10 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

Armor, Air Strikes and Indirect Fire. All of which are generally lacking in the game.

It's also an unrealistic representation. an M16 is accurate at 100 yards. Which is about the length of the maps we use. Modern tanks can make accurate shots at 3500 meters. So snipers live in that world.

Legion snipers have range abilities that are unrealistic compared to the other units on the field.

Lacking, yes. Perhaps in the future FFG will add more of these options, which may help us deal with snipers, etc, in new and interesting ways- I like the concept of maximum firepower and coordinated bombardment being expanded upon.

I don't think realism is perhaps the point. What I was getting at was more that snipers can be a counter to snipers. I don't think it is an ideal solution, but is an option.

I also agree with the discussion regarding using strike teams for activation padding. I don't play competitively, but, in the games I do play I have noticed that 2+ activations over the opponent makes a large difference. Strike teams can really make that possible.

3 hours ago, Derrault said:

I said ‘more likely’, that means there’s a higher probability (which there is).

You just used my logic on the issue. It's an average. On average higher activation lists win. Therefor, we can ascertain that higher activation lists have some form of advantage, intrinsic to the activations.

On 6/27/2019 at 7:37 PM, Derrault said:

If that is true, then how is it that lower activation count lists best higher activation count lists?

How do you reconcile that?

How many 6 or 7 or even 8 activation lists are out there? Difference between 10 and 11 isn't all that much, not sure there is a point to be made there.

Of course there may be a few players with a great list that uses a few less activations off the curve, that doesn't mean that lower activation lists consistently win across the board.

5 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

First off, you're confusing the issue, and I'm not sure if its intentional or not.

When the rest of the community says "low activation list" they mean 7 and fewer.

When they say "high activation list" they mean 9+

You however are taking "high activation/low activation" to mean that any list which has even one more activation than its opposing list is going to win. We do not mean that.

Low activation lists (much as I love building them) have the problem that they crumble too easily. If you kill my sniper strike team you took two hit points off the field, and two dice per round coming at you. They also aren't moving usually and aren't holding objectives.

If I kill your DLT Squad I removed 5 hit points and 6 attack dice, two of which are red from your possible attack pool every round, removed an objective holder, and possibly widened the gap of time where I have impunity on the board each round. You have less ability to pick up slack.

Also, like the Captain said....

Yeah that’s me using the normal meaning of the words high and low vis a vis each other.

The usage being put forward comes across as capricious and arbitrary, as there’s no reason why 9 beats 8, but 11 doesn’t beat 9.

3 hours ago, lologrelol said:

You just used my logic on the issue. It's an average. On average higher activation lists win. Therefor, we can ascertain that higher activation lists have some form of advantage, intrinsic to the activations.

Except my statement was supported by math. And your statement was not.

1 hour ago, Mep said:

How many 6 or 7 or even 8 activation lists are out there? Difference between 10 and 11 isn't all that much, not sure there is a point to be made there.

Of course there may be a few players with a great list that uses a few less activations off the curve, that doesn't mean that lower activation lists consistently win across the board.

I mean, I don’t know who’s making them, but they’re literally possible if someone wanted to try them out.

My point about the lower activation list (9) outperforming the higher activation lists (11) is that it’s flatly dispositive of the claim previously made. Now of course, in the face of that it’s being said that they’re using a special definition rather than the plain English meaning. Right.

That still doesn’t explain why 8 is so supposedly so much worse than 9; or 7 than 8. It’s just one less activation in either case than the previous.

12 hours ago, Derrault said:

Except my statement was supported by math. And your statement was not.

I mean, I don’t know who’s making them, but they’re literally possible if someone wanted to try them out.

My point about the lower activation list (9) outperforming the higher activation lists (11) is that it’s flatly dispositive of the claim previously made. Now of course, in the face of that it’s being said that they’re using a special definition rather than the plain English meaning. Right.

That still doesn’t explain why 8 is so supposedly so much worse than 9; or 7 than 8. It’s just one less activation in either case than the previous.

As always: We can explain it to you (and we have) but we cannot understand it for you (because you refuse to).

No my first instinct is to say that you should show us your tournament wins. But you don't believe that tournaments count. So fine, How about you make a youtube channel where you show us your theories in action and how they are true and everyone else is incorrect. At this point you're the one making extraordinary claims which require the extraordinary proof.

15 hours ago, Derrault said:

My point about the lower activation list (9) outperforming the higher activation lists (11) is that it’s flatly dispositive of the claim previously made. Now of course, in the face of that it’s being said that they’re using a special definition rather than the plain English meaning. Right.

The usage being put forward comes across as capricious and arbitrary, as there’s no reason why 9 beats 8, but 11 doesn’t beat 9.

That still doesn’t explain why 8 is so supposedly so much worse than 9; or 7 than 8. It’s just one less activation in either case than the previous.

Correct, we are not using the plain English definition. We are using the terms in the specific contextual meaning of Legion, as everyone in the discourse for the last few months has used them. Much in the same way that Attack does not mean literally assault the opposing player's figures, but execute a set of steps with dice. Perhaps now that you have made the effort to understand the discourse you will be able to participate constructively.

As for no one explaining why small advantages don't matter, and why the meta has stabilized around 9-11 (commonly referred to a 'high' activation list) as the optimal number, well... I do believe I have explained...

22 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

Because geometry, variability in setup, token draw, and other 'battlefield' friction. You don't control enough of the situation to guarantee the perfect setup.

1 activation margin is not sufficient to have a devastating advantage.

3 is significant. 4 is huge.

However there are diminishing returns. Gaining a 3-4 advantage at the cost of a big hammer, or at the cost of increasing order token diversity undermines the OODA loop exploit you are going for (because you can't start deleting units without risk next turn, or can't have enough control of delaying the right units in the right place).

Which is why when players experimented going higher they kept losing big hammers, or adding too much chaos to their draw, and kept falling back to the 10-11 meta we see today.

This problem space has been pretty well explored, and while it was not obvious during the exploration, in retrospect it seems clear what the dynamics are that bring us to this solution.

To recap yet again, small activation advantage can be useful, but is usually negligible and recoverable.

An activation advantage of 3-4 is quite hard to overcome.

Players have gravitated towards ever higher activation lists up to the point of losing their hammer.

At this point the 'arms race' stalls.

2 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

As always: We can explain it to you (and we have) but we cannot understand it for you (because you refuse to).

You should not expect to meaningfully communicate here, or receive an indication of understanding. It is clear we are dealing with arguments which exist solely to cast doubt on the thesis, from a preconceived opposing conviction. The focus of our response will be more fruitful and satisfying if we simply attempt to prevent misinformation for other readers.

5 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

As always: We can explain it to you (and we have) but we cannot understand it for you (because you refuse to).

No my first instinct is to say that you should show us your tournament wins. But you don't believe that tournaments count. So fine, How about you make a youtube channel where you show us your theories in action and how they are true and everyone else is incorrect. At this point you're the one making extraordinary claims which require the extraordinary proof.

Why do you find the recorded results that already exist insufficient?

And you’re conflating two distinct claims that actually do have different standards of proof.

1) Higher activation lists defeat lower activation lists, always.

This is a simple universal claim. It can be, and is, easily refuted by reference to the reported results from any number of tournaments, where the list with the highest activation did not place 1st, and in subgroupings like the top 8 of any given tournament where some of the lower activation lists placed higher than some of the higher activation lists.

This is not the same thing as:

2) Unit X is objectively bad/too expensive. Or Unit Y is objectively good, because it wins tournaments.

This requires data to backstop the claim. Tournament results were, incorrectly, referenced in regards to this, but as was correctly noted previously, the end state doesn’t stand alone, it also requires an understanding of the starting point.

Here is a simple analogy:

If you fill a jar with marbles, and 95% of them are red...when you pull a marble you almost certainly are going to get a red marble.

That doesn’t make red marbles the “best” marble, just the most likely marble. Because the deck was stacked.

2 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

Correct, we are not using the plain English definition. We are using the terms in the specific contextual meaning of Legion, as everyone in the discourse for the last few months has used them. Much in the same way that Attack does not mean literally assault the opposing player's figures, but execute a set of steps with dice. Perhaps now that you have made the effort to understand the discourse you will be able to participate constructively.

As for no one explaining why small advantages don't matter, and why the meta has stabilized around 9-11 (commonly referred to a 'high' activation list) as the optimal number, well... I do believe I have explained...

To recap yet again, small activation advantage can be useful, but is usually negligible and recoverable.

An activation advantage of 3-4 is quite hard to overcome.

Players have gravitated towards ever higher activation lists up to the point of losing their hammer.

At this point the 'arms race' stalls.

This is literally the first thread where I’ve seen that claim, and I’ve been reading/posting here since the game launched; so you can fully comprehend my surprise at your claim.

Constructive criticism was already provided: Claiming a range of activations is “low” and one is “high” is arbitrary and stupid; there’s no meaningful distinction between the lowest “high” and the highest “low”.

If there was, then it follows that there’s also a meaningful distinction between the lowest “high” and the next lowest “high”.

Your explanation is only vaguely plausible as a pyschological explanation; except if 9-10 activation lists can beat 11s; and 8s can beat 9-10s, and 6-7s can beat 8s...you see where I’m going with this yet?

The thing is, as I noted for zrob, where’s the recorded proof of anything lower than 9, or higher than 11, getting crushed over and over? Don’t substitute your own personal experience for stats; that’s a fairly classic mistake made in players trying to grasp fundamental probability as well.

18 hours ago, Derrault said:

Except my statement was supported by math. And your statement was not.

Ahahahahahahahaaaaa... 😂

Dude, please, just stop now. Your interpretation of the 'maths' is biased and not based on factual reconcilable concepts.

I showed you how ON AVERAGE it is easier to win with high activations, maxing out troops and snipers.

You're borderline becoming a troll. 😉

3 minutes ago, lologrelol said:

Ahahahahahahahaaaaa... 😂

Dude, please, just stop now. Your interpretation of the 'maths' is biased and not based on factual reconcilable concepts.

I showed you how ON AVERAGE it is easier to win with high activations, maxing out troops and snipers.

You're borderline becoming a troll. 😉

The word average means to take all the numbers, add them up, then divide by the total number of examples.

Probility isn’t an average. It’s an examination of how many of a single specific result there are as compared to the total number of possible results. It’s more closely related to asking what is the median, not the mean.

When I say something is ‘more probable,’ I’m saying there are more results where that is the outcome than a given alternative, based on a given set of results.

When you said on average, you failed to provide a given set of results that demonstrates the above definitions. That’s why your statement wasn’t based on math.

30 minutes ago, Derrault said:

This is literally the first thread where I’ve seen that claim, and I’ve been reading/posting here since the game launched; so you can fully comprehend my surprise at your claim.

Constructive criticism was already provided: Claiming a range of activations is “low” and one is “high” is arbitrary and stupid; there’s no meaningful distinction between the lowest “high” and the highest “low”.

If there was, then it follows that there’s also a meaningful distinction between the lowest “high” and the next lowest “high”.

Your explanation is only vaguely plausible as a pyschological explanation; except if 9-10 activation lists can beat 11s; and 8s can beat 9-10s, and 6-7s can beat 8s...you see where I’m going with this yet?

The thing is, as I noted for zrob, where’s the recorded proof of anything lower than 9, or higher than 11, getting crushed over and over? Don’t substitute your own personal experience for stats; that’s a fairly classic mistake made in players trying to grasp fundamental probability as well.

Well I am not surprised that on other threads most people have not had the patience to break this down quite so explicitly and repeatedly for you~

Nonetheless the fact stands that in the community you will find a general consensus that 9-11 is "high" activation and where the meta sits. I know it must be flummoxing that there is no official wiki or definition of this term, nonetheless most of us are managing to muddle through and understand each other.

You are correct of course in that what would objectively be a mid activation list relative to the meta (say 8 activations) would be at a sufficient advantage versus a low activation list and there is no need to go higher. However again I reiterate the key is the delta in activations. Which means if folks do stop at 8 activations in a meta, then you are still fine with 6.

However if all players are chasing max activation without sacrifice of their hammer and token control, that otherwise successful 8, will find itself at a serious disadvantage.

Conversely if the delta is small 1-2, then player skill and luck are larger factors and able to compensate. Hence, you will always find examples of outliers which don't invalidate the trend or general analysis, but do make it subtle, nuanced, and so uncomfortably messy if you want to actually understand what is happening.

As for large bodies of objective data from which we can gain even greater confidence of the trend itself - which is what you really disagree with - nope you're not going to find it. Why would you want it?!

Frankly, for playing with my space dollies I don't require the degree of confidence that I would for risking my life. I just wanna have fun. My personal samples are small, playing maybe once a week, and only having a dozen folks in the circulation I regularly play with. Out of that group only three maybe are recognized in the the competitive scene.

For my purposes I do need to make choices and have opinions. To that end the community analysis as embodied in local and national metas combined with my counter and pro meta experiments are more than sufficient. Based on this, I am now having more fun!

36 minutes ago, CaptainRocket said:

Well I am not surprised that on other threads most people have not had the patience to break this down quite so explicitly and repeatedly for you~

Nonetheless the fact stands that in the community you will find a general consensus that 9-11 is "high" activation and where the meta sits. I know it must be flummoxing that there is no official wiki or definition of this term, nonetheless most of us are managing to muddle through and understand each other.

You are correct of course in that what would objectively be a mid activation list relative to the meta (say 8 activations) would be at a sufficient advantage versus a low activation list and there is no need to go higher. However again I reiterate the key is the delta in activations. Which means if folks do stop at 8 activations in a meta, then you are still fine with 6.

However if all players are chasing max activation without sacrifice of their hammer and token control, that otherwise successful 8, will find itself at a serious disadvantage.

Conversely if the delta is small 1-2, then player skill and luck are larger factors and able to compensate. Hence, you will always find examples of outliers which don't invalidate the trend or general analysis, but do make it subtle, nuanced, and so uncomfortably messy if you want to actually understand what is happening.

As for large bodies of objective data from which we can gain even greater confidence of the trend itself - which is what you really disagree with - nope you're not going to find it. Why would you want it?!

Frankly, for playing with my space dollies I don't require the degree of confidence that I would for risking my life. I just wanna have fun. My personal samples are small, playing maybe once a week, and only having a dozen folks in the circulation I regularly play with. Out of that group only three maybe are recognized in the the competitive scene.

For my purposes I do need to make choices and have opinions. To that end the community analysis as embodied in local and national metas combined with my counter and pro meta experiments are more than sufficient. Based on this, I am now having more fun!

You aren’t “the community” mate, and you need to check your attitude when posting.

There’s no evidence to support the claim that a list with X activations either can not defeat a list at x+3, or on average, loses to the same; And there’s actual recorded evidence to contradict the idea that having any fewer activations is an inherent liability per se.

Post script: This is not about your personal experiences or the constraints you labor under for list building; neither of those things matter for the purposes of addressing the given theory.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

When you said on average, you failed to provide a given set of results that demonstrates the above definitions. That’s why your statement wasn’t based on math.

I literally used the example YOU provided. 🤦‍♂️ 🤣

On 6/28/2019 at 1:03 AM, lologrelol said:

We see 10-12 activation lists achieving higher placements in tournaments on average mate.

37 minutes ago, lologrelol said:

I literally used the example YOU provided. 🤦‍♂️ 🤣

No, you did not.

I asked how one reconciles lower activation (9, 10) lists placing higher in the final 8 than the higher activation (11) lists.

To refresh your memory, I’ve included your statement, which appears to be...factually challenged.

So now you're misrepresenting my conclusions, based upon your interpretations of the data.

1 in 6 of the top placed lists was less than 11 activations. That was your data.

THEREFOR it is MORE LIKELY that 11 activation lists will place HIGHER than LOWER activation lists.

😋

2 hours ago, lologrelol said:

So now you're misrepresenting my conclusions, based upon your interpretations of the data.

1 in 6 of the top placed lists was less than 11 activations. That was your data.

THEREFOR it is MORE LIKELY that 11 activation lists will place HIGHER than LOWER activation lists.

😋

Are you talking about the LVO data that I posted to demonstrate @CaptainRocket was wrong to say a lower activation list never beats a higher activation list, and in which I quoted your statement about higher activation lists winning more on average?

Because that has 2 lower activation lists beating the other 4. Which, as far as I can tell, is only evidence of 11 lists losing out.

Just let Derrault be, he is a known troll att this point

These threads have become a monument to why I stopped going to tournaments and cons.

4 hours ago, jocke01 said:

Just let Derrault be, he is a known troll att this point

I've found that every time he starts into one of his "argument for the sake of argument" tangents, it's best to scroll through until someone new posts. Otherwise you'll just find more of the same nonsense.