1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:Is there something that should be done to bring it back?
Msu suffers from a relativly small number of meta-warping cards (ones that also have a large impact on the rest of the game too) so making a ban list would probably help msu a lot. That said, its not entirely dead either.
8 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:Msu suffers from a relativly small number of meta-warping cards (ones that also have a large impact on the rest of the game too) so making a ban list would probably help msu a lot. That said, its not entirely dead either.
Hmm. That's definitely an idea. I'm not that fond of ban lists... Though I wouldn't mind things like Strategic Advisor be on them. (Though I read an article that Start Advisor doesn't seem to correlate to the win rates of large ships either...)
--
Last I read, if I understood it correctly, the tournament data said 0% of pure MSU won or even got into top4 of tournaments. The number of tournaments was not single digits either and times 4 for top is definitely double digits. So, what's the basis for its not entirely dead at the competitive balance-required level?
Edited by Blail Blerg2 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:
--
Last I read, if I understood it correctly, the tournament data said 0% of pure MSU won or even got into top4 of tournaments. The number of tournaments was not single digits either and times 4 for top is definitely double digits. So, what's the basis for its not entirely dead at the competitive balance-required level?
Other people who are better players than you say so. That’s the basis.
12 minutes ago, scipio83 said:Other people who are better players than you say so. That’s the basis.
I mean, that’s an appeal to authority. But the players who are winning have decided MSU is not the way to do it.
So empirically the best players aren’t operating by that statement.
10 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:I mean, that’s an appeal to authority. But the players who are winning have decided MSU is not the way to do it.
So empirically the best players aren’t operating by that statement.
yep.
Lol. The data from the link in this thread says MSU ain't the way lmao.
26 minutes ago, scipio83 said:Other people who are better players than you say so. That’s the basis.
newsflash you're most likely wrong. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zLdqo9y47lqIKubfrEUKV8gX5t9Ee-XuemM4xbiB_8A/edit#gid=322361150
why uheff to be so mad.
8 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:Reminder, I'm talking about the overall meta. Anecdotally you can have OP MSU, but as people have already stated, its because every-someone's decided not to bring mass squads. The question is directed at competitive level, mass-squads-and-massive-activations-often-and-often-OP level conversation.
Is MSU dead? Is there something that should be done to bring it back?
Are there truly data-driven or new options/new objectives? available to combat all of the issues going against it?
English please
Seriously, the newer objectives from RitR help squadless a lot: Asteroid Tactics and Surprise Attack. Hyperspace Migration (prenerf) was also good because it forced opponents to pick one of the other two if they also wanted to go first. Now, Solar Corona is probably best and it's not that useful.
Linked Turbolaser Turrets also help squadless, but they benefit large ships more than MSU.
The issue, in my opinion, isn't the balance between large ships and MSU - MSU wins that - it's the 3rd part: heavy squadrons are better than either as an archetype.
If I drop 3 Nebulons and switch one of the remaining ones to become Yavaris, and add in a Bomber Command Transport, and a pile of very decent squadrons (and use Rieekan), I get a fleet that can beat any fleet if I fly it better than them.
But it's not as much fun. For me, I play to enjoy myself first, with winning secondary.
My fix for this would be to change the % of a fleet that can be squadrons, down to eg 25% and see what happens.
25 minutes ago, Gilarius said:Seriously, the newer objectives from RitR help squadless a lot: Asteroid Tactics and Surprise Attack. Hyperspace Migration (prenerf) was also good because it forced opponents to pick one of the other two if they also wanted to go first. Now, Solar Corona is probably best and it's not that useful.
Linked Turbolaser Turrets also help squadless, but they benefit large ships more than MSU.
The issue, in my opinion, isn't the balance between large ships and MSU - MSU wins that - it's the 3rd part: heavy squadrons are better than either as an archetype.
If I drop 3 Nebulons and switch one of the remaining ones to become Yavaris, and add in a Bomber Command Transport, and a pile of very decent squadrons (and use Rieekan), I get a fleet that can beat any fleet if I fly it better than them.
But it's not as much fun. For me, I play to enjoy myself first, with winning secondary.
My fix for this would be to change the % of a fleet that can be squadrons, down to eg 25% and see what happens.
Ahh. Ok, thanks for the insight.
Yeah. Sector fleet using only 25% was intriguing in that matter. Oh, how do objectives work in sector fleet? No change?
7 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:newsflash you're most likely wrong. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zLdqo9y47lqIKubfrEUKV8gX5t9Ee-XuemM4xbiB_8A/edit#gid=322361150
why uheff to be so mad.
It's kinda his thing.
I suspect he's a disgruntled X-wing or IA player who occasionally trolls us here.
8 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:newsflash you're most likely wrong. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zLdqo9y47lqIKubfrEUKV8gX5t9Ee-XuemM4xbiB_8A/edit#gid=322361150
why uheff to be so mad.
19% of winners were squadless. A slight reduction from 30% of entrants. The more useful stat is 25% of top 10% were squadless.
5 & 6 activation fleets overperformed compared to entrants.
Blail if your going to bang on about data can you please learn to read and interprete it.
7 hours ago, Ginkapo said:19% of winners were squadless. A slight reduction from 30% of entrants. The more useful stat is 25% of top 10% were squadless.
5 & 6 activation fleets overperformed compared to entrants.
Blail if your going to bang on about data can you please learn to read and interprete it.
He can barely play the game, so I’d say data comprehension is probably beyond him.
3 hours ago, scipio83 said:He can barely play the game, so I’d say data comprehension is probably beyond him.
What's with the insults? This post contributed literally nothing.
10 hours ago, Ginkapo said:19% of winners were squadless. A slight reduction from 30% of entrants. The more useful stat is 25% of top 10% were squadless.
5 & 6 activation fleets overperformed compared to entrants.
Blail if your going to bang on about data can you please learn to read and interprete it.
I agree that squadless is completely viable, and the data supports it.
It's not an argument for or against MSU being at a disadvantage in the current meta.
To my understanding, 6 activation fleets overperformed by 1% in the top 50%, and underperformed by 1% among winners?
Because that's nothing. And even if it were statistically significant, that doesn't indicate MSU. Heck, they only did that well because of Imperial lists, which implies LMSU or the like.
5 activations overperformed for sure (mostly on the Rebel end of things.) But they aren't MSU either, or even necessarily squadless.
I feel like I must be misunderstanding your point here somewhere.
Edited by The JabbawookieOn 5/1/2020 at 8:08 PM, Blail Blerg said:Last I read, if I understood it correctly, the tournament data said 0% of pure MSU won or even got into top4 of tournaments. The number of tournaments was not single digits either and times 4 for top is definitely double digits. So, what's the basis for its not entirely dead at the competitive balance-required level?
The Prime data sheet is great, but limited in two obvious ways:
1) It only covers Primes. A true MSU Cracken list got 3rd place at Australian Nationals, but that wouldn't be covered in this data sheet.
2) The Onager and Starhawk came out two weeks before Prime season ended, so the current meta does look different than the Prime meta.
15 minutes ago, Bertie Wooster said:The Prime data sheet is great, but limited in two obvious ways:
1) It only covers Primes. A true MSU Cracken list got 3rd place at Australian Nationals, but that wouldn't be covered in this data sheet.
Huh? no it doesn't, it covers any Primes event and above man. They can only input data that is given to them ,if nobody gives them lists from events, they can't input it now can they?
27 minutes ago, Karneck said:Huh? no it doesn't, it covers any Primes event and above man. They can only input data that is given to them ,if nobody gives them lists from events, they can't input it now can they?
Ah you're right, there are Grands lists there too. I was confused because they're listed under "Regionals Full Lists."
1 hour ago, Bertie Wooster said:The Prime data sheet is great, but limited in two obvious ways:
1) It only covers Primes.
while it does cover above primes, you are correct that the data is limited. One year, @shmitty did attempt to capture store championships, and the data was fairly substantially different.
So, take the data with a grain of salt. I'd personally like to see Rebel MSU scoring a bit higher, and max-squads a bit lower, but I suspect that if I looked at the previous data, the prime season just ended was probably one of the most balanced in years.
And of course, the next big shakeup will be Clone wars, which is likely to have a huge effect. Other than whoever the playtesters are, nobody has any real idea what that's going to do.
Its not just max squads and no squads. Which some people seem to misunderstand. Generally, you take a lot of squads, you'll do statistically and signficantly better than if you took medium, few, or none, with the caveat that none squads DO win. Its really simple if one looks at the overall trend.
It would be helpful to have on the data sheet a differential comparison of how many %lists are entered with a certain statistic compared to how many are in the top10% and the winner. By comparing to top10% also there will be no doubt complaints about data size or correlation to top1.
@Baltanok , @Truthiness ?
Ex. 40% of lists take 100-120 squads, 50% are in top10% and 60% are in the top1. The differential columns are (+)10%, and (+)20%.
Heck a 3d graph would be even better for stats that are levels, but more work.
3 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:A true MSU Cracken list got 3rd place at Australian Nationals, but that wouldn't be covered in this data sheet.
And a true Rieekan MSU came second at Australian Nationals...
1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:Its not just max squads and no squads. Which some people seem to misunderstand. Generally, you take a lot of squads, you'll do statistically and signficantly better than if you took medium, few, or none, with the caveat that none squads DO win. Its really simple if one looks at the overall trend.
well, Max squads are outperforming. But few & no squads are performing as expected at the top 25% level, which is the level that I tend to look at to get a decent sample size. But, other fleets & upgrades are also outperforming. Jerry, Piett, MC80 Star Cruisers, Toryn, Brunson, 2-activation Imperial fleets*, and more. All are performing about 30-40% above expectations. (Less for the rebels if you compare to the overall population instead of the faction population)
*remember that SSD & Strategic Advisor passes count as activations. So, this is probably an SSD, given the beating that imperial 2-ship took this year.
8 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:I feel like I must be misunderstanding your point here somewhere.
My point is, if you are going to be melodramatic make **** sure you are correct first. Blail did not check he was correct.
On 5/2/2020 at 4:00 AM, scipio83 said:Other people who are better players than you say so. That’s the basis.
This.
LTD has been storming down under with Rieekan Seven. I took this list to a regional and did very well.
"True MSU" is not dead. It is not an autowin anymore and is that a bad thing.
Also what are we calling Nathans Worlds list? I would be cautious before declaring myself a better player than a world champion...
3 hours ago, Ginkapo said:My point is, if you are going to be melodramatic make **** sure you are correct first. Blail did not check he was correct.
If his point was that MSU was basically dead, though, then the data reflects that.
Are you stating:
That MSU is reasonably competitive right now?
That squadless is perfectly good?
That super-activations aren't Lucifer in the flesh and other types of fleets exist?
You've said he's misinterpreted the data. What is the specific point you're trying to prove or disprove, and how does the data reflect it?
5 hours ago, LTD said:And a true Rieekan MSU came second at Australian Nationals...
I'd consider your list MSU (small ships only, 88 points of squads) but the data sheet requires less than 75 points of squads. So even if it was on there it would go under the "small ships only" category.