|
Post by HubertJFarnsworth on Apr 27, 2018 21:18:02 GMT
Sure, in MK2 there were OP models like Gaspy and Haley2, but the game in general was a lot more balanced than now. It was recognized as one of the best balanced games around, and without any help from the community. Some models were abusive, yes, but overall the effective faction balance was quite fine. If you looked at the old tourney reults, most factions were around 45%-55% win percentages. Only in MK3 we had things like Cryx having results like 72% wins, and while CID continues to nerf the outliers, new outliers continue to spawn and now we are in a constant change state, that often borders in the "the last that got CID is in the best place" that reminds me a lot of old GW codex balance... So I decided to check this claim, and you're actually quite incorrect. I went to the Wayback Machine and pulled up Discount Games Tournament results page for March 16, 2016 (https://web.archive.org/web/20160306113441/http://www.discountgamesinc.com:80/tournaments/), dropped that in to an Excel sheet ( stats.xlsx (34.37 KB)). I took the full list of events and players and filtered the events down by counting the rows with commas and rows with colons (event lines have a comma in the date, players have colons after their placement position) to calculate the total number of events and players for events dating back to October 2013. Obviously the site doesn't contain the whole roster of each event, only the top finishers (except for WTC events), but it gives us a rough idea of our numbers. Then I calculated the number of players who "placed" (i.e. were listed on the site) per faction by searching for lines that included faction names; these I divided by the number of total recorded players to get a percentage. Then I pulled the number of first place finishes for each faction by searching for lines that started with 1 and contained a faction name, and divided those by the total count of events to arrive at the tournament win percentage of that faction. And so I arrived here, please feel free to check my work: As you can see Cryx was massively ahead of the pack, with the nearest faction showing fully half of their win rate.
|
|
Miafan
Junior Strategist
Eater of Brains
Posts: 130
|
Post by Miafan on Apr 27, 2018 21:29:29 GMT
TBH, I remember that in MK2 Cryx hardly ever won anything, because meeting Cygnar sooner or later was = meet Haley2/Caine2 combo = may not even bother deploying your models. But Cryx was the most popular faction nevertheless, amount of Cryx players massively exeeding all other factions, at least in all metas I knew.
|
|
|
Post by gedditoffme on Apr 27, 2018 21:30:17 GMT
Sure, in MK2 there were OP models like Gaspy and Haley2, but the game in general was a lot more balanced than now. It was recognized as one of the best balanced games around, and without any help from the community. Some models were abusive, yes, but overall the effective faction balance was quite fine. If you looked at the old tourney reults, most factions were around 45%-55% win percentages. Only in MK3 we had things like Cryx having results like 72% wins, and while CID continues to nerf the outliers, new outliers continue to spawn and now we are in a constant change state, that often borders in the "the last that got CID is in the best place" that reminds me a lot of old GW codex balance... So I decided to check this claim, and you're actually quite incorrect. I went to the Wayback Machine and pulled up Discount Games Tournament results page for March 16, 2016 (https://web.archive.org/web/20160306113441/http://www.discountgamesinc.com:80/tournaments/), dropped that in to an Excel sheet View Attachment. I took the full list of events and players and filtered the events down by counting the rows with commas and rows with colons (event lines have a comma in the date, players have colons after their placement position) to calculate the total number of events and players for events dating back to October 2013. Obviously the site doesn't contain the whole roster of each event, only the top finishers (except for WTC events), but it gives us a rough idea of our numbers. Then I calculated the number of players who "placed" (i.e. were listed on the site) per faction by searching for lines that included faction names; these I divided this number by the number of total recorded players to get a percentage. Then I pulled the number of first place finishes for each faction by searching for lines that started with 1 and contained a faction name, and divided those by the total count of events to arrive at the tournament win percentage of that faction. And so I arrived here, please feel free to check my work: As you can see, Cryx was massively ahead of the pack, and a full quarter of the factions in the game had a single digit win rate. [ Your first place finishes look like a lot more than the 88 events. Is there something I’m missing there?
|
|
|
Post by gobber on Apr 27, 2018 21:46:44 GMT
If I ever quit warmahordes 40k would not be the one to pick up the scraps... Dude any fantasy flight miniature game is a lost cause except for x wing It's been out for a month; that's wildly premature. The hobbyist community is going wild over legion in a way I've never seen for other games; there's so much 1/48 star wars stuff already out there and tons of 3d models to print. The jury's still out on the game itself, but I expect to stick with it a while if just based on the fact that making terrain for the game is so much fun (and audiences of non-wargamers tend to appreciate star wars stuff I make more than the warmachine terrain)
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Apr 27, 2018 22:04:07 GMT
You defended even the most clears errors with fervor, and as in this last post you have also defended them when they contraddict themselvesThis is another clear example of perception differences. I didn't defend the Devs from trying to give Snipe to Caine_0, what I did do is establish that as the owners of the whole Testing Process they are within their rights to want to TEST things before releasing them. And that includes things like "We know Snipe is busted in Trenchers, but would it be busted in Heavy Metal and Sons of the Tempest? Why don't we try to find out?" The funny thing is that they eventually decided against Snipe even in Heavy Metal and Sons, but you are so hung up on the fact that they even suggested it that it is coloring your whole perception of them. I have never seen you saying that something devs did was wrong. I'm glad! that just means I know how to channel my disagreements with them in ways that are more fruitful than venting in a rage echo chamber. I can list stuff here from just the past year that I disagreed with: My dissatisfaction with broken interactions with the Mk3 change over, which I shared in the PG forum, where I know the devs got to see it. The dissolution of the Press Gang, also through either direct emails or in the PG Forum. I even discussed this recently with my fellow TOs in Kingdom Con. The CID Week 1 Gun Carriage that I didn't like, and I expressed why that was the case, in the CID forum. I have expressed my discontentment with the Juggy and Marauder point increase in the CID forums. Even the Berserker chassis keeping Unstable, going as far as calling the whole chassis unplayable, also in the CID forums. Hell, I still hold the opinion that the Berserker chassis is unplayable, but Sorscha_0 has single handedly make me want to put down those jacks on the table! And that's just from recent memory. I would be a fool to rehash these things over and over every chance I got just to rally sympathizers in the hopes of not being alone in my opinions. But doing so literally doesn't change anything. I got my say through a forum that PP would listen, and I have realized there are a lot of things about the game I can't control, I have accepted that and I have moved on and am still enjoying the game. Why haven't you?
|
|
|
Post by HubertJFarnsworth on Apr 27, 2018 22:27:11 GMT
[ Your first place finishes look like a lot more than the 88 events. Is there something I’m missing there? Whoops, forgot to account for team events that have both multiple first place positions AND multiple positions that start with one. Here is the numbers with team events pulled out: Cryx remains way out ahead with double the next nearest factions of Cygnar and Circle. I'll correct the original post; this is what I get for doing things at the end of the work day.
|
|
faelin
Junior Strategist
Posts: 121
|
Post by faelin on Apr 27, 2018 22:40:11 GMT
this is what I get for doing things at the end of the work day. All I can think of is the talk my company gave everyone yesterday about being more engaged in the workplace. Because an engaged employee is a productive one.
|
|
|
Post by MacGuffin on Apr 27, 2018 23:19:48 GMT
If we are comparing MK2 to MK3: Mk3 is much, much better. I started playing because of MK3. I was aware of the game during MK2, but I did not like the rules then because they appeared to disadvantage warjacks, which are the models that captured my interest in the first place. MK3 made warjacks viable, so I decided to buy models and start painting/playing. MK3 is an overwhelming improvement, despite a series of embarrassing proofreading and balancing errors by PP. We should not overlook the massive improvement simply because it came with those mistakes.
More importantly: can anyone corroborate the rumor that Wyrd has bought PP? That would be disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by HubertJFarnsworth on Apr 28, 2018 0:00:28 GMT
This is the first I've heard of such rumors. I'd be surprised since Warmachine and Hordes have historically seen better sales reports than Malifaux. Who knows though they're both private so they don't have to tell us diddly.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Apr 28, 2018 0:16:11 GMT
Maybe for the sake of the game PP should pay less attention to competitive play, and give more attention to narrative play, change the game up a bit from all the precision and make it a bit more loose. Give More emphasis to narrative campaigns and scenarios. Take it for what it's worth, but there is a rumor that has been circulating arounf for the last month. A rumor that "PP" does not actually decide a zit anymore. Wyrd does, cos they bought em. I think if something like that happened it would have got much more resonance. I don't even think Wyrd is actually big enough to buy PP, since they are on the market from a lot less. If that was true, would mean that PP was on very bad waters, even worse than I figure them to be. I think it's a fake.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Apr 28, 2018 0:31:47 GMT
You defended even the most clears errors with fervor, and as in this last post you have also defended them when they contraddict themselvesThis is another clear example of perception differences. I didn't defend the Devs from trying to give Snipe to Caine_0, what I did do is establish that as the owners of the whole Testing Process they are within their rights to want to TEST things before releasing them. And that includes things like "We know Snipe is busted in Trenchers, but would it be busted in Heavy Metal and Sons of the Tempest? Why don't we try to find out?" The funny thing is that they eventually decided against Snipe even in Heavy Metal and Sons, but you are so hung up on the fact that they even suggested it that it is coloring your whole perception of them. I have never seen you saying that something devs did was wrong. I'm glad! that just means I know how to channel my disagreements with them in ways that are more fruitful than venting in a rage echo chamber. I can list stuff here from just the past year that I disagreed with: My dissatisfaction with broken interactions with the Mk3 change over, which I shared in the PG forum, where I know the devs got to see it. The dissolution of the Press Gang, also through either direct emails or in the PG Forum. I even discussed this recently with my fellow TOs in Kingdom Con. The CID Week 1 Gun Carriage that I didn't like, and I expressed why that was the case, in the CID forum. I have expressed my discontentment with the Juggy and Marauder point increase in the CID forums. Even the Berserker chassis keeping Unstable, going as far as calling the whole chassis unplayable, also in the CID forums. Hell, I still hold the opinion that the Berserker chassis is unplayable, but Sorscha_0 has single handedly make me want to put down those jacks on the table! And that's just from recent memory. I would be a fool to rehash these things over and over every chance I got just to rally sympathizers in the hopes of not being alone in my opinions. But doing so literally doesn't change anything. I got my say through a forum that PP would listen, and I have realized there are a lot of things about the game I can't control, I have accepted that and I have moved on and am still enjoying the game. Why haven't you? It's in their own right even to close Warmachine and say "Go to hell" to all their players. A thing being in their own right doesn't mean that is a good thing to do as a professional company. Trying to hide errors with the argument of "it's in their own right to make errors" means nothing (and I made a list much longer than just Snipe). Being incoherent or proposing thing so broken that there shouldn't be any need to test them to discard the idea are bad things, lowers the image of professionality and competence of the devs, and make customers waste time to explain them the obvious. The fact that they sometimes strongly defend broken ideas for weeks, or that they sometimes push out bad rules skipping CID makes things even worse. Your "disagreed" stuff are all feedbacks on models. That doesn't even count as a disagreements, are just requested feedbacks. What I mean with disagreement is being convinced that devs did the wrong thing, and the only one that is close to that is your opinion on the closing of the PG, a thing that touched you personally and so moved you to say that you don't agree. Since the devs made many big and evident errors lately, I may be wrong, but I have hard time beliving an objective and not totally partial person would not notice any of them. You also presume that I don't also give feedbacks in the "requested constructive way", a thing that is just an assumption from your part. I don't try to rally anyone or anything. I just say honestly what I think of the various decisions of PP. When they do things that I consider right, I have no problems saying it and even defending PP from attacks that I find unjustified, but at the same time, if I think they do errors, I say what I think. I'm sorry if the fact that lately, sadly, I were more often in disagreement than in agreement with devs decisions hurted your loyal supporter feelings.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Apr 28, 2018 0:42:11 GMT
Just to make an easy comparison:
I'm a software developer, often working for banks.
When I release a test version of a program, I ask the customer feedbacks on it to see if something has to be changed. In a certain sense, that is similar to what CID does.
While it is totally in my own right to ask to the bank to provide feedbacks for a program with a pink background and unicorns running on the screen, proposing a thing so clearly stupid would get me fired, because:
1) My experience and professionality should say to me that a similar interface is not ok for serious businesses like banks 2) The time of my customers is not to be wasted to explain me the obvious, so I shouldn't ask to them to explain to me why pink backgrounds are not good. 3) The time for testing of a particular product is limited. If I make my customer waste time on stupid ideas instead of finely tuning the finishing touches, the feedback obviously concentrates on the big stupid thing to change, and the details may not be tested enough to provide a good product.
For similar reasons, the whole "but they throw there bullshit rules to nerf them during CID" is senseless. They should provide a base product (rules) that they already consider pretty much ok, and the feedbacks should be around finding obscure interactions or stress testing skews, not make us lose entire weeks to explain them why a clearly stupid idea is stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Apr 28, 2018 10:05:42 GMT
So I decided to check this claim, and you're actually quite incorrect. I went to the Wayback Machine and pulled up Discount Games Tournament results page for March 16, 2016 (https://web.archive.org/web/20160306113441/http://www.discountgamesinc.com:80/tournaments/), dropped that in to an Excel sheet (). ... And so I arrived here, please feel free to check my work: As you can see Cryx was massively ahead of the pack, with the nearest faction showing fully half of their win rate. % of placements and singular games win % are totally different statistics, expecially because placement % is heavily skewed by the attendance. In your example, Crix has 3,5 times the players of Protectorate, as an example, and about 3,9 times the wins. That means that the distances aren't that big as you make them figure (of course if almost quadruple of the players play Cryx, they would win about quadruple of the tournaments against a faction less played). Sure, Cryx still had a little bit more wins than expected and other factions had less, but that is all plausible into the 45%-55% win percentage field. A faction that has a 55% win percentage of course will have a bit more chances to win a tourney than one with 45%. That said, those numbers are miles ahead of the ones showing Cryx having a 72% win percentage (with the 28% win percentage mostly composed of mirrors or games against Grymkin, who also had something like 62%).
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Apr 28, 2018 10:24:42 GMT
Even working with your own numbers, if we compare the % of total players and % of placements, we have a more relevant statistic. We would expect that if a faction makes the 23% of total players, it wins 23% of total tournaments.. Let's see how is in real: Cygnar = -1% Protectorate = +1% Khador = -4% Cryx = +9% Retribution = +0% Convergence = -3% Mercenaries = +0% Trollbloods = +0% Circle = -2% Legion = +0% Skorne = -1% Minions = +0% Looking at your own statistics, we see that all factions are actually very close to the expected placement percentages. If a faction makes the 10% of players, it wins close to 10% of the tourneys. The biggest outlier is Cryx, who anyway wins just 9% of the tourneys more than expected. That 9% is totally in line with the statistics I provided by memory, since if the expected win chances are 50%, 9% of that is 4,5% , so 54,5% Thank you for proving my point that MK2 balance between factions was very good, with just Cryx being slightly over the curve.
|
|
granor
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by granor on Apr 28, 2018 11:28:52 GMT
It doesn’t look like the data actually contains all participants of the tournaments so you can’t make any judgements of expected win rate from the data presented
|
|