23 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Undeadguy, statistics dictate that outliers should be checked for variance against population averages. You do not compare two opposite outliers, you compare the outlier to the overall population to see if there is a significant variation to determine if it a contributing factor or not.

With all due respect, Geek was correct in his approach.

Edit: Take a group of people, line them up in height order. Now with a standard group of people the tallest person is a bit taller than average but with the tolerance of the variation that is present in the overall population. However, comparing just the shortest and tallest person you can see a massive difference! This is to be expected.

Now add an NBA player to your group. Now the tallest person is abnormally tall compared to the overall variance and average of the population.

What the regional data shows is that the winners are not abusing activations significantly more than anyone else. Many players have views of whether a 4.5 average ship count is healthy for the game, however no amount of statistics will give any judgement on this. Where the line between helpful activations ends and needless activation padding begins is a subjective choice which varies from person to person. Thats why these discussions are so vitrolic, because it never seems to be acknowledge that its a subjective discussion.

Are you saying the winners/top 4 and the bottom quarter are outliers? Because that's what I was comparing. Now if there was a 1 ship fleet in the top 4, I'd agree that it may be an outlier if it's not consistently repeated. We could say 8 ships is an outlier, but I think that has been repeated before by Tokra.

As it is, there is nothing in the data set that looks like an outlier. And if there was, how do you dismiss it without thorough investigation? Geek's response was the bottom quarter doesn't matter because those players were just looking to show up and get prizes, to which there is no data to support this claim or dismissal of data.

Undead, as someone who has predominately taken a hiatus, I recommend you do so if you are finding that you aren’t looking forward to contributing to the forums anymore. If you aren’t having fun, whats the point, right?

But I do want to echo jabbawookie’s (i think it was him) point regarding how many of these past issues have been fixed. I hope you’ll check back in with us after the wave drops.

So what I did was do a raw count of the ship counts, which are the activation count graphs. They don't really tell much except for the frequency of the activation count. I then converted those into % so we can compare where each activation count is.

There is a shift upward in the top 4 and winners by 1 ship.

The discussion now becomes is this healthy?

Does taking more ships increase the chances you will win?

Is taking more ships a negative play experience for the losing player?

Can this be abused?

These questions are the subjective part of the conversation and make is the most difficult to discuss.

Anyway, I'm off. Currently waiting on my account to be deleted. Armada has died in my area for all the reasons I've expressed over the past months.

I'll be at the regionals in March for those of you coming.

It's been fun folks.

19 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Doing some data crunching of previous wave data.

Wave 5

Winners
Avg ship count: 4.73
Avg deployment: 8 Min/max deployment: 5/10
Avg squad: 6

Top 4
Avg ship count: 4.51
Avg deployment: 7
Avg squad: 5.91

Bottom 1/4
Avg ship count: 3.96
Avg deployment: 7
Avg squad: 5.89

Full Data
Avg ship count: 4.23
Avg deployment: 7 Min/Max: 3/12
Avg squad: 5.98 Max squad: 18

The variances on these are fairly similar.

What I am saying is that the data is almost irrelevant to the hypothesis.

The question is, is first/last detrimental to the game.

The only thing the data shows is that across all rankings players feel that 4-5 activations is a good amount.

Is this because they feel that it is safer to have this many activations to defend against first/last? Or is it because of a different reason?

Subjectively, I am not against the idea that it is the former. All I am saying is that the data wont prove anything. Its entirely subjective.

Looks like Undeadguy ninja'd me.

29 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

2 MC80 Ackbar is a competitive T1 thing. For real. If you want a list, lemme know.
2 Liberties..... is really not a thing. And I wish it was.

I'd love to see the dual MC80 Ackbar list... I've never really loved what the death pickle does, and I really WANT to. I tried dual Liberties, they are just SO BOMBABLE.

1 minute ago, IronNerd said:

I'd love to see the dual MC80 Ackbar list... I've never really loved what the death pickle does, and I really WANT to. I tried dual Liberties, they are just SO BOMBABLE.

Let me cook it up later for you @IronNerd. What are your pickle worries? And are there any meta or playstyle considerations you want in the build?

(Ex. I tend to put ET as required because ithugely reduces the chance of being outplayed)

16 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Let me cook it up later for you @IronNerd. What are your pickle worries? And are there any meta or playstyle considerations you want in the build?

(Ex. I tend to put ET as required because ithugely reduces the chance of being outplayed)

I've just never felt like the whole package was worth it. It may be bias, I prefer triangles... I can't really explain why I've never been happy with them. MC30s have always been my jam when it comes to filthy Rebels. As far as meta/playstyle is concerned, I'm the "I wish I could win without squadrons" guy, so minimal squadrons preferred.

2 minutes ago, IronNerd said:

I've just never felt like the whole package was worth it. It may be bias, I prefer triangles... I can't really explain why I've never been happy with them. MC30s have always been my jam when it comes to filthy Rebels. As far as meta/playstyle is concerned, I'm the "I wish I could win without squadrons" guy, so minimal squadrons preferred.

I have PTSquadronD. Can do 4 squadrons. But as a community contributor, I don't recommend even under 6. =D

--

you might seriously also need to see someone show you broadside flight/shot patterns. Cuz... they're theoretically extremely effective.

I never could understand the group of people on the forums who hate squadrons.

Not putting you guys down for it or sayings its a bad opinion, each to their own.

But *every* time we see a space battle theres always a ton of squadrons, even just on planets theres fighters and freighters flying constantly. It just seems that while the ships are the gaints of space, fighters and freighters are the flies constantly buzzing around, ferryinggoods, running protection screens, etc.

For me, not bringing at least some fighters seems to feel wrong, not star wars-y

Just my $0.02 cents anyway.

*by every space battle i mean most*

4 minutes ago, DrakonLord said:

I never could understand the group of people on the forums who hate squadrons.

Not putting you guys down for it or sayings its a bad opinion, each to their own.

But *every* time we see a space battle theres always a ton of squadrons, even just on planets theres fighters and freighters flying constantly. It just seems that while the ships are the gaints of space, fighters and freighters are the flies constantly buzzing around, ferryinggoods, running protection screens, etc.

For me, not bringing at least some fighters seems to feel wrong, not star wars-y

Just my $0.02 cents anyway.

*by every space battle i mean most*

Speaking only for myself, a very avid squadron hater, it's not about theme. I dislike the mechanics of squadrons in Armada. My #1 complaint in that department is movement. I think the maneuver tool was/is pure genius for abstracting large ship movement, but squadrons don't care how clever your maneuvers are.

I will say I hated them slightly less before Intel existed, back when a small fighter screen mattered. I *really* hate Intel.

2 minutes ago, DrakonLord said:

I never could understand the group of people on the forums who hate squadrons.

Not putting you guys down for it or sayings its a bad opinion, each to their own.

But *every* time we see a space battle theres always a ton of squadrons, even just on planets theres fighters and freighters flying constantly. It just seems that while the ships are the gaints of space, fighters and freighters are the flies constantly buzzing around, ferryinggoods, running protection screens, etc.

For me, not bringing at least some fighters seems to feel wrong, not star wars-y

Just my $0.02 cents anyway.

*by every space battle i mean most*

-They're fidgety and, in my opinion, poorly designed.
-People in my local meta take forever to place squads, so high squadron count games slow down play.
-Most of all, they are a very powerful way to deliver consistent damage to ships.
-FFG sacrificed the stability of the game state for the convenience of rapidly accessible data.


All that said.


I'm learning to love squadron play.

Wave 6 has been kind to the anti squadron people (on the imp side anyways) as we now have a cheap powerful means of pushing our specialized ties.

With the addition of my squadron command plates, squadron play is relatively painless now.

Just now, IronNerd said:

Speaking only for myself, a very avid squadron hater, it's not about theme. I dislike the mechanics of squadrons in Armada. My #1 complaint in that department is movement. I think the maneuver tool was/is pure genius for abstracting large ship movement, but squadrons don't care how clever your maneuvers are.

I will say I hated them slightly less before Intel existed, back when a small fighter screen mattered. I *really* hate Intel.

Tbh when i saw i was quoted and even when i was writing the post i was preparing myself for flamers hahaha, glad to see actual discussion on the issue ;D

While i obviously do like squadrons, i also dislike the movement.

(I would rather a squadron moves along the squadron movement tool, so if it runs into a ship - no problem (flies over/under) but if it runs into a geoup of enemy squadrons (screening a ship for instance) they become engaged. Im getting sick of speed 4 ties with sloane jumping into a spot *just clear of engagement and shooting my ships unless i strategically utilise like 4 squads a ship to keep it safe)

Glad to see the other side of the coin in regards to squadrons though =D

10 hours ago, Darth Veggie said:

You won't see last/first fleets dominating the tournament scene ever IMO - however it does nevertheless subtly change the game in a way that is not the best. And this is what makes this build so devious: It is an unreliable parasite - only one can successfully make use of it. If one outbids me or has equal activations the main tactics of the fleet composition collapses. And there is another counter to it: Heavy squad builds, especially Rieekan Ace Holes. Riekaan "survives" the double/triple tap a bit, and thanks to mobile squadrons your opponent most likely won't escape retaliation. So, not very likely that you see last/first winning big tournaments consistently. That is not the problem. And most likely it will never be. The problem is that the danger of meeting the crazy guy who takes a last/first fleet to a tournament severly limits the fleet building choices of all the others. I have to keep a counter in mind: bid, a lot of activations, or a lot of squads.

I already hear somebody rightfully interditing: But that is true of several strong fleet archetypes. One has to prepare against strong squad fleets as well. And this also limits fleet archetypes. So, what is the problem with preparing against last/first? First, to the contrary I can understand those who think that it should be possible to fly without squads in armada. More options is better, right? But I know not everybody does agree. So, let us drop this point. I think there are two reasons that make last/first even worse and non comparable to addressing squads.

One I have already mentioned: last/first is a parasite. Do we want to limit fleet building because of a fleet archetype that is an extreme strategic gamble? If two take a last/first fleet to the table, one has sucked. If two bring a heavy squad list to the table, a most interesting game emerges. I love the strategic aspect of Armada (the fleet design), but I think extreme strategic gambles should not predecide the game. The 3 hours at the table are the first born son of Armada!

Second, last/first fleets are boring to fly (in comparison). The hard decisions of the activation game are mitigated by an activation sequence that is borderline to be transferable into an algorhythm. Also deployment and maneuvering becomes a lot easier. All this critizism I bring up as someone who has played last/first a lot. I would say I am a good player, but not top notch. Nevertheless, I made it through the cut during the VASSAL Spring tournament and only lost against @Dorrin314, the player who won the tournament with a fleet of Rieekan Ace Holes. I have played it in a CC VASSAL campaign here on the boards, winning every game I played - and this also against @MattShadowlord, a player who I consider far superior to my skills. Heck, I even managed to lose against @Green Knight's national winning list by merely a MoV of 0 (!) with a fleet I have played the first time ever as first player, merely because of last/first. And he is a completelly different class of player than I am. @Aresius (Italian national champion, European semi-finalist) has never lost with his high bid super doom Liberty + 5 transports list when he had last/first. Yes, we have all heard and read about the guy who achieved to be second place at a major tournament with a dual ISD list. But we should not forget that he had an enormous bid - which prevented his opponents to last/first the **** out of his fleet.

Is Armada broken because of last/first? Far from it. Would it be a better game without it? I ardently believe so!

tl;dr Last/first won't dominate the tournament scence consistently, because it is too much of a gamble. But eliminating last/first sets free a beautifull variety of fleet building options that would enrich the game, it gives more relevance to the tactical aspect of the game, and it wil give more force to hard decisions.

...I like there part where I'm in a completely different class of player

Me and Veggie have talked about this many times. Last/first doesn't break the game. Absolutely not.

But it's a HUGE factor in determining what fleets can hope to do well. If your fleet can't handle something basic like facing a last/first Demo or Admo, then just scrap it and move on.

There are plenty of OTHER things that also help shape whats a viable build/strategy, but none of them hit me like a 7.62 NATO between the eyes every time I contemplate a build.

Like it or hate it. Or somewhere in between. It matters not, bc FFG thinks this is a core feature of the game. I expect them to tweak it through options added through upgrades over the coming waves, but no way will they flat out institute a major rules change banning last/first. Just not happening.

For what its worth here is how list building on Armada Warlords shows the average number of activations growing over time. Clearly showing the popularity of higher activation lists has only grown. The data ends in january 2017 because I'm lazy and haven't written one of these articles for a long long time so haven't pinged nevetz for the data since the beginning of the year.

I did find it super interesting that in the beginning you see almost a perfect negative correlation as people moved to squadrons over activations.

Take it for what its worth. This represents 30,000+ lists created on armada warlords. You can argue that this doesn't illustrate the effectiveness of the lists but I think you can infer that people have a tendency to gravitate to what works.

2 minutes ago, PartyPotato said:

For what its worth here is how list building on Armada Warlords shows the average number of activations growing over time. Clearly showing the popularity of higher activation lists has only grown. The data ends in january 2017 because I'm lazy and haven't written one of these articles for a long long time so haven't pinged nevetz for the data since the beginning of the year.

I did find it super interesting that in the beginning you see almost a perfect negative correlation as people moved to squadrons over activations.

Take it for what its worth. This represents 30,000+ lists created on armada warlords. You can argue that this doesn't illustrate the effectiveness of the lists but I think you can infer that people have a tendency to gravitate to what works.

I'd be interested to see how wave 6 affected all of this. My fleet builds at the beginning of this year are MUCH different than the ones I use now. I can't be alone. Wave 6 changed how I play.

7 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

-They're fidgety and, in my opinion, poorly designed.
-People in my local meta take forever to place squads, so high squadron count games slow down play.
-Most of all, they are a very powerful way to deliver consistent damage to ships.
-FFG sacrificed the stability of the game state for the convenience of rapidly accessible data.


All that said.


I'm learning to love squadron play.

Wave 6 has been kind to the anti squadron people (on the imp side anyways) as we now have a cheap powerful means of pushing our specialized ties.

With the addition of my squadron command plates, squadron play is relatively painless now.

***** had a reply typed out then accidently pressed back.editor didnt save my reply...

Take No.2

Fidgety: agreed even after over a year of playing max squads

Slow play: the experienced players in my area dont have this problem, but with one of the new ones, yeesh. . "Common it doesnt take 10 minutes to activate a ship and 5 to move a single squad..."

Powerful damage delivery: yep, didnt mind before intel and sloane,(90% intel) but now having my defence screening literally useless half the time sucks..

No opinion on last point atm

Glad to see some organsiation squadron wise. Was thinking about getting a couple of those myself but a bit tight atm (also need an actual neb b expansion for the titles and waiting for after Xmas to get a mc30c)

1 minute ago, DrakonLord said:

Was thinking about getting a couple of those myself but a bit tight atm

Well, they're 10% off till Last Jedi releases (I'm doing a count down sale), and they just came down in price the month before, but if things are too tight message me. I'll work with ya.

2 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Well, they're 10% off till Last Jedi releases (I'm doing a count down sale), and they just came down in price the month before, but if things are too tight message me. I'll work with ya.

Hmmmm, if their 10% off.......... =D

Do you happen to have the link to their page handy?

2 minutes ago, DrakonLord said:

Hmmmm, if their 10% off.......... =D

Do you happen to have the link to their page handy?

Here ya go

https://www.etsy.com/shop/ArmadaFix

Just now, Darth Sanguis said:

Here ya go

https://www.etsy.com/shop/ArmadaFix

Big cheers

25 minutes ago, PartyPotato said:

For what its worth here is how list building on Armada Warlords shows the average number of activations growing over time. Clearly showing the popularity of higher activation lists has only grown. The data ends in january 2017 because I'm lazy and haven't written one of these articles for a long long time so haven't pinged nevetz for the data since the beginning of the year.

I did find it super interesting that in the beginning you see almost a perfect negative correlation as people moved to squadrons over activations.

Take it for what its worth. This represents 30,000+ lists created on armada warlords. You can argue that this doesn't illustrate the effectiveness of the lists but I think you can infer that people have a tendency to gravitate to what works.

I would love to be able to see this data whenever you get a chance to bug folks. Really fascinating insights I'm certain

Although I don't post often, and mostly just AARs from major tournaments when I do, I am sad to see you leaving, Undead, and sadder still that you're deleting your account instead of just taking a hiatus.

Part of the reason we don't all see the last/first BTA as being as much of a problem as you and others is that activations have declined here in the DMV region after wave 6. 3-4 is most common, and even a bunch of just 2 ISD lists. Things like one ISD and a pile of Gozantis are just foreign here.

3 hours ago, Formynder4 said:

Although I don't post often, and mostly just AARs from major tournaments when I do, I am sad to see you leaving, Undead, and sadder still that you're deleting your account instead of just taking a hiatus.

Part of the reason we don't all see the last/first BTA as being as much of a problem as you and others is that activations have declined here in the DMV region after wave 6. 3-4 is most common, and even a bunch of just 2 ISD lists. Things like one ISD and a pile of Gozantis are just foreign here.

And that illustrates the differences in region I played against an isd pile of gozers fleet at regionals last weekend