1 minute ago, Brunas said:

My initial thought was wow, I expected significantly worse than this. Since nantexes were ~20% of the field, those are pretty reasonable results, right? We'd expect in a perfectly fair game that the top 16 would have ~3 or 4, and the top 32 ~6 or 7. Obviously overperforming, but by less than I'd have personally expected. It's probably overstating to say that the lists that made the cut did so by relying on <X> to beat nantexes. At 20% of the field, assuming an equal distribution of opponents (we already saw it isn't), you have these odds to encounter nantex lists:

Coming soon (tm) in the next blogpost: combination of the 3 galaxies which shows how Seperatists massively overperformed for cut rates.
I'm currently wasting time looking at the nantex matchups for all 22 lists. Round 1+2 had 8 mirror games - so 8 losses out of the 45 are due to mirrors. I assume there will be some more for rounds 4-6. That increases the winrate by 2% already by the way, to 66%

7 minutes ago, jagsba said:

Chutzpah

Would if that had been the point. WHOOOOSH

11 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Coming soon (tm) in the next blogpost: combination of the 3 galaxies which shows how Seperatists massively overperformed for cut rates.
I'm currently wasting time looking at the nantex matchups for all 22 lists. Round 1+2 had 8 mirror games - so 8 losses out of the 45 are due to mirrors. I assume there will be some more for rounds 4-6. That increases the winrate by 2% already by the way, to 66%

Oddly, that's not unprecedented either - when I stopped updated ATC (I'd have to check when), in hyperspace vultures had a 65% winrate including mirrors, and and 73% winrate in cuts (including mirrors). Vultures were obviously a problem of course, just a point of comparison.

We could probably pull up historical data for winrates for the best thing over time, but as far as I know vultures were the worst of things, though early punishers/imp aces may have been up there as well.

19 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Thanks. I need to see under the hood to believe you. I note that TripleJumps are missing in 2017, which suggests to me that they went into Mindlink, which would make that wrong.

In 2017, the jumps just used mindlink.

Example: I used triple scouts with mindlink (and numerous other toys).

there was double scouts and fenn (mindlink)

scout/manaroo, lancer, fenn

manaroo, teroch, fenn

all mindlink

at some point, it’s just mindlink, and they all mush together. You can feel free to disagree.

19 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Ok. Feel free to define what exactly should be counted and I might give it a look. But until then... *shrug*

Actually, you made the assertion.

Why do I have to do the time series you alleged?

3 minutes ago, Brunas said:

though early punishers/imp aces may have been up there as well.

War's over, imp.

5 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Actually, you made the assertion.

Why do I have to do the time series you alleged?

You don't -> "I might give it a look" == I will do the time series. I want you to define what you consider to be acceptable

Oh, if you're looking for someone's opinion without much invested for the argument's opinion on a good measurement, I think the best way to measure the "average initiative" of a list is points spent per initiative.

E.g. for 3 zealous recruits + fenn, you have:

41 x 3 points spent on i1 pilots

68 points spent on i6 pilots

123/200 * 1 + 68/200 * 6

.615 + 2.01 = weighted initiative of 2.655

For another example, some random imp ace list:

“Whisper” (60)
Crack Shot (2)
Fifth Brother (12)

Soontir Fel (54)
Crack Shot (2)
Hull Upgrade (7)

Grand Inquisitor (52)
Sense (5)
Concussion Missiles (6)
Total: 200

74 + 63 = 137 points on i5

63 points on i6

(137/200) * 5 + (63/200) * 6 = 5.315

22 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Oddly, that's not unprecedented either - when I stopped updated ATC (I'd have to check when), in hyperspace vultures had a 65% winrate including mirrors, and and 73% winrate in cuts (including mirrors). Vultures were obviously a problem of course, just a point of comparison.

Removing the 18 mirror games, Spamtex landed at 63/90 wins. That's 70% in swiss

Three online tournaments and the same lists performing very well.

I see a balance problem. If you like that problem (or you think is better than others), is fine, but is a problem.

We didn't jump to second edition to see the same lists again and again and the points updates are for problems like this.

Maybe the Nantex refresh the meta, but I am more happy with more options, not less.

The Nantex are turretwing, easy to play and effective. That's not good for the game althought the best players win anyway.

Quote

If you take the Blue States out we're at a level that I don't think anybody in the world would be at...at that level...

same team

11 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Removing the 18 mirror games, Spamtex landed at 63/90 wins. That's 70% in swiss

Right, unfortunately I don't have the numbers for vultures easily accessible. I suspect there's fewer mirror matches for vultures as they weren't particularly popular despite being hilariously dominant, but it's not a good comparison to compare nantexes with mirrors removed, while doing vultures without mirrors removed. I can go dig up how many games from that set are mirror matches if you're interested, though.

8 hours ago, jagsba said:

same team

Again: just because you don't understand does not mean that *explicitly declared* conditions are explicitly declared to skew results.

@Brunas I don't know how you have read that, but it's why we can't have a discussion here. This is simply nasty behavior by jagsba and I'm done with it. I don't argue in bad faith. I don't manipulate the numbers. I tell you what I'm showing. Here, in the context of "i'm currently looking at how many mirrors" (see quote below) it makes sense to me to tell you what the wins/games/winrates are once I removed the mirrors. There are very good reasons to remove mirror games when comparing winrates of lists. To insinuate that that is some form of data and narrative manipulation is disgusting behavior by jagsba.

9 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

I'm currently wasting time looking at the nantex matchups for all 22 lists. Round 1+2 had 8 mirror games - so 8 losses out of the 45 are due to mirrors. I assume there will be some more for rounds 4-6. That increases the winrate by 2% already by the way, to 66%

43 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

You don't -> "I might give it a look" == I will do the time series. I want you to define what you consider to be acceptable

OOOOOH! Sure! Let me think on it a moment?

Are we sure that this isn't a stress test of the points system by FFG? Like they don't want to hurt their IRL events, but with those out of the way, this is a golden opportunity to simulate an imbalance for IRL events?

Sure, I'm on team Tim the Enchanter (I bitched before Corellia and told people not to dismiss the list), but this is still healthier than late 1st edition. Sure, it's the most restrictive of 2nd e metas and dominated moreso by 1 list than even quad phantoms, but if this is the worse 2e gets, we're ok. Emergency Nerf when plastic hits mats?

thanks for the game @5050Saint nice to get to actually play you, we should do it again sometime ❤️

I took a couple screenshots during the course of the game so I'm gonna write up a batrep, hopefully it could serve as a guide to how to not thonkjoust nantexans

I think, in general, a lot of the folks in this thread are:

1. Cowards
2. Not playing the game
3. Don't know what they're talking about

50 minutes ago, gennataos said:

I think, in general, a lot of the folks in this thread are:

1. Cowards
2. Not playing the game
3. Don't know what they're talking about

I’m in #2

53 minutes ago, gennataos said:

I think, in general, a lot of the folks in this thread are:

1. Cowards
2. Not playing the game
3. Don't know what they're talking about

Almost everyone is #3 (including me).

That's the secret.

57 minutes ago, gennataos said:

I think, in general, a lot of the folks in this thread are:

1. Cowards
2. Not playing the game
3. Don't know what they're talking about

When danger reared it's ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave sir Hargle turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Swiftly taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the brave, sir Hargle

11 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Almost everyone is #3 (including me).

That's the secret.

Most honest response. Got nothing but love for you, @Tlfj200.

For those in #3, please stfu, because you're also probably #2, because I've not see any of your names in the online events you don't care about.

[edit] - Except @Kyle Ren, who is also #1, because he decided he's no longer "unimpressed"

19 minutes ago, gennataos said:

For those in #3, please stfu

And thus, the great Kraft thread was forever silenced as we all did as @gennataos asked. There were none outside the #3 grouping.

3 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

And thus, the great Kraft thread was forever silenced as we all did as @gennataos asked. There were none outside the #3 grouping.

To be clear, I'm only asking in reference to nantex. Because if you can't be bothered to play that game, I can't be bothered to respond to your bull. (not necessarily you, @LagJanson)

I’ve also noticed the Krayt was autocorrected to Kraft.

Just now, gennataos said:

So I'm going to talk about why I'm irritated. I hear a lot of bull about "how not to lose against nantex", but none of you....NONE OF YOU IN THIS THREAD, have proven it. If you think hyperspace is some sort of safe haven, prove it in Mustafar. If you don't think online events matter, go back to playing D&D or whatever, because you're not actually contributing to the current meta conversion. Despite your Fort Hyperspace or "online is meaningless" stance, Extended is happening RIGHT NOW.

I'm so mad about X-Wing (not really). You're a dumbass for responding to me.

Meanwhile...

Looks like it's going to be a little Nantex on Nantex action in the Concord Dawn final.

3 minutes ago, underling said:

Meanwhile...

Looks like it's going to be a little Nantex on Nantex action in the Concord Dawn final.

According to some on this thread, this is great. Pretty sure most of them are incapable of admitting it's not. Cowards.

Coward: a person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things.