Another column not shown by default is players and gives some further insight, PanO and the sectorials outside of MO have low player count, I assume the main reason why the games played is relatively low, one can assume that the win rate is at least partially related to veteran and good players playing Generic PanOceania and most sectorials, I am unsure if for example MO were less popular if their win rate would be higher. On the other hand a faction been popular brings in many inexperienced players so perhaps popular sectorials have lower win rate than they should have. ITS statistics is a useful tool to draw data and start formulating ideas and composing hypothesis. The main issue is propositions of changing hacking is an element that affects all factions and has way too many moving parts to be discussed here, assuming hacking will not change and finding solutions inside the existing frame is much better. Tournament statistics are a more "universal" indicator than local meta, what you describe is unheard of in my meta, list tailoring for a specific opponent, or faction is unthinkable, even for scenarios if I do not enforce it as practice for a tournament are rolled randomly using a D20. Local meta changes the perception of how the game is played and how lists are made drastically. More or less, and while tournaments are affected by local metas, they are not as affected as casual play. This is a prime indicator of how varied local metas are, as I said above in my meta lists are done considering a random faction and a random scenario been played.
I love statistics, but those presented on https://infinitythemeta.com/factionWinrate?season=15 have a bit problem, pretty much half matches don´t have which faction, so a lot of data is missing. However we can see a tendency. If we sort for amount played, Pano drops a lot with MO as an exception: We can check with missions, but for a lot they are only 1 match, so hard to extract any data there. Closest to the "total amount" close to be useful information and beyond MO numbers for Pano are low. I said before and I will said it now, issue is not about to win or to lose, is only about "to play".
Hellos naive optimists (aka losers) Did you know that CB is able to give heavy armoured units ..... <verbles> AP SPITFIRE xD Man, one did not yet needed to wait full year :D What a great new sectorial with heavy integration of REMs and TAGs we have here. I'm sure PanO players will be happy :D
Hey, that's not exactly fair, Posthuman Mk3 has AP Spitfire for some time now ;) Now, about that AP B3 HRL and AP B2 Chain Rifle... :P Oh, and as a former user of both Bulleteers and Rudra, nice Stormbots :V
Why are Wreckers and Geckos and the Anaconda all similar in points....where did the Wreckers discounts come from CB?
Agree to disagree here. If the initial data is biased then it is not useful for the construction of any hypothesis. Doing so involves running the risk of generating erroneous hypotheses and, as I mentioned before in another post, I bet that the current state of game balance is a direct result of generating hypotheses using this biased data. I completely agree on this point, that is why I advocate the inclusion of skills or special equipment that mitigates the net loss that Pano has in the hacking game and not in a redesign of the entire system. When I refer to "this must be fixed" I am referring to the imbalance, not the system as a whole. In my meta there are 6 of us on a good day. Normally, player A coordinates with player B to play a game at Player A's or Player B's house. It is virtually impossible to make a list under the premise that you don't know who you are going to play against. In any case, this does not address the underlying problem, which is not list tailoring, but rather how easy it is for other factions to neutralize MO and how difficult it is for MO to neutralize other factions. I agree that Aleph and Nomads precisely have some of the hardest hard counters that the game has to nullify MO, but the difficulty that MO has in presenting viable variants is the worst of its weaknesses in this regard. Basically one has two options, present a viable but predictable and easily counterable list due to the lack of options or B present a completely crazy and random list that may surprise the opponent but collapses due to the lack of synergies and the fact that the opponent surely has tools to recover from his initial surprise.
I was talking about ~50pts units, and for that you could take much more than single post human xD (used to be all 3 of them plus netrods xD)
Unfortunately this is something that players are at fault, not submitting their lists in OTM and coming at a tournament the last moment. We all would love to know what this amorphous mass of games is alas the only thing we can know is that overall win rate of all factions in Infinity is about slightly over 45%, not a great insight. I hope list submission can be improved in the future. That is correct, as I said the hidden column that can be activated by pressing columns and selecting players, show the amount of players per faction, PanO and their sectorials have a low player count, MO have a high player count corelating to more games played, one can assume from this that PanO (and other sectorials other than MO) representation in the tournaments is by few but veteran players contributing to the high win rate. On one hand yes, on the other no, it depends, and this is what I say a lot in this thread, you cannot base the whole argument of PanO (either collectively or the individual sectorials) having issues on been left behind, been uncompetitive, not having the tools, ectr, because the reality is the players in tournaments are doing well, the win ratio is there and the perceived weaknesses are not manifesting, at least not in a sufficient manner. So one needs to make a better argument, probably one based on gameplay feeling and maybe playability, maybe the faction, especially the sectorials need an above average player to be played and this is an issue, maybe something else, and this is why I try to steer the discussion in a more creative and in my opinion more fruitful discussion.
This is the one instance where cross-Factional comparisons help to identify this. This comes down to the world according to me based upon pretty an exclusive PanO player’s perspective. PanO across the board unit roles are less defined than the other factions. Now I don’t consider this a flaw. The opposite in fact. It means every unit has the same core function everyone can step up at various levels to fill in for the next man. PanO - Requires effects based planning That is - Pick an Effect you want to achieve and allocate assets best suited to provide that effect. I.e - Smoke is designed to minimise interaction with opposing force to allow you freedom of action to conduct movement or objectives. PanO achieves this through known lethality of its units. Outside of bad dice PanO shooting is reliably capable of engaging a variety of targets above their typical class a Fusilier ML in a pure core is 15pts individually but is able to punch well above his weight class when supported by 4 other Fusiliers. As a result opponents aren’t wanting needlessly expose units by having them targetable so they null deploy grip up the sight lines etc. This results in a reduced requirement to engage AROs to begin conducting objective scoring and clearing out the opponents midfield dislocating the opponent’s objectives with his ability to score mission objectives forcing those depth assets to advance straight into predicted kill zones since all the objectives are known elements. Take the other factions all clear overt roles which have clear distinct lanes which hold the player’s hand. And they typically double down on that type of function. Specialists become better specialists, gunfighters are better gunfighters, Warbands are better Warbands. PanO tends to cross train - Gunfighters become specialists. Gunfighting Specialists become close assaulters etc etc
I've been following this thread for a while. It started 11 months ago, and as the first post reads, this thread follows other discussions. So, I guess the Panoceania problem has been around for much more than a year. And it is very consistent, wherever I look (discord, FB, YouTube, etc), people are always talking about how Panoceania is "below average", to say the least. I feel that there is consensus that the Panoceania problem is real. Much has already been said in this and several other threads, so I don't want to repeat it. What I do want to say is. Does CB listen (read) to these concerns? And why is it SO hard to get this fixed? It's been almost a year since this thread was started and Pano is in the same place. I have known Infinity for several years, but I am not competitive at all. I play a couple of games a month and have been on and off many times... and Im not a good player, to be honest. However, as casual as I am, I play to win, it is the least I can do to show respect to my opponent. But playing Pano to win feels very limited, monotonous and sadly, not that fun. I like to think that many people out there have a similar approach to the game (at least people in my community do so), and Im pretty confident that balancing these issues would translate into money for CB. Im not even asking for new models, just update some profiles and people will be happy to buy the already awesome models (looking at you Locust).
Kind of. A few years ago MO was a total shitfest. The orders of chivalry did not have a clear role, they overlapped and there were two that were directly unusable, The Teutonic Knights and the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre. Now the Teutonic Knights haris is almost an auto include in my lists. There are still some things to fix in the faction such as some units that remain without a clear purpose, serious linkability problems, few, expensive and mediocre specialists, and flexibility in general. It would be excellent to be able to playgames with lists that are more than just a blunt instrument. But even with these problems MO is better than before. And now we have TIkbalang so... That is exactly how I feel too.
You’re definitely not the only one who feels it that way. While I agree with the entire post, I’m not sure I agree with this particular sentence. Trinitarians are within the best specialists of the game imho. That is unless you meant engineers, doctors, or hackers. In which case, yes, definitely. And I’d add they don’t have exceptional AROs (yes the Teuton ML is good, but not at the level of the hard AROs of Vird or NCA) and can have troubles dealing with mimetism
What people say isn't what something actually is. For example, in League of Legends, Nidalee was OP in Korean and other Asian servers and people wanted to nerf them. However, NA players said they are not OP in NA server due to ping, difficulty, and so on. What was the fact? Nidalee was showing OP stats even in NA server. So, don't believe it just you think so and other people keep saying the same. Maybe MO might have some problem when we look at their stats. I haven't played them for a while so I don't actually know what makes them low. Maybe new players lowers its winrate. Maybe fireteam composition misleads players from its true strength. I think MO has various tools to solve problems but each of it is expensive so you need to carefully choose what you need to win the missions. I think PanO has many profiles with less obvious strengths. I didn't like KoJ hacker but after he carbonated Scylla and oblivioned Danavas hacker, I really love him. Of course he once died to rifle shots from Ghulam haris, but that revealed me that just rifles are sometimes enough weapon. I also like Locust KHD with its breaker combi and cybermask. If you feel PanO to win is monotonous, I suggest you to move away from your typical winning list and try something wild. Exploring profiles that I thought mediocre and watch them shine is fun enough experience for me.
I have to admit, while I usually play this way, I never thought of it that way, I need to explore this more, doing something consciously rather than subconsciously usually increases the effectiveness of it.
And build on and lean into that. Less “I want this unit to this thing”, more “I want to achieve this thing, how do I clear the way for that to happen”.
I can work within this framework, and it's a good way of looking at it. We still do have a bit of an issue with flexibility in current Infinity, though; too many problems that gunfighting can't efficiently solve, forcing use of particular, narrow unit selections. Vanilla seems to have some flexibility, but MO seems almost unworkable without Trinitarians, for example- they're the only tool outside the space of "big stompy armoured knight" with any premium qualities. NCA is pigeonholed into running at least some quantity of Bolts as they're the only superior gunfighters in the faction that aren't crippled by the Sectorial's present Hacking weakness. Having must-takes sucks for the sake of fun; a lot of Yu Jing players actually lamented the arrival of the Daoying simply because it rendered every other LT choice obsolete, taking a lot of the fun and personal evaluation or style out of their lists. Same with Nomads and the Kriza, for firepower in N3. So, I guess, perhaps do we approach this issue less as "what changes need to be made to PanO units" and more as "how do we remove the list-check aspects"?
I haven’t taken Bolts in my lists in about a year actually. Been Squalo Mk2 NCO Shona Fusilier core Sierra Fugazi x 2 Machinist + Palbot Auxilia FO x2 Plus some filler been working quite well for me and now with Blades it’s even more efficient.
I'm honestly surprised, I couldn't even imagine running that around here- too easy to zone out the Squalo with Hacking or hit it with Warbands, and Fusiliers are a bit chancy against high-end ARO castles. I take it the plan is to have the Squalo, Sierra and the Fusiliers try and keep the long firing lanes clear while fortifying the midfield and scoring using the Auxilia? Shona never struck me as being good enough to troubleshoot situations where the long-range superiority gameplan would run into trouble, an SMG just isn't very good firepower and Super Jump can run into difficulty depending on terrain- though I can see how the list would work quite well under regular circumstances.
I use Bolts extensively, but to be honest I always did that, even in editions were everybody was adamant they were bad, Shona is not bad, but her utility in NCA (for me) is so radically different than what she is in SWF.
The Sniper Rifle is soooo good (for me she’s even better than the Kamau SR), I don’t see how she can be skipped. In a pure FT (and the cost strongly decreased since the last update), she will hit (in good range) on a 19 95% of the troopers, 16 a mimetism -6. I’m really looking forward in trying a duo TacAw Blade Ops + NCO Squalo MK2 for a 3 orders consumption without even starting consuming the general order pool + having an engineer close to Tag (we never know)
