2 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

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 QUARTER and GARM IS OP.

But Garm IS OP.....

1 hour ago, Ardaedhel said:

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.

How about the claim that running over 120 of squads is a very strong indicator for top4. Based on 24 results. As opposed to 5? 10/24.

Why do we not talk about this? Why are we still even jokingly making highlight of the 5 no squadron data point?

Why? I’m pointing out a discrepancy of what people seem willing to talk about. And literally no one else seems to be looking at larger sample values.

Why? Is this funny to you? Why are you pushing so hard about 2/5 squadronless? What’s your point. Why does this even matter. With 5 total data points. Why not talk about the larger data points?

Thanks baltanok for at least acknowledging the data present.

I'm currently investigating first player squall triple lambda valen as a means of punishing all the high squadron lists that over rely on strategic as it only seems to come in full squad lists. Creating viable builds in the mid squad range that actively threaten to remove strategic as a safe choice seems like a good solution to me.

However at the moment its good but not good enough so I am continuing to work on it.

http://armadawarlords.hivelabs.solutions/view_list.php?token=152898&key=e2efaf0248803170ceca9e37a3f0791b

In some ways this is why I liked my Sato build as it could scare high squad strategic lists and take away their safety net.

So its not that I am ignoring it, its more that I have been working on something for about a month now.

My issue with those numbers isnt the high percentage for the max squads, its the missing mid squads. I think you were one of the people that noticed the rock paper scissors nature of; no squads > medium squads > max squads. The natural predator for max squads is awol at the moment.

Here’s another issue. I will agree with ard that this is too small to make any conjecture from without statistical noise.

However when you make the sample size is too small argument you need to qualify it: what is a large enough sample size? Can it realistically be collected?

If it cannot. You state that nothing can ever be said about the game ever. No point can ever be made data wise therefore you should never ask for data ever again.

So. What’s a big enough sample size? Does your answer show some sort of bias or intent to undermine the ability to make any sort of claim?

Now. A reminder that the last nerf nerfed exactly the list I was talking about in four different ways. The worlds winners agreed with me in their list choice and ffg agreed with me about the need for nerfing.

If you want to use logic to refute you need to realize what your requirements are and to use your same arguments upon your own conclusion. If max squad fleets can be ignored cuz only good players take them and it skews the data. You should also apply the same argument to low squad lists. Not to mention that that stgument is garbage in the first place. Good players play low squad lists also. Good players make good lists. Good lists are good because they have strengths. Good players picking a type of list consistently and performing with them with so much data is a very strong argument for a list being very good!

It would be nice for people to at least acknowledge that. Even if you don’t think they’re overpowered. I’m not sure it’s overpowered now either. But I’m reading the data and noticing a trend that has been ongoing for years now.

To gink. Somehow you got the part I dislike mixed up. That’s not it. And if you really want to tell me I should quit when I make suggestions about how the game could be better you should just say so. I’m not sure that’s what you meant here, but it’s a possible interpretation.

2 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

I'm currently investigating first player squall triple lambda valen as a means of punishing all the high squadron lists that over rely on strategic as it only seems to come in full squad lists. Creating viable builds in the mid squad range that actively threaten to remove strategic as a safe choice seems like a good solution to me.

However at the moment its good but not good enough so I am continuing to work on it.

http://armadawarlords.hivelabs.solutions/view_list.php?token=152898&key=e2efaf0248803170ceca9e37a3f0791b

In some ways this is why I liked my Sato build as it could scare high squad strategic lists and take away their safety net.

So its not that I am ignoring it, its more that I have been working on something for about a month now.

My issue with those numbers isnt the high percentage for the max squads, its the missing mid squads. I think you were one of the people that noticed the rock paper scissors nature of; no squads > medium squads > max squads. The natural predator for max squads is awol at the moment.

Err what is it that is the natural predator?

Were finding that mid squad lists are still eaten up by max squads. It’s a mov issue. All their squads get eaten.

And yes. I’m also complaining about triangle theory.

Hemce why I kept saying that Sloan’s effect should have been standard or an upgrade instead of a single commander.

1 minute ago, Blail Blerg said:

To gink. Somehow you got the part I dislike mixed up. That’s not it. And if you really want to tell me I should quit when I make suggestions about how the game could be better you should just say so. I’m not sure that’s what you meant here, but it’s a possible interpretation.

If I interpreted it wrong then good. I was worried you seemed to have an issue with the core of the game at which point quitting is the right choice. As you dont then thats not my advise.

The nerfbat for Rieekan came after it was nearing some 50% of all fleets. Were not there yet with GH Yav plus. Hopefully we can find ways to avoid that happening by finding our own solutions first. I understand the concern, were just not at nerf levels yet. A lot of those max squads lists are Sloane which as we saw is only running at 20% success. Gh Yav plus is tipping the balance but it is far from saturating tournaments currently.

Btw to gink. Nice list ideas. The sato one was interesting. But it was largely the Toryn trap that was most effective. And all for the simple reason of fighting squads again.

I find that ive now come back to the same age old issue of armadas most annoying problem since Bcc. All of list building involves not build losing to squads. And that problem is not fun anymore as the most common issue to solve

1 minute ago, Ginkapo said:

If I interpreted it wrong then good. I was worried you seemed to have an issue with the core of the game at which point quitting is the right choice. As you dont then thats not my advise.

The nerfbat for Rieekan came after it was nearing some 50% of all fleets. Were not there yet with GH Yav plus. Hopefully we can find ways to avoid that happening by finding our own solutions first. I understand the concern, were just not at nerf levels yet. A lot of those max squads lists are Sloane which as we saw is only running at 20% success. Gh Yav plus is tipping the balance but it is far from saturating tournaments currently.

I don’t think it’s at that level either. I just wish people wouldn’t ignore that data point and jokingly talk around it as if it’s not significant.

If one wanted to know what the best choice was to consistently get top4 from this whole thread and the data: At this point the answer is still the same as pre nerf. 2-3 YGH rieekan max multirole squads

1 hour ago, Baltanok said:

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.

Actually I’ll edit my statement. My statement is rebel multirole squadrons are still far too efficient which makes Rieekan and YGH style lists with 2-3 or 2-4 the best list in the game still.

Note that im not using qualifier middling words for some of this.

Best list in the game

13 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Hopefully we can find ways to avoid that happening by finding our own solutions first.

I was in THAT thread and I watched suggestions from @Ardaedhel and you get shouted down left and right, but I'm all for us finding out solutions to the list.

Really low sample size, so far. That to me is the story of the information. It is hard to conclude much of anything other than people like a good diversity of lists and if they're good, they can place top-4 with them. Maybe as more data accumulates, we'll get a better picture of how things stand. For drawing harder conclusions, there are too many "yes, buts..." available in the data.

I can say aside from the data that I don't think the overall framework of what works versus what doesn't in the game has really changed. The real question is watching what happens when Wave-7 drops, because there are a lot of upgrades that have the appearance of fundamentally shaking up the way we understand activations, first player versus second player, and maybe even squadrons. We'll just have to see.

14 minutes ago, Vergilius said:

I can say aside from the data that I don't think the overall framework of what works versus what doesn't in the game has really changed. The real question is watching what happens when Wave-7 drops, because there are a lot of upgrades that have the appearance of fundamentally shaking up the way we understand activations, first player versus second player, and maybe even squadrons. We'll just have to see.

Maybe Konstantine will be worth playing!*

*No. No he won't.

9 minutes ago, geek19 said:

Maybe Konstantine will be worth playing!*

*No. No he won't.

I think Konstantine's problem is that the way that he's specialized doesn't directly help out in the way that others are specialized. Ideally, you'd want to use Konstantine with an Interdictor and at least one other medium ship, and then double down on the speed adjusting upgrades in the game, hopefully so that you can trap and destroy units. In practice, it seems like it is really hard to get that to work, that you cannot trap and destroy things the way one would like.

15 minutes ago, Vergilius said:

I think Konstantine's problem is that the way that he's specialized doesn't directly help out in the way that others are specialized. Ideally, you'd want to use Konstantine with an Interdictor and at least one other medium ship, and then double down on the speed adjusting upgrades in the game, hopefully so that you can trap and destroy units. In practice, it seems like it is really hard to get that to work, that you cannot trap and destroy things the way one would like.

@Snipafist and I have talked about the issue with him. The fact that he's trying to bring CONTROL into Armada is something you need to handle with kid gloves. If he's TOO good you get a blue deck MTG effect, and all of that assorted ilk. The issue then is that he's been nerfed into being NOT good, combined with the Interdictor's abilities as a ship (which from what I hear, are not up to par).

He doesn't help you kill anything faster (Vader, Screed) nor does he give you as good a way of getting to kill things easier (Jerry, Tarkin nav tokens). He's in need of something... Potentially a viable Interdictor? A version of @Ardaedhel's MC30 list but with Mediums some how?

On top of that, pulling off the Konstantine effect takes some very difficult flying that can put you in awkward situations. Since the "target" of his effect needs to be in range of two ships, when you're playing Konstantine you have to try and pincer the enemy to some extent, otherwise they'll just cut to your flank to avoid getting caught. But if you try to pincer, you run the risk of one of your ships getting isolated.

I think Konstantine would be a lot more functional if, instead of two medium ships, he triggered from a single large ship, or ships with 8+ hull.

3 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

I don’t think it’s at that level either. I just wish people wouldn’t ignore that data point and jokingly talk around it as if it’s not significant.

If one wanted to know what the best choice was to consistently get top4 from this whole thread and the data: At this point the answer is still the same as pre nerf. 2-3 YGH rieekan max multirole squads

Still super meta and a player dependant.

Up until one of the best players in the world showed up the pnw had never seen a top 4 with that build as far as I know. And even to date it only has one out of 12. (Again as far as I know)

So that statement can't be applied across the board.

1 hour ago, Tirion said:

the pnw

What's pnw?

2 minutes ago, Kristjan said:

What's pnw?

Pacific North West?

7 hours 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.

Not one, but TWO graphs, @Ginkapo.

First, placement by number of squadrons.

Looking at this, it seems that EIGHT is a good number of squadrons to have, though NINE seems not too bad either.

Next, the placement by points spent on squadrons. For this graph, I lumped them together by the same brackets used by @Baltanok upthread. So 0-19 points all gets lumped together under "10 points", 20-39 goes into "30 points", etc.

Looking at this graph, we see that MAX points in squadrons and ZERO points in squadrons are both pretty good. What is surprising (at least to me) is that ~30 points and ~110 points both look even better.

Edit to add — These graphs provide much less clear distinction than the previous graphs I created looking at the number of activations. Which is to say that the number of squadrons probably is less a factor in determining performance. It looks like different people are making things work with pretty much any number of squadrons.

51 minutes ago, Kristjan said:

What's pnw?

Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon)

26 minutes ago, stonestokes said:

20-39 goes into "30 points", etc.

Looking at this graph, we see that MAX points in squadrons and ZERO points in squadrons are both pretty good. What is surprising (at least to me) is that ~30 points and ~110 points both look even better.

"30" points is probably Tycho/Shara, which, if you're running near squadronless, that's how I would do it. Maybe Ciena/Valen, too, but I can't recommend that as highly.

8 minutes ago, geek19 said:

"30" points is probably Tycho/Shara, which, if you're running near squadronless, that's how I would do it. Maybe Ciena/Valen, too, but I can't recommend that as highly.

Yeah, most are Shara/Tycho. One is 4x TIE Fighters. One is 3x A-Wings and a HWK-290. One is Valen/TIE Fighter. I didn't notice any Ciena/Valen, but I might have missed them.

Just now, stonestokes said:

Yeah, most are Shara/Tycho. One is 4x TIE Fighters. One is 3x A-Wings and a HWK-290. One is Valen/TIE Fighter. I didn't notice any Ciena/Valen, but I might have missed them.

3 A-wings and a HWK - Sato i'm guessing? Why not 4 A-wings.... why not 3 and Shara.....?

Valen/TIE - but.... why? Ciena stays alive longer, that TIE gonna asplode....