Why I don't like 'best army' style tables

[Tropical Ghost General]

@LLV has done a great job and is doing what no one else is currently doing.

Sure you can complain about how it doesn't have 10000% of all the data ever or you can do what most of us do who take an interest in competitive AoS, which is look at the results from each tournament, look at the published lists for the factions that interest you, look at where they placed in those tournaments and from that make you own conclusions about what you think about the current meta.

If you have a table depicting data from each unit from each faction and they're effectiveness to face against every other unit from every other faction, it would be so long that it could it wrap around the circumference of the planet, twice. There are lots of other factors that come into play in the tournament scene, such as what extra rules the TO has put on for that specific event, so having a super detailed, massive information based table breaking down everything would still give you the vague data results that some of you on this thread are complaining about. 

To summarise, @LLV is doing a great job. If you want to help your factions community then do what myself and others do, take an active role in posting up results in tournaments and the lists from those tournaments that relate to your own faction. I mainly play ghosts in 2.0 and always post up the results and lists from as many tournaments as I can. I don't care about the specifics of DoK, so I don't bother posting anything about them, but I care about ghosts, so I take the initiative to spread the information myself, as it's stuff that I would like to know, which means that there will be others that want to know.

So to summarise further, instead of complaining about what others aren't doing, take the initiative to fill in the gaps that you feel need to be addressed. It's meant to be a community and so it's the duty of everyone to support it and improve it rather than just complain about what isn't being done or complain about what is being done in a manner that isn't to your own preference if you yourself aren't contributing anything to it. 

[Xasz]

Damn this thread is a pile of hot garbage.

There is pretty much no chance that a data set for warhammer could encompass everything every player wants to know (that goes for pretty much any data set, even in science and that's ignoring how dirty most of the data and databases are...). It is just not possible, at least not if you want to be able to interpret the data at the end of the day. That being said, a bit more granularity could be an improvement. Although this is dangerous in itself, adding archetype names, in the same style MtG handles it, could lead to confusion and you have to come up with some naming conventions. (multiple views is an elegant solution, if the table is accessible in like google-tables)

There is something similar for Twilight Imperium 4 and while there will never be complete data, it is really interesting to see and talk about online and with friends. https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1908461/races-tier-list-ranking-help-collect-data

As AoS is changing more frequently than boardgames, it would be a boon if the data would be divided into time-frames or eras. I can see it be done either yearly for each GHB release or from major release to major release (meaning battletomes, we would be in the BoC era right now). There would be still a place for the current, aggregated table but the changes through time would be more apparent. (pretty much coming back to multiple views, but now in consideration of time)

Overall, I really like this kind of data and two things that people seem to forget here, is that A a data set always has to be interpreted (like honest-wargamer did,  good video btw) and B all this was made by someone in his free time. Improvements could surely be made and there are some good suggestions here, but a lot of the criticism is just dismissive at best (LLV seemed a bit thin-skinned as well, but I can relate. Never feels good if you put effort into something and get questionable "feedback").

[blueshirtman]

But it doesn't have to encompass everything. If you have a set of 20 tournaments world wide, both sides of the pond and some units like lets say a big blob of skeletons or unit X being taken over unit Y every time, you don't need another 20 games to check what happens if the unit of skeletons is not there or someone decide that the DoK snake girls that are bad should be used.

Same with factions win %, Sure they maybe some skews, because someone in UK decides to bring a non tournament army to a big event and suddenly ends 0-5 with LoN. But that is why you have statistic and its rules. It is a science, and we don't really have to invent new methods of analyzing the AOS specific data sets.

[Xasz]

Just to make sure, I'm absolutely fine with the current format.

If the format changes or not doesn't really matter to me, this is already a great asset and darn interesting.

Just wanted to provide some ideas, as the comments have been mostly questionable.

1 hour ago, blueshirtman said:

Same with factions win %, Sure they maybe some skews, because someone in UK decides to bring a non tournament army to a big event and suddenly ends 0-5 with LoN. But that is why you have statistic and its rules. It is a science, and we don't really have to invent new methods of analyzing the AOS specific data sets.

And 100% this. I like that the sample size is already nice and it will be increasing. 

[LLV]

3 hours ago, Xasz said:

Overall, I really like this kind of data and two things that people seem to forget here, is that A a data set always has to be interpreted (like honest-wargamer did,  good video btw) and B all this was made by someone in his free time. Improvements could surely be made and there are some good suggestions here, but a lot of the criticism is just dismissive at best (LLV seemed a bit thin-skinned as well, but I can relate. Never feels good if you put effort into something and get questionable "feedback").

Not thin skinned, just looked up EldritchX other posts and realized he likes to invest waymore time and effort that I have into arguing with people, so I cut it short.

MtG is a far more granular game than AoS could ever be and represents wins losses and meta % in even less detail than provided. However as others have said there should be context which there will be soon, with examples and lists linked.

[EldritchX]

On 10/6/2018 at 10:25 PM, LLV said:

Not thin skinned, just looked up EldritchX other posts and realized he likes to invest waymore time and effort that I have into arguing with people, so I cut it short.

MtG is a far more granular game than AoS could ever be and represents wins losses and meta % in even less detail than provided. However as others have said there should be context which there will be soon, with examples and lists linked.

I'm glad to hear that, but your need to throw in a dig at me again requires me to remind you that things would not have reached this point if the OP hadn't posted this critical thread and sparked the resulting discussion. If it hadn't been for my... persistence, let's say, perhaps we would have all walked away without recognising any room for improvement

And to correct you: I'm not particularly fond of arguing. I agree with a great many things people say on this and other boards, and learn probably even more. I simply tend to only post if I feel it's important to correct course for some reason. Having the OP's post dismissed as irrelevant because his points allegedly apply to another, popular list as well is one such reason. 

[Bosmer Nightblade]

Worth me clarifying that my thread had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with LLV. I know nothing about who LLV is or what he or she does. I conclude from context that LLV is someone who has made such a list, so i can see how this now becomes relevant, but this thread was not made because of anything LLV has done, which I've never seen.

Hope that clears things up.

[Montogon]

I cant understand why pepole just wont let players play whatever they want. I have played Dispossessed since AoS came out, but after the meta where i come from have been growing harder and harder i had really no choice but to change faction. Sure its nice playing for fun. But when most games are 2 hours away from kids and family and a given minimum of at least losing 50 % of the games, its tiering to say the least.  Sure sometimes you win more but at a margin of 1-2 points and a spine chilling dice roll, oponent general makes some mistakes etc etc

Anyway i diceded to go for another faction. GW is a profit company so factions are better then others for a  while until it gets nerffed. So i diceded to start playing DoK. Then i can play this for at least 4 years i thought. They are so good know. Then they will be ok in ghb 19 and so on.

The massive whining storm from the community almost struck me down to go change faction again. Everything was fine when i played a ****** faction. But when i went top tier just so i dont have to spend 1000 dollars every year or so on a new faction to be able to experience some both sided joy in a game i was wrong.

So this thread and all other whining needs to stopp. Pleas pepole. Stopp the ****** f..... whining now!

[mmimzie]

As to the OP i'd say to exent i agree.  Most games don't look simply at factions but style instead.  A better metric would be breaking it in specific types of list with % of X tools. 

For instance DoK You'd go hagg narr as one of the metrics. For stormcast you could have Evo bomb as another metric. Deepkin you could do Eel alpha as another. 

This is not to disimilar to how most other games go about collecting this sort of data.  For instance  In league of legends you can do individual hero win rates, but the more important information is team comp win rate. Magic the gathering you do rank the colors or combos of colors you rate different specific decks that have key markers. Hearth stone you don't rate the classes you rate specific decks with key markers. 

That informational distinction is VERY important. As they are very different armies with very different weaknesses and strength. The distinctions can be a very big one and likely is. 

Now your other issues such as specific match up. This requires a lot more work to do. If we cared to get the statistics we'd need to make a dedicated site that auto the date.

 

12 hours ago, Montogon said:

I cant understand why pepole just wont let players play whatever they want. I have played Dispossessed since AoS came out, but after the meta where i come from have been growing harder and harder i had really no choice but to change faction. Sure its nice playing for fun. But when most games are 2 hours away from kids and family and a given minimum of at least losing 50 % of the games, its tiering to say the least.  Sure sometimes you win more but at a margin of 1-2 points and a spine chilling dice roll, oponent general makes some mistakes etc etc

Anyway i diceded to go for another faction. GW is a profit company so factions are better then others for a  while until it gets nerffed. So i diceded to start playing DoK. Then i can play this for at least 4 years i thought. They are so good know. Then they will be ok in ghb 19 and so on.

The massive whining storm from the community almost struck me down to go change faction again. Everything was fine when i played a ****** faction. But when i went top tier just so i dont have to spend 1000 dollars every year or so on a new faction to be able to experience some both sided joy in a game i was wrong.

So this thread and all other whining needs to stopp. Pleas pepole. Stopp the ****** f..... whining now!

You will always having whining. No matter how balanced a game is or how long matches are there is always a hair that can be split, and as human we will split every hair we can find.  This is fine and can even make for great disscusion just as long as it remains civil and maintains a direction.

From there reading your post there things i'll need to needle at. For one every game for the most part has a winner or a loser. Even in a perfectly balanced setting against equally skilled opponents you are likely to lose ~50% of your games <.<... as they are two person games and draws in AoS are VERY rare. Meaning every time you leave your family you will about 50% of the time lose. Now losing should not mean you don't have fun. I think  alot of folks put too much on the thought on winning=fun. If thats what you want... you are playing the wrong game. If losing is so detrimental to your fun if you can't have atleast half as much fun losing as you do winning... you will never be happy in the hobby. 

[Montogon]

21 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

As to the OP i'd say to exent i agree.  Most games don't look simply at factions but style instead.  A better metric would be breaking it in specific types of list with % of X tools. 

For instance DoK You'd go hagg narr as one of the metrics. For stormcast you could have Evo bomb as another metric. Deepkin you could do Eel alpha as another. 

This is not to disimilar to how most other games go about collecting this sort of data.  For instance  In league of legends you can do individual hero win rates, but the more important information is team comp win rate. Magic the gathering you do rank the colors or combos of colors you rate different specific decks that have key markers. Hearth stone you don't rate the classes you rate specific decks with key markers. 

That informational distinction is VERY important. As they are very different armies with very different weaknesses and strength. The distinctions can be a very big one and likely is. 

Now your other issues such as specific match up. This requires a lot more work to do. If we cared to get the statistics we'd need to make a dedicated site that auto the date.

 

You will always having whining. No matter how balanced a game is or how long matches are there is always a hair that can be split, and as human we will split every hair we can find.  This is fine and can even make for great disscusion just as long as it remains civil and maintains a direction.

From there reading your post there things i'll need to needle at. For one every game for the most part has a winner or a loser. Even in a perfectly balanced setting against equally skilled opponents you are likely to lose ~50% of your games <.<... as they are two person games and draws in AoS are VERY rare. Meaning every time you leave your family you will about 50% of the time lose. Now losing should not mean you don't have fun. I think  alot of folks put too much on the thought on winning=fun. If thats what you want... you are playing the wrong game. If losing is so detrimental to your fun if you can't have atleast half as much fun losing as you do winning... you will never be happy in the hobby. 

you missunderstand me. Go to a tournament with no battletome against all other who got one. It is a outdated faction at the moment with a very thin range of play style. That in the long run is not funny. With a more up to date faction its way more fun to play if you win or lose doesent matter. The span in ways to play is much wider and only that is more fun. 

Pepole didnt whine when i brought an old outdated faction. But when i came with at the moment a really good one there where all of a sudden whining. That for me was not so funny if you look at why i play them. It will be my new faction for years to come

[Marc Wilson]

@LLV you’re doing a fine job with these stats bro. Everybody I know sees them for what they are - a pretty good ball park breakdown of understandable data. I don’t know one person with an unquenchable thirst for a destruction breakdown. Like, we can work it out for ourselves, right?

 

[Ben]

Yeah. Keep up the good work. 

When I introduced the player rankings it had polar viewpoints. Some

loved it. Some hated it. Most don’t care! 

[AaronWilson]

+1 for keep up the good work LLV. It's massively appreciated by a LOT of people.