I had the idea for this thread back in August, on page5 and later - in hindsight it would have been a good idea to follow through:

The "2017 National Championships" thread spawns some interesting opinionated discussions. Unfortunately they clutter up the actual topic: Nationals results.

To counteract this, and because I was just guilty of this myself: let's have these discussions here instead. I'll start.

What I said:

Quote

I wonder if part of the reason is that you guys are so close in general skill and ‚objective list strength‘ (however that would be determined) that individual decisions are again extremely important and fun. Playing with a larger difference in list or general skill changes that to a point where it‘s a bit more frustrating.

Quote

[other context]

Oh my view is less benevolent than yours - with the exception of highest tournaments I think cheese is simply wrong to do/use. My reasoning is that using tricks stifles growth in the mid/long term, because once your trick is found out you are back at the bottom.

I admit that using the best lists is not exactly the same, but it is close enough for me, personally.

The replies:

by @SmittLoaf

Quote

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. But I'm wrong for taking a strong list to a local event because I am practicing for a large one. What is wrong is telling another person how they are allowed to have fun. There is zero complaining from anyone if I or another top local player show up to a small event with a "cheese" list. Because even our less competitive locals understand that they came to a tournament, and that they should not be surprised to see strong players with strong lists.

So to refine my position which is dangerously close to a motte&bailey fallacy :

Using "cheap tricks" will hinder growth. In hockey that can be a certain type of dribbling or shot; in table tennis/tennis/badminton that might be a e.g. short serve; in Starcraft I and II that is e.g. the rush. In Starcraft II particularly, the 8pool or 10pool was infamous. It, like all of them, have one thing in common - once they are found out and 'scouted' or recognized then they will most often fail and the player lose. That is my motte, and I don't think there's much to discuss about this part.

Now my 'bailey' (I hope it isn't an actual bailey) is entirely up for discussion and opinion: I liken this established cheese to using the objectively most powerful lists. I'm not saying it is the same thing, but I'm saying my reasoning is the same: once a counter comes along, in the form of new cards, tactic, squad, meta, then the not-top players will not have learned much from playing this list. Because in their hands and against their opponents the list was doing much of the work. This is different for good players: they have the ability to adjust on a high level. But a lesser player will have a problem.

The part where I'm saying that I'm less benevolent than @Jeff Wilder , and where I'm saying such players are wrong to use them: that's pure opinion. I, personally, do not think it is the right thing to do (using top lists). That's why I don't, even though I'm close to being a hypocrite by flying an imperial AlphaStrike list. So yes, I absolutely like to think that you would improve more by taking a less established-to-be-top-tier list.

The counter argument is of course that using the established top list allows you to learn faster because you can know that mistakes are yours, and yours alone. I agree to that. But in my opinion the then correct way is to switch lists as soon as you start winning consistently. Or find stronger opponents of course.

by @Timathius

Quote

That might be some of the reason. But I just want to highlight that the good competitive players are good no matter the meta . Good players are good players, and yes they use the best lists at the time but that is very much secondary. If you would like, I do have the data on player performance to back that up.

I completely agree with what you said. But IMO they are playing with a different goal in mind: win! Once you are close to the top, almost everything is fair game. There the sum of all skills is impressive and should be important. So bring the best list you can think of or find - because you are then at a level where your judgement of a list is valuable by itself.

But I'm playing to improve, and for that my win/loss ratio should be around 50%. If it's below then my list is too bad, if it's above then my list is too good - assuming many different opponents. And yes, I totally believe that "trying to improve" should be a goal of all players that like to play competitively.

So, the main question following your line of reasoning is where then is the divide? Where can competitive players play the top meta lists without being scorned, and where can the Casual player fly sub optimal lists etc.

IMO if you are learning and getting better your win rate WON'T be close to 50%. You will probably lose way more games than you win, but you will be improving your flying, spatial awareness, timing, and synergies. Mine sure wasn't, but I also play in the MD,DC, VA region so their are A LOT of good players here.

The thing that I finally clarified in my mind, just a couple of days ago, is what I mean when I mention how our X-Wing community has changed over the past 18 months or so. (It's almost unrecognizable now. Certain stalwarts from way back man the bulwarks, but it's a losing proposition.) It's this:

It used to be that most of the community, because we are competitive players, would bring lists we thought were strong, because we wanted to fly them to see if we were right.

Now most of the community (not all, but a steadily growing percentage, and an easy majority) brings lists they know are super-strong (because the lists finished Top Four in the last 100+ national-spotlight tournament), because they want to win .

Is that a crime? No, of course it's not a crime. But the difference in those two behaviors and motivations is, IMO, where a great deal of fun has been lost, and, IMO, it's the foundational reason our local scene has shrunk, and is shrinking, so noticeably ... even with an influx of new players. Because the majority of those new players are coming in believing -- or being taught -- that winning is the whole point of tournaments ... and the way to do that is to fly the strongest meta-cheese.

I think you are discounting fun from your consideration. In your argument, you are solely talking about improving one's skills, but not talking about fun. What if someone wants to take a load off and play something they perceive as fun? What if they don't have time to devote to list building, but still want to participate in the fun of X-Wing?

While I agree that playing nothing but meta cheese isn't necessarily a good thing, it is also the player's choice. If someone is gonna bring Dengar Nym to every casual night, I'm okay with that. I will learn and adapt. I already bring two lists to game nights, one for the more experienced players and one for the new guys who are still finding their footing. Making or finding a list that's good against Dengar/Nym isn't that big a problem and I can still have fun with other people, even if fighting meta cheese becomes a chore.

Before you play a game with someone ask them what they want to get out of it and what they are expecting from you, then decide if you want to adjust accordingly or not. Its pretty straightforward.

That aside, can someone please provide an extremely concise exhaustive list of EXACTLY what currently qualifies as Meta Cheese?

This topic keeps cropping up and I think it needs to be grounded in specifics, not general statements like "I know it when I see it and so should you".

I want to know every single card and combo. All of it.

Just now, Boom Owl said:

Can someone please provide an extremely concise exhaustive list of EXACTLY what currently qualifies Meta Cheese?

I want to know every single card and combo. All of it.

No, because it is ever evolving and changing. What someone really means when they say that is taking a list that has won (or done well at) a tournament and flying it.

Just now, Timathius said:

No, because it is ever evolving and changing. What someone really means when they say that is taking a list that has won (or done well at) a tournament and flying it.

Right sure, but what is on that list RIGHT now. For this current moment in X-Wing Time.

10 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Right sure, but what is on that list RIGHT now. For this current moment in X-Wing Time.

FSR, Bridesmaids, triple boats, Dengarnym, nymranda, dashranda, Reyranda, trip scurrgs, Raclo, kanan biggs, quad tlt are probably the ones that would earn that moniker. If you go to Meta Wing you can get a very comprehensive breakdown.

Edit: BTW thats a lot of variety for a competitive scene.

10 minutes ago, Timathius said:

FSR, Bridesmaids, triple boats, Dengarnym, nymranda, dashranda, Reyranda, trip scurrgs, Raclo, kanan biggs, quad tlt are probably the ones that would earn that moniker. If you go to Meta Wing you can get a very comprehensive breakdown.

Ok so if we dont fly any of those things we can avoid destroying the community? Gotcha.

So now that those are on the no-fly list.

What are we going to do about PS11 Han Solo, Dengar by himself, Palp Shuttles, R2D2 Corran, Bossk, Brobots, Rey/Finn, RAC/Gunner, Kanan/Ashoka, other Kylo Crew carriers, etc etc?

All this does is change what the top tier stuff is.

People just end up min-max building at a lower tier anyway with the exact same end result without feeling bad about it.

If I say to a group of people at a casual night...."We dont fly above PS8 here because its cheesey"

Guess what....more than half of them are going to show up with PS8 ships and pretend its super casual.

1 minute ago, Boom Owl said:

Ok so if we dont fly any of those things we can avoid destroying the community? Gotcha.

So now that those are on the no-fly list.

What are we going to do about PS11 Han Solo, Dengar by himself, Palp Shuttles, and other Kylo Crew carriers?

All this does is change what the top tier stuff is.

People just end up min-max building at a lower tier anyway with the exact same end result without feeling bad about it.

I 100000% agree. In the end, there will ALWAYS be better builds and they will always be taken.

1 minute ago, Timathius said:

No, because it is ever evolving and changing. What someone really means when they say that is taking a list that has won (or done well at) a tournament and flying it.

Speaking for my own use of the term, it's not just "a tournament," but a large tournament. And it's not just "a list," but it's a list comprised entirely of elements that the entire community (which does not mean every single individual) recognizes as over-powered.

And yes, it does morph over time And whether it's meta-cheese really does depend on that recognized-as-OP clause. I have often experimentally flown what has become meta-cheese (Brobots, Phantoms, Dengaroo, FSR) before it was widely known to be crazy powerful ... primarily to discover for myself whether it really is. Not to put too fine a point on it, but once I have confirmed it, I just don't fly that list in that configuration again, both for ego-driven reasons and because the fun of the other player has some importance for me.

Anyone can update my knowledge on archetypes and post a example of bridesmaids? And btw, the list forgot the super annoying Plot Armor, LW Dash + Intensity Poe can feel so unfair for opponents as well, you are losing target locks left and right, Dash is so hard to focus fire on because of his annoying barrel rolls and easy to acquire extra cover from obstacles and Poe is ... well just Poe, alway boosting, always having focus, always regenerating and a pain to focus down as well

19 minutes ago, Timathius said:

So, the main question following your line of reasoning is where then is the divide? Where can competitive players play the top meta lists without being scorned, and where can the Casual player fly sub optimal lists etc.

IMO if you are learning and getting better your win rate WON'T be close to 50%. You will probably lose way more games than you win, but you will be improving your flying, spatial awareness, timing, and synergies. Mine sure wasn't, but I also play in the MD,DC, VA region so their are A LOT of good players here.

Where is the divide? I don't know. I know I'm below, so my line of reasoning fits for me ;). Maybe consistent placement at tournaments? Winning smaller ones with worse lists, and larger/higher tiered ones with better lists?

Where can the top meta lists be flown without scorn? Against appropriate opponents and what they consider to be appropriate lists.
Now that's not possible in a tournament, so I make the following assumption: the more to win the higher the chance for it to be appropriate. FFG kinda steers that by tiering the tournaments. So - again personally - my guideline would be to be humble in victory. You'll note that I don't think using "these lists (tm)" is a problem. The problem comes when the success with them is seen as the exclusively own achievement.

As for the winrate: no clue. Maybe. I guess that you'll win roughly half if you are about as good as the opponent.

13 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

I think you are discounting fun from your consideration. In your argument, you are solely talking about improving one's skills, but not talking about fun. What if someone wants to take a load off and play something they perceive as fun? What if they don't have time to devote to list building, but still want to participate in the fun of X-Wing?

I think fun can be present in all of them so there's no reason to discuss it if it's the same. However: part of my reasoning is that in the mid/long term, the person who relies on good lists as crutch (and who exclusively netlists, to add in that topic) will be more frustrated once his "skill" vanishes overnight. So in that sense I believe that my way leads to a more sustained fun.

17 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

While I agree that playing nothing but meta cheese isn't necessarily a good thing, it is also the player's choice. If someone is gonna bring Dengar Nym to every casual night, I'm okay with that. I will learn and adapt. I already bring two lists to game nights, one for the more experienced players and one for the new guys who are still finding their footing. Making or finding a list that's good against Dengar/Nym isn't that big a problem and I can still have fun with other people, even if fighting meta cheese becomes a chore.

Yes, it's his choice. But it will be my problem once he's frustrated because DengarNym has been nerfed and he has no clue how to play anything else and quits. I think it's not "healthy" in the long term for the community, and for the fun of the individual player.

5 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

All this does is change what the top tier stuff is.

People just end up min-max building at a lower tier anyway with the exact same end result without feeling bad about it.

3 minutes ago, Timathius said:

I 100000% agree. In the end, there will ALWAYS be better builds and they will always be taken.

Absolutely. Which is why I mentioned in the original thread:

Quote

Lower tier lists will always exist. But can they put up a good fight or are they a laughig stock?

The closer the worst is to the best the better for the game (assuming half-reasonable lists as the worst here...)

I still firmly believe this has only one consistent solution

2 Players TALK like humans to each other and define the following:

1. What do they both want out of the game and what do they want from each other?

2. Do they want to mutually agree to tailor the match up to be balanced around their different skill level, experience, access to cards, and preferences?

Either way its critical that discussion take place 1 on 1, as everyone brings different expectations to a given setting and no one should assume unspoken rules are instinct.

Of course absolutely none of this matters in any standard rules tournament setting.

2 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

I believe that this is precisely something we want to be solved proper balancing.

Lower tier lists will always exist. But can they put up a good fight or are they a laughig stock?

The whole issue around netlisting, meta cheese, shaming etc is directly proportional to the imbalance.

So you want to fix stupidity in the list building phase of the game, but balancing? Eliminate bad choices from the game by equalizing game pieces?
I don't think this will work in a game as complex as the current X-Wing. Nor do I think that this is a good design goal.

It would be easier to maintain a data-base of lists with reviews on the flight experience and avaible printouts with proxy cards instead of "balancing" the game into a direction which eliminates choice.

edit: And to elaborate, I have build plenty of lists with stupid decisions. Finding those mistakes and fixing them is fun to me and most likely it is fun to all competitive players.

8 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

Anyone can update my knowledge on archetypes and post a example of bridesmaids? And btw, the list forgot the super annoying Plot Armor, LW Dash + Intensity Poe can feel so unfair for opponents as well, you are losing target locks left and right, Dash is so hard to focus fire on because of his annoying barrel rolls and easy to acquire extra cover from obstacles and Poe is ... well just Poe, alway boosting, always having focus, always regenerating and a pain to focus down as well

Bridesmaids = Ego 3.0 Biggs Lowhrick Miranda named thusly because it came in second 3 times in a row at 3 of the largest X-wing events in the last month.

7 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Where is the divide? I don't know. I know I'm below, so my line of reasoning fits for me ;). Maybe consistent placement at tournaments? Winning smaller ones with worse lists, and larger/higher tiered ones with better lists?

Where can the top meta lists be flown without scorn? Against appropriate opponents and what they consider to be appropriate lists.
Now that's not possible in a tournament, so I make the following assumption: the more to win the higher the chance for it to be appropriate. FFG kinda steers that by tiering the tournaments. So - again personally - my guideline would be to be humble in victory. You'll note that I don't think using "these lists (tm)" is a problem. The problem comes when the success with them is seen as the exclusively own achievement.

As for the winrate: no clue. Maybe. I guess that you'll win roughly half if you are about as good as the opponent.

I think fun can be present in all of them so there's no reason to discuss it if it's the same. However: part of my reasoning is that in the mid/long term, the person who relies on good lists as crutch (and who exclusively netlists, to add in that topic) will be more frustrated once his "skill" vanishes overnight. So in that sense I believe that my way leads to a more sustained fun.

Yes, it's his choice. But it will be my problem once he's frustrated because DengarNym has been nerfed and he has no clue how to play anything else and quits. I think it's not "healthy" in the long term for the community, and for the fun of the individual player.

Absolutely. Which is why I mentioned in the original thread:

The closer the worst is to the best the better for the game (assuming half-reasonable lists as the worst here...)

Right, so my main issue is people attacking one another over their choice of what to fly. What level of tournament are competitive players allowed to take the list they think gives them the best chance to win? Because in the end there will ALWAYS be the better builds. At what point does it become bad form to use them.

Posting this again because it still sums up how I feel about this topic in general.

If we dont talk to each other about expectations before each game it makes both sides look like this...

2 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

So you want to fix stupidity in the list building phase of the game, but balancing? Eliminate bad choices from the game by equalizing game pieces?
I don't think this will work in a game as complex as the current X-Wing. Nor do I think that this is a good design goal.

It would be easier to maintain a data-base of lists with reviews on the flight experience and avaible printouts with proxy cards instead of "balancing" the game into a direction which eliminates choice.

No, not at all. Why do you think that? Where do I suggest equalizing pieces or eliminating choice?

4 minutes ago, Timathius said:

Right, so my main issue is people attacking one another over their choice of what to fly. What level of tournament are competitive players allowed to take the list they think gives them the best chance to win? Because in the end there will ALWAYS be the better builds. At what point does it become bad form to use them.

It‘s not a snapshot. If you crush every storechamp within a 2h drive and always bring the same OPQ then it‘s bad form. Bringing it once is allright. The exact point is inbetween and it would be wrong to claim knowledge of the exact moment for all local metas everywhere.

9 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

I still firmly believe this has only one consistent solution

Right. But that breaks down once at least one is immature. I mean, there are people on the forums/reddit that get angry for a ‚good game‘ or shaking hands after a loss. Do you believe they are up to suddenly get all introspective? Or would a community that vocally shuns such unwanted behavior be more useful?

2 minutes ago, Timathius said:

Because in the end there will ALWAYS be the better builds. At what point does it become bad form to use them.

This is bulls--t.

Better builds, yes, of course. But over-powered, order-of-magnitude better? No. That does not logically follow, at all.

The "there will always be better builds" is a garbage argument, designed to do one thing: give the players who want it an excuse to keep flying the same four or eight meta-cheese lists.

I would genuinely respect "winning is the most important thing to me, full stop" more as an argument. It at least has the virtue of honesty.

X-Wing has dozens of ships, scores of pilots, and hundreds of upgrades. Yet what percentage of each do "top players" bring to tournaments? It's sad. And I don't mean that in an insulting sense , but in a very literal sense: it is unfortunate/depressing/sad that so few ships/pilots/upgrades, in conjunction with people who insist those things are the only flyable things, weed out so many ships/pilots/upgrades. And I'm not talking about garbage upgrades. They exist, just like the OP stuff exists. I'm talking about perfectly well-balanced upgrades that would see use in the absence of the top 2%.

I think one thing that will bridge the gap almost instantly is having more OP support for other formats.

One specifically I think that would have a massive impact would be a draft format, as this would be a competitive format that rewards list building, enables diversity, all while still rewarding good piloting- one of the biggest hangups between the Johnnys and the Spikes.

If we had an official draft format that had kits, even if they were less frequent than standard, I see little reason to believe they wouldn't be a massive success.

The issue is, of course, the logistics of it. These issue exist less so for formats like hangar bay and epic. Why we don't get more support for these formats in a competitive setting is beyond me.

22 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Absolutely

3 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

This is bulls--t.

How agreement can look different ?

Allright, I‘m off to my game night. Don‘t expect me to reply on the next hours.

41 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Before you play a game with someone ask them what they want to get out of it and what they are expecting from you, then decide if you want to adjust accordingly or not. Its pretty straightforward.

That aside, can someone please provide an extremely concise exhaustive list of EXACTLY what currently qualifies as Meta Cheese?

This topic keeps cropping up and I think it needs to be grounded in specifics, not general statements like "I know it when I see it and so should you".

I want to know every single card and combo. All of it.

http://meta-wing.com/ship_combos?

14 minutes ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:

http://meta-wing.com/ship_combos?

That is absolutely not specific enough.

9 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

I think one thing that will bridge the gap almost instantly is having more OP support for other formats.

One specifically I think that would have a massive impact would be a draft format, as this would be a competitive format that rewards list building, enable diversity, all while as well as piloting- one of the biggest hangups between the Johnnys and the Spikes.

If we had an official draft format that had kits, even if they were less frequent than standard, I see little reason to believe they wouldn't be a massive success.

The issue is, of course, the logistics of it. These issue exist less so for formats like hangar bay and epic. Why we don't get more support for these formats in a competitive setting is beyond me.

100% this. When the meta in standard play gets stale and you're a competitive player, you're screwed until the meta changes. That's what I'm feeling right now. I hate the current meta but I love competing. If I had the option to compete in a different format, I'd do so in a heartbeat. Casual play isn't enough, I want to have that feeling of placing at large tournaments and winning shiny new things. I'm grateful to have a community that participates in OutRyder Cup, which treats Epic on a competitive setting. Listbuilding and testing for a truly competitive Epic format is so refreshing. The meta is wide open and there are so many lists one can do well with. If we had OP support for alternate formats I'm certain it would lift the community's spirits.

2 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

That is absolutely not specific enough.

Can you at least give me an objective example of meta cheese?