I would like to move the tiers conversation from the Wisconsin regional thread over to here.



We are edging on 6 years strong and that's a blasted good accomplishment. We are going to surpass wizards in characters produced very shortly, although I think we surpassed them in quality minis around set 4, lol We currently have over 1,400 characters available in the squad builder. Now, with that many pieces available it brings up the question of what squads are good, which ones are average and which ones should stay in the bins. Hopefully through the discussion that develops on this thread we can figure that out.

Darkdracul(Bryan Hole) and I(Etienne Sallade) came up with this definition for tiers and went ahead and filled in several squads and squad types. Question marks are the ones we are't quite sure of...

Tier 1- Tier 1 squads "may" have 1 auto loss/win among the other tier 1 squads, but can hold it's own against the rest. May be on even playing field with the tier 1.5 builds. Can have some specific counters in tier 2 that they struggles against, but auto wins if your opponent is unfamiliar with your squad. Examples- Skybuck, Durge, Grevious T-Bike/Bxs, Double Swap and Daala Scouts(?)(ambitious of me)

Tier 1.5- Can stand a chance against half the tier 1 squads, but the rest can be auto losses. Can beat most tier 2 squads with ease if your opponent is unfamiliar with the tactics or synergies.
Examples- Naboo, Daala Raxus Prime/snow troopers, Krayt, Moving Mandos, Talon/BAFH, Double Lancer(?)and Smug Commandos(?)

Tier 2- Does well against other T-2 builds with some auto wins and losses, several bad match-ups in T-1.5 and will have a hard time winning against any tier 1 options unless it is built with those specific squads in mind.
Examples- Thon Song, Spec-Force, Professor Lukes Art Class, OR-Pilots, Rebel Pilots, Charging Vong(?), Nomb Bombs, Praetorite Vong Scouts/Diplomats, Revan Swap, Bastilla and Friends, Gloom Walkers, Black Sun vigos, OR troopers, Army of Light, Mace/GOWK(?), Echani/Thrawn and etc

Tier 3- These are either theme squads that can be competetive or T2 squads minus a key synergy.

Tier 4- These are your theme squad builds that are fun to play and push around, but won't stand a snow balls chance of beating anything...

"Gate Keepers"- This can be any squad that falls in the tier 1 or 1.5 section, in addition, it can also be a tier 2 squad that has been exceedingly popular in the recent past. There are also certain squad types that can fall under this category. Examples- Super Stealth/Cloaked, Strafe, Gallop, Tank Squads, Swarm... etc
-In short, a "Gate Keeper" can be any squad that you will either 1. Build with that matchup in mind or 2. Have a strategic/reinforcement plan in order to stand a 50/50 chance of victory. A lack of a plan may result in an auto loss...

If our explanation was not clear cut enough here is an additional source provided by Flyingarrow



Urbanshmi posted this response to my first quote in the Wisconsin regional thread.



I see "Meta" defined as what will be played at a specific event, regional, tournament etc. Meta is based on what has won in the past, what individuals think will win in the future, what is winning right now and what the "honey badgers"(people that just play what they like) want to play.

"Tiers", on the other hand, are a gauge of a squads power level and its chance against the field of competitors. Even though we have reached a more casual environment for competitive play, where we tend to have an equal number of "Try-Hards"(spikes) to "Hand-cuffed"(Jonny) to "Honey-Badgers"(Timmy), I believe that the tier system still has merit and can allow us to see where our squads rank. In my opinion, some factions are only 1 or 2 synergies, scissors piece, movement breaker, atk boost... etc away from being top tier.

Really interested in what y'all think about everything I have said. Nothing I have wrote is set in stone and I am not even sure some of these squads are placed in the correct tier. So feel free to make your case for certain squads and factions. Also, do you guys think that putting squads into tiers is even valid anymore, or is this just an arbitrary method of talking about squads in general.

"Try-Hards"- The person that will only play what they believe they can win with, not necessarily what they would like to play. Will abuse game mechanics and fight dirty to win. (Doesnt mean they are a poor sport or a cheater)

"Hand-Cuffed"- People that would like to win, but on their terms. Whether they want to play their play style, don't want to fully abuse the game mechanics or a "try-hard" that wants to play a lower tier squad.

"Honey-Badgers"- New players, fun squad bringers people that are't trying to "win it all", but wan't to enjoy the game.

-You can be any of these when you go to a tournament, just because you normally play to win doesn't mean you cant be a honey-badger for the day...

@atmsalad,
an interesting thread again (you're on a roll)
thanks for sharing.

That's some intriguing... 'etymology',
for what would be otherwise polarizing and pejorative phrases,
to hijack and rebrand, like the war on "Bossy", "nerd", a word for "happy", or gender-anatomical-references...
taking formerly pejorative phrases to mean terms for the metagame... or "player conduct/play style"...
I'm not sure such nomenclature will catch on.

it is a difficult topic, to discuss the mentality of the players or
conduct, squad building etc... maybe SWMinis could borrow from w40k or Chess correspondence/composing in terms of how to describe such things? (Objectivity, prescribed templates etc)

that said,
point and spirit well taken, and ostensibly apropos.
The geographical feature is a huge point of difference in 'meta' - and, this is only of players that we know of, who decide they'd like to play at a tournament/convention event - there may be even more out there

I heartily agree with the final paragraph/sentence, when parsed into E-Prime (emphasis mine) :
"You can be | any player/personality type | when you go to a tournament | setting |, just because you normally play to win doesn't mean you can't be a | goodsportsperson/gracious winner | on the day..."
here here!

some local tournaments are springing up, in their 2nd year (to replace various other local events that fold and don't recur)
so hopefully they'll have a similar 'feel'/'vibe' - some stern competition, but not so much TKO "play to win", especially when some opponents are 7-11years of age hehehe
those are some wookies you want to let win, or the rest of the tournament players'll never hear the end of it hehehe.
that said, learning a little about goodsportspersonship is a passive part of the game - and I'm amazed at how some of the younger players manage to be gracious while accepting 2nd place or tying for 3rd - they're inspiring to the older players for certain.


Also,
thanks for talking about "Game Theory" and "Systems Theory" approaches to SWMinis Compositions, in regards to the tier-ing mismatches.
interesting reflection on some composition mis-matches...
there might be some articles on the E-JoC (Electronic Journal of Combinatorics) which describe some similar problems
if not, and you can't find such problems described elsewhere at OEIS or in other journals... you might be describing a new mis-match problem
That could be a fun project though - exploring whether or not SWMinis is "NP Incomplete", and what factors preserve such "NP Incompleteness"...
or, to develop some combinatorial approaches to run through the total number of possible squad movements, for all known pieces...
It may also be interesting to study how turn structure biases (if any are present) exist in the game, and whether or not a Fibonacci-Wieferbach? bias also exists...
I am still not convinced that tempo-control, or as many activations as possible, lead to auto-win (despite many locals complaining and 3 student papers on the topic).

Thanks atmsalad.
Someone needs to pin down the custardy/jello-y consistency that is the history of the SWMinis game,
for posterity if nothing else
in a few years time, maybe many will forget what the etymology of some terms are, as the first wave of players of the game leave us.

Your explanation of the tiers makes a lot more sense to me than any discussion I've seen before. My objection was more based around the idea that almost everything is "tier 1.5" or below, because everything has terrible match-ups, and I didn't want people to be discouraged from playing those squads, thinking they couldn't do well with them. I finished 5th at two consecutive regionals with squads that are decidedly not in the top tier--if you know your squad and can adjust to your competitors, you can do well.

But I guess I'm a honey badger, so...

Well put Jim, this is a necessary distinction.

Great!! I will take that as a high compliment. Last year I finished 5th at two regionals as well with tier 2 squads and I think it is definitely possible to do well at a regional with tier 2 squads. Bigger competitions like gencon, lower hutt, NZ nationals, vassal regional may be a different story, as I think people tend to bring their best or what they hate to play in order to do well. We still see tier 2 squads pop up in the top 8's though and with where we are in the competitive play we probably always will.

these are the squads i love. I'm looking at you Old Ben

My Sith Meditation Sphere squad should be at least a Tier 1.5.
Come on guys, it's supposed to be shooting hot magma and stuff..
I'm just a handcuffed player untill this game adjusts to where I can play it competitively.

You are a class act all the way Jim!!

Mark Rosewater defined these back in 2002 (probably earlier, but that's the earliest date I can find in a quick search). I feel that the Timmy, Johnny, and Spike psychographics (along with the combinations and knowledge that a person can be a different psychographic at different times/in different settings) are pretty well defined and encompassing.

http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b