30 minutes ago, Sephlar said:

I stand by my statement and reject yours. I remember regionals that had cuts to top 16's just a little more than a year ago in which 13 of the 16 lists had jumpmasters in them. That kind of similarity in list simply does NOT exist in the current competitive/regional meta at the moment.

Can you say what exactly variety or open meta means to you? Depending on the definition I do or do not agree with you.

For example, do you go by the amount of different ships on the tables? Or by list types? By NPEs?

Also, where? Cuts or swiss?

Different ships, different pilots, and list type. It all should weigh in a little.

Often, in the past, regional were dominated by one of the following (and in the following order):
(1) Swarms
(2) Large based Turrets
(3) Small based Turrets (TLT)
(4) Palpatine
(5) Torps/Missiles
(6) Bombs

The current meta now includes a variety of #2, #3, #5, and #6 above... plus a bit of #4 in many regional top 8's. The only thing really missing is swarms.

Don't get me wrong, when I see a swarm player who does it well... it's a thing of beauty. It's awesome to watch a good swarm player do their thing. I'd love to see this game so balanced that we could see most every ship and every pilot make a regional appearance. But that just is not going to ever happen. I don't think that's enough to say "this game is broken."

39 minutes ago, Sephlar said:

muh anecdotes

https://carolinakrayts.libsyn.com/episode-52-evil-plan

Educate yourself

Just now, Chumbalaya said:

https://carolinakrayts.libsyn.com/episode-52-evil-plan

Educate yourself

Dude. Toxic much?

1 minute ago, Chumbalaya said:

https://carolinakrayts.libsyn.com/episode-52-evil-plan

Educate yourself

Most of the Krayt podcasts are meh. Good players, great active group, average podcast (at best). But that is just my opinion.

I pointed to specifics.

I watched a BS/F 17 in the Seattle regional final that had more than 150 participants. In fact the meta in that regional (one of the biggest in the US this year) was wide open.

Education includes actual data and not the opinion of a few podcasters.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kNos2DhJfYOwKfFBVZS3GbnADB4WL6NvByuCeNmLdtc/edit

actual data?

4 minutes ago, Sephlar said:

Most of the Krayt podcasts are meh. Good players, great active group, average podcast (at best). But that is just my opinion.

I pointed to specifics.

I watched a BS/F 17 in the Seattle regional final that had more than 150 participants. In fact the meta in that regional (one of the biggest in the US this year) was wide open.

Education includes actual data and not the opinion of a few podcasters.

So I checked out the notes spreadsheet for the data they used. Literally by their own metrics 2018 is more diverse than '17 or '16. The overall is way flatter, the peak archetype has a lower percentage, and the 50%, 75%, and 90% mark are all lower down the list than the previous two years.

Dude is not only being toxic, but literally proved himself wrong with his own link while being a jerk about it.

1 minute ago, Wiredin said:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kNos2DhJfYOwKfFBVZS3GbnADB4WL6NvByuCeNmLdtc/edit

actual data?

Yeah. The data supports Sephlar's point.

1 minute ago, RampancyTW said:

So I checked out the notes spreadsheet for the data they used. Literally by their own metrics 2018 is more diverse than '17 or '16. The overall is way flatter, the peak archetype has a lower percentage, and the 50%, 75%, and 90% mark are all lower down the list than the previous two years.

I'm seeing that too on the link I posted.

which is why I'm somewhat confused as well.

AND that is the very problem.

A lot of people claim "the sky is falling" with regard to Xwing. And they may not be wrong.... but it's not FFG, it's not the meta.

The reason the sky is falling (IMHO) is toxicity in the community. We've gone from "Fly Casual" to "I know what I'm talking about, you don't."

Reasonable debate is good. Building each other up is community. But if you are going to make a case, do it with facts and logic and leave the opinions to funny entertainment and lightheartedness. OR if you have an opinion, state it as opinion. It's not fact until you can show your work.

83 palp aces in 2016 as top list vs 53 mindlink vs 42 ghost fenn... yea I see the problem

25 minutes ago, Wiredin said:

83 palp aces in 2016 as top list vs 53 mindlink vs 42 ghost fenn... yea I see the problem

And 24.3% in 2016... vs 22.6% in 2017.... vs 13.6% in 2018.

AND as you continue down to 2nd most played, 3rd most played, etc... the diversity continues in 2018.

Funny the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th entries for 2016 are:
Double Scouts, Triple Scouts, and Two ship scum
Now THAT is diversity.

Man, I remember all those JM5Ks.

1 hour ago, Sephlar said:

(1) Swarms
(2) Large based Turrets
(3) Small based Turrets (TLT)
(4) Palpatine
(5) Torps/Missiles
(6) Bombs

3, 5, and 6 are all literally the same ship... Miranda and/or Nym

43 minutes ago, RampancyTW said:

So I checked out the notes spreadsheet for the data they used. Literally by their own metrics 2018 is more diverse than '17 or '16. The overall is way flatter, the peak archetype has a lower percentage, and the 50%, 75%, and 90% mark are all lower down the list than the previous two years.

The point being made was not that this meta is significantly less diverse than years past. The point is that it's roughly about the same. The meta wasn't all that diverse then and it's not all that diverse now. Saying it's wide open in comparison just isn't true. All 3 years had random jank outliers make cuts and even win major events, but that doesn't change the what's happening in aggregate.

I will say that it is slightly different than years past in that the core issue isn't a single archetype. Rather it's centered around a single upgrade card, TLT, and a few specific pilots, Miranda and Fenn. Fenn is in the top 2 lists and accounts for the top 26.6%, more than either Palp Aces in 2016 or Mindlink in 2017. Miranda is in 2 of the top 3 weighing in at 22.1%, right around the past years top boogey men. TLT is relied on by all 3 top lists for 35.7% more than anything seen to this point. So depending on how you want to view it the current meta is in some ways better, not dominated by a single list, but in some ways worse. It's even more heavily dominated by a narrow subset of cards and extremely dominated by a single faction/playstyle, Rebel defensive turrets

@Tlfj200

can you help elaborate on this. either we are reading the data wrong, forgot what was said in the podcast, or something is amiss here. asking questions because that's what I do.

1 minute ago, Makaze said:

3, 5, and 6 are all literally the same ship... Miranda and/or Nym

The point being made was not that this meta is significantly less diverse than years past. The point is that it's roughly about the same. The meta wasn't all that diverse then and it's not all that diverse now. Saying it's wide open in comparison just isn't true. All 3 years had random jank outliers make cuts and even win major events, but that doesn't change the what's happening in aggregate.

I will say that it is slightly different than years past in that the core issue isn't a single archetype. Rather it's centered around a single upgrade card, TLT, and a few specific pilots, Miranda and Fenn. Fenn is in the top 2 lists and accounts for the top 26.6%, more than either Palp Aces in 2016 or Mindlink in 2017. Miranda is in 2 of the top 3 weighing in at 22.1%, right around the past years top boogey men. TLT is relied on by all 3 top lists for 35.7% more than anything seen to this point. So depending on how you want to view it the current meta is in some ways better, not dominated by a single list, but in some ways worse. It's even more heavily dominated by a narrow subset of cards and extremely dominated by a single faction/playstyle, Rebel defense with TLTs

ok that makes a lot more sense. TLT is dominate, we know this. but turrets in general have been dominate since introduction. This is nothing new overall.

I assumed the big thing about the meta being stagnant is that everything is based off turret spam or defensive stacking spam.

2 minutes ago, Sephlar said:

And 24.3% in 2016... vs 22.6% in 2017.... vs 13.6% in 2018.

AND as you continue down to 2nd most played, 3rd most played, etc... the diversity continues in 2018.

Funny the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th entries for 2016 are:
Double Scouts, Triple Scouts, and Two ship scum
Now THAT is diversity.

Let me start with that is my data. It's simply pulled from juggler, with other key notes in the legend.

So, first, I suspect we disagree on what "diversity" means. While it is technically true that there were more lists in the first 50% of top-cut representating, it was one additional list. Arguing that 6 lists are SO MUCH more diverse than 5 really defeats the intent and spirit of 'diversity.'

Second, while you lump all the jumpmasters together, they played differently enough to warrant distinction. You're dismissive of that, but find that the 2018 top 50%, which is 1) dominated by rebels, and 2) dominated by fat turret point fortresses, but different flavors of which, is spiritually more diverse?


Additional note on 2017 - I lumped all "mindlink" together because it was faster at the time, and frankly, it's a past meta, so who cares, but that mindlink breakdown would be:

So, if you believe those distinctions are relevant (they are), then 2017 i more 'diverse,' even by the incredibly narrow view of the current commenters:

Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FQW-tTm0gB9q_9250ObNw-bAdE65HOBUsC42j_jLUBM/edit?usp=sharing

Also, basically what @Makaze said.

This data was for our internal use, thus the labels are for how we broke lists down to practice against. But as general strategies, the current lists are dominated by fat turret point fortresses that do some combination of stack defense, regenerate, and/or drop bombs.

They play differently enough to separate them for the purpose of prepping for worlds, but the strategy isn't super varied.

Last post, and sorry for it being separate, but it's worth noting:

To say that because 2018 took 6 lists to cross the 50% threshold, but 2016 took 5, and thus 2018 is 'more varied' is an incredibly naive way to look at data and to draw conclusions.

It's a lawyer-ly attempt to obfuscate the meaning and relevant conclusions (that they're similar).

Further... the fact everyone looks at 2016 and still sees jumpmasters first, rather than the fact 2016 was horrifically DOMINATED by palp aces, and it wasn't close, is still astounding to me. That is literally the most interesting data point across 3 years.

11 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Further... the fact everyone looks at 2016 and still sees jumpmasters first, rather than the fact 2016 was horrifically DOMINATED by palp aces, and it wasn't close, is still astounding to me. That is literally the most interesting data point across 3 years.

I agree, it's very strange to see so many palp aces, because I don't remember that being discussed as the cancer list. Jumps we're the boogiemen. is it because many palps made the cut, but more jump masters took top spot? (from memory, no evidence support given)

2018 is looking pretty too heavy to the top lists, which are dominant over the field and feature mechanics many people consider an NPE.

2017 was pretty top heavy to the top lists, which were dominant over the field and featured mechanics many people considered an NPE.

2016 was pretty top heavy to the top lists, which were dominant over the field and featured mechanics many people considered an NPE.

It's not really any different game now to what it's been in the past. What's changed the most is the community's willingness to engage positively with the games. From my perspective I see that being cheerleaded (cheerled?) by a relatively small number of high-profile community members who are stirring up the pot when previously they'd have been contributing more constructively. There were always haters, always outspoken opinions, but the loudest voices are now egging those people on rather than trying to de-escalate the discussions.

Just now, Wiredin said:

I agree, it's very strange to see so many palp aces, because I don't remember that being discussed as the cancer list. Jumps we're the boogiemen. is it because many palps made the cut, but more jump masters took top spot? (from memory, no evidence support given)

It's because Palp Aces were the knife to the back not the punch to the face. They gave you the illusion that there was a game going on because they were very subtle in how they applied their NPE elements, which Jumps/Bombs/Zuckuss/Lothal are more blatant about.

3 minutes ago, SOTL said:

They gave you the illusion that there was a game going on because they were very subtle in how they applied their NPE elements, which Jumps/Bombs/Zuckuss/Lothal are more blatant about.

This really can't be stressed enough, honestly.

I disagree that looking at 50%, 75% and 90% alone is some magic matrix that determines diversity of the meta or lack there of.

I strongly believe that mirror matches has gotten less prevalent this go round, than seasons past.

Also, there is ALWAYS going to be strong lists that people see work and then copy. There will always be a few lists that dominate at the top. That's the nature of table top. It's not an xwing problem. It's a table top problem. It's even a professional sports problem.

2 minutes ago, Sephlar said:

I disagree that looking at 50%, 75% and 90% alone is some magic matrix that determines diversity of the meta or lack there of.

I strongly believe that mirror matches has gotten less prevalent this go round, than seasons past.

Also, there is ALWAYS going to be strong lists that people see work and then copy. There will always be a few lists that dominate at the top. That's the nature of table top. It's not an xwing problem. It's a table top problem. It's even a professional sports problem.

Sure. But the premise was that this was the most diverse meta ever. It isn't.

1 hour ago, Sephlar said:

But if you are going to make a case, do it with facts and logic and leave the opinions to funny entertainment and lightheartedness. OR if you have an opinion, state it as opinion. It's not fact until you can show your work.

Just now, Tlfj200 said:

Sure. But the premise was that this was the most diverse meta ever. It isn't.

The premise was that it was more diverse than the last couple of years. Word-for-word how this whole thing started.