1 minute ago, Blail Blerg said:

Not gonna comment on the rest, but yeah. Turn order for a space combat game?? cmon.

Biggest uninspired game design let down

You gotta admit that it makes a lot more sense in the absence of a double move mechanic.

11 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

All I am suggesting is that people avoid the overload principle since it is an easy button.

Take solid, well thought out combined arms fleets that allow for all the generalist lists that are being squeezed out at the top tables to also have a chance since they don't have to live in fear of being overloaded.

I think making flotillas not count for tabling would introduce enough risk into spamming for activation advantage, that we would see less people trying to overload with activations.

This is why everyone is fed up with you. Stop telling people what fleets they need to play with.

Generalist lists being forced out:

I don't agree. There are a wide variety of lists making it to top tables in wave 7. Low activation fleets may need fighters to be successful, but 4-5 activation fleets (73% of lists) are successful at expected levels with both high & low fighter counts. High activation fleets are successful at expected levels at low, med-high, and high fighter levels. Sure, there's a sour spot between 40 and 70 points in squads, but only low activation fleets really get punished for not taking squads.

@Undeadguy

Play what you want, but don't look me in the eye and tell me you are having to do as much mental work as me to win a game when you get to move 2 times back to back every turn and I don't.

The amount of predictive power it takes to counter and anticipate a double move is far greater than the mental power it takes to look at the board and move your ship into and out of range once the other guy is activated out... That's just called driving.

17 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

Take solid, well thought out combined arms fleets that allow for all the generalist lists that are being squeezed out at the top tables to also have a chance since they don't have to live in fear of being overloaded.

Why would I do this? I don't want to play combined arms. Who are you to tell me that I'm bad for liking different archetypes from you? And why, in a competitive environment , would this be a thing that I would want? Why would I want to "just give them a chance" in a tournament? The whole point of competition is to leverage your advantages to the disadvantage of your opponent.

"There is no teacher but the enemy. No one but the enemy will tell you what the enemy is going to do. No one but the enemy will ever teach you how to destroy and conquer. Only the enemy shows you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you where he is strong. And the rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you."

3 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

Play what you want, but don't look me in the eye and tell me you are having to do as much mental work as me to win a game when you get to move 2 times back to back every turn and I don't.

Nobody's telling you that if you voluntarily take a *** fleet that you're not going to have a hard time.

We're telling you to stop telling everybody else they're immoral for not opting to do so.

1 minute ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

@Undeadguy

Play what you want, but don't look me in the eye and tell me you are having to do as much mental work as me to win a game when you get to move 2 times back to back every turn and I don't.

The amount of predictive power it takes to counter and anticipate a double move is far greater than the mental power it takes to look at the board and move your ship into and out of range once the other guy is activated out... That's just called driving.

This is the list that I used to abuse activations. Tell me how this list is incorrectly built?

I have 5 combat ships and no squads. A single flotilla. No bid. My opponent gets to look at my list before choosing if they want first or second.

Do you have Vassal? I'll show you how hard this fleet is to fly and you can bring whatever fleet you want.

Faction: Imperial
Commander: Moff Jerjerrod

Assault: Most Wanted
Defense: Hyperspace Assault
Navigation: Solar Corona

Gladiator I (56)
• Ordnance Experts (4)
• Assault Proton Torpedoes (5)
• Demolisher (10)
= 75 Points

Gladiator I (56)
• Chart Officer (2)
• Ordnance Experts (4)
• Assault Proton Torpedoes (5)
• Insidious (3)
= 70 Points

Victory II (85)
• Moff Jerjerrod (23)
• Minister Tua (2)
• Gunnery Team (7)
• XI7 Turbolasers (6)
• Leading Shots (4)
• Electronic Countermeasures (7)
= 134 Points

Raider I (44)
• External Racks (3)
= 47 Points

Raider I (44)
• External Racks (3)
= 47 Points

Gozanti Cruisers (23)
• Hondo Ohnaka (2)
• Comms Net (2)
= 27 Points

Squadrons:
= 0 Points

Total Points: 400

1 minute ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

@Undeadguy

Play what you want, but don't look me in the eye and tell me you are having to do as much mental work as me to win a game when you get to move 2 times back to back every turn and I don't.

I mean, how do you know what mental work anyone is going through? How do you know that without automatic dice rolls (a la sw7 CR90s) that the last-first is going to do what you want? There are blanks on black dice you know.

Relatedly, knowing close range IS mental work, AND you need to activate other ships first, so, no, there is mental work involved in all activations, it's not just an easy win.

1 minute ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

The amount of predictive power it takes to counter and anticipate a double move is far greater than the mental power it takes to look at the board and move you ship into and out of range once the other guy is activated out... That's just called driving.

See now you just sound like a conceited jerk. "It's not hard to do this thing (subtle comment implying I should git gud) as compared to this other thing that I have determined (through unstated means) to be the easy button to win."

@Undeadguy That is not an overload list. You are taking 4 real ships and a flotilla. There is a huge difference between taking that, and taking an ISD and 4-5 Flotillas put in the list only to increase the activation count.

26 minutes ago, Baltanok said:

Generalist lists being forced out:

I don't agree. There are a wide variety of lists making it to top tables in wave 7. Low activation fleets may need fighters to be successful, but 4-5 activation fleets (73% of lists) are successful at expected levels with both high & low fighter counts. High activation fleets are successful at expected levels at low, med-high, and high fighter levels. Sure, there's a sour spot between 40 and 70 points in squads, but only low activation fleets really get punished for not taking squads.

If you copied a table out of your wonderful charts, it would be even better than simply stating your disagreement. Then, also, we can read what you're looking at and assess if that conclusion makes sense for us also. Or if its not sound.

Here I'd ask: Where are you seeing lists do well between 70 and 90 points? What about between 90 and 120? As I believe 75% of the last few fleets were 121-134. Are you talking top4? Top8? Winners?

There's another big assumption: You said that they perform as expected: afaik, what you mean is that based on the numbers taken, they have the same percentage going into the upper top8 top4 and winners brackets with no significant difference (I assume perhaps some sort of standard deviation on top8 and top4, and a bit of uncertainty due to small sample size). However, if a fleet archetype is not taken (here we assess between 70-90 squads, or 70-120) in the first place, it can also generally mean that most people don't expect it to be very good. I'd have to see some numerical proof for the assumption that people simply take ANYTHING at random to a tournament and that some amount of the data is "garbage fleets" by players who literally have zero ability to choose a list they think will perform well. If you make this assumption, I would want to see data backing that up.

Do you mind copying the graphs you inferred your conclusions from?

--

Past that, I'm also extremely curious that people feel its even not necessary or right to even collect what the data is for 4 5 and 6 flotillas. I mean, of course if changing the spreadsheet code is gated by other priorities, that's understandable. But why consider the query irrelevant and not collecting the data if possible???

3 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

You do it

But it's harrrrrrd

4 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

You do it

3 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

The gif version is better than mine.

@geek19

I am suggesting that some who is out activated has to move with less information available to them at the time of making the decision.

Getting into black range is a skill, but having all but one variable fixed before making a decision is easier than when there are more things out of your control, this issue is made worse when one of those variables is twice as erratic since it gets to move twice.

Like I was pointing out with the chess, Imperial Assault, and Legion examples, this is a known issue that many games choose to address in order to prevent exactly this disparity in mental load, in an effort to create a more fair play experience for both players.

28 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

@Undeadguy

Play what you want, but don't look me in the eye and tell me you are having to do as much mental work as me to win a game when you get to move 2 times back to back every turn and I don't.

The amount of predictive power it takes to counter and anticipate a double move is far greater than the mental power it takes to look at the board and move your ship into and out of range once the other guy is activated out... That's just called driving.

This is the wow statement for me. Unbelievable. Mental work? Welcome to wargaming, don't go to Napoleonics.

If your getting caught by this, then perhaps you need to look at your set up, your fleet builds, what your doing to counter that build. There is a lot of skill to set up the first/last attack. First you have to get your opponent to move into the kill box, that isn't as easy as it sounds. A good solid opponent can figure out solutions a turn or two ahead and avoid the trap. I'm glad you didn't play Flames of War in 3rd edition when company lists all had some broken element to it.

If someone is bringing five flotillas, you better have practiced against those kinds of lists and know solutions. If they have squads once again have solutions. If it's legal in the rules then I have no problems with folks running anything and I have been tabled plenty of times. I learn and move on and try not to repeat my performance.

Sure. Can I do it on the spreadsheet itself so we keep the data in the same place?

39 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

"There is no teacher but the enemy. No one but the enemy will tell you what the enemy is going to do. No one but the enemy will ever teach you how to destroy and conquer. Only the enemy shows you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you where he is strong. And the rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you."

Is that Enders game? Or Sun Tzu, I get them confused sometimes.

1 minute ago, Tiberius the Killer said:

Is that Enders game? Or Sun Tzu, I get them confused sometimes.

Ender's Game, Mazer introducing himself to Ender.

9 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

@geek19

I am suggesting that some who is out activated has to move with less information available to them at the time of making the decision.

And that argument held some water in wave 6, but it's a new world now is my only counter argument.

9 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

Getting into black range is a skill, but having all but one variable fixed before making a decision is easier than when there are more things out of your control, this issue is made worse when one of those variables is twice as erratic since it gets to move twice.

No, the issues are separate. "STRONG" demo first last needs to move into close on the "last" turn, which necessitates a specific range that exists, not 2 moves away. You can argue that demo getting first last is strong (and it is), but getting last (2 red dice) and then first (one attack after moving) isn't..... Good.... Against larges, hyper competent roll excepted of course.

9 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

Like I was pointing out with the chess, Imperial Assault, and Legion examples, this is a known issue that many games choose to address in order to prevent exactly this disparity in mental load, in an effort to create a more fair play experience for both players.

Except last-first has existed since wave 1, so it's not a great argument. And they DID address it, with Pryce and Bail. If your argument is that flotilla spam is bad, then make THAT argument, but you seem more concerned with just total number of activations and an unspecified "true balanced list."

Again, your activations argument might hold weight in a wave 6 world, but you seem to be complaining about how trebuchets are too OP in current warfare. The Bronze Age was fulla hacks, anyways.

15 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

If you copied a table out of your wonderful charts, it would be even better than simply stating your disagreement. Then, also, we can read what you're looking at and assess if that conclusion makes sense for us also. Or if its not sound.

Here I'd ask: Where are you seeing lists do well between 70 and 90 points? What about between 90 and 120? As I believe 75% of the last few fleets were 121-134. Are you talking top4? Top8? Winners?

There's another big assumption: You said that they perform as expected: afaik, what you mean is that based on the numbers taken, they have the same percentage going into the upper top8 top4 and winners brackets with no significant difference (I assume perhaps some sort of standard deviation on top8 and top4, and a bit of uncertainty due to small sample size). However, if a fleet archetype is not taken (here we assess between 70-90 squads, or 70-120) in the first place, it can also generally mean that most people don't expect it to be very good. I'd have to see some numerical proof for the assumption that people simply take ANYTHING at random to a tournament and that some amount of the data is "garbage fleets" by players who literally have zero ability to choose a list they think will perform well. If you make this assumption, I would want to see data backing that up.

Do you mind copying the graphs you inferred your conclusions from?

--

Past that, I'm also extremely disappointed and curious that someone said that they don't feel its even necessary or right to even collect what the data is for 4 5 and 6 flotillas. I mean, of course if its hard to code, that's understandable. But intentionally dismissing the query and not collecting the data if possible???

Not graphs. I use the filters available in Google sheets or excel to select all fleets with X ships, then filter again for squad points between Y & Z. Write down how many lists total, and how many in top 4.

Top 4 chosen because there are enough fleets in that bracket to be a reasonable population, but high enough to constitute a really good result. It would be better to have percentage brackets, but this is what we have.

But because this is based on repeated filtering, presenting the data means typing it in manually. And there's only so much I can do while waiting for actual work to hit my desk, using my phone.

4 flots: 5/19 to top 4 in wave 6/7. 5&6 flots 3/3. That's out of 349 reported lists, and 96 top 4 finishes.

Is it possible that if 100 players all showed up with 6 flots lists that we would then see a massive problem? Sure. But 3 players is a quirk to be watched, not a 5 alarm fire.

Regarding timing of any necessary nerfs, I'd guess after world's. Gives FFG the best source of data at the most competitive level. Making big changes after the top players have practiced with their lists, but before the actual event would be frustrating. Especially since some top players are also probably playtesters, and would have advanced notice.

4 minutes ago, Baltanok said:

Not graphs. I use the filters available in Google sheets or excel to select all fleets with X ships, then filter again for squad points between Y & Z. Write down how many lists total, and how many in top 4.

Top 4 chosen because there are enough fleets in that bracket to be a reasonable population, but high enough to constitute a really good result. It would be better to have percentage brackets, but this is what we have.

But because this is based on repeated filtering, presenting the data means typing it in manually. And there's only so much I can do while waiting for actual work to hit my desk, using my phone.

4 flots: 5/19 to top 4 in wave 6/7. 5&6 flots 3/3. That's out of 349 reported lists, and 96 top 4 finishes.

Is it possible that if 100 players all showed up with 6 flots lists that we would then see a massive problem? Sure. But 3 players is a quirk to be watched, not a 5 alarm fire.

Regarding timing of any necessary nerfs, I'd guess after world's. Gives FFG the best source of data at the most competitive level. Making big changes after the top players have practiced with their lists, but before the actual event would be frustrating. Especially since some top players are also probably playtesters, and would have advanced notice.

Cool. What are your numbers for the 70-90 and 90-120? (Also why are the divisions 20 and then 30 then 14?)

Also, I don't think # of ships has a correlation with how a large number of squads could help your fleet (theory to test here). I see no difference between a 4 ship list with 134 and a 6 ship list with 134. And apparently, people crying about activations have been told that 4 and 6 activations do not have a significant difference of win rate (which I find also hard to believe, but I'm not staring at the numbers right now)

9 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Ender's Game, Mazer introducing himself to Ender.

I freaking love that book. Maybe we should be talking about how real problem in armada is no one is making the enemy's gate down.

3 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Cool. What are your numbers for the 70-90 and 90-120? (Also why are the divisions 20 and then 30 then 14?)

Also, I don't think # of ships has a correlation with how a large number of squads could help your fleet (theory to test here). I see no difference between a 4 ship list with 134 and a 6 ship list with 134. And apparently, people crying about activations have been told that 4 and 6 activations do not have a significant difference of win rate (which I find also hard to believe, but I'm not staring at the numbers right now)

40/70/100/134 as that was as close as I could come to evenly sized groups. No way to divide activations up the same way, because 4 & 5 dwarf everyone else. But just looking at <4, 4, 5, and 6+, wave 7 is:

4/20, 8/42, 13/55, and 6/25. Which is all in the 20-25% range. Don't remember if I excluded YGH+3 lists, but they are 0/3 in wave 7, so probably not a big deal either way.

13 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Cool. What are your numbers for the 70-90 and 90-120? (Also why are the divisions 20 and then 30 then 14?)

Also, I don't think # of ships has a correlation with how a large number of squads could help your fleet (theory to test here). I see no difference between a 4 ship list with 134 and a 6 ship list with 134. And apparently, people crying about activations have been told that 4 and 6 activations do not have a significant difference of win rate (which I find also hard to believe, but I'm not staring at the numbers right now)

Oh, probably misunderstood what you meant by 70-90 etc. The public spreadsheet has tables for every 20 or 40 squad points, so 121-134 was the leftovers after the bracket ending at 120.

2 hours ago, Baltanok said:

4 flots: 5/19 to top 4 in wave 6/7. 5&6 flots 3/3. That's out of 349 reported lists, and 96 top 4 finishes.

Is it possible that if 100 players all showed up with 6 flots lists that we would then see a massive problem? Sure. But 3 players is a quirk to be watched, not a 5 alarm fire.

Am I interpreting this properly, that of 349 lists a grand total of 22 had 4+ flotillas?