3 hours ago, AEIllingworth said:

There might be a feedback loop right now happening where there are some three agility stuff on the cheap side of the bell curve, but they all have two die guns which makes the three agility an even better call, and repeat.

I don't think this holds even a little bit of water. For a feedback loop to occur there would have to be a lot of them? And there's just... mostly not?

Like even the entire category of "6+ ship lists" was only around 1/7th of the Galaxies meta. And obviously, lots of those are going to have been other things; lots of them are going to have been just bad lists; and lots of them are going to have been pre-nerf Nantex. So whatever the smaller true number is, how could it be that it's going around warping everyone else's listbuilding? It just doesn't math out.

(I happen to know off the top of my head that Cartel Spacers were in 2.3% of lists. A little over 1 in 50 players brought them. Does not a meta menace make.)

Edit: Also, a reiteration; the single most played archetype in Galaxies was Rey + Zizi + Thing. If three agility pilots were distorting the meta, it probably wasn't the non-nantex generics...

2 hours ago, svelok said:

I don't think this holds even a little bit of water. For a feedback loop to occur there would have to be a lot of them? And there's just... mostly not?

Like even the entire category of "6+ ship lists" was only around 1/7th of the Galaxies meta. And obviously, lots of those are going to have been other things; lots of them are going to have been just bad lists; and lots of them are going to have been pre-nerf Nantex. So whatever the smaller true number is, how could it be that it's going around warping everyone else's listbuilding? It just doesn't math out.

(I happen to know off the top of my head that Cartel Spacers were in 2.3% of lists. A little over 1 in 50 players brought them. Does not a meta menace make.)

Edit: Also, a reiteration; the single most played archetype in Galaxies was Rey + Zizi + Thing. If three agility pilots were distorting the meta, it probably wasn't the non-nantex generics...

I don't think we can separate galaxies meta from its oppressive tier 0 list. The 3 greens generic complaints are ingrained with nantex existance and the same is true for rey zizi + raising popularity.

Right now we are in a fresher and quite meaningless meta that will last for less than a month. The only thing we know for sure, since it has been so since like ever, is that playing against 3 green dice ships is frustrating when they are in the top side of variance

14 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

Id be down for point increases across the entire cardpool but specifically targeting generics seems really odd.

I'm an across the board. Or at least the "top" and the "bottom" initiatives.

At least to me, almost feels like the recent waves of buffs to generic efficiency might have gone... a bit farther than needed. Like, TIE/fo being 25 points kind of ruins Torrents and Z-95s and regular TIE Fighters. So those need a buff. I just think the recent trend of "buff buff buff" has been bad. I'd love to see FFG put the breaks on a bit, and lower the power level of what a list can do somewhat.

I've got no problem with ace nerfs, never have. Haven't always felt it needs to be said every time. Could the previous rounds of ace nerfs been actually effective? Has the needle shifted too far? An across-the-board 1-point nerfs probably hits generics harder than aces, but combining nerfs to aces and generics probably prevents the aces from getting out of hand again.

Mid-level pilots, I4 X-Wings and whatever, maybe there's fun pilots in there that are worth leaving alone. Nerf aces, nerf efficiency, leave alone the mid-tier pilots no one plays?

3 hours ago, Cuz05 said:

I may not be paying enough attention, struggling with semantics or just being stupid.

I may have the wrong idea about the accepted definition of power creep.

I honestly don't know.

But the playability threshold line creeping further up the power level line looks like power creep to me.

You're not wrong.

I get that some folks want to use Power Creep as a niche term for new releases being specifically simply better versions of old things. However, it also seems like common usage isn't that precise. I think the overall power of lists in X-Wing, at least of somewhat honed lists, has kept getting higher.

Maybe that's not quite right, since we don't have 4 Juke Phantoms anymore, or dirt-cheap AdvS/Torp Redlines, and so forth. But so much else has been getting continual buffs, and still those buffs haven't made some stuff viable. Spamming cheap 3-red ships gets you 6 pilots easily, but except with control Scyks, it isn't there yet. So do folks buff Strikers and Interceptors again? I think that'd be a really bad idea, I think there's got to be a place where constant buffs have to stop. I don't think a game can keep buffing everything continually and stay healthy. Even if efficiency isn't "good" it could easily be an invisible gate keeper.

I guess the thread I've lost is that haggling over "oh, that isn't *really* power creep" seems kind of like it distracts from actually discussing how the power level of lists is changing.

As a generic lover I can't complain about swarms getting their moment in the sun, but it does raise an eyebrow when the platforms that are performing best are those with special arcs (Nantex turrets, TIE Aggressor turrets, RZ2 turrets, Auzituk definitely-not-a-turrets).

i thought it was pretty cool, but ok

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

why are generic rz2s in that list...? The problem with rz2 is that the good ships are not generics, though "good" is of course still far below the other examples you give.

Yeah that was a bit of a conflation of the concept of "generic" with "cheap/efficient platform that can be spammed". RZ2s are in a weird spot with pricing where a lot of them have pilot abilities that don't cost them much and they have a ton of pilots to choose from so you can get an efficient swam but with unique names. Regardless, I was watching the top cut from Coruscant and it struck me that the entire Top 4 was basically turret swarms of some iteration.

I appreciate the data.

My absolutely no data feels on 2 red/3 green spam have probably been covered already. My experience is that it's very difficult to remove enough points from these lists to overcome the points you lose from time on target chip damage, when using anything else against it. This leads to cagey, lack of destruction, low scoring games, i.e. the exact same issue behind triple ace lists.

You lose big, or you conserve and win little. An MOV nightmare. Lists that play heavily into that are the ongoing thorny issue of 2.0 and seem to be behind much of the meta narrowing that causes backlash.

I think it makes things a little more complex than x is too cheap, y is too expensive.

There's a lot of things making these discussions unproductive but I'm pretty down with the pivot to actually turrets are the problem

57 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

So not only is it undeniable that 3agility ships are doing very well, shown by the 9% increase from swiss to cut, but also that they become rather frequent in cuts.
Even more outstanding is the 12%point or doubling of massed 3 agility ships in 5+ ship lists. Whether Scyks are 2% or not is irrelevant - the massed agility ships are very frequent. That shuts down 2attack dice ships even more.

TL;DR: If someone is a fan of 2 attack dice generics, they should try to get the number of 3 agility ships down - whether massed or not.

The problem with your stats is that 3 agility aces and 3 agility mid-range ships, and 3 agility swarms are all counted the same, and a 5+ ship list could be Ace+swarmlet, 2 Aces + TIE escort, 5A, etc.

i thought it was pretty cool, but ok

I think its probably best to mostly separate the gameplay preference from performance/data at this stage. Reviewing the same 5 tournament results in an endless loop seems like it will be of limited use. Its also ok if there is not an agreed upon proven "correct opinion" on the remaining non-nantex swarms here. At least it seems reasonable to assume they are not significantly more problematic than anything else in the meta (though they do have a decent cut rate).

It is clear to me now that the concern about swarms was not just about Nantex or 3 agility and has more to do with gameplay and archetype preferences which I suspected from the start. Its ok to not like certain types of lists. We don't always have to feel pressure to back those preferences up with data. Its totally fine to not like consistently effective swarms or alternatively to not like low ship count aces.

I think we will have more to discuss or talk about if we start to zero back in on in game strategy specifics , list v list matchups, and personal enthusiasm for the things we actually enjoy.

If anyone wants to get back to talking about the game again in here I am 100% down (still prefer to chat about hyperspace though).

There are a bunch of cool ships and mechanics and matchups to think about and it might be a really good time to break the cycle of trying to figure out exactly which thing is ruining X-Wing. Just a thought.

One final thing to add on feedback loops:

23 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

It is clear to me now that the concern about swarms was not just about Nantex or 3 agility and has more to do with gameplay and archetype preferences which I suspected from the start.

Wait why is that clear? I thought the opposite is clear?

11 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Wait why is that clear? I thought the opposite is clear?

The comment was not specifically meant for you. Its obvious the continued concerns with remaining meta relevant swarms are not at all restricted to issues with 3 agility. Not really interested in dissecting every last reason players have for wanting to nerf swarm lists. They could be completely valid. It doesn't matter. It is a gameplay preference.

Lets move on....

What have you been playing lately and enjoying?

What tactics do you want to talk about?

Here for that conversation if anyone else wants to get back to that.

14 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

The comment was not specifically meant for you. Its obvious the continued concerns with remaining meta relevant swarms are not at all restricted to issues with 3 agility. Not really interested in dissecting every last reason players have for wanting to nerf swarm lists. They could be completely valid. It doesn't matter. It is a gameplay preference.

I got that first part, but was it something in these last 2 pages since you asked the question?

1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

The comment was not specifically meant for you. Its obvious the continued concerns with remaining meta relevant swarms are not at all restricted to issues with 3 agility. Not really interested in dissecting every last reason players have for wanting to nerf swarm lists. They could be completely valid. It doesn't matter. It is a gameplay preference.

Lets move on....

What have you been playing lately and enjoying?

What tactics do you want to talk about?

Here for that conversation if anyone else wants to get back to that.

I really like Kulani with Nantex. Getting them a lock at the cost of stress is good and fun, and makes the fight against lower initiative more of a thinking puzzle and is more straightforward against high initiative, smoothing out how hard games can be with them. If you can pull off the target lock for a stress then blue maneuver to clear it while still getting a shot on them, it feels really good. I’m not even averaging that once a game, though maybe I’m playing people who know not to fly into their bullseye before they move?

Knowing when to pick a blue maneuver because they might fly into the bullseye before you move, but still having a good enough maneuver to shoot them is my new thing to work on (until new Black Friday ships, probably).

1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

The comment was not specifically meant for you. Its obvious the continued concerns with remaining meta relevant swarms are not at all restricted to issues with 3 agility. Not really interested in dissecting every last reason players have for wanting to nerf swarm lists. They could be completely valid. It doesn't matter. It is a gameplay preference.

To be fair, I think you started the swarm conversation in the thread. (below)

19 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

Why is everyone on the war path against all generics now?

Id be down for point increases across the entire cardpool but specifically targeting generics seems really odd.

Then @GreenDragoon provides a bunch of data and it looks, to me, like you (and others) summarily dismiss it, maintaining the "people just don't like swarms" mantra. No one said that, that's how I inferred it. That's how I read the gameplay preferences stuff.

Speaking of gameplay preferences stuff, the whole Hyperspace vs. Extended preference stuff has been really dumb and does nothing but create more opportunities for us (collectively) to be pissy with each other. Don't like Extended? Okay, don't play extended stuff, don't bother commenting on Extended meta, don't dismiss Extended meta and events with talking about the merits of Hyperspace and why it's better. Visa versa for Extended enthusiasts. No one is forcing us to play any format.

I think a lot of us are disappointed that this thread has devolved, but all of us should take some ownership of their role in why that happened. I know I've been snippy and take particularly umbrage when I infer people are being passive aggressive with dismissive or condescending comments. It may not be intended that way, and instead of taking a breath and trying to talk through it, I lash out. I kind of did it above. I'm not trying to attack you, @Boom Owl. You're just a guy who's posts I used to get excited to see, every time, and things have changed. I don't know if it's me or you or both. Doesn't have to be that way and I'm trying to get better.

1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

Lets move on....

What have you been playing lately and enjoying?

What tactics do you want to talk about?

Here for that conversation if anyone else wants to get back to that.

Pretty much all things Poe, and always with BB-8 because there's nothing to play for, so might as well have fun. And it might actually be good. (R2-D2 might be, too) Overdrive Thrusters absolutely has done what I wanted, which is make him the ace he deserves (in my head canon) to be. I don't win every game, but I win most and he feels fantastic. I'm not sure on the wingmates, but it's probably either Rey or +2, with one of those +2 being an A-Wing (with a Procket or being L'ulo).

I did yea and I regret it completely. That was my mistake.

Sorry to bother you guys.

I will try my best not to post here again.

17 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

I did yea and I regret it completely. That was my mistake.

Sorry to bother you guys.

I will try my best not to post here again.

NO! Your input is clearly valued. Steering things away from pro/anti-swarm talk and back to more discussable things is the kind of wisdom that is appreciated.

(Steering it that way in the 1st place can now be safely swept under the rug.)

Hyperspace! I like Rampage and generic Interceptors as Imp options atm but am unconvinced it's actually any good. So 5th and 7th are welcome unwholesome HS remainders and the easy option of Passive Homer Bro being out is also nice. Ion is an interesting option for him. With that, tractor beam, strain and blocking Ints, Imp control feels kinda new to me.

That I5 A Wings exist in a plethora of ways, and arc coverage is generally high, and Boba, and I6 is also about, maybe make 5th and 7th less unwholesome than they might otherwise be.

41 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

I did yea and I regret it completely. That was my mistake.

Sorry to bother you guys.

I will try my best not to post here again.

That's not my hope or goal, but I get it if you feel like I'm being a jerk.

Good luck on staying away! I've had periods of weeks/months where I try it and end up stumbling back in.

47 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

I did yea and I regret it completely. That was my mistake.

Sorry to bother you guys.

I will try my best not to post here again.

6 minutes ago, gennataos said:

Good luck on staying away! I've had periods of weeks/months where I try it and end up stumbling back in.

Haha no hard feelings. That reads far more dramatic than intended.

Hopefully after the next points cycle remaining cut quality swarms will be nerfed to a point that its possible to talk about X-Wing again.

I mean, Nantex were a (1) swarm of (2) turrets who were (3) functionally aces in many matchups.

Ace. Turret. Swarm. All in the same list. To try to draw some sort of archetype preferences from folks opinions on Nantex is kind of absurd, since they were every archetype at once. They were too cheap; now they aren't.

7 hours ago, Cuz05 said:

Hyperspace! I like Rampage and generic Interceptors as Imp options atm but am unconvinced it's actually any good.

I've been staring at Lytan and 5 Alphas real hard. Lytan can grab the targeting config, tractor beam, and a hull upgrade. It's not great but it's fun to fly and can give almost any list some panic sweats.

7 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

I mean, Nantex were a (1) swarm of (2) turrets who were (3) functionally aces in many matchups.

Ace. Turret. Swarm. All in the same list. To try to draw some sort of archetype preferences from folks opinions on Nantex is kind of absurd, since they were every archetype at once. They were too cheap; now they aren't.

Like RZ2s.