Top 4 in Tulsa included 2 nym/Miranda in a mirror match (not certain it was an exact mirror, didn't look at all the upgrades).

Other top 4 table was Poe/Lowhhrick/Fenn vs Kylo Vader Academy.

I lost to Poe/Lowhhrick/Fenn in the top 8, I was flying QD/Quis/Yorr.

Another regio in Poland won by Imperials! Katowice, 54 people.

Winner: Slaan

SlaanFire (100)

•"Quickdraw" (36) - TIE/SF Fighter
Draw Their Fire (1), Fire Control System (2), Sensor Cluster (2), Special Ops Training (0), Lightweight Frame (2)

The winner in Oklahoma played incredibly well in the final, his opening was basically perfect and the game was pretty much over by the time dials went down for the 5th time

Just throwing it in here as I'm slightly pissed: why do I have more lists from the Tasmanian regional than the Wisconsin regional? How? 24 vs 22. Tasmanians entered 24/24, Wisconsin 22/76. Why? Socal has 31 out of 111, Nebraska 30/96.

Why is everyone only interested in the cuts? Knowing what does not work is as interesting or even more so than what does.

On a more positive note:

Shoutout and huge thanks to the people entering all lists for Regionals in:

• Hobart, Tasmania
• Sevilla
• Belo Horizonte
• Varberg
• Leiden
• Reykjavik
• Midlothian, Virginia
• Mechelen

You guys are awesome!

@GreenDragoon , I expect the lack of reporting is due to player experience. The larger the turnout, the more likely that many/most players are very casual and don't know that list juggler even exists. Pair that with too many lists for organizers to track, and I think you have a reasonable explanation.

On 3/14/2018 at 7:02 AM, GreenDragoon said:

Just throwing it in here as I'm slightly pissed: why do I have more lists from the Tasmanian regional than the Wisconsin regional? How? 24 vs 22. Tasmanians entered 24/24, Wisconsin 22/76. Why? Socal has 31 out of 111, Nebraska 30/96.

Why is everyone only interested in the cuts? Knowing what does not work is as interesting or even more so than what does.

a lot of players dont support list juggler or similar concepts that encourage netlisting. I would certainly never use something like that. might be that the vast majority of players are in the "build your own list" camp

1 minute ago, Vontoothskie said:

a lot of players dont support list juggler or similar concepts that encourage netlisting. I would certainly never use something like that. might be that the vast majority of players are in the "build your own list" camp

Well, 60% of lists are filled in. Meaning your „vast majority“ does not actively object to list juggler.

That is something we can know because of listjuggler. Hashtag more data less feelings

4 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

a lot of players dont support list juggler or similar concepts that encourage netlisting. I would certainly never use something like that. might be that the vast majority of players are in the "build your own list" camp

Your anti-netlisting stance would be more convincing if you posted it some place other than here, an internet thread about top performing lists that you clearly read.

3 hours ago, Kleeg005 said:

@GreenDragoon , I expect the lack of reporting is due to player experience. The larger the turnout, the more likely that many/most players are very casual and don't know that list juggler even exists. Pair that with too many lists for organizers to track, and I think you have a reasonable explanation.

I think so too. Looking at my local community, all our tournaments have been put into list juggler by the same couple of guys who also organize them. If we ever got to a point where people had to be asked to input their own lists, I'm certain 80-90% wouldn't care enough to do it.

I'm against pure net-listing in competitive games, and yet I regularly post my lists, and added my list and final MOV to the Omaha Regionals. I don't want people to straight copy anything I post, but post to give suggestions and ideas for their own list building.

Apathy. A percentage of players aren't as big into the X-Wing scene but still attend events such as regionals for game time. These players are less likely to do the extra work of finding list juggler in the first place, let alone entering their list in.

Or laziness (this will include me) - after an event I'm rather done with it. That said, past two big events I've done well enough that event organizers tossed my list up for me. I actually considered going back to GenCon 2017 and entering my terrible list this past week with all the complaints, but gave up after a few minutes of not finding it. I'm guessing only Day 2 was posted as anything of value there, but I could be wrong.

On 3/14/2018 at 6:02 AM, GreenDragoon said:

Why is everyone only interested in the cuts? Knowing what does not work is as interesting or even more so than what does.

It's only really useful if everyone is of equal skill, since the further beyond the cut you go the more noise you get.

16 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

I'm against pure net-listing in competitive games, and I regularly post my lists, and added my list and final MOV to the Omaha Regionals. I don't want people to straight copy anything I post, but post to give suggestions and ideas for their own list building.

I absolutely dont want to sound like a ****. But its Kinda whack to tell others how to approach and enjoy a game.

3 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Well, 60% of lists are filled in. Meaning your „vast majority“ does not actively object to list juggler.

That is something we can know because of listjuggler. Hashtag more data less

3 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Well, 60% of lists are filled in. Meaning your „vast majority“ does not actively object to list juggler.

That is something we can know because of listjuggler. Hashtag more data less feelings

the comment i responded specifically sited a minority of participants posting lists and a majority refraining doing so.

so i agree, more Data less feelings

58 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

the comment i responded specifically sited a minority of participants posting lists and a majority refraining doing so.

so i agree, more Data less feelings

And which ‚data‘ did you base your feeling of the majority on? You did realize that the very next post by me thanked 8 regionals for completely filling out the lists? No? After I bemoaned that 3 didn‘t? Nothing?

1 hour ago, Fippo said:

I absolutely dont want to sound like a ****. But its Kinda whack to tell others how to approach and enjoy a game.

I'm not sure how you take my comment as doing such, unless you're saying that one shouldn't share advise, or "what works for me" info.

On 3/14/2018 at 5:02 AM, GreenDragoon said:

Just throwing it in here as I'm slightly pissed: why do I have more lists from the Tasmanian regional than the Wisconsin regional? How? 24 vs 22. Tasmanians entered 24/24, Wisconsin 22/76. Why? Socal has 31 out of 111, Nebraska 30/96.

Why is everyone only interested in the cuts? Knowing what does not work is as interesting or even more so than what does.

Because TOs don’t have an infinite amount of time, most players have little interest in self-reporting, and it’s easier to get all the lists up for a small tourney—if you’ve got 16 lists up, you may as well fill out the other 8 (but if there’s another 50 after...you gotta draw the line somewhere).

Speak for yourself, but I don’t find post-cut data very interesting. ****, I hardly even care about Top 16 data. But once you start getting in the 20s and 30s, you just don’t get good information—you don’t know if it’s a bad pilot or a bad list. Edit—I didn’t mean it to sound like placing 20 or 30 makes you bad. It’s a respectable spot and even a couple of rounds of bad dice can knock you down that far from potentially being in the cut. Point still stands though; you don’t know where the list’s failure is coming from.

9 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

a lot of players dont support list juggler or similar concepts that encourage netlisting. I would certainly never use something like that. might be that the vast majority of players are in the "build your own list" camp

I actually think ListJuggler is one of the best resources out there for building your own list. Making an off-meta list without knowing what the meta is is a fool’s errand. You’re not flying the most powerful stuff, so you have to make sure your matchups are good.

2 hours ago, Ailowynn said:

Speak for yourself, but I don’t find post-cut data very interesting. ****, I hardly even care about Top 16 data.

And I really don‘t understand this.

To make a hypothetical example:

Let’s say you have 100 players, and always 10 are playing the exact same list. The top10 has one of each list. That means you have no clue what works better.

In an other tournament with 100 players, one list is played more often, 30 times, and there are 3 in the top10. Is the list now better than everything else? Because there are 3 in the top10, while the rest has only 1 each.

Quickdraw for example has roughly 1 in the cut for every 3 that were brought. And she‘s a lot in the cuts. Does that make her good? Poe is also often in the cut, but has a worse rate. Lothal, Lowhhrick, Miranda, Zeb and Fenn have a much better rate.

But we can only know this if we have the whole field!

6 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

And I really don‘t understand this.

To make a hypothetical example:

Let’s say you have 100 players, and always 10 are playing the exact same list. The top10 has one of each list. That means you have no clue what works better.

In an other tournament with 100 players, one list is played more often, 30 times, and there are 3 in the top10. Is the list now better than everything else? Because there are 3 in the top10, while the rest has only 1 each.

Quickdraw for example has roughly 1 in the cut for every 3 that were brought. And she‘s a lot in the cuts. Does that make her good? Poe is also often in the cut, but has a worse rate. Lothal, Lowhhrick, Miranda, Zeb and Fenn have a much better rate.

But we can only know this if we have the whole field!

Well, you originally said you wanted to know what "does not work," which implies that you were looking for what didn't make the cut at all. That's a bit different than seeing what did make the cut and then comparing it to its rate of success in that tournament.

That said, I don't even find tournament-wide rate of success all that useful either because once you get past a certain point, the noise is too hard to get through, and why your hypothetical just doesn't work for me -- it's smoothing out variables that can't be ignored. I think the usefulness of the data collection, at least for most people, is not in the results of individual tournaments, but in the weight of a large combined number of them. Of course, not all tourneys are weighted equal as larger and more competitive tourneys are obviously more valuable, but looking at one tourney on its own (even if it is large and you can get more good information from it) isn't all that helpful.

It's ironic to an extent that I find the three tournaments you were looking for more data from (Wisc, SoCal, and Nebraska) as generally more valuable than the other that had all the data entered.

For what it's worth, I'll add something about non-cut data.

The question we do not know is: "What is the field?" We literally don't know what we don't know.

Is the field like the cut? Is it vastly different than the cut? Is there some big swiss list that barely makes cuts, but is huge in the swiss rounds? While the cut data is interesting, and clearly super useful, also knowing the filed would be super useful.


Rephrased: We do not know if the cut (the known sampling) is representative of the field (the population). It'd be like knowing the average without knowing the standard deviation and/or the median.

1 hour ago, AlexW said:

Well, you originally said you wanted to know what "does not work," which implies that you were looking for what didn't make the cut at all. That's a bit different than seeing what did make the cut and then comparing it to its rate of success in that tournament.

I want to know all kinds of things. Much of it needs the whole field. One thing is "what does not work", another is the general advancement rate from swiss to cut.

1 hour ago, AlexW said:

That said, I don't even find tournament-wide rate of success all that useful either because once you get past a certain point, the noise is too hard to get through, and why your hypothetical just doesn't work for me -- it's smoothing out variables that can't be ignored.

Can you expand on that? Also per pm if you don't want to continue here, I'm genuinely interested.

1 hour ago, AlexW said:

I think the usefulness of the data collection, at least for most people, is not in the results of individual tournaments, but in the weight of a large combined number of them. Of course, not all tourneys are weighted equal as larger and more competitive tourneys are obviously more valuable, but looking at one tourney on its own (even if it is large and you can get more good information from it) isn't all that helpful.

I absolutely agree! In fact I'm hesitating to draw conclusions from even some combined tournaments. I put 49 regionals together, which is a large amount. It's larger than anything I've ever used before, larger than vassal league for example, or larger than monthly recaps.

That is not an argument against full tournament lists. In my opinion it is exactly the opposite - the larger you want to go the happier you are about complete tournaments.

1 hour ago, Tlfj200 said:

For what it's worth, I'll add something about non-cut data.

The question we do not know is: "What is the field?" We literally don't know what we don't know.

Is the field like the cut? Is it vastly different than the cut? Is there some big swiss list that barely makes cuts, but is huge in the swiss rounds? While the cut data is interesting, and clearly super useful, also knowing the filed would be super useful.


Rephrased: We do not know if the cut (the known sampling) is representative of the field (the population). It'd be like knowing the average without knowing the standard deviation and/or the median.

But again that rephrasing implies it is one variable and it isn't. I'm not saying that extra data is useless but am trying to answer the question as to why especially large tournaments are as complete and why people don't dedicate more time to tracking down 60-70 extra lists.

In terms of priority, how much time do you spend on your podcast talking about the field for each regional? I don't hear "the field" discussed really at all on any of the ones I listen to (with the exception of a unique tourney or two), so my hunch is that even people that tend to spend a lot of time thinking about and talking about the game don't really find information about the field all that useful when compared with the top "x."

Knowing the field can be useful but only in co-ordination with other data. A lot of people asked about the field recently, especially with respect to Ghost/Fenns, in a European Regional where a BB-Poe won. But even that isn't really what they want to know -- they were really looking for the matchups that list faced. I've also seen people use field data to try and explain both sides of whether the exact same same list is strong or not.

44 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Can you expand on that? Also per pm if you don't want to continue here, I'm genuinely interested.

To put is simply, there are a lot of variables that go into someone making the top cut (skill, list, luck, matchups), but something went right for those lists and players. The more that you see a list having success the more you can at least say the list itself is strong. As you get further down, the variance in those categories gets wider to the point where only one of them is consistent (the list), so it gets very difficult, imo, to tell how much the list has to do with its own placement.

56 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I absolutely agree! In fact I'm hesitating to draw conclusions from even some combined tournaments. I put 49 regionals together, which is a large amount. It's larger than anything I've ever used before, larger than vassal league for example, or larger than monthly recaps.

That is not an argument against full tournament lists. In my opinion it is exactly the opposite - the larger you want to go the happier you are about complete tournaments.

Thanks for putting the statistics and graphs together, they are enjoyable and very insightful into how the global metagame look like.

However it's a mistake to try and look at these numbers as something more than what they are: indicators what a) is popular, b) works well , c) is easy to pick up .

Lists which pass all these 3 checks are the ones which are topping the metawing charts, and thus what you can generally expect to be present at the tournaments.

Unfortunately the conclusion of some people is that in order to be competitive, you can only play one of these most popular lists.

That is not only wrong, but also contraproductive and reinforcing the echo chamber doom and gloom topics, which have taken over these forums.

In general we can see that people in a more separate communities (like in Europe) are coming to tournaments and winning with all kinds of strange homebrew lists.

Yes, they are choosing the more difficult path, but one with potentially much greater benefits, since playing an unexpected yet strong list in the meta is always better than playing a list which everyone expects and techs against.

So let's be careful about what conclusions are being drawn from the graphs and statistics.

Personally I always look at the completely different category than the top of the metawing - at lists which did great at an event or two, but were not widely played. This is the area where you can find some of the most interesting and novel ideas.

31 minutes ago, AlexW said:

But again that rephrasing implies it is one variable and it isn't. I'm not saying that extra data is useless but am trying to answer the question as to why especially large tournaments are as complete and why people don't dedicate more time to tracking down 60-70 extra lists.

In terms of priority, how much time do you spend on your podcast talking about the field for each regional? I don't hear "the field" discussed really at all on any of the ones I listen to (with the exception of a unique tourney or two), so my hunch is that even people that tend to spend a lot of time thinking about and talking about the game don't really find information about the field all that useful when compared with the top "x."

Knowing the field can be useful but only in co-ordination with other data. A lot of people asked about the field recently, especially with respect to Ghost/Fenns, in a European Regional where a BB-Poe won. But even that isn't really what they want to know -- they were really looking for the matchups that list faced. I've also seen people use field data to try and explain both sides of whether the exact same same list is strong or not.

No, I meant as to why we're curious.

I already know why people don't fill in juggler wen they're not in the cut - they don't care.

But as a data guy, that's why *I* want them to.