For all who have been asking...AoS Stats are BACK

[Kasper]

.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Kasper

[zilberfrid]

7 minutes ago, Kasper said:

.

I get your point

[Kasper]

42 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

I get your point

Figured I had posted in the wrong thread But couldnt figure out how to delete.

[Smooth criminal]

Slaanesh nerf when?

[SwampHeart]

1 hour ago, Smooth criminal said:

Slaanesh nerf when?

In the December/January FAQ. 

[Mayple]

7 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

I don't get anything of what you mean here.

If you lose every other game (and win the other half of the games), you're not doing anything really wrong, you're just being as good as your opponents.

If 50% is indicative of something being really wrong, there is something wrong with the entire hobby.

You don't get it, or you don't agree with it? Cause you're free to disagree, but I don't want to go about explaining it more if you understood it.

[zilberfrid]

1 hour ago, Mayple said:

You don't get it, or you don't agree with it? Cause you're free to disagree, but I don't want to go about explaining it more if you understood it.

No, I really don't get it.

Do you mean that the average player is doing something badly wrong when he or she has a 50/50 win/loss rate?

[Mayple]

Just now, zilberfrid said:

No, I really don't get it.

Do you mean that the average player is doing something badly wrong when he or she has a 50/50 win/loss rate?

If the aim is to be good (and we're talking competitive here, so surely that must be true) -- then a 50/50 win/loss rate is absolutely an indication that you need to up your game. Losing every second game means you're essentially not competing as far as rankings/brackets/point scores goes (whichever measurement system is being used for that competition; a fifty percent winrate puts you near the bottom half)

This is mostly because competitive tournaments usually go five games. Meaning a 50/50 winrate puts you either at 2/5, or 3/5, entirely at chance, making it the least concise way of measuring a good winrate. If what we are looking for is a good faction, determined by statistics, we should therefore look at 3/5 (60%) as good, 2/5(40%)  as poor, and the middle ground (50%)  as wildcards that can swing either way.

So yes. If someone is playing competitively, and they win/lose every second match, they're gonna have to figure out what they're doing wrong.

If they're not playing competitively, then 50% becomes a super healthy winrate, since outside of tournaments, there's really no reason to win more than once every other game

[Euphanism]

Look I think we can all agree that Slaves to Darkness are doing just great.

[Slayerofmen]

2 hours ago, Euphanism said:

Look I think we can all agree that Slaves to Darkness are doing just great.

#bestfaction

[Battlefury]

I would not have thought, that any army would "outperform" the DoK, but Slaanesh does...totally broken army asfaik imo.

Playd them several times with several armies...not fun at all.

[whispersofblood]

I have no problem with the stats, the methodology or even what is being measured. My fundamental issue has always been benchmarking, and the analysis of the stats. Its my belief that the bias and prefernces contained in the hobby aspect drive much of the fundamental balance issues found in the win percentage. And, that we take win percentage as some sort of per se argument about power, rather than a more nuanced meta+win percantage position which would lead us to a more nuanced likily outcome approach. X army might win disproportionatly for non-mechanical reasons. I suspect most people still don't understand what made DoK so powerful in AoS1.5 and AoS 2.0.

I won't argue that HoS dominate our current meta stat, but the question should be why are armies in the meta state so weak to HoS strengths. Then can factions build to address that weakness, only after answering those problems can we begin to discuss what is to be done or if anything should be done to HoS. 

[l1censetochill]

13 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

I have no problem with the stats, the methodology or even what is being measured. My fundamental issue has always been benchmarking, and the analysis of the stats. Its my belief that the bias and prefernces contained in the hobby aspect drive much of the fundamental balance issues found in the win percentage. And, that we take win percentage as some sort of per se argument about power, rather than a more nuanced meta+win percantage position which would lead us to a more nuanced likily outcome approach. X army might win disproportionatly for non-mechanical reasons. I suspect most people still don't understand what made DoK so powerful in AoS1.5 and AoS 2.0.

I won't argue that HoS dominate our current meta stat, but the question should be why are armies in the meta state so weak to HoS strengths. Then can factions build to address that weakness, only after answering those problems can we begin to discuss what is to be done or if anything should be done to HoS. 

So basically, you're making a roundabout argument that "win percentage isn't only due to mechanics," and that non-competitive players choosing suboptimal lists leads to inflated winrates for certain factions and not others. While there may be some truth to that, I do think that actually playing/watching the game, for most people, should help to discern that HoS and DoK's winrate isn't purely due to their opponents playing poorly, but rather the combination of their mechanics and the nature in which their armies are designed and intended to be built.

There shouldn't be any mystery why DoK was powerful in 1.5 and 2.0, as it's one of the most straightforward armies and lists in the game. The reason its winrate was so high, and remains high even a year after release, is because it's so hard to ****** up - you put as many Witch Aelves/Sisters of Slaughter on the table as possible around a Cauldron and two Hag Queens, point-and-click your strongest buffs onto your biggest block, then run and charge them into the enemy army while stacking extra attacks and delete everything on the table. It's not complicated. While there is still a skill gradient in terms of deployment, target prioritization, and building out the last ~200 points of the list, the reason it had such a high winrate was because even a new player could use that strategy and annihilate a large portion of available armies, which simply didn't have the tools to compete with what they were doing regardless of player skill. The only reason their winrate has declined is because Fights First/Fights Last can stop them in their tracks (and other horde armies like Skaven got better rules).

Slaanesh is in a similar position in the meta right now. It's a very straightforward army to play - you spam Keepers alongside an Epitome and Enrapturess, run everything straight at the opponent and start deleting everything within arms' reach with Locus an d double pile-ins while stockpiling depravity, and summon more troops or more heroes as needed. Depravity means that there's a bit more to think about than there was with DoK, but it's still a gameplan that's hard to ****** up if you build the list properly. Depravity points build up so quickly, even if you're not killing enemies with multiple wounds, that even if the enemy manages to kill a Keeper or two you can pretty much always summon them back. And much like DoK, the majority of armies simply don't have any tools to compete with what Slaanesh can do - unless your army has enough shooting/magic damage to kill every Slaanesh hero in a single turn, they will always generate enough depravity to summon more. There's no real viable counterplay to that, because there is no mechanical counter to summoning currently in the rules.

[whispersofblood]

28 minutes ago, l1censetochill said:

So basically, you're making a roundabout argument that "win percentage isn't only due to mechanics," and that non-competitive players choosing suboptimal lists leads to inflated winrates for certain factions and not others. While there may be some truth to that, I do think that actually playing/watching the game, for most people, should help to discern that HoS and DoK's winrate isn't purely due to their opponents playing poorly, but rather the combination of their mechanics and the nature in which their armies are designed and intended to be built.

There shouldn't be any mystery why DoK was powerful in 1.5 and 2.0, as it's one of the most straightforward armies and lists in the game. The reason its winrate was so high, and remains high even a year after release, is because it's so hard to ****** up - you put as many Witch Aelves/Sisters of Slaughter on the table as possible around a Cauldron and two Hag Queens, point-and-click your strongest buffs onto your biggest block, then run and charge them into the enemy army while stacking extra attacks and delete everything on the table. It's not complicated. While there is still a skill gradient in terms of deployment, target prioritization, and building out the last ~200 points of the list, the reason it had such a high winrate was because even a new player could use that strategy and annihilate a large portion of available armies, which simply didn't have the tools to compete with what they were doing regardless of player skill. The only reason their winrate has declined is because Fights First/Fights Last can stop them in their tracks (and other horde armies like Skaven got better rules).

Slaanesh is in a similar position in the meta right now. It's a very straightforward army to play - you spam Keepers alongside an Epitome and Enrapturess, run everything straight at the opponent and start deleting everything within arms' reach with Locus an d double pile-ins while stockpiling depravity, and summon more troops or more heroes as needed. Depravity means that there's a bit more to think about than there was with DoK, but it's still a gameplan that's hard to ****** up if you build the list properly. Depravity points build up so quickly, even if you're not killing enemies with multiple wounds, that even if the enemy manages to kill a Keeper or two you can pretty much always summon them back. And much like DoK, the majority of armies simply don't have any tools to compete with what Slaanesh can do - unless your army has enough shooting/magic damage to kill every Slaanesh hero in a single turn, they will always generate enough depravity to summon more. There's no real viable counterplay to that, because there is no mechanical counter to summoning currently in the rules.

No it has nothing to do with non-competitive players. Meta % in competitive gaming is driven by factors like cost, and time. There are many competitive builds and factions that are prohibitively expensive or time consuming to build, or extremely boring to play, or interst a tiny portion of gamers. Removing the contribution of those armies to the meta moves the meta in specific ways outside the mechanics of the game. This shapes the meta long before anything else happens mechanically to determine the value of good/bad.

While you have identified some of the things that makes those factions' builds strong you are still missing the why. Lots of factions that have potentially abusive mechanics, HoS is just one of many. What makes the summoning truely powerful is the ease at which it can be applied and how easy it is to protect the engine that produces it. HoS armies are essentially immune to alpha strike builds which at the launch of AoS 2.0 dominated the meta. So the question to determining if HoS are overpowered you must first answer if we even want alpha armies, if those factions which choose alpha approaches have other effective methods of playing the game and then decide if HoS would be to powerful if the meta doesn't depend on alpha combat builds. IF you have other options and insist on the one with a clear and defined hard counter that is a player error, not a game error. The key to defeating HoS is actually controlling the tempo of the game, and deciding when the HoS player is going to be getting depravity and controlling where they can summon.

I don't have the answers to those questions objectively but I suspect that it is likely the case that it is not mechanically that overpowering to match the outrage.

Similarly DoK their core power came from their undisputed control of the board, this is what kept them strong when new armies were released. Morathi, and the true effective range of the Cauldron made DoK probably the best board control faction, probably ever released in AoS. They still are, and I don't actually think they are as weak to fight last as you are making out. But, the best DoK players have migrated and BS probably give them a very strong run for their money in that space, so we may never know in AoS 2.5 exactly. I think they have an exploitable weakness to magic that BS don't have but I think people are going to have serious issues with BS by convention season.

Of course I'm describing AoS at the top of the mountain, since that is what these stats are collected on.

[Lord Krungharr]

I  have been hoping for a mirror match with my Legion of Azgorh for over a year, but alas, we wicked dwarves are quite scarce.

[zilberfrid]

36 minutes ago, Lord Krungharr said:

I  have been hoping for a mirror match with my Legion of Azgorh for over a year, but alas, we wicked dwarves are quite scarce.

Probably because they are even more expensive than Kharadron.

[Televiper11]

2 hours ago, Lord Krungharr said:

I  have been hoping for a mirror match with my Legion of Azgorh for over a year, but alas, we wicked dwarves are quite scarce.

I'd be happy to give you a game if you are anywhere near NYC

[Lord Krungharr]

If I'm ever in the neighborhood, I'll bring them and give you a heads up