The N5 update seems to have largely made the good stuff (Tik, Teutons) worse, and the bad stuff less bad. But that's an overall nerf because i.e. you no longer get a TAG with both mimetism and AP ammo, it's now mimetism *or* AP ammo. (The Trinitarian hacker is nice, I guess). Sure the Seraph is faster but no amount of movement saves you playing second aginst good network projection. Given how dire the current win% is, the boring place to start might just be rolling the N5 nerfs back - give the Tikblang AP ammo and let Teutons use cover again, for example. If that's off the table, CB needs to ignore faction idenity add more stuff that's good at actually playing Infinity (cheap, expendable units, and things that counter hacking). I think a Parachutist (Deployment Zone) option for the Crusader or someone else cheap enough to throw away would be good for at least forcing some nuance during deployment and giving the ability to scalpel out hackers. The army also needs more trash units - if Combined Army gets to keep 2 Better Flashbots and 2 netrods at 57% winrate, then I don't dont see why we shouldn't be looking at AVA 3 Worse Flashbots while sitting at 41%. Some proper warbands would also be good, but new models are outside the scope of a balance update. I don't think it can, with hacking as strong as it is.
I think the hacking network projection has been designed this way to accommodate for an increase in HI and TAGs in the game. With AP ammo being limited, hacking is another option to slow down TAGs and HI. While I have only played two games with MO so far, I think the responsibility is on me to learn the sectorial and play with the strengths and weakness of MO. I like the fact they do not have cheap, disposable WBs. It seems like everyone these days is taking them and WB characters, and just alpha striking them. Becoming a predictable way my opponent's play. And everyone else. Hopefully, ITS-17 focusses on playing the mission, not the man. That is what WH40K for. I think many people choose to play CA because it has the special rules to make it viable in all missions. And, has a lower learning curve. If playing the best faction there is with minimal weaknesses, there is less skill required to play the game. Because it has everything a player needs to be successful. However, saying this, player skill is also relevant. The good players are good because they learn how to counter enemy strengths and capitalise on enemy weaknesses. Most, if not all factions and sectorials now can win missions. One has to select the right trooper for one's playstyle within a faction, and to suit the mission parameters. And more importantly, what to do when the dice are making one's plan fall apart. Keep wasting orders on poor dice rolls, or switching tactics. This is easier said than done. I think with the minor tweaks to MO currently with the older PanO sectorials returning, MO is slightly better now.
"Slow down" is a bit of an understatement. Bricked models are approximately as removed from the game as those at 0 wounds, unless the enemy gives you lots of chances to roll that 5% Hail Mary reset in ARO. Given the fact that 2+ hackers ganging up through a repeater are the best ARO in the game when considering the (nonexistent) risk, it's an extremely potent defense. Because of that, Vanillia PanO lists (which seem to be doing well right now) are typically like one big hackable attacker and then the whole list is just LI/MI to clear hacking and play the mission for it. The Cutter is good for this because it can Camo to be almost impossible to hack in active, and move past repeaters as a marker if needed. MO is inherently bad at that because of the idea that it's a HI first fact, except most of the HI aren't actually very good, and the Trinitarians are the only support peices that are actually up to snuff. Because they're among the best attackers by category, while still being expendable enough to almost always trade up, in active or reactive. No, they choose to play it because it's consistently among the best armies in the game, despite having also by far the highest player count. According to the Infinity Statistics Initiative, Vanillia Combined is currently sitting at 57.6% winrate, second only to Aleph at at 64% (and StarCo at 67%, but that's a very small sample size). At the same time, fully 19% of all recorded games are Vanillia Combined Army. Normally, strong factions with very high representation have their performance normalized as they tend to attrack new players and people jumping factions, but Combined is still posting very strong numbers. Possibly because this has always been true. VCombined has been at or near the top as long as I've played the game, more or less. That's the bare minium for game balance. At the moment, one faction is sitting close to 65%, another has a plurality the of playerbase at 57%, and seven different Sectorials below 45%. Military Orders is currently at about 40%. For reference, the present state of Alpeh would put them on the same level as most of the "Catastrophically Bad" WH40K in the past five-ish years (9th and 10th editions), while VCombined has been at a level considered unacceptably high for years without a credible attempt to bring them in line. It's actually reaching the point where the numbers indicate N5 is significantly less balanced than 40k. This is also a generic platitude. If it has any bearing on the topic at hand, it's that the PanO style of expensive active-turn gunfighters occasionally just eat paint and die in one ARO. MO is actually worse at this than in N4 with the loss of the Teuton Spitfire NCO who can be an effective secondary attack piece in a link while still towing the other 2 Teutons up the board to break off as pseudo-warbands when he dies.
Infinity Statistics Initiative seems to be unable to draw data therefore its statistics need to be considered as a snapshot of the past, it would be great if it could be reset so we can have a more recent sample for discussions.
While this is the data, what it shows is that vCA has a higher win rate due to having more people play the faction. If less people played CA, then would the statistics change? Yes, they would. The only way to truely know how good a faction or sectorial is, would be to have ten of the consistently winning players all play the same faction, same mission, against the same opponent; then change the faction they are playing, and record the success or failure of each player. Until all factions and sectorials have been played. Basically, trying a controlled experiment. So far, it could be argued that some factions are scoring low due to not enough players using the factions in tounaments. If a player was to look at the stastics, and see that CA have the highest win rate, then that will influence a player to choose a faction that currently, based on player numbers.
A small player sample size skews massively the results either way, prime example was Generic PanOceania in N4 a faction that had a really small but dedicated sample of players who were really good and consistently performed well with it, not reflecting the general consensus about the faction.
True @psychoticstorm but this is a natural experiment. While valid, it has many variables that make factions more favourable and playable. The more players of a faction will skew the results too, with more chances of winning games because of the larger amount of players available. If we were to truly find balance in the game, there needs to be a series of games that reduce the amount of variables such as, individual trooper selection, terrain, first or second turn, individual playstyle for a faction, and so forth. Just thinking about it today briefly, I will explain it below how such a set-up would work, if anyone would like to test it. Step 1.a) Recruit the top 3 winners of each league (Spanish, U.S.A., and International) with selecting a fourth player to round out an even 10 participants. 1.b) Recruit an eleventh player to be the opponent, preferably a top 4 winner. 1.c) Select an I.T.S mission that is the least complex at scoring., for a standard 300 points. 1.d) Select the terrain for the table. 1.e) best means of playing would be on Tabletop Simulator, since games can be played and recorded, and meet people's busy life schedule. The mission will be the only one played for the experiment. This would remove the variable that certain factions or sectorials are better in some missions than others. A common opinion I hear regarding game balance. The terrain will remain the same for the entire experiment. Neither too open or too dense. Trying to find a nice balance. Hard to achieve, but can be determined through voting by a large number of community members. A terrain package that has the most votes will be selected. Step 2.a) The 10 participants (players) will each create one list for each faction and sectorial, using their own knowledge and skill of the game, to make a list that they want to play for that mission. 2.b) All players will submit their lists. They will be compared, and the most commonly selected troopers will be used to created a standardised list that the players will use for the games. 2.c) The eleventh participant will use a standardised Combined Army list for their entire role as opponent for the experiement. This will remove any variables that individual players consider when list building. Troopers are selected for their suitability for the mission and playstyle of the player. Building standard lists based from the participants will capture the most common troopers. Having a standardised list, players will then have only their skills and knowledge in using said list. Unfortunately, we cannot remove individual player variables unless we only use one player and one opponent. I know the rebuttal for this, "but using large numbers of players captures more, etc., etc." Yes, but all players create and use their own lists that they build for each mission. If all Infinity players were to use the same standardised list for their games, then the data would be more reliable, when comparing factions and sectorials. (But then, there is the need for forcing players to only play with one list for each faction and sectorial. And I daresay, many people will complain about this. And it is completely totalitarian for a business to force its customers to play this way.) So no, this line of argument does not work. Step 3) Play the games on TTS, record them for everyone to watch (because it is fun), and record the results (Objective points, Army points, Tournament points) Step 4) Compare results. Investigate which faction or sectorial is the most successful and report the results for everyone to read. Obviously, we cannot remove the variable for individual playstyle and skill. But the above impositions will remove or reduce the rest, allowing a fine-tuned experiment which accurately captures game balance. Another obstacle is player availability. This would take a lot of time. Each faction and sectorial needs to be played ten times. With a total of 44 armies (excluding New Wave), that makes it 440 games needing to be played. I think the opponent will be tired of Combined Army after this, or become really good! So, the option is; run this experiment, or for an entire season, force players to use a standardised list for each faction and sectorial. The experiment will take time and effort to setup and conduct. But this can be done faster and with larger data points if everyone who plays Infinity agrees to use standardised lists for an entire season. Only then, will we have reliable data to accurately assess the balance of this great game we all love to play.
The Infinity Statistics Initiative data has some issues: ITS16 spans across two different editions. There’s a large portion of “unknown” data, leaving too much room for interpretation, which makes it unreliable for proper analysis. I believe that when analyzing balance, the following metrics should be considered: Win Rate – the most basic indicator of balance. Top Cut Rate – best reflects a faction’s overall strength, though it can be misleading if the sample size is too small. Top Cut Representation – shows which factions are more popular among skilled players, or which ones are seen as giving a higher chance of victory. There can be several possible scenarios: A. High Win Rate but Low Top Cut Rate This means the faction is easy for beginners to use or hard for new players to counter. However, experienced players don’t find it hard to deal with and may even consider it an easy matchup. Would you consider this kind of faction overpowered? B. High Top Cut Rate but Low Top Cut Representation This indicates the faction is relatively niche, and the strong results might come from a few highly skilled players who specialize in it. This doesn’t necessarily mean the faction itself is powerful—just that those few players are exceptionally good with it. C. Low Top Cut Representation but High Win Rate Similar to case A, this type of faction might act as a “newbie hunter” faction—strong against inexperienced players, but not dominant overall.
Yes, and do you have those figures? The ISI data is obviously flawed, but it's also The best dataset I am aware of Not saying anything particularly unexpected based on my experience If anything, the only unexpected information is in degrees (i.e. MO at 40-41% in this dataset). There are also: D. High win rate and proportional top cut rate E. High win rate and disproportionally high top cut rate Which are the unequivocal problem scenarios. And based on other games which do have better statistical availability, these are the scenarios which are more likely to occur when you have an army closer to 60% than 50%. That said, unless you have access to this data, it's largely pointless to discuss. Probably not (it depends on how larger the win% discrepancy is), but potentially a bad design for reasons outside of strict balance (poor new player experience, etc). Also, I am assuming you mean a disproportionately low top cut rate relative to population size. High win rate + proportional top cut/TiWP is a likely problem. I'd say this is more likely a problem, especially if the sample size is large enough for the overrep to be just one guy or something. It could be explained by disproportionately skilled player base, but i don't see a sound reason for that to be the default exploitation, and it can't be universally applicable, so if you want to try and use this scenario to excuse Army A, then you need to present some evidence that Army A has a disproportionately skilled player base. Yes, but was the consensus right back then? Especially in N4, with the accumulation of random mercenary irregulars combined with an ability to pick and choose from most of the good light troops in the sectorial, vPanO was the least PanO way to run the faction, and you still have the option to take a Cutter, so you can play a TAG with gunfighting MODs and a marker state to not be hard countered by hacking. Or another apex gunfighter unit. That's the opposite of the relationship. CA have a high win rate despite having more players. Firstly, more players cannot directly raise win rate because they add both more wins and also more games played; that's not how math works. Second, if the two variables are correlated, it's that a popular and powerful faction attracts more bandwagoners, meta chasers, and new players, who are not experienced specialists and thus tend to decrease the win%. Additionally, it means the matchup will be better understood by the player base, who have more experience against it, and the winrate will be pushed toward 50% by mirror matches if they are not removed - 3-4% of all Infinity tournament games are Vanilla Combined Army mirrors. "I will set an unrealistically high standard in an attempt to dismiss the possibility of knowing anything about the state of the game." Yes - the correct rebuttal is that the law of large numbers will tend to shake out most of the concern trolling you outlined. The even more correct rebuttal is that an observational study is actually a better way to make inferences about the game that people play - because it uses data from those games - than an attempt at a rigidly controlled experiment which studies an irrelevant simulacrum. You even say this yourself: "No, we obviously can't play this way, but the game can only possibly be balanced based on playing it in a straitjacket". In any case, this bizarre moon logic also ignores the fact that no one actually tries to design a game based on the dogmatic adherence to middle school science that underpins this whole post. Any game with a semi-seriously curated competitive environment is balanced based on stats harvested from the general population, (for computer games) aggregated in-game metrics, and close scrutiny of high-level tournament or event play. Ideally, this is combined with personal knowledge and experience on the part of the development team. No one actually uses this pod-people straightjacketed experimental approach, which fails to achieve it's own goals because you can't even guarantee that list quality is a constant for all armies, or replicate the effect of facing an unknown army list under the proposed conditions.
After much thought, i have settled on this list to start with. It has good midfield defence, leans into solid hacking network, good ARO with Teuton ML, vision control with Konstantinos. Zw9taWxpdGFyeS1vcmRlcnMMVHJ5LW91dCB2MS4xgSwCAQAKASgBAgACBgECAAMGAQQABB4BAwAFhhkBAgAGGAEFAAeGGAEBAAgbAQIACS8BAQAKhfcBBgACAAIBJAEDAAKF9wEGAA%3D%3D Here is to a new MO. (Sorry, I cannot use Army7 from my phone to bring up my list) Haris: DeFersen Spitfire, KHosp. Tinbot, KHosp BSG & E/mitter. Core: Teuton ML, OS hacker, KC Lt., Crosier. Duo: Santiago KHD, Konstantinos. Peacmaker with Auxbot3B 2x Trin deployable repeater (minelayer).
────────────────────────────────────────────────── GROUP 1 10 1 DE FERSEN Spitfire, Flash Pulse / Pistol, AP + Shock CC Weapon(PS=5). (1.5 | 46) KNIGHT HOSPITALLER FTO MULTI Rifle(PS=6) ( | TinBot: Firewall [-3]) / Pistol, DA CC Weapon(PS=5). (0 | 27) KNIGHT HOSPITALLER FTO Boarding Shotgun, E/Mitter(PS=6) / Pistol, DA CC Weapon(PS=5). (0 | 26) TEUTONIC KNIGHT (BS Attack [-3]) Missile Launcher, Zapper / Pistol, DA CC Weapon(PS=5). (1.5 | 28) KNIGHT COMMANDER (Lieutenant) Boarding Shotgun, Pulzar / Pistol, Shock CC Weapon(PS=7). (0 | 20) ORDER SERGEANT FTO (Hacker, Hacking Device) Combi Rifle, Nanopulser, Pitcher ( ) / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0.5 | 18) CROSIER Combi Rifle / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0 | 11) KNIGHT OF SANTIAGO FTO (Hacker, Killer Hacking Device) MULTI Rifle, D-Charges ( | TinBot: Firewall [-3]) / Boarding Pistol, DA CC Weapon(PS=6). (0 | 31) BROTHER KONSTANTINOS FTO (Deactivator) MULTI Rifle, D-Charges, Disco Baller ( ) / Boarding Pistol, CC Weapon(PS=6). (0 | 23) TRINITARIAN (Minelayer, Forward Observer) Boarding Shotgun, Flash Pulse, D-Charges ( | Deployable Repeater) / Pistol, CC Weapon. (1 | 23) GROUP 2 2 PEACEMAKER Heavy Shotgun, Pulzar / PARA CC Weapon(-3). (0.5 | 24) AUXBOT_3B (Minelayer) Heavy Flamethrower, Shock Mine / PARA CC Weapon(-3). (0 | 5) TRINITARIAN (Minelayer, Forward Observer) Boarding Shotgun, Flash Pulse, D-Charges ( | Deployable Repeater) / Pistol, CC Weapon. (1 | 23) 6 SWC | 300 Points Open in Infinity Army
I made these two lists as a "starter army" lists, I think MO now can produce competent lists. starter list ────────────────────────────────────────────────── GROUP 1 9 2 KNIGHT OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE (NCO) AP Heavy Machine Gun / Heavy Pistol, Shock CC Weapon(PS=6). (1 | 53) CROSIER Combi Rifle, Blitzen / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0 | 12) CROSIER (X Visor) Spitfire ( ) / Pistol, CC Weapon. (1 | 18) TEUTONIC KNIGHT (NCO, X Visor) Spitfire ( ) / Pistol, DA CC Weapon(PS=5). (1.5 | 29) TEUTONIC KNIGHT Light Shotgun, Panzerfaust ( | TinBot: Firewall [-3]) / Pistol, DA CC Weapon(PS=5). (0 | 19) INFIRMARER Boarding Shotgun / Boarding Pistol, Shock CC Weapon(PS=7). (0 | 17) KNIGHT OF SANTIAGO FTO (Hacker, Killer Hacking Device) MULTI Rifle, D-Charges ( | TinBot: Firewall [-3]) / Boarding Pistol, DA CC Weapon(PS=6). (0 | 31) KNIGHT OF SANTIAGO FTO (Lieutenant) Spitfire, E/M Grenades, D-Charges / Boarding Pistol, DA CC Weapon(PS=6). (0 | 33) FUGAZI DRONBOT Flash Pulse / PARA CC Weapon(-3). (0 | 7) GROUP 2 4 1 1 BLACK FRIAR Heavy Rocket Launcher, Nanopulser / MULTI Pistol(+1B), CC Weapon. (1.5 | 22) KNIGHT COMMANDER (Chain of Command) Light Shotgun, Pulzar / Pistol, Shock CC Weapon(PS=7). (0 | 23) CROSIER (Paramedic) Combi Rifle ( | MediKit) / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0 | 13) PATHFINDER DRONBOT (Tactical Awareness) Combi Rifle, Flash Pulse / PARA CC Weapon(-3). (0 | 17) WARCOR (360º Visor) Flash Pulse ( ) / Stun Pistol, PARA CC Weapon(-3). (0 | 3) 5 SWC | 297 Points Open in Infinity Army starter list 2 ────────────────────────────────────────────────── GROUP 1 10 1 CROSIER (Minelayer) MULTI Sniper Rifle, E/M Mine / Pistol, CC Weapon. (1 | 19) CROSIER (Paramedic) Combi Rifle ( | MediKit) / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0 | 13) BLACK FRIAR Thunderbolt(+1B), Nanopulser / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0 | 24) KNIGHT COMMANDER (Chain of Command) Light Shotgun, Pulzar / Pistol, Shock CC Weapon(PS=7). (0 | 23) CROSIER (Paramedic) Combi Rifle ( | MediKit) / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0 | 13) KNIGHT OF SANTIAGO FTO (Lieutenant) Spitfire, E/M Grenades, D-Charges / Boarding Pistol, DA CC Weapon(PS=6). (0 | 33) KNIGHT OF SANTIAGO FTO (Hacker, Killer Hacking Device) MULTI Rifle, D-Charges ( | TinBot: Firewall [-3]) / Boarding Pistol, DA CC Weapon(PS=6). (0 | 31) DE FERSEN Spitfire, Flash Pulse / Pistol, AP + Shock CC Weapon(PS=5). (1.5 | 46) TEUTONIC KNIGHT Light Shotgun, Panzerfaust ( | TinBot: Firewall [-3]) / Pistol, DA CC Weapon(PS=5). (0 | 19) TECH-BEE Adhesive Launcher Rifle, Flash Pulse ( | Deployable Repeater) / Pistol, PARA CC Weapon(-3). (0 | 9) GROUP 2 4 1 1 TEUTONIC KNIGHT (NCO, X Visor) Spitfire ( ) / Pistol, DA CC Weapon(PS=5). (1.5 | 29) INFIRMARER Boarding Shotgun / Boarding Pistol, Shock CC Weapon(PS=7). (0 | 17) FUGAZI DRONBOT Flash Pulse / PARA CC Weapon(-3). (0 | 7) PATHFINDER DRONBOT (Tactical Awareness) Combi Rifle, Flash Pulse / PARA CC Weapon(-3). (0 | 17) 4 SWC | 300 Points Open in Infinity Army
