Jump to content
SaltMaster 5000

Carolina Krayts is the best X-Wing podcast

Recommended Posts

So, shiny distraction...

I've been idiotically flying Luke, Norra, Blount and Sabine recently. As far as Rebels go, it's been fun and interesting. I've been messing up but Luke has been bailing me out by:

  1. Having never ending defensive modifiers
  2. Having an R2 unit for regen (never had to use it, mind you)
  3. Combining the above, has dissuaded opponents from "wasting" time shooting at him
  4. Won me games on points because he's nearly half my list
  5. Normally has double modifiers on attack (Target lock, force tokens)

My local meta is a bit eccentric though so this is not to say the list is good. Honestly, I see this as a list that probably requires good decisions more often than I'm capable of to do real well with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

So, shiny distraction...

I've been idiotically flying Luke, Norra, Blount and Sabine recently. As far as Rebels go, it's been fun and interesting. I've been messing up but Luke has been bailing me out by:

  1. Having never ending defensive modifiers
  2. Having an R2 unit for regen (never had to use it, mind you)
  3. Combining the above, has dissuaded opponents from "wasting" time shooting at him
  4. Won me games on points because he's nearly half my list
  5. Normally has double modifiers on attack (Target lock, force tokens)

My local meta is a bit eccentric though so this is not to say the list is good. Honestly, I see this as a list that probably requires good decisions more often than I'm capable of to do real well with.

I think a number of lists with Luke in them prove that Luke is really good, rather than neccesarily proving anything about the list itself. 

At first I was skeptical of such an expensive ship based mostly on maneuverability, but the way i5 and i6 work out is really cool and well balanced. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"... winning is a result, and we don’t get better at games by following results-oriented thinking. This is a concept I came across while studying poker, but the idea can transfer to any form of competition. What is results-oriented thinking? Basically, it’s judging the quality of your decisions (and your decision-making process) based on outcomes rather than judging the quality of those decisions on logic or objective analysis."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

"... winning is a result, and we don’t get better at games by following results-oriented thinking. This is a concept I came across while studying poker, but the idea can transfer to any form of competition. What is results-oriented thinking? Basically, it’s judging the quality of your decisions (and your decision-making process) based on outcomes rather than judging the quality of those decisions on logic or objective analysis."

BUT BOBA GURI WON! *forum cry*

...even though there was a clear mistake at the end to not spend the focus on offense guaranteeing him the kill on Sai instead of the luck of the Direct Hit draw along with the mistake to not take an evade next to a rock that still would've allowed him to use Han gunner...

BUT THE 2 SHIP LIST STILL WON IN THE END! *forum cry*

...why do I bother...

 

Edited by RStan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Thankfully I haven't found many lists that don't fall into that category. Doesn't mean they don't exist. 

But I like thinking. I mean, I really think that out thinking my opponent by thinking of things they wouldn't normally think of is a rewarding style of play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

"... winning is a result, and we don’t get better at games by following results-oriented thinking. This is a concept I came across while studying poker, but the idea can transfer to any form of competition. What is results-oriented thinking? Basically, it’s judging the quality of your decisions (and your decision-making process) based on outcomes rather than judging the quality of those decisions on logic or objective analysis."

In poker terms, the amount of players I come across saying the hate hands like Jacks or AK is hilarious. They are still really good hands.

With the less than perfect dice mods we have, people are going be more results oriented than ever in X-Wing. Which is going to make people really risk adverse. While being risk adverse can be good, I find that many players avoid more risks than they should. Some of that is not analyzing the matchup correctly (you should take more risks in a bad matchup) or not realizing what the game state is.  

Being able to recognize when you make a good decision even with a poor outcome is a strong skill to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scott Pilgrim2 said:

With the less than perfect dice mods we have, people are going be more results oriented than ever in X-Wing. Which is going to make people really risk adverse. While being risk adverse can be good, I find that many players avoid more risks than they should. Some of that is not analyzing the matchup correctly (you should take more risks in a bad matchup) or not realizing what the game state is.  

Being able to recognize when you make a good decision even with a poor outcome is a strong skill to have.

I don't think most players recognize how outrageously risky the decisions they're making are - bad dice are the difference between what they think SHOULD happen vs what's actually average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scott Pilgrim2 said:

In poker terms, the amount of players I come across saying the hate hands like Jacks or AK is hilarious. They are still really good hands.

With the less than perfect dice mods we have, people are going be more results oriented than ever in X-Wing. Which is going to make people really risk adverse. While being risk adverse can be good, I find that many players avoid more risks than they should. Some of that is not analyzing the matchup correctly (you should take more risks in a bad matchup) or not realizing what the game state is.  

Being able to recognize when you make a good decision even with a poor outcome is a strong skill to have.

I always used to call AK Anna Kournikova. Looks good, but feels impossible to score with. Mostly because every time I played, some scrub would stay in and flop 3-4-5 to straight out the 2-6 they kept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scott Pilgrim2 said:

Being able to recognize when you make a good decision even with a poor outcome is a strong skill to have.

There's also certain people that convince themselves too much that all their decisions were optimal and couldn't have been better and variance screwed them over. Except that excuse comes up often enough that you have to wonder when they'll recognize that their decisions weren't the best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RStan said:

There's also certain people that convince themselves too much that all their decisions were optimal and couldn't have been better and variance screwed them over. Except that excuse comes up often enough that you have to wonder when they'll recognize that their decisions weren't the best. 

Opposites important to. Recognizing when you made a bad decision even with a good outcome.  I am real bad at that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I don't think most players recognize how outrageously risky the decisions they're making are - bad dice are the difference between what they think SHOULD happen vs what's actually average.

When the gold squadron classic stream is shocked that an unmodified wedge can't hit vader or soontir for multiple turns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I don't think most players recognize how outrageously risky the decisions they're making are - bad dice are the difference between what they think SHOULD happen vs what's actually average.

That is true as well. That comes up in jousting a lot where one player is wrong and doesn't realize the incredible risk they take taking an honorable joust.

1 minute ago, JasonCole said:

I always used to call AK Anna Kournikova. Looks good, but feels impossible to score with. Mostly because every time I played, some scrub would stay in and flop 3-4-5 to straight out the 2-6 they kept.

Well if you are playing NL poker, either you didn't raise enough or they called too wide and holy **** do you make a ton of money off of those players. Also 3-4-5 is an easy flop to fold with AK against any resistance (which could be exploitable, but really not at the stakes most people play at). If this is in limit, you need to stop playing that game (unless it is just playing with friends, then it doesn't matter).

Just now, RStan said:

There's also certain people that convince themselves too much that all their decisions were optimal and couldn't have been better and variance screwed them over. Except that excuse comes up often enough that you have to wonder when they'll recognize that their decisions weren't the best. 

I think I am pretty good at recognizing at least my clear cut bad decisions (like jousting Nymranda in 1.0) - but I've had many games where I think I made a good decision, but maybe not the best one. That is harder for me to suss out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

If we are talking about 2.0 against a focused Vader - Wedge will still miss 20% of the time on three shots against them.  Even ~7% of the time Wedge will miss 5 times in a row. That isn't statistically insignificant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JasonCole said:

Yeah, it's typically me not raising enough. But I'm terrible at poker. I always want to see a flop, even if strategically I don't want to see the flop.

As long as you are playing with money you can afford to lose, have fun with it. You see the same thing with jank lists in X-Wing. Some people just want to bring their squad regardless of the meta/synergies/etc. - sometimes those squads make the top cut through sheer happenstance (pilot skill/matchup luck/unprepared opponents). As long as you realize that your 6-2 offsuit squad isn't going to win often in the long haul, no real issue playing it out and seeing what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

"... winning is a result, and we don’t get better at games by following results-oriented thinking. This is a concept I came across while studying poker, but the idea can transfer to any form of competition. What is results-oriented thinking? Basically, it’s judging the quality of your decisions (and your decision-making process) based on outcomes rather than judging the quality of those decisions on logic or objective analysis."

 

48 minutes ago, RStan said:

Taking these two posts in back to back consideration, it's probably important to note that what list you bring is part of "the decision making process" that can sometimes make as much of an impact as good decision making in game.  It's hard to directly compare since you don't bring a unique deck to play at poker or different setups of the board for chess.  

Ghost fenn often had as many good results as it did because it didn't punish players as hard for making bad decisions or being caught off guard by better decisions by opponents.  You were given several ways to correct that bad choice along with ways to correct/prevent variance. 

Boba is similar in 2.0.  You are not as punished with bad choices as you are with other ships/lists.  He's  just simply more forgiving than many other pilots/chassis/builds.    

Now all that being said, play like an idiot and you still *should* lose.  It's no mistake that high level players continue to play and place at high levels.  But sometimes it's just better to bring a pair of scissors to a paper fight.

Edited by viedit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, viedit said:

 

Taking these two posts in back to back consideration, it's probably important to note that what list you bring is part of "the decision making process" that can sometimes make as much of an impact as good decision making in game.  It's hard to directly compare since you don't bring a unique deck to play at poker or different setups of the board for chess.  

Ghost fenn often had as many good results as it did because it didn't punish players as hard for making bad decisions or being caught off guard by better decisions by opponents.  You were given several ways to correct that bad choice along with ways to correct/prevent variance. 

Boba is similar in 2.0.  You are not as punished with bad choices as you are with other ships/lists.  He's  just simply more forgiving than many other pilots/chassis/builds.    

Now all that being said, play like an idiot and you still *should* lose.  It's no mistake that high level players continue to play and place at high levels.  But sometimes it's just better to bring a pair of scissors to a paper fight.

I've lost with boba before; ergo, boba is fine, Git Gud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...