44 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Depends. What's the rate for list with or without it?

I saw a lot more swarms in 1b without rather than with. I think 1a was relatively nantex heavy though

12 minutes ago, jagsba said:

I saw a lot more swarms in 1b without rather than with. I think 1a was relatively nantex heavy though

Just to clarify, I do not doubt at all that the Nantex plays his part. But it's an interesting question imo

26 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Just to clarify, I do not doubt at all that the Nantex plays his part. But it's an interesting question imo

19pt Vultures OP

I have been here since LCQ, (made it in then scrubbed out 1-4) so I'm by no means a top tier player. However what I've seen is the Nantex isn't making cut any more than most lists and what are everywhere are swarms and mini swarms. But it's every faction. Republic, Imperials, a lot of droids, some 5 sf and mini swarms. There are a few imperial ace lists, some Nantex, some Jedi, even a few scum and first order and rebels at the top tables too. Taking all the 5-2s the cut is close to 100 people and the only thing that is clear is that there is no one Meta. The meta isn't settled or even determined, no one knows what it is. Nantexes are a rough day for a lot of lists (I got my teeth kicked in by one, but I was also 1-3, tired and my heart wasn't in it) but they are not the end of the world.

That said world's has been amazing and chill while still being super competitive and I can't wait to do it again!

28 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Just to clarify, I do not doubt at all that the Nantex plays his part. But it's an interesting question imo

Same here. But I know 3-4 of those seppies in cut from day 1b are bug free

I gotta say, looking at the cut numbers the game is probably the healthiest it’s ever been. You can play any faction and win and with a game of 7 factions that is huge. Even though the nantex is bull, people have still found a way to beat it and be competitive with whatever their playstyle and faction preference is.

4 minutes ago, Quack Shot said:

I gotta say, looking at the cut numbers the game is probably the healthiest it’s ever been. You can play any faction and win and with a game of 7 factions that is huge. Even though the nantex is bull, people have still found a way to beat it and be competitive with whatever their playstyle and faction preference is.

I don't think that's entirely accurate

Honestly, it feels like drawing matchup straws to get to this point, a top 98 elimination bracket might give us better clues on if anything really rises to the top.

6 minutes ago, AEIllingworth said:

Honestly, it feels like drawing matchup straws to get to this point, a top 98 elimination bracket might give us better clues on if anything really rises to the top.

single elimination is way more matchup luck than swiss, though

3 hours ago, svelok said:

do you guys think there might be a problem, with a certain bug?

Probably, but it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the Separatists post-cut are Sear Swarms.

The more interesting thing to me is what Rebels are flying. After the nerfs, they seemed kind of dead in the water. Not to you specifically @svelok but is this just mass U-Wings? Is there something else going on?

I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Just as example: Separatists go from 12% (-2 from expected random/perfect balance or -14% to the expected 14%), to 18% (+4 or +29%). That's a relative change of 43%.

To compare, for 3 factions that would be Scum going from 28% to 43% from swiss to cut.

I'm not sure we'd have called the "the healthiest it's ever been"...

Going to 7 factions masks a lot of imbalances. Same for lists/ships/pilots/upgrades or eg arcs: we suddenly need so much more data to make useful statements. Especially when limited to a single event.

30 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Just as example: Separatists go from 12% (-2 from expected random/perfect balance or -14% to the expected 14%), to 18% (+4 or +29%). That's a relative change of 43%.

To compare, for 3 factions that would be Scum going from 28% to 43% from swiss to cut.

I'm not sure we'd have called the "the healthiest it's ever been"...

Going to 7 factions masks a lot of imbalances. Same for lists/ships/pilots/upgrades or eg arcs: we suddenly need so much more data to make useful statements. Especially when limited to a single event.

Depends if "healthy" is a statistical term.

I mean, if we're talking about how stuff *feels,* I think X-Wing *feels* better now than it has at a lot of other times.

Better than 1e at any time after, like, Autothrusters. It feels to me better than early 2e with Choke-And-Cloak Whisper and cheap 4-ship Scum (Palob, 4-LOM, double-mod Torpedo Kavil, *and* a Quadjumper? Man, early Scum was too cheap).

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

Just as example: Separatists go from 12% (-2 from expected random/perfect balance or -14% to the expected 14%), to 18% (+4 or +29%). That's a relative change of 43%.

To compare, for 3 factions that would be Scum going from 28% to 43% from swiss to cut.

I'm not sure we'd have called the "the healthiest it's ever been"...

Going to 7 factions masks a lot of imbalances. Same for lists/ships/pilots/upgrades or eg arcs: we suddenly need so much more data to make useful statements. Especially when limited to a single event.

Ah yes, welcome to mathwing where the percentages are made up and it doesn’t matter.

1 minute ago, FlyingAnchors said:

Ah yes, welcome to mathwing where the percentages are made up and it doesn’t matter.

It turns out, people actually get paid to do statistical analysis because turning a pile of numbers into meaningful data that can be used to affect a good decision-making process takes a lot of experience and time.

2 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Just as example: Separatists go from 12% (-2 from expected random/perfect balance or -14% to the expected 14%), to 18% (+4 or +29%). That's a relative change of 43%.

To compare, for 3 factions that would be Scum going from 28% to 43% from swiss to cut.

I'm not sure we'd have called the "the healthiest it's ever been"...

Going to 7 factions masks a lot of imbalances. Same for lists/ships/pilots/upgrades or eg arcs: we suddenly need so much more data to make useful statements. Especially when limited to a single event.

Well, based on what data we do have, what would you suggest to be the healthiest point in X-Wing? Even in the earliest days of 1.0, you had imbalances.

I’m not trying to discount your point. I’m curious as to your starting point and data you are considering.

3 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

It turns out, people actually get paid to do statistical analysis because turning a pile of numbers into meaningful data that can be used to affect a good decision-making process takes a lot of experience and time.

The statistical analysis was already done with the graph on the previous page?

Also comparing apples to oranges (1.0 to 2.0) is garbage anyway, you’ve more than doubled the factions, and 4 of those aren’t considered complete by the developers, so I think it’s more than unfair to make that stretch.

22 minutes ago, FlyingAnchors said:

Also comparing apples to oranges (1.0 to 2.0) is garbage anyway, you’ve more than doubled the factions, and 4 of those aren’t considered complete by the developers, so I think it’s more than unfair to make that stretch.

I wasn't comparing how healthy the game was in 1.0 to 2.0. I made the comparison to show that we have not adjusted our understanding of what "healthy" means.

The numbers got smaller due to the higher amount of factions. That doesn't immediately mean it's healthier. We have to compare to the correct thing, and then look at the relative changes. IMO that is to the 14.29% baseline of 100/7.

54 minutes ago, FlyingAnchors said:

The statistical analysis was already done with the graph on the previous page?

Not really, we have some analysis, at least on what the numbers are, but true analysis on what they mean and the implications thereof would be significantly more in depth and time consuming.

-

It's like if you get an image and the imagery analyst highlights something and tells you it's a tank and what type, that doesn't answer the core question of "why do we care?". Was the tank supposed to be there or is this a surprise? Is that a different model of tank than expected? Is it in a different position? What do the answer to these questions mean for our decision making process (if anything)?

12 hours ago, svelok said:

do you guys think there might be a problem, with a certain bug?

there was only one bug in the top 16 thought, despite the incredible conversion rate, separtists fell off hard

23 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

there was only one bug in the top 16 thought, despite the incredible conversion rate, separtists fell off hard

9 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Just as example: Separatists go from 12% (-2 from expected random/perfect balance or -14% to the expected 14%), to 18% (+4 or +29%). That's a relative change of 43%.

To compare, for 3 factions that would be Scum going from 28% to 43% from swiss to cut.

I'm not sure we'd have called the "the healthiest it's ever been"...

Going to 7 factions masks a lot of imbalances. Same for lists/ships/pilots/upgrades or eg arcs: we suddenly need so much more data to make useful statements. Especially when limited to a single event.

Is there a point where you will actually be happy about the game?

1 hour ago, Dr Moneypants said:

Is there a point where you will actually be happy about the game?

Since when does pragmatic caution = unhappy?

remember when these finals were jumpmasters

Grand Inq, Whisper and Vader.

Whether or not you believe you can pull any real data from worlds results, you have to admit- That was a pretty dang entertaining event from start to finish.