Just now, Undeadguy said:

What's the flot average without those 2 no flot lists?

3.33

2.86*14/12

10 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

What's the flot average without those 2 no flot lists?

We had 40 Flotilla in this 14 lists.

When i take these two player with 0 Flotilla out we had:
Average # of ships: 5.25
Average # of Flotilla: 3.33
in the remaining 12 fleets.

nm, didn't saw that Drasnighta already answered.

4 minutes ago, ImpStarDeuces said:

Taking your own example of ace holes which is probably the closest example to a skew, most people’s most effective and reliable answer to it is to not play it and take a 6-5.

I feel like some people might disagree with you that 4 MC30's and 3 GR-75's is not a skew list.

By the cowboy's own definition 134 points of squadrons is a skew, for some reason.

I'll grant you that the Madine Liberty in that particular tourney may not have been skewed to quite the degree it later became--I'm on mobile now so can't check and see which variant of the Liberty list he brought to that one. Generally speaking it was Liberty + 4 smalls of varying types; I think you wouldn't have to look far to find someone to argue that fit the definition.

2 minutes ago, Tokra said:

We had 40 Flotilla in this 14 lists.

When i take these two player with 0 Flotilla out we had:
Average # of ships: 5.25
Average # of Flotilla: 3.33
in the remaining 12 fleets.

nm, didn't saw that Drasnighta already answered.

It’s okay, you probably did the math properly. I shortcut. ?

... all I really prove is that being able to count higher than seven doesn’t make you a good player...

9 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

I feel like some people might disagree with you that 4 MC30's and 3 GR-75's is not a skew list.

By the cowboy's own definition 134 points of squadrons is a skew, for some reason.

I'll grant you that the Madine Liberty in that particular tourney may not have been skewed to quite the degree it later became--I'm on mobile now so can't check and see which variant of the Liberty list he brought to that one. Generally speaking it was Liberty + 4 smalls of varying types; I think you wouldn't have to look far to find someone to argue that fit the definition.

Didn’t say there weren’t other skews, just using op’s example of a skew to illustrate how they limit player responses.

50 minutes ago, ImpStarDeuces said:

Didn’t say there weren’t other skews, just using op’s example of a skew to illustrate how they limit player responses.

Ok, I guess I'm not understanding your point. My understanding of this discussion is that some people feel that high-activation fleets are bad for the game, and flotillas especially are bad.

But for some players, small ships are what's fun. It's not really a desperate struggle against the monolithic evil empire unless you're flying a gaggle of mismatched ships, hoping that you can hit and fade before the other guy gets his crippling shot in.

29 minutes ago, Baltanok said:

Ok, I guess I'm not understanding your point. My understanding of this discussion is that some people feel that high-activation fleets are bad for the game, and flotillas especially are bad.

But for some players, small ships are what's fun. It's not really a desperate struggle against the monolithic evil empire unless you're flying a gaggle of mismatched ships, hoping that you can hit and fade before the other guy gets his crippling shot in.

That might be my fault by saying "OP" leading to the confusion. I was talking specifically about the quoted point in my post that somehow skew lists keep people honest. I was contending there is a difference between skew and off meta lists.

I've got no problem with a lot of small ships. Skew is something radically different. Skew lists fundamentally try to eliminate or drastically minimize parts of the game. You can take a lot of corvettes and shoot it out with the other player and have a lot of fun because both players are engaged. Do it with pre-nerf flotillas and run away for 6 turns and the game stops being fun and FFG comes out with the lifeboat nerf. From personal experience skew lists tend to define the gameplay as meta once they are found. They don't stay off meta for very long and lead to an arms race of skew lists because generally it takes a skew to beat another skew. IMO you are seeing it now with the calls to nerf flotillas and relay. Hopefully that clears it up. Cheers!

21 minutes ago, ImpStarDeuces said:

From personal experience skew lists tend to define the gameplay as meta once they are found. They don't stay off meta for very long

So skew lists start as off meta until adopted by the masses? Well in that case be aware that you were talking to Ard that has been running an off meta skew list for quite a long time without it getting adopted by the masses. Hence the difference in perspective and confusion.

21 minutes ago, ImpStarDeuces said:

Hopefully that clears it up. Cheers!

Nope.

1 hour ago, Ginkapo said:

So skew lists start as off meta until adopted by the masses? Well in that case be aware that you were talking to Ard that has been running an off meta skew list for quite a long time without it getting adopted by the masses. Hence the difference in perspective and confusion.

I think we may be focusing on different areas then. When I was replying originally, I specifically (at least intended to) contend the point that skew keep the meta “honest” by “driving diversity into the meta” and then into an explanation of what skews tend to do and how that is different than simple off meta which I would agree does drive diversity. Maybe it comes as attacking and that’s not my intent because what Ard does doesn’t hit me as skew at all. Just may be what I view as a mischaracterization - skew is an extremely loaded term in most gaming circles in my area (for good or bad).

1 hour ago, ImpStarDeuces said:

I think we may be focusing on different areas then. When I was replying originally, I specifically (at least intended to) contend the point that skew keep the meta “honest” by “driving diversity into the meta” and then into an explanation of what skews tend to do and how that is different than simple off meta which I would agree does drive diversity. Maybe it comes as attacking and that’s not my intent because what Ard does doesn’t hit me as skew at all. Just may be what I view as a mischaracterization - skew is an extremely loaded term in most gaming circles in my area (for good or bad).

Maybe we're just talking past each other then. I don't really use the term myself, so I was just using it as shorthand for Cowboy's definition:

10 hours ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

skewed lists that attempt to win by overloading a particular weak point of the game (overload on squads w/ no real combat ships to leverage squad effeciency, or overload on activations to avoid having to make activation decisions)

Personally, I don't give a **** what kind of list my opponent brings as long as it's within the agreed-upon ruleset. If I can't beat him, I'll go back to the drawing board and either revise my list in a way that I think will give me a better chance, or examine my tactics to try to identify what went wrong. Others disagree with that position for reasons that frankly baffle me, but which I believe are rooted in baggage they've brought over from other games.

Edit: for clarity, that last bit wasn't a passive aggressive jab at anybody, just a general observation.

I oppose skew lists for the same reasons Imp Dueces is pointing out. Skew or overload lists are successful because they win by dominating an aspect of the game so heavily that the other player has little chance of matching them in their particular area of expertise.

What this tends to do, is create a meta where one overload list becomes dominant, then as a response, another list rises to counter it that is often its own version of an overload list. This cycle continues, like in San Antonio, and you end up with several typically played overload principle based lists.

This can be seen a diversity if you want, but in most cases it makes life very hard for non-overload lists to function because they can not hope to match an overload list in its area of expertise, and when they are having to figure out how to address 2-3 different types of overload threats, the number of viable all-comers options gets pretty small. The result is pressure on players to not run what they want, but to adopt their own overload list in order to do survive.

Players that want their lists to win games for them take the overload style lists, hoping to do well by overloading the all-comers lists, and hoping to draw good matchups against the other overload lists.

The frustration is that overload lists are very matchup dependent when they face off. Often much of the game is decided before the battle based on how the 2 fleets interact mechanically (Bid, activation count, deployment count, squadron composition, etc.). With player skill taking a back seat to the mechanics of the fleet match-up. Since the process of getting good match-ups is left largely up to chance, success is often more about who got lucky and got the favorable match-ups than who is the best player. WE DON'T WANT GAMES TO BE INFLUENCED HEAVILY BY THE MATCH-UP IF WE WANT PLAYER SKILL TO DICTATE OVERALL SUCCESS.

Generalist lists have a hard time functioning in a meta flooded with overload oriented lists because it is very tough to be prepared for 2-3 different types of overload threats. Generalist lists run the risk of losing to a less skilled player using a skew list, that is well tailored to overwhelm the generalists diluted counter strategy.

This is a sad result because it is my belief that the most rewarding games are those between 2 generalist fleets that do not have a huge list based advantage over the opponent. These type of games are the ones that allow the players, not their lists or match-up luck, to determine success.

To Long Didn't Read:

Overload lists drive out all-comers lists and make match-ups a huge deal, sometimes overshadowing player skill in deciding games.

All-comers lists encourage tactically deep, FAIR, games, where each player can determine their fate, not the match-up

34 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

I oppose skew lists for the same reasons Imp Dueces is pointing out. Skew or overload lists are successful because they win by dominating an aspect of the game so heavily that the other player has little chance of matching them in their particular area of expertise.

What this tends to do, is create a meta where one overload list becomes dominant, then as a response, another list rises to counter it that is often its own version of an overload list. This cycle continues, like in San Antonio, and you end up with several typically played overload principle based lists.

This can be seen a diversity if you want, but in most cases it makes life very hard for non-overload lists to function because they can not hope to match an overload list in its area of expertise, and when they are having to figure out how to address 2-3 different types of overload threats, the number of viable all-comers options gets pretty small. The result is pressure on players to not run what they want, but to adopt their own overload list in order to do survive.

Players that want their lists to win games for them take the overload style lists, hoping to do well by overloading the all-comers lists, and hoping to draw good matchups against the other overload lists.

The frustration is that overload lists are very matchup dependent when they face off. Often much of the game is decided before the battle based on how the 2 fleets interact mechanically (Bid, activation count, deployment count, squadron composition, etc.). With player skill taking a back seat to the mechanics of the fleet match-up. Since the process of getting good match-ups is left largely up to chance, success is often more about who got lucky and got the favorable match-ups than who is the best player. WE DON'T WANT GAMES TO BE INFLUENCED HEAVILY BY THE MATCH-UP IF WE WANT PLAYER SKILL TO DICTATE OVERALL SUCCESS.

Generalist lists have a hard time functioning in a meta flooded with overload oriented lists because it is very tough to be prepared for 2-3 different types of overload threats. Generalist lists run the risk of losing to a less skilled player using a skew list, that is well tailored to overwhelm the generalists diluted counter strategy.

This is a sad result because it is my belief that the most rewarding games are those between 2 generalist fleets that do not have a huge list based advantage over the opponent. These type of games are the ones that allow the players, not their lists or match-up luck, to determine success.

To Long Didn't Read:

Overload lists drive out all-comers lists and make match-ups a huge deal, sometimes overshadowing player skill in deciding games.

All-comers lists encourage tactically deep, FAIR, games, where each player can determine their fate, not the match-up

This is just rubbish.

Who will decide what is a "skew" list or and what is a "generalist" list???

And "we want skill to matter" is just as lame. Part of what makes Armada/X-wing appealing is LISTBUILIDNG and META ANALYSIS. Play chess if you're into the sort of thing where it's pure skill, nothing more. Chess is kind of boring tho.

Relatedly... if I blow up X number of Sloane list with a non-squad list... is that skew? And skew from whom? And does skill not matter? Is it easy to kill max squadron with no squadron?

And skill... what point is there in playing if all other things are equal (we're back to chess again)? If I'm better than 99% of player, then I'll win 99% of games. Which sounds 100% boring.

15 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

To Long Didn't Read:

Overload lists drive out all-comers lists and make match-ups a huge deal, sometimes overshadowing player skill in deciding games.

Please define overload lists in an unambiguous way, preferably a few short, pseudo-code expressions.

I.e. less than 4 or more than 5 activations, and more than 50% of your points in one of (large ships, fighters & fighter support upgrades, small combat ships)

Because if we can't agree on what a skew list is, we can't debate if they are bad for the game.

42 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

Players that want their lists to win games for them take the overload style lists, hoping to do well by overloading the all-comers lists, and hoping to draw good matchups against the other overload lists.

First, not always. I took 2+3 because it was the better version of 3+2 or 2+2 that I had been piloting. I didn't want my list to win FOR me, and squadrons in general aren't the easy win button that they appear to be. If you "git gud" with the list they can be, but that's a different topic that we don't need to get into here. If you git gud with any list, really...

42 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

The frustration is that overload lists are very matchup dependent when they face off. Often much of the game is decided before the battle based on how the 2 fleets interact mechanically (Bid, activation count, deployment count, squadron composition, etc.). With player skill taking a back seat to the mechanics of the fleet match-up. Since the process of getting good match-ups is left largely up to chance, success is often more about who got lucky and got the favorable match-ups than who is the best player. WE DON'T WANT GAMES TO BE INFLUENCED HEAVILY BY THE MATCH-UP IF WE WANT PLAYER SKILL TO DICTATE OVERALL SUCCESS.

Not necessarily. It comes down to how you play, deploy, objective choice, etc. My list is built to handle all types of lists even if I face a skew list. I feel that I CAN fight my way out of a bad matchup for me, which is good play on my part, not good matchups.

42 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

Generalist lists have a hard time functioning in a meta flooded with overload oriented lists because it is very tough to be prepared for 2-3 different types of overload threats. Generalist lists run the risk of losing to a less skilled player using a skew list, that is well tailored to overwhelm the generalists diluted counter strategy.

How good are you with the generalist list? If you know your list well enough and have practiced it...

42 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

This is a sad result because it is my belief that the most rewarding games are those between 2 generalist fleets that do not have a huge list based advantage over the opponent. These type of games are the ones that allow the players, not their lists or match-up luck, to determine success.

That may be for you, but what if my most rewarding game involves slamming 134 points of squadrons into my opponent and his ships? Or piloting 8 hammerheads to victory? Or 3 ISDs, driving forward and smashing everything in their path?

34 minutes ago, Baltanok said:

Please define overload lists in an unambiguous way, preferably a few short, pseudo-code expressions.

I.e. less than 4 or more than 5 activations, and more than 50% of your points in one of (large ships, fighters & fighter support upgrades, small combat ships)

Because if we can't agree on what a skew list is, we can't debate if they are bad for the game.

Purely for definition purposes...

From my days at GW, the easiest way to define skew lists is that someone tries to make a list that overemphasizes one aspect/tactic of the game so that your opponent has little or no ability to respond, especially if the opponent takes a more balanced approach (they might have one answer but it's not enough). In effect, skews try to create scenarios where your opponent's participation in the game is almost passive.

There's no simple equation or "pseudo-code expressions" with what makes a skew. It completely dependent on the ability to make your opponent a bystander. You can do that however you want but some ways are harder than other by design. In Armada it's very hard to do by taking ships because your opponent take ships as well and you get interplay in positioning and ships firing at each other at full effect. Positioning helps but that comes down to the player actions and choices in game. Now just to illustrate a skew for example's sake (pre-flotilla nerf just to make it the example clearer of how the skew develops) you take 10 flotillas and full fighters and your opponent has an all ship list. Your flotilla/fighter skew effectively nullifies your opponent's chance to even play the game because all of his firepower is ineffective and his ability to catch those flotillas is questionable and even if he does he scores minimal points. With your skew you effectively decided the game without playing.

I'm not going to get into calling out particular lists and IMO play what you want within the rules. I won't hold it against you but skews do tend to highlight rules weaknesses though which is why I'm never surprised to see a nerf come down. At it's base level, games are meant to be fun for all players no matter the skill and if a game starts to break that foundation the game is going to fail. Armada is great game because you can generally put some thought into a fleet and put it on the table and at least make a respectable showing. Skews try to break that foundation but I'm not convinced skews are as prolific as people make them out to be either.

A "generalist" list is a skew all of its own. If its losing to less skilled players "because" of skew, then there is only one answer.

They arent less skilled players. And yes building a fleet is part of player skill, so if you struggle to build a generalist skew then that is on you.

Triple Ackbar frigates with Awing spam is one of the original generalist skew lists. With the right hands it wins game after game against anyone. Thats why Paul Heaver picks it up time and time again, and does well with it.

1 hour ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

I oppose skew lists for the same reasons Imp Dueces is pointing out. Skew or overload lists are successful because they win by dominating an aspect of the game so heavily that the other player has little chance of matching them in their particular area of expertise.

What this tends to do, is create a meta where one overload list becomes dominant, then as a response, another list rises to counter it that is often its own version of an overload list. This cycle continues, like in San Antonio, and you end up with several typically played overload principle based lists.

This can be seen a diversity if you want, but in most cases it makes life very hard for non-overload lists to function because they can not hope to match an overload list in its area of expertise, and when they are having to figure out how to address 2-3 different types of overload threats, the number of viable all-comers options gets pretty small. The result is pressure on players to not run what they want, but to adopt their own overload list in order to do survive.

Players that want their lists to win games for them take the overload style lists, hoping to do well by overloading the all-comers lists, and hoping to draw good matchups against the other overload lists.

The frustration is that overload lists are very matchup dependent when they face off. Often much of the game is decided before the battle based on how the 2 fleets interact mechanically (Bid, activation count, deployment count, squadron composition, etc.). With player skill taking a back seat to the mechanics of the fleet match-up. Since the process of getting good match-ups is left largely up to chance, success is often more about who got lucky and got the favorable match-ups than who is the best player. WE DON'T WANT GAMES TO BE INFLUENCED HEAVILY BY THE MATCH-UP IF WE WANT PLAYER SKILL TO DICTATE OVERALL SUCCESS.

Generalist lists have a hard time functioning in a meta flooded with overload oriented lists because it is very tough to be prepared for 2-3 different types of overload threats. Generalist lists run the risk of losing to a less skilled player using a skew list, that is well tailored to overwhelm the generalists diluted counter strategy.

This is a sad result because it is my belief that the most rewarding games are those between 2 generalist fleets that do not have a huge list based advantage over the opponent. These type of games are the ones that allow the players, not their lists or match-up luck, to determine success.

To Long Didn't Read:

Overload lists drive out all-comers lists and make match-ups a huge deal, sometimes overshadowing player skill in deciding games.

All-comers lists encourage tactically deep, FAIR, games, where each player can determine their fate, not the match-up

I'm going to echo Baltanok: you really need to define your terms here. You need to explain, preferably with examples, what you consider to be an "overload" list and a "generalist" list, not just in terms of what their impact is but what they look like, if you want to have a meaningful conversation. Because right now it sounds like you want everybody to show up with your list, and you think you're better than anybody doesn't.

If you can't even define what you want people to not do, there is no value to your crusade and all you're doing here is virtue signaling.

1 hour ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

The result is pressure on players to not run what they want, but to adopt their own overload list in order to do survive.

This is some self-entitled bull right here. Welcome to playing with other people. If winning is more important to you than theme, you may adapt your list to win. If theme is more important to you than winning, you are also free to bring that sweet Tagge triple ISD list. Your values, your time, your stuff, nobody's making you do anything.

But you have to live with that decision.

Either you identified ahead of time that X or Y would be good in your list and decided not to bring it for whatever arbitrary reason (theme, fun, whatever), or the other guy saw an advantage to X or Y and you didn't.

Assuming the former, what you can't legitimately do is make a value decision that the risk of losing is less important to you than whatever your arbitrary reason was for devaluing the elements needed to win--part of which is list-building and accounting for the meta--and then turn around after the game and ***** about getting beaten by this list or that by dropping them into arbitrary categories and labeling those categories "bad for the game."

Interesting thoughts, all around. I’m a relative newcomer, but it seems to me the best way to address these imbalances caused by “skew” lists: GHY 2+3, or 1+4 type lists (I assume) may be to add some more interesting objectives. I like that objectives such as sensor net and fire lanes act as something of a counter to a triple tapping Demolisher. It allows for a different way to play the game without power creep.

In short: More Objectives Please!

12 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

A "generalist" list is a skew all of its own. If its losing to less skilled players "because" of skew, then there is only one answer.

They arent less skilled players. And yes building a fleet is part of player skill, so if you struggle to build a generalist skew then that is on you.

Triple Ackbar frigates with Awing spam is one of the original generalist skew lists. With the right hands it wins game after game against anyone. Thats why Paul Heaver picks it up time and time again, and does well with it.

Armada definitely has an issue with certain list compositions creating a "no-fun zone" experience. This isn't to say that these lists don't take skill to play, just that they are designed to prevent opposing players from actually engaging in the game.

A few editions back (early 5th ed maybe) in Warhammer 40,000 there was a list archetype that became infamous called the "Leafblower." This list used a combination of particular abilities to effectively wipe the enemy force completely off the board before they had an opportunity to even react. Even if the opposing force had a few surviving models remaining, they would often be kicked out of any transports and have to slog across the table under constant fire. Long range weapons that could return fire would either be eliminated with prejudice or be so unreliable as to be incapable of truly threatening the Leafblower.

While Armada doesn't have anything quite that bad, it does have several lists where simply coming into attack range is disastrous unless playing nearly identical lists that are intended to function identically to each other. This strongly disincentivizes actual engagement between the players and instead rewards players for just running out of range without a fight.

I have been asked to more clearly define a skew list, I can't really do it any better than ImpStarDeuces just has.

Lists that are built to have a mix of ship and squadron fire power, and that do not intend to try and cash in on the sad, logical absurdity that we should all avoid, that is the entire last/first mechanic, are less prone to match up dependency.

Lists that aim to win by dominating the activation count are directly playing on this known and well documented weakness in the game system, with the intent being to make it easier for them to attack the enemy fleet without the chance for a reaction from the opponent. The lack of a chance to react is the key issue with this overload tactic. Overload prevents the interplay between the competitors.

A max squadron list that relays from across the board with out spending any points on actual fighting ships in a similar way, is removing the opponent's ability to meaningfully effect the game. Their ships are almost useless in this type of game for want of a meaningful target that must approach within range of them. With the end result being again to reduce interaction between the players.

Objective/Token Farm Overload aims to win the game by farming points much more effectively than the opponent. This type of overload wants to be so much better at making point via objectives that the enemy has no chance to keep up. This overload is mitigated somewhat by the opposing player's chance to make a choice about which mission they want to play and thus is not a great of an issue, though it does seek to win without having to meet the enemy in actual battle.

Overload style lists are powerful and popular because by eliminating the amount of interaction the opponent has in the game, players can perform better than they would normally in a contest between 2 non-overload lists.

What is the best way to beat someone that is a better player than you? Make sure they don't have any meaningful choices to make by taking a list that eliminates their choices via the overload principle.

By avoiding overload, specifically overload that leverages the known weaknesses of the rule set, you insure that your opponent also has the same opportunity to showcase their tactical skill. An opportunity that you would also hope for in a game of Armada if the roles were reversed.

@Space_Cowboy17 What is the purpose of listbuilding? Is there any skill in listbuilding? Should players enjoy list building and/or spend longer than 5 minutes doing so?

Oh I see whats going on here. Every list that wins is #broken #overload. As soon as you win...#overload #nerf.

List building is a fun and important part of the game, but with the easy access to the tops list and the principles that make them up being on line, it really is not that important of a skill.

Lists should be focused, have a plan for victory, and we well reasoned, but when they aim to win by exploiting the known weaknesses of the rule set to limit interaction, it is an abuse that lessens the experience for both parties, both the one running the list that has the advantage, and the one that is at the disadvantage.

The only fight worth winning ins a fair one, in a setting where we do this as an activity between 2 adults looking to engage in an intellectual contest. This is NOT WAR, these peole you are playing are friends and they deserve a fair game, just like you hope to have.

2 hours ago, Green Knight said:

And "we want skill to matter" is just as lame. Part of what makes Armada/X-wing appealing is LISTBUILIDNG and META ANALYSIS. Play chess if you're into the sort of thing where it's pure skill, nothing more. Chess is kind of boring tho.

Urgh, White is a great example of abusing first/last skew.

4 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

List building is a fun and important part of the game, but with the easy access to the tops list and the principles that make them up being on line, it really is not that important of a skill.

Lists should be focused, have a plan for victory, and we well reasoned, but when they aim to win by exploiting the known weaknesses of the rule set to limit interaction, it is an abuse that lessens the experience for both parties, both the one running the list that has the advantage, and the one that is at the disadvantage.

The only fight worth winning ins a fair one, in a setting where we do this as an activity between 2 adults looking to engage in an intellectual contest. This is NOT WAR, these peole you are playing are friends and they deserve a fair game, just like you hope to have.

I value list building highly and one of the most important skills. Beating my opponent before we sit down takes a tremendous amount of skill. It is a fair fight, just a fight that was won through better preperation.