Jump to content

AOS tier list!


Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

This isn't true, White always goes first, that's isn't balance neutral. Also the stat you quoted is true. White has between a 5-10% higher win rate.

You misunderstood. In a chess  a match tipically consist of more then one game. For example, the world chess championship finals of 2018 between Magnus Carlsen and Fabiano Cariana were played in the best-of-12 games format. Carlsen played the first game with black, the second one with white, the third one with black and so on. You are not stuck with one "army" like in a AoS tournament.  As players alternate games with black and white, the fact that white has an higher win rate doesn't give an advantage to one player, as in greater chance to win the tournament. Hence, the competition in chess is balanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ointagru said:

You misunderstood. In a chess  a match tipically consist of more then one game. For example, the world chess championship finals of 2018 between Magnus Carlsen and Fabiano Cariana were played in the best-of-12 games format. Carlsen played the first game with black, the second one with white, the third one with black and so on. You are not stuck with one "army" like in a AoS tournament.  As players alternate games with black and white, the fact that white has an higher win rate doesn't give an advantage to one player, as in greater chance to win the tournament. Hence, the competition in chess is balanced.

I know this, my perseption of balance contains elements outside of the rules of the game though. In sports there is a phenomenon known as score effects. In any sport or activity with scoring typically scoring first, especially in low scoring games has hugely biases the outcome. 

In chess especially series chess which is really just scoring to 7 first. Winning the first game gives you an advantage in every game afterwords and white going first, is therefore not balance neutral since it either provides a benefit or detriment to one player. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

I know this, my perseption of balance contains elements outside of the rules of the game though. In sports there is a phenomenon known as score effects. In any sport or activity with scoring typically scoring first, especially in low scoring games has hugely biases the outcome. 

In chess especially series chess which is really just scoring to 7 first. Winning the first game gives you an advantage in every game afterwords and white going first, is therefore not balance neutral since it either provides a benefit or detriment to one player. 

Do you have any data to support this claim? Specifically that  players that win their first game in a chess match have a higher win rate in the whole match?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ointagru said:

Do you have any data to support this claim? Specifically that  players that win their first game in a chess match have a higher win rate in the whole match?

Honestly not going to run the math. But, if you are curious you can just google score effects there is a large body of work done in Hockey and Football(European), about this topic.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2019 at 7:21 AM, Dead Scribe said:

To be honest, as far as tournaments are concerned, I like that they have one or two armies that are heads and shoulders above everything else because it makes figuring out what to collect easy and also makes the meta easy to navigate since you know what you are going to be seeing a lot of so can prepare properly.  So to me slaanesh coming down to 55% would not be competitive in that regard.

I still also don't see how this change drops them that much down either, but if they do I will sell off for bonereapers.

I mean it says nothing good about the state of a game when 55 percent win rates aren’t good enough

 

honestly, scribe, what are you even getting out of this game? Have you managed to be a pro aoser? Is this your primary source of income?

 

your approach to the game seems to consistently be “what is good for me to win?” Like nothing else matters. And it is wierd

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine any competitive player's approach to the game is "what is good for me to win?" and nothing else matters.  Thats why we are competitive players.  We play to win the game and win events and compete for the highest standings possible amongst our peers.

You don't set out to win the game and win events and compete for the highest standings possible with anything other than the most powerful machine or team that you can choose.  I also race cars, and would be like me driving a non tuned sedan in a race where my opponents have all modified their engines and transmissions and body weights, because I like the look of my car and just want to drive casual.

Except when I want to drive casual its not at the race track, and when I'm at the race track Im driving the best car I can buy with the best mods and performance tuners that I can get my hands on.

Same with tabletop gaming.

Edited by Dead Scribe
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's perfectly normal to want take the best to win at a competitive event - very normal. However it is by far not the only reason to attend competitive events, especially the generally casual nature of wargaming competitive events. These aren't the Olympics with top class requirements just to get in and defining 4 or more years worth of training, practice and more training.

 

 

The only real issue is the desire to see one or two armies at the top rather than see all the armies on an even platform. I think that's more a symptom of meta-chasing than of competitive attitude. By which I mean that if the meta only has one or two armies that are very clearly by far and away "THE BEST" then the meta shifts won't really matter, you get those armies and you're good to go. A more even playing field means that subtle meta shifts might well shift the slight advantage of one army over the others. In a nearly flat balanced system this advantage would be minor; not enough for most to "meta army hop" but some would be tempted by it. Of course such a system would be far more "swingy" in terms of which army might be the slightly better so could result in increased costs for meta-chasers. 

In contrast a more even balanced system is far preferable for the majority of gamers who have an attachment to armies beyond battle performance. For me it doesn't really matter if Daughters of Khaine are brokenly overpowered or underpowered; its the army I've got and put my money and time into. 

That's why so many argue and hope and argue some more for a generally equal win-rate potential for all armies and for overpowered armies to be reigned in and underpowered boosted up. Because many of us won't army hop and yet still want to have a chance to compete and win without feeling that if you're not bringing the flavour of the year its a waste.

 

 

Cars are actually doing the same sort of thing in some competing circles. From what I'm aware there are competitions that specifically limit the mods that a car can have which levels the playingfield somewhat.

  • Like 4
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I would imagine any competitive player's approach to the game is "what is good for me to win?" and nothing else matters.  Thats why we are competitive players.  We play to win the game and win events and compete for the highest standings possible amongst our peers.

You don't set out to win the game and win events and compete for the highest standings possible with anything other than the most powerful machine or team that you can choose.  I also race cars, and would be like me driving a non tuned sedan in a race where my opponents have all modified their engines and transmissions and body weights, because I like the look of my car and just want to drive casual.

Except when I want to drive casual its not at the race track, and when I'm at the race track Im driving the best car I can buy with the best mods and performance tuners that I can get my hands on.

Same with tabletop gaming.

Yes, but the vast majority of competitive people go “yeah, I’d rather there be better balance in the game even if it would hurt the particular list I am taking now because I value the health of the game”. And, uh, you don’t seem to have that step, you’re happy with no balance as long as you win. And, like, competitive players largely play to feel like they’re overcoming a challenge. You do seem like a WAAC type a guy. And not in the you take good lists and play them well, get me? 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can say what you want, I think you're pretty much breaking the terms of the site by attacking me, but most of the competitive guys that I know and have talked to up and down the east coast and all the way into the midwest have similar attitudes about the game and do the same things.

If you're really truly up in arms about the bad balance then do something about it by not giving the company your money until they put balance into the game maybe?

Edited by Dead Scribe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Except when I want to drive casual its not at the race track, and when I'm at the race track Im driving the best car I can buy with the best mods and performance tuners that I can get my hands on.

I find the racing analogy a bit of an odd one. Car racing is heavily restricted specifically to preserve competition, no? I don't think I've ever seen a race where it's production sedans versus V8 supercars versus Formula 1 teams. The cars are generally all in the same "class" of performance, so that team and driver skill are the most important factors. Otherwise, wouldn't it just be a competition of "Who has the most money?"

Imagine you went out and bought the best car you could buy, modded it and tuned it as best you could. Then you take it to the track and it turns out you're racing against Scuderia Ferrari - would you think of that as a fair competition, and you just weren't good enough to win?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of trying to get into pedantry about analogies... the point is in a competition you bring your best list and do your best with it.  GW doesn't make a game that is balanced or where everything is in the same class.  So you don't bother with the things that are not in the competitive class and you take the armies that can be competitive.  

Its really that simple.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I get where you're coming from. I just wondered if examining your analogy from a different perspective might help you to understand the other position, and why some people prefer to push for a more balanced game rather than embrace the imbalance. Or, for that matter, why people with the resources to chase the meta are often resented by those who lack those resources. If not, no worries.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2019 at 6:56 PM, Kadeton said:

Are Kharadrons really a separate army at this point? I thought people just included them as part of Tempest's Eye CoS armies, which seems to make them pretty strong.

Indeed they are. I run a Tempest Eye list with 3 Ironclads, LO SCE, Hurri, Blackark master, 10 corsairs, 5 Scourge Runners and it is remarkably agile and powerful. Since CoS dropped I've gone  33 wins straight, no losses, only list to push it to round 5 was a Slannesshy dance party. Playing in as many tournaments as I can before the new book drops just in case it gets whacked. 

I can not recommend it enough, little real-world pricey ($700)  but well worth it, 1 rend on almost everything and incredibly great to hits and wound numbers at top tier range, combined with unique abilities.  My max for first round wounds with it so far is 73 wounds &  8 deadly wounds. 

Edited by Rotary
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+++ MOD HAT +++

Just a gentle nudge to remind everyone that we're all entitled to enjoy our hobby in different ways.  My way isn't any more right than your way and equally your way is no more right than mine.

It's also worth bearing in mind that regardless of how you try to explain or justify your stance, there are times when whatever you say somebody just won't understand your view - that's not a problem!  It's all part of the rich tapestry of life 😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

If you're really truly up in arms about the bad balance then do something about it by not giving the company your money until they put balance into the game maybe?

I find companies generally listen to where the money comes from more than where the money isn't coming from until they hit a disaster point. Hitting a disaster point also carries increased risk that the company might not interpret the reduction in sales the " correct" way.

 

We actually saw this with Age of Sigmar at launch. GW saw reducing sales for Old World. They took a path of scrapping the game, ending multiple armies from sale and then shattering others. There is no denying that at launch AoS was a mess and in terms of attempting to restore sales from a failing franchise it was a disaster in marketing (even if you loved AoS at launch you cannot deny that GW gave it a terrible launch by bigging up Old World in marketing then dropping it like a lead weight). 

In contrast since sales in 40K picked up tremendously with a new approach to game balance and structure we saw AoS follow suit an improve. 

 

The thing is at some point a person not buying a companies products stops being a customer. When you stop being a customer the company can either fight to get you back or move onto getting new customers. GW is recruiting all the time so they've always got an influx. Sometimes its a lot easier to say "hey these things I buy from you that are great could be even more great with these changes - heck make those changes and I bet I can get more friends into and buy more from you myself)" in contrast to "If you don't make these changes I want I'm leaving" and "I've left, I no longer buy your products and I will refuse to do so until you make the following changes".

One is positive, the other two are negative, companies are formed of real people and whilst the bottom line of profits comes into play you can bet that the former has more potential chance to work. 

 

Of course if you don't approve of a company's direction then by all means don't feel slaved to buy from them. We all have out tipping point at which enough is enough. I'd also remind people that thoughts and views on forums only sometimes filter back to GW; most times a direct email well written, polite and positive might have more chance to get through the system (though I'd argue that sometimes you've got to find the right person to email not just the community representatives)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I would imagine any competitive player's approach to the game is "what is good for me to win?" and nothing else matters. 

I don’t really get this attitude, not because it’s wrong in general, but because AOS is such a bad game for it.

For me, the hobby has to be a large part of the drive otherwise whats the point?

That said, I play competitive and build competitive armies… but I as a lot of competitive players go for “good enough” and compete with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rotary said:

Indeed they are. I run a Tempest Eye list with 3 Ironclads, LO SCE, Hurri, Blackark master, 10 corsairs, 5 Scourge Runners and it is remarkably agile and powerful. Since CoS dropped I've gone  33 wins straight, no losses, only list to push it to round 5 was a Slannesshy dance party. Playing in as many tournaments as I can before the new book drops just in case it gets whacked. 

I can not recommend it enough, little real-world pricey ($700)  but well worth it, 1 rend on almost everything and incredibly great to hits and wound numbers at top tier range, combined with unique abilities.  My max for first round wounds with it so far is 73 wounds &  8 deadly wounds. 

How you run this list? If I remember correctly you can take only 1 KO unit and 1 SCE unit for 4 CoS units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Kadeton said:

Oh, I get where you're coming from. I just wondered if examining your analogy from a different perspective might help you to understand the other position, and why some people prefer to push for a more balanced game rather than embrace the imbalance. Or, for that matter, why people with the resources to chase the meta are often resented by those who lack those resources. If not, no worries.

To be clear, I embrace the imbalance simply because I know the writers at gw aren't going to balance the game.  Its either embrace the balance and be positive about the game, and they intentionally write these imbalances for people like me it would seem.  Or be angry about the imbalance and bitter and complain and quit, which I dont want to do.  I would prefer the game be balanced but at the same time, they are doing me a favor by signalling which armies I should invest in without me having to do a lot of actual work to figure it out because its usually pretty obvious.

To me, the constant complaining about balance is exhausting because no one is listening or going to actually bring balance to the game.  From my research, this has been an ongoing complaint for over a decade.  People complain a lot, and then nothing happens, and then they keep on playing anyway only complaining.  Life is too short!

Edited by Dead Scribe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Bufkin said:

I don’t really get this attitude, not because it’s wrong in general, but because AOS is such a bad game for it.

For me, the hobby has to be a large part of the drive otherwise whats the point?

That said, I play competitive and build competitive armies… but I as a lot of competitive players go for “good enough” and compete with that.

AOS may be a bad game for it, but it has the largest player group pretty much anywhere for fantasy gaming and I wouldnt find a kings of war tournament fun if there were only 3 people there (which is the reality, the only place I've ever seen any non gw game have more than 3-4 people in one place was at adepticon and i'm not investing in a game to play it once a year). 

And if I'm going for "good enough" then I'll end up against someone who went all out at a tournament and I'll lose that game and then lose the chance of winning the tournament which is why I don't just go for good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Bufkin said:

I don’t really get this attitude, not because it’s wrong in general, but because AOS is such a bad game for it.

For me, the hobby has to be a large part of the drive otherwise whats the point?

That said, I play competitive and build competitive armies… but I as a lot of competitive players go for “good enough” and compete with that.

I think you two are basically saying the same thing from different directions. For me, I first identify the subset “what factions/builds/lists are good enough for me to win a tournament with” and then I’ll assemble an army from that subset that I think would be interesting to build and paint and play. A casual player or hobbyist would probably say I’m just doing it to win because I’m restricting myself to certain choices that can win it all; other competitive players would see that sometimes I’m only playing the third or fourth best army at the moment, or a weird nonmeta take that somehow works on the best army, and agree that I’m doing lists and armies I like rather than just purely whatever is the very best.

Edited by CB42
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol can you imagine you’re just a casual who came into that guys store to play a game of warhammer, and every person in the shop plays nothing but a 3+ keeper list. 
 

maybe these hyper competitive guys have actually found the correct way to balance the game. Only play against the same army. Must get pretty boring playing 3 keeper slaneesh against 3 keeper slaneesh over and over again though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GutZilla said:

Lol can you imagine you’re just a casual who came into that guys store to play a game of warhammer, and every person in the shop plays nothing but a 3+ keeper list. 
 

maybe these hyper competitive guys have actually found the correct way to balance the game. Only play against the same army. Must get pretty boring playing 3 keeper slaneesh against 3 keeper slaneesh over and over again though. 

My store isn't casual.  Casuals don't really play at my store.  People know that to play at our store means you will be playing competitively, and everyone is perfectly fine with that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

My store isn't casual.  Casuals don't really play at my store.  People know that to play at our store means you will be playing competitively, and everyone is perfectly fine with that.  

That is my local store summed up as well... 

It pushed me away from 40k, as I'm a bit more casual/fluff minded for that... but in aos, we all appreciate the more competitive mindset.

We're not tournament winners or anything, but my store does like to have a challenging game 🙂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, GutZilla said:

maybe these hyper competitive guys have actually found the correct way to balance the game. Only play against the same army. Must get pretty boring playing 3 keeper slaneesh against 3 keeper slaneesh over and over again though. 

It also would remove most of the best skilled players from the competition to begin with though, since most players wouldn't have the cash/ willingness to unload a grand on the FOTM unbalanced army every single season.  Lots of people don't want to sell their previous armies. If you're competitive-minded, don't you want to know if you're actually the best, and not just the best at having money to immediately spend? Even out of the players who have the funds to do so, most probably aren't interested enough in the pay to win cycle to go through with it.

Like Deadscribe says though, it's been a consistent enough issue that at a certain point you either have to give in, give up or just be okay with voicing protest for the entire duration of your hobby.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Zanzou said:

 

It also would remove most of the best skilled players from the competition to begin with though, since most players wouldn't have the cash/ willingness to unload a grand on the FOTM unbalanced army every single season.  Lots of people don't want to sell their previous armies. If you're competitive-minded, don't you want to know if you're actually the best, and not just the best at having money to immediately spend? Even out of the players who have the funds to do so, most probably aren't interested enough in the pay to win cycle to go through with it.

Like Deadscribe says though, it's been a consistent enough issue that at a certain point you either have to give in, give up or just be okay with voicing protest for the entire duration of your hobby.

This competitive imbalance is not good for the game, really. Nor good for GW. If competitive players made the game unenjoyable for gamers, or forced them to restrict their lists to 2-3 top tier forces, profits will be hit in the long run. We can carp on about 'well, GW are doing alright, Jack, so it must be working!' But how many gamers are turning their backs on AoS (and 40k) because of competitive imbalance? 

As a business person I wouldn't be complacent about how much profit I've earned, but ask more what could I have earned if I'd done this better?

Sorry, Deadscribe, I respect that's how you like playing this way, but IMHO this is what's wrong with the game.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...