1 hour ago, Brunas said:

Ever argument/conversation I've seen in the wild using ATC has involved a huge misunderstanding of statistics to make an argument that may or may not be true.

...Should we just bring it back down/make it private? I'm not sure it's making things actively worse, but as far as I can tell it's still just people starting with a conclusion then working backwards from ATC data.

1 hour ago, AEIllingworth said:

That’s what everyone everywhere does with data. Stats in psychology is just p-hacking until the data supports the conclusion your gut came to when making a hypothesis.

The worst outcome is someone can cherry pick data to convince themselves that they are right about the opinions they were going to hold anyway. That doesn’t seem bad enough to take it down? (And I selfishly like looking at it).

If we have to take down ATC because people are using it wrong, someone better tell the Master Of Numbers to take down the dice calculator, because Jesus people don’t understand how that should be used either.

Overall I don’t think it’s going to make the game worse, but it may cause some cognitive dissonance when people treat “x with a bid beats y 70% of the time” as “x beats y.” That will happen, but unless you want to start up Krayt re-education camps (for math!), you can’t stop it.

1 hour ago, Brunas said:

Ever argument/conversation I've seen in the wild using ATC has involved a huge misunderstanding of statistics to make an argument that may or may not be true.

How much am I in the minority in thinking that it should be possible to argue that something is good without performance statistics? There are elements that we know are good, and the presence of those things in a ship is a strong indicator of goodness.

Statistics can come in and show us what is doing well in certain circumstances, but that's not the end goal. The goal is finding out why, requiring mechanism and reasonings. Those are not based on statistics.

Basically, in X-wing, "X is better than Y and Statistics say so" is a poor use of statistics unless you're showing an enormous disparity with large sample sizes (you're using statistics to back up differences that should already be obvious to someone who is paying attention).

The optimal question is "X performs better than Y according to statistics, can we figure out why?"

They're the on-ramp, not the destination.

Just now, PaulRuddSays said:

If we have to take down ATC because people are using it wrong, someone better tell the Master Of Numbers to take down the dice calculator, because Jesus people don’t understand how that should be used either.

Overall I don’t think it’s going to make the game worse, but it may cause some cognitive dissonance when people treat “x with a bid beats y 70% of the time” as “x beats y.” That will happen, but unless you want to start up Krayt re-education camps (for math!), you can’t stop it.

Edukraytion Camps.

1 minute ago, PaulRuddSays said:

If we have to take down ATC because people are using it wrong, someone better tell the Master Of Numbers to take down the dice calculator, because Jesus people don’t understand how that should be used either.

Overall I don’t think it’s going to make the game worse, but it may cause some cognitive dissonance when people treat “x with a bid beats y 70% of the time” as “x beats y.” That will happen, but unless you want to start up Krayt re-education camps (for math!), you can’t stop it.

you joke, but it's a conversation we've had (multiple times at that)

@punkUser

1 minute ago, Biophysical said:

How much am I in the minority in thinking that it should be possible to argue that something is good without performance statistics? There are elements that we know are good, and the presence of those things in a ship is a strong indicator of goodness.

Statistics can come in and show us what is doing well in certain circumstances, but that's not the end goal. The goal is finding out why, requiring mechanism and reasonings. Those are not based on statistics.

Basically, in X-wing, "X is better than Y and Statistics say so" is a poor use of statistics unless you're showing an enormous disparity with large sample sizes (you're using statistics to back up differences that should already be obvious to someone who is paying attention).

The optimal question is "X performs better than Y according to statistics, can we figure out why?"

They're the on-ramp, not the destination.

you're in the minority, but also completely correct. They're a tool. Probably not the major tool. Useful to sanity check too - "man double 7b lists seem really good, am I in a feedback loop" <check stats> "nope, turns out it's really good"

3 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

How much am I in the minority in thinking that it should be possible to argue that something is good without performance statistics? There are elements that we know are good, and the presence of those things in a ship is a strong indicator of goodness.

Statistics can come in and show us what is doing well in certain circumstances, but that's not the end goal. The goal is finding out why, requiring mechanism and reasonings. Those are not based on statistics.

Basically, in X-wing, "X is better than Y and Statistics say so" is a poor use of statistics unless you're showing an enormous disparity with large sample sizes (you're using statistics to back up differences that should already be obvious to someone who is paying attention).

The optimal question is "X performs better than Y according to statistics, can we figure out why?"

They're the on-ramp, not the destination.

yup pretty much.

Personally, ATC is good for:

-getting a sense of what ships people are playing

-seeing how good ships do against other ships, the way people are playing them

-seeing if people are trying and failing with a ship, or they just aren't trying

anything else i using for is lie, **** lies.

9 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

Edukraytion Camps.

Is there an opposite for the Thanks react?

4 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

How much am I in the minority in thinking that it should be possible to argue that something is good without performance statistics? There are elements that we know are good, and the presence of those things in a ship is a strong indicator of goodness.

Statistics can come in and show us what is doing well in certain circumstances, but that's not the end goal. The goal is finding out why, requiring mechanism and reasonings. Those are not based on statistics.

whats that financial disclaimer? past performance is not an indicator of future results?

i dont think you bother to argue something is good without performance statistics. their is a archetype of player that figures it out and just goes for it. i knew Vi was good for his cost when you put him side by side with escape lando with a intel agent on board from launch. but actually crafting a list that made use of him is just not my skillset and arguing past "i think Vi has potential" is a waste of my time.

statistics are a tool, to be combined with other knowledge and skills to make informed decisions. the selection of an upgrade or ship may not be based on statistics proving it to be good. but by statistics proving a card it hard counters is both good and popular in the meta.

i think thats something i always admired about Paul. he seem to have a knack for identifying a meta, understanding what made it tick and then adjusting his own list to not simply follow the meta but account for it or tech for it or counter it entirely.

I feel like the best use of these sort of stats is to get a vibe for what one can expect at a major event. I think going beyond that skips over the human element, the people playing the list(s). I believe (or don't believe) in people more than I believe in stats (within reason).

13 minutes ago, RynoZero said:

i think thats something i always admired about Paul. he seem to have a knack for identifying a meta, understanding what made it tick and then adjusting his own list to not simply follow the meta but account for it or tech for it or counter it entirely.

Oh, I think @RynoZero said what I was trying to say, but better? Use stats to identify the meta, not necessarily parrot it.

[edit] - To be clear, I don't really do that, so what do I know? I just fly what I love and wing it (and lose a lot).

stop arguing about whatever and find something to argue about in this instead

Highest "% of slot" upgrades:
1. [turret] ioncannonturret: 60.63% of all [turret] slots, including those left empty
2. [cannon] jammingbeam: 45.57% of all [cannon] slots, including those left empty
3. [tactical relay] ta175: 31.13% etc...
4. [turret] dorsalturret: 24.44%
5. [sensor] firecontrolsystem: 23.06%
6. [astromech] r2astromech: 22.82%
7. [tech] advancedoptics: 21.14%
8. [talent] crackshot: 19.94%
9. [configuration] integratedsfoils: 18.75%
10. [force power] sense: 17.72%
11. [tactical relay] kraken: 16.67%
12. [configuration] grapplingstruts: 16.01%
13. [talent] heroic: 14.45%
14. [configuration] delta7b: 13.89%
15. [payload] proximitymines: 13.26%

4 minutes ago, svelok said:

2. [cannon] jammingbeam: 45.57% of all [cannon] slots, including those left empty

I would argue that Jamming Beam should simply be lumped in with leaving it empty. 99.99% of the time the affects are the same.

7 minutes ago, svelok said:

stop arguing about whatever and find something to argue about in this instead

Highest "% of slot" upgrades:
1. [turret] ioncannonturret: 60.63% of all [turret] slots, including those left empty
2. [cannon] jammingbeam: 45.57% of all [cannon] slots, including those left empty
3. [tactical relay] ta175: 31.13% etc...
4. [turret] dorsalturret: 24.44%
5. [sensor] firecontrolsystem: 23.06%
6. [astromech] r2astromech: 22.82%
7. [tech] advancedoptics: 21.14%
8. [talent] crackshot: 19.94%
9. [configuration] integratedsfoils: 18.75%
10. [force power] sense: 17.72%
11. [tactical relay] kraken: 16.67%
12. [configuration] grapplingstruts: 16.01%
13. [talent] heroic: 14.45%
14. [configuration] delta7b: 13.89%
15. [payload] proximitymines: 13.26%

This one jumps out at me since 2.0 FCS is considerably more niche than 1.0 FCS and probably shouldn't be used this much. I think a lot of people include it reflexively without doing an honest assessment of how much value it generates in their particular situation. I've definitely fallen into that before and found myself wishing I had spent the points elsewhere (or used them for a bid).

2 minutes ago, Transmogrifier said:

This one jumps out at me since 2.0 FCS is considerably more niche than 1.0 FCS and probably shouldn't be used this much. I think a lot of people include it reflexively without doing an honest assessment of how much value it generates in their particular situation. I've definitely fallen into that before and found myself wishing I had spent the points elsewhere (or used them for a bid).

probably has to do with a limited number of sensor slots and people not owning passive sensors

22 minutes ago, gennataos said:

Oh, I think @RynoZero said what I was trying to say, but better? Use stats to identify the meta, not necessarily parrot it.

[edit] - To be clear, I don't really do that, so what do I know? I just fly what I love and wing it (and lose a lot).

neither do i. when i started getting into xwing data it was to parrot the meta as a way to improve at the game (fly good lists, remove my poor listbuilding skills from the equation).

slowly ive progressed to, still parrot the meta but lets think about some of our decisions. (how big of a bid are we taking, are their specific upgrades we can swap around, but never touch the ships themselves).

i doubt ill ever get to X and Y are top meta lists. so im going to scratch build list Z and take my finders fee.

1 hour ago, Brunas said:

you joke, but it's a conversation we've had (multiple times at that)

@punkUser

It was only half-joking. But really, once the tool exists, if you take it down then it's essentially a heckler's veto (where the heckler is ignorant and doesn't know he's heckling you).

Remember who you are, don't trust the end user. Also, remember that people will use tools incorrectly with or without you, but the ones who use them properly find them insightful (probably).

Shorter @Brunas:

I mostly use AT.C to understand how bids might impact matchups I am practicing and to review upgrades that have large enough samples. I find the upgrade stuff to be the most interesting provided you have a working knowledge of common “builds” that might be behind the results.

As an example those Plo 7b numbers...yikes. Apparently Regen Plo disengaging to regen and tossing a token or taking a disarm/tractor token from a friend is pretty good? Bios right we probably didnt need data to tell us that. AT.C just gives little hints at level of correctness I guess.

Oh AT.C also helped me finally admit that Scorch is “fine, possibly bad” but not good. Also something my many many reps could have taught me sooner if I didnt kinda blind myself wanting Scorch to be solid. Turns out being able to k turn at all, ideally with mods or just shooting from a rear arc is kinda necessary functionality with passive aggressive collusion detector aces everywhere.

33 minutes ago, Transmogrifier said:

This one jumps out at me since 2.0 FCS is considerably more niche than 1.0 FCS and probably shouldn't be used this much. I think a lot of people include it reflexively without doing an honest assessment of how much value it generates in their particular situation. I've definitely fallen into that before and found myself wishing I had spent the points elsewhere (or used them for a bid).

Probably has more to do with Vader being taken so much. FCS is his soft force Regen. Passive Sensors is great, but eats up his force and could be not the right choice in every meta.

40 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

collusion detector

I agree.

1 hour ago, Transmogrifier said:

This one jumps out at me since 2.0 FCS is considerably more niche than 1.0 FCS and probably shouldn't be used this much. I think a lot of people include it reflexively without doing an honest assessment of how much value it generates in their particular situation. I've definitely fallen into that before and found myself wishing I had spent the points elsewhere (or used them for a bid).

Every time I make a squad with FCS (literally every time), I take it our after 2-3 games because it does almost nothing. If it was a 2 ship meta, I might start keeping it. Might.

"Nothing" is the most popular upgrade in every slot except Cannon and Turret.

If you exclude 0pt Jamming Beam, then it's only Turret.

Talent, Config, and Tactical Relay are the only slots where the most popular upgrade is close to catching up to "nothing".

2 hours ago, Brunas said:

you joke, but it's a conversation we've had (multiple times at that)

@punkUser

Correct. In the case of the dice calculator they are probably going to just do a worse job anyways on paper or something. For ATC there's some additional argument to be made for saving them from data that is just going to lead them astray? Obviously there's metawing though so that's not entirely justified either.

Also I've been told that the dice calculator is cheating so I can only conclude that meta stats are too.

18 minutes ago, svelok said:

"Nothing" is the most popular upgrade in every slot except Cannon and Turret.

If you exclude 0pt Jamming Beam, then it's only Turret.

Talent, Config, and Tactical Relay are the only slots where the most popular upgrade is close to catching up to "nothing".

Good! But we're not done until the empty set is the most common *set* of upgrades for the majority of ships!

3 minutes ago, svelok said:

Talent, Config, and Tactical Relay are the only slots where the most popular upgrade is close to catching up to "nothing".

Kinda surprised with Tactical Relay. No one really flies mass Belbullabs, and I'd have guessed most folks bring a Belbullab to bring a Relay. Sith Infiltrators seem less numerous these days.

Also surprised on Config. Must be Vultures without Struts, since most Jedi bring one, and I think every other config I can think of is 0 points and basically a ship ability which didn't fit onto the card. Star-, U-, X-Wings.

5 minutes ago, svelok said:

"Nothing" is the most popular upgrade in every slot except Cannon and Turret.

Turrets--more than any other upgrade--seem like the cost of the upgrade is baked into the ship. TIE Aggressor compared to a V-19 or TIE Bomber, for example. Only reason to take a turret-slot ship, usually, is to take the turret.

1 hour ago, Transmogrifier said:

[FCS] jumps out at me since 2.0 FCS is considerably more niche than 1.0 FCS and probably shouldn't be used this much. I think a lot of people include it reflexively without doing an honest assessment of how much value it generates in their particular situation. I've definitely fallen into that before and found myself wishing I had spent the points elsewhere (or used them for a bid).

I'm trying to find the mistake here, and kinda can't. Most ships seem like they'd rather Focus (particularly since most linked actions are focus-based). Even with long-range Lock tools, FCS often isn't that important.

Going through the list on MetaWing of top users:

• TIE/x1s - Vader is a tossup with Passive Sensors, Maarek can probably keep it, but other folks should be Passive Sensors (but you probably shouldn't be flying other TIE/x1s)
• TIE/v1s - I could maybe see switching more of these to Passive Sensors or cutting entirely.
• TIE/sf - Basically, Quickdraw. I've been thinking about pitching it. Seems like taking a safer action like focus would be better. Maybe Predator QD, saving the points for Afterburners or Pattern Analyzer...
• E-Wing - I can maybe see leaving it blank. Seems like a natural fit, though.
• Starwing - Basically, Hatchetman Vynder. Given OS-1, he should probably keep it. But FCS without Jendon makes no sense, IMHO.
• Lambda - Basically, Jendon. Keep. Jendon with FCS probably has Krennic, and thus doesn't want to spend his Lock.
• TIE Defender - Cut. It's nice when it's 1-on-1 in the end, but Defenders have that covered anyhow.

1 hour ago, Do I need a Username said:

probably has to do with a limited number of sensor slots and people not owning passive sensors

I dunno. I figure a lot of ships which shouldn't bring FCS, probably shouldn't bring Passive Sensors, either. Without some lock-based attack, it's mostly 3 points for an action which would probably be worse than Focusing. Phantoms are an exception, since they can't Lock on their own.

2 hours ago, Do I need a Username said:

probably has to do with a limited number of sensor slots and people not owning passive sensors

Passives are easier to use, and I use them a lot. But I use more FCS because:

Free force charge for Vader if I'm bidding (if not, passive). Quickdraw, Buzzsaw Hera, and Corran mod both attacks. Jendon helps my V1's, X1's, and TIE/D's. It makes proper gunboats more than a muggle version of the dps of non-optic/Jonus Instinctive Aim.