11 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Sample size: Very small.

Hey, btw, is the spreadsheet available publically? (And/or is it just not stored on this website?)

7 hours ago, Baltanok said:

Range (Top4/All) (just breaking by squad points spent)

Full range (24/103)

No squads (3/6)-

1-20 (0/1)

21-40 (2/11)

41-60 (1/11)

61-80 pts (4/19)

81-100 (3/15)

101-120 (1/14)

121-134 pts (10/24)

In other words, even in what feels like a squadron-heavy meta, going squadronless is - empirically-speaking - not at all a suicidal proposition. By doing so, you negate all your opponent's AA investments (e.g. Flight Controllers). But you still have to weather the storm of what the opponent's squadrons are going to do to your ships.

Do or do not, there is no try.

Yoda says take max squads or no squads.

4 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Do or do not, there is no try.

Yoda says take max squads or no squads.

Once I made a list with only 133 points of squads, but then I listened to YoDa and went 134

4 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Do or do not, there is no try.

Yoda says take max squads or no squads.

The data suggests this too.

1 hour ago, Green Knight said:

Once I made a list with only 133 points of squads, but then I listened to Yoga and went 134

I'm trying to shake the fleet building mindset of starting at 400, minus 134, minus an admiral, then squeezing in at least 5 ships. I thought I was being bold going down to 124 squad points.

8 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Hey, btw, is the spreadsheet available publically? (And/or is it just not stored on this website?)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NR5jNoKNtDX9qHrMHIpDdFl8OzGSOEi_ELJ5ylvu4u4/edit#gid=1449590538

Keep in mind that the data analysis sections haven't been updated to deal with the fact that I'm trying to capture every ship title this round, so you have to use the filter on the full data tab to get top4 numbers instead of going to the top 4 tab. It will get there when I get a round 2-IT. That part's been on order for weeks, though...

9 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

correction (2/5) - Fargo #4 didn't have it's squads entered.

8 hours ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

In other words, even in what feels like a squadron-heavy meta, going squadronless is - empirically-speaking - not at all a suicidal proposition. By doing so, you negate all your opponent's AA investments (e.g. Flight Controllers). But you still have to weather the storm of what the opponent's squadrons are going to do to your ships.

I did find a data error, and no squads is now 2/5, and 81-100 went to 4/16. Still, 40% top 4 is pretty darn good, and almost everybody else is in the 20% range. The notable exception, (no, not the mongols) Yav+GH is very strong, and I'll be watching to see where it goes.

The non-max squad wings with top finishers were basically CAP, with a strong preference for either fast anti-squad units, or survivability to soak a lot of damage. The only bombers in there were in one list: 2 X-wings, Jan & Biggs, and that's not exactly a ship-hunting wing. Survivability appears as Aces, high-hull VCX/YV-666, or TIE/Z-95 chaff.

@geek19, @Snipafist, did your low-fighter articles discuss tactics for how to annoy, harass, & delay bomber strikes? Pretty sure they did, but I might be misremembering. But, hey, chance for you to plug your blog!

24 minutes ago, Baltanok said:

VCX/YV-666

Both heavy, so unless there are other shenanigans in play (like Valen), those aren't really directly part of a screen.

Just now, Ardaedhel said:

Both heavy, so unless there are other shenanigans in play (like Valen), those aren't really directly part of a screen.

true. I assume VCX was there for relay. The YV list did have Valen & Squall, so that effectively turns the YV into a speed 4 meatshield if ship-activated.

1 hour ago, Baltanok said:

I did find a data error, and no squads is now 2/5, and 81-100 went to 4/16. Still, 40% top 4 is pretty darn good, and almost everybody else is in the 20% range. The notable exception, (no, not the mongols) Yav+GH is very strong, and I'll be watching to see where it goes.

The non-max squad wings with top finishers were basically CAP, with a strong preference for either fast anti-squad units, or survivability to soak a lot of damage. The only bombers in there were in one list: 2 X-wings, Jan & Biggs, and that's not exactly a ship-hunting wing. Survivability appears as Aces, high-hull VCX/YV-666, or TIE/Z-95 chaff.

@geek19, @Snipafist, did your low-fighter articles discuss tactics for how to annoy, harass, & delay bomber strikes? Pretty sure they did, but I might be misremembering. But, hey, chance for you to plug your blog!

I addressed it a bit in the Using the SFC one and some in the Fighting Fleets one. Both assume that you are bringing some CAP, as we're not ALL @Ardaedhel.

4 minutes ago, geek19 said:

I addressed it a bit in the Using the SFC one and some in the Fighting Fleets one. Both assume that you are bringing some CAP, as we're not ALL @Ardaedhel.

The main issue I think people trying to read up on tournament-level uses would find is there's really no discussion of exactly what to do against different specific things (say, Yavaris and/or Gallant Haven or Sloane or things like that), but it's basically impossible to account for every possible permutation of a squadron-heavy fleet on our end, and it would make the articles crazy long(er than they already are). But the basics are pretty much there, thanks to John's hard work.

8 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Do or do not, there is no try.

Yoda says take max squads or no squads.

And he died

2 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

And he died

But yet, no one killed him.

A note that if we start quoting random parts of the data, that this particular data point has nearly a 40% return for being in the top4. For a lot more data points than 5.

121-134 pts (10/24)

Let's not go with the excuse "oh theres a bunch of good players who take this and skew the numbers." Thats bull. That's what happens for no squadrons also. Good players choose good lists, good lists are good because they're good.

@Blail Blerg Can you read? I'm starting to wonder? We've already acknowledge that this data shows that you should either go max squadrons or no squadrons in the current meta. This is something that intuitively we know because the best counter to max squadrons is have none so that all anti squadron points of your opponents are wasted. Anything in between often ends up being free ponts as we are not very good at running a medium squad wing that can trade up very well.

What is your aim here? I ask because you decided to crap over another thread recently for different reasons. It just seems like you want to declare absolutely everything to be OP.

11 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

@Blail Blerg Can you read? I'm starting to wonder? We've already acknowledge that this data shows that you should either go max squadrons or no squadrons in the current meta. This is something that intuitively we know because the best counter to max squadrons is have none so that all anti squadron points of your opponents are wasted. Anything in between often ends up being free ponts as we are not very good at running a medium squad wing that can trade up very well.

What is your aim here? I ask because you decided to crap over another thread recently for different reasons. It just seems like you want to declare absolutely everything to be OP.

No man. Same message: The end is coming, repent all ye sinners. Mass squadrons are OP. =)

Actually, it hasn't changed at all: Same list. 2-3 Rieekan with mass squadrons is incredibly efficient.

Idk, what did I not read? Going max or none isn't an observation on how strong dedicated max squadron lists are. I'm merely stating it seems cheeky to only note the 3/6 or 2/5 no squadrons as a significant data point to be highlighted, when another data point is a lot more significant but not talked about. Shoved under the rug but accepted as "this is okay if its OP".

--

(Actually, to be clear Gink, I think you got the impression I was calling extra activations OP or something, which is not what I think. I'm simply against the turn order method of this game since its inceptions, pointing out how game-y activations makes it, and puts overwhelming influence on the order you do things. However, I don't think activation padding by itself is OP, however, the best lists make great use of 3 flotillas and the activation power it achieves.

If this isn't what you were referring to me calling OP, I don't know what you meant. What was it?)

@Ginkapo, it leans towards the ends of the spectrum but I think the full data shows that you can make almost anything work. I say, as I make an effort at a middling squad build that may or may not work, haha.

Much of my plan may involve, just like before, ducking as many heavy squad builds as possible. Given that we only have 24 people running "max" squads, that's like what, 4-5 a regional? Not amazing odds, but doable I bet. Just need to have a plan to DEAL with all those squads.

1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:

I'm simply against the turn order method of this game since its inceptions, pointing out how game-y activations makes it, and puts overwhelming influence on the order you do things.

If this is true, then find a different game. This is a fundamental that will never change.

I dont mean this to be harsh, its just the reality of the situation. Shoot then move is the game, personally its why I like it as I find it adds depth where other systems have not. I wont demand that all agree with this view though, and I can understand that some may not.

10 minutes ago, geek19 said:

@Ginkapo, it leans towards the ends of the spectrum but I think the full data shows that you can make almost anything work. I say, as I make an effort at a middling squad build that may or may not work, haha.

Much of my plan may involve, just like before, ducking as many heavy squad builds as possible. Given that we only have 24 people running "max" squads, that's like what, 4-5 a regional? Not amazing odds, but doable I bet. Just need to have a plan to DEAL with all those squads.

@stonestokes Give us a graph, Stone Stokes give us a graph!

There should be a decent middle ground on squads, its the difficulty in making them flexible which is tough. My first run of no squadron listing was because I kept coming up against 60pts of anti squad and it was laughably useless if I had no bombers.

1 minute ago, Ginkapo said:

@stonestokes Give us a graph, Stone Stokes give us a graph!

There should be a decent middle ground on squads, its the difficulty in making them flexible which is tough. My first run of no squadron listing was because I kept coming up against 60pts of anti squad and it was laughably useless if I had no bombers.

I've got a dumb plan, stories after Indianapolis...

I feel like you guys are reading way too much into a smile.

My point--if I'd even bothered to make one--was that the data set is so small right now that it's only marginally better than anecdotal evidence. It's 100 players over like 4 or 5 tournaments. Can't really legitimately use it to support broad conclusions like FULL SQUADRONS OR BUST or SLOANE IS TRASH when the same data set supports obviously silly claims like 50% (now 40%) OF SQUADRONLESS FLEETS MAKE TOP FOUR and GARM IS OP.

1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:

I'm merely stating it seems cheeky to only note the 3/6 or 2/5 no squadrons as a significant data point to be highlighted, when another data point is a lot more significant but not talked about. Shoved under the rug but accepted as "this is okay if its OP".

I don't dispute that Yav+GH is very strong. But excluding Yav&GH lists, max squads doesn't look that scary. No squads seems viable, if you have a plan. Medium squads also seems viable, if you have a plan.

I will argue against #1) "squadrons are OP" but not against #2) "this specific combination of squadrons, ships, and support cards is OP." I'm also not arguing for hypothesis #2, as I find the counter-argument of "only the players who are the best at YGH lists are flying them now" to be plausible. Distinguishing between "YGH-OP" and "YGH-skill floor" will require more results, and specifically more than 5% of regionals entrants flying YGH lists.