As per the most recent studio update, we've got some questionable data points like Imperial Service being the 8th most "efficient" ITS faction, and O-12 as a faction eclipsing many others in popularity. I can't be the only one questioning some of this, can I? It doesn't match up with my observations or the observations of anyone else I know. Does anyone know anything more about the methodology that was used to compose this information?
Without knowing how they define terms like "efficient," it isn't even data at all, let alone questionable data. It's just empty marketing babble best ignored.
By even posting this thread we're exacerbating the problem--these stats shouldn't be looked at or viewed by anyone that cares about the real state of things when it comes to the game. More relevant, how about those new profiles? Would you take Agamemnon over a Triphammer?
Personally I'd go cry in the corner about how CHA don't get either for a bit then take a Chernobog in a Kosmo list and complain about it forever...
Honestly, the popularity chart holds no surprises what so ever. It'd be interesting to see the methodology and numbers, but this aligns quite well with what people are talking about.
The problem with the "data" isn't whether it fits anyone's worldview (I haven't looked at it so I don't even know whether I think its ranking is accurate). The problem is that they haven't explained what they measured, so it isn't data in the first place. It's just empty words that don't actually assert anything. Saying "faction x is most efficient" is a contentless statement if the word "efficient" isn't defined. The actual problematic approach is this: Failing to dismiss the data, because it does fit one's worldview, would be an error.
I think you've got my point confused with someone else'. Whether you want to dismiss the data or not is up to you, but if you take a few minutes to look at it I think you'll come to a similar conclusion that I did: it's a very simplistic presentation but not surprising. O-12 isn't eclipsing anyone and the big factions are most likely eclipsing it based by simple comparisons between what's ranked higher and lower than the two O-12s - because that's how people tend to talk about factions, you include the sectorials and even occasionally an NA2 in the main faction "family" and talk about that. To start a word war over it is quite literally a storm in a tea cup and to draw grand conclusions from it is similarly divining in tea. Drink the tea and enjoy it for what it is. When it comes to the efficiency presentation (that I frankly missed that it was mentioned in Hecaton's post) it's missing so much of crucial information that it's impossible to tell what it is showing at all.
Mostly I just take it as a challenge to finish painting my StarCo and then go kick some butt with them! I know the Emily Howitzer got nerfed but they are definitely still some nasty customers. Surprised by their lowest of all ranking. EDIT: I guess there’s not a ton of reasons to field them now that really-mixed fiteteams are available in Nomads proper. Maybe letting them mix RiotGrrls into those links with Knauf and Brigadas would make a difference.
I'm not surprised, if you can build a solid army with them you could be playing Corregidor which is both (now) far better supported and has more character. Also, a fair bit more build variety if I recall.
Except that it came from CB directly. Even if you don't agree with the stats they posted or question the methodology used, CB is likely using these to shape the game and steer their direction. I have no idea what "the real state of things" is, but I do know that CB is likely using the info they shared as part of their metrics for future game design and/or marketing decisions, which impacts us all regardless.
TBH, if the stats showed that Nomads were doing too well the tune would be completely different for OP.
Yup, which is exactly why it's a problem if they take bad data seriously, as what they were claiming to do during Uprising.
Totally the right way to look at it. I'm excited to give StarCo a go too. Was put off in the past by being "the good guys", a "character faction" and a "grenade launcher faction" so never really looked into it. They seem to have a lot of play compared to the other low rankers. I'm of the opinion that anyone who can haris Sen. Massacre is a playable faction, and something like Knauf Digger Alg.Paramedic is a really useful firepower team. Can I ask what you are typically running for StarCo at the moment?
This has been said repeatedly: the best players with the highest win rates often, maybe usually, don’t pick the most rules-advantaged or OP tools to work with. I’ve watched JSA, old MO before the update, vanilla Pan O, Winterfor etc. take satellites or good-sized tourneys. At high levels of play, Infinity is still balanced enough that the “it’s not your list it’s you” saying is true. So no, event victory rates are NOT a good indication of relative balance. Playtesting games for balance is best done with moderate-skill players (I’ve been a playtester for various boardgames). This is even more true when players of high skill often use a force/tool for aesthetic or historical reasons (collecting YJ for a decade for example, or liking to play the Incas in a historically accurate civ-builder game despite a relative resource scarcity). So for the rest of us with average or lower skill (self definitely included, I’ve been bottom-half of every satellite/Interplanetario I’ve been to), player feedback is important: especially from those actually playing a force as much as those opposing/facing it. Absent a well-designed testing program, player feedback is the best tool to judge balance. And there are a lot of us Nomad players speaking out about overoptimization in the faction. We’re probably the reason camo repeaters got pulled out, Jazz got a points increase, EVAders lost Wildcard status (they are just the right level of awesome now IMO), etc. When the people -using- a tool recognize that it’s a bit broken and can make the game less fun, it’s worth listening to. Enough trying to pretend it’s not an issue.
Accurate characterization, all around! The “character faction” thing can be a bit irritating, but these particular characters are varied and interesting enough to make it worth playing IMO. Don’t forget Tinbot-buffed Uhahu in that firepower/defender setup too btw. Having cheap smoke (Irmandinho if you can take an order loss to Irregular, totally worth it IMO) and White Noise in the same list is always good. Same for Massacre of course. Raul Spector is one of the main reasons to take the faction. He’s powerful but not broken in the old-Emily-rules kinda way. Super fun AD rambo. I mainly got into StarCo because of the cool mixed toolbox links- but now that everyone can do that, they’ve fallen down the power curve a bit. Their limits in unit harmony vs. Corregidor or Bakunin do show up, but StarCo do still get the Riots-Avicenna-Fiddler team which takes my toolkit-plus-deathstar trophy wherever it appears. On the upside, the selection of skirmishers is decent, and the Irregular roadblock/harassment pieces are some of the most cost-effective out there. An Irmandino with linked servant bot is AWESOME as a go-getter specialist or a close combat killer (B2, thanks little bot buddy!). I’ll post some favorite lists in a few. Haris with a Riot Grrls Spitfire & Tinbot and Avicenna is awesome. Fast and nasty flank attackers. Supporting Spector with a decent firebase and a couple forward specialists (either Al Hawwa or Bandit, rarely both, plus Irmandinho always) is usually one of my 2 lists at an event. A Grrls deathstar is usually the other. I took StarCo to Interplanetario 2018, did okay but my middling skill showed when I had to face excellent players like Myomer (the resilient Grrls did keep me from getting tabled at least). The go-getter lists are fun for objective grabs, but I’m more of a sledgehammer player than a scalpel. To be really good with StarCo, it seems like learning to use those solo pieces well is key.
