composure afterburners will be the best.

Quickdraw in a Defender

1 hour ago, MasterShake2 said:

A box joust is basically a First Order Optimal Strategy.

Me thinking about trying a slightly-dispersed joust with TIE/sf:

(I mean, I figured out that First Order doesn't mean First Order, but c'mon. Gotta take the low-hanging fruit...)

*edit*
I should make a comment on strategy...

I feel like TIE/sf works great with something perhaps in-between the Box Joust and the Dispersed Joust. A looser box. With their rear guns, they're great at waves coming in quick succession. First wave blocks. Next round, those ships move past or to the side, the second wave jousts. Round after that, the last wave block, and everyone else has rear shots, etc.