26 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Perhaps not, but feelings do not trump facts. 90% isn't unbeatable. You're still extremely likely to loss, but you still have 10% on your side.

Rebellions May be built on hope but championships aren’t.

3 minutes ago, GrimmyV said:

Rebellions May be built on hope but championships aren’t.

I actually disagree. There have been times when a champion-hopeful must come up against something his list is weaker against, where the odds aren't exactly in his favor. But then luck (whether through dice or through opposing pilot error) kicks in and he wins the match he probably shouldn't have. Can you count on this? No. But it still happens. Hope is everywhere.

13 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Hope is everywhere.

No, Harpoons and TLT are everywhere!!!!

anyway, I’m one of those idiots that hopes my janky list is at least fun to play. So....yeah.

4 minutes ago, GrimmyV said:

No, Harpoons and TLT are everywhere!!!!

anyway, I’m one of those idiots that hopes my janky list is at least fun to play. So....yeah.

If you're having fun with it, I don't think the idiot label applies. Do what makes you happy.

1 minute ago, SabineKey said:

If you're having fun with it, I don't think the idiot label applies. Do what makes you happy.

Nu with Flatchet Torps and LRS, x5.

thats what makes me happy. GUNBOAT!

2 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

If you're having fun with it, I don't think the idiot label applies. Do what makes you happy.

That is a very, very bad advice, because some people just want to see it all burn. ;-)

2 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

That is a very, very bad advice, because some people just want to see it all burn. ;-)

Fair. The "within reason" clause needs to be inacted.

1 hour ago, SabineKey said:

Fair. The "within reason" clause needs to be inacted.

And that's the issue. A lot people don't find it reasonable to handicap themselves with lists which they want to fly and choose to fly lists which they don't want to fly. Which ironically itself is unreasonable as well … but hey, logic is hard.

21 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

And that's the issue. A lot people don't find it reasonable to handicap themselves with lists which they want to fly and choose to fly lists which they don't want to fly. Which ironically itself is unreasonable as well … but hey, logic is hard.

Their choice.

6 hours ago, SabineKey said:

Again, you are being rather hyperbolic in using a term that doesn't actually apply. Take it from someone who killed a few pre-nerf Whisper s with something other than VI Han , it wasn't unbeatable. Heck, even that you have to qualify "unless you are running VI Han " kind of blows holes in your unbeatable argument.

Unless you got some equations that prove that something will win 100% of the time (actual 100%, anything less, the. It isn't unbeatable), then your use of unbeatable feels hollow and self-defeating.

Well, "unbeatable" has a few dirrefnt meanings in a tournament context. The first (and most natural) is to say that a list is truly unbeatable - no other list can win against it, given equal pilot skill yada yada. The second and less obvious is to say that a list is so far above the current power curve that it's "unbeatable" in the sense that it's guaranteed to make the cut, provided it doesn't encounter itself too many times in seeded rounds.

Your example of eating pre-nerf Phantoms is valid, but was your opponent equally skilled as you? Or were they trying the Phantom for the first/second/tenth time? There are a lot more variables there that have to be constants.

10 minutes ago, Astech said:

Well, "unbeatable" has a few dirrefnt meanings in a tournament context. The first (and most natural) is to say that a list is truly unbeatable - no other list can win against it, given equal pilot skill yada yada. The second and less obvious is to say that a list is so far above the current power curve that it's "unbeatable" in the sense that it's guaranteed to make the cut, provided it doesn't encounter itself too many times in seeded rounds.

Your example of eating pre-nerf Phantoms is valid, but was your opponent equally skilled as you? Or were they trying the Phantom for the first/second/tenth time? There are a lot more variables there that have to be constants.

And the second is inaccurate use of the term. I've been going to tournaments for a while now. I have not come across the second usuage. Guaranteed to make the cut is also too strong a term as it relies on the factors you asked below.

Now, as to your Phantom question, this was a much better player who had been playing the list reasonably often. I rolled luck. He didn't. And you gotta think of those variables too.

On 2/5/2018 at 3:09 AM, Vontoothskie said:

alpha strikes are not fun to experience and remove the bulk of pilots and strategies from competitive play. please nerf

5 hours ago, SabineKey said:

And the second is inaccurate use of the term. I've been going to tournaments for a while now. I have not come across the second usuage. Guaranteed to make the cut is also too strong a term as it relies on the factors you asked below.

Now, as to your Phantom question, this was a much better player who had been playing the list reasonably often. I rolled luck. He didn't. And you gotta think of those variables too.

So when I walk into a dollar store and see their prices listed at "unbeatable", or hear it on the radio, I can sue them for fraud? It's an incredibly common usage of the word that, while inaccurate in an academic sense, is universally accepted by society. The fact that it's colloquially correct.

But in a tournament of equally skilled players, say 63 people, only 8 people have to bring meta lists to have a truly excellent chance of making the cut. That's how you get 7 nyManda lists making an 8 ship cut, and double mirror match finals - the list was unbeatable.

Dice variance is a very interesting discussion. Builds like Triple Jumps ad JM5Ks got around it since they don't need their defense dice or attack dice so to speak - they just change whatever dice they don't want. Phantoms are notorious for variance, but their arc-dodging shenanigans make up for it (especially pre-nerf) since not getting shot is better than successfully defending.

In tournaments, barring some truly unfortunate luck (Aus Nats last year I lost two games to crits on debris) variance is typically wiped out by the number of rounds one plays. Meta lists these days don't even suffer from variance, instead using a lot of ridiculously cheap mechanics to eliminate it almost completely.

57 minutes ago, Astech said:

So when I walk into a dollar store and see their prices listed at "unbeatable", or hear it on the radio, I can sue them for fraud? It's an incredibly common usage of the word that, while inaccurate in an academic sense, is universally accepted by society. The fact that it's colloquially correct.

But in a tournament of equally skilled players, say 63 people, only 8 people have to bring meta lists to have a truly excellent chance of making the cut. That's how you get 7 nyManda lists making an 8 ship cut, and double mirror match finals - the list was unbeatable.

Dice variance is a very interesting discussion. Builds like Triple Jumps ad JM5Ks got around it since they don't need their defense dice or attack dice so to speak - they just change whatever dice they don't want. Phantoms are notorious for variance, but their arc-dodging shenanigans make up for it (especially pre-nerf) since not getting shot is better than successfully defending.

In tournaments, barring some truly unfortunate luck (Aus Nats last year I lost two games to crits on debris) variance is typically wiped out by the number of rounds one plays. Meta lists these days don't even suffer from variance, instead using a lot of ridiculously cheap mechanics to eliminate it almost completely.

Yeah, and so was the bastardization of the word "literally". Just because people do it doesn't make it right. Also, your store example doesn't hit the core that I have mentioned before as it is not used negatively. I believe your use of "unbeatable" is harmful as it leads to a false picture for others and steals the point from actual, legitimate arguments. Take what you say later on about limiting variance. That is a interesting point and problematic when the odds get to high in either direction, but saying it is unbeatable is factually wrong. The colloquialism might do (and I'm iffy on that) in a chat among friends, but have no place in discussion or reports.

once again, you proclaim something as unbeatable, and once again, I've seen it beaten. That tournament of "equally skilled players" is a fun lab experiment, but tons more variation exist in real life. And even in that example, I do not believe that the killer lists are guaranteed top slots. There are plenty of factors, including a couple of other players pulling out non-meta counters (which do exist) to pull down some of those players. It doesn't take much to pull someone out of a cut.

How? They could have rerolls, but that's still rolling. They had guidance chips, but that only changes one die, thus doesn't save you from a crappy roll. As for their green dice, you seem to be forgetting how low PS triple scouts were. They were generally shot before they could shoot and while a decent number of hp, if your green dice abandoned you, your scouts were in trouble. I also think it interesting how you are now admitting that pre-nerf Phantoms had flaws, but still cling to "they were unbeatable". Which is it? As I've proven and VI Han proves, that arc-dodging didn't make them invincible. Heck, a couple of my friends who were big into phantoms (and before you ask, they're good players) hated seeing z-95s across the table because they always seemed to manage to take down their Phantoms. Again, variance showing up sterile thought experiments that discard them.

but aside from a couple of corner cases, they can't eliminate it entirely. Why? Because your opponent is also rolling dice. You can use stuff like Accuracy Corrector to remove the need to roll and TLT to up your odds of dealing damage, but that does squat versus someone with hot dice. Look in the Regional Results page. You'll see lists that shouldn't beat lists you've labeled as "unbeatable" winning, and even a few stories of how it happened. Until you can show me actual evidence that a list is unbeatable by dictionary definition, I will see its use as a distortion of facts.

2 hours ago, Astech said:

So when I walk into a dollar store and see their prices listed at "unbeatable", or hear it on the radio, I can sue them for fraud? It's an incredibly common usage of the word that, while inaccurate in an academic sense, is universally accepted by society. The fact that it's colloquially correct.

Oh sorry, you meant it ironic. We just did not get it. Aye, Ghost-Fenn is unbeatable like the prices in a $1 store.