I really like the Kanren, but it's a model that has certainly grown on me over time rather than the love at first sight I got with Guilang. Kanren Holo LVL 2 shenanigans are insanely cool, and you also have access to Kanren minelayers, and madtraps profiles. Yu Jing doesn't excel in ARO, but what we do very well is area denial and wasting your opponents orders. And a Kanren is very good at that. A bit off topic from the thread, but I do love my Kanren.
Oh, there is. But we get less respectful responses. Last week I used the ignore function of the forum twice, and I'm tempted to use it even more... It's been (still is) quite unbearable.
Corvus Belli presentation. You'll find it in this presentation: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=903298376519161 Do note that those stats are list building in general, so it contains data from all saved lists, not just the ones people play at tournaments, so it's tainted by a lot of theorycrafting and test runs.
While I find that presenting those data is a tiny bit dishonest, I would be surprised if the tournament data didn't look fairly similar. I'd expect the Zhanshi in particular to be significantly lower and Oniwaban/Shinobu slightly higher, but in broad strokes telling a very similar story. There's also a reason not to show tournament stats in public since that's how you create a world-wide meta (i.e. monolithic/net lists) which is only detrimental to the game.
Worldwide meta just means the community has advanced to a certain point. I think it's more likely CB was using the data as a post-hoc justification for what they already wanted to do.
We could argue that in circles, but I personally suspect that on top of that the tournament data wasn't as clean and showed odd things, partly due to being infected with ALIVE event but also, I suspect, it was less obvious and begged comparisons to which units were under-used in other vanilla factions. You know, avoiding having to explain why a unit at XY% was considered low.
Please do consider how all Red-Veil units are the most used in those stats... In the end, usage metrics need to be considered against selling metrics, and even then... There is a reason why Smart Data and Big Data are so widespread nowadays, besides accessibility.
Be aware that KanRen doesn't deploy mines but sniffer . Packaging and sculpts also strongly influenced the data (Zuyong...), tournament lists would be sharpened
Absolutely @armazingerz but it's a bit redundant to go into everything that affects the data, but we're talking usage so the reason why people use a unit isn't quite as important as that they use it. One could even argue that usage of available and recently up to date models trumps usage of profiles people have to proxy or that are out of date. I mean we already know that the Zhanying ML is unpopular and that the Hacker was sculpted because it was used so much more, by CB admission.
Pardon for the late comment, had a recent like on this thread. I do have to ask how many people actually save theorycraft lists, though. I'd usually just print to PDF and save the PDF, instead. I'd be OK with that, Japan was never a good fit into the rest of Yu Jing and the Secession has been hinted at since HSN2. I am NOT OK with how the Secession has been presented. When I finally get the damn book, I'm going to write up Section9's better-fit-to-the-background version.
I'm sure no one would restart what locked a thread to test just how hard getting banned is. No one should feel unheard by now.
I can only speak for myself. I have, let me take a look. 8 lists saved that are theorycrafting lists from the latest tournament I participated in, one list that I used in that event and another list I used about a year ago that I liked the performance of so much I keep it saved. One of the lists is called "Sue John Again", making second iteration of that particular idea with the first deleted to make room, so I'd estimate that I made at least 10 theorycrafting lists only for that event. (Yes, my list names are almost exclusively puns or cringy word play. "For the swarmiest" is another of the lists* and another is called "Crane of Command") So in my case; 80% or more of my saved lists are rejected candidates * Which fails to load after the first unit because the second unit is Xi Zhuge**, but I believe it was an 18-order Kanren-centric list ** Which is so poorly done by CB, by the way, Zhuge and the others were only meant to be gone for the duration of an ITS event which is really shitty of them to remove them from Army instead of just flagging them as ITS-illegal, forcing non-ITS players to use pen-and-paper or Mayanet when making lists for the duration
All the time. I often come back to them a few hours later and make some adjustments. Which means my 1 theory craft list might register on their metrics 2, 3, or 4 times as I change and resave it.
Just a reminder: The use of ITS data to show what was and wasn't used is flawed in many ways, there are biases to certain miniatures (starter/box sets), theorycraft lists, local meta's not using them etc. It's also important to know that the data showed many JSA units were used a statistically significant amount of the time. The ITS data isn't a valid argument for how "little" we lost. We still lost most characters and a third of our profile options. To the OP: Yes, we definitely do want IA asap. Most of us know we're in for "a dark year" though.
It feels like a lot of decisions relating to Uprising were made by someone on a coke bender who got that false confidence from the nose candy. I guess that's what happened... CB got successful enough that the decision makers can afford to powder their nose morning, noon, and night.
