Jump to content

Biophysical

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    7,334

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Biophysical

  2. Posted

    11 hours ago, battlestarbill said:

    Ion torps on wedge seems solid. Any thoughts on thread tracers for jake? 

    Thread tracers were part of the first list I built, but then I realized ion torps were 4 points. 

    I also played some test games with another squad vs Eta lists.  I'm pretty sure Etas are way beyond the power curve for their points, and they're both squirrely and insanely durable with easy Force/Evade and stealth device.  Wedge with Ion Torps can potentially help a lot there.  With Jake he gets them double modded pretty easily, and a double modded Ion Torp from Wedge is a reasonably reliable way to knock off a stealth device.  If an Ion goes through, it's even better, because it shuts off the Evade action and repositioning next turn.  

    The main thing is that its 4 points of flexibility, and the squad has never in its history had that.  

    5050Saint reacted to this

  3. Posted · Edited by Biophysical

    5 hours ago, battlestarbill said:

    I assume you just leave the 4 points for the bid, or is there other uses for those points? 

    The thing I'm eyeing hardest is Ion Torps on Wedge, but some upgrades on Jake or a bid are not unreasonable.  

  6. Posted

    On 12/17/2020 at 11:46 PM, battlestarbill said:

    Do you think the list you posted about from your hyperspace trial still has legs? The wedge, thane, Luke and Jake 

    Absolutely.  That is, for me, the list I've played in 2.0 that feels the strongest.  I don't think it has any really bad matchups.  It has been just a little bit over for the last few update cycles, but the most recent change dropped every single ship, so there 4 spare points.  Big swing, and if there was competitive X-wing these days, it would be at the top of my list of Exended tournament squads.  

    battlestarbill reacted to this

  7. Posted

    X-wings are among the most satisfying shios to play.  They can go where you want them to go, but there are trade-offs for almost every decision you make with them.  Tough enough to take a hit, dodgy enough to avoid damage, punchy enough to threaten most ships, fast enough to get where they need to go, slow enough to stay there.  You just don't get everything on the same turn, so there's really interesting decision making involved. 

    battlestarbill, DR4CO, Boom Owl and 1 other reacted to this

  8. Posted

    1 hour ago, wurms said:

    I think it just falls under Ace + MiniSwarm archetype. The support ship is 98% of the time for your generics, and flies with them in formation creating a "mini-swarm". 

    It is one of the more fun archetypes cause it gives you both jousty and ace play in a single list. Ive tried the Kylo Malarus + 3 and its pretty good. Enjoyed it alot. 

    I agree, and it's my favorite archetype. 

    JBFancourt reacted to this

  10. Posted

    27 minutes ago, Revanur said:

    Maybe you don't want to include the Nantex meta and that leaves only Coruscant and some minor events of data which isn't a lot.

    That doesn't mean we should say high I passive mod have been good all of 2.0 so they are still op now. As they had some nerfs were other things got buffed. Data pre July point update is also no longer a good indicator of the current situation. 

    Disclaimer: not saying something is or isn't here, but find which data ok to include and which not a bit off

    Thats true, the pre-Nantex data isn't an argument of today's state form a strictly raw data point of view.  My opinion based on my understanding of the game is that the nerfs and buffs were mild enough that the aces are still on top, but we'll see what happens in the next 6 months.  

    Brunas and jagsba reacted to this

  11. Posted · Edited by Biophysical

    18 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

    If you wouldn't dismiss data from 1122 lists, or way more if adding Spacejams, then you would add facts to help you make sense of it. However good you think those numbers are - they are better than nothing. Which is what all the other feelings around here are based on...

    What is a low rate of adoption to you? Ask Mark, he has seen the numbers. I was happy to share but have since deleted it because facts apparently don't matter anymore.

    I'm open to being convinced by numbers.  I just don't think the Nantex meta is a good indicator of the current situation. 

     

    Edit:  Let me put this out there.  Starting with the next points (starting soon, I think), we'll use 2-3 ship passive mod (Force, Boba, Soontir, etc.), high initiative (5-6), repositioning ships as the baseline.  This type of squad is what I'm saying is the best thing right now, and what has always been the best thing.   If 6-8 ship lists, call them "Efficiency", have an equivalent cut rate to that "Ace" cohort of ships and have 50% of the adoption rate or more of the "Ace" cohort, then I'll agree that 6-8 ship lists are as good as ace lists.  Is this a reasonable comparison?  If not, what would be?

     

    Brunas, GreenDragoon and jagsba reacted to this

  12. Posted

    Just now, GreenDragoon said:

    What I take exception to is the attitude of "f* you I have mine now" or "time for these other guys to be hurting"

    As always, diversity is the antidote. Here diversity in factions and playstyles.

    If that's what you're getting from me, that's weird.  I want the best things to be made less good, no matter what they are.  I think passive mod high initiative repositioning ships have been the best and are still the best, so this new focus on generic efficiency, which has a very low rate of adoption, doesn't make sense to me. 

    Brunas and jagsba reacted to this

  15. Posted

    30 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

    I never said they are mutually exclusive.

    I said that the current data tells us Sloane's peak is higher than Boba's - after Boba just got nerfed a bit in August while Sloane did get buffed. Why is that controversial?

    What I take exception to is people that object to Sloane and Scyks and Mal despite the fact that we have things that have passive mod aces that have always been top tier that are still top tier, and we have 2 whole tournaments worth of data (i.e. not a lot of data) on Sloane/Scyk/Malswarm/whatever swarm people hate.  If that's not you, no worries.  

    jagsba reacted to this

  16. Posted

    1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

    If you remove half the data and then complain about amount of data... does not seem fair to me.

    How much is necessary for you to make a trend visible? To support the hunch that sloane is really good?

    And how do you justify that a squad doing well *among Spamtex* is supposed to be worse without one of the most broken lists we've seen yet?

    I totally admit that Sloane is really good, just not as good as most high passive mod ace lists.  By your metric, Boba is even worse than Sloane because it was widespread competitive when Nantex were not nerfed, and even won a tournament.  We've known Boba is this good for ages, yet one peek of Sloane making ships that have been pretty bad competitive and she's got to be nerfed.  

    I'm not saying that she's not good.  I'm not saying that she shouldn't be looked at closely, but I don't see how she can be priority over the continually dominating passive mod, repositioning, high initiative ships.   

  17. Posted · Edited by Biophysical

    5 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

    That's testable and - at least for sloane - demonstrably false for the only events we had.

    You have data thats not a tiny handful of squads?  We have a ton of instances of Boba, Trip Jedi, Trip Imperial aces doing well.  

    Basically, all the data you have save two tournaments is from the Nantex meta, and high initiative passive mods have been good the whole of 2.0.

  18. Posted

    2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

    Focusing on"generics" is a - sorry - lazy way to dismiss the entirely justified criticism of individually broken pieces by focusing of one possible common feature that is not actually relevant. Like much discrimination it just picks out one that is outstanding. And like much discrimination it is the wrong one.

    Terex and Sloane should not be as defining as they are, to name two obvious examples.

    Those are two good pieces, sure.  They are neither as widespread or consistently good as passively modded 2-3 ship high initiative lists.  

    jagsba reacted to this

  19. Posted · Edited by Biophysical

    41 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

    I think we are on the same team here.  Trying to balance the game by buffing the generics en masse was a pretty bad idea.   There seems to be enough sarcasm and hyperbole that inferring actual intent is kinda tricky.

    I agree with this: "Dropping generic prices went too far.  For November points rebalancing, FFG should raise the prices on nearly everything unless there is a very good reason not to."

    I disagree with this:  "Mass generics is bad for the game and shouldn't be playable in competitive X-Wing."

    I think the generic buff was a great experiment. You saw the level where there was a generics that was actually good enough to beat an ace meta much of the time.  Every experimental system needs to know where its boundaries are, and we now know that there is a point cost that's too cheap for an initiative 4 turret with bullseye bonus.  

    The fact that people actually also want all the other borderline competitive (not borderline broken) generics to be nerfed before the obviously broken passive mod aces get nerfed shows that many people just hate and fear generics intrinsically.  (Not talking about you).

    jagsba reacted to this

  21. Posted

    5 hours ago, Cuz05 said:

    I keep flipping back and forth between Sabers and Alpha's. The Alpha's get to block but the Sabers mostly get to shoot before pop....

    In HS, there's not much in the way of talent that I'm finding particularly worth it for them. Lyttans rerolls are very neat but I keep wanting a Tractor Beam to shoot first....

    How do you guys fly your Ints? Divide and conquer? double flank? joust?!?

    I've been tending to split into wide pairs and push Rampage through the middle, but I don't think it gives him much time. The talon roll/fly-by choice is a pretty critical juncture.

    I think the best hs talent for Sabers is Ruthless.  You might not use it, but it's cheap, and you have points for it.  The heavy stack of hp makes using it fairly palatable in certain situations 

  22. Posted

    59 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

    I've been staring at Lytan and 5 Alphas real hard.  Lytan can grab the targeting config, tractor beam, and a hull upgrade.  It's not great but it's fun to fly and can give almost any list some panic sweats.

    Lytan and 4 Sabers has been fun.  Real weaknesses, but also pretty cool.   That one chunky ship is nice to have in a squad of paper mache hulls.

    Brunas and Cuz05 reacted to this

  23. Posted

    7 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

    I mean, Nantex were a (1) swarm of (2) turrets who were (3) functionally aces in many matchups.

    Ace.  Turret.  Swarm.  All in the same list.  To try to draw some sort of archetype preferences from folks opinions on Nantex is kind of absurd, since they were every archetype at once.  They were too cheap; now they aren't.

    Like RZ2s.  

    Brunas and gennataos reacted to this

  25. Posted

    1 hour ago, 5050Saint said:

    I'm not exactly clamoring for force aces to sit back on top, but during all of Galaxies, I saw much more swarm play than I saw force aces. I played against maybe 4 Kylos and that was it.

     

    30 minutes ago, Cerebrawl said:

    So... that was during 6x bugs meta, right? Doesn't really prove much except they got wrecked by bugs.

    Yeah, this is pretty much what I'm thinking.  I might be wrong, but with bugs knocked down 2-3 pegs, I have every expectation if force aces returning.  Look at the one squad that wasn't a bug squad that won, it was a Boba squad, and Boba is basically a super force ace.  

    jagsba reacted to this
×
×
  • Create New...