Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About wagonburner5000

  • Rank
  • Birthday 12/28/1989

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. I hope this is real. That huge ship looks dope! And a starviper fix would be pretty coolio too.
  2. You're very antigonistic to someone who doesn't agree with you. I say it's just a popularity funnel. You say it's something blah blah blah. You just seem to like coming off like the smart dude who is never wrong and anyone who says different is donald trump, a creationist, or just stupid. How high minded and enlightened you must be.
  3. I can't say for certain. The landscape of xwing is so radically diverse. I will say I reluctantly stay away from the A-Wing because it just doesn't hit hard enough. Which is a shame. Some times tho, when I do fly it, it's real awesomeness comes from prockets and speed. You're right though. There are so many ways not to avoid getting hit, specially at range 3. In a swarm it seems to work just fine. Elsewhere I remain uncertain.
  4. Not to ****ing repeat myself or anything, but more than 75% of Regional or System Open tournaments this season have been won by one of the three current meta pillar archetypes (Palp Aces, Crackswarm or U-Boats).Unless LITERALLY 3 quarters of every tournament field is made up of those three lists (nooooooope) then those lists MUST have more than sheer popularity going for them. And since anybody who's even half paying attention knows that those are the three archetypes you're going to need to beat to win a big tournament and is preparing their list and practicing with those lists in mind AND YET THEY'RE STILL WINNING THREE OUT OF EVERY FOUR BIG TOURNAMENTS, if you're still trying to pretend that there's a possibility their success is just down to sheeple desperate to run the new hotness I don't even know what to tell you. It's also worth noting that people are tracking the success of a list after it makes the top cut. If it were about popularity, ships would have success close to equal their showing in the top cut, but that isn't what is happening. The bottom line is this, there are unique lists out there that can beat the current meta lists, but anyone that thinks there's a chance that this is at all a chicken egg debate isn't paying attention to the wealth of data that people have been compiling. Don't drag me into your sh*tty unclear thinking. I didn't say it was chicken and egg, I said you could TRY and turn it into chicken and egg but if you did then it showed a critical lack of understanding of the subject. Oh now don't get your elitist panties in a bunch. These forums are for discussion of various players opinions, thoughts and strategies. It's clear some people seemed to agree with my point, and yours. Yeesh. I don't agree with your views or thinking on this matter. So what. And that's supposed to make me stupid by default? That doesn't mean don't get it or my point is unclear, its just you disagreeing with me and getting worked up because I'm not coming around to your opinion on a word that we obviously think differently about. To me, Meta is information about information. And the math crap. It's not all this uber exaggerated convoluted thing you have come to proclaim it as. It just a list of lists that seem to be coolio. Not ALL POWERFUL! ****, man. That's all I said. If you want to be told your pretty and smart than I will say so, You're pretty and smart and everything I say doesn't make sense while you are clearly smarter and know more than I do. There. Happy, sourpatch?
  5. You still don't get it. The meta is not just a popularity contest, people don't play those ships because they're cool or popular. But rather they are popular because they are objectively speaking the best ship/combo/list out there. People don't play Contracted Scouts because they love the ship or the lore behind it. They play it because they recognize that with given options it's an extremely powerful ship. What you're trying to do is put the cart in front of the horse and say that the Meta is just about what's most popular, but it's not. The meta is defined by what is most efficient in the current environment and those options naturally become quite popular. To a fairly large degree yes they are. No I get it. I don't agree with you but I get it. It's what that Stay on the Leader dude said, chicken or the egg. Are they popular because they are effective or does the higher exposure lead to more wins making them more effective than a list that doesn't get as much exposure?
  6. Who's trolling? I think everyone commenting has pretty good points to make..Are you planning on putting the video of your shoe eating on you tube? Have you decided what shoe you are going to munch? Funny enough. I was actually planning on it because I was bored and I thought it'd be kinda zany and funny because who the hell eats a shoe!? But, all I have gotten from most of the comments is "You realise that 'popularity funnel' would be a good description of 'metagame', right? Mer Mer" (Unsurprisingly but I guess surprisingly, that was the reason why I had said it was just a popularity funnel in the first place.) And there were many other things just reinforcing what I had already said without giving me what I was looking for. Mostly just hem's and ha's about how saying Metagame is somehow different than player experience and knowledge of the game itself coalesced into a few lists that everyone plays, played or talks about. The meta is a popularity thing, not a mathematical graph of the most effective lists out there like I once thought it was. So sadly, I won't be eating my shoe.
  7. Yeesh, man. Ease up on the Meta Championing a bit. No need to get all swelled up in this idea that I'm a creationist or someone who disputes reality just because I said it doesn't actually exist in reality. All you really described to me is a really long winded way of saying, the peeps who know and follow the game tourney lists and are experienced will have a better time. You say I am not allowed to do this whole, Egg or Chicken argument or I'm a strawman, all untrue but that doesn't make what I'm saying untrue either. Would it help if I just said you're smarter than me and everyone here? You're smarter than me and everyone here. Moving on. I said people who have hot lists will take them to the tourneys and that specific list will be shown as this uber list when really it just has the most exposure. That much is true. Everyone seems to agree with this statement. What I am saying, using the words actual defintion, is that mathematically, the Meta lists aren't actually superior until someone says "No, guy. Heres a link to the thing that says you're wrong." The idea that Meta lists are superior is just stupid and doesn't really amount to anything other than them being super popular. If anything instead of attacking the Meta, I am saying just do your own thing and bring whatever you want to tounaments. To me the idea of the Meta just divides the "casual" and "competitive" from an imaginary line when we should be just saying, yeah. Some guys experience might trump yours. So the eff what. There isn't a mini god on his shoulder enabling him to win just because he's doing a meta list. That's all I am saying. I am saying the Meta as it's Defined (not some word i made up) is related to math and I wanted it to see it done. Otherwise it's just a list of popular lists amongst experienced players or just word of mouth.
  8. The sentence before is the baseboard description of the word. The sentence that follows; clarifies. Or just how the word is implemented differently but still aligned with the root description. You say the meta exists because it does, but it doesn't how it is seen or heard or whatever word you'd like to use. If the meta just is and doesn't care, isn't that just really a long winded way of saying its the experience of the player? Instead of addressing what I'm actually saying that has to do with the root description and mythological existence of the Meta within Xwing, are they actually better because the Meta said so? I say no. Until there is literally a chart backed by numbers that says so.
  9. Ah. That's a pretty good description. We must be thinking of different terms then, because google showed me this: The term metagame is a mathematic descriptor for set interaction governing subset interaction.
  10. I'm saying the Meta as we think of it, doesn't exist. So far, everyone I've spoken to speak of the Meta as this all seeing river of knowledge and power that shows only the most powerful lists. People decry the meta because the lists in it are "too powerful for casual play." To that I say bullspit. It doesn't exist as we like to think it does.
  • Create New...