Jump to content
JJH_BATMAN

What do think is the current Meta?

Recommended Posts

proton torps are rampant as well. its not meta warping but they are used more than they have been previously in 1.0

Whisper + Juke + Vader crew is REALLY good. .

Redline + Advanced Sensors+ Proton torps is very strong

Col. Jendon + Ordnance carriers are popular

Capt Kagi is great anti-ordnance tech

Admiral Sloane is great stress giver and creates a "kill this ship if u want to be double stressed" dilemma for any cheap support ships.

 

Edited by Da_Brown_Bomber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

around our area at least we haven't really settled into a meta, people are still mostly flying different squadrons each week.

so far;

my double YV666's have had decent success (won more than lost)

4x Kihraxz (Talon, Graz, 2x high ps generics) has actually done quite well (currently 4-0)

Kath + Z95 suicide swarm is scary

Lambda + 4 interceptors is going well

Triple Arc170's is sitting at about a 50% win rate

reaper, phantom, ace in various combinations is doing good work

------

in short, still too much to play with before we can call a meta around here (though we tend to have a pretty strange meta anyway, towards the end of 1.0 our meta was double YV666, unguided rocket bomber swarms, HLC Rexla and generic defender with Dark Curse + Carnor Jax, and reaper+silencer)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JJH_BATMAN said:

What do guys thing is the current Meta? I know the point of 2.0 is that "everything is viable" but there are things like barrage bombers that seem to be really good right now.

An aside:

THIS, along with "no-token-stacking" is all a lie that people made up on this forum for what they thought 2.0 meant. 2.0 means none of this. No article or word from FFG ever even close to explained/promised 2.0 like this. People latched onto it because its generally true of what direction 2.0 tried to avoid, but its not explicitly so. Much has changed that isn't consistent with nerfing or non-efficiency. The game is still at its core about finding the most efficient choice of options and abusing its versatile option, at least until it gets point nerfed by the digital points, which is the one balancing point that directly is really about 2.0 

Its a simple slightly premature reboot of a franchise in a way that sensibly allows the company to sell you the same stuff/models all over again yet at a higher price. 

 

---

As for the meta (tier 1): 

Redline Soontir Whisper

Jendon/Jonus + 4 bombers (5 ships) 

Boba Palob 2 Quads

Drea swarm (5-7 ships) with quads

Luke and Wedge + torps, with a 3rd ship

 

These are some of the currently most powerful options in the game. Though, most think that even of these, they're of a lower amount of difference than compared to a random tier 2 list in power

There are a bunch of very good options for a random tier 2 power list. 

Quads and Han gunner are really good. And reliable single turn Proton Torps spam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JJH_BATMAN said:

What do guys thing is the current Meta? I know the point of 2.0 is that "everything is viable" but there are things like barrage bombers that seem to be really good right now.

The opposite of 'everything is viable'.

Its a very small card pool that we're drawing from, it feels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It feels small, but realistically it's bigger than ever. More varied builds, too. Hopefully it'll get even more varied once there's seven factions to choose from.

Locally, the tournament winners have been Whisper, Redline, Deathrain, Sai, Soontir Fel, Wedge, Luke, Dutch, Norra, Sabine, AP-5, all four Z-95s, Fenn Rau, Old Teroch, Guri, Boba, Gunrunners, L3-37, 4-LOM and Palob. Personally, being a bit of a contrarian, I've been happily running Inquisitors, Gunboats, non-Guri Vipers, Lancers, Scyks, U-Wings and A-Wings. Had I tried something like that in 1.0 I would've been trounced immediately, but now I find myself winning a fair bit more than I lose. Been a while since I won a tournament, but I've placed second and third a few times. Remove my poor flying decisions from the equation, and I think only slight points increases and decreases are needed in most case. Usually the ship is in the right place, it's just that the pilots are sometimes are litt too cheap or too expensive (e.g. Cutlass vs Redline, Kath vs Boba).

Share this post


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

The opposite of 'everything is viable'.

And thank good that is the case. List building is (imho) an important part of this game, if every random combination of pilots and upgrades <=200pt was viable and could win a major tournament, I would loose any interest in the game, but then again I am also the type who spends almost as much time using an online list-builder as on the table flying my ships....

We just have to stay away from a situation where 1-3 top-builds are totally dominating the meta and good flying always gives you an advantage.

As every FFG tournament now requires the list in the APP, they are in a very good situation to analyse the meta and make the necessary point adjustments/changes to upgrades to address the situation going forward - and "break" abusive lists.

I am sure that the "surprice" 2019 Polish Systems Open held this weekend will have its data analysed and used for the points-adjustment scheduled for january. 

Edited by Sciencius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Da_Brown_Bomber said:

Lambda shuttle is back is seeing lots of play. All pilots. In 1.0 Omicron Group Pilot was used more than the rest. 2.0 is different. Kagi and Sai and Jendon are good options. Palpatine is not exclusive crew on shuttle, Sloane is a strong option too.

Yup, we are definitely seeing this - we are even seeing Tarkin riding the shuttle (mainly backing up 4x interceptors)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SOTL said:

The opposite of 'everything is viable'.

Its a very small card pool that we're drawing from, it feels.

This is so true. I feel Meta as closed as it was in 1.0 (but with more arc-fight instead of turret-fight and Proton torps fight instead of Harpoon fight)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:

An aside:

THIS, along with "no-token-stacking" is all a lie that people made up on this forum for what they thought 2.0 meant. 2.0 means none of this. No article or word from FFG ever even close to explained/promised 2.0 like this. People latched onto it because its generally true of what direction 2.0 tried to avoid, but its not explicitly so.

So much this.

People thought 2.0 was going to be like... 
maxresdefault.jpg

 

But it's more like...
war_never_changes__by_atryl-d8w1kwl.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Oldpara said:

This is so true. I feel Meta as closed as it was in 1.0 (but with more arc-fight instead of turret-fight and Proton torps fight instead of Harpoon fight)

Well Proton Torps are everything good about Harpoons with none of the drawbacks at a cheaper cost for the 2 shots. 

Share this post


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

tenor.gif?itemid=5740471

Well, fact that competetive Meta is limited to not-so-many pieces has nothing to do with overall enjoyment. It's great game, better than 1.0.

Playing like 20 power-ships (out of like 100) in 2.0 is fun, playing 20 power-ships (out of 100) in 1.0 was lot less fun.

On top of that, we all should be aware, that after "points rebalance" in January nothing will change in numbers (still 20ish ships playable) except those could be different ships 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For casual players like myself, the 2.0 meta is far better than the 1.0 for its final year.

I don't get to play often enough to be good at flying. Which also means that I've not practiced much using my own list or against anything.

In 1.0, whatever I flew would lose against anyone 'good' and, if it wasn't one of the decent lists, would have no chance at all. 100-0 thrashings where you look at the player and the lists and know the final score before you start weren't fun.

In 2.0, I can take whatever I feel like flying. I still lose to anyone 'good', but I can score points off them and, very occasionally, beat them if the dice like me.

For example, this weekend I played 2 people who had competed at Coruscant. I lost, but scored points off both, and nearly beat one of them, despite my dice being terrible!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JJH_BATMAN said:

What do guys thing is the current Meta? I know the point of 2.0 is that "everything is viable" but there are things like barrage bombers that seem to be really good right now.

Did it won any big tournament?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I think it's all baloney.

We have some very good players in our area, 186th are fairly local and I've played against a few of them. But it all filters down, there are excellent players in our area with their own riff that no one will know from social media.

I make my own lists, while I'm using some strong ships, nothing I take is ever meta defining. I'm still fairly new to competitive play, I've come up against the meta calls and I've been outplayed by top players as well. Yet I havent had a game that didn't feel winnable with what I had, whatever it was. They all came down to calls I made that carried too much risk and didn't pay off.

Currently, the meta is only just emerging. These strong ships and lists have come up and competitive players have been trying them out to see what makes them tick. I've seen a couple people recently try out the Red, Death, Whisper list when they wouldn't normally touch Imperials. So these top events without much variety are slightly skewed evidence because of that. People are simply taking the 1st strong lists to emerge, things that are easier to put down and compete with.

Points changes for certain things that are over the curve are necessary and inevitable, but the gap really isn't that big. People are still finding new combinations and doing well with them. I can play, and have, with my chosen deal against a similarly skilled player using a meta 'powerhouse' and still come out on top if I make the right calls. I could take on a better player with an unusual list, use a meta list myself and still get schooled. This was not the case in 1.0.

In fact, a couple of the lists I've used seemed to carry a fairly strong counter to the odd meta list, while being weak to list outside that, even though neither would rank on any data system currently being used to analyse these things.

I'm certain we'll see more variety emerge as top players get to grip with things that they actually like and want to use, rather than the meta experiments that are currently going on. Once a few subtle points changes come in, there'll be even more branching out.

Edited by Cuz05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cuz05 said:

Frankly, I think it's all baloney.

We have some very good players in our area, 186th are fairly local and I've played against a few of them. But it all filters down, there are excellent players in our area with their own riff that no one will know from social media.

I make my own lists, while I'm using some strong ships, nothing I take is ever meta defining. I'm still fairly new to competitive play, I've come up against the meta calls and I've been outplayed by top players as well. Yet I havent had a game that didn't feel winnable with what I had, whatever it was. They all came down to calls I made that carried too much risk and didn't pay off.

Currently, the meta is only just emerging. These strong ships and lists have come up and competitive players have been trying them out to see what makes them tick. I've seen a couple people recently try out the Red, Death, Whisper list when they wouldn't normally touch Imperials. So these top events without much variety are slightly skewed evidence because of that. People are simply taking the 1st strong lists to emerge, things that are easier to put down and compete with.

Points changes for certain things that are over the curve are necessary and inevitable, but the gap really isn't that big. People are still finding new combinations and doing well with them. I can play, and have, with my chosen deal against a similarly skilled player using a meta 'powerhouse' and still come out on top if I make the right calls. I could take on a better player with an unusual list, use a meta list myself and still get schooled. This was not the case in 1.0.

In fact, a couple of the lists I've used seemed to carry a fairly strong counter to the odd meta list, while being weak to list outside that, even though neither wouldn't rank on any data system currently being used to analyse these things.

I'm certain we'll see more variety emerge as top players get to grip with things that they actually like and want to use, rather than the meta experiments that are currently going on. Once a few subtle points changes come in, there'll be even more branching out.

But the experience is the opposite, with variety reducing over time as players stop experimenting and settle on the few things that are actually good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SOTL said:

But the experience is the opposite, with variety reducing over time as players stop experimenting and settle on the few things that are actually good.

See, I think the experimenting is far from over. Sure, you can try a few different things for a handful of games each, but that's not really getting over the hurdle of having something properly figured out. Particularly if it's something that requires more strategic thinking than just fly up there and throw dice.

These comps atm, people are largely taking the 1st, easiest things that have emerged. Things that aren't hard to figure out, things that are proven. Or they're just trying out the newly emerged hotness before moving on.

But that's not really my point. Which is that outside those top choices, there are other choices that people can do well with, if they put the time in, figure it out and most importantly, make the right choices on the table. It's just that atm, in highly competitive settings, we haven't seen much of that. And maybe even, we won't in the near future, but that doesn't mean everything else is unplayable at a decent level.

But I'd be daft to deny that a small number of things are stronger than they need to be. I'm just unconvinced that they're SO much stronger that you have to fight fire with fire or surrender. 

And of course, many things are weaker than they need to be. But there's still a lot in between that we're not seeing because of time restraints and, perhaps even moreso, simply fashion. 

I think it's a shame that people run with these big event results and use them to determine what is worth using and what is not in such a binary way. A lot of things are flying under the radar atm and a lot of excuses are being looked for when our own in game decisions are to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I think the experimenting is largely done.  It's not that big a card pool, there's really not many options and squads to put together that I haven't tried in some form or other.  What works is what works, what didn't... yeah it wasn't that far behind the good stuff as was the case in 1.0 but it's still clearly behind.

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...